Chronological Arrangement of the Old Testament books Prior to 1446 B.C. CREATION - THE PATRIARCHS - TO EGYPT (until 1446 B.C.) GENESIS JOB
Origins Will Job love God for Who God is? Satan told God, “Put forth Your hand now and touch all that Job has; he will surely curse You to Your face.” Job models supreme love for God.
1446 – 1406 B.C. FROM EGYPT - THE WILDERNESS 1446-1406 B.C. EXODUS Israel becomes a Covenant Nation LEVITICUS Levitical Priests' Duties NUMBERS Israel under God's training in the Wilderness DEUTERONOMY Restatement and Summary of the Law 1406 – 1050 B.C. IN THE PROMISED LAND 1406-1050 B.C. JOSHUA The power of God overcomes all His enemies JUDGES Israel's failure as a Theocracy 1050 – 587 B.C. THE PERIOD OF THE KINGS 1050-587 B.C. RUTH Becoming an Israelite citizen - Kinsman-redeemer I SAMUEL The founding of the Hebrew Monarchy II SAMUEL David's Reign I KINGS The Monarchy Continues - The Kingdom Splits II KINGS The Divided Kingdoms of Israel Decline and Fall I CHRON. Summary of Israel's History - Adam to David II CHRON. Summary of Judah's History - Solomon to Exile ECCLES. World View without God is Worthless - Solomon SONG OF SOL. God given Love between Man/Woman & Christ/Church ISAIAH Salvation by Grace - the Evangelistic Prophet JOEL Warning of Divine Judgment upon Judah OBADIAH The Judgment of God to come upon Edom MICAH The Product of Salvation- Social Reform/Holiness NAHUM A Holy God Avenges His People HABAKKUK How can a Just God permit Wickedness to Triumph? ZEPHANIAH God is Still in Control of the World 930 – 722 B.C. PROPHETS OF THE NORTHERN KINGDOM OF ISRAEL 930-722 B.C. HOSEA Plea for the Northern Kingdom to Repent AMOS Jehovah's Faithfulness to His Covenant and Law JONAH God's Mercy Extends to Heathen Nations 587 – 536 B.C. THE BABYLONIAN EXILE OF JUDAH 587-536 B.C. JEREMIAH Warning to Judah - Repent or be taken Captive LAMENTATIONS A lament over the Woes of a Fallen Judah
Chronological Arrangement of the Old Testament books
4 EZEKIEL DANIEL
Judgment is Necessary to Correct Disobedience Overruling Power of God who Delivers IN Trials
536 – 424 B.C. THE REMNANT RETURNS - OTHERS LIVE IN CAPTIVITY 536-424 B.C. EZRA Reconstruction Hebrew Theocracy and the Temple NEHEMIAH Rebuilding the Walls of Jerusalem ESTHER God delivers His people (in Medo-Persia) HAGGAI Put God First and Enjoy Blessings and Prosperity ZECHARIAH God will Preserve His Remnant from the World MALACHI Holiness is a Requirement for Economic Welfare 1405 – 500 B.C. MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS 1405-500 B.C. PSALMS Praise songs etc. - Time of Moses to end of O.T. PROVERBS Instruction in the Principles of Wisdom
Inerrancy of the Scriptures The 1978 Chicago Statement on Scripture ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL ARTICLE I We affirm that the holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source. ARTICLE II We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible. ARTICLE III We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity. ARTICLE IV We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration. ARTICLE V We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings. ARTICLE VI We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole. ARTICLE VII We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. the origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
6
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind. ARTICLE VIII We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities. ARTICLE IX We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word. ARTICLE X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. ARTICLE XI We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated. ARTICLE XII We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. ARTICLE XIII We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature,
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
7
the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. ARTICLE XIV We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible. ARTICLE XV We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity. ARTICLE XVI We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism. ARTICLE XVII We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operated in isolation from or against Scripture. ARTICLE XVIII We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship. ARTICLE XIX We affirm that confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 scholars, representing almost every major evangelical organization in the United States and several foreign countries. It serves as a summary of the contemporary evangelical view on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul, and a book covering the major addresses was published. Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, Wm. E., A General Introduction to the Bible, 1986, Moody Press, pp. 181-185.
Canonicity From: Norman L. Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible: Inspiration deals with the question of why the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. The word, canon, deals with the question: “What books should be in the Bible?” The word canon comes from the Greek word kanon (kanon), and means ‘the rule (measuring stick), the standard for knowing what is true. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.2Tim 3:16-17 In the early centuries of Christianity, canon came to mean the rule of faith, the normative writings – those writing that really were Scripture. The Fathers, from the time of Irenaeus, referred to the kanon of Christian teaching, which they called "The Kanon of the Church," "The Kanon of the Truth," and "The Kanon of Faith." Jesus set the standard for the canonization of the Scriptures. He confirmed the inspiration of the Hebrew books in the Old Testament. He also promised that the Holy Spirit would direct the apostles into all truth. The fulfillment of that promise resulted in the writing and collection of the New Testament. As Carl F. H. Henry writes , "Jesus altered the prevailing Jewish view of Scripture in several ways: • He judged Jewish religious traditions by what was written in the Old Testament; • He emphasized that he himself fulfills the messianic promise of the inspired writings; • He claimed for himself an authority equal to that of the Old Testament and definitively expounded the inner significance of the Law; • He inaugurated the new covenant, escalating the Holy Spirit's moral power as an internal reality; • He committed his apostles to the enlargement and completion of the Old Testament canon through their proclamation of the Spirit-given interpretation of his life and work. At the same time he identified himself wholly with the revelational authority of Moses and the prophets--that is, with the Old Testament as an inspired literary canon--insisting that Scripture has sacred, authoritative, and permanent validity, and that the revealed truth of God is conveyed in its teachings." For an Old Testament book to be part of the Bible, it had to pass several tests: • 1. Was the book written by a prophet of God (or prophetic?) • 2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? • 3. Did the message tell the truth about God? • 4. Does it come with the power of God? • 5. Was it accepted by the people of God?
In A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Gleason Archer comments: •
•
The Jews declared that the Masoretic text (scripture scrolls) of the Old Testament were the Old Testament. These are identical with the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament in our Bible (and did not include the Apocrypha.) The were only arranged in a little different arrangement. The Jewish people did have some controversy over a few of the book in the process of accepting that they should be included in the Old Testament.
Canonicity
• •
•
•
•
9
Some criticized the Song of Solomon because it spoke of physical attractiveness in bold and enthusiastic imagery. But this protest was only temporary. Some objected to the book of Esther because the name of God does not appear in it. (But this) is countered by the unavoidable manifestations of divine providence working through every circumstance to deliver the Jewish race from the greatest threat to its existence ever faced in history. Some questioned Ezekiel because of disagreements of detail between the latter-day temple and ritual of the last ten chapters that was different from those of the Mosaic tabernacle. But these differences were found only in minor details and might pertain to a still future temple. Josephus of Jerusalem (37-95 A.D.) said, "We have not tens of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting . . . From Artaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is evident by our conduct; for though so long a time has now passed, no one has dared to add anything to them, or to take anything from them, or to alter anything in them." • Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures that are in the Masoretic Text (MT). He states that no more canonical writings have occurred since the reign of Artaxerxes, in 464-424 B.C. Thus, he recognized Malachi to be the last book of the Old Testament. And he says no additional material was ever included in the canonical books. The supreme confirmation of what is really the Old Testament comes by the the testimony of God the Holy Spirit. This testimony found a response of recognition, faith, and submission in the hearts of God's people who walked in covenant fellowship with Him.
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha The 39 books of the Old Testament were accepted as being the Old Testament by: 1. Masoretic text 2. The writings of Josephus 3. Bishop Melito of Sardis in 170 AD (none of the Apocrypha) 4. Origin (died in 254 AD), and he rejected all the books of the Apocrypha 5. Tertullian (160-250 AD) 6. Jerome (340-420) (He said that The Apocrypha was only of secondary importance) In his commentary of the book of Susanna, he points out a certain word play put in Daniel's mouth which only works with Greek words and not in the Hebrew. This would mean that the writing was composed originally in Greek, and not Hebrew. The question of the Apocrypha: 1. The Jews acknowledged the 39 books, but not the Apocrypha. 2. Virtually all the 39 Old Testament books are quoted from in the New Testament or else referred to. None of the books of the Apocrypha are. It is inconceivable that they could have considered the Apocrypha books as canonical and never once have quoted from it. 3. The early church fathers did not recognize the Apocrypha except for the writers of 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas. Augustine was not consistent. In one theological discussion with an opponent who quoted a passage from 2 Maccabees, Augustine stressed that his opponent's argument must be weak if he had to support it by a book not received and accepted by the Jews.
Historical Views of Inspiration
10
4. Athanasius (365 AD) recognized the 39 books but referred to the Apocrypha as "not included in the canon," but merely "appointed to be read."
The Bible is the Inspired Word of God All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.2Tim 3:16 This passages some very important things to notice: • Inspiration deals with the objective text of Scripture, not the subjective intention of the writer. It deal with the truth that God gives us; not with how we feel about it. • It applies to all or every Scripture, that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God. • The Scriptures are the very spirated (breathed out) Word of God. While the truth can be expressed using different words, the whole sentence presents only one meaning. It is a unit. That sentence relates to the paragraph it is in, to that section of the book, and to the book, and to the unity of the Bible. Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, Wm. E., A General Introduction to the Bible, 1986, Moody Press, pp. 35-36.
Neo-orthodox View of Inspiration The truth presented in 2Tim.3:16-17 is against the teaching of a movement called neo-orthodoxy that says that the Bible is not the Word of God, but contains the Word of God. When you read it, even though it is mythology, something happens in the depth of your thoughts and reasoning, and this magical experience is the Word of God. Karl Barth is one of the main advocates of neo-orthodoxy, and he said "by the Holy Spirit it became and will become to the church a witness to Divine revelation." To Barth the Word of God is personal, not propositional. To the neo-orthodox, the Bible is a fallible human book. Nevertheless, it is the instrument of God's revelation to us, for it is a record of God's personal revelation in Christ. However, without being reasonable and without transforming the mind, it is personal. (Notice that deception is also personal. God wants us not only to have something personal, but also true.) Evangelical Christians believe in unlimited inspiration. The Bible is correct in what it teaches about history, about the nature of the physical universe in the foundations it lays for science and the role of science, about the nature and character of God, about the way God designed man, and the nature of relationships. It is not only a religious book to give you “religious truth.” It deals with reality as God knows it to be. It not only brings forth salvation, but also gives essential principles concerning the kingdom of God that apply to and transform every cultural and lay a skeleton of truth to support their unique cultural expressions. The biblical view of inspiration does not assert that prophets and apostles were infallible, nor that in their own learning they were exempt from limitations imposed by their cultures. What it asserts, rather, is that the writers did not teach the doubtful views of the cultures in which they lived. In fact , there is abundant evidence in the New Testament that Jesus never accommodated Himself to the false beliefs of His day.
Historical Views of Inspiration
11
Some examples will illustrate: Matt. 15:1-3; Matt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43; John 3:10; Matt. 22:29; Matt. 23:16, 33; John 2:15-16. The above are adaptations, excerpts, and summaries are from material found on pp. 62, 135, 175, and 180 of Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, 1986.
Different Classes of Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Those discrepancies that are due to lack of reading exactly what the Bible says. A second class of discrepancies is the class of those which arise from false interpretations of the Bible. Those which arise from a wrong idea of the teachings of the Bible as a whole. Those which arise from the fact that a writer may not be recording all the events which happened or all the words which were spoken. Those which arise from our lack of appreciation of the purpose which the author had and the method which he used in writing. Those which concern discrepancies in chronology. Those which pertain to numbers. Alleged contradictions concerning doctrines. Those which seemingly are produced by the use of the same Hebrew or Greek words in different places with different meanings. These are the main headings from Chapter XIV, entitled The Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible, from The Basis of Christian Faith, by Floyd Hamilton, Harper & Bros., 1946, p. 263.
The Documentary Hypothesis Also inappropriately called by some: “Higher Criticism” of the Old Testament. (At some point in the future, if you need to deal with the problems created by “The Documentary Hypothesis,” get Dr. Gleason Archer’s book, A Survey of O.T. Introduction, Moody Press, 1974. He deals thoroughly with this attack upon the historical reliability of scripture. He shows the wrong ideas upon which it is founded and why they are wrong. And he deals with the inconsistency in their method of looking at the Old Testament.) The Documentary Hypothesis is the theory that the Pentateuch was a compilation of selections from several different prior-written documents, each composed in different places over five centuries following the time of Moses. The documentary hypothesis is characterized by circular reasoning. Its underlying premise is that there can be no supernatural revelation. Therefore, it becomes absolutely necessary to find rationalistic, humanistic explanations of every miracle God has done. The documentarians say, "The historical books show no recognition of the existence of P legislation or a written Mosaic code until after the exile." When examination showed this idea untrue, the reply was, "Oh well, all those reference were later insertion made by priestly scribes who reworked these books after the exile." So the same body of evidence used to support their theory becomes rejected when it conflicts with it. The documentarians say early Hebrew writers were incapable of using more than one name for God. Further, they could not have had more than one style of writing, and they could not have had more than one circle of interest. The documentarians compare Old Testament books to writings from the pagan world. In every case where there is a difference of details between them and a pagan document, even one of a later age, the heathen source has been automatically accepted as the correct one. To show how wrong this approach is, W.F. Albright, has written many books and articles, and has verified again and again the accuracy of the Biblical record. The Documentary Hypothesis is the theory that the Pentateuch was a compilation of selections from several different documents. Supposedly, these documents were written in different places and more than 500 years after Moses lived. This idea began with Jean Astruc in 1753. Because 'Elohim' was used for God in Gen. 1, and 'Jehovah' in Genesis 2, he speculated that Moses used two different written sources in writing his account. In about 1780, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, divided the entire book of Genesis into two parts. He called one part a Jahwist (J) portion and the other an Elohist (E) portion. He speculated that they gave unparallel "parallel accounts" (divergent parallel accounts) concerning the flood. About 1805, Wilhelm M. L. De Wette, speculated that all of the Pentateuch was written after the time of King David – around 1000 B.C. He spculated further that Deuteronomy was written by Hilkiah the priest under Josiah about 600 B.C. He said Hilkiah devised this forgery in order to promote a centralized religion. De Wette called it the (D) document.
The Documentary Hypothesis
13
Around 1823, Heinrich Ewald stressed the essential basis of Genesis as being very early, even if not done by Moses. About 1853, Herman Hupfeld looked more closely at the theory of an E document, and speculated that it came from an E1 document and the rest from E2 because he thought it had two different literary styles. In 1878, Wellhausen combined various ideas with the theory of evolution and presented a JEDP sequence as his idea of how the Pentateuch came to exist: • Supposedly around 850 B.C. an unknown writer (Mr. J) was interested in biography and wrote about God using anthropomorphic terms. • Supposedly around 750 B.C. another author (Mr. E) wrote because he was much more interested in things like the origin of names and customs. In Genesis, Mr. E shows interest in ritual and worship. So he represents God as communicating through dreams and visions. In Exodus through Numbers, E exalts Moses as a unique miracle worker. • Supposedly about 650BC, another editor combined J and E into a single document – the J-E document. • Well, around 621 B.C., a Mr. D wanted to force everybody in Judah to participate in centralized religion in Jerusalem, so he did more work to produce a JED document. • Around 570 B.C., a Mr. P worked to add more and to build a systematic account of the origins and nature of Israel’s theocracy – a JEDP document.
Circular Reasoning Used by the documentarians The documentary hypothesis is characterized by circular reasoning. Its underlying premise is that there can be no supernatural revelation. Therefore, it becomes absolutely necessary to find rationalistic, humanistic explanations to try to explain everything that the Old Testament says is a miracle. The documentarians say, "The historical books show no recognition of the existence of P legislation or a written Mosaic code until after the exile." Others then showed this idea was not true. At that point they replied, "Oh well, all those reference were later insertion made by priestly scribes who reworked these books after the exile." They use part of the manuscripts to support their theory, and throw out any part of a manuscript that contradicts their theory. They try to use the manuscripts to prove their theory, and reject the manuscripts as being valid when they show their theory to be wrong. The documentarians say early Hebrew writers were capable of using more than one name for God. They could not have more than one style of writing, and they could not have had more than one circle of interest. They will compare the Bible with pagan writings. In every case where the pagan writing contradicts the Bible, the heathen source is automatically accepted as the correct one. Fortunately a brilliant researcher, W.F. Albright, has written many books and articles that document the accuracy of the Biblical record. The Wellhausen school started with pure assumption, insisting that Israel's religion had merely a human origin. The evidence all the way from Genesis to Malachi stands against their theory. Yet in spite of it, they insist that Israel could not have started out just worshiping one God.
14
The Documentary Hypothesis
Evidences of the Pentateuch's Early Author The Bible says Moses wrote the Pentateuch: • Ex.17:14, 24:4, 34:27, 33:1-2, Josh.1:8, 8:31, 2Ki.14:6, 21:8, Ezra 6:8, Neh.13:1, Mt.19:8, Jn.5:46-47, 7:19, Act.3:22, Mk.12:26 • The author gives eyewitness details of the fountains and palm trees at Elim. The author had to alive at the time of Moses • The author had to have a thorough acquaintance with Egypt by living there. • The author uses a greater percentage of Egyptian words than elsewhere in the Old Testament. This matches the background of Moses, growing up in Egypt. • The seasons and the weather are referred to in Egyptian manner, instead of with Palestinian expressions. • The flora and fauna referred to are Egyptian. p.119 • The atmosphere of Exodus through Numbers is distinctively desert. The tremendous emphasis upon a tabernacle or large tent as a place of worship is entirely out of place for authors living centuries after Solomon's temple had been built. But it is totally relevant to a nomadic people constantly on the march through the desert. • There are words and forms of writing used do not fit into a later period. • The entire Pentateuch has a most remarkable unity which links it together into a progressive whole. Does Moses qualify as somebody thoroughly able to write the Pentateuch? Yes: -He has the education and background -He has personal knowledge of climate, agriculture, geography -He has the incentive to write since he is Israel's founding father. -He had plenty of time during the 40 years in the wilderness. -He had come from Egyptian culture greatly emphasizing writing.
Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the Old Testament The Bible has over 6000 hand-written manuscripts written in Greek, plus manuscripts in other languages – Latin, 8 Syriac families of languages, 8 Coptic families of languages, Aramaic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Slavonic, Gothic, Arabic, and Persian. This provides over 11,000 manuscripts to use to verify the accuracy of our Bible. It matches what was originally written. Below is a list of a few of these manuscripts: From B.C. 1. The Dead Sea Scrolls (written about 150-100 B.C.) contain all of Isaiah. 2. The Habakkuk Commentary (100-50 B.C.) It contains Hab.1&2 with interspersed notes between verses. 3. The Hebrew University Isaiah Scroll (ca.50 B.C.) which has substantial portions of Is.41 - 66. 4. 1Q Leviticus fragments (c. 5 B.C) It has a few verses each of chapters 19 - 22. 5. 4Q Deuteronomy-B - 32:41-43 6. 4Q Samuel-A (1st century B.C.) 27 fragments of 1 Samuel 1 & 2. 7. 4Q Samuel-B (225 B.C. or earlier) 1 Samuel 16.19,21,23 8. 4Q Jeremiah-A (undated but old, similar to 4Q Samuel-B) 9. 4Q XII-A (c.300 B.C.) a copy of the minor prophets 10. 4Q Qoh (c.200 B.C.) of Ecclesiastes 11. 4Q Exodus , a fragment of Chapter 1. 12. 4Q Paleo-Exodus (c.100 B.C.) portions of chapters 7,29,30,32 13. 4Q Numbers 14. 4Q Deuteronomy-A It has chapter 32 (Song of Moses.) 15. 4Q Jeremiah 16. 7Q Daniel (in 2nd century handwriting) A few fragments of Dan. 17. 11Q Psalms Since the birth of Jesus 1. British Museum Oriental 4445 (c.850 A.D.) contains the Pentateuch. 2. Codex Cairensis (C) (895 A.D.) contains the former and latter prophets. The Crusaders apparently seized it from Karaite Jews in Jerusalem in 1099. 3. Aleppo Codex (A) (c.950 A.D.) contains the entire Old Testament. 4. Leningrad MS (916 A.D.) contains the latter prophets. 5. Leningrad MS B-19A (1010 A.D.) contains the entire Old Testament. 6. Samaritan Pentateuch (1616 A.D.) written in Samaritan characters. VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. LXX (the Septuagint) This Greek version was translated in Alexandria about 250 B.C. The following are manuscript fragments of it a. Rylands Papyrus (458 A.D.) contains portions of Dt.23-28 (150 B.C) preserved in a mummy wrapping. b. Qumran Four has fragments of Lev.,Num.,of the minor prophets, c. Chester Beatty Papyri (ca.150 A.D.) contains portions of Num. & Dt.
Lower Criticism
16 d. e. f. g. h.
Papyrus 911 (c.300 A.D.) contains fragments of Ge.1-35. Freer Greek Manuscript V (c.250 A.D.) of the minor prophets. Origin's Hexapla (written about 240 A.D., a copy of it from c.400 A.D.) Hesychian Recension (c.300) Lucianic Recension (c.300) i. Codex Vaticanus (B) (325-350) contains most of the New Testament as well as the Old j. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) (ca. A.D.375-400) contains the complete New Testament, although portions of the Old are missing. k. Codex Alexandrinus (A) (ca.450) contains the New Testament. 2. Syriac versions a. The Peshitta (ca. A.D.200) The Peshitta achieved an official status for the Syriacspeaking church when it was revised and published under the authority of Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (ca. A.D.400) b. Syriac Hexapla (A.D.616) 3. Coptic versions. Coptic was a spoken language, descended from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Bibles in Coptic go back to ca. A.D.200. 4. Ethiopic version (ca. A.D.400) 5. Armenian version (ca. A.D.500)
An Armenian manuscript made about 500 A.D.
6. Gothic version by Ulfilas (ca. A.D.330) Only a small portion of the Old Testament remains.
Lower Criticism While higher criticism deals with questions of the authorship and integrity of the text of Bible books. Lower criticism (also called textual criticism) checks the accuracy of the copy of scripture which we have to the original. It attempts to sift through the evidence to determine the accuracy of variant reading. We do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations.
Lower Criticism
17
Here is an example of a variation: instead of saying Jesus, the variation says, "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents. How serious are the differences in the copies. They are of minor significance. For example: 1. Sometimes a copyist might write a similar sounding word (like in English, a person might write “whole” instead of “ hole.” Or he might write “there” instead of “their.”) 2. He might write the same word twice (like “Jesus 'and and' the twelve disciples.”) 3. He might switch the letter order (siege instead of seige) What are the most common errors? 1. Haplography -- the accidental ommission of a letter; writing a letter only once when it should have been more than once. a. Is.26:3 BeKa Ba-T.e.HuW (trusting in thee; trust ye) instead of b. BeK-a B-a.TuWa.H (trusting in thee; trust ye) 2. Dittography -- writing the same thing twice Is.30:30 HSMY' HSMY' (cause to be heard cause to be heard) 3. metathesis -- reversing the proper position of letters Is.32:19 HY'R (the forest) instead of H'Yr (the city) 4. Fusion -- the combining of two separate words into one. Amos 6:12 BBQRYM (with oxen) probably means BBQR YM (with oxen the sea) or Shall one plough the sea with oxen? 5. Fission -- the dividing of one word into two. Is.2:20 L.HPR PRWT (to a hole of rats) instead of L.HPRPRYM (to the shrew-mice)
Lower Criticism
18
6. Homophony -- replacing one homonym for another Often LW (to him) is substituted for L' (not). Is.9:3 HRBYT HGWY L' HGDLT H'SM.HH (Thou hast multiplied the people; thou hast not multiplied the joy) HRBYT HGWY LW HGDLY H'SM.HH (Thou hast multiplied the people; thou hast increased the joy for him) 7. Misreading similar letters. From 600 B.C. onward, the Hebrew for 'D' and 'R' were often confused. "Dodanim" of Ge.10:4 appears as "Rodanim" in 1Chr.1:7. In both places it probably refers to the Rhodians. 8. Homoeoteleuton -- the skipping of a passage when the copyist's eye skipped from one ending to a second similar ending. Is.4:5 (the omitted words are in parentheses) WBR' YHWH .. 'NN (YWMM W'SN WNGH'S LHBH LYLH KY 'L KL KBWD . H P H W S K H THYH L.SL) YWMM M.HRB Compare Is.4:5 with Ps.145:13b 9. Homoeoarkton -- confusion because of a similar beginning. Compare 1Sa.14:41 in the LXX (Greek Septuagint) with the MT (Masoretic Hebrew text). • LXX: "O Lord God of Israel" occurs two times with 25 words in between. •
MT: "O Lord God of Israel" occurs only once with all 25 words in between lost.
10.
Accidental omission of words without repetition. 1Sa.13:1 "Saul was years old when he began to reign."
11.
Misreading vowel letters. '(aleph), H (he), W (was), Y (yodh) were true consonants only in the earlier stages of Hebrew writing. Gradually they came to represent vowels without being pronounced at all.
' Amos 2:7 HS'PYM (who trample upon) becomes changed to H'SPYM (those who bruise)
What are the rules for figuring out what ought to be written? 1. The older reading is to be preferred. 2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred because a scribe is more likely to simplify or clarify than to make it more difficult for his readers. 3. The shorter reading is preferred because a copyist is more likely to insert material than to leave out. 4. The reading which best explains all the variants is preferred. Ps.22:16 in the MT: K'RY YDY WRGLY (like the lion my hands and my feet) The Hebrew column in the Complutensian Polyglot has it: K'RW (they have bored through). This is probably the correct way because the LXX, the Peshitta, the Vulgate have it "They have dug through" or "pierced"
Lower Criticism
19
5. The reading with the widest geographical support is preferred. 6. The reading most like the author's style and diction is preferred. 7. The reading without doctrinal bias is preferred. For example we know from the Targums and from the LXX that later Jewish thought shied away from any human-like representations of God. A later variant which tends away from so describing God therefore yields. Is.1:2 LR'WT (to see) A later text has it, L-eR-a'oWT (to be seen or to appear) instead of LiRe'o WT. The verse then becomes, "When you come to appear before Me..." instead of "When you come to be seen by Me..." If Isaiah had intended "to appear", it would normally have been spelled LHR'WT.