The Books of the Old Testament
The New Testament strongly confirms the contents of the Old. Frequent reference in the New Testament to the Scriptures suggests no ambiguity in the minds of either the writer or reader as to what is referred to: “Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures” (Matt. 21:42). “Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). No clarification is given as to which writings are being spoken of. There was just one set of writings, revered as the Scriptures, in the mind of the Jew. As to the specific books which make up the canon, the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament cover almost the entire collection. All of the Old Testament books, with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, are either directly quoted or referenced. Furthermore, it is clear that the New Testament writers accepted the Old Testament books as the Word of God. The Apostle Matthew quotes from Isaiah: “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:22). Peter, as recorded by Luke in the book of Acts, quotes the Psalms saying: “Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas” (Acts 1:16). The Apostle Paul positively affirms the value and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures when he writes to Timothy: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). To this we could add the numerous Old Testament quotations used by the Lord Himself. In the following He not only confirmed the prophesy of Isaiah but He also established the law of Moses as the commandment of God: “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me ... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother” (Mark 7:6, 9-10). To accept the New Testament as the Word of God, and yet reject the Old, is indefensible. Either both are true, or they must both be riddled with falsehood.
We should note for completeness, that non-biblical books are also quoted in the New Testament. Simply because they are quoted doesn’t in itself imply that the source text is Scripture. Consider Paul’s use of a Greek poet in his discourse on Mars’ hill: “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring” (Acts 17:28). No one would suggest that Paul is including the writings of the Greek poet Aratus in the canon of Scripture; the context makes this clear. Jude’s quoting of Enoch differs in both source and substance and it will be addressed when we consider the Apocrypha.
So far we’ve looked at some of the internal Biblical evidence for the books which make up the Old Testament canon. As to the external evidence, we can begin by turning to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Josephus lived from 37 A.D. to around 100 A.D. Towards the end of his life, he wrote a defense of Judaism known by the title, Against Apion. In it we read: For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.5
It might surprise the Christian reader to find that Josephus mentions just twenty two books. Nevertheless, this almost certainly includes all the books with which we are familiar. The Jew typically counted twenty four books: the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Minor Prophets; and the writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. In this arrangement, we can see the influence of the scroll. Each of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles formed a single scroll and they were not divided as we know them. Likewise, the Minor Prophets were written on one scroll as were Ezra and Nehemiah. As to Josephus’ twenty two books, it is quite probable that he included Ruth as an appendix to the book of Judges and likewise Lamentations to the book of Jeremiah.6
The Origin of the Canon
Concerning the origin of the Old Testament canon, and its transmission and preservation, I only wish to make a few remarks. On the one hand, I don’t pretend that I can silence the skeptic, and on the other, faith doesn’t demand an explanation. Nevertheless, our faith rests upon that which is perfectly reasonable and there are a few things in this regard that I wish to note.
The various books that make up the Old Testament were written over an extended period of time. This is not only evident in the accuracy of the historic events recorded, but also in the changes in language and style throughout. It might be asked, when were the various writings accepted as scripture? The earlier books are received and treated as authoritative throughout the later books. As to the book of the law, we are told that it was placed in the ark of the covenant upon its completion: “When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, ... put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deut. 31:24, 26). This command came as Moses was giving charge to Joshua as the one who would bring them into the promised land (Deut. 31:23). That his final instructions should have been recorded, and preserved, is unsurprising. Faith, however, receives the books of Moses as the Word of the Lord, even as the text itself states (Ex. 24:3; 34:27, etc.). The reasons, therefore, for preserving the law in the ark go far beyond any natural explanation; it was placed in the ark because it had been received as a revelation from Jehovah God.
References in the book of Kings to the law of Moses, and elsewhere throughout the Old Testament, continue to attest to its acceptance as divine authority: “Keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses” (1 Kings 2:3). Interestingly, the very instruction for the preservation of the text was built into the Law itself; though I readily grant that the preservation of the text was a secondary objective, though intrinsic to its observation. “When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me ... it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them” (Deut. 17:14, 18-19). Though I am not aware of an explicit record in the Scriptures to confirm that this was ever carried out, we do find the book of the law providentially preserved up to the time of King Josiah at the close of the kingdom of Judah (circa 623 B.C.). “Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it” (2 Kings 22:8). It is clear that its contents, far from having been edited to fit the changing times, continued to serve as a witness against Israel: “When the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes” (2 Kings 22:11).
As to the later writings, we find Jeremiah quoting Micah (Jer. 26:18) and Daniel reading Jeremiah, his contemporary: “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:2). These prophecies were received as the Word of God. Of course, skepticism takes issue with the Book of Daniel and places its origin at a much later date, not because of its historical inaccuracy, but rather, for its historical precision! Unbelief cannot accept that Daniel could have recorded, in such detail, future events. Faith, on the other hand, receives prophecy as a revelation from God Himself. That Daniel could speak in such detail is, therefore, not surprising at all.
The Old Testament writings were accepted as scripture, if not at the time of writing, then certainly shortly thereafter. We can see something of the process in the book of Proverbs. This book was compiled into its present form at a date later than the reign of Solomon as the following verse indicates: “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out” (Prov. 25:1). In no way does this lead faith to question the inspiration of the book, but rather, we recognize that God used faithful men at a later date to preserve those proverbs of Solomon (that had evidently been accepted as divinely inspired) before they were lost to the ravages of time. We might note that, with the exception of clay tablets and inscriptions on stone or metal, written media simply didn’t endure. Generally speaking, parchment and papyrus decay rapidly unless stored in a dry environment, free of most bacteria. The preservation of texts took effort — the faithful replication of manuscripts from generation to generation. Texts with no special value languished and have, by and large, been lost to antiquity. In contrast, however, the Scriptures have been preserved.
The Transmission and Preservation of the Text
Though the transmission of the text of the Old Testament was by human means — the painstaking copying by scribes from scroll to scroll — nevertheless, faith readily acknowledges God’s divine care over His own word. It is inconceivable that God, who chose to communicate His mind through the written word, would allow it to become corrupted so as to render it useless. The evidence from the manuscripts that have been discovered indicates that the text has indeed been remarkably preserved, nevertheless, not without the marks of human frailty.
The Old Testament that we hold in our hands is by and large a translation of that which is known as the Masoretic text. The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament based on this Hebrew text. It dates from around 1008 A.D. It is extraordinarily well preserved and is housed at the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who worked between the sixth and tenth centuries A.D. They accepted the job of preserving and transmitting the text of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their dedication to the accuracy of the text is extraordinary. 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 7. The Masoretes, for example, added the diacritic marks to the Hebrew text to ensure proper pronunciation. Hebrew, as with other Semitic languages, is written without vowels. The vowels are indicated in the Masoretic text with marks above, below, or within the letter itself.
Being a bound book, in contrast to a collection of scrolls, the Leningrad Codex establishes an order for the books of the Old Testament. This order differs from the one with which we are familiar. It corresponds, however, more or less to that given by Josephus and as suggested by the Lord — the threefold division of: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Clearly this was, and had been, a familiar arrangement to the Jew.
Since the time of the Masoretes, the text of the Old Testament has been preserved with a religious zeal and dogged tenacity. Even when the written text differed from the traditional reading, the text was not altered. These differences occurred for a variety of reasons, sometimes religious, but on other occasions for such things as mundane as misspellings. Because of their reverence for the text, the Jewish scribes dutifully transcribed everything unaltered, even spelling errors, but with a notation. These variations are called the Qere. This Hebrew word means that which is read. The written text, on the other hand, is called the Ketiv, meaning that which is written. An English translation, as in J. N. Darby’s, may note in the margin as to whether it is following the Qere or the Ketiv.
Though I remarked that the text has been diligently preserved since the time of the Masoretes, I’m not suggesting anything different for the periods prior to this. It is simply that since the time of the Masoretes we have a solid historic record that may be reviewed by any who wish to question the integrity of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, because of the relative modernity of the Masoretic manuscripts we possess (from around 1000 A.D.), accusations were frequently made against the reliability of the Old Testament Scriptures. Unfortunately, there was no textual evidence to prove otherwise — at least, not until 1947!
Incidentally, this accusation is frequently made by Muslims. They believe that the Jewish and Christian writings had become so corrupted that the Prophet Muhammad had to be sent with a new revelation. The Quran states: O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book (Surah 5:15). For their part, Moslems don’t reject the Bible outright; in fact, the Quran appears to confirm the teaching of the Gospels, though they attribute them to Allah: And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient (Surah 5:46-47). I do not write this to cast a positive light on the Quran. Rather, it is something to be aware of, as the Gospels, especially Matthew, Mark and Luke, are a good starting point if one has the opportunity to witness to someone of this persuasion.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, as the story goes, a Bedouin shepherd boy, searching for a lost goat along the West bank of the Dead Sea, tossed a stone into a hole in the cliff face. To his surprise, he heard the sound of breaking pottery. Seeking out the cause, he found within the cave clay jars holding scrolls. This was the beginning of one of the most extraordinary archeological finds of the last century, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In all, more than nine hundred manuscripts were ultimately recovered. Of these, more than two hundred and twenty five are Biblical. Every Old Testament book is represented with the exception of Esther and Nehemiah — and given that Nehemiah was typically included in the same scroll as Ezra, we may count it among the number as well. It is generally accepted that the Dead Sea manuscripts date from 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. That is to say, they are among the oldest Old Testament manuscripts that we have, and around 1000 years older than the oldest known Masoretic texts.8
What have we learned from these manuscripts? Rather than evidence of textual corruption and modification as skeptics supposed, the exact opposite has been established. One of the most remarkably preserved texts is that of Isaiah with twenty one manuscripts in all. Of these, one scroll is complete. When the Standard Bible Revision Committee compared the Isaiah text of the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic text, on which our English translation is based, they made, as Millar Burrows recalled, just thirteen adjustments to the text. Thirteen readings in which the manuscript departs from the traditional text were eventually adopted. In these places a marginal note cites “One ancient Ms,” meaning the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll. A brief review will show that even in these thirteen places the superiority of the manuscript’s reading is not always certain. For myself I must confess that in some cases where I probably voted for the emendation I am now convinced that our decision was a mistake, and the Masoretic reading should have been retained.9 In the entire book of Isaiah, only thirteen differences of any consequence were identified! As to the nature of these amendments, here is an example: whereas the King James reads: “The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee” (Isa. 60:19), the Isaiah scroll adds the words “ ... by night.” The remaining twelve changes are no more startling, and, while they may elucidate some difficult passages, they certainly do not alter our understanding of them.
I do not wish to gloss over the differences between manuscripts, for there are differences. Those who seek to question the veracity of the Scriptures will, without a doubt, emphasize them. However, while it is easy to produce numbers that seem to indicate an overwhelming number of textual variations, when one examines the specifics, the story is very different. The truth is the manuscripts prove that the vast bulk of the text has been faithfully and remarkably preserved. No other document of such antiquity shows anything close to this degree of preservation. Josh McDowell, quoting G. Archer, offers this assessment: the Isaiah copies of the Qumran community proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than ninety five percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.10
We find nothing to support the notion of an evolving, dynamic text. Unbelief will make much of the little it does find, but we leave the skeptics to their fanciful interpretations. For our part, we are not looking for a proof of the reliability of the Old Testament. Indeed, faith doesn’t require such a proof. Nevertheless, in considering one of the accusations made against the Old Testament Scriptures, we find nothing to substantiate it.
The Septuagint
The Septuagint, also known as the LXX (both mean seventy), is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The translation probably began during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, in Alexandria, Egypt, around 250 B.C. Tradition has it that six elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel (seventy two elders in all) translated the Hebrew Scriptures in just seventy two days. We have no particular reason to accept this tradition as being true; nor should we suppose that the whole of the Septuagint was even translated at one time.
The Septuagint is of special interest to the Christian because a great majority of Old Testament quotations given in the New Testament follow the Greek text of the Septuagint. The Septuagint, however, presents two problems: 1) The translation is quite varied in quality, and, in some instances, differs significantly from the Masoretic text. 2) In addition to the twenty four books of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint includes various extra-Biblical books.
In addressing these concerns, we must first note that the Septuagint is indeed a translation. Just as we have a multitude of translations of the Bible into English — a few excellent, many doubtful, and others bordering on blasphemous — it shouldn’t surprise us to find variations within the Septuagint. It is also important to recognize that it was a translation whose primary purpose appears to have been the dissemination of Hebrew texts throughout the Greek speaking world; it wasn’t intended for scholarly or scribal work.11
Regarding the quality of translation, another has written: When the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was made, the Hebrew text used was, of course, not marked with the vowel points which the Masoretes later placed in their text. And it is to be observed that the great majority of the variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text arise from the fact that the translators supplied different vowels to the consonantal text from those which the Masoretes employed. In numerous other instances the translators had before them the same text as that of the Masoretes, but mistook it, misunderstood it, or interpreted it differently. At times it is clear that the translators were not at all sure what the Hebrew text before them meant, and it is quite possible that at some other times, when they did feel sure of the meaning of the text, they were mistaken. Furthermore on some occasions, they attempted to throw light on the original by the addition of material. Comparative Semitic philology has shown that numerous supposed variations in the Septuagint from the Masoretic text do not represent any difference at all in the basic text.12
By way of example, the Septuagint version of Esther has a number of non-trivial differences when compared against the story in our Bibles. It is, in fact, significantly longer than the Hebrew text. A casual reading of the Septuagint version, however, is sufficient to show that the original text is indeed present, but there are many additions. Between the fourth and fifth chapters, for example, prayers supposedly offered by Mordecai and Esther have been inserted. In these prayers, Jehovah God is entreated on behalf of the Jewish people. The Biblical book of Esther is rather remarkable in that God is not once mentioned. This has caused difficulty for some — indeed, not one fragment from the book of Esther has ever been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls! The book was apparently rejected by the community at Qumran. The translators of the Septuagint seem to have taken a different tack; rather than excise the book, they have embellished it to make up for what it was deemed to lack! That there is no reference to God, however, represents no difficulty at all. Rather, it is completely consistent with the story and its historical context. William Kelly remarks: Here we have another final view historically in the book of Esther; but it is in a quite different direction, for we have a picture of the secret providence which never fails to watch over them [the Jews] while they are scattered among the Gentiles. And this it is that accounts for no introduction of Jehovah or even Elohim in the book, which rationalistic ignorance alleges against its divine inspiration. Oh, the folly of heeding what these enemies of God (and therefore in divine things of man also) say about scripture! 13
Since the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint, one may ask the question: doesn’t this give credibility to that text and translation? Not necessarily. Just as one may use a poor translation of the English Bible to point one to Christ, the Septuagint may likewise be used. That is to say, the Spirit of God made use of this translation, familiar to the common people, to bring before them those verses which we now find in our New Testament. We should also note, however, that one should not suppose that the majority of the Septuagint is questionable — far from it. What then as to verses which clearly differ between the Old and New Testaments? For example, “Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me” (Heb. 10:5) is a quotation from the fortieth Psalm as given by the Septuagint. The Hebrew text reads: “Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; Mine ears hast Thou opened” (Psa. 40:6). In this instance, the Septuagint is not a word-for-word translation, but it gives the sense as it is to be understood; to have ones ears opened implies a body given. Regardless, the Spirit of God may quote Himself in whatever way He chooses. An author can hardly be criticized for quoting himself in words of his own choosing.
As to the second difficulty mentioned above, that is to say the inclusion of extra-Biblical books, we will address this next as we consider the apocryphal books of the Old Testament.
Apocryphal Books
If you will allow me to digress for a moment from the rather dry consideration of facts, I will recount a personal story. In a high-school mathematics class, the subject of the Bible came up one day. It was not introduced by the teacher but by a student — in fact, I don’t recall the teacher being present. I suppose, any subject but mathematics was more interesting on that warm, lazy afternoon! Present was a student known by his self-declared position as an atheist. This was somewhat unusual in our rather staid community, with its roots going back to the old German Lutherans who settled it. Nevertheless, he made no secret of the fact. Declaring that he was not ignorant of the Bible he indicated that he had read it from cover to cover — and being a good student, I had no reason to doubt him. His most striking observation, however, was that the portion he enjoyed the most was the Apocrypha! Now, for one who had grown up with a daily portion from the Bible, this was quite baffling. I had heard the Book of Revelation referred to as the Apocalypse, but I had never heard of the Apocrypha. What had I missed?
The word Apocrypha literally means obscure. It is a title used to describe books of doubtful origin and questionable authorship, which have nevertheless, been found in association with the Scriptures. We find certain apocryphal books included in the Septuagint; we also find a number of religious scrolls of an apocryphal character among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This mingling of texts has led to confusion and has opened the door for some to question the canon of Scripture. My fellow high school student had probably read a Roman Catholic Bible. For them, the canonicity of certain apocryphal books was explicitly affirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. There are, nevertheless, strong reasons why these books have been rejected as the inspired Word of God by both Protestant Christians and Jews alike.
The most overlooked reason why these books have been rejected as the Word of God is because they are not! Sometimes one gets the impression that canonicity was decided by a committee many years removed from the original authorship. In fact, Heinrich Graetz hypothesized that the canon of the Old Testament was decided by the council of Jamnia around 90 A.D.14 This has since been discredited as insupportable conjecture. It never seems to occur to scholars that God gave man a revelation, and that it was received as such by the faithful to whom it was addressed. Quite frankly, many of the so-called apocryphal books were rejected because they were plainly interlopers — they pretended to be something they were not. However, I don’t want to be accused of highhandedness; if this is true, there will be evidence to this effect.
The Jews themselves did not treat the Apocryphal books as Scripture. Neither Josephus nor Philo (an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, circa 20 B.C. – 40 A.D.) quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired. More importantly, none of the New Testament authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude quoted from these books. Jude may be offered by some as an exception but I will address this shortly. The so-called church fathers spoke out against the Apocrypha — for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius. Jerome (340 – 420 A.D.), the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Writing in his prologue to the Books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs), Jerome says: The church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the church.15 Martin Luther and the other reformers rejected the Apocrypha as canonical.
Aside from its silence, how does the rest of Scripture judge the Apocrypha? The character of these books and the doctrines they uphold are at variance with the inspired Word of God. As an example, the Roman Catholic practice of praying for the dead is taken from the apocryphal book of Second Maccabees (2 Macc. 12:44-46). Truly, such prayers are vain and useless. Indeed, how shall we escape if in this life we reject salvation (Heb. 2:3)? There is no way. The Lord confirms the fixed state of the dead in the account of the rich man and Lazarus: “Beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence” (Luke 16:26).
As to the book of Jude, Jude gives us a prophesy from Enoch: “Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him” (Jude 14-15). Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is to be found multiple manuscripts of a text known as the Book of Enoch — Jude’s prophesy is to be found in it. Interestingly, this book was not included by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, and it has never gained traction among Jews and Christians alike. No copy has ever been found in the Hebrew language; all the Enoch scrolls at Qumran are in Aramaic. The book has five sections, the first of which is occupied with fallen angels and a fanciful interpretation of Genesis 6:4. It reads like Greek mythology and not Scripture; man’s occupation with such salacious topics continues with the popular media of this present day. The Book of Enoch was most likely written subsequent to Jude’s epistle, with the author using the prophecy given by Jude to offer legitimacy to the text. Given the unusual nature of Enoch’s life (Gen. 5:21-24) it naturally excites much interest. That someone should take Jude’s quote and build a text around it is hardly surprising. Such pseudepigraphical texts were not uncommon, as we shall see when we come to the New Testament. Regardless, it is incongruous to believe that Jude sourced his quote from such a book, and, as did the early Christians, we receive his short epistle as the inspired Word of God and we reject the Book of Enoch.
As to the merit of the books of the Apocrypha, Maccabees I and II provide us with an historic account of that silent period between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, we receive them as one would the writings of Josephus, Julius Caesar, Herodotus, or any other secular historian. As to the remaining books, they are of interest to one studying the period, but unlike Jerome, I cannot recommend them, even for edification, if the Scriptures themselves make no such commendation.
In hindsight, I find it rather striking that my fellow student, the self-proclaimed atheist, found the apocryphal books the most enjoyable. Should it surprise us that these had the greatest resonance with the natural man? “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (2 Cor. 2:14). To complete the story, many years later I heard that this man had been saved! Truly, we marvel at the grace of God. It reminds me of the verse: “Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16). Truly indifference is often a greater enemy to the soul than outright hostility.
The Historical Accuracy of the Old Testament
Though there are, relatively speaking, fewer ancient manuscripts for the Old Testament when compared to the New, they are quite sufficient to demonstrate the consistency of the text over the last two thousand years. If we wish to reach back beyond that, however, then we must look to secondary sources. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is a historical document, and as such, it leaves itself wide open to scrutiny.
A note of caution here — as a Christian, I do not look to history to prove the Word of God. Instead, I look to the Bible to understand history. Nevertheless, there are many who want to see to believe (John 20:25); and many more who would seek to undermine the weak in faith by making false historical claims. When there is a true seeking and a desire to know, then having answers as to the historical accuracy of the Scriptures is not inappropriate. The Lord did show Himself to Thomas, though he was reproved for his lack of faith: “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed” (John 20:29). In the story of Thomas, there is another lesson to be learned; unless the revealing of the Lord is our true desire, all such discussions are without profit. Salvation is not brought about through persuasion and clever argument. We present the truth and the Spirit of God does the rest.
Interestingly, the Quran is not an historical document and so, quite conveniently, it cannot be subject to the same historical scrutiny. The Book of Mormon, however, does claim to be an historical record. For its part, there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the fabrications it presents concerning the ancient Americas and plenty which plainly contradicts it.
So, how does one compare the Old Testament with the historic record — and what record do we use, and how are we to be sure of its reliability? These are good questions but are beyond the scope of this book and the author’s expertise. Nevertheless, there are some rather obvious external records that we can, without controversy, appeal to. Whereas manuscripts may not be the best material for longevity, clay and stone do rather well! From time immemorial, man, in his quest for immortality, has carved records of his grandest achievements in stone. Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian inscriptions all exist in stone. Nevertheless, only the most significant of records were recorded in such a costly fashion. There was, however, a far more prosaic way of writing which has left us a superabundance of preserved records. For thousands of years the peoples of Mesopotamia wrote on soft clay tablets using a wedge-shaped stick. Cuneiform, as it is known, was adapted by the Hittites, Assyrians, and Babylonians (among others) to record their daily lives and to chronicle their history. Though clay tablets are not completely impervious to the ravages of time, one agent usually associated with destruction, fire, simply bakes clay into brick! When a city was burned by a conqueror, entire libraries of clay tablets were preserved in the ashes. Although a majority of tablets simply record daily transactions, royal records have also been found among the million or so tablets we have today. The book of Esther makes reference to such chronicles: “On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king” (Esther 6:1). Incidentally, of the tablets found, only a small percentage, perhaps ten percent, has ever been read! This gives one some idea of the sheer volume of material preserved.
We know, therefore, from their own local records, the royal lineage of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. We can read of their conquests and we can also read of the intrigues that led to their overthrow. Focusing on the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Old Testament gives the following kings of Assyria (A) and Babylon (B) in this order:16
Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) A 745-727 B.C.
Shalmaneser V A 727-722 B.C.
Sargon II A 722-705 B.C.
Sennacherib A 705-681 B.C.
Merodach-Baladan II B 722-710, 703 B.C.
Esarhaddon A 681-669 B.C.
Nebuchadrezzar II B 605-562 B.C.
Evil-Merodach B 562-560 B.C.
Not only does the Biblical order correspond exactly to the external records, but the names are spelled correctly. The latter may seem like an odd observation, but, in this regard, the Bible stands in stark contrast to the writings of the fourth to first centuries B.C. where the names are almost unintelligible.17 As to dates, and especially time intervals, once again we find no conflict.
In 2 Kings we read, “It came to pass, as [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings 19:37). Assyrian records from Nineveh, from Esarhaddon himself, confirm this murder by the sons of Sennacherib. The Babylonian Chronicle mentions murder by a son and other later sources continue to confirm the event — once again, there is absolute agreement between the Old Testament and external records.
Backing up in time, we read in 1 Kings: “It came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: and he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made” (1 Kings 14:25-26). Was there such a king in Egypt? Most certainly! Shoshenq the First has left us a record of his campaign into Palestine including a stele (inscribed stone slab) at Megiddo in the valley of Jezreel.
Should we be surprised at these things? No, not at all. What should surprise us is that the Old Testament is treated as a second-rate historical source. Over and over again we find historic records aligning with the Biblical accounts, and yet, when there is a seeming disagreement, the Bible is always assumed to be wrong. The story of Belshazzar was long disputed; we now have local Babylonian documents that tell us that he reigned as second in the kingdom during his father’s (Nabonidus) lengthy absences — need I say, in perfect consistency with the book of Daniel. Mind you, the critics will point out that Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar “thy father” (Dan. 5:18). Although some feel that Nebuchadnezzar was perhaps Belshazzar’s grandfather, Nabonidus is not known to be a direct descendent of Nebuchadnezzar. The terms father and son, however, have frequently been used outside of natural relationships. Whether literal or not, Daniel links Belshazzar to Nebuchadnezzar in this way as his precursor and example.
Of course, we know why man rejects the Biblical accounts. To accept the Scriptures, even for its historic content, puts man in a precarious position. Though the Old Testament contains history, it was not written to be an historic record. For that, one needed to turn to the state chronicles. Indeed, throughout the books of Kings we read: “The rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19). If the Bible is not first of all an historic record, what then? The Spirit of God, through the inspired writers, gives us just those things which God desires to bring to our attention. The Bible serves the much larger purpose of revealing the state of man’s heart on the one hand and the heart of God on the other. The natural man does not want to hear these things.