Has the Torah been changed over the ages?

Question

It is quite a famous argument from Muslims for authenticity of the Quran that the previous Holy Books (Bible and Torah) sent by God have been corrupted or changed by their followers and that Quran is the only one which remains intact in its original form. Though they never provide any evidence for this claim against today's Torah, it is still one of the main arguments.

What is the counter argument to this claim according to Jewish teachings? Have there been any later versions, additions or omissions in/from the Torah? Or is it really the original one according to Judaic teachings? And what evidence can be presented to dismiss this Muslim claim?

Note: This question isn't meant to be for ridicule or anything. It's just academic curiosity. So I apologize if this causes any sort of offence. I'm not very knowledgeable about Jewish religion.

Answer 1

As you yourself say, the Muslim claims have never been backed up with proof.

If there would be proof, why would they not inform us?

That seems ample proof that it's a baseless claim.

There are various proofs that the Torah we have is essentially identical to the original (with some minor spelling variants).

One is the fact that all Jews have the same version - even though they were dispersed all over the globe for over 1,000 years, with no communication between them. Yet, when they eventually met-up in the 20th century, they all had the same version.

Another proof would be the dead-sea scrolls where almost the entire Bible was found (our version) - and they are about 2,500 years old. That's about 1,000 years before Muhammad was born.

Answer 2

There are differences between texts of Tanach now and in the past. In fact, there are several different so-called "textual witnesses" of Tanach that exist, each of which has their own strengths and weaknesses.

The textus receptus — received text of the Jews is the Masoretic text, whose ancestors are present in some form in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other books found in the Judean desert. It is clear linguistically and archaeologically that the Masoretic text is old, but not the urtext of Tanach.

Other traditions, such as those in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in the LXX and in other non-premasoretic scrolls have certain elements that appear to be more acceptable than those in the textus receptus.

Most of the changes are rather insignificant, e.g. chaser vs. maleh, additional "ve-", confusion of letters in transcription. Other changes are more substantial, like random ommissions:

---

Gen 4:8:

Masoretic: וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו... וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹתָם בַּשָּׂדֶה

Samaritan (~LXX, Peshita, etc.): ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו נלכה השדה ויהי בהיותם בשדה

---

Here is an interchange of graphically similar letters (ד/ר):

---

Gen 22:13:

Masoretic: וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה אַיִל אַחַר נֶאֱחַז בַּסְּבַךְ בְּקַרְנָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָאַיִל וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ לְעֹלָה תַּחַת בְּנוֹ (=Onkelos, Vulgate)

Samaritan (~LXX, Peshita, etc.): וישא אברהם את עיניו וירא והנה איל אחד נאחז בסבך בקרניו וילך אברהם ויקח את האיל ויעלהו לעלה תחת בנו (=Some M MSS, Septuagint, Peshitta, Targum Ps-Yonatan, Targum Neofiti)

The M version אַיִל אַחַר (another ram) is more difficult to accept, since there was no ram mentioned before.

---

Here is one that apparently comes from error in word division:

---

Gen 49:19-20:

Masoretic (=Targum Onkelos, Ps-Yonatan, Neofiti): וְהוּא יָגֻד עָקֵב. מֵאָשֵׁר שְׁמֵנָה... לַחְמוֹ...

(but he shall raid [their] heel. Of Asher, his food is rich...)

LXX: ...והוא יגד עקבם. אשר שמנה לחמו...

(but he shall raid their heel. Asher, his food is rich...)

---

The LXX reading seems more plausable.

Some changes are apparently intentional, such as this anti-polytheistic one

---

Deut 32:8

Masoretic (=Samaritan, Peshitta, etc.): בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

4QDeutj: בני אלהים

---

Within the Masoretic text itself, there are variations. These are often regarding small details, like placement of gaayot (metegs) or teamim.

Nonetheless, despite the differences between different manuscripts are small and seldom change the meaning of things. Certainly the text has not been corrupted remotely close to the extent claimed.

---

MORE READING:

M. Goshen-Gottstein. The Book of Isaiah, sample edition with Introduction.

E. Tov. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. This book has many more examples like the ones I provided above.

I. Yeivin. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah.

Answer 3

I didn't answer this question for a long while because I assumed that since there were so many answers already provided that at least one of them must have answered it truthfully with the best evidence available. Unfortunately that was not the case, so I'm answering this question despite it having already accepted a different answer.

The truth is that every bit of evidence we have says that the Torah underwent changes. Most of these changes were not significant, but occasionally a small change makes a significant difference. [Of the Biblical textual differences, most of them are names of places, spelling differences, ages or heights of people.] For example, by the time we reach the flood during the time of Noah, the "Official" Torah has existed for 1,656 years, whereas other ancient versions has the world having existed for 2,242 years. Any differences that were theological in nature were very rare.1

But what is also true that after a certain time in history, the Torah/Biblical text stopped changing, scribal practices started conforming to each other more, and every Jewish community ended up with the same text (minus incidental spelling differences of the same words). By the time of Muhammad, every [known] Jewish community had the same Biblical text [as in any differences between texts didn't change anything theologically].

But the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Muhammad, and they predate any other known Biblical texts. These Dead Sea Scrolls have shown convincing evidence of corruptions in our received text which I will show below.

The version of the text that Jews have been relying upon for the past 1,000 years is called the Masoretic text. This is the "official" version of the Biblical text for religious Jews. Unfortunately, this "text" in manuscript form is only 1,000 years old. The oldest [surviving and unfortunately not complete] manuscript we have of the Masoretic text is the Aleppo Codex, which has been digitized and can be viewed/read here: http://aleppocodex.org/ Note that there are other types of Masoretic texts, but the Aleppo Codex was used by the Rambam, and he claimed that all [scholars] relied upon it, and this codex was treasured and highly valued by all of world Jewry.

However, we know that the Torah is more than 1,000 years old, so what about more ancient manuscripts? Well, we didn't have any older Hebrew manuscripts [before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls], but we had other manuscripts of ancient Greek, Aramaic, Samaritan, and Latin translations of the Hebrew Bible. The problem? There were lots of differences between these translations and the Masoretic Text. For example, the Greek translation, called the Septuagint, had extra verses in the Torah, had extra books (such as Ben Sirach, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, etc), and had extra chapters for books like Daniel. Rabbis in historical discourses between them and Catholics said those changes were caused by the process of the translation, or due to books being included for political reasons etc. But the problem is that most times, all these different ancient translations would agree with each other, and it was only our Masoretic text that would be different.

An example would be Genesis 4:8. The Masoretic text says the following:

ח וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו; וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹתָם בַּשָּׂדֶה, וַיָּקָם קַיִן אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ. 8

And Cain spoke unto Abel his brother. And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Notice something missing? The Masoretic text states "And Cain said to Abel....and they were in the field." The Masoretic text doesn't state what Cain says. But the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Torah, the Aramaic Peshitta, and every other ancient manuscripts have these extra words: "And Cain said to Able let us go to the field..." So we have instances of every older translation of the Hebrew text being in agreement, and the Masoretic text being the only one that's different.

And then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. And while they are also missing the words of Cain, there are literally thousands of differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text. And many times, the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the older translations we've been talking about and disagrees with the Masoretic text we have received. A good example is this question: How tall was Goliath?

1st Samuel 17:4 Masoretic Text:

ד וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ-הַבֵּנַיִם מִמַּחֲנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים, גָּלְיָת שְׁמוֹ מִגַּת: גָּבְהוֹ, שֵׁשׁ אַמּוֹת וָזָרֶת. 4

And there went out a champion from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

So according to the Masoretic text, Goliath was roughly 9 feet tall, which is quite miraculous. But The Septuagint, Josephus, other ancient texts and the newly discovered Dead Sea Scrolls read the following:

And there went out a champion from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was four cubits and a span.

Goliath has shrunk from 9 feet tall to 6'9; which is definitely impressive...but not miraculous. So with the Dead Sea Scrolls we have strong corroborating evidence that our received Masoretic Text is corrupt with how tall Goliath was. And yet Jews disregard this very strong evidence and continue to teach their kids that Goliath was a 9 foot tall giant, when the reality is that he was probably about 6'9.

Another famous example of where ancient translations and the Dead Sea Scrolls agree against the Masoretic text is Psalm 145, known as Ashrei, which is recited every Shabbat. The Psalm is an Acrostic, with every line beginning with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, except for the letter Nun. The Babylonian Talmud discusses this:

Berakhot 4b:

But [Psalm Psalm 145 is selected] because it contains both features. R. Johanan said: Why is there no verse beginning with the letter Nun in that Psalm ? Because it would refer to the downfall of Israel's enemies; as it is written, "Fallen (Naphelah) is the virgin of Israel, she shall no more rise" (Amos v. 2).

But the Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, and Dead Sea Scrolls are in agreement that there should be a line with a Nun, and here it is:

"Faithful is the LORD in all His ways, and merciful in all His works" (Hebrew: "נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכל מעשיו").

But what about examples where all the older manuscripts agree, but we didn't find a copy of it in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Well, we have an example that appears to be a clear case of textual corruption:

Masoretic Text: 1st Samuel 13:1

א בֶּן-שָׁנָה, שָׁאוּל בְּמָלְכוֹ; וּשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, מָלַךְ עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל. 1

Saul was one years old when he began to reign; and two years he reigned over Israel.

We all know that Saul had to be more than a year old when he became king, and we know that he reigned for more than 2 years. Yet Jewish tradition explains away these discrepancies rather than try to discuss possible corruptions. Take a look at Rashi's attempts to gloss over the textual corruption on that verse:

Saul was a year in his reign: (lit., a year old.) Our Rabbis of sainted memory said: Like a one year old, who did not experience the taste of sin (Yoma 22b). It may also be interpreted thus: Saul was a year in his reign, i.e., in the first year in which he was made king (and he reigned two years over Israel), and in the first year...

And yet the Septuagint, Vulgate, and every other ancient text has this text:

Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign; and forty two years he reigned over Israel.

Unfortunately we didn't find a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that contains this verse, but considering our other examples thus far, it would more than likely match this text.

All of these examples thus far have shown differences of little theological importance, so let's show one that has big implications. Deuteronomy 32:8 Masoretic Version:

ח בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם, {ס} בְּהַפְרִידוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם; {ר} יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים, {ס} לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. {ר} 8

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.

Dead Sea Scrolls:

ח בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם, {ס} בְּהַפְרִידוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם; {ר} יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים, {ס} לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים. {ר} 8

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the "children of Elohim"

So while the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that there was a lot of differences in the Biblical text, we stop seeing these kinds of large changes after the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to be written around 100-300BCE, but after that, the texts seem to be much more fixed and stop having any relevant differences. Maybe the scribes got more oversight, or were better at their craft. Maybe differing manuscripts were destroyed or lost to history with the destruction of the Temple and therefore could no longer be copied or spread around. Either way, there is credibility to the claim that our text has not been a perfect transmission. But most of the "changes" wouldn't matter religiously, to Muhammad, or to Jews.

Update: Some have brought up the point that most of the changes I brought up are not from within the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. I originally did not do a deep dive just in the Torah as not to drive up a lot of contention. But since there are those amongst you that believe that the Torah changes are not significant I will provide more evidence.

35% of the scrolls found in the DSS collection are supposedly mostly masoretic in their tradition, then 5% align more with Samaritan, and another 5% aligns with the Septuagint (which takes from both Masoretic and Samaritan and other variants). The rest of the DSS variants don't align with another living tradition.

Here are some differences between our Jewish Torah, and the Samaritan Torah, both of which are attested to in the DSS.

"The Samaritan Torah also offers a slightly different version of some stories. It includes parts of dialogues that are not found in the Masoretic text: For example, in Exodus chapters 7 through 11, the Samaritan Torah contains whole conversations between Moses, Aaron, and Pharaoh that the Masoretic text does not.

The other differences that are significant in narrative sometimes change the story, and sometimes “fix” small sentences that appear incoherent.

In Exodus 12:40, for example, the Masoretic text reads: “The length of the time the Israelites lived in Egypt was 430 years,” a sentence that has created massive chronological problems for Jewish historians, since there is no way to make the genealogies last that long. In the Samaritan version, however, the text reads: “The length of time the Israelites lived in Canaan and in Egypt was 430 years.”

Earlier in Exodus, in 4:25, the Samaritan Torah offers an alternative narrative to the slightly problematic story about Moses’ son not being circumcised when an angel of God “sought to kill him.” The thought that Moses did not circumcise his son, as the Masoretic text states, seems inconceivable to many Jewish commentators, Tsedaka noted. The Samaritan text, however, reads that it was Moses’ wife, Tziporah, who had to “circumcise her blocked heart” by cutting off her belief in the idol-worshiping ways of Midyan, her homeland. A mention of an “internal circumcision” is later found in Deuteronomy 10:16 in both versions, which reads, “circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.”

Perhaps the most variant of texts within the two Torahs is the differences in the Ten Commandments.

“The Commandments are all in the form of ‘do’ and ‘don’t do,’ ” Tsedaka asserted. “The Masoretic version includes the intro of ‘I am your God that took you out of Egypt,’ as a commandment, when we see it as an introduction. Our Ten Commandments start later, and we have our last commandment to establish Mount Gerizim.”

While an “extra” commandment to establish an altar on Mount Gerizim might seem random in the Masoretic text, the part that follows the Ten Commandants in the Masoretic version talks about the forbidden action of building stairs to an altar. Some scholars believe that the Masoretic text would not be discussing steps to an altar without talking about an altar first, and so some believe there might be a part of the text that is missing in the Masoretic version.

“Finding the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that there were two versions, if not more, of the Torah circulating within Judaism, but they were all dealt with with equal validity and respect,” said Ulrich, who served as one of the chief editors on the Dead Sea Scrolls International Publication Project. “The Samaritan Torah and Masoretic Torah used to be studied side by side. The Masoretic text wasn’t always the authoritative version. They were both seen as important during the Second Temple time period.”

Source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/the-other-torah

And so the question of whose Torah is the correct one and which one has been changed is an open question. Most of the DSS match our Masoretic tradition, this proves nothing other than our tradition was the most popular for the Essene Community at that time. But that doesn't explain why they also preserved all the other traditions. More than likely the reason the Essenes preserved all these texts is because they could not prove which is the original, and therefore value comes from studying and understanding all of them. Much like even the Christian Scriptures quote books like Enoch/Jubilees, discuss them as being good to study, while also not officially canonizing the books.

Answer 4

To expand on Danny's answer.

As per Danny, it's clear that Jews everywhere have had essentially identical texts for thousands of years. If you want to look back before that, I recommend David Weiss Halivni's books, particularly "Peshat & Derash". He defends the thesis that the texts did suffer some issues in the era of the Judges, and that Jewish authorities have often discussed these issues and their relationship to various special dots and modified letters in the traditional scribal text.

Answer 5

Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen, an acclaimed lecturer and teacher, has a class proving the veracity of the Oral Torah tradition, as well as dealing with a number of the main questions on the transmission of the Torah as we have it today. The class is freely available here.

Additionally, Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg has a wonderful class addressing similar issues, freely available here.

Answer 6

As noted in Aaron's excellent answer it seems to be incontrovertible that the text of the Torah has changed over time. What is also equally clear, according to every source I can find, is that those changes are in the form of minor textual variants or other euphemistic language (tikkun sof'rim) and have no theological consequence whatsoever.

At approximately the 30 minute mark in this lecture Rabbi Wieder cites a responsa of Rashba which was addressed specifically to the argument of the Muslim community which you are inquiring about. Rashba discusses the concept of scribal emendations (tikkun sof'rim) and concludes that: 1. If the Rabbis wanted to change the text of the Torah for some nefarious purpose they would not have then foolishly announced that they had done so and list the places in which they had done so 2. Any possible euphemistic changes have no theological relevancy

Answer 7

Someone had posted the following link:

https://www.torah-code.org/controversy/THE_ACCURACY_OF_OUR_WRITTEN_TORAH.pdf

I think interestingly enough the resolution of any inaccuracies for the past 1000 years (probably some of the worse conditions) and of being of good result (see quote below), one can imagine when Jews lived in Israel and had the Temple with a source Torah kept there, it was much more likely to keep a consistent text.

In his work, “The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Torah”, Dr. Breuer describes his years of meticulous research and discusses his conclusions in attempting to demonstrate the scientific usefulness of the eclectic process. In fact, Dr. Breuer's purpose was to demonstrate that a single Mesorah already existed in the years prior to the RaMaH, even though the RaMaH did not have such a Mesorah at his disposal. (The existence of such a single Mesorah is flatly rejected by many academicians.) Dr. Breuer began by selecting four texts of ancient origin to compare and contrast in his study. Each of these texts predates the RaMaH. The texts were all of the type written by the Tiberian Masorites (as opposed to the Babylonian Masorites) yet clearly differed from each other in certain significant formatting areas, indicating that they were not copied from an immediate common source. In addition, he included the text of the Mikra'ot Gedolot of Yaakov ben Chaim, printed in Venice, 1525. (It should be noted that the orthography of these 5 texts differed widely from one another, in one case by more than 200 letters from the others.) Using the eclectic process, he suggested that if a broad majority of 4 out of 5 texts (and not just 3 of the 5) agreed with each other, it could be assumed that the fifth, inconsistent text was a copyist’s error. His results were startling. There are 304,805 letters in the Torah. All five texts were in total agreement in all but about 220 letters. Of these, all but 20 were resolved by a majority of at least 4 texts against 1! Of the 20 remaining conflicts, Dr. Breuer was able to clarify all but 6 by applying another Masorite method, that of carefully studying thousands of early Masoretic notes (a broader topic similar in style to the eclectic process). These final 6 he was not able to clarify because three of the Torahs presented one spelling, while the remaining two presented another. It was apparent that nearly all of the inconsistencies between the Torahs were caused by copyists errors, and not by Masoretic uncertainties.

Next, the resultant `eclectic' text was compared with the RaMaH's text (i.e., our present text). It was found that the RaMaH differed in but 6 places from the eclectic. That is, the margin of uncertainty of our Torah scrolls is probably not more than 12 (out of 304,805!) letters -- the 6 indeterminate ones, plus the six in which the RaMaH's text differed from Dr. Breuer's eclectic! When he compared the results of his experiment with the Teimani text (which, as we mentioned, is probably identical to that of Ben Asher), the results were even more startling. The texts were in perfect agreement! Their margin of uncertainty may be no more than 6 letters! Equally amazing is that all the above mentioned differences involve Vavs and Yuds, which do not affect the meaning of the word at all. (As for the remaining six uncertainties in Dr. Breuer's eclectic survey, in three of the instances the RaMaH and Teimani texts agreed with the 3-against-2 majority text. In the other three cases, the RaMaH and Teimani texts were themselves split over the same variant spellings as were the pre-RaMaH texts. In total, that means that the Teimani text differs from the RaMaH's text in but 9 letters -- see endnotes for details.)

I hope to peruse ancient copies, so far:

Damascus Pentateuch (10th Century) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_Pentateuch) is the same as Leningrad Codex etc... These multiple codexes confirm each other but are not discussed because the few that disagree seem more interesting. However one should know there are multiple copies of the Masoretic text.

The En Gedi scroll (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1601247) from the 3rd century confirms letter for letter with Levitics 1:3-5 (x-rayed survived. I checked this myself - you can see the scan in the link).

Dead Sea Scrolls - Although there are intentional differences, like switching the names of mountains (Har Evel and Grizim (like the Samaritans)), most of the DSS favours Masoretic Text. Similarly Deuteronomy 32:9 says in DSS "according to the number of the sons of G-d". Unlikely correct as the only other place the term "sons of G-d" is used is around the the Nephilim - not Jews. Also this would certainly fit with a more "Christian"/Hellenist perspective. So changes might likely be ideological. I argue the DSS actually confirms the Masoretic Text existed 2000 years ago and is correct as it primarily agrees compared to other variants. I'd like to check this more carefully myself though - what are the differences, intentional or perhaps meaningless (ie: two nuns instead of one with a dagesh etc...).

Ketef Hinnom Silver Scroll Amulets (6th Century BCE) matches as far as I can see the Torah (it is the priestly blessing - plus some bits before (likely a prayer) but those words are fragmented too much)

There is much more proving the consistency of the Torah and the Masoretic Torah then not. Any differences are usually meaningless and mean the same thing - it is hard to see any difference.

Answer 8

Consider the orthographic changes between the pre and post Babylonian captivity (that you can see from the Dead Sea Scrolls). And consider the textual differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts.

Though these textual changes exist, it remains an exercise for the student to ascertain whether they are significant.

Answer 9

זה כתוב במזמור שנים עשר

:אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה, אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף, בַּעֲלִיל לָאָרֶץ; מְזֻקָּק, שִׁבְעָתָיִם. אַתָּה-יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם; תִּצְּרֶנּוּ, מִן-הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם.

זה כתוב בספר משלי

כָּל-אִמְרַת אֱלוֹהַּ צְרוּפָה

זה כתוב בספר ישעיהו יָבֵשׁ חָצִיר, נָבֵל צִיץ; וּדְבַר-אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יָקוּם לְעוֹלָם.

זה כתוב בספר ירמיהו

וַיִּשְׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶתעיְהוּדִי, לָקַחַת אֶתעהַמְּגִלָּה, וַיִּקָּחֶהָ, מִלִּשְׁכַּת אֱלִישָׁמָע הַסֹּפֵר; וַיִּקְרָאֶהָ יְהוּדִי, בְּאָזְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וּבְאָזְנֵי כָּלעהַשָּׂרִים, הָעֹמְדִים מֵעַל הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְהַמֶּלֶךְ, יוֹשֵׁב בֵּית הַחֹרֶף, בַּחֹדֶשׁ, הַתְּשִׁיעִי; וְאֶתעהָאָח, לְפָנָיו מְבֹעָרֶת. וַיְהִי כִּקְרוֹא יְהוּדִי, שָׁלֹשׁ דְּלָתוֹת וְאַרְבָּעָה, יִקְרָעֶהָ בְּתַעַר הַסֹּפֵר, וְהַשְׁלֵךְ אֶלעהָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר אֶלעהָאָח: עַדעתֹּם, כָּלעהַמְּגִלָּה, עַלעהָאֵשׁ, אֲשֶׁר עַלעהָאָח. וְלֹא פָחֲדוּ, וְלֹא קָרְעוּ אֶתעבִּגְדֵיהֶםעעהַמֶּלֶךְ, וְכָלעעֲבָדָיו, הַשֹּׁמְעִים, אֵת כָּלעהַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה. וְגַם אֶלְנָתָן וּדְלָיָהוּ וּגְמַרְיָהוּ הִפְגִּעוּ בַמֶּלֶךְ, לְבִלְתִּי שְׂרֹף אֶתעהַמְּגִלָּה; וְלֹא שָׁמַע, אֲלֵיהֶם. וַיְצַוֶּה הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶתעיְרַחְמְאֵל בֶּןעהַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֶתעשְׂרָיָהוּ בֶןעעַזְרִיאֵל, וְאֶתעשֶׁלֶמְיָהוּ בֶּןעעַבְדְּאֵל, לָקַחַת אֶתעבָּרוּךְ הַסֹּפֵר, וְאֵת יִרְמְיָהוּ הַנָּבִיא; וַיַּסְתִּרֵם, יְהוָה. וַיְהִי דְבַרעיְהוָה, אֶלעיִרְמְיָהוּעעאַחֲרֵי שְׂרֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֶתעהַמְּגִלָּה וְאֶתעהַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר כָּתַב בָּרוּךְ מִפִּי יִרְמְיָהוּ, לֵאמֹר. שׁוּב קַחעלְךָ, מְגִלָּה אַחֶרֶת; וּכְתֹב עָלֶיהָ, אֵת כָּלעהַדְּבָרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים, אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ עַלעהַמְּגִלָּה הָרִאשֹׁנָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף יְהוֹיָקִים מֶלֶךְעיְהוּדָה.

In English: It is written in psalm 12,

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

It is written in the book of proverbs,

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

It is written in the book of Isaiah,

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

It is written in the book of Jeremiah,

So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words. Nevertheless Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll: but he would not hear them. But the king commanded Jerahmeel the son of Hammelech, and Seraiah the son of Azriel, and Shelemiah the son of Abdeel, to take Baruch the scribe and Jeremiah the prophet: but the LORD hid them.

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

---

The following was posted as a separate answer and edited into this one:

As the Hebrew scriptures I refered to show, there are those who would destroy the scriptures, but God promises to preserve it. What was the first thing God shows us that Satan said so long ago in the garden. He questioned God's word. Thus we have two "text types". 1) the supernaturally inspired and preserved holy scriptures 2) the changed, altered, messed up text derived from this and motivations of Satan, and people who have no big problem with changing the word of God. For all the minutiae of "textual criticism" people should be reminded of this bigger and more important truth. And to be expected are those who will argue with the above, as Satan, and hearts which do NOT believe the true supernatural nature of holy scriptures abound.