Browsed by
Category: Old Testament Manuscript Evidence

When, and by Whom, Was the Book of Isaiah Written?

When, and by Whom, Was the Book of Isaiah Written?

“The vision which Isaiah, son of Amos, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah”—Isaiah 1:1 NAB

Until about the last 250 years, the book of Isaiah was generally accepted by Christians as being written entirely by the prophet Isaiah in the latter part of the 8th century BCE. Nowadays, however, many “scholars” think the book was written by various writers over the course of several centuries, citing factors such as differences in subject matter, style, theology, vocabulary, and the viewpoint that predictive prophesy is impossible. The real reason for this is, however, that they don’t think predictive prophecy is possible. While there are a variety of views about the writership of Isaiah, critics often claim that chapters 40-66 were not written by “Isaiah, son of Amos.” However, careful examination of the book reveals that chapters 36-39 are a historical interlude that concludes the first section of the book, chapters 1-35, and introduces the last section, chapters 40-66. This reveals the unity of the entire book.  read more

OLDEST, MOST COMPLETE HEBREW SCRIPTURE MANUSCRIPT WITH PUNCTUATION AND VOWELS

OLDEST, MOST COMPLETE HEBREW SCRIPTURE MANUSCRIPT WITH PUNCTUATION AND VOWELS

“‘All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the =&0=&   Almighty God promised to preserve his word, the Bible, and he has! Jesus Christ told his apostles:   “‘Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures”—Luke 24:44,45 NIV.   What Jesus referred to above was our present day 39 book Old Testament, the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, from Genesis through Malachi, which was divided into “twenty-four books” (2 Esdras 14:44), by the ancient Jews. These were considered to be “the Scriptures”, and “the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). It has been accurately preserved by God for 2,500 years.  The following article gives some evidence of this fact:   “By David Gritten, BBC News, May 18, 2023   =&1=&

The Codex Sassoon is thought to have been written about 1,100 years ago.

It is the earliest surviving example of a single manuscript containing all 24 books of the Hebrew Bible with punctuation, vowels and accents.

US lawyer and former ambassador Alfred Moses bought it for the ANU Museum of the Jewish People in Tel Aviv, Israel.

” The Hebrew Bible is the most influential in history and constitutes the bedrock of Western civilisation,” Mr Moses said in a statement.

“I rejoice in knowing that it belongs to the Jewish people. It was my mission, realising the historic significance of Codex Sassoon, to see it resides in a place with global access to all people.”

The winning bid exceeded the $30.8m paid by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates in 1994 for the Codex Leicester, Leonardo da Vinci’s scientific notebook.

But it fell short of the record for a historical document sold at auction set by hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, who bought a first-edition printed copy of the US constitution for $43.2m two years ago.

The Codex Sassoon is named after a previous owner, David Solomon Sassoon, who acquired it in 1929 and assembled the largest and most important private collection of Hebrew manuscripts in the world at his home in London.

The text of the Hebrew Bible – whose 24 books make up what Christians call the Old Testament – remained in flux until the early Middle Ages, when Jewish scholars known as Masoretes began to create a body of notes that standardised it.

The Aleppo Codex, which was assembled around 930, is considered the most authoritative Masoretic text. However, damage from a fire in the Syrian city of Aleppo in 1947 means that only 295 of the original 487 pages survive today.

The Codex Sassoon, which carbon dating shows was created around 900, is missing only 12 pages, according to Sotheby’s.

“It presents to us the first time an almost-complete book of the Hebrew Bible appears with the vowel points, the cantillation and the notes on the bottom telling scribes how the correct text should be written,” Sharon Mintz, senior Jewish artefact specialist at the auction house, said in March.

Centuries of annotations and inscriptions reveal that the manuscript was sold by a man named Khalaf ben Abraham to Isaac ben Ezekiel al-Attar, who later transferred ownership to his two sons, Ezekiel and Maimon.

In the 13th Century, the codex was dedicated to a synagogue in Makisin, in north-eastern Syria.

After the town was destroyed by either by the Mongols later in the 13th Century or by the Timurids at the start of the 15th Century, the manuscript was entrusted for safekeeping to Salama ibn Abi al-Fakhr. It then disappeared in history for 500 years.

The Codex Sassoon’s most recent owner was Swiss investor Jacqui Safra, who bought it for £2m ($2.5m) at auction in London in 1989.” read more

EVIDENCE of the EXISTENCE of GEMARIAH and JERAHMEEL (JEREMIAH 36) DISCOVERED

EVIDENCE of the EXISTENCE of GEMARIAH and JERAHMEEL (JEREMIAH 36) DISCOVERED

A clay seal impression of “Gemariah son of Shaphan the secretary”, one of “the officials” (Jeremiah 36:10-12 NIV) of King Jehoiakim was discovered in excavations of Jerusalem of 587-586 BCE destruction level. The inscription reads: “Belonging to Gemariah (son of) Shaphan”.

Researchers possess both a clay seal and a seal impression of “Jerahmeel, a son of the king” Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:26 NIV), which were both acquired on the antiquities market. The clay seal and the seal impression both read: “Belonging to Jerahmeel the king’s son”. read more

DO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND GREEK OF GENESIS 5 & 11 REALLY MATTER?

DO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND GREEK OF GENESIS 5 & 11 REALLY MATTER?

“I want you understand what really matters, so that you may live pure and blameless lives until the day of Christ’s return”—Philippians 1:9 NLT

The Bibles that we use today are generally based on a Hebrew Refined Master Text, usually the Biblica Hebraica. A comparison of the genealogies in Genesis 5:1-32 and Genesis 11:10-26 in the Old Testament in our modern Bibles, which are translated from the Hebrew Text, with the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX), reveals that the Greek version has more years between the time of Adam’s creation and Abraham, because: (1) The listed mens ages when their son is born are generally higher, often by 100 years, and (2) Cainan is included in the Greek Septuagint text, but not in the Hebrew text. However, the overall length of their lives remains the same, in the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Below are listed the names of the men in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, where the Hebrew and the Greek texts differ, and the ages at the birth of their son, first in the Hebrew, next in the Greek, and then the differences in these two ages.

Genesis 5:3—Adam, 130 . . . 230 . . . 100

Genesis 5:6—Seth, 105 . . . 205 . . . 100

Genesis 5:9—Enosh, 90 . . . 190 . . . 100

Genesis 5:12—Kenan, 70 . . . 170 . . . 100

Genesis 5:15—Mahalalel, 65 . . . 165 . . . 100

Genesis 5:21—Enoch, 65 . . . 165 . . . 100

Genesis 5:25—Methusaleh, 187 . . . 167 . . .  read more

Charred Manuscript is one of Oldest Known Copies of Torah

Charred Manuscript is one of Oldest Known Copies of Torah

Newspaper Article
Click to enlarge

The Bible has not been changed. Through many hundreds of years of hand-copying worn-out scrolls, the Bible did not change. The En-Gedi scroll, discovered in 1970, and featured in the article above, is just one of many proofs of this fact.

“For, ‘all people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever.’ And this is the word that was preached to you.”—1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV

God preserves His word, just as the scripture above says.

The En-Gedi parchment scroll of some verses of the book of Leviticus was written in Hebrew. It has been radio-carbon dated to the 3rd or 4th century CE, but has been paleographically dated to the the first or second century CE! The amazing thing is that the wording of the text is the same as scrolls of Leviticus that were written 800-1,200 years later!

When Was the Book of Daniel Written?

When Was the Book of Daniel Written?

Revised April 23, 2023

Note: To best read the entire article, click on “PDF Version.”

“In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, as Daniel lay in bed he had a dream, visions in his head. Then he wrote down the dream: the account began: In the vision I saw during the night . . . “—Daniel 7:1,2 NAB

“After this first vision, I, Daniel, had another, in the third year of King Belshazzar . . .”—Daniel 8:1 NAB

“It was the third year that Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the race of the Medes, reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years . .  .”—-Daniel 9:1,2 NAB

“In the third third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel . . . In those days, I, Daniel, mourned three full weeks”—Daniel 10:1,2 NAB. “The third year of Cyrus’ reign was 536 BCE”—NLT  footnote

“Now I shall tell you the truth . . . “—Daniel 11:1 NAB

“You, Daniel, keep secret the message and seal the book until the end . . . “—Daniel 12:4 NAB

These statements above all indicate that the Book of Daniel was written by the ancient Hebrew prophet Daniel. If these statements are not true, then the book is a forgery, a pseudonymous fraud.

“You may be privately wondering, ‘How are we to tell that a prophecy does not come from Yahweh?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh and the thing does not happen and the word is not fulfilled, it has not been spoken by Yahweh. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. You have nothing to fear from him”—Deuteronomy 18:21,22 NJB

This verse above is a Biblical test of whether prophecy is genuine, or not.  To portray something as prophecy, when it was actually written after the fact is fraudulent, and violates the principle expressed above. Yet, this exactly what critics claim the book of Daniel is — a fraud! Until the 1850’s, for example, critics claimed that “Belshazzar” (Daniel 5:1did not even exist, because there was no mention of him outside the Bible, or works dependent upon the Bible, and extant historical sources said that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. But in 1854, some small clay cylinders with cuneiform writing were discovered in ancient Ur, in what is now southern Iraq. These documents from King Nabonidus included a prayer for “Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son,” thus proving to critics that Belshazzar did exist, and was therefore not fictional.

The dating of Daniel is controversial. The Bible indicates that the book was composed in the sixth century BCE, about 535 BCE, concurrent with the his­torical information it provides. But popular, common arguments, even by Biblical “scholars” nowadays, claim that the writer of Daniel was pseudonymous, and therefore a fraud. So they dat­e the book of Daniel as being written in the second century BCE, during the time of the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). Their main arguments are as follows:

  • Jesus ben Sirach (Sirach 44-50), writing the book Ecclesiasticus, or The Wisdom of Ben Sira, in approximately 180 BCE, cited numerous Old Testament heroes—but not Daniel. This means that Daniel was unknown early in the second century BCE, so the Book of Daniel could not have been written prior to that time.
  • The book’s theology, and its position in the Hebrew Scriptures with the Writings rather than the Prophets, and its “historical inaccuracies” of events prior to the the 2nd century BCE, demand a late date of composition. For example, Daniel 1:1,2 says, “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came and laid siege to Jerusalem. The Lord handed over to him Jehoiakim, king of Judah” (NAB). However, Jeremiah 25:1 says it was “the fourth year of Jehoiakim” that was “the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.” (Also see Jeremiah 46:2).
  • The Persian loan words used (including some titles for officials in chapter 3) indicate a late date for the book’s composition.
  • The fiery furnace account in Daniel 3 reads like a legend. The omission of Daniel’s name in Daniel 3:12 is evidence that the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego was a legend that had circulated independently of other narratives in the book. The author of Daniel conflated older tales into one story to inspire faithfulness during the persecutions of Antiochus IV.
  • Belshazzar is called “king” of Babylon and the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 5; the actual king was Nabonidus, who was really his father.
  • Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30-6:28; 9:1) is unknown outside the Bible.
  • The stories of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity and of the fiery fur­nace read like pious legends—far-fetched miracle stories com­mon in intertestamental Jewish texts.
  • To avoid fulfillment of long-range predictive prophecy in Daniel, adherents of the late-date view usually claim the four kingdoms foreseen by Daniel as the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and finally, the Greeks, including the Selucids and the Ptolemies.
  • Long-range predictive prophecy is not possible. For example, the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 11:21-35 are so accurately described that they only masqueraded as prophecy, and had to have been written after the fact. Prominent among these critics is the Greek philosopher Porphyry of the 3rd century CE (about 233-304 CE), who produced a work called Against the Christians, in fifteen volumes, which he elucidated his detailed arguments.
  • The statements, “The law of the Medes and the Persians,” “cannot be altered . . . cannot be repealed” (Daniel 6:8 NIV) isn’t supported by history outside of the Bible.
  • Half of Daniel was written in Aramaic, a language Jews spoke during the intertestamental period. Daniel 3 also in­cludes three Greek loan words—suggesting that the book was writ­ten after Greek culture had invaded the Near East.
  • The Persian loan words in Daniel (including some titles for officials listed in chapter 3) indicate a late date for the book.
  • There are a number of places in Daniel 1-7 where he is referred to in the third person, which is evidence he didn’t write the book himself.
  • There are three additions to Daniel that were definitely written during Maccabean times. These were written 1st century BCE Greek (not in the Hebrew-Aramaic of the canonical part of Daniel), and are called, “The Song of the Three Young Men” (Daniel 3:24-90), “Susanna and the Elders” (Daniel 13), and “The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon” (Daniel 14).
  • But all this above “evidence” is not as strong as it appears on the surface: Ben Sirach also omits mention of other famous Israelites, in­cluding Ezra. Also, Sirach may himself have been influenced by Daniel. In Sirach 36:10 he prayed, “Hasten the day, and remem­ber the appointed time”—verbiage resembling Daniel 11:27 and Daniel 11:35. It may be that Ben Sirach offhandedly cited Daniel, which, of course, implies that the book already existed in his lifetime.

The book of Daniel demonstrates familiarity with the history and culture of the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. Daniel rightly portrays the position of Belshazzar as co-regent with Nabonidus. He could have appropriately been called “king”, just as he is in Daniel 5:1. In Daniel 5:16 Belshazzar offered to make the one who could interpret the writing on the wall “the third highest ruler in the kingdom.” As Belshazzar was himself the second in-charge ruler, this was the highest honor he possibly could confer.

Archaeological discoveries have confirmed the reliability of the book in many instances. Alleged historical inaccuracies have either been found to be nonexistent, or have reasonable explanations, upon close examination. Objective evidence supports the fact that the prophet Daniel himself wrote the book in the 6th century BCE, and definitively excludes the late-date, 2nd century BCE, hypothesis for the Book of Daniel on a number of counts:

Daniel claimed to write the book (Daniel 12:4), and from Daniel 7:2 onward he used the autobiographical first person. The Jewish Talmud agrees with this testimony, and Jesus Christ attributes quotes from from Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11, to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15).
Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Ben Sira is an apocryphal, uninspired book. The same list of Old Testament heroes in the book also omits Ezra and Mordecai (who were great heroes to postexilic Jews), Jehoshaphat, Job, and all the judges except Samuel. Daniel’s omission from a list in a non canonical book, that makes no claim to being exhaustive, doesn’t prove he was a fictitious character, or that the writer Book of Daniel is a pseudonymous fraud.
The Babylonian system of counting the years of a king’s reign did not include his accession year, but the system used in Judah did. Jehoiakim’s accession year was 608 BCE. Thus, Daniel, in Babylon, calculated according to the accession year system, wrote that Jehoiakim’s “third year” (1:1) was the year Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah (605 BCE). But Jeremiah, in Jerusalem, calculated using the non-accession year system, and accurately stated that Jehoiakim’s “fourth year” was Nebuchadnezzar’s “first year” (25:1). It is unlikely that a shrewd forger, as critics claim the writer of Daniel was, would contradict so respected a source as Jeremiah, especially in the very first verse of the book.
Daniel did not complete the book until some time after the Persian conquest of Babylon and even served in the new administration, so the presence of older, pre-Hellenistic, Persian loan words is not surprising. In fact, it is highly significant, because they are strong evidence for a date of composition not long after the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE, since these are Old Persian words that ceased to used by about 300 BCE. Some of the technical terms used in Daniel 3 were already so obsolete by the 2nd century BCE that the translators of the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) mistranslated them.
The three Greek loan words used (Daniel 3:5,7,10,15) do not prove a late date of composition. Greek musicians and musical terms were renowned, so their vocabulary came into use early, and their use here is not surprising. One of those terms (kitharis, “zither”) is documented in Homer (8th century BCE), and even though the others (psalerion, “harp”; symphonia, “double-flute”, “pipe(s)”, “bagpipe”, or “drum”), are not mentioned until after the 6th century BCE, the argument from silence does not mean they were unknown in Babylon in the 6th century BCE. Archaeology has demonstrated extensive Greek trade and influence in the Near East during this period, and Greek mercenaries even served in Nebuchadnezzar’s army. As a matter of fact, the sparse number of Greek terms in the book of Daniel is one of the more convincing arguments that Daniel wasn’t written in the 2nd century BCE, when Greek culture was at its height.
Punishment by burning (Daniel 3:6) is well attested in the ancient Near East. The Code of Hammurabi stipulated burning for various crimes. A letter from ancient Babylon was discovered that specifically mentions burning in a furnace as a punishment. Burning as a form of execution was a practice of Babylonian rulers. According to Jeremiah 29:22 Nebuchadnezzar executed two Jewish false prophets, Zedekiah and Ahab, by “fire.” Burning as a penalty for certain crimes appears twice in the Code of Hammurabi, the system of law set forth by that Babylonian king. Another early Babylonian king, Rim-Sin, is documented as having punished in this way.
The conjecture that the omission of Daniel’s name as being among those who were required to be on the plain of Dura (3:12) to bow down to the giant image proves the account to be a legend simply has no objective support. Daniel’s position as “ruler of the entire province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Daniel 2:48 NAB) likely required his presence at the palace.
The three apocryphal additions to Daniel are referred to as pious legendary embroidery” in The New Bible Dictionary by Douglas. These additions are not historical, but are unreliable fables revolving around the great fame of Daniel. These additions do not disprove the fact that the canonical part of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE.
In modern times evidence has come to light indicating the writer of the book had firsthand knowledge of the times he wrote about. He recorded, “King =&3=& In the past, the evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogant extravagance was not extant, but modern archaeologists have now confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar was the mastermind behind much of the fabulous buildings and features of the ancient city of Babylon. His boastfulness is confirmed by the fact that he had kiln-fired bricks (rather than sun-dried) used for his many projects, with many of the bricks stamped with his name on them.
Since the 1850’s, at least 37 archival texts have been discovered that demonstrate that Belshazzar was a real person. Cuneiform documents have been discovered that showed Belshazzar had household secretaries and a household staff, and that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years at a time, and during these periods, he “entrusted the kingship”  of Babylon to his oldest son (Belshazzar). The fact that Belshazzar could only offer “the third highest position in the kingdom,” “third in governing the kingdom” (Daniel 5:7,16 HCSB; Daniel 5:29 NAB), is strong evidence that Daniel had accurate knowledge of Nabonidus, and his, and Belshazzar’s positions. Nabonidus was first in rank, followed by his son Belshazzar, and whoever could interpret the handwriting on the wall would be “the third.” Evidence indicates that Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, which makes makes Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson. Neither Aramaic nor Hebrew have words for “grandfather” or “grandson.”  “Son of” can mean “grandson,” or even “descendent of.
It is true that “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 5:31-6:28; 9:1) is not mentioned by that name outside the Bible. This is the kind of historical puzzle scholars frequently encounter in ancient texts. While we can’t be dogmatic, or know it with 100% certainty, it is very interesting to note that the Nabonidus Chronicle provides evidence that identifies “Darius the Mede” with a governor named Gubaru. This is certainly plausible, because Daniel 5:31 says that “Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two.” (NASB; NRSV; NJKV; CSB; HCSB). This is a passive ‘receiving of the kingdom.’  Daniel 9:1 says, “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 9:1 NASB). Being “made king” is an indication that he is in a subordinate, rather than top, position. Normally, an author would not speak of a conquerer ‘receiving’ a kingdom. So it can be conjectured that Darius the Mede was not a “king” of the same standing as Cyrus. Also important to note is the fact that Daniel never refers to this Darius as the king over Persia or the Medes, but simply as the ruler of “the Chaldeans”, or Babylonians.
The identifications of the four kingdoms as the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Greeks is problematic because there is no evidence of an independent Median kingdom between the Babylonian and the Persian kingdoms. Daniel viewed the next kingdom after Babylon as being that of “the Medes and the Persians” (Daniel 5:28; 6:8) jointly. Further corroborating this is the vision in chapter 8 of the ram and goat, in which “the two horned ram . . . represents kings of Media and Persia” (Daniel 8:20). The “third kingdom” (Daniel 2:39), which is also the  “third of these strange beasts” (Daniel 7:6 NLT), is obviously Greece. “The he-goat is the king of the Greeks, and the great horn on its forehead is the first king” (Daniel 8:21 (NAB), is obviously Alexander the Great. This “kingdom” of Greece ruled from 336 BCE until 63 CE.
The “fourth kingdom” (Daniel 2:40), which also “the fourth beast” (Daniel 7:7 NLT), that was predicted in the book of Daniel, is obviously the Roman Empire, which did not come to power and take control of Syria/Palestine, until 63 BCE, 100 years after the time of Antiochus IV. This, alone, is enough to prove that the book of Daniel has accurate predictive prophecy.
Daniel wasn’t placed in the Writings section of the Hebrew Bible because the book was written later, or because his credentials were doubtful, as critics claim. In fact, the canon of accepted books of the Hebrew Bible was closed back around 400 BCE, long before the 2nd century BCE when critics claim Daniel was written. At Qumran, the religious center where the Dead Sea Scrolls came from, the book had great prominence. Both the Septuagint and Josephus placed Daniel with the Prophets. Daniel being placed in the Writings rather than the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible was likely due to the fact that Daniel was mainly a statesman in Babylon, not primarily a prophetic preacher, and not located in the nation of Israel like Isaiah and Jeremiah. However, the prophecies in the book of Daniel are unmistakably some of the most striking long-term prophecies of the Old Testament!
Predictive prophecy is not only possible, but expected, from a true prophet of God. Several prophecies in Daniel could not have taken place by the 2nd century BCE anyway, so the prophetic element cannot be dismissed. The symbolism connected to the 4th kingdom makes it unmistakably predictive of the Roman Empire (Daniel 2:33; 7:7,19), which didn’t take control control of Palestine until 63 BCE. Also, the prediction “that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks” (Daniel 9:25 NASB), or 483 years, works out to the time of Jesus’ ministry.
In contrast, intertestamental Jewish works of religious fiction lack historical credibility in a way that has no parallel in historical works. The Apocryphal book of Judith, for example, written during the reign of Antiochus IV, contains absurd historical blunders and is altogether unlike Daniel.
The conjecture that Daniel 3 is a mythical tale because Daniel is not mentioned in the narrative has no objective support. The fact that “the king placed Daniel in a high position and . . . made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men” (Daniel 2:48 NIV) probably required his presence in the palace, rather than on “the plain of Dura” (Daniel 3:1).
The miracles of Daniel are beyond the scope of history or archaeology to prove, or disprove. Miracles do not prove that a work is fictional. Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity was apparently a rare, but authentic, clinical condition called boanthropy. “Made-up” miracle stories often contain fictitious conditions and/or remedies. An example of this is in the Apocryphal book Tobit, 2:9,10, where Tobit goes blind because of sparrow dung dropping into his eyes.
The fact that half of Daniel is written in Aramaic is not explainable with regard to any proposed reconstruction of its history. The Aramaic of Daniel is “official,” or “imperiaI”—the stan­dardized Aramaic used in official correspondence when Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Near East (see 2 Kings 18:26; Ezra 4:7; Daniel 2:4), not the colloquial, regional Aramaic of second-century BCE Palestine, at which time the common language of the region was Greek. Linguistic evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (which furnish authentic samples of Hebrew and Aramaic writing from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE) demonstrates that the both the Hebrew and Aramaic chapters of Daniel must have been composed centuries earlier. Daniel’s Hebrew is remarkably similar to Ezekiel’s, and his Aramaic is very similar to that of Ezra and the Elephantine Papyri, and other secular works of that period, also written in imperial Aramaic, dated to the 5th century BCE. In contrast, Daniel’s Aramaic does not conform to later samples of Aramaic found at Qumran (such as the Genesis Apocryphon).
Daniel’s quote that “the law of the Medes and the Persians,” “cannot be altered . . . cannot be repealed” (Daniel 6:8 NIV) is supported by the fact that Diodorus Siculus (17:30) reported that Darius III (336-330 BCE) executed an innocent man because he could not change what had been decreed by royal authority, and by Esther 1:19, “the laws of Persia and Media, which cannot be repealed” (NAB), and 8:8, “no document written in the king’s name and sealed with his ring can be repealed” (NAB).
The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided new helpful evidence on the time of the writing of Daniel. Cave 1 at Qumran contained several fragments of the book (1QDana-b) in a script suggesting a second-century BCE date. Other Daniel fragments from Cave 4 are in a style suggestive of a late Hasmonean or early Herodian date. There were a total of 8 manuscripts of Daniel discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It would be very unlikely that such an unusual book, written as late as circa the 160’s BCE, would have been so quickly accepted, copied and circulated as authoritative Scripture. “A Maccabean dating for Daniel has now to be abandoned, if only because there could not possibly be a sufficient interval between the =&4=&

The Septuagint Use in the New Testament

The Septuagint Use in the New Testament

Christian readers are often puzzled when they read a quotation from the Old Testament in the New Testament, and then, in looking up the quoted Old Testament text in their Bible, they discover that it is somewhat different from the cited quotation in the New Testament. Often, this difference is based on the fact that the Old Testament was trans­lated from the standard version of the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic text, 6th to 10th centuries C.E.), whereas the New Testament is citing the same passage as it appears in the early Greek translation of the Old Tes­tament, known as the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX).

The Greek Septuagint was used by Hellenistic Jews, and by the early church. Greek was the international language of communication. Most scholars believe that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) was produced by Jewish scholars in the mid-to-late-third century B.C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt. The rest of the Old Testa­ment was completed during the following century or so. Apocryphal writings were added after this. This means the Septuagint was virtually complete about 150-200 years before the time of Christ. Some parts of the Septuagint reflect a more literal approach to translation, while others provide a freer rendition. Some portions are also more skillfully translated than others. Sometimes the Septua­gint translators translated from a Hebrew text that differed slightly from the later, now standard, Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.

The Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) has been preserved in many Greek manuscripts, most them fragmentary, but some of the fairly complete. The most famous of these are the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (almost 100% complete), and the Sinaitic Manuscript (only partial), both of the 4th century, and the Alexandrine Manuscript (mostly complete, except for parts of Genesis, 1 Samuel and Psalms) of the 5th century.

The Septuagint (LXX) is the version of the Old Testament with which early Greek-speaking Christians would have been familiar. It had been used by most Jews in the Roman Empire. Naturally, then, most of the Old Testament quota­tions found in the New Testament reflect its influence. There are about 90 direct quotations in the New Testament from the  LXX, and about 80 paraphrases or allusions to it. In the vast majority of instances the Septuagint agrees with the Masoretic text—if not word-for-word, at least in basic thrust. In a few cases the Septuagint may even reflect the original Hebrew text better than the Masoretic text does. The Masoretic text may, for instance, contain a copyist’s error, so that it does not at a given point accurately reflect the original Hebrew text. Sometimes, in such cases, the Greek reading in the Septuagint allows scholars to reconstruct what was in the original Hebrew manuscript (most modern translations of the Old Testament are based on the Masoretic text, with occa­sional emendations drawn from the Septuagint and other early Versions). This fact gives evidence to support what the scriptures say about God preserving his word:

“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever”—1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV

When a New Testament writer followed the Septuagint, the validity of his argument is generally not dependent upon peculiarities of the Septuagint rendering as over against the Masoretic text. In other words, the New Testament writers did not cite the Septuagint because it said what they wanted it to say, while the Hebrew text did not, nor were they implying that the Septuagint is superior to the Hebrew. Rather, they cited the Septuagint because their readers were familiar with it—as well as, in general, with the Greek language. It was impor­tant to bear in mind that the Septuagint was prepared, not by Christians, but by Jewish scholars before the coming of Christ. Work on the Septuagint started around 280 BCE, and was completed by about 150 BCE. Therefore, when the writers of the New Testament quoted the Septuagint, they could not be accused of using a translation that was prepared with their vested interests in mind.

When Hebrews 11:21 states that “by faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff,” the last clause agrees perfectly with the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 47:31. The Masoretic text, on the other hand, states that Jacob worshiped “on the top of his bed.” The author of Hebrews quoted the version of Scripture known to his readers to make the point that Jacob was a man of faith, and that, even as he lay dying, his faith led him to bless his sons (trust­ing that God would fulfill the blessing). Whether Jacob was lean­ing on his staff or lying on his bed is not essential to the ar­gument in Hebrews. Citing the text in the form known to the author’s contemporary readership would not have diminished its validity, but rather would have made it easier for the audience to recognize a Scriptural citation.

One notable example of where the Septuagint has words that the traditionally used Masoretic Text Hebrew manuscripts does not is Deuteronomy 32:43Let’s notice the difference. First let’s look at how the Masoretic Text is translated:

“Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people”—Deuteronomy 32:43 NIV 

Now notice the additional words as we look at the Septuagint (LXX):

“Be glad, O skies, with him, and let all the divine sons do obeisance to him. Be glad, O nations, with his people, and let all the angels of God prevail for him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons and take revenge and repay the enemies with a sentence, and he will repay those who hate, and the Lord shall cleanse the land of his people”—Deuteronomy 32:43 NETS read more

What is Textual Criticism? Has the Bible Been Changed?

What is Textual Criticism? Has the Bible Been Changed?

“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like that of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever”—1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV

Any book copied by hand is likely to contain errors. Not surprisingly, there are copyists’ errors (called textual or scribal errors) in ancient Biblical manuscripts. The original copies of the books were lost long ago. Thus our sources for the Biblical ma­terials are limited to handwritten copies (of copies) of the originals. We do also have access to copies of ancient translations of the Bible into other languages, as well as citations of the Bible by early rab­bis and church fathers. Thus He­brew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible, together with early translations and citations of Scrip­ture, witness to the correct reading of a particular text.

How did scribal errors arise? Poor memory, impaired judgment, mishearing and errors of sight or misunderstanding often caused the best-intentioned scribes to omit, substitute or repeat letters or entire words. Sometimes scribes made matters worse when they deliberately altered the text in an attempt to rectify something they perceived as a problem (deliberate alterations are probably very rare, however). In time, the result was a series of accidental corruptions or intended improvements that de­parted from the original text.

Textual criticism is the at­tempt to restore the Biblical au­thors’ original words by comparing and contrasting the various copies and translations of the Bible. Here “criticism” does not mean “finding fault with” but “evaluating” the existing copies of the text. Signifi­cantly, while textual errors do exist among the ancient Biblical witnesses, they do not destroy the Bible’s credibility or message. Just as an alert reader can understand a book or newspaper article that has typographical errors in it, so too God’s Word is able to speak for itself in spite of the minor corruptions that have arisen through scribal transmission. The vast majority of the Biblical text is certain, and where varia­tions do occur among existing copies, the original wording can usu­ally be determined with a good degree of certainty by a thorough acquaintance with the available manuscripts. Most modern trans­lations use footnotes to let readers know where the text is difficult or where scribal errors may exist.

An example of a textual prob­lem is found in the last sentence of Isaiah 51:19. The New American Standard Bible translates the ques­tion “How shall I comfort you?” while the NIV words it “Who can console you?” (emphasis added for both translations). These different renderings reflect a difference of opinion over which manuscripts preserve the best reading. The NIV follows a reading that is found in a Hebrew manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This transla­tion is also supported by the Greek (Septuagint), Latin (Vulgate) and Syriac (Peshitta) translations of the Old Testament. On the other hand, the standard edition of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Masoretic Text) reads “How can I com­fort you?”and was followed by the NASB translators.

The above example also makes the point that most scribal ques­tions involve minor points in the text. We have good reason to be confident that the translations now available faithfully, albeit never perfectly, reflect what the prophets and other Biblical authors originally wrote. The presence of scribal errors is not a reason to consider the Bible untrustworthy, because refined Hebrew-Aramaic, and Koine’ Greek Master Texts use a compilation and collation thousands of ancient manuscripts to derive a Biblical text that faithfully represents the originals. God said he would preserve his word, and he has!

Main Source: New International Version Archaeological Study Bible

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com