5 Key Old Testament Textual Variants

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

When we read the Old Testament today, it is easy to imagine that the words on the page have been transmitted exactly as they were written thousands of years ago. But in the ancient world, biblical texts had to be copied by hand. The resulting mistakes and changes made by these scribes created ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament that don’t always agree with one another.

In this article, I'll examine five of the most interesting Old Testament textual variants. Along the way, we'll see not only where the manuscripts disagree, but also what those disagreements can tell us about the history and transmission of the Old Testament.

What Are Textual Variants?

A textual variant is simply a difference in wording, spelling, grammar, or word order between different copies or versions of the same text. Ever since the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, it has become easy to make identical copies of texts. 

Before that, however, all texts had to be copied by hand, an arduous process in which frequent errors occurred (this is true of all ancient texts, by the way, not just the Bible). Every time a scribe copied a text, fatigue, visual mistakes, and even deliberate editorial choices introduced small changes into the copies.

Most variants happened by accident when scribes grew tired, misread a word, or lost their place. Denis Salgado from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts lists some of the most common inadvertent errors, including the following:

While accidental changes represent the majority of scribal changes, sometimes scribes altered texts deliberately, believing they were either fixing or clarifying the document. Salgado notes that these changes included

Bart Ehrman notes that “of the many hundreds of thousands of textual variants that we have among our manuscripts, most of them are completely unimportant and insignificant,” not changing the meaning of the text or its theology. However, there are a few that are more significant.

Before getting into a few of these Old Testament textual variants, we need to discuss the principal ancient textual sources for the Old Testament. Textual critics—scholars who study old handwritten copies of a text to find discrepancies between them and thus determine the most likely original version—use these sources (and others) for the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.

So, having established what textual variants are and where scholars have found them, let’s look at five specific Old Testament textual variants.

Deuteronomy 32:8: Sons of Israel or Sons of God?

In the King James Version of the Bible (KJV), which was translated primarily from the Masoretic Text, Deuteronomy 32:8 says this:

However, the Septuagint (LXX) version says “ according to the number of angels,” although some early LXX manuscripts say “sons of God.” The meaning between these two phrases is not as different as you might think because, as Dr. Emanuel Tov notes, both could be more generally translated as “divine beings.” 

Meanwhile, a version found among the Dead Sea Scrolls says “sons of God” (Hebrew: bene Elohim). How do scholars explain the difference between the majority of manuscripts using some version of “divine beings” and the later, Masoretic version saying “sons of Israel”? Dr. Tov notes that in the MT

In other words, the earlier versions in the DSS and LXX represent an older, polytheistic view of reality. God was the supreme head of a council of lesser divine beings (see Psalm 82:1, for instance). Dr. Tov thus writes that

David’s Story in 1 Samuel: LXX vs. MT

It’s long been apparent to scholars that the David and Goliath narrative and the beginning of David’s rise to fame in 1 Samuel 17–18 is around 40–45% shorter in the LXX than in the MT. In fact, the Septuagint version leaves out approximately 39 of 88 verses, according to Jeremy Hutton. Moreover, the MT includes extra details, including David as a shepherd boy visiting the camp (1 Sam. 17:12–31), Saul asking whose son he is, and Jonathan's covenant with David (17:55–18:5). Which was more likely the original and why was it changed?

There are two prevalent theories about this. The first is called the Addition Hypothesis explained by Hutton:

The other prominent theory about these differences, the Omission Hypothesis, makes the opposite claim. It argues that the MT version was the older one, while the LXX translators decided to leave out details considered problematic in some way. Hutton notes that the Omission Hypothesis

Hutton therefore believes the Addition Hypothesis to be the more plausible of the two. If you’re interested in this, by the way, I recommend Reading David and Goliath in Greek and Hebrew: A Literary Approach, an excellent study by Benjamin J. M. Johnson.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

How Tall Was Goliath?

Speaking of David and the giant Goliath, what was Goliath’s actual height, according to the biblical story? It turns out that there are different answers to this question based on which manuscripts you read.

In the MT, we are told that Goliath’s was 6 cubits and a span. A cubit was about 18 inches, approximately the length from a person's elbow to the tip of the middle finger while a span was 9 inches, the distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the pinky finger with the hand spread wide. This puts Goliath’s height at 9 feet 9 inches.

However, the LXX, as well as some versions found among the DSS and a reference by the 1st-century CE Jewish historian Josephus, lists Goliath at 4 cubits and a span (approx. 6 feet 9 inches). This is tall, to be sure, but not mythologically tall as in the MT. What could account for the differences?

Some have argued that the MT version with the taller Goliath was the original, which then shrank over time. In other versions, the majority of scholars, according to Jason Driesbach, favor the opposite argument: the original, smaller number grew in the course of copying and transmission, possibly when a scribe's eye was accidentally drawn to the number 6 in line 17:7. Furthermore, legends tend to grow in scope with time, not shrink, making it more likely that Goliath’s height grew to mythical proportions with time.

Length of the Book of Jeremiah

In the manuscript tradition, there are two ancient forms of the Book of Jeremiah. The longer MT version, and the shorter LXX version. In fact, the LXX version is about one-eighth shorter and even has a different order in the middle chapters known as the “Oracles Against the Nations.” In the LXX, these sections follow Jeremiah 25:13, whereas in the MT, they are near the end of the book in chapters 46–51. How can we explain this difference?

Actually, unlike some of the earlier variants I’ve discussed, scholars continue to debate which is the older version. Michael Heiser writes that fragments of both the short and long textual traditions were discovered together among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, showing that both editions circulated actively among ancient Jewish communities before and during the 1st century CE. Heiser goes on to say

That is, unless some new evidence comes along, we might never know which of the two versions was the original with any certainty.

Major Changes in Manuscripts of the Book of Esther

The MT and LXX manuscripts of the Book of Esther have significant differences. Greek versions include more than 100 added verses that significantly change the character of the narrative. Let’s look at these changes.

The MT version, from which most English Bibles are translated, never mentions God, prayer, or any religious laws, focusing only on ethnic survival and political strategy. In fact, The Talmud preserves rabbinic debates over the scriptural status and sanctity of Esther (Tractate Megillah 7a). The LXX version, on the other hand, mentions "God" or "the Lord" over 50 times, and contains prayers, instances of divine intervention, and observances such as dietary laws, according to Stephen Cook.

What about the character of Esther herself? In the MT, Esther acts on her own initiative, navigates the intrigues of the royal court, and approaches the king through active political maneuvering. In the LXX, however, Esther is depicted as more vulnerable, collapsing from fear, for instance, until God makes the king treat her more gently.

In addition, the LXX version adds narrative information to the MT story. Scholars designate these Additions as A through F.

Addition A: Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, has a prophetic dream about two dragons and a great nation.
Addition B & E: Full texts of royal decrees about the Jews.
Addition C & D: Long prayers by Mordecai and Esther, followed by Esther's terrified appearance before the king.
Addition F: Mordecai interprets his earlier dream after the victory of the Jews over those who tried to destroy them.

As you can see, in this case the LXX added significant material to the story. Why? 

Aaron Koller identifies three reasons. First, while God was not explicitly involved in the MT version at all, later additions stated explicitly that God saved Esther and the Jews rather than Esther herself. This was a theological correction more in line with other Old Testament books such as Daniel. 

Second, Koller notes that the additions were meant to convince diaspora Jews— those living outside of Israel—of the importance of observance of Jewish law, dietary restrictions, and identity in pagan environments. Third and finally, adding prayers and divine intervention helped to secure its place, at least among Greek-speaking Jews, in the canon.

Conclusion

These five examples demonstrate that textual variants in the Old Testament are not always minor spelling differences or obscure details of manuscript history. They can sometimes affect how a passage is understood, how a character is portrayed, or even how a biblical book is structured. The differences between the Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient sources show that the biblical texts have a complex history of transmission, with different versions sometimes circulating alongside one another for centuries.

At the same time, textual criticism does not mean that the Old Testament is hopelessly unreliable or that scholars can never know what an ancient text originally said. On the contrary, having multiple ancient witnesses gives scholars valuable evidence with which to compare readings and reconstruct earlier forms of the text. In many cases, the differences are insignificant; in others, such as Deuteronomy 32:8, 1 Samuel 17–18, Goliath's height, Jeremiah, and Esther, they open a window into how ancient scribes, translators, and communities understood and transmitted their Scriptures.

If this topic interests you, you’ll love Bart Ehrman’s Biblical Studies Symposium, where eight leading scholars will tackle the biggest questions about how the Bible came to be. It’s happening November 21, 2026.