New Testament Textual Criticism

L’altération d’un texte original est un point fondamental pour le croyant, car si ce texte comportait des erreurs à l’origine il ne peut pas provenir d’un Dieu supposé parfait. C’est pour cette raison que les théologiens musulmans interdisent, sous peine de mort (fatwa), d’effectuer une édition critique du Coran. Le but de cette étude est donc d’analyser le texte biblique et comprendre pourquoi le Nouveau Testament cite majoritairement le texte (grec) de la Septante et seulement quelquefois le texte massorétique (hébreu). Etant donné que le texte du Nouveau Testament et celui de la Septante proviennent d’une édition critique, il est logique de conclure que le texte massorétique a été “corrigé”. Une reconstitution historique indique quand, pourquoi et par qui ce texte hébreu a été modifié et montre que les données chronologiques provenant du Pentateuque et du Nouveau Testament sont en excellent accord, elles proviennent donc d’un texte original qui a été préservé sans altération majeure. Par conséquent les variantes actuelles (2% du texte) proviennent de corrections effectuées par les scribes hasmonéens d’origine pharisienne, de -160 à -63, validées ensuite par les rabbins entre 90 et 130, quand celles-ci étaient en accord avec leur enseignement (Talmud). Ces corrections rabbiniques ont été recopiées fidèlement par les Massorètes qui ont vocalisé ce texte hébreu entre 600 et 930.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/gerard-gertoux/la-bible-a-t-elle-été-altérée-verdict-de-la-chronologie/paperback/product-1p7nrrkg.html?q=gertoux&page=1&pageSize=4

This is my extensive introduction to Bultmann's commentary on John as the first volume in the Johannine Monograph Series edited by Alan Culpepper and myself. It covers over a century of Johannine scholarship, including Bultmann's contribution and scholarship before and after.

More than 20 years after presenting his first interpretation of the mosaic from the House of Aion in a paper entitled “Uwagi na temat mozaiki z Domu Aiona w Nea Paphos (Cypr)” (Meander 9/10, 1987, p. 421-438, in Polish, and translated to English: « The Immortality of the Human Soul and the Dionysiac Mysteries in the 4th Century Allegory [in Connection with the Interpretation of the Mosaic from the “House of Aion” at Paphos in Cyprus]»), where he proposed reading the five mythological panels (1. Leda and Zeus; 2. Dionysus on Mount Nysa; 3. The Dionysian thiasos; 4. Apollo and Marsyas; 5. The Apotheosis of Cassiopeia) as an allegory of the destiny of the human soul and body, starting with conception and ending with the liberation of the soul and its apotheosis, the author now enhances his initial interpretation with numerous reflections concerning the historical context of this work of art, created in the years 320-360.
If, according to the author, the mosaic is a “Hymn” in honour of the pagan gods, Man (his soul) and his place in the (pagan) universe, then at the same time it polemicises with the Christian faith and its God, Jesus Christ.
The author puts forward numerous new solutions relating to the mosaic’s iconography and iconology. Analysis of the mosaic also leads him to propose a solution to the as-yet unanswered question regarding the absence of images of the crucified Christ in Christian art of the 3rd and 4th centuries, up until 420/430, when the first images of Christ on the cross appear.
CONTENTS:
Introduction
1. Research to-date (recap)
2. Description of mosaic (recap)
2.1. Composition of five mythological scenes
2.2. Brief iconographic description of mythological panels
2.3. Outline of individual iconographic elements and their respective roles
2.4. The pagan gods’ air of majesty and dignity as an expression of piety
3. A few words about the pagan reaction
4. An apology of pious human life according to pagan principles and a polemic on the Christian model of Man and his theological idol, Jesus Christ
4.1. Divine intervention in the act of human conception (allusion to/polemic on the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary)
4.2. The Epiphany of Dionysus (an allusion to the Epiphany of Christ – Theou Pais)
4.3. The procession and dissemination of Dionysian order (allusion to/polemic on Christ’s entry into Jerusalem)
4.4. The error of Marsyas (polemic on/allusion to the error of Jesus the Messiah): arrest, sentencing for arrogance and lack of piety (asebeia) and condemnation to a martyr’s death
4.5. The anabasis (or anagoge psyches) of a ‘beautiful soul’ (allusion to/polemic on the Ascension of Christ)
5. A few words on the mosaic programme prior to final conclusions
Final conclusions
Key words: mythological mosaic, House of Aion, Nea Paphos, Late Antiquity, Roman art, allegorical narrative, allusive language of mythological pictures, wordplay (Marsyas-Messias), Jesus Christ, anti-Christian polemic, Dionysos, Cassiopeia, Apollon, Nereides, Abstract Personifications, Greek Mythology, ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

The present paper seeks to explain a new method being used to edit the standard editions of the Greek NT used by scholars, students, pastors, and translators. Known as the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, it has been used to edit the Catholic Epistles and is set for further use in editing the remaining books of the NT. Unfortunately, the method has so far induced incomprehension more than it has critical engagement. This is due in part to the density of current explanations of the method. The modest aim of this paper is to address this misunderstanding by offering a simple introduction. After setting the CBGM in the context of previous genealogical methods, the article explains the basic features of the method, the new tools it provides, and the preliminary results of its use. The conclusion suggests that the CBGM holds promise for editing the text of the NT and that it therefore deserves greater attention from NT scholars. An appendix offers an index of variants discussed in relation to the CBGM.

This study explores the simple idea that each grouping of books within the Hebrew Bible was authored, in the same sense that any individual biblical book was authored. An individual biblical book is a text made from existing texts (narratives, poems, etc.), while a grouping of books is a book made from existing books. This is the nature of biblical authorship – the shaping of existing texts into a coherent whole. As such, the same methods used to show coherence for an individual book can be used to demonstrate coherence for a grouping of books.
            An ideal test bed for this theory is the grouping of the Twelve Prophets, its coherence having been hotly debated for decades. With three arrangements attested across the manuscript traditions, the goal would be to search each arrangement for all points of coherence in every grouping of books across the textual hierarchy; whichever arrangement shows the strongest coherence, while also explaining the presence of the other arrangements, would represent the original shaping of the Twelve. For the Septuagint arrangement to have the best opportunity to demonstrate its own coherence, a fully searchable Hebrew retroversion of its Greek text was generated.
            Because the Septuagint arrangement showed early promise of strong coherence, especially in its five-book sub-group, Joel+Obadiah+Jonah+Nahum+Habakkuk, the search for points of coherence was narrowed to that sub-group. Astounding levels of coherence were found throughout, with Jonah positioned prominently at the center of the sub-group. Moreover, the other two arrangements appeared to be a direct reaction to the semantics of that five-book sub-group.

An introduction to a volume co-edited with Derek Krueger from a Dumbarton Oaks Symposium and my paper concerning the history of the study of Gospel lectionaries associated with the Patriarch of Constantinople and primarily of 11th century date, further attributions, and the fate of such texts in later centuries.  Identifications depend especially upon the listings of saints in the menologia of lectionaries, which, it is suggested, offer an attractive potential for further research.

A comprehensive review of the most significant developments in the study of the reconstruction of the Greek text of Revelation and its textual history from the Textus Receptus of the 16h century to the Text und Textwert project of the 21st. (This is a pre-published version).

A thorough review of the external and internal evidence pertaining to the ending of the Gospel of Mark, correcting much misinformation and arguing for the presence of 16:9-20 in the original text of the Gospel of Mark.  Includes the prefatory essay "Mark 16:9-20:  A Scholarly Consensus?"

An overview of the variety of textual differences that exist between the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus and the book in modern critical editions, thereby offering a window into the book's early readership. There is also a YouTube link to the lecture version of this paper, which was recently delivered at Samford University for their Holley Hull Lecture Series: https://vimeo.com/878444925/a35492dd8b?share=copy&fbclid=IwAR10Iu7HKuAjjcEcDdxgfT7XKqe2F6W6Bwb1cVHafNO0Yz6g4VhsIhXHMz4

The passage about Jesus Christ in Jewish historian Josephus’s writings has been debated for centuries, as concerns its authenticity totally, partially or not at all. This brief “testimonium” is proffered by Christian apologists as the “best evidence” for the historicity of Jesus, but it has been declared many times to be a forgery in toto. A recent study by a renowned linguist confirms this analysis of the entire passage as an interpolation by a Christian scribe, likely during the fourth century or later.

“I have mentioned that my first essay on editorial methodology concerned the number of branches in family trees, and my latest concerned editing with the aid of computer programmes. On these topics and many another, Paolo Trovato’s combative and richly instructive book leaves me far behind, and it is a privilege to have the opportunity of commending it” (from M.D. Reeve’s foreword)
"It is a didactic tool and at the same time a passionate and combative pamphlet; it speaks to students and colleagues at the same time and with the same stance" (Morato, French Studies) - Available in both a print edition and an e-book, the book is distributed  by major online retailers, such as  libreriauniversitaria.it and Amazon.

"The purpose of this research is to investigate the legitimacy of the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11 by examining the textual and historical evidence for its placement in Scripture.  The paper will then explore the potential oral tradition behind the story and seek to determine the pericope’s appropriateness for use at the pulpit.  In the end, an investigation into the historicity of the pericope adulterae reveals that the story is likely not original to the Fourth Gospel.  However, the evidence demonstrates that the story represents an authentic oral tradition predicated on historical fact.  Because the integrity of the text remains in doubt, Christians should be cautious about attributing divine inspiration and authority to the story.  Thus, it is best for pastors to avoid preaching from the pericope adulterae completely" (taken from the introduction).

In this thesis, the author explores the deadlocked debate about the origin of the Byzantine text and presents some new perspectives that have the potention to bring this polarised debate to a more satisfactory conclusion.
On the one hand, the debate is studied from a 1) historical, 2) theological, and 3) epistemological and sociological perspective. It is found that the different historical considerations have led to opposite conclusions about the origin of the Byzantine text. Next, it is found that the different theological perspectives not necessarily lead to opposite conclusions. Finally it is found that epistemological and sociological considerations are not persuasive to uphold this polarised debate.
On the other hand, it is argued that many historical arguments need more investigation, before they can serve as real arguments. Moreover, it is argued that when the Byzantine text is studied from the perspective of language development and the possible influence of the lectionaries, alongside with the production of a comprehensive textual commentary by Byzantine text defenders, this debate can be brought to a more definite end.
The leading question was: Why has the discussion about the origin of the Byzantine text got bogged down in a polarised debate, and what will be the best way to escape this impasse?

The New Testament does not specify when Jesus was born, and the currently accepted year is unlikely to be correct. Only two gospels --Matthew and Luke-- mention Jesus' birth. Being driven primarily by theological considerations rather than by a concern with historical accuracy, the infancy narratives contained in these two gospels not only contradict one another in almost every detail; they also run counter to logic and are completely unsupported by the historical evidence.

“This book is not a dusty compendium but a virtuoso performance. It is truly
outstanding on account of its comprehensive coverage of the field, the depth of
its analysis, the lucidity of its presentation, and the sheer sense of fun that is conveyed
by many of its pages […]. It deserves to be read by every textual scholar” (Dániel Kiss, Exemplaria Classica, 20, 2016).

“A new book came out last October that I think deserves the attention of NT text
critics, especially those working on all things stemmatic […]. Written with verve
but also with a thorough knowledge of the subject, it should serve beginning students
and seasoned scholars admirably” (Peter J. Gurry, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.it/2015/6/).

“This volume is a didactic tool and at the same time a passionate and combative
pamphlet; it speaks to students and colleagues at the same time and with the
same stance” (Nicola Morato, French Studies, 2015).

“A scholar said that before entering into an edition, one should first read Maas and
Pasquali. This is a very good idea, but I think that Trovato’s book will do perhaps
equally well. There is a clear presentation of problems, illustrated by a wealth
of examples, there is fairness towards those who cherish another view, bringing
forward what is good in what is considered mistaken. This is scholarship on a high
level” (Bengt Alexanderson, Augustinianum, 2016)

A brief introduction and a short digression (on the questions of "is the 'original text' an authoritative text?" and "is the 'original text' a privileged goal?") set up a survey of the meaning of the phrase "original text' in late 19th and 20th-century usage. A description and assessment of several contemporary proposals to redefine the goal(s) of NT (including Epp, Wachtel & Parker on the "initial text", Ellingworth, Trobisch, Swanson, Holmes, Parker, and [for the OT] Hendel) is followed by a discussion of some collateral issues (how early a text can TC recover; is it possible to recover an authorial text; and are the gospels the sort of texts that have originals). A survey of the philosophical and epistemological commitments that shape the practice of TC concludes the essay.  Publication info: in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd ed. (ed. by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes;  NTTSD, 46; Brill, 2013 [November 2012] 637-688.

In many biblical theophanies, the deity appears in an anthropomorphic shape. Scholars often argue that such anthropomorphic symbolism comes to its most forceful expression in the Israelite priestly ideology, known to us as the Priestly source, wherein God is depicted in “the most tangible corporeal similitudes.

As a Bible translator and translation consultant, when the Greek text has variant readings, I need to recommend to my co-workers which reading should be followed in the translation. Until recently, I assumed that I could trust the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament to give a reliable evaluation of the relative merit of variant readings. Recently, however, my faith has been shaken by reading and discussing arguments in favour of the Byzantine text type as being closer to the original autographs than Alexandrian text type which is favoured by the editors of the eclectic text found in the UBS Greek New Testament. 1 As a way of clarifying my thinking on this topic, I have attempted to set out a number of arguments for and against the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types with regard to which one is closer to the original autographs. The primary audience of this paper is myself. It is a working paper intended to document my growing understanding of this issue. Because of this, I have not hesitated to include quotations from unpublished sources, including personal emails, if these represent the clearest expressions of certain arguments. Because my access to recent scholarship is somewhat limited, some of the sources cited are rather dated. As the writing processes continues, I hope to increase the citations of recent published sources relevant to the questions raised. 1. Competing text types Among the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament there are four major text types commonly recognized: the Byzantine, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean. This paper focuses on the question as to which of the major text types is closer to autographs written by the authors of the New Testament. Each text type is represented by a group of manuscripts quite similar to each other, but significantly different from manuscripts of the other text types. Some of the differences between text types could well be due to an accumulation of accidental scribal errors as manuscripts were copied and recopied. However, the degree of difference between these text types is great enough that it cannot be explained by accidental errors only. There are numerous places where whole sentences are included in one text type and omitted from another. There are even whole passages included in one text type and omitted from another (e.g. the story of the woman caught in adultery). These sort of differences can best be accounted for by the hypothesis that there was a deliberate 1 Some of the arguments in favour of the Byzantine text are set out in an unpublished paper by Timothy Friberg entitled " A modest explanation for the layman of ideas related to determining the text of the Greek New Testament: a minority view. " That paper summarizes arguments found in Robinson (2001). I am also indebted to an unpublished paper by Robinson entitled " A brief reply to Dr. Deibler's questions. "

The King James Version is not a translation; it is a revision of older translations. Another misconception is to assume that the Textus Receptus is a simple representation of the text in Byzantine manuscripts, when in fact it diverts about eighteen hundred times. Obviously, the editors of the KJV had created their own eclectic Greek text, a text that followed neither a specific manuscript nor a specific printed edition.

In 2003, I had a file folder full of the various disclaimers that I had noted in the works of the authors of the 1st and 2nd centuries, and along with my other work writing and noting what had actually transpired during that time (the war, the involvement of the Pharisees and others in that war, how the Romans had been brought into the war when it had began as a feud and then war between the Jewish sects, how and why Christianity was created as a part of that war, why the war itself was downplayed and even disguised by the Roman authors of the time, etc.), I decided to write about and concentrate upon those disclaimers.

Note: Where I make mention of a place in the works of Flavius Josephus where he uses the word 'reader' instead of 'writer', that is in Whiston's translation ('The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus'), 'Wars of the Jews'; Chapter I, Verse 5, page 428; "... and where it must be reproachful to write lies, when they must be known by the reader to be such."

This article seeks to demonstrate that implicit within Weber’s writings on charisma are tools that can enable a processual, social constructionist understanding of charismatic formation. A corollary of this point is that Weber’s writings represent an historically crucial turning point in the progression from a Carlylian idea of leaders as inherently powerful to a non-essentialist, sociological perspective, and that Weber’s inspiration for this progression is best understood not through reference to his nineteenth-century forbearers in the social sciences, but rather in his contrast with the very few theological writers (namely Rudolph Sohm and the writers of the New Testament) who actually had employed charisma as a term prior to Weber’s famous appropriation of it. A reinterpretation and retranslation of Weber’s writings on charisma that gives priority to the social constructionist elements in his thought can provide tools for navigating through many of the interpretational controversies that have plagued charisma research.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the production of Codex Sinaiticus is the corrections made at various stages in the scriptorium. Perhaps surprisingly, no one has yet undertaken to identify these corrections by scribal hands that authored them and by the correction stage at which they were made. Using Mark’s Gospel as a test case, the present study seeks to assign the known scribal hands and the appropriate correction stages to these earliest corrections. After scrutinizing the individual corrections, I shall make some general comments concerning the correcting activity of the scribes in this portion of the manuscript, including a brief discussion of the textual
affinities of (some of) the corrections.

Revisions to the Greek NT in NA28 are restricted to the Catholic Epistles—the product of the Münster Institute’s ongoing work on the Editio critica maior. The text of the rest of the NT remains unaltered. The updated manuscript data, however, spans the apparatus of the entire NT and signals a new day for its textual history. The revised correctors of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus make the point. The proposed revisions have direct and far-reaching implications for the book’s textual history. Corrections once placed in the fourth through sixth centuries now occupy the seventh. The changes appear slight, even inconsequential—“touch ups” in support of the task of reconstruction. The clarification and re-dating of the correctors, though, represent a material shift with instant repercussions. The inclusion of new and additional witnesses—alongside of and in juxtaposition to the corrections—further portend altered textual alignments and disclose forgotten chapters in the history of textual criticism. The clarity of the new data also facilitates an examination of their limitations and unclutters the landscape for renewed textual research. The stage is set for a reappraisal of the Apocalypse’s textual history.

Biblia Manichaica is a reference work citing all biblical quotations and allusions in edited Manichaean and anti-Manichaean sources. This first volume in the series covers the texts of Manichaeism in the Greek, Coptic, Semitic, and Iranian languages in relation to the Old Testament.

Since the publication of John Mill’s Greek New Testament in 1707, scholars have shown repeated
interest in the number of textual variants in our extant witnesses. Past estimates, however, have failed to tell
who estimated, how the estimate was derived, or even what was being estimated. This study addresses all
three problems and so offers an up-to-date estimate based on the most extensive collation data available.
The result is a higher number than almost all previous estimates. Proper use of this number shows that it
reflects the frequency with which scribes copied more than their infidelity in doing so.

Presented at the Salzburg Symposium, "For and Against the Priority of John," organized by Peter Hofrichter and published in his edited volume, Für und Wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums (Olms, 2002, 19-58), this essay lays out my overall theory of what I cal "A Bi-Optic Hypothesis."

These notes are covering the main lines of scholarship regarding the character Jahaziel the Levite who prophesies in 2 Chronicles 20:14-17. The mainly come from  the book The Chronicler’s Prophet and the Temple Restoration , lulu.com by the same author: The outline of the book is as follows:
Contents
Abstract 10
Abbreviations 15
Bible Books Abbreviations 19
Transliteration: 21
Time Lines 22
Timeline 1: Rulers Dates BCE 22
Timeline 2: Jubilee Years 25
Timeline 3: Cult dates 26
1.0.0 Introduction 29
1.1 Jahaziel, and Date, Authorship and Audience 38
Conclusion Pillar 1: 68
1.2 Jahaziel and the Unity of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah 69
Conclusion Pillar 2 70
1.3 Jahaziel and the Jubilee factor 70
Conclusion Pillar 3 75
2.0.0 Jahaziel Among the Scholars 76
A Jahaziel No Temple Prophet 76
2.1.0 Wellhausen, Naaman, Stavrakopolou: Jahaziel Imaginary Creation of the Chronicler 76
2.2.0 Von Rad: Jahaziel the Levitical Preacher 88
2.3.0 Rendtorff: Jahaziel A Type not Connected to the Temple 88
B Jahaziel a Real Prophet? 90
2.4.0 Japhet: Jahaziel a Literary Figure with An Artificial Name 90
2.5.0 Nasuti, Miller, Throntveit: Literary Jahaziel a Witness 91
2.6.0 Schniedewind: Jahaziel The Literary Post Exilic Inspired Interpreter 92
2.7.0 Beentjes: Jahaziel A Literary Personage Imitating God’s Decision 98
2.8.0 Amzallag: Jahaziel Ex Choir Member and Not a Genuine Prophet 100
2.9.0 Levin: Jahaziel Not a Professional Prophet 105
2.10.0 Tournay: 108
Jahaziel Prophet of Zion The New Sinai 108
Prophets Like Jahaziel In the Fixed Order of The Cult 112
2.11.0 Hooke and Haldar and Johnson, Jahaziel Intercessor and Spokesman 112
2.12.0 Petersen: Jahaziel As Prophet in Sociological Perspective 113
2.13.0 Hilber: Jahaziel Cultic Prophet or Imitator of Prophetic Style 116
2.14.0 Mowinckel: Jahaziel A Prophetically Gifted Cult Psalmist 116
2.15.0 Jonker: Jahaziel The Voice of Yahweh 120
Conclusion Pillar 4 121
2.16.0 The Necessity of the Investigation 121
Method 125
3.0.0 The Context of Jahaziel 127
Table:Genealogy from Abraham the Prophet 128
3.1.0 Jahaziel as the Turning point 133
3.2.0 Jahaziel’s Place in Cultic Approach to Yahweh 135
3.2.1 Jehoshaphat’s Order of Service (2 Chr 20) 136
3.2.2 The Aim of the Chronicler in Relating the Episode 140
3.2.3 David's First Lesson about the Levites: They Must Bear the Ark and Minister to Yahweh 141
3.2.4 The Disaster of Ignoring the Mishpat Regarding the Levites 141
3.2.5 David Corrects His Mistake According to the Mishpat of the Levites: They Minister to Yahweh forever 142
3.2.6 The Rise of the House of Asaph Under the House of David: Levites Must Play the Music 142
3.2.7 Jehoshaphat Like David Seeks Yahweh According to Mishpat 143
3.2.8 Five Main Covenantal Authorities in Determining Mishpat: Yahweh, Levi, Moses, David, Solomon 143
3.2.9 Jehoshaphat: Abraham as Friendאהב of Yahweh 144
3.2.10 Jehoshaphat and Asaph 147
3.2.11 David a Servant, Solomon a Son of Yahweh 148
3.2.12 David's Covenant of Grace from Yahweh for his Son 149
3.2.13 Asaph, David and the Psalter 151
3.2.14 Asaph and the Psalms 151
3.2.15 Jahaziel a "Professional Prophet" I 152
3.2.16  Conclusion Pillar 5 159
3.2.17 Jahaziel and the Psalmists 167
3.2.18 Jahaziel Standing Before Yahweh 168
3.2.19 Houses with Specific Jobs: The House of Levi and the House of David 176
3.2.20 The Chronicler's Prophets 183
3.2.21 The Origin of the Sons of the Prophets 195
3.3.0 Jahaziel a Son of Asaph 201
3.4.0 Jahaziel and the Formal Schools in ANE Mesopotamia 203
3.5.0 Jahaziel’s  Informal Prophetic Education in Judah 204
3.6.0 Jahaziel in the Davidic Calendar Based on Heads of the Father’s Houses 212
3.7.0 Jahaziel: The Spirit of Yahweh was on Him in the Midst of the Qahal 218
3.8.0 Hebrew Text of 2 Chronicles 20:15-17 223
3.8.1הַקְשִׁ֤יבוּ 229
3.8.2 כָל־יְהוּדָה֙ 230
3.8.3 ְיֹשְׁבֵ֣י יְרוּשָׁלִַ֔ם 231
3.8.4 וְהַמֶּ֖לֶך 234
3.8.5 יְהוֹשָׁפָ֑ט 235
3.8.5a כֹּֽה־אָמַ֙ר יְהוָ֜ה 235
3.8.6 לָכֶ֗ם אַ֠תֶּם 237
3.8.7 אַל־תִּֽירְא֤וּ 239
3.8.8 וְאַל־תֵּחַ֙תּוּ 240
3.8.9 מִפְּנֵ֙י 241
3.8.10  הֶהָמ֤וֹן הָרָב֙ 241
3.8.10 a כִּ֣י לֹ֥א לָכֶ֛ם הַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה 242
3.8.11 מָחָר֙ 243
3.8.12 רְד֣וּ 244
3.8.13 עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם 249
3.8.14 הִנָּ֥ם עֹלִ֖ים 249
3.8.15 בְּמַעֲלֵ֣ה 249
3.8.16 הַצִּ֑יץ 250
3.8.17 וּמְצָאתֶ֤ם אֹתָם֙ 250
3.8.18 בְּס֣וֹף 251
3.8.19 הַנַּ֔חַל 251
3.8.20 פְּנֵ֖י מִדְבַּ֥ר 253
3.8.21 יְרוּאֵֽל 253
3.8.22 לֹ֥א לָכֶ֖ם לְהִלָּחֵ֣ם 253
3.8.23 בָּזֹ֑את 254
3.8.24 הִתְיַצְּב֣וּ 255
3.8.25 עִמְד֡וּ 256
3.2.26 וּרְא֣וּ 258
3.2.27 Other Words 258
3.9.0 The Language of Jahaziel 260
3.10.0 Sources in Chronicles 261
3.11.0 The Message of Jahaziel 267
3.10.1 Sources Behind Jahaziel 272
3.12.0 Jahaziel in Relation to Others 277
Table: Yahweh’s Metaphorical Body Parts 280
3.13.0 Jahaziel in Covenantal Perspective 289
3.14.0 The Navi’ and the Covenant of David 299
3.15.0 Jahaziel in the Structure of Chronicles 303
3.16.0  Jahaziel and  Abrahamic Covenant and the Inheritiance 311
3.17.0 Jahaziel and Mosaic Authority in the Covenant of Yahweh 323
3.18.0 Jahaziel and David’s Brit Olam: Prophet’s Organiser 325
3.19.0 Jahaziel and the Ways of a Father’s house 339
3.19.1  Jahaziel and the Size of a Father’s House 340
3.20.0 Jahaziel ben Asaph on Mount Zion? 344
3.21.0 Jahaziel among the Prophets of the Chronicler 346
3.21.1 Synonyms for Prophets 352
3.21.2 Prophets as Writers 353
3.21.3 Jobs of a Prophet 360
3.21.4 Psalmists Transformed to Prophets 361
3.21.5 Prophesying Families 364
3.21.6 The Sons of the Prophets 366
Conclusion 373
ביבליוגרפיה 375

A survey of Greek text-types is made, followed by a survey of evidence from the early Church Fathers and versions; next, textual theories are surveyed and examined through the test-case of Mark 16:9-20.  Finally, the preferred method of NT TC is given, discussing both external and internal evidence.  External evidence must be the foundation, while internal evidence merely provides support for the manuscript evidence.

This remarkable passage is immensely practical both for the doctrines it highlights and the principles for prayer it models. The essence of Paul’s intercession is for the church to be filled in relation to all the fullness that God intends for them, and the goal of is ultimately God’s glory. It would serve Christians well to reform their prayers and their according to the profound God-centeredness found in this text.

One important feature of the text that sets it apart from other
early Jewish visionary accounts is that the recipient of the revelation and subsequent
metamorphosis is a female seer—Aseneth, who is depicted in the pseudepigraphon
as a daughter of an Egyptian priest who becomes the wife of the
Jewish patriarch Joseph. In this expansion on the terse biblical story,3 Aseneth
undergoes a conversion and metamorphosis that turns her from a former idolater
into a being who will be fed on the heavenly bread of life.