The Ancient Texts of e Old Testament Topics Charts, Maps and Doctrines Preface: God s Word is for all people; erefore, we should expect to find it in many languages. According to e United Bible Society, e Bible or books of e Bible had been translated into 2355 languages, which 1 represent e primary vehicle of communicator for well over 90% of e world s population. However, is is not a new phenomena; e Bible can be found in a number of ancient languages as well. That will be e focus of our study. We will focus on e Old Testament in is study; however, some of e Bibles mentioned will contain bo e Old and New Testaments. Hebrew 1. The Autographs a. The original manuscripts for e Old Testament were written in Hebrew, for e most part (e exceptions being, Eser, parts of Daniel). b. Scripture actually records e writing of one of e earliest autographs in Deut. 31:9, 24. c. From e very beginning, copies were made of extant Scripture, alough we do not know all of e specifics. However, we do know some specific instances (which will be mentioned under earliest copies below). d. An autograph is any manuscript which is identical to e original. So, eoretically, it is possible to have an autograph produced in e year 2000. However, in reality, ere are no extant autographs today. 2. Earliest copies of Scripture: a. Alough Scripture had no doubt been written and copied previously (for e books of Genesis and Job), Moses is e first person recorded writing Scripture: So Moses wrote is law and gave it to e priests, e sons of Levi, who carried e Ark of e Covenant of Jehovah, and to all e elders of Israel (Deut. 31:9). And it came to pass, when Moses had completely finished writing e words of is Law in a book, he commanded e Levites who carried e Ark of e Covenant of Jehovah, saying, Take is book of e Law and place it beside e Ark of e Covenant of Jehovah your God, at it will stand as a witness against you (Deut. 31:24 26). b. Joshua also recorded e words of Scripture, which would have been e very end of e book of Deuteronomy, as well as most of e book of Joshua. And Joshua wrote ese words in e book of e Law of God, and took a great stone and set it up ere under an oak by e sanctuary of Jehovah (Joshua 24:26). c. All e kings of Israel were to make copies of e Law emselves to study. Deut. 17:18 20: And it shall be, when he sits on e rone of his kingdom, he shall write a copy of is Law in a book from before 1 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence at Demands a Verdict; 1999 by Josh McDowell; p. 8. The figures given are up to e end of e year 2003. One can find e latest figures by navigating from www.biblesociety.org and as of is writing, e specific address is http://www.biblesociety.org/latestnews/latest273-slr2003stats.html.
Page -2- From I Sam. 1: e priests, e Levites. And it shall be wi him, and he shall read it all e days of his life, so at he may learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all e words of is Law, and ese statutes, to do em, so at his heart may not be lifted up above his broers, and at he does not turn aside from e commandment, to e right or e left, so at he may make his days longer in his kingdom, he and his sons, in e midst of Israel. d. One of e earliest Bibles, so to speak, were some very large rocks, upon which, e Law of Moses was inscribed (Deut. 27:2 3 Joshua 8:30 32). e. King Josiah, upon hearing e Law read to him (at a time when e book of e Law had been missing) tore his own cloes (2Kings 22:8 11). The end result was, ere had been no king like Josiah for at time period, and none followed him wi e same kind of dedication (2Kings 23:21 25). f. That kings and oers had access to e Law is mentioned in 1Kings 2:3 2Kings 10:31 2Chron. 30 31:3 Ezra 7:6, 12. g. Oers had access to copies of e Law as well (Ezra 3:2 7:14 Neh. 8:8 9, 18 9:3 10:34 36 Daniel 6:5 9:11 13). h. There was apparently a division of priests who were also scribes at is, it was eir life s work to copy and preserve Scripture (Ezra 7:6, 12, 21). 3. The Talmudic Period (300 B.C. 500 A.D.): a. According to Geisler and Nix, we have a great flood of copies of e Scriptures dating from e Talmudic period, which manuscripts were used in e synagogues and for private study. 2 b. We have e synagogue rolls, which were regarded as sacred copies and were used for e reading of Scripture in e synagogues. c. We have personal copies of various books of e Old Testament, which sometimes also included notes in e margin as well as commentary. These were copied wi great care and e type of parchment used as well as oer specifics were often e choice of e owner of e scroll. d. The materials used were skins, papyrus rolls, vellum, parchment, recycled parchment, and possibly 3 even paper. e. Until e discovery of e Dead Sea Scrolls, e only pre-christian era manuscripts are e Nash Papyrus, which contains only e Ten Commandments and Deut. 6:4 9. They date to roughly 150 B.C. 100 A.D. b f. The oldest extant manuscript (a fragment) is 4QSam, from Cave IV in Qumran, one of e Dead Sea Scrolls. It dates back to e 4 century B.C. Speaking of e Dead Sea Scrolls, ey are apparently in Hebrew and Greek, as well as oer ancient languages. 4. Masoretic Period (500 1000 A.D.): a. During is time period, ere was a complete review of established rules, a dep reverence for e 4 Scriptures, and a systematic renovation of transmission techniques. There were groups of Masorites in a at least two different cities: Tiberias, Palestine and b. Manuscripts from is time period: i. The Cairo Codex (895 A.D.): is e oldest known Masoretic manuscript of e prophets. ii. The Leningrad Codex of e Prophets (916 A.D.): contains only e latter prophets. iii. The Aleppo Codex (930 A.D.): once contain e entire Old Testament but was damaged in a fire in a synagogue in Aleppo in 1948. iv. The Leningrad Codex (1008 A.D.): is e only complete manuscript from e Masoretes of e Old Testament extant today. v. There are several oer manuscripts, including e Cairo Geniza fragments (6 9 centuries A.D.), which are incomplete and scattered about in several collections. c. There are several reasons why our Hebrew manuscripts do not date back furer an is: i. The medium of ese ancient manuscripts was quite corruptible. 2 Norman Geisler and William Nix; A General Introduction to e Bible; Chicago; Moody Press, 1968, p. 242. 3 See Norman Geisler and William Nix; A General Introduction to e Bible; Chicago; Moody Press, 1968, pp. 242 243 for more details. 4 Norman Geisler and William Nix; A General Introduction to e Bible; Chicago; Moody Press, 1968, p. 247.
Ancient Texts of e Old Testament Page -3- ii. At e time of e Babylonian captivity, e Jews lost e Land of Promise and many of em lived in oer countries. This made preservation of Scripture particularly difficult, as e scribes and priests, at one time, would be gaered around e Temple of God. They went for centuries where ose who ruled over em were not particularly well-disposed toward Scripture. iii. For e most part, many of ese manuscripts were intentionally destroyed. Manuscripts were replaced when ey fell into disrepair; once a new manuscript was hand-produced, e older manuscript was destroyed. Flawed manuscripts were also destroyed. iv. It is suggested at e Masorites standardized e text and e vowel pointing around e 5 and 6 centuries, and manuscripts which deviated from is were destroyed. d. Interestingly enough, even since e discovery of e Dead Sea Scrolls, ere has been very little by way of substantial changes made to e text of English translations. There is simply little or no justification for making many changes, even ough we now have ousands of manuscript fragments which pre-date e MT. In oer words, e accuracy of e Masoretic text is excellent, despite e fact at it is barely a millennium old. i. The scribes almost had a superstitious reverence for Scripture, so at everying was done in order to preserve e integrity of e copies. This attitude even pre-dates e Masorite scribes. ii. Manuscripts produced in different areas have been compared and few significant differences have ever been discovered (variants are often in spelling, but rarely do we find more serious deviations). iii. If you have examined any chapter of Scripture wi me, when e variety of Old Testament manuscripts and early translations are compared, rarely do we come across any significant differences; and e few times at we do, ese differences do not affect doctrine. iv. There are some duplicate (or near duplicate) passages in Scripture where ey clearly came from e same source or one was e source for e oer (e.g., Psalm 14 and 53; Isa. 36 39 and 2Kings 18 20; Isa. 2:2 4; Micah 4:1 3; Jer. 52 and 2Kings 25; and much of e material in Chronicles appears to be taken from Samuel or Kings). These passages often agree almost word-for-word, and tense for tense (compare my exegesis of 1Sam. 31 wi 1Chron. 10 every difference between ese accounts is fundamentally tied to e difference between e history 5 of Samuel as versus e history of Chronicles). Greek rd nd 5. Sometime in e 3 to 2 centuries B.C., e Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek; is was done because (1) Jews spoke and understood Greek more an ey did traditional Hebrew; and (2) e Bible is e Word of God; of course it is going to be translated into oer languages. This translation is called e Septuagint, which is often abbreviated LXX, standing for 70, e number of translators who worked on is translation (we do not know for certain at ere were exactly 70 translators nor do we know e exact time frame of e translation). However, is was taken from Hebrew manuscripts much older an e ones which we have access to today. Therefore, differences between e Greek and Hebrew texts can be significant. As we have found out in many years of study: ere are few important differences. 6. The early church was composed of many who spoke Greek, but did not speak Hebrew; so e Septuagint was used as e Old Testament for e church during e first 3 centuries. 7. The Dead Sea Scrolls were manuscripts from is era (roughly), and what ey do for us, more an anying else, is confirm e accuracy of e MT. 8. When we find discrepancies in e text, determining which text is correct is what textual criticism is all about. 9. Alough e translation of e Old Testament into Greek varies greatly (e Torah is almost a word for word translation; whereas, e book of Samuel is a lot looser); e Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us at ere are several important areas where e text of e Greek is probably more accurate an we have given it credit 5 Samuel and Kings is e his tory of Is rael and en e divided kingdom from e view of man; Chronicles, written much later in time, is God s take on e matter.
Page -4- From I Sam. 1: 6 for, and at it trumps e MT in several passages. This does not mean at e LXX is a better source an e MT; however, ere are several passages where it is likely e better text. 10. There is not just one Septuagint manuscript; just like e MT, ere are several manuscripts (some of ese will be bo Old and New Testaments): nd a. The oldest witnesses to e LXX include 2 century B.C. fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and st 1 century B.C. fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and e Minor Prophets. Relatively complete manuscripts of e LXX include e Codex Vaticanus and e Codex Sinaiticus of e 4 century A.D. and e Codex Alexandrinus of e 5 century. These are e oldest 7 surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of e Old Testament in any language. b. The Codex Vaticanus is one of e oldest extant manuscripts of e Bible. It is slightly older an Codex Sinaiticus (see below), bo of which were probably transcribed in e 4 century. It is written in Greek, on vellum, wi uncial letters. Codex Vaticanus originally contained a complete copy of e Septuagint and e New Testament, but pages 1519-1536 containing Hebrews 9:14 rough Revelation were lost 8 and replaced by a 15 century minuscule supplement. c. Codex Sinaiticus is a complete, 4 century uncial manuscript of e New Testament, which also contains a great deal of e Septuagint. It was coped between 330-350, and is one of e most valuable manuscripts for Textual criticism of e Greek New Testament, as well as e Septuagint. 9 d. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is an early 5 century Greek manuscript of e Bible. It receives its name, as a codex in which e treatises of Ephraem e Syrian, in Greek translations, were written over ("rescriptus") a former text at had been washed off its vellum pages, us forming a palimpsest. The later text was produced in e 12 century. The effacement of e original text was incomplete, fortunately, for benea e text of Ephraem are e remains of what was once a complete Bible, containing bo e Old Testament and e New. It forms one of e codices for textual criticism on 10 which e Higher criticism is based. e. The Codex Alexandrius is a 5 century manuscript of e Greek Bible, containing most of e Septuagint and e New Testament. It is one of e earliest and most complete manuscripts of e 11 Bible. It derives its name from e Alexandria where it is believed to have been made. Aramaic/Syriac 11. Aramaic is really a group of related languages, raer an a single monoliic language. The long history of Aramaic, its extensive literature and its use by different religious communities are all factors in e diversification of e language. Some Aramaic dialects are mutually intelligible, whereas oers are not. Some Aramaic languages are known under different names; for example, Syriac is particularly used to describe e Eastern Aramaic of Christian communities. Most dialects can be described as eier "Eastern"' or "W estern," e dividing line b e ing r o u g h ly e Euphrates, or slightly west of it. It is also helpful to draw a distinction between ose Aramaic languages at are modern living languages (often called Neo-Aramaic), ose at are still in use as literary languages, and ose at are extinct and are only of interest to scholars. Alough ere are some exceptions to is rule, is classification gives "Modern," "Middle" and "Old" periods, alongside "Eastern" and "Western" areas, to distinguish between e various languages and dialects at are Aramaic. 12 6 Geisler gives 6 examples on p. 262, of Norm an Geis ler and William Nix; A General Introduction to e Bible; Chicago; Moody Press, 1968; including a Psalm 151 which had somehow dropped out of e Masoretic text at some point in time. 7 8 Take from 9 10 11 12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/septuagint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/codex_vaticanus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/codex_sinaiticus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/codex_ephraemi_rescriptus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/codex_alexandrinus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/aramaic_language. This page is particularly excellent, by e way.
Ancient Texts of e Old Testament Page -5-12. Hebrew is e main language of e Hebrew Bible. Aramaic only accounts for a very small proportion of e whole. Biblical Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew (perhaps a bit like Spanish and Italian), and ey are 13 written wi e same alphabet. 13. During e eigh century B.C.E., Aramaic became e lingua franca of e Near East. Before at period, it had been e native language of e Aramæan city-states to e east. In 701 B.C.E., King Hezekiah of Judah negotiated wi King Sennacherib of Assyria, as his army besieged Jerusalem. The account in 2 Kings 18:26 sets e meeting of e ambassadors of bo camps just outside e city walls. Hezek iah's envoys pleaded at e Assyrians make terms in Aramaic so at e people listening could not understand. Thus, Aramaic had become e language of international dialogue, but not of e common people. In 586 B.C.E., King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and exiled many of e people of Judah to e east. Aramaic became e language of necessity for e exiles, and after e Persian Empire's capture of Babylon, it became e language of culture and learning. King Darius I declared at Aramaic was to be e official language of e western half of his empire in 500 B.C.E., and it is is Imperial Aramaic language at forms e basis of Biblical Aramaic. 14 15 14. Aramaic in Scripture: a. Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26 - documents from e 4 century B.C.E. concerning e restoration of e temple in Jerusalem. b. Daniel 2:4b-7:28 - five subversive tales and an apocalyptic vision. c. Jeremiah 10:11 - a single sentence in e middle of a Hebrew text denouncing idolatry. d. Genesis 31:47 - translation of a Hebrew place-name. 15. The history of Aramaic can be broken down into ree broad periods: 16 a. Old Aramaic (1100 B.C.E.-200 CE): Old Aramaic covers over irteen centuries of e language. This vast time span is chosen as it includes all Aramaic at is now effectively extinct. The main turning point for Old Aramaic is around 500 B.C.E., when e Ancient Aramaic (e language of Aramæans) moves into Imperial Aramaic (e language of powerful empires). The various spoken dialects of Old Aramaic come to prominence when Greek replaces Aramaic as e language of power in e region. Old Aramaic includes: i. The Biblical Aramaic of e Hebrew Bible. ii. The Aramaic of Jesus. iii. The Aramaic of e Targums. A targum (plural: targumim) is an Aramaic translation of e Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) written or compiled in e Land of Israel or in Babylonia from e Second Temple period until e early Middle Ages (late first millennium). Two important liturgical targums are: (1) Targum Onkelos on e Torah (The Law). Targum Onkelos was read alternately wi e Torah, verse by verse. (2) Targum Jonaan ben Uzziel on e Nevi'im (The Prophets). Targum Jonaan was read alternately wi e selection from Nevi'im (i.e. e Haftarah). b. Middle Aramaic (200-1200), Middle Aramaic includes: i. Literary Syriac. ii. The Aramaic of e Talmuds and Midrashim. c. Modern Aramaic (1200-present), including: i. Various modern vernaculars 16. After e time of Nehemiah, during e fif century B.C., e language of choice for e Jews was Aramaic. The Old Testament was translated into Aramaic around is time period, and en copied into e square Aramaic script around 200 B.C. 17 17. The Peshitta is e traditional Bible of Syriac-speaking Christians (ose who speak a dialect of Eastern Aramaic). Its 'Old Testament' has been shown to be based on rabbinic targumim. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Norman Geisler and William Nix; A General Introduction to e Bible; Chicago; Moody Press, 1968, p. 244.
Page -6- From I Sam. 1: 18 18. History of e Syriac Versions: a. The various Syriac translations of e Bible are rooted in e Jewish translations of e Old Testament into Aramaic (Targums). They were brought by Jewish and Christian preachers into e Syriac heartland (Osrhoene and Adiabene) during e first two centuries of e Christian era. The Aramaic Targums clearly exerted an influence on later translation of bo e Old and New Testaments. b. The earliest New Testament translation into Syriac was Tatian's Diatessaron ('one rough four'). The Diatessaron, written about 165 AD, was a continuous harmony of e four gospels into a single narrative. It, raer an e four separate gospels, became e official Syriac Gospel for a time, and received a beautiful prose commentary by Ephrem e Syrian. However, e Syriac-speaking church was urged to follow e practice of oer churches and use e four separate gospels. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus on e Euphrates in upper Syria in 423, sought out and found more an two hundred copies of e Diatessaron, which he 'collected and put away, and introduced instead of em e Gospels of e four evangelists'. c. T he early Syriac versions of bo Old and New Testament wi e four gospels, excluding e Diatessaron, is called e Old Syriac (Vetus Syra) version. The Old Syriac Old Testament was probably based extensively on e Aramaic Targums, but little evidence survives today. There are two manuscripts of e Old Syriac separate gospels (Syra Sinaiticus and Syra Curetonianus). These are clearly based on e Greek text, and e so-called 'Western' recension of it. The Syriac of ese manuscripts shows some influence of West Aramaic, a related language. It is ought at e separate gospels circulated in a Christian Palestinian dialect of Aramaic during e period at e Diatessaron circulated in e Syriac community. These source gospels, if ey existed at all, were translations from Greek. There is also evidence at translations of e Acts of e Apostles and e Pauline epistles also existed in e Old Syriac version. d. The Peshitta is a reworking of Old Syriac material to form a unified version of e scriptures for e Syriac-speaking churches. The name of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (d. 435) is popularly connected wi e production of e Peshitta. However, it is unclear how involved he was, if at all. By e early fif century, e Peshitta was e standard Bible of e Syriac-speaking churches. Even wi centuries of schism and division, e Peshitta remains a single, uniting tradition. The English translation of is Bible is often called e Lamsa Bible, as George Lamsa was e editor (and translator?) of is Bible. Latin 19. Latin is e language originally spoken in e region around Rome called Latium. It gained great importance as e formal language of e Roman Empire. All Romance languages are descended from Latin, and many words based on Latin are found in oer modern languages such as English. It is said at 80 percent of scholarly English words are derived from Latin (in a large number of cases by way of French). 19 20. The Old Latin version: a. Vetus Latina is a collective name given to e Biblical texts in Latin at were transla t e d before St Jerome's Vulgate bible became e standard Bible for Latin-speaking Western Christians. The phrase Vetus Latina is Latin for Old Latin, and e Vetus Latina is sometimes known as e Old Latin Bible. There is no single "Vetus Latina" Bible; ere are, instead, a collection of Biblical manuscript texts at bear witness to Latin translations of Biblical passages at preceded Jerome's. The various Old Latin translations reflect e various versions of e Septuagint circulating, wi e African manuscripts (such as e Codex Bobiensis) preserving readings of e Western text-type, while readings in e European manuscripts are clos e r to e Byzantine text-type. Many grammatical idiosyncrasies come 20 from e use of Vulgar Latin grammatical forms in e text. 21. The Latin Vulgate: 18 19 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/peshitta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/latin. Take from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vetus_latina. A list of notable fragments can be found on is page.
Ancient Texts of e Old Testament Page -7- a. The Vulgate Bible is an early 5 century translation of e Bible into Latin made by St. Jerome on e orders of Pope Damasus I. It takes its name from e phrase versio vulgata, "e common (i.e., popular) version" (cf. Vulgar Latin), and was written in an everyday Latin used in conscious distinction to e elegant Ciceronian Latin of which Jerome was a master. The Vulgate was designed to be bo more accurate and easier to understand an its predecessors. It was e first, and for many centuries e only, Christian Bible translation at translated e Old Testament directly from e Hebrew original 21 raer an indirectly from e Greek Septuagint. b. Manuscripts: i. The Codex Amiatinus is e most celebrated manuscript of e Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as e best witness to e true text of St. Jerome and as a fine specimen of medieval calligraphy, now kept at Florence in e Biblioeca Laurentiana. The symbol for it is written am or A (Wordswor). It is preserved in an immense tome, measuring in height and bread 19 1/4 inches by 13 3/8 inches, and in ickness 7 inches -- so impressive, as Hort says, as to fill e beholder wi a feeling akin to awe. Some consider it, wi White, as perhaps "e finest book in e world"; still ere are several manuscripts which are as beautifully written and have besides, like e Book of Kells or Lindisfarne Gospels, ose exquisite ornaments of which Amiatinus is devoid. It contains 1029 leaves of strong, smoo vellum, fresh-looking today, despite eir great antiquity, arranged in quires of four sheets, or quaternions. It is written in uncial characters, large, clear, regular, and beautiful, two columns to a page, and 43 or 44 lines to a column. A little space is often left between words, but e writing is in general continuous. The text is divided into sections, which in e Gospels correspond closely to e Ammonian Sections. There are no marks of punctuation, but e skilled reader was guided into e sense by stichometric, or verse-like, arrangement into coda and commata, which correspond roughly to e principal and dependent clauses of a sentence. This manner of writing e scribe is believed to have modeled 22 upon e great Bible of Cassiodorus, but it goes back perhaps even to St. Jerome. This is believed to have been commissioned in 692 A.D. ii. Like every oer ancient version, ere are a number of manuscripts out ere; and e Latin Vulgate has been apparently standardized on several occasions, resulting in Clementine Vulgate, e Nova Vulgate and e Stuttgart Vulgate. It appears at e intention was to standardize e text, since a number of variants had creeped into copies of St. Jerome s Bible. St. Jerome himself actually put out ree versions of e Latin Vulgate himself: e Romana Vulgate, e Gallicana Vulgate (wi some minor improvements, especially in e Old Testament), and e Hispana Vulgate (where Jerome translated e psalms directly from e Hebrew raer an e Greek). Oer Scriptural Versions 22. The Samaritan Pentateuch: a. The Samaritans are ose who lived nor of e Jews, and were probably a mix of Jewish and oer 23 ancestry brought into e norern kingdom by e Assyrians (including Assyrians). b. Alough ere are a handful of Samaritans today (less an a 1000 who reside in e land), ey were a significant group during e time of Jesus incarnation. c. They apparently spoke Aramaic during e time of Christ; and today, ey speak modern Hebrew or Palestinian Arabic. 21 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vulgate. Taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/codex_amiatinus. I left in more details because of e incredible condition of is manuscript. 23 Apparently ere have even been recent DNA studies which show at e Samaritans are not pure Jews from ose norern tribes who remained in e land after e norern dispersion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/samaritan (much of is information comes from is web page).
Page -8- From I Sam. 1: d. They perverted e tru and accepted only e Pentateuch as inspired Scripture (which is at Islam does) and e. To be frank wi you, I do not know e language at e Samaritan Pentateuch is written in. It looks 24 more like Aramaic to me an it does Hebrew. f. There are important differences between e Hebrew and e Samaritan copies of e Pentateuch in e readings of many sentences. In about two ousand instances in which e Samaritan and e Jewish texts differ, e Septuagint (LXX) agrees wi e former. For example, Exodus 12:40 in e Samaritan and e LXX reads, "Now e sojourning of e children of Israel and of eir faers which ey had dwelt in e land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and irty years". In e Masoretic text, however, e same passage reads, "Now e sojourning of e children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and irty years." The New Testament, when quoting from e Old Testament, 25 agrees as a rule wi e Samaritan text, where at differs from e Jewish. 23. The Codex Argenteus is a 6 century manuscript, originally containing bishop Ulfilas's 4 century translation of e Bible into e Goic language (ancient German). 24 An image of some of e text can be found here: 25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/samaritan_pentateuch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:samartian_pentateuch1.jpg.
Ancient Texts of e Old Testament Page -9-26 26 Norman Geisler and William Nix; A General Introduction to e Bible; Chicago; Moody Press, 1968, p. 265. Chart is by John Rea.
Page -10- From I Sam. 1: One of e most important observations which we can make concerning is chart is at e MT, e Latin Vulgate and e Peshitta all come from one family of manuscrip ts, wh ile e Septuagint comes from anoer family. Therefore, we should expect at e first ree will often be in agreement wi one anoer and occasionally at odds wi e Septuagint. Determining e correct text is not a matter of majority rules; at is, we cannot look at an agreement of e first ree ancient texts and determine at is is e correct reading over a variant reading to e LXX because e vote is 3 against 1. Bibliography Norman Geisler and William Nix; A General Introduction to e Bible; Chicago; Moody Press, 1968. I drew heavily from is source and recommend it highly. I first became acquainted wi is book when I took an Introduction to e Bible course. I was quite surprised as to how good e text was (back in ose days, I barely knew a handful of Christian auors and teachers). Josh McDowell, Evidence at Demands a Verdict, Historical Evidences for e Christian Fai, Volume I; Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville). 1972, 1979 by Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc. Josh McDowell, The New Evidence at Demands a Verdict; Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville). 1999 by Josh McDowell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hebrew_language Websites