The Original Biblical Writings

It is true that we may not currently have the original writings of the Prophets and Apostles BUT when researching the accounts from the early church teachers we can say that there exists a real possibility that we actual may have, if not the originals, first or second generation copies of the originals.  That’s a big deal.  But how can we know that this possibility exists?

Clement of Rome, writing between 70 AD to 90AD:

let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation…Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter…Paul also.(Chapter V)

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us fromthe Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost”

“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos” (Chapter XLVII)

According to Clement of Rome, the church of Corinth still had Paul’s letters.  Here we can establish that up to 90AD Paul’s original letters still existed.  Clement, in his letter, also quotes from the synoptic gospels and a majority of Paul’s letters.  There is no reason not to conclude that the originals did not exist at this point.

Ignatius lived from 35AD to around 108AD.  In his writing, he gives a factual gospel presentation which agrees with the known writings of the Apostles (IGNATIUS, the gospel, Chapter IX.)

Irenaeus lived from 130AD to around 202AD.  In his well preserved writings he records some key information about the writings of the Apostles.

“who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times…by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops…that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere…The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles…From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood…the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth… Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom…There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord…Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. (Chapter III)

“Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth” (IRENÆUS, Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter V.)

The Trinity and The Gospel: “…has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensationsof God” (Chapter X)

“the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; —it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle…Matthew again says, and Luke likewise…John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel…Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles, referring…Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative…Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says…(Chapter X, Chapter XI)

“…he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Luke, the beloved physician, greets you.” But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him “the beloved,” and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words”(Chapter XIV)

“For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.” (The Apostles quoting from the XXL) (Chapter XXI)

“About Marcion: he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it” (Chapter XXVII)

Present miracles and witnesses: “He is the only Son of God. Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years.” (Chapter XXXII)

Now, that the preaching of the apostles, the authoritative teaching of the Lord, the announcements of the prophets, the dictated utterances of the apostles (Chapter XXXV)

There is a number of important statements by Irenaeus here.  Not only does he establish a continuance of the Apostles teachings down to him but also a continuance of witnesses.  He points out that writings from the Apostles did exist which Marcion copies and mutilates.  And that the Apostles writings have been passed down and entrusted to them.  Again, no indication that their original writings were lost at this point in history.   

Tertullian, 160AD to 220AD

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over [to] the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally”  (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Chapter 36; Schaff’s translation.)

Tertullian goes on to discuss each of these ‘authentic writings’ as being found in the very churches to which they were written. He mentions Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome.  Around the same time as Irenaeus, he specifically states that their actual original writings still existed.

The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament.  It was written around 170AD or a little later.  Peter 1 and 2 and James are not mentioned in the fragment.  

Origen, 184AD to 253AD

Eusebius (324AD) quotes Qrigen in his record of known Apostolic writings which closely resembles the collection of writings we have today.

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, d 311 AD. In fragment 1, he speaks of the original of the Gospel of John as still existing in his day:

“the copy itself that was written by the hand of the evangelist, which, by the divine grace, has been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the faithful.”

Here we are, about 300AD and in the 4th century with the original writings from the Apostles still in existence.  At the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325AD it is probable they had degraded originals or even first generation copies of the actual originals.  Finally in 367AD Athanasius is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today.

All this does not take into consideration the actual manuscripts and fragments we have currently.

The earliest manuscripts of John range from 90AD to 250AD.  Now think about that.  Above we have shown the probability of an original, hand written by John himself, possibly existing up to 311AD.  That means there is a chance that any one of the earliest manuscripts we have of John now, could very well be an original.  If not an original, it could be the actual first generation copy.  

Craig Evans of Acadia University researched how long manuscripts would have lasted in the ancient world, and whether that might provide some guidance of how long the original might have lasted–and therefore how long they would have been copied.  Evans brings together evidence to suggest that literary manuscripts in the ancient world would last hundreds of years, on average. Appealing to the recent study of G.W. Houston, he argues that manuscripts could last anywhere from 75 to 500 years, with the average being about 150 years.

This also supports the probability of having in our possession an actual original or first generation copy.  Of course there is no way to know for sure but one thing is sure; we can NOT say for sure that we don’t have an original or the earliest copy.  The possibility exists that we do.  This also makes it very hard to say that we have a corrupted version of the original now.  Since the originals and quotes from the originals lasted so long in the early church history we can with certainty through textual criticism know what the originals actual taught.  Given the vast amount of early manuscripts and early quotes from church fathers, we CAN reliably say that we DO know what the Apostles actually taught from Jesus.

Now lets be clear, no scholar believes we have the actual originals.  That would be impossible to validate.  Nor is this article making the case that we DO, because, again, we would have to foolproof verifiable way of knowing for sure.  What this article IS pointing out is the POSSIBILITY and how ever slight probability of 2 things:  (1)  The original hand written documents of the Apostles themselves COULD have survived up to the 4th century and (2) The current fragments and manuscripts we have discovered COULD be them or 1st or 2nd generation copies of the originals.   This also shows that a statement that the originals were lost early on in its history and the copies were corrupted early is equally unverifiable given the evidences above.  Yes there are variants between the earliest manuscripts but that does not disprove that one of the earliest manuscripts is not an original, 1st or 2nd generation copy still.  Why make this point?

Bias secular scholars are quick to point out that they believe we don’t know exactly what the originals stated, yet, their claim is equally unverifiable.  They avoid the possibility, how ever slight, that we do know and can know what the originals actual stated.

If the Disciples of the Apostles and their Disciples after them did retain original copies, read, and quoted from them, then we can know what the originals stated from their quotes alone; such as the case with Clement of Rome who wrote and quoted from documents he read only 30 years after the Apostles lived and within the same time that John wrote is gospel.  Being so close to the Apostles themselves, why would he not have Paul and Peter’s writings?  Even Ignatius or Papias for that matter.  Irenaeus read documents and wrote around the same time, if not a little after, John wrote his gospel too.  Tertullian, only 70 or so years after John penned his gospel even states he knew that the originals still existed.  How would he know this?  The probability exists that he himself read them.  In fact, just from the early church fathers quotes alone, we can construct the entire New Testament except for just 11 verses.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity and God’s Crime Scene.  He states the following:  “Sir David Dalrymple (1726 – 1792AD) a Scottish judge and historian who wrote three volumes on early Christian Church history called, “Remains of Christian Antiquity”. Dalrymple was an expert in the writings of the early Church. It’s alleged that after careful examination of the writings of the Fathers he wrote, “…as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.”…Early Church Fathers sat at the feet of the apostles and learned from the apostolic eyewitness accounts. These secondary leaders then wrote letters and documents of their own, repeating the claims of their teachers. I focused on the work of Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement and isolated the content of their non-canonical writings to the early Church…It turns out that the Early Church Fathers did, in fact, quote the scripture as it was handed down to them. But even if we can’t reconstruct the entire New Testament (save 11 verses) as Dalrymple is often quoted to have said, the Early Church Fathers did confirm enough of the New Testament claims to validate and authenticate the writings of the apostles. From the non-canonical works of Ignatius and Polycarp (students of John) and the non-canonical work of Clement (a student of Paul) we can determine the following:
Jesus was Predicted by the Old Testament as Described in the New Testament
Jesus is Divine as Described in the New Testament
Jesus Taught His Disciples as Described in the New Testament
Jesus Worked Miracles as Described in the New Testament
Jesus was Born of a Virgin as Described in the New Testament
Jesus Lived, Ministered, Was Crucified and Died as Described in the New Testament
Jesus Rose from the Dead and Demonstrated His Deity as Described in the New TestamentEven if we can’t reconstruct the entire New Testament (save 11 verses) as claimed in the citation of Dalrymple’s work, we really don’t need to. The early disciples of the apostles confirm the content of the apostolic teaching. If skeptics are looking for an early version of Jesus that is less divine, less miraculous and less supernatural, they aren’t going to find it in the writings of the first generation that followed the apostles. Instead, they’re going to find the very same Jesus that you and I know from the writings of the New Testament.”  (http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/can-we-construct-the-entire-new-testament-from-the-writings-of-the-church-fathers/).  This is from the early church fathers alone.  Not including the earliest manuscripts we have today.  The possibility that they quoted from the original documents exists and is actually plausible. 

UPDATE* To be clear, the quote from Sir David Dalrymple was a verbal statement to a Dr. Walter Buchanan, which was then told to Rev. John Campbell years down the road which was later published in his memoir by Robert Philip.  The specific 11 verses said to have not been found by Sir David Dalrymple were not identified either.

Commonalities of Cults

There are many subgroups of the Christian faith.  These subgroups tailor their teachings and focuses in different ways.  That is exactly how the Body of Christ functions BUT there are some groups that claim to be ‘Christian’ when in fact, they are not.  Some deny being ‘Christian’ but claim to have similar beliefs and ‘more correct’ views than that of orthodox Christianity; but how can you identify a cult?

The Teachings

Cults proclaim a NEW teaching or a more correct teaching revealed by a NEW prophet or writing.  Regardless of the source for their teaching, it is new a part from Christian orthodox.  They may even teaching an old teaching that was NEW in prior history but which is still outside of orthodox Christianity.  New writings are generated by the new prophet or group and followers are obligated to rely on the new writing along with or instead of The Bible.  Essentially, Cults teach that The Bible is not enough, cherry picked sections are only ones correct, or over all incomplete.

• Doubt or discredit the primary source (The Bible) as sole authority
• Generate secondary source(s) of authority to make new/morphed teachings authoritative
• Only approved teachings come from secondary sources.

 

The Rituals

Cults push followers to focus on their works by adhering to certain rituals or even abstaining from certain Christian orthodox acts such as communion and baptism.  Some even morph these acts and teachings of the acts to fit their new or more correct revelations.  Some rituals include financial indebtedness and status gains.  Essentially, they become controlling, isolating, and works based.

• Self centered rituals- “do this yourself to be good in yourself”
• Materialistic or worldly focus rituals- “give something tangible to get something tangible in return” 
• Pseudo love-  A false sense of loving others that which actually gratifies and justifies the self.
• End goal is deity of the self- “work hard and become a greater self or best self”

Verifiable

Their revelations and teachings tend to be non-verifiable and use circular reasoning to justify them.  A prophet is a prophet because it was revealed to him that he was.  Or the writings are divine because they were written by someone who said his writings are divine.  Some claim that they were given revelations in visions or by angels, and that’s that.  Essentially, the founder and their writings are unverifiable and have to be believed simply based on claim alone.

• Unable to verify or not supported with known history or testable natural phenomena
• Circular justification – “It is true because it is said to be true” 

Morality

Cults typically strive to be ‘good’ and do good.  They attempt to satisfy psychological, emotional, and intellectual issues of their followers.  They make their followers feel accepted and feel as though they have a purpose.  Some even provide financial security and promises of material and spiritual rewards.  But, this begins to fall apart once someone starts to question the groups teachings and wants to leave the group for what ever reason.  Those who question and desire to leave are guilt tripped, become more isolated, and more controlled by the group and its leadership.  The threat of destruction from God or their version of holy judgement is often deployed.  Those who do leave are shunned, and persecuted.  Those who remain in the group are caused to be depend greatly on the group.

• Emotional or materialistic moral justifications – “I feel or have therefore it is or should be” 
• Right and Wrong is defined through the secondary source of authority; which teaches how adherents should think and feel.
• Selective encouragement/ social conditioning- “You did good because you did what the organization/religion approves of; you did bad because you did what the organization/religion does not approve of”
• Decent or questioning the organized religion is a moral absolute evil.

Limit Learning

Cults often limit the source of their followers studies.  The groups that use the bible as part of their system discourage studying the bible alone and require the use of their writings.  This indoctrination allows for the cult to interpret how they want the bible to be interpreted to match their new teachings while at the same time allow the follower to feel as though they are learning what the bible says; even when they are not.  This is another form of manipulation and control.

• Instructed how to think only through secondary sources of authority as primary means to understand.
• Studying sources outside of the secondary authoritative source is discouraged by the organization or religious leaders and approved teachers.  Some may even actively restrict access to outside sources.
• Self teaching and self study is discouraged without the use of approved teachers or materials.
• Isolation is imposed to limit reaching outside sources of information.

If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

Manuscripts of The Bible and Textual Criticism

The Bible is a collection of ancient manuscripts of the original texts passed down through history.  Scholars gather, compile, translate, research and compare all discovered manuscripts and support texts to determine the original biblical texts.  This article will discuss an overview of biblical manuscripts and textual criticism; we will explain a brief overview of what Textual Criticism is, creation of source documents to recreate a document that closest resembles the original, what actual biblical manuscripts we currently have to study, and what source documents current bible translations depend on.

MANUSCRIPT AVAILABILITY = INCREASED RELIABILITY

First, we need to understand the vastness of Biblical Manuscripts compared of other non biblical ancient documents.  The Greek Philosopher Plato, for example, lived around 427 BC and lived to be about 80 years old.  THE oldest surviving manuscript is dated to around 895 AD.  That is over a 1,200 year gap from author to current manuscript.  It is volume one of two, the second of which has not been discovered.  Let us also consider the manuscripts of Julius Caesar.  The oldest account of what Caesar said and did comes from Roman Historians in the 2nd century, 100 years after Caesar, BUT the oldest copy of their manuscripts are 900 years or later from the authors, AND only 12 total manuscripts exist.  In school, did you ever question the historical reliability of Plato and Julius Caesar? 

Now, lets consider Biblical Manuscripts and their dating.  John Rylands Fragment, which contains
John 18:31-33, 37-38, is originally dated to 96 AD.  This is only 60 years after Jesus walked the earth.  The probability that this could be a copy of The Apostle John’s original is plausible.  The fragment itself is dated to around 120AD.  Only 30 years after John and 90 years after Jesus is the actual copy we have today.  The Bodmer Papyrus is originally dated around the 70s AD, 40 years after Jesus and while some of the Apostles were still alive.  The papyrus itself is dated to the end of the 2nd century, putting that exact manuscript that we have in our hands within only 130 years from Jesus and the Apostles.

Now, comparing these examples from secular manuscripts with biblical manuscripts we see something very important:

• Plato:  1,200 years after the author
• Caesar: 900 years after the author
• The Gospel of John: 60-90 years after Jesus, and 0-30 years after John. 

Let us also look at the number of manuscripts we have discovered.  

• Plato (all of his known writings): 250 manuscripts, some in question.
• Caesar (all of his known writings): 12 manuscripts, some extremely late and questionable.
• The Bible: 5,800 manuscripts before the printing press.  Some are late and questionable. 

Understandably, Caesar did not write volumes like Plato or biblical authors.  But, when comparing volume verses volume of Plato and The Bible we see a HUGE difference.  There are 5,550 MORE manuscripts of the Bible than there are of Plato and his discovered manuscripts. The importance of this we will get to later.

Thus, we can see that Biblical Textual Criticism can be more reliable than that of secular ancient texts.  Because of the closeness to authorship and the vast amount of manuscripts; we have a more accurate deduction of the original texts can be made.

BRIEF UNDERSTANDING OF GENERAL TEXTUAL CRITICISM

SYSTEMATIC TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

When investigating the New Testament manuscripts it is important that each manuscript is organized in its relation to date of creation and its relation to other manuscripts.  a systematic approach introduced in 1981 by Kurt and Barbara Aland organized biblical manuscripts by ‘text type’.  A Text-type is organizing manuscripts based on their similarities and putting them into a family of text.  Word usage, key words and phrases, location, and outside witnesses can identify what family the text belongs to.  When evaluating a family or Text-type, textual critics and then better determine the source of that family.

CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE

External evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses help in determining its family type. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred, since these are less likely to reflect accidents or individual biases.  Internal evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document.  Shorter readings are general observations that the scribes/copyists tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them.  Harder readings recognizes the tendency for harmonization or resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this leads to taking the more unharmonized reading as being more likely to be the original.  The critic may also examine the other writings of the author to decide what words and grammatical constructions match his style. The evaluation of internal evidence also provides the critic with information that helps him evaluate the reliability of individual manuscripts.

Sentence structure, punctuation, word spelling, word usage, and specific details help date when the original or manuscript was written.  Older greek manuscripts were written in upper case letters.  Later greek manuscripts were written in lower case letters. Also handwriting practices changed; in Greek texts after the year 900 AD, scribes began to increase the use of ligatures in which they began to connect two or more characters much like cursive.  Some will detail historic events in present or past tenses which points to a specific time period of authorship. Others will leave out extremely important historic events that would relate to the authors subject; which points to the authorship before the event occurred.  Considering all these factors in the manuscript, scholars can be confident in a date range of the writing and its original source.

Finding errors can also help in determining the original of a family of texts. The principle that “community of error implies community of origin.” If two witnesses have a number of errors in common, it may be presumed that they were derived from a common intermediate source, called a hyparchetype.  

COMPILING A SOURCE DOCUMENT

Variations in the texts exist and what one omits, the others may retain; what one adds, the others are unlikely to add. Eclecticism allows inferences to be drawn regarding the original text, based on the evidence of contrasts between witnesses.  The result of this Eclecticism process is a text with readings drawn from many witnesses. It is not a copy of any particular manuscript, and may even deviate from the majority of existing manuscripts. In a purely eclectic approach, no single witness is theoretically favored. Instead, the critic forms opinions about individual witnesses, relying on both external and internal evidence.

The critic can then proceed to the selection step, where the text of the archetype is determined by examining variants from the closest hyparchetypes to the archetype and selecting the best ones. If one reading occurs more often than another at the same level of the tree, then the dominant reading is selected.  After evaluating all related family text types and their variants and supporting evidences, the critic then can compile the hyparchetype into a source document, or a archtype that matches the original.

(image from CARM.org)

 

 BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS

THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Dead Sea Scrolls:  These ancient scripts of the OT were written around 150 BC to 70 AD.  It contains an impressive complete Isaiah scroll and a large number of Psalms manuscripts.  In all, they contained manuscripts of 29 OT books of the current bible.

The Septuagint is a Greek version of an early OT bible.  This specific translation quoted a number of times in the New Testament, particularly in Pauline epistles, and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.  We know this from the wording of the quotes.  The title in greek μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, means “The Translation of the Seventy” and its symbol is LXX which refers to the seventy Jewish scholars who solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BC. Translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only.  Pre-Christian Jews such as Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time.  The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures, or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus’ Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.

Later in its history, the Septuagint was widely used by the new Christian sect and thus, the Jewish authority began to denounce its use.  They then re-translated the OT in a Hebrew, of which, most new Jewish-Christian converts were not able to read.   Irenaeus stated that, concerning Isaiah 7:14, the Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin (Greek παρθένος, bethulah in Hebrew) that shall conceive, while the word almah in the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both devout in the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus’ point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint. This shows the later change of the Hebrew writings contradicting the older, pre-Christian, OT Greek translation.

The LXX is comprised of: 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets. Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century AD and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

The oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century. The 4th century Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, still containing many texts of the LXX Old Testament.

The Peshitta was translated into Syriac from Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek.  Earliest manuscript, designated as “5b1”, which is dated to the second half of 5th century. The manuscript includes only Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and the text is more similar to the Masoretic Text.   The Codex Ambrosianus designated as “7a1”, dates from the 6th or the 7th century, and includes all the books of the Hebrew Bible.  Syr. 341 designated as “8a1”, dating from the 8th century or prior with many corrections, it includes all the books of the Hebrew Bible. 

The Vulgate is a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible.  The translation was largely the work of St Jerome, who, in 382, had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina (“Old Latin”) Gospels then in use by the Roman Church. Jerome, on his own initiative, extended this work of revision and translation to include most of the Books of the Bible.  Dating from the 8th century, the Codex Amiatinus is the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Vulgate Bible. The Codex Fuldensis, dating from around 545, contains most of the New Testament in the Vulgate version.  The Codex Cavensis is a 9th-century Latin Bible.

The Masoretic Text designated as MT, 𝕸, or M {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {M}}} is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism.  But many OT manuscripts older than the Masoretic text and often contradict it.  The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the 9th century AD. The Aleppo Codex dates from the 10th century.  The Nash Papyrus (2nd century BC) may contain a portion of a pre-Masoretic Text. It runs into discrepancies when compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, both of which predate The Masoretic text.

Not nearly as many manuscripts exist as of the New Testament but quite a lot is know of what the original text meaning is.  Though there are variants in the different manuscripts, almost all of the textual variants are fairly insignificant and hardly affect any doctrine. Professor Douglas Stuart states: “It is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading to those now serving as the basis for current English translations.”

NEW TESTAMENT 

The New Testament manuscripts are categorized in 5 ‘families’. Category I – Alexandrian, Category II – Egyptian, Category III – Eclectic, Category IV – Western, and Category V – Byzantine.  

Alexandrian Text-type:  The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that represents the earliest surviving manuscripts.  The oldest, near complete manuscript is The Codex Vaticanus and is dated around 300 AD.  the Codex Vaticanus originally contained a virtually complete copy of the Septuagint.  The Codex Sinaiticus is also of the Alexandrian family and is dated around 330 to 360AD. It originally contained a virtually complete copy of the Septuagint Which are different from the far later Textus Receptus generated by Erasmus.  The Codex Alexandrinus dated around 400AD.  

A number of substantial papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament survive.  The earliest translation of the New Testament into an Egyptian Coptic version — the Sahidic of the late 2nd century — uses the Alexandrian text as a Greek base.  The Chester Beatty II and Bodmer II are dated to the 2nd Century.  Bodmer VII, VIII, XIV and XV are dated to the 3th century.

Considering these earliest manuscripts and the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus, not to mention late 1st through 5th century quotes from early church teachers; the new testament message can be compiled from manuscripts no later than the 5th century.

The Western text-type is the predominant form of the New Testament text witnessed in the Old Latin and Peshitta translations from the Greek, and also in quotations from certain 2nd and 3rd-century Christian writers, including Cyprian, Tertullian and Irenaeus.  This text type often presents longer variants of text, but in a few places.  Papyrus 37, 48, Papyrus Michigan, Oxyrhynchus XXIV are dated to the 3rd century.  0171, Codex Bezae, and some portion of Codex Sinaiticus are Western type dated to the 4th century.  Codex Washingtonianus is dated to the 5th century and Codex Claromontanus is dated to the 6th century.

Compared to the Byzantine text-type distinctive Western readings in the Gospels are more likely to be abrupt in their Greek expression. Compared to the Alexandrian text-type distinctive Western readings in the Gospels are more likely display glosses, additional details, and instances where the original passages appear to be replaced with longer paraphrases.  Although the Western text-type survives in relatively few witnesses, some of these are as early as the earliest witnesses to the Alexandrian text type. Nevertheless, the majority of text critics consider the Western text in the Gospels to be characterized by periphrasis and expansion; and accordingly tend to prefer the Alexandrian readings.

The Byzantine text-type is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, though not in the oldest.  While considerably varying, it is the basis for the Textus Receptus Greek text.  The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 — 407).  The second earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text in the Gospels is the Syriac Peshitta.  Although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses.  The Ethiopic version of the Gospels; best represented by the surviving fifth and sixth century manuscripts of the Garima Gospels and classified by Rochus Zuurmond as “early Byzantine”.  Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is majority Byzantine, Codex Guelferbytanus B, and Uncial 061 are dated around the 5th century.   Codex Basilensis is dated in the 8th century.  Codex Boreelianus, Codex Seidelianus I and II, Codex Angelicus, Codex Mosquensis II, Codex Macedoniensis, Codex Koridethi, Minuscule 1424, and Codex Vaticanus 354 are dated to the 9th century.  Minuscule 1241 is dated o the 12th century.

The Byzantine readings tend to show a greater tendency toward smooth and well-formed Greek, they display fewer instances of textual variation between parallel Synoptic Gospel passages, and they are less likely to present “difficult” issues of exegesis. For example, Mark 1:2 reads “As it is written in the prophets…” in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet…” in all other early textual witnesses.  In that instance, what is being quoted is from Isaiah but also from Malachi.  Thus; the Byzantine witness tends to change the wording for a fuller understanding.

The explanation of the wide spread later use of the Byzantine text-type can be explained when Constantine I paid for the wide distribution of manuscripts which came from the group of church teachers who came together to generate a source document of older manuscripts. There are several references by Eusebius of Caesarea to Constantine paying for manuscript production. 

An example of the actual texts and translations of John 18:32:

John Rylands Papyrus 457, P52 – 125AD

“so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke signifying what kind of death he was going to die.” 

ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟΘΝΗΣΚΕΙΝ

(The words underlined and in bold are what are stated in this fragment)

Codex Sinaiticus – 330 to 360AD

“that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke signifying by what kind of death he was about to die.”  

να ι ουδενα ϊνα ο λογοϲ του ιυ πληρωθη ┬  ϲημαινω ποιω θανατω ημελλεν αποθνη

(http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=18&lid=en&side=r&verse=32&zoomSlider=0)

Textus Receptus – 1500AD – 1600AD

“That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.”

  ἵνα ὁ λόγος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πληρωθῇ ὃν εἶπεν σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν

(http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh18.pdf) (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/18/32/t_conc_1015032)

Spanning over 1,475 years, and yet, they literally say the same thing.  The Byzantine Text-type (Textus Receptus) also continues the same message, 1,475 years later.  This is not even considering the thousands of other manuscripts and comparing all of them. The Diagram below simplistically illiterates this:

(The image above is a basic and simplified example of how to determine an archetype of the original  document based on witness sources)

COMBINED SOURCE DOCUMENTS 

Combining the Greek family of manuscripts into a single document is what came next.  In 1516 the Novum Instrumentum omne was published.  Compiled by Erasmus and using Byzantine Text-type as its primary source it was a foundational document for early church translations which later generated the King James bible.

The Institute for New Testament Textual Research reconstructed its Greek initial text on the basis of the entire manuscript tradition, the early translations and patristic citations; furthermore the preparation of an Editio Critica Maior based on the entire tradition of the New Testament in Greek manuscripts, early versions and New Testament quotations in ancient Christian literature.  This source document from the INTF is called the Novum Testamentum Graece and refers to the Nestle-Aland editions of the translated source document and is currently in its 28th edition, abbreviated NA28 of which the United Bible Societies (UBS) also uses.  The critical text is an eclectic text compiled by a committee that examines a large number of manuscripts in order to determine which reading is most likely to be closest to the original. 

A new massive Textual Criticism project is underway by the INTF.  Editio Critica Maior (ECM) is a critical edition of the Greek New Testament being produced.  They acquired over 90% of the known biblical material on microfilm or photo.  The project Editio Critica Maior is supported by the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities. It is to be completed by the year 2030.  The International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP) began in 1926 as a cooperative enterprise between British and German scholars to establish a new critical edition of the New Testament.  The project was resurrected in 1949 as a cooperative endeavour between British and North American scholars.  British and North American cooperation resulted in the publication of a critical apparatus for the Gospel of Luke in the 1980s.  Current research focuses on the Gospel of John, and the surviving majuscule manuscripts have been published in print and electronic form. The present committee comprises scholars from Europe and North America.

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, abbreviated as BHS, is an edition of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as preserved in the Leningrad Codex, and supplemented by masoretic and text-critical notes.

The Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) (in progress) is an extensive revision and correction of Brenton’s translation which was primarily based on Codex Vaticanus. Its language and syntax have been modernized and simplified. It also includes extensive introductory material and footnotes featuring significant inter-LXX and LXX/MT variants.

(The images above do not show each and every biblical witness but gives a simple and basic overview of how the documents were transmitted)

TEXTUAL BASIS FOR BIBLE VERSIONS

1. Dead Sea Scrolls – OT, 200BC – 70AD
2. The Septuagint – OT & NT, 200BC – 400AD
3. The Peshitta – OT, 100AD – 600AD
4. The Vulgate – OT & NT, 400AD – 800AD
5. The Masoretic Text – OT,  800AD – 1000AD
6. Alexandrian Text-Type – NT, 100AD – 400AD
7. Western Text-Type – NT, 100AD – 400AD
8. Byzantine Text-Type – NT, 400AD – 1100AD
9. Textus Receptus – NT, 1500AD – 1600AD

These 9 canonical manuscripts and fragment manuscript families of more than 25,000 total manuscripts are then compiled and translated into a single source document reflecting the archtype of the originals.

•  Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia – OT – Masoretic Text of the Leningrad Codex.  Biblia Hebraica Quinta is the 5th edition projected completion in 2020. 
• Novum Instrumentum omne (Textus Receptus) – NT – Byzantine Text-type primary, Latin Vulgate, Codex Montfortianus gap.
•  Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland editions) – NT – Alexandrian Text-Type primary, Western Text-Type gaps.
• United Bible Societies (UBS) edition – NT – Alexandrian Text-Type primary.
•  Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople 1904 Text – NT – Textus Receptus primary, Byzantine Text-type gaps. 

From these combined archtype source documents, Bible versions are then translated and printed in common languages.  There are different types of publication methods.  Word for Word translations (formal), thought for thought (dynamic), paraphrased, or a methodical blend. 

• New American Standard Bible (NASB) – Word for Word – NT: Nestle-Aland edition. OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Septuagint influence.
• King James Versions (KJV) – Word for Word – NT: Textus Receptus. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence.
• English Standard Version – (ESV) – Word for Word-  OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Septuagint influence Deutero./Apoc.: Göttingen Septuagint, Rahlf’s Septuagint and Stuttgart Vulgate. NT: Nestle-Aland edition, supplemented by Textus Receptus.
• New International Version (NIV) – Blend of word for word and thought for thought – NT: Nestle-Aland edition. OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Masoretic Hebrew Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Aramaic Targums, for Psalms Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.
• New Living Translation – (NLT) – Blend of word for word and thought for thought – NT: UBS 4th revised edition and Nestle-Aland edition. OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, with some Septuagint influence.

                            (KJV)                                (NASB)                                (NIV)

 There are about 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian of the New Testament. Professor D. A. Carson states: “nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants. This is true for any textual tradition. The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected.“

EP Sanders, Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, who himself is nonchristian and open secular historian honestly stated: “Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”  All this, he concludes, comes from the vast amount of manuscripts and evidence of the bible.

Some of the actual photo copy of manuscripts can be viewed and studied at:

• codexsinaiticus.org
• scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh18.pdf
• http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts.aspx
• http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah
• https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/genizah

Conclusion

To claim that we can not know what the original text said is to then discredit every ancient historical writing ever written about anyone from Alexander The Great to Plato to Julius Caesar himself.  The fact is there is vast amounts of hard proof and outside evidences that lead even secular historians to admit that we can know details about ancient persons, including Jesus and ancient Israel.  Christians who doubt and nonchristians who discredit do so because of willful ignorance of current evidences.  We CAN know and we do know, because God has allowed us to know, through preserving what he has preserved; found in the 25,000 hard copy manuscripts we have today and the vast amount of outside biblical support and evidences as well.

Also read Did the Apostles distort what Jesus taught?   |  Modern Secular Historians and The Bible  |  Early Accounts of Christianity from Non-Christians  |  Why The Disciples of The Apostles Matter Today  |  Apologetics main page

If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

Hebrews In Egypt

The Bible records Jacob settling in Egypt, in the land called Rameses.  They became slaves to Egypt and were used to construct the Rameses city.  After 430 years of intense labor and poverty, they left.  (Genesis 47:11,27; Exodus 1:11, 12:37-40).  Is this the only explicit record of Israelites being enslaved in Egypt?  There are a couple logical questions we must ask then we can ponder any sort of evidence or support for the bible’s claim.

1. Is there Egyptian record of every people group used as slave laborers?  No.  They did not record every people group. In fact, they lumped people groups together.
2. Is Egyptian records the only source of Egyptian history?  No.  There are other sources used to fully understand Egyptian history.
3. Can we expect to have a complete record of Egypt over 3,000 years later? No.  In fact in more recent history, a lot of African American families do not have a complete, or any, family record just from 170 years ago.
4. Is ‘no evidence’ proof of nonexistence?  No.  The Hittites had no other reference to their existence out side of the bible for the most of common history.  Scholars claimed that people group did not actually exist.  Then, later, archeological findings validated the bibles reference.  The equal possibility is that the evidence just has not been discovered yet.
5. Is Egyptian recorded history fully accurate?  No.  Egyptians are known as revisionist; this was proven by their inaccurate account of their war with the Hittites. 

With these 5 points in mind; lets us look at what evidences or support there is for The Bible (which predominate secular historians have concluded that the bible is generally historically reliable) in relation to Egypt and Israelite history.

Jacob, father of Joseph, lived in the land of Canaan.  Joseph was betrayed by his brothers and sold to Midianite merchants who then brought him to Egypt and sold him again there.   Joseph later becomes a predominate figure in that region of Egypt.  A drought hits his father’s region of Canaan and they move to Egypt as well around late 1800BC.  In Egypt where they lived was called The Land of Rameses (which was called Rowaty prior to Rameses).  For roughly 16 to 20 generations they lived and worked in Egypt and for Egypt.  As their populations grew the Pharaoh of the time wanted to reduce their numbers in fear of them teaming up with recently crushed Hyksos groups to fight against Egypt. Moses was born at this time and was hidden on away where the Pharaohs daughter discovered him and raised him (Where he gets his name “Moses” from the family of Tuthmose I).  He grew up and killed a Egyptian slave-master and he fled Egypt.  He then had an encounter with God and returned to demand the freedom of all Israelites from Egypt. The Pharaoh refused and then God sent the plagues.  The Israelite people then leave their 430 years of captivity in Egypt which may have taken place around mid 1450BC.

Israeli Life in Egypt

The city of Rameses has been discovered and has been under excavations since 1966.  There is evidences that shows it was settled around the 19th century BC by Asiatics (people groups from the east).  It was unfortified.  In the city were rectangular huts made with sand bricks (Bietak 1986: 237; 1991b: 32).  Though not all residents of the city lived in huts, there was one small villa for some sort of city official (Joseph was appointed an Egyptian official). The floor plans are identical to the Israelite houses of the later Iron Age (Holladay 1992a).  1/5 of all the pottery found at the site was of Palestinian Middle Bronze Age type (Bietak 1996: 10).

The tombs in the city were made of mud bricks in Egyptian fashion, but the contents were strictly Asiatic. Although most had been plundered, half of the male burials still had weapons of Palestinian type in them.  Not too far from the villa compound, was a unique monumental tomb labeled ‘Tomb 1’. Excavators found fragments of a large statue depicting an Asiatic official. The likeness was of a seated official. It was made of limestone and exhibited excellent workmanship. The skin was yellow, the traditional color of Asiatics in Egyptian art. It had a mushroom-shaped hairstyle, painted red, typical of that shown in Egyptian artwork for Asiatics. A throwstick, the Egyptian hieroglyph for a foreigner, was held against the right shoulder. (Bietak 1996: 20-21).  In Genesis 50:26 it states that Joseph was buried in Egypt (The Land of Rameses [Rowaty]).  In other areas of the cemetery, intact skeletons can be found but in this special tomb, only a few bones were found (Bietak 1991a: 61).  Joseph asked that his bones be moved once they leave Egypt and Moses is recorded as doing so (Exodus 13:19; cf. Genesis 50:25).  It was common for tombs to be broken into to steal the valuables, but the bodies were rarely disturbed (Rohl 1995: 363).

Then later in its history, a palace complex was built on top of the huts and villa.  Also, the statue of the Egyptian official was defaced. Around this point in history the Hyksos (Egyptian term for “foreign rulers” and general reference to Asiatics) begin taking control of a portion of Egypt and actually ruled for 108 years.  Once they were expelled, the new Pharaoh did not know Joseph or his people like the Hyksos did. This is also recorded in Exodus 1:8.  Which also ushered in the oppression and loss of wealth (Exodus 1:9-12).  The Pharaoh Tuthmosis III’s regular war campaigns suddenly stopped in Egyptian history after the Exodus event.

The Exodus Event

The Ipuwer Papyrus is a highly controversial and contested find.  It details calamities and ordeals that Egypt experienced during the reign of a unnamed Pharaoh.  When considering points 2 and 5 the only issue is the dating of this find.  It commonly has a broad range of dating from 2200BC to 1700BC; 500 years is a broad range.  But the name, Ipuwer, was still used around 1500BC.  The name aside, given the vast date range, the one thing that can be said is the date is far from known; thus, with the name, could have been a witness to the Exodus event.  The calamities described and the severity of them do not happen often which would make it odd, given the details, that they occurred multiple times, as described, in Egypt.

The claim of ‘contradictions’ would assume that The Ipuwer Papyrus is true to disprove the Exodus account.  But what is proven is Egyptian revisionist track record. Also the document is written from the Egyptian perspective so logically you can not assume it should not contradict it for it to be true.  Even in modern witness testimony in court, some degree of discrepancies are expected but do not negate the truthfulness of what does correlate.  A Pharaoh that gets embarrassed by slaves and foreigners would not get accurately recorded on purpose unless it was by his rival Egyptians.  In this case, the whole nation clearly suffered and was brought to shame.  That would also explain a lack of record during this time.  It is also interesting to note that Hatshepsut was being erased by Tuthmosis III which was his own step mother, why? 

Some claim it was just a poem but this does not account for the ironic similarities between it and the account recorded in Exodus.  Secondly, if for the sake of argument, it was just a poem; how then is it not a poetic recording a historic event?  It was not an ‘end time’ apocalyptic writing either as it became optimistic of the future of the nation after this event. 

The descriptions in the writing are every interesting:

IP1 ““The plunderer is everywhere, and the servant takes what he finds.” IP2: “[hearts] are violent, pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere, death is not lacking… the river is blood, yet men drink of it. Men shrink from human beings and thirst after water… Indeed, gates, columns and walls are burnt up,…Egypt has become an empty waste…men are few” IP3 “Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze… are fastened on the neck of female slaves.” IP4 “Trees are destroyed and the branches are stripped off” IP5 “If I knew where God is, then I would serve Him… all animals, their hearts weep; cattle moan because of the state of the land. Indeed, the children of princes are dashed against walls, and the children of the neck are laid out on the high ground…that has perished which was yesterday seen. The land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of flax…“Slaves (who have now been freed) are throughout the land.” IP6 “No fruit nor herbs are found Oh, that the earth would cease from noise, and tumult (uproar) be no more.” IP7 “Behold, the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land.” IP9 “The land is without light.”

After reading that; take time to read the details in Exodus 7:14-13:16

The ten plagues are possibly witnessed; fire, child death, drinking bloody water due to the Nile turning to blood, slaves being freed, pillaging, loud noises and plants stripped (locus horde?), and darkness… When the majority of a nations laborers are suddenly taking all the food and wealth to hit the road, following multiple national catastrophes; of course it would be perceived as evil, they would be vilified and thought of as enemies; Egypt in the 15th Century BC would feel victimized. Hatshepsut, Moses step mother and wife of Tuthmosis II, is also erased from history by Tuthmosis III probably due in part to this historic national embarrassment.

Archeological finds in the slave town of Kahun revealed two interesting details.  An oddly large amount of infants and young people were buried under houses and the town itself, described by the archeologist, seems to have been suddenly abandoned.  This can support what is described in Exodus 1:16 and Exodus 12:30-34.  Pharaoh killing the babies would have been due to a concern not to repeat the history with the Hyksos growing in numbers and power and retaking parts of Egypt like they did in previous history; this may have occurred only a generation after expelling them out of Egypt; after their 108 year reign was brought to an end.

Low Chronological Timeline:

1890BC – Joseph is sold into slavery and brought into Egypt
1880BC – Joseph is made an official in Egypt
1870BC – Jacob brings family to Egypt due to a famine in Canaan.
1650BC – The Hyksos invade and begin their rule in a portion of Egypt (K. A. Kitchen, Ebers Papyrus).
1550BC – Ahmoses, the 18th Dynasty, begins to push the Hyksos out of Egypt
1530BC – Ahmoses completely expels Hyksos out of Egypt and enslaves early Hebrew people.
1525BC – Amuntotep kills babies to prevent a future uprising.  Moses is discovered by Hatshepsut (Ex 2:5) who is the wife of Tuthmoses II and daughter of Tuthmoses I.
1510BC – Ahmoses reign ends and Tuthmoses I takes power.
1490BC – Tuthmoses II takes control and reigns until 1485BC.
1485BC – Tuthmoses III coreigns with Hatshepsut and Moses leaves Egypt after killing a Egyptian slavemaster (Ex 2:15).
1460BC –  Hatshepsut dies leaving Tuthmoses III in full control of Egypt.
1465BC –  Tuthmoses III begins annual campaigns into Canaan
1450BC –  Moses returns to Egypt and the Exodus Event takes place. Then the Israelites move into the wilderness for 40 years and make it to Mt. Sinai and the Jordan. The nation of Israel becomes culturally defined during this time and separate from the other people groups of the region. 
1430BC – Amenhotep II, “a second son” (first son died due to Egyptian plague) of Tuthmoses III enters Canaan and captures 100,000 slaves some called ‘Habiru’ or ‘Apiru’ (recorded numbers are embellished).  ‘Habiru’ could be the first time the Hebrews are labeled as its own people group by outside nations.
1422BC – Amenhotep II signs a peace treaty with Mitanni due to the weakened state of Egypt.
1406BC – Joshua crosses the Jordan and begins Canaan conquest (Deut 31).

Why are there not more records of the Israelites before the 14th century BC?

1. The nation themselves did not have a defined cultural identity.
2. They were just less important laborers and slaves in Egyptian society.
3. Not even every Egyptian official is named or recorded; much less names of slaves.
4. They were immersed in Egyptian culture, but Egypt grouped them generally with ‘Hyksos’, ‘Asiatic’ and ‘Habiru’ understood as just “ruler(s) of the foreign countries (Hyksos)” with “a group of people living as nomadic invaders (Habiru)” and “used to mean people beyond the borders of Egypt (Asiatic)”; thus they blended in with all the other people groups that fit into these labels.
5. Keep in mind point number 4. ‘no evidence’ is not proof of nonexistence.

The Compelling Correlations and Explanations

• Egypt traded with nomadic people from the east just as recorded in Genesis and Exodus.
• Homes in The Ramses region of Egypt are identical to later Hebrew homes in east.
• The people from the east, later called Hyksos migrated to Egypt and eventually conquered a portion of Egypt. This explains the reaction by Egypt of killing and enslaving the non-egyptians living in Egypt as recorded in Exodus. High amount of infant and children buried remains in the houses of slaves supports this.
• Moses was adopted by the Tuthmose family; thus where he got the name Moses; Tuth-mose.
• The only evidence of non-egyptian slaves making mud bricks is in the tomb Rekhmire who lived at the same time as Thutmoses III and the same time the Israelites were recorded as enslaved and making mud bricks.
• The Ipuwer Papyrus descriptions are extremely similar to the Exodus account.  
• Tuthmoses III did not die from the 10th plague (death of all first born) due to he was technically the second son because Moses would have been adopted before his birth.
• The abrupt abandonment of slave homes support a quick Exodus from Egypt.
• Tuthmoses III’s regular war campaigns into Canaan suddenly stop may be due to losing his whole army at the Red Sea as recorded in Exodus.
• Defacing the record of Hatshepsut by Tuthmoses III could be due to her positive relationship with Moses as being his step-mother through adoption and the embarrassment of returning to Egypt without an army after the Exodus.
• Defacing the record of a ‘Senmut’ who may have been the nurse for Hatshepsut; whom would have helped raise Moses.  
• Tuthmoses III’s second son takes over because his first son would have died in the 10th plague.
•  After becoming a defined ethnic group in the wilderness after the Exodus, Amenhotep II, “a second son” attempts to capture slaves in the east where some were called ‘Habiru’, strikingly similar to in word and sound to “Hebrew”. 
• Amenhotep II goes on a campaign not long after Exodus event happened to capture slaves maybe due to the lack of slaves left in Egypt due to the Exodus.  Then signs a treaty to avoid conflict probably due to a weak military due the result from the Exodus event.

If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

The Great Flood

This is a hotly debated issue; was there an actual historic Great Flood or is Noah’s story just a myth taken from other cultures?  To address this question we will look at the ancient flood stories of different ancient cultures, and discuss evidences in geology and fossil records.  This topic requires and open mind but also requires a spiritually open mindedness.

The Great Flood is dated before 3,000BC.  Noah is a historical and actual person of history who lived through an actual historical event according to the author of 1 Chronicles 1:4, prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 54:9), prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:14, 20), apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5), the author of Hebrews (Heb 11:7), Luke (Luke 3:36), and Jesus himself (Matt 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27).

To say that Noah and the Flood is a myth is to call all these people either liars or the authorship of the words a lie.  Without using the bible (even though secular scholars agree the historical reliability of the bible) what other evidences can we find that validate the historical person of Noah and the Flood event?

Stories of The Flood

If one family survived the flood, then all other families after them would have been taught about it. If all the different ancient cultures of the world came from the one family that survived the flood, they would have passed down the story (Gen 9:1).  Noah lived 350 years after the flood and was the last person of the pre-flood generation to live that long.  For the next 350 years Noah was able to teach all his decedents the stories of the Flood.  So where did the confusion of the details of the event come from?

Noah in his ignorance discovers that wine can get you drunk.  His sons see this and its effects; it causes a whole ordeal, and thus, sin continues in the hearts of humanity after the flood (Gen 9:18-27).  From there, the genealogies of Noah’s decedents begin to reveal the diversity in culture as time went on (Gen 10:1-21).

Sumeria was the first most visible centralized culture and people group in history which, according to the bible, come from Noah’s son Shem (Gen 10:21-22). Noah’s son Ham was the father of Cush who was the father of Nimrod (Gen 10:6-11); whom founded Babylon, traveled through Assyria and founded Ninivah. It is clear that the oral story of a world wide flood could have been passed down, but given the continued sin of mankind, the distortion and confusion of the story is clear.

The Sumerian King List is huge.  Earliest sources of this list dates to around 1,000BC.  There are a couple critical details about the list.  (1) It states that the authority of the kingship came from heaven.  (2) The life spans of the early kings were very long.  (3) A flood wiped out the kingship and it had to be re-established after the flood. (4) after the flood, the kings life spans were greatly reduced.  The earliest historically verified king on the list is around 2,600BC and the king after is in the Epic of Gilgamesh.  But the list goes even farther back to more than 4,000BC.

It is important to state that this list was meant as a historical list and not a fictional story.  It was the Sumerians attempt at recording their history.

Where did Sumerian’s get the flood idea from?

Knowing that the bible is historically reliable, we then see the Sumerian people descending from the sons of Noah.  Thus, the flood story would have been passed down from Noah and his sons and their sons.  That is how they could have knowledge of people who per-existed before the flood, and after the flood; also have knowledge about the longer life spans prior to the flood just, as the bible describes.

Why couldn’t have the bible got the idea from the Sumerians?

The Bible describes pre-flood and post-flood in ways that only those whom had experienced it could have described or from one whom and received the details first hand. Given the better reliability of The Bible compared to the Epic of Gilgamesh and other more ancient documents, we can see that the bible is a better source. The Bible also helps explain, if there was a flood that took out the world, how future people were even aware of pre-flood and past individuals.  If the Sumerian story preceded the bible, how was the bible better, more reliably informed, and able to explain more accurate details?

The Eridu Genesis (Sumerian Creation story) came about later.  One single fragment of the story was discovered that dated to about 1,600BC.  It describes a distorted and corrupted view of The Great Flood.  There are continued key similarities to The Great Flood account of the oral traditional story from Noah. (1) a priest learns of an impending flood sent from heaven (2) and is instructed to build a large boat (3) animals were loaded in the boat (4) and the priest performs scarifies to a deity. (5) they exit the boat and the deity gives the priest eternal life and preserves the animals and mankind.

By the time of this record of the flood, it had been over 2,000 plus years since sons of Noah; allowing for a loss of traditional Noah heritage and a change in details of the oral story.

The Epic of Gilgamesh.  The discovery of Table XI of the story was carved around 700BC.  On the Tablet it states very similar details about the flood theme.  (1) Deity reveals plan to flood mankind, (2) instructed to build a boat in preparation for the flood (3) A great and violent flood (4) After the storm, a sacrifice to a deity was performed (5) eternal life was given.

Until recently, the Epic of Gilgamesh was only seen as a fictional story but discoveries related to mentioned kings in the story has lead to some historical features of the story.  Artifacts related to Aga and Enmebaragesi of Kish have shown them to be actual people of history.

In ancient greek history, there are stories of a flood that also contains similarities to The Great Flood.  Plato even states that an world wide flood was an actual historical event in Plato’s Critias.  The Greek flood stories are however more mythological than the ones that proceeded them.

China

Even in ancient China, we see all the regions ancient dynasties end or change together probably due to reconstruction and recolonization after the flood, around mid 3rd millennia BC. Something forced China’s ancient people groups from Neolithic age and transition into the Xia dynasties. The Yellow Emperor, legend or a true historical person, even includes a story about a massive flood all throughout China.  His supposed reign was around the late 2nd millennia BC.  Given that these people groups were separate and isolated from other cultures closer to the Noah’s semi continued secularized traditions; their stories would be more different.  This is reflected in the Yellow Emperor’s tale of a great flood as it was vastly different.

Other Cultures

In just about every major civilization since the Sumerian story has had some sort later version of the flood story.  The African culture of The Maasai have a similar great flood story with the same themes.  In India, in the Shatapatha Brahmana which was recorded not too long after the Babylonian story also contains the same key themes of The Great Flood.  The people group of Malaysia, known as the Temuan, have a very similar flood story despite their isolation from middle eastern cultures.  Even Mesoamerica and Hopi stories of their ancestors maintain a story of a great flood caused due to mankind angering a deity.

Why the different accounts if it was the same event?

After the flood, Noah, his sons, and their families began to spread out around the world.  The different family groups moving to different geographical locations over time would develop their own unique traditions and stories; eventually into their own distinct culture group and nation.

How accurate is Google Translate? To some, it is helpful, to others it does not use the correct words and does not get across the most accurate translation of what is being stated.  Imagine all people generally speaking the same language, then a few generations later, speaking a completely different language.  How easy would it then be to communicate past stories accurately?  The story of The Tower of Babel explains just that. The different people groups, descendants from the sons of Noah, were lead to create their own unique languages.  This would have also contributed to the confusion and distortion of the account of The Great Flood between the different cultures.  As the people groups lost their connection to the traditions of Noah, they continued to pass down their own versions of the event and embellish them to fit their own situations and culture.

Did Moses get the flood story from Sumerian and Babylonian myths?

The answer to this question greatly depends on your faith.  Is God able to reveal historic truths to those whom he ordained to record them?  Is God then able to influence the writers to accurately record what he reveals to them?  If the answer is “no” or “maybe” to those questions, than for you, finding God will be very difficult; and finding the biblical account of The Great Flood just as difficult.  More specifically, the question is: Is God able to reveal prehistoric truths to Moses, and influence him to accurately record them?  This is a critical and deep spiritual question that everyone will be confronted with when pondering the flood story.  If someone is atheist or agnostic, their obvious answer would be “no” because of their anti-spiritual bias.  For God to be God, he must be able to this; or he is not really God and the whole bible is irrelevant.  This is where it depends on your faith or lack of.

The answer is, God can and did reveal prehistoric truths to Moses; God can and did influence the one who He chose (Moses) to accurately record what He revealed.  Because Jesus is God, and Jesus validated Noah and the flood as an actual historic person and event, it must be true- or Jesus is not God.  THEREFORE Moses recorded exactly what God revealed to him about the historic event; and all the other stories of the same historic event came from corrupted descriptions stemming from Noah’s son’s families and their generations of decedents.  In fact, the correct true explanation of the event may have been already orally passed down within the people group that kept the traditions of Noah and finally recorded by Moses.

To assume and jump to the concision that Moses stole or borrowed from the Sumerian or Babylonian myths, or parts of the Egyptian great flood myths, only reveal anti-spiritual bias in the assumed conclusion without considering the faith aspect. Because IF God IS able, why could he not have?

What Evidence is there for a world wide flood?

Marine fossils found on mountains:   How did marine fossils end up in the middle of continents miles above sea level?  For example, there are marine fossils found in layers of the Grand Canyon, 1 mile above sea level [5].  Shellfish fossils found in the Himalayan mountains of Napel [6].  How did ancient sea life climb a mountain?

Mass plant and animal death and fossil groupings:  Chambered nautiloids’ are found in the Grand Canyon along with millions of other sea creatures burred in the same layer spanning 10,500 square miles.  Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France [1].  More than 100,000 fossil specimens, representing more than 400 species, have been recovered from a shale layer associated with coal beds in the Mazon Creek area near Chicago [2]. This spectacular fossil graveyard includes ferns, insects, scorpions, and tetrapods buried with jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish, often with soft parts exquisitely preserved. There are locations around the world were not only are there mass death and burial of creatures, but these creatures are both land and sea creatures, buried together. Also in Florissant, Colorado [3] and Green River Formation of Wyoming [4].

Sediment layers are spread over vast areas world wide:  The famous Cretaceous chalk beds of southern England that form the white straight cliffs is the same Cretaceous chalk with the same fossils and the same distinctive strata above and below them are also found in the Midwest USA, from Nebraska in the north to Texas in the south. They also appear in the Perth Basin of Western Australia. The Cretaceous Chalk sediment layer was spread all over the world at the same time to achieve the same layer and fossils.  Wind and gradual erosion could not produce this, in this vastness all around the globe in the same time frame.

Where are Pre-Flood Human fossils?

This takes an unbiased approach to address this question, and is ignorantly used as a ‘gotcha’ question.  Do humans commonly get buried with Elephants or Tigers in modern times? No.  The percentage of dinosaur fossils found, out of all fossils found, is 0.01%; what are the odds we will find a human fossil when there was a smaller amount around the same time? That would be more exceedingly rare than finding dinosaur fossils, and finding dinosaur fossils is rare already [7].  Also, dinosaurs were more spread out, and according to Gen 4:17 we see people already lived close together instead of spread out.

Secondly, God made it absolutely clear he was going to “blot out” mankind from the face of the earth in Gen 6:7 and Gen 7:23.  That is an absolute destruction.  Do you think it will be easy or possible to find something that God has “blot out” from the earth?  If anything, the fact we have not found a single human fossil from that time period only validates what the Bible said God would do.

The 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia was a known localized event that happened only 12 years ago and still 43,000 victims were never found [8].  Now think of how difficult it would be to find 150,000 to 250,000 prehistoric people who were swept away by a world wide flood covering the face of the earth over 5,000 years ago.  Biased people expect to find pre-flood human fossils from over 5,000 years ago searching for unknown locations world wide, to be convinced; yet, in our modern times we can’t find 1/3 amount of people in a known localized event that happened only 12 years ago.

Before dinosaur fossils were discovered, did that mean they did not exist?  Has humanity discovered everything there is to discover? Does that mean, what we have not discovered, does not exist?  Apply the same logical conclusion to the issue above.

Conclusion

The Great Flood is an actual prehistoric event.  From the bible, the event of the Great Flood is supported by its divinely inspired authors and Jesus himself.  Outside of the bible, it is a historical event according to The Sumerian Kings List and the recently semi-historical validated Epic of Gilgamesh. Different cultures from around the world, separated and isolated, still have some sort of story that contains similar key elements.  The fossil record and sediment layers are also explained by a great world wide flood.  Given the evidences, it is true that there was a world wide flood.

Noah was instructed to build a large vessel by God.  He did and a world wide flood came. He and his family survived with vegetation seeds and animals. They then repopulated the earth.  Their decedents spread throughout the world and their decedents continued the Great Flood story but lost the source (true oral traditions from Noah).  They injected their own messages and details to fit their own culture. The oral traditions from Noah was then recorded by Moses, guided by God as it was revealed by God to Moses.

We can be confident today that we have the true recorded oral traditions of the events of creation and the flood in the Bible; and that it was revealed by God, and securely recorded with God through Moses.  With the spiritual truth aspect of the flood; Noah’s Flood in the Bible explains what is observed in history, archeology, and geology.  Without the truth in the spiritual context of faith in God’s security and divine revelations to Moses; all the stories and fossils are just unexplained, oddly convenient, confused, and oddly consistent myths.

sources:

1. Daniel Heyler and Cecile M. Poplin, “The Fossils of Montceau-les-Mines,” Scientific American, September 1988, pp. 70–76.
2. Charles Shabika and Andrew Hay, eds. Richardson’s Guide to the Fossil Fauna of Mazon Creek (Chicago: Northeastern Illinois University, 1997).
3. Theodore Cockerell, “The Fossil Flora and Fauna of the Florissant Shales,” University of Colorado Studies 3 (1906): 157–176; Theodore Cockerell, “The Fossil Flora of Florissant, Colorado,” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 24 (1908): 71–110.  
4. Lance Grande, “Paleontology of the Green River Formation with a Review of the Fish Fauna,” The Geological Survey of Wyoming Bulletin 63 (1984).
5. S. S. Beus, “Redwall Limestone and Surprise Canyon Formation,” in Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd ed., eds. S. S. Beus and M. Morales (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 115–135.
6. J. P. Davidson, W. E. Reed, and P. M. Davis, “The Rise and Fall of Mountain Ranges,” in Exploring Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997), pp. 242–247.
7. A. Snelling, Where are all the human fossils? Creation 14(1):28–33, December, 1991; J. Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2002, 71. 
8. The Human Toll, www.tsunamispecialenvoy.org/country/humantoll.asp. 

Earliest Mention of Israel in History

 

The Merneptah Stele is the most widely recognized and accepted earliest inscription of “Israel”.  The inscription is from the ancient Egyptian king Merneptah who ruled between 1213BC to 1203BC.  This stele is estimated to have been carved around 1208BC.

Prior Egyptian Kings enjoyed control over their cities but a Libyan king boldly invaded in 1208BC.  The stone describes the Egyptian victory over that invasion but also describes a conquest to the east in an effort to retain control of those rebelling regions. One of the people groups who were “smitten” was a nomadic people called “I.si.ri.ar”, or Israel.  

Arguably this is the oldest widely accepted reference to Israel.  But there is an earlier fragment on a column in which may also name Israel prior to this one.

The Berlin Column base fragment is dated around 1453BC to 1401BC and to the far right may record when Israel was enslaved in Egypt.  The other shields record other nations and people groups who were conquered as well.  The half viable characters are very similar to the characters used to name Israel but given the earlier date may explain the variation as Egyptian inscriptions and names evolved.

Due to the character similarities to Israel, the timing of the history in Israel, and no other people group in that region with that similar characters; “Israel” would be the most logical concision given the limited information.  But due to the partial fragment and limited information, some scholars are hesitant to assign that name to this fragment.

The Tel Dan Inscription

A fragmented slab of stone found in Israel with Aramaic characters carefully engraved in the stone describe a military victory of the Aramein King over southern nations; one of which is stated as: “The King of the House of David”.  The stone is date to the late 9th Century BC. Sadly the undiscovered portion of the stone presumably records the names of the kings but most scholars believe the stela recounts a campaign of Hazael of Damascus, king of Aram, in which he defeated both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah.

Why is this discovery so important?

This simple inscription proves the historical person of King David out side of the bible while at the same time validating the bible’s historical reliability.  It also reveals the influence and respect of King David.  Over 100 years later, even his enemies still recognize him as the foundation of that dynasty.  The inscription corresponds to 2 Chronicles 22.  This discovery is ranked as one of the top 10 most important archeological finds of that year.

The theory that King David was a fictitious Israelite hero or embellished minor person in Israels early history become less creditable and less reliable because of the discovery out side of the Bible’s witness of him.