B. Ehrman ,Misquoting Jesus.
D. Estrada and W. White Jr., The First New Testament.
G. Fee and E. G. Epp, New Testament Textual Criticism.
N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible.
F. G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology.
--, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts.
R. W. Lyon, "A Reexamination of Codex Ephraem.”
B. Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism.
--,Manuscripts of the Greek Bible.
--, The Text of the New Testament.
--,A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
A. T. Robertson, A« Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
G. L. Robinson, Where Did We Get Our Bible?
P. SchalT. A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version.
F. H. A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
A. Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament.
G. Stanton, Gospel Truth?
B. H. Streeter, "Codices 157, 1071 and the Caesarean Text.”
D. B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was one of the most colorful and forceful atheists (see Atheism) of all time. His rejection of God was instinctive and incisive (see God, Alleged Disproofs of). With the denial of God, Nietzsche denied all objective value based on God. Hence, his view is a form of *nihilism Although he was reared in a Lutheran pastor’s home,
Nietzsche reacted violently against his religious training. His mother, aunt, and sisters reared him from a young age after the death of his father.
God and the God Myth. Nietzsche based his belief that God never existed on several grounds (Beyond Good and Evil, 23). He argued that the theist’s God would have to be a self-caused being, which was impossible (see God, Objections to Proofs for). Evil in the world further ruled out a benevolent Creator (see Evil, Problem of). Nietzsche thought the basis for belief in God to be purely psychological (see Freud, Sigmund). Nietzsche exhorted, “I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of other worldly hopes!” He added, “Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with Him To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 125).
Nietzsche did believe the God-myth was once very much alive. It had been the model by which medieval and Reformation Europe had based its life. This culture, however, was in decay. Modernity had caught up to modern humanity, who could no longer believe in God. “God is dead!” Nietzsche cried. Modern humankind must bury God and move on.
The World. Since God does not exist, the world is all there is. Matter is in motion, and life moves in cycles (see Materialism; Naturalism). The world is real, and God is an illusion. There is no God to which we must be faithful. Hence, each person is exhorted to “remain faithful to the earth.”
For Nietzsche viewed God “as the declaration of war against life, against nature ... the deification of nothingness, the will of nothingness pronounced holy” (ibid., 92-94).
History and Destiny. Human history, as human destiny, is cyclical. Nietzsche rejected any Christian goal-oriented end or eschaton in favor of a more oriental cyclical recurrence. History is not going anywhere. There are no ultimate goals to achieve, no paradise to regain. There is simply an individual life to live by courage and creativity. Humanity creates a destiny here, and there is no hereafter—except the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs. The supermen are the geniuses who form destiny. “They say, ‘It shall be thus!’ They determine the ‘whether’ and the ‘to what end’ of mankind. . . . Their knowing is creating” (Beyond Good and Evil, 18-19).
Ethics. His ethic was a form of *nihilism in which he negated all traditional values and re-created his own. The shocking realization of God’s death brought Nietzsche to the conclusion that all God-based values and absolutes were also dead (see Morality, Absolute Nature of). Hence, Nietzsche rejected traditional Judeo-Christian values in an almost violent manner. Nietzsche questioned even general principles, such as “injure no man” (ibid., 186-87). He ridiculed the Christian principle of love: “Why, you idiots. . . . ‘How about praising the one who sacrifices himself?’” (ibid., 220). Indeed, Christianity “is the greatest of all conceivable corruptions. ... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind” (Antichrist, 230).
In place of traditional Christian values, he proposed that modern people go “beyond good and evil.” He suggested a transevaluation that would reject the “soft” feminine virtues of love and humility and seize the “hard” male virtues of harshness and suspicion (Beyond Good and Evil).
Human Beings. There is no afterlife, so the best one can do to overcome the limits of personal mortality is to will the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs (see Immortality). That is, he must will to come back and live the same life over and over forever. Since there is no God and there are no objective values to discover, the human race must create its own values. Meaninglessness and emptiness of life must be overcome. The overcomers are “supermen.”
Evaluation. All atheists share the basic elements of Nietzsche’s view. His contention that no God exists is refuted by strong evidence for the existence of God (see Cosmological Argument; Moral Argument for God; Teleological Argument). The objections to these arguments are answered elsewhere (see God, Objections to Proofs for). Like Freud’s, Nietzsche’s view that God is an illusion is without foundation. His moral relativism cannot stand against the logical strength of moral absolutism Both the materialistic (see Materialism) view of the universe (see Naturalism) and its eternality are contrary to good scientific (see Big Bang Theory) and philosophical arguments (see Kalam Cosmological Argument).
Sources
J. Collins. M History of Modern European Philosophy, chap. 18.
N. L. Geisler, Ethics.
N. L. Geisler and W. D. Watkins, Worlds Apart, chap. 2.
R. G. Hollingdale. Nietzsche.
K. Jaspers, Nietzsche and das Christentum.
F. Niet/sche. Anlichrisl.
--, Beyond Good and Evil.
--, On the Genealogy of Morals.
--, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
--, The Portable Nietzsche.
--, The Will to Power.
Nihilism. Nihilism means “nothingness,” the negation of all being or value (see Nietzsche, Friedrich). In rejecting values, nihilism is antinomianor lawless. But even most relativists (see Morality, Absolute Nature of) or situationists do not deny all value, just all absolute value. Less stringent nihilists simply deny that any ultimate or absolute value exists. The only value that exists is what we create. There is no objective value to be discovered.
The negation of all being is self-defeating, since one has to exist in order to deny all existence.
Those who do not exist do not deny anything.
Likewise, the denial of all value is self-refuting, since the very denial involves the belief that there is value in making this denial. Nihilists value their freedom to be nihilists. Thus, they cannot escape affirming value implicitly, even when they deny it explicitly.
Noah’s Ark See Flood, Noah’s.
Noncontradiction, Principle of. See First Principles.
Nostradamus. Nostradamus (1503-66) was known by the Latin name of Michel de Notredame or Nostredame. He graduated from the University of Montpellier in France and was a physician and astrologer. He published a book of rhymed prophecies titled Centuries (1555). He is reputed to have predicted accurately the death of Henry II of France and many other things.
According to Andre Lamont, “He was well versed in the arts of astronomy, the kabbala, astrology, alchemy, magic, mathematics and medicine” (Lamont, v).
Predictions of Nostradamus. Some critics of Christianity hold up Nostradamus as an example of someone who made predictions on the level with those in the Bible, thus canceling the claim of supernatural uniqueness made for biblical prophecy (see Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible). However, on examination, they fall far short of this claim. The predictions of Nostradamus show signs of an occult source and may be explained according to purely natural processes.
A Great California Earthquake. Nostradamus is alleged to have predicted a great earthquake in California for May 10, 1981. This was reported on May 6, 1981, in USA Today. However, no such quake occurred. As a matter of fact, Nostradamus mentioned no country, city, or year. He spoke only of a “rumbling earth” in a “new city” and a “very mighty quake” on May 10 [no year].
Hitler ,s Rise to Power. Lamont claims that Nostradamus gave “a prophecy of the coming of Hitler and Nazism in a world divided within itself’ (Lamont, 252). However, Hitler is not mentioned, and the prediction gives no date and is vague. It reads, “Followers of sects, great troubles are in store for the Messenger. A beast upon the theater prepares the scenical play. The inventor of that wicked feat will be famous. By sects the world will be confused and divided” (ibid.). In this context, there is a reference to “Hister” (not Hitler) by Nostradamus (C4Q68), which is obviously a place, not a person. The attempt to read back into this both his name and birthplace is stretched. What is more, Hitler grew up in Linz, Austria, not in any place called Hister.
Quatrain 2-24 reads, “Beasts mad with hunger will swim across rivers, Most of the army will be against the Lower Danube [Hister sera]. The great one shall be dragged in an iron cage when the child brother [de Germain\ will observe nothing.”
This is allegedly a prophecy concerning Adolf Hitler. According to followers of Nostradamus, the lower portion of the Danube is known as either “Ister” or “Hister” (Randi, 213), which seems to be close enough to “Hitler” for their purposes.
However, the substitution of “1” for “s” in Hister, and the inversion of “t” and “s,” is totally arbitrary. In another quatrain (4-68), Nostradamus mentions the Lower Danube in conjunction with the Rhine (“De Ryn”). But if“ Hister” refers to Hitler, then to what does “De Ryn” refer? Followers of Nostradamus are inconsistent, treating one river as an anagram and taking the other literally. The Latin phrase de Germain should be interpreted “brother” or “near relative,” not “Germany”
(ibid., 214). Even if these highly questionable interpretations are allowed, the prophecy is still quite ambiguous. What are we to make of the “Beasts” and the “iron cage”? To say that Adolf Hitler (“the great one”) will be “dragged in an iron cage” while Germany “will observe nothing” is so ambiguous and confusing it renders the entire prophecy meaningless.
Quatrain 4-68 is also alleged to refer to Hitler. It reads, “In the year very near, not far from Venus, The two greatest of Asia and Africa From the Rhine and Lower Danube, which will be said to have come, Cries, tears at Malta and the Ligurian coast.”
As in the previous example, “Lower Danube” is here taken to mean “Hitler.” “The two greatest of Asia and Africa” are taken to refer to Japan and Mussolini, respectively. Thus, the second and third lines refer to the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Italy, and Germany. The fourth is taken as a reference to the bombing of Malta and the bombardment of Genoa (ibid., 215).
In addition to the reasons given above, this prophecy claims these events would take place in a “year very near,” but the Tripartite Pact (1941) came almost four hundred years after the prediction. It is not clear how Asia could refer to Japan, and even more so, how Africa could refer to Mussolini or Italy. Again Nostradamus’s followers are inconsistent, for they interpret Asia, Africa, and the Lower Danube figuratively while providing no corresponding interpretation for the Rhine. Finally, this prophecy is ambiguous on the whole. It could be interpreted in various ways so as to fulfill many different events.
The Second World War. According to Lamont, Nostradamus forecast that, after the first World War, the Spanish Civil War, and other wars, a more furious one was foretold—the Second World War, with its aerial warfare and suffering. But no such details are given. It is typically vague and could be easily forecast without any supernormal powers. The passage reads simply, “After a great human exhaustion, a greater one is being prepared. As the great motor renews the centuries, a rain of blood, milk, famine, iron and pestilence [will come]. In the sky will be seen fires carrying long sparks” (Lamont, 168).
Evaluation. Nostradamus’s forecasts are general, vague, and explainable on purely natural grounds. Furthermore, Nostradamus shows clear signs of demonic and occult influence (see Miracles, Magic and).
False Prophecies. An evident sign of a false prophet is false prophecy (cf. Deut. 18). If Nostradamus’s predictions are taken literally, many are false. If they are not, then they can fit many “fulfillments.” As John Ankerberg and John Weldon put it, “It is an undeniable fact that Nostradamus gave numerous false prophecies” (Ankerberg and Weldon, 340). Noted Nostradamus scholar Erika Cheetham said flatly of his prognostications in his Almanachs, “Many of these predictions were wrong” (Cheetham, 20). Some interpretations are so diverse that while one claims it is a reference to “Calvinist Geneva,” another believes it refers to “atomic power” (Prophecies of Nostradamus, 81).
Vague Predictions. The truth is that the vast majority of his prognostications are so ambiguous and vague that they could fit a great variety of events. Consider this one: “Scythe by the Pond, in conjunction with Sagittarius at the high point of its ascendant—disease, famine, death by soldiery— the century/age draws near its renewal” (Nostradamus, 1. 6). The lines can be interpreted so as to fit any number of events in the future. When something is judged to be a fulfillment, Nostradamus will seem supernatural. Astrologers and fortune-tellers use vague descriptions and imagery all the time. Nostradamus was a master at this art.
Contradictory Interpretations. There is no unanimity among Nostradamus’s interpreters about the meaning of his predictions. This lack of agreement is further proof of their ambiguity and lack of authority. In The Prophecies of Nostradamus the editors note contradictory interpretations (see I, 16; I, 51; II, 41; II, 43; II, 89; ΙΠ, 97; etc.).
Predictions after the Fact. Nostradamus himself acknowledged that his predictions were written in such a manner that “they could not possibly be understood until they were interpreted after the event and by it” (Randi, 31). There is nothing miraculous about reading a fulfillment back into a prophecy that could not be clearly seen there beforehand. Not a single prediction of Nostradamus has ever been proven genuine. This means that either he is a false prophet or he was not really seriously claiming to be giving real predictions. Perhaps he was a con artist or a literary prankster.
Tongue-in-Cheek Prophecies? His prognostications were so vague and unproductive that even the encyclopedia of Man, Myth, and Magic suggests that “Nostradamus composed them with tongue in cheek, as he was well aware that there is an enduring market for prophecies and particularly for veiled ones” (Cavendish, 2017). As James Randi put it, “The marvelous prophecies of Michel de Nostredame, upon examination, turn out to be a tiresome collection of vague, punning, seemingly badly constructed verses. . . . From a distance of more than 400 years, I fancy I can hear a bearded Frenchman laughing at the naivete of his 20th century dupes” (Randi, 36).
Confessed Demonic Source. Nostradamus admitted demonic inspiration when he wrote, “The tenth of the Calends of April roused by evil persons; the light extinguished; diabolical assembly searching for the bones of the devil (damant—“demon”) according to Psellos” (Lamont, 71). Commenting on this, Lamont noted that “the utilization of the demons or black angels is recommended by ancient writers on magic. They claim that they have much knowledge of temporal matters and, once under control, will give much information to the operator.” He adds, “Nostradamus could not have avoided such a temptation” (ibid.).
Various Forms of Occult Practices. Nostradamus was associated with various occult activities. Lamont observes that “Magic—Astrology—Symbolism—Anagrams—[are a] Key to Nostradamus” (ibid., 69). In Centuries, quatrain 2 is translated, “The wand in the hand seated in the midst of the Branches, He (the prophet) wets in the water both the hem (of his garment) and the foot. A fearfulness and a voice quiver through the sleeves; divine splendor, The Divine is seated near” (ibid., 70). Lamont comments that here “Nostradamus followed the rites of magic according to Iamblichus. It is night—he is seated on the stool or prophetic tripod—a little flame rises. He has the divining rod in his hand” (ibid., 70-71).
In addition to his use of the occult divining rod, Nostradamus was widely known for his knowledge of astrology—another occult practice condemned by the Bible (Deut. 18). But whatever their source, these predictions in no way rival the clear, specific, and highly accurate predictions of Scripture.
Conclusion. There is no real comparisonbetweenNostradamus’s predictions and those of the Bible. His are vague, fallible, and occult. Those of the Bible are clear, infallible, and divine (see Bible, Evidence for). The Bible made numerous clear and distinct predictions hundreds of years in advance. Nostradamus did not. There is no evidence that Nostradamus was a prophet at all; certainly he was like none in the Bible. Biblical prophecy stands unique in its claim to be supernatural (see Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible).
J. Ankerberg and J. Weldon, Cult Watch.
M. Cavendish, ‘Nostradamus.”
E. Cheetham, The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus.
A. Kole and A. Janssen ,Miracles or Magic?
A. Lamont, Nostradamus Sees All.
Nostradamus, “Century 3, Quatrain 65.”
Nostradamus andE. Cheetham, The Prophecies of Nostradamus.
J. Randi, “Nostradamus: The Prophet for All Seasons.”
Return to Contents
Objectivism. See Rand, Ayn.
O’Callaghan, Jose. Jose O’Callaghan (1922-2001) is a Spanish Jesuit paleographer who made a controversial identification of nine fragments among Qumran’s Dead Sea Scrolls as coming from multiple books of the New Testament.
The Fragments. Beginning with his first announcement in 1972, O’Callaghan eventually identified the nine fragments from cave 7 as Mark 4:28; 6:48; 6:52, 53; 12:17; Acts 27:38; Romans 5:11-12;
1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1-3; 2 Peter 1:15; and James 1:23-24. These books of the Bible had previously been dated as follows: Mark, 50; Acts, 60; and Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter, and James approximately 70. But the fragments from cave 7 were dated between 50 BC and AD 50. For a more extensive discussion of these fragments, see the articles Dead Sea Scrolls; New Testament, Dating of; New Testament, Historicity of; New Testament Manuscripts.
Implications of the Identification. If valid, O’Callaghan’s conclusions totally invalidate many New Testament theories. The New York Times reported, “If Father O’Callaghan’s theory is accepted it would prove that at least one of the gospels—that of St. Mark—was written only a few years after the death of Jesus.” United Press International noted that his conclusions indicated that “the people closest to the events—Jesus’s original followers—found Mark’s report accurate and trustworthy, not myth but true history” (Estrada and White, 137). Time quoted one scholar who claimed that if the conclusions were correct, we “can make a bonfire of 70 tons of indigestible German scholarship” (ibid., 136).
Dating the Evidence. The early dates (listed above) were provided by scholars prior to O’Callaghan’s identification of the fragments; the dates have never been seriously questioned and fit with the dates determined for other manuscripts found in the same Qumran area. Archaeologists who discovered cave 7 attested that it showed no signs of being opened since it was sealed in AD 70 and that its contents date from no later. The style of writing (in Greek uncials) has been identified as early first century (see New Testament Manuscripts).
O’Callaghan was a reputable paleographer who made many successful identifications of ancient texts. His identifications of these texts fit perfectly with the passages. No viable alternatives have been found. In fact, two scholars calculated the odds that these letter sequences represent some other text as about 1 in 2.25 x 1065.
Not surprisingly, objections to O’Callaghan’s identification have been raised. Some have charged that O’Callaghan never worked with the original manuscripts. This is false. Others point out that the pieces are small fragments. However, other ancient texts have been identified with equal or less evidence. Some have contended that the Mark 5 manuscript is too dim or indistinct to be truly readable. Very clear photographs are now available, however.
The identification of certain letters has been disputed. If identifications are revised, the identity of the manuscript could change. But O’Callaghan mostly used the letters proposed by the original
editors. Where he did not, the editors have concurred that his identification could be correct. Of the crucial Mark 5 text, he used all nine whole letters and six of the ten partial letters. Where he differed, his judgment was a possible alternative based on the actual manuscript.
A few critics have offered possible non-New Testament alternatives. In order to be successful, they have had to change the number of letters on a line of ancient text from the twenties to the sixties in some cases. This many letters to a line would be highly unusual. One confirming piece of evidence of O’Callaghan’s thesis is that no one has found any other non-New Testament text for these manuscripts. Using normal rules, O’Callaghan provided probable New Testament identifications.
Apologetic Relevance. If the identification of even some of these fragments as New Testament is valid, implications for Christian apologetics are enormous. The Gospel of Mark was written within the lifetime of the apostles and contemporaries of the events (see New Testament, Dating of; New Testament, Historicity of). This early date (before 50) leaves no time for mythological embellishment of the records (see Mythology and the New Testament). They must be accepted as historical. Mark is shown to be one of the early Gospels. The chance of there being a O or series of O Gospel manuscripts is more remote (see O Document). Since these manuscripts are not originals but copies, the New Testament was copied and disseminated quickly. The existence of a New Testament canon from the beginning is hinted at by this selection of books, representing the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline and general Epistles—every major section of the New Testament. Also, the fragment of 2 Peter would argue for the authenticity of this often disputed Epistle. The absence of fragments of John’s writings could indicate that they were written later (80-90), in accordance with the traditional dates.
Sources
D. Estrada and W. White Jr., The First New Testament.
E. Fisher, "New Testament Documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls?”
P. Garnet, "O'Callaghan's Fragments.”
B. Orchard, "A Fragment of St. Mark's Gospel Dating from before AD 50?”
W. N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text.
W. White Jr., "O'Callaghan's Identifications.”
Ockham, William. See William of Ockham.
Ockham’s Razor. This is the popular name for a principle laid down by William of Ockham (1285-1349). It is also called the Principle of Parsimony. In its popular form, it states that the simplest explanation is the best explanation. This is often taken to mean “the fewer, the truer,” and by logical extension, “the fewest, the truest.” However, this is not what Ockham had in mind.
In the original form given by Ockham, the principle merely affirms that “causes should not be multiplied without necessity.” That is, one should not posit more causes or reasons than are necessary to explain the data. The true explanation could involve many causes, and having fewer would be incorrect. But unnecessarily complicating the problem also makes reasoning incorrect.
Old Testament Manuscripts. The manuscripts of the Old Testament are not as crucial to Christian apologetics as are those of the New Testament (see New Testament, Historicity of; New Testament Manuscripts). However, their reliability in general is important, and the manuscripts play a crucial role in establishing the Old Testament’s reliability. They also help establish the date of Old Testament prophecies (see Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible), which play a supporting role in defending Christianity {see Apologetics, Overall Argument of). Like the New Testament, the original manuscripts (<autographs) of the Old Testament are not available, but the Hebrew text is amply represented by bothpre- and post-Christian manuscripts (see Geisler, “Bible Manuscripts,”
1:248-52). As a result, the reliability of the Hebrew text can be determined from available manuscript evidence. Over two thousand years of copying the text (500 BC to AD 1500), Jewish scholars performed an unbelievable preservation of the textual traditions.
History of the Old Testament Text. In Judaism, a succession of scholars were charged with standardizing and preserving the biblical text: The Sopherim (from Hebrew meaning “scribes”) were Jewish scholars and custodians of the text between the fifth and the third centuries BC. The Zugoth (“pairs” of textual scholars) were assigned to this task in the second and first centuries BC. The Talmud gradually was written between 100 and 500. Between 500 and 950, the Masoretes added the vowel pointings and pronunciation marks to the consonantal Hebrew text received from the Sopherim, on the basis of the Masora (“tradition”) that had been handed down to them The Masoretes were scribes who codified and wrote down the oral criticisms and remarks on the Hebrew text. There were two major schools or centers of Masoretic activity, each largely independent of the other, the Babylonian and the Palestinian. The most famous Masoretes were the Jewish scholars living in Tiberias in Galilee, Moses ben Asher (with his son Aaron), and Moses benNaphtali, in the late ninth and tenth centuries. The ben Asher text is the standard text for the Hebrew Bible today as best represented by Codex Leningradensis B19A (L) and Aleppo Codex.
At issue today is the standard Masoretic Hebrew Text—the one used in Bible translation. The standard edition of the Masoretic Text was first published under the editorship of a Hebrew Christian, Jacob ben Chayyim (ca. 1525). It was essentially a recension of the text of the Masorete ben Asher (ca. 920) (see Geisler and Nix, chap. 25).
The Number of Manuscripts. The first collection of Hebrew manuscripts, made by Benjamin Kennicott (1776-80) and published by Oxford, listed 615 manuscripts of the Old Testament. Later, Giovanni de Rossi (1784-88) published a list of 731 manuscripts. The most important manuscript discoveries in modern times are those of the Cairo Geniza (1890s) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947 and followingyears). In the Cairo synagogue attic geniza, or storehouse for old manuscripts, alone were discovered two hundred thousand manuscripts and fragments (Kahle, 13, and Wiirthwein, 25), some ten thousand of which are biblical (Goshen-Gottstein, 35). According to J. T. Milik, fragments of about six hundred manuscripts are known from the *Dead Sea Scrolls, not all biblical. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein estimates that the total number of Old Testament Hebrew manuscript fragments throughout the world runs into the tens of thousands (ibid., 31).
Major Collections. About one-half of the two hundred thousand Cairo Geniza manuscript fragments are housed at Cambridge University. The rest are scattered throughout the world. Cairo Geniza authority Paul Kahle has identified more than 120 rare manuscripts prepared by the Babylonian group of Masoretic scribes.
The largest collection of Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts in the world is the Second Firkowitch Collection in Leningrad. It contains 1,582 items of the Bible and Masora on parchment (725 on paper), plus 1,200 additional Hebrew manuscript fragments in the Antonin Collection (Wiirthwein, 23). Kahle contends also that these Antonin Collection manuscripts and fragments are all from the Cairo Geniza (Kahle, 7). In the Firkowitch Collection are found fourteen Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts from between 929 and 1121 that originated in the Cairo Geniza.
Cairo Geniza manuscripts are scattered over the world. Some of the better ones in the United States are in the Enelow Memorial Collection at the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York (Goshen-Gottstein, 44ff.). The British Museum catalog lists 161 Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts. At Oxford University, the Bodleian Library catalog lists 146 Old Testament manuscripts, each containing a large number of fragments (Kahle, 5). Goshen-Gottstein estimates that in the United States alone there are tens of thousands of Semitic manuscript fragments, about 5 percent of which are biblical— more than five hundred manuscripts (Goshen-Gottstein, 30).
Hebrew Manuscripts. The most significant Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts date from between the third century BC and the fourteenth century AD. Of these the most remarkable manuscripts are those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from the third century BC to the first century AD. They include one complete Old Testament book (Isaiah) and thousands of fragments, which together represent every Old Testament book except Esther.
Dead Sea Scroll Discoveries. Cave 1 was discovered by an Arab shepherd boy. From it he took seven more-or-less complete scrolls and some fragments.
Isaiah A (IQIsa). St. Mark’s Monastery Isaiah Scroll is a popular copy with numerous corrections above the line or in the margin. It is the earliest known copy of any complete book of the Bible.
Isaiah B (IQIsb). The Hebrew University Isaiah is incomplete, but its text agrees more closely with the Masoretic text than does Isaiah A.
Murabba ,at Discoveries. Prompted by the profitable finds at Qumran, the Bedouins pursued their search and found caves southeast of Bethlehem that produced self-dated manuscripts and documents from the Second Jewish Revolt (132-35). Systematic exploration and excavation of these caves began in January 1952. The later, dated manuscripts helped establish the antiquity of the Dead Sea Scrolls. From these caves came another scroll of the Minor Prophets, the last half of Joel through Haggai, which closely supports the Masoretic Text. The oldest known Semitic papyrus (a palimpsest), inscribed the second time in the ancient Hebrew script (dating from the seventh to eighth centuries BC), was found here (see Barthelemy and Milik).
Another site known as Khirbet Mird has produced manuscript materials. On April 3, 1960, a parchment fragment (first century AD) of Psalm 15 and part of Psalm 16 was discovered at Wadi Murabba’at (see Coss, 164).
Samaritan Pentateuch. The Samaritans separated from the Jews probably during the fifth or fourth century BC after a long, bitter religious and cultural struggle. At the time of the schism, one would suspect that the Samaritans took with them the Scriptures as they then existed, and they prepared their own, revised text of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan Pentateuch is not a version in the strict sense but rather a manuscript portion of the Hebrew text itself. It contains the five books of Moses and is written in an ancient style of Hebrew script. Some of the older biblical manuscripts from Qumran use this script, since it was revived in the second century BC during the Maccabean revolt against the Greeks. Textual critic Frank M. Cross Jr. believes that the Samaritan Pentateuch probably comes from about the Maccabean period.
A form of the Samaritan Pentateuch text seems to have been known to church fathers Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 265-339) and Jerome (ca. 345-ca. 419). It was not available to modern Western scholars until 1616, when Pietro della Valle discovered a manuscript of the Samaritan Pentateuch in Damascus. A great wave of excitement arose among biblical scholars. The text was regarded as superior to the Masoretic Text, until Wilhelm Gesenius in 1815 judged it to be practically worthless for textual criticism. More recently, the value of the Samaritan Pentateuch has been reasserted by such scholars as A. Geiger, Paul Kahle, and Frederic Kenyon.
There are about six thousand deviations of the Samaritan Pentateuch from the Masoretic Text, most trivial. In about nineteen hundred instances, the Samaritan text agrees with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text. Some of the deviations were deliberately introduced by the Samaritans to preserve their own religious traditions and dialectic. The Masoretic Text perpetuates Judean dialect and traditions.
In the early Christian era, a translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch was made into the Aramaic dialect of the Samaritans. This Samaritan Tar gum was also translated into Greek, called the Samaritikon, which was occasionally cited by Origen After the eleventh century, several translations of the Samaritan Pentateuch were made in Arabic (Kahle, 51-57).
Other Important Discoveries. The Silver Scrolls. In 1979, two tiny silver scrolls were found in a tomb in Jerusalem One contains the Aaronic blessing (Num 6:24-26). They contain other Old Testament references not yet published. They date from the seventh century BC and are the oldest known fragment of the Old Testament and the first known reference to God’s sacred name (YHWH)
—Yahweh.
Nash Papyri. Among the earliest Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts, there is extant one damaged copy of the Shema (fromDeut. 6:4-9) and two fragments of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:2-17; Deut. 5:6-21). The Nash Papyri are dated between the second century BC and the first century AD.
Orientales 4445. Orientales 4445, a British Museum manuscript, is dated by Christian D. Ginsburg at between 820 and 850, with notes added a century later. But Paul Kahle (see Wurthwein, 18) argues that both consonantal Hebrew texts and pointing (the added vowel points or marks) are from the tenth century. Because the Hebrew alphabet consists only of consonants, Hebrew writing normally shows only those letters, with a few letters used to represent some of the vocalic sounds. Vowel marks or “points” were a medieval development. This manuscript contains Genesis 39:20-Deuteronomy 1:33, less Numbers 7:47-73 and 9:12-10:18.
Codex Cairensis. A codex is a manuscript in book form with pages. According to a colophon, or inscription at the end of the book, Codex Cairensis (C) was written and vowel-pointed in 895 by Moses ben Asher in Tiberias in Palestine (ibid., 25). It contains the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets). It is symbolized by a C in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and is regarded as the most authoritative Hebrew text based on the Masoretic Text tradition.
Aleppo Codex. Aleppo Codex was written by Shelomo benBaya’a (Kenyon, 84), but according to a colophon note, it was pointed (i.e., the vowel marks were added) by Moses ben Asher (ca. 930). It is a model codex, although it was not permitted to be copied for a long time and was even reported to have been destroyed (Wurthwein, 25). It was smuggled from Syria to Israel. It has now been photographed and is the basis of the New Hebrew Bible published by Hebrew University (Goshen-Gottstein, 13). It is a sound authority for the ben Asher text.
Codex Leningradensis. According to a colophon note, Codex Leningradensis (L) was copied in Old Cairo by Samuel ben Jacob in 1008 from a manuscript (now lost) written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in ca. 1000 (Kahle, 110). It represents one of the oldest manuscripts of the complete Hebrew Bible. Kittel adopted it as the basis for the third edition of his Biblia Hebraica, and it continues to be used as such in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, where it is represented under the symbol L.
Babylonian Codex of the Latter Prophets. The Babylonian Codex (V [ar]P) is sometimes called the Leningrad Codex of the Prophets (Kenyon, 85) or the [St.] Petersburg Codex (Wurthwein, 26). It contains Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Twelve. It is dated 916, but its chief significance is that, through it,
punctuation added by the Babylonian school of Masoretic scribes was rediscovered. It is symbolized as V (ar)P in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets. Dated 1105, Reuchlin Codex is now at Karlsruhe. Like the British Museum manuscript (ca. 1150), it contains a recension of Ben Naphtali, a TiberianMasorete. These have been of great value in establishing the fidelity of the ben Asher text (Kenyon, 36).
Erfurt Codices. The Erfurt Codices (El, E2, E3) are listed in the University Library in Tubingen. They represent more or less (more in E3) the text and markings of the ben Naphtali tradition. El is a fourteenth-century manuscript. E2 is probably from the thirteenth century. E3, the oldest, is dated before 1100 (Wiirthwein, 26).
Nature of Manuscripts. Types of Manuscript Errors. Although the official text of the Old Testament was transmitted with great care, it was inevitable that certain copyist errors would creep into the texts over the hundreds of years of transmission into thousands of manuscripts. There are several kinds of copyist errors that produce textual variants (Archer, 55-57).
Rules for Textual Criticism. Scholars have developed certain criteria for determining which reading is correct or original. Seven rules may be suggested.
1. An older reading is to be preferred, because it is closer to the original.
2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred, because scribes were more apt to smooth out difficult readings.
3. The shorter reading is to be preferred, because copyists were more apt to insert new material than omit part of the sacred text.
4. The reading that best explains the other variants is to be preferred.
5. The reading with the widest geographical support is to be preferred, because such manuscripts or versions are less likely to have influenced each other.
6. The reading that is most like the author’s usual style is to be preferred.
7. The reading that does not reflect a doctrinal bias is to be preferred. (Wiirthwein, 80-81).
Quality of Manuscripts. Several reasons have been suggested for the relative scarcity of early Hebrew manuscripts. The first and most obvious reason is a combination of antiquity and destructibility; two to three thousand years is a long time to expect ancient documents to last. Nonetheless, several lines of evidence support the conclusion that their quality is very good.
Variant Readings. There are very few variants in the texts available because the Masoretes systematically destroyed old manuscripts once they were carefully copied. Kenyon illustrates the paucity of variations in the Masoretic Text by contrasting the Leningrad Codex of the Prophets, from the Babylonian or Eastern tradition, with the standard Palestinian text (Western) of Ezekiel. In the Western text, the Masoretic Text is sometimes corrupt. Yet there are only sixteen real conflicts between the two texts (Kenyon, 45, 70-72).
Jewish Reverence for the Bible. With respect to the Jewish Scriptures, however, it was not scribal accuracy alone that guaranteed their product. Rather, it was their almost superstitious reverence for the Bible. According to the Talmud, not only were there specifications for the kind of skins to be used and the size of the columns, but there was even a religious ritual necessary for the scribe to perform before writing the name of God. Rules governed the kind of ink used, dictated the spacing of words, and prohibited writing anything from memory. The lines, and even the letters, were counted methodically. If a manuscript was found to contain even one mistake, it was discarded and destroyed.
This scribal formalism was responsible, at least in part, for the extreme care exercised in copying the Scriptures. It was also the reason there were only a few manuscripts (as the rules demanded the destruction of defective copies).
Comparison of Duplicate Passages. Another line of evidence for the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is found in the comparison of the duplicate passages of the Masoretic Text itself. Several psalms occur twice (e.g., 14 and 53); much of Isaiah 36-39 is also found in 2 Kings 18-20; Isaiah 2:2-4 is almost exactly parallel to Micah 4:1-3; Jeremiah 52 is a repeat of 2 Kings 25; and large portions of Chronicles are found in Samuel and Kings. An examination of those passages shows not only a substantial textual agreement but, in some cases, almost word-for-word identity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the Old Testament texts have not undergone radical revisions, even if it were assumed that these parallel passages had identical sources.
Support from Archaeology. A substantial proof for the accuracy of the Old Testament text has come from archaeology. Numerous discoveries have confirmed the historical accuracy of the biblical documents, even down to the occasional use of obsolete names of foreign kings. These archaeological confirmations of the accuracy of Scripture have been recorded in numerous books (see Archaeology, New Testament; Archaeology, Old Testament). ArchaeologistNelsonGlueck asserts, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Glueck, 31).
The Septuagint and Masoretic Text. The Septuagint was the Bible of Jesus and the apostles. Most New Testament quotations are taken from it directly, even when it differs from the Masoretic Text.
On the whole the Septuagint closely parallels the Masoretic Text and is a confirmation of the fidelity of the tenth-century Hebrew text.
If no other evidence were available, the case for the fidelity of the Masoretic Text could be brought to rest with confidence upon textual comparisons and understanding of the extraordinary Jewish scribal system. But with discovery of the *Dead Sea Scrolls, beginning in 1947, there is almost overwhelming substantiation of the received Hebrew text of the Masoretes. Critics of the Masoretic Text charged that the manuscripts were few and late. Through the Dead Sea Scrolls, early manuscript fragments provide a check on nearly the whole Old Testament. Those checks date about a thousand years before the Great Masoretic manuscripts of the tenth century. Before the discoveries in the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea caves, the Nash Papyrus (a fragment of the Ten Commandments and Shema, Deut. 6:4-9), dated between 150 and 100 BC, was the only known scrap of the Hebrew text dating from before the Christian era.
Agreement with the Samaritan Pentateuch. Despite the many minor variants between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, there is substantial agreement between them. As noted above, the six thousand variants from the Masoretic Text are mostly differences in spelling and cultural word variation. Nineteen hundred variants agree with the Septuagint (for example, in the ages given for the patriarchs in Gen. 5 and 11). Some Samaritan Pentateuch variants are sectarian, such as the command to build the temple on Mount Gerizim, not at Jerusalem (e.g., after Exod. 20:17). It should be noted, however, that most manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch are late (thirteenth to fourteenth centuries), and none is before the tenth century (Archer, 44). But the Samaritan Pentateuch still confirms the general text from which it had diverged many hundreds of years earlier.
Check against the Dead Sea Scrolls. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars have Hebrew manuscripts one thousand years earlier than the Great Masoretic manuscripts, enabling them to check on the fidelity of the Hebrew text. There is a word-for-word identity in more than 95 percent of the cases, and the 5 percent variation consists mostly of slips of the pen and spelling (ibid., 24).
The Isaiah scroll (lQIsa) from Qumran led the Revised Standard Version translators to make only thirteen changes from the Masoretic Text; eight of those were known from ancient versions, and few of them were significant (Burrows, 305ff.). Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only seventeen Hebrew letters in the Isaiah B scroll differ from the Masoretic Text. Ten letters are a matter of spelling, four are stylistic changes, and the other three compose the word for “light,” (added in v. 11), which does not affect the meaning greatly (Harris, 124). Furthermore, that word is also found in that verse in the Septuagint and the Isaiah A scroll.
Conclusion. The thousands of Hebrew manuscripts, with their confirmation by the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the numerous other cross-checks from outside and inside the text provide overwhelming support for the reliability of the Old Testament text. Hence, it is appropriate to conclude with Kenyon that “the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed.”
Since the Old Testament text is related in important ways to Christian apologetics, its reliability supports the Christian faith. This is true not only in establishing the dates when supernatural predictions were made of the Messiah but also in supporting the historicity of the Old Testament that Jesus and New Testament writers affirmed (see Bible, Evidence for; Bible, Jesus’s View of).