Can anyone date the LXX (Septuagint) AND provide evidence of their dating?
Damon Lee Gang
Can anyone date the LXX (Septuagint) AND provide evidence of their dating?
Philio wrote about it
Are you looking for an exact date (which seems impossible for any ancient text), or the earliest verifiable date for the LXX based upon some dating method?
James E Snapp Jr
Damon Lee Gang,
It's a more complicated subject that it might seem, because when one says, "The Septuagint," what is usually meant is not some text that is acknowledged to have been made, but was later lost, but, instead, the Septuagint /as we know it/. Because the primary way we know it is from the extant witnesses, and most of the extant witnesses were produced by Christians. (For the purposes of this discussion, Christians = members of the visible church.)
So one needs to ask: are the later witnesses to the LXX as copied by Christians reliable witnesses to the LXX as produced in the 200's B.C.?
(You might want to read up on this by slogging through NIV-translator Karen Jobes' research on (part of) the Septuagint.)
Damon Lee Gang
John, I am interested about this because of the claims by people that say "Jesus quoted from the LXX" ... considering it seems absurd for people that speak Hebrew to be concerned with quoting Greek that comes from Hebrew, and considering the 200 BC claims for the LXX as opposed to the LXX quoting an earlier christian writing in possibly 200 AD. Perhaps that clarifies my interest in dating.
Never heard the claim that Jesus used the LXX; now the Evangelists on the other hand...
Damon Lee Gang
... Jesuits .. time machine
In Which Passages Does Jesus Quote the Septuagint, and Where Does the New Testament Allude to the Septuagint?
Some Protestants challenge Catholics to show where Jesus quotes the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Click here to learn more.
There is a key part missing in Esaias /Isaiah 42:4b today in the Hebrew texts but the Septuagint has it in it's Esaias 42:4b
"And in his name shall the Gentiles trust "
It seems clear to me that the evangelists used the LXX when reporting the words of our Messiah, but that does not that mean that Jesus himself used it. Interesting article but parts of it make me cringe: "Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. " IT contains? As if the Septuagint was a fixed collection of books with one cover?
Well there was no books in the days of Jesus there was scrolls & it presume each individual book would be a scroll , now those Maccabees books etc had to have been added later on when they early Catholics /monks / or whatever they were called put them into manuscript /book form .
James E Snapp Jr
Damon Lee Gang,
First, I would note that just because one part of the LXX is used by someone, that is not an automatic endorsement of all parts of the LXX.
Regarding the question about whether Jesus used the LXX: I think a cumulative case can be made that Jesus knew the LXX, and used parts of it. For example see Matthew 21:16, and compare it to the Hebrew text of Psalm 8:2, and then compare it to the Septuagint's text of Psalm 8:2. Let me know what you find.
I do believe we have not gotten the perfect Hebrew text nor the perfect Greek text today .
I admit there is some problems with parts of the lxx, but I have to say there is more problems with the Hebrew .
There's an interesting variant in Codex Alexandrinus, which follows the Samaritan Pentateuch at Exodus 12:40. That's evidence for an early ancestor to A, since it's not likely the SP would be around to influence a Greek OT in the 5th century.
Here is another test I did .
I was in a group and the Hebrew roots folk were using their Hebrew version of the old
Testament to undermine the New Testament .
, you said, "John, I am interested about this because of the claims by people that say "Jesus quoted from the LXX" ... considering it seems absurd for people that speak Hebrew to be concerned with quoting Greek that comes from Hebrew, and considering the 200 BC claims for the LXX as opposed to the LXX quoting an earlier christian writing in possibly 200 AD."
I'll try to answer more on this later, but you seem to make a couple assumptions that are not necessarily true.
First, the Jews at the time of Christ didn't generally speak Hebrew. Historical records indicate that they were bi- or tri-lingual, speaking primarily Aramaic and Greek. Hebrew was only rarely used, and mostly in theological venues. Even the synagogues in the middle of Jerusalem had GREEK inscriptions, rather than Hebrew or Aramaic!
But you also ought to consider that there was not a single Hebrew Old Testament. There were AT LEAST seven different versions of the Old Testament Scriptures at the time of Christ, which is evidenced by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Masoretic, which is the most popular Hebrew OT today, is of a more modern origin than the Hebrew text which was behind the Septuagint. The Masoretic text was not completed until around 1100 A.D., and there is evidence that it has been modified in response to the Christian use of the Septuagint in support of Jesus' Messiahship.
The original Hebrew Scriptures from which the Septuagint was translated roughly 1000 years before the Masoretic are among the oldest Old Testament Scriptures known, and are believed to represent the originals--though there is much argumentation on this. The Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the oldest existing example of the Old Testament Scriptures, more often agrees with the Septuagint against the Masoretic, indicating that the Masoretic is a later recension of the Old Testament.
The point is that the quotes from the "Septuagint" in the New Testament are based upon a text that pre-dates the Masoretic Hebrew text. It really doesn't matter whether they were quoting from the Greek Septuagint or the original Hebrew "Septuagint" upon which the Greek was based. The real point is that the Masoretic is not the best text of the Old Testament, and takes a backseat to the Septuagint for New Testament studies.
We know for a fact that the Septuagint existed in the Greek prior to the time of Christ. I'm not prepared at this moment to demonstrate that, but it's not that hard to prove. If we base our dating upon the earlier Hebrew "Septuagint", then it dates to around 175 to 300+ years before Christ at the very least. This dating is based on the finding and dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can find more information about this in the "Dead Sea Scrolls Bible", which is a very interesting book that examines all the Biblical scrolls discovered at Qumran.
makes the valid point that the modern Septuagint was not necessarily the same as the one in the first century. However, we have a good idea of what was in it. Only a few things differ in the early Greek Septuagint from today's Septuagint.
John McCormickSteven Avery
One of the most critical points is not even mentioned. Look at Psalm 14 in the "LXX", e.g. Brenton. And look at Romans 3. Then explain.
As for definitions, James is on the right track. Even in scholarly circles, there are contradictory definitions given for "Septuagint" and "Greek Old Testament". This leads to a lot of talking past each other.
, you said, "One of the most critical points is not even mentioned. Look at Psalm 14 in the "LXX", e.g. Brenton. And look at Romans 3. Then explain."
Not sure exactly what you meant, Steven. I think your point is that Romans 3 is obviously quoting the LXX, not the Masoretic, is that correct? Most of the O.T. quote from Romans 3:10-18 can't even be found in the Masoretic text.
The number of O.T. quotes found in the N.T. which are incompatible with the Masoretic, but fit the LXX, is significant. The very meaning of a number of N.T. passages is linked to the LXX quote AGAINST the Masoretic. That seems to me to be sufficient proof that Jesus, His disciples, and the authors of the New Testament overwhelmingly preferred the LXX over the Masoretic as the original.
For that reason, NT Textual Criticism ought to consider the impact of the Septuagint upon the New Testament, through quotes and its particular language style.
You did note that there are a number of "definitions" of Septuagint and "Greek Old Testament", but most versions of the LXX are supposed to be good representations of the original LXX. The differences between the versions is generally minor, except for the book of Daniel, which doesn't exist in it's Septuagint form in most Septuagint versions. (The book of Daniel does exist in the Septuagint form, however.)
Damon Lee GangJohn
"I think your point is that Romans 3 is obviously quoting the LXX, not the Masoretic, is that correct?"
Nope. Check the dates of the "LXX" manuscripts and try again. Think. Even read the scholarship. Check the GOT mss.
"Most of the O.T. quote from Romans 3:10-18 can't even be found in the Masoretic text." -
Where can it be found? Did Paul do anything original, an interpretative, providential, pastiche, or did he simply lift a section verbatim?
"most versions of the LXX are supposed to be good representations of the original LXX"
Really? Who told you that? Based on what? How would you tell that mss from 400 AD and later are good representatives of whatever was translated at 250 BC? And .. what was in fact translated in 250 BC? Remember, many new editions were made in the 100-200 AD period. Can you list the "versions of the LXX"?
"The very meaning of a number of N.T. passages is linked to the LXX quote AGAINST the Masoretic."
Lets finish with Romans 3 first.
"NT Textual Criticism ought to consider the impact of the Septuagint upon the New Testament"
Should we consider the impact of the New Testament upon the "Septuagint"?
"GOT mss." <--- sorry, anybody know what GOT abbreviates? (Gothic?)
Greek Old Testament
One article that really goes into the terminology confusion:
The Use and Abuse of the Term "LXX" and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship
Leonard Jay Greenspoon
At one point this was, if I remember, easily available online. Maybe, was a few years back. Anyway, see the next post.
John McCormickSteven Avery
Review of LXX == Septuagint =/= Greek Old Testament (GOT) terminology confusion
Taken from a Sept. 2010 study:
KJV Only Debate Blog
Was 1611 the last word for the English Bible?
Let the Minutiae Speak
(Note that this was one of the forums, controlled by either modern textual critic types or writers whose main Bible position is contra the purity of the TR-AV, that soon after prevented my posts.)
“LXX” is used with very different meanings.
1) the translation of the 70 (or 72) in 200 B.C. of the Pentateuch in the letter of Aristeas, fable or truth or bit of both
2) what is considered by a scholar to be the earliest Greek Old Testament reading, whenever originated
3) ancient Jewish-based Greek Old Testaments in the early centuries, possibly including, or not, the translations of Aquila, Theodotus or Symmacheus, that may or may not have been used by Josephus, Philo, the Apostles
4) Greek editions like Brentons or from the Greek Orthodox, which can vary widely
5) Any Greek Old Testament of any books or time.
Now watch the literal “purist” scholarship. Must be some KJB folks.
Ken Schenck – Dean of Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University
"Classroom Snippets: Septuagint
.... Purists only use the word Septuagint to refer to the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek as related in the Letter of Aristeas ... Purists refer to the rest of the Greek Old Testament as the Old Greek translation."
Schenck is reasonable, although his “rest of” is ambiguous. And the best usage of “LXX”, if it is to have any real meaning, is the #1 above.
Joel Kalvesmaki is a sensible writer.
The History of the Septuagint, and its Terminology
"A strict, purist use of Septuagint would allow the term to be used only of the earliest, (probably) unrecoverable translation of the Pentateuch made by the Jewish scholars around 282 BCE."
However, scholarship is all over the map .. now watch.
As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (2008)
Stanley E. Porter
"As an initial point on terminology, lxx has taken on a variety ot different meanings and is often used in ambiguous and unqualified ways in New ‘testament studies."
This is such a problem that there was a paper (must of been written by a KJB kook !) “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship,” by Leonard Greenspoon (1987)
Here is an example of trying to grapple with the problem.
The use of the Septuagint in New Testament research (2003)
"… For example, one often finds references in the footnotes of English translations of the Bible to a reading of the “LXX” without any explanation. To what does this mysterious “LXX” refer? Sometimes “LXX” refers to the … Part of the problem of the use of “LXX” is related to terminology. … Strictly speaking then, LXX referred originally to the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. …. A terminological difficulty is encountered when nonspecialists employ a reading from printed editions of the LXX (Rahlfs or Brooke-McLean) or a manuscript and refer to it as the reading of the Septuagint as though it represents the oldest recoverable form of the Greek text of that book. … For this reason, most specialists now reserve the term Old Greek (OG) to designate a text that in the judgment of the scholar represents the original translation of a book."
The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews
Susan E. Docherty
"An increasing number of commentators are therefore following Greenspoons in drawing a distinction between “Old Greek’, meaning the earliest stage of Greek translation that can be reconstructed for any biblical book, and ‘Septuagint’ as descriptive of the whole transmitted tradition of Greek versions."
Such a scholar would not ask if Jesus or the Apostles used the LXX, the question would be whether they used Old Greek manuscripts.
To make it more confusing, we have seen other scholars like Schenck quite properly desiring to go the other way, limiting LXX to an ancient definition, and using Greek Old Testament for the “whole transmitted tradition of Greek versions”. Personally I think Greenspoon handled the issue backwards.
After I wrote the above, I found that others found this method strange.
Joel Kalvesmaki :
“Some refer to this earliest stage as the “Old Greek,” but with some confusion, since this suggests that the term Septuagint should be applied only to texts with no connection to the legend of the seventy-two.”
Here are more KJB kooks.
(I was having fun with the idea that AV defenders are the ones who created the "LXX" problem.)
“Strictly speaking, there is really no such thing as the Septuagint. This may seem like an odd statement in a book entitled Invitation to the Septuagint, but unless the reader appreciates the fluidity and ambiguity of the term, he or she will quickly become confused by the literature. . . “The reader is cautioned, therefore, that there is really no such thing as the Septuagint.”
- Invitation to the Septuagint, Karen Jobe and Moises Silva (2000)
Ben Byerly talks about how some of today’s scholar’s look at this:
The LXX doesn’t exist – Ben Byerly
Manuscript evidence also shows that the the NT writers couldn’t possibly be quoting from the “LXX.” There are lots of lots of other interesting implications. Very fun discussion. Stay tuned for a forthcoming book.
Still no LXX
Thus ANY usage of the word LXX or Septuagint without making clear the actual meaning is likely to shed no light on a topic. is dubious.
, I don't have time in my life for games. If you have a point, please make it.
John McCormickSteven Avery
Did you check any scholarship at all? It is really 100% clear that the New Testament text was brought into the so-called "LXX" line.
Too bad that you consider being asked do a bit of thinking and researching as "games". Super-clear hints were everywhere.
This is the single most critical variant in understanding Greek Old Testament transmission, and it does seem like the elephant in the living room ... let's not talk about that!
, after reviewing all of the links you provided, I've come to the conclusion that these people are just muddying the waters.
The argument that there "is no LXX" is partially based upon the idea that the "seventy scholars" certainly didn't translate all of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, but probably only the Pentateuch, and later translators completed the rest.
Of course that's just playing semantic games. The "LXX" is the term for the entire Old Testament. It's unknown how long it took to accomplish the task. It's unknown how many scholars did it, or who they were. However, it's fairly certain that only one "official" translation of each book was included as part of the LXX "collection". Even your own links note that.
The second argument is that there are differences in the LXX recension and copies that are available. So what? There are differences in the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts of the New Testament, but we don't say that they aren't of the Alexandrian text-type.
The variations among the various Septuagint manuscripts isn't that great, and we have the Qumran Scrolls as evidence of the early text of the LXX both in Greek and Hebrew.
By the argument your are making, there is no Masoretic nor individual text-types of the N.T. Each one should be labeled individually, or just chucked into the generic piles "O.T." or "N.T." (or possibly just "books").
The LXX represents a generally consistent text which can be traced back through various versions to some of the oldest Biblical manuscripts extant. The term "LXX" is an umbrella for the books of that specific Greek translation of the O.T. and some apocryphal books. It's that simple.
Clouding the issue with things like Theodotian's version of Daniel is just sophistry. It's well-known that isn't the LXX version.
Quick comment ,
One sure thing there were no complete Old Testament book like we have today , in v 17 it talks about the book ( scroll) of Esaias not the complete book of scriptures .
Luke 4:17 (KJV) 17 And there was delivered unto him >>the book of the prophet Esaias<<
. And when he had opened the book,
>> he found the place where it was written,<<
Luke 4:18 (KJV) 18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Also when the Pharisees had the counsel at jamina in 90 ad approx did they not adjust some things ?
, you said, "Did you check any scholarship at all?"
I've studied the topic for 20 years. Septuagint studies are a favorite topic of mine. What have you done besides parroting quotes from others--who quoted the same people? Most of the references your links provided went back to one or two individuals. That's not really broad scholarship.
You also said, "It is really 100% clear that the New Testament text was brought into the so-called "LXX" line."
Please explain. It sounds to me that you are saying that the New Testament text was modified to fit the LXX text. But didn't you say that the LXX doesn't really exist?
You said, "Too bad that you consider being asked do a bit of thinking and researching as "games". Super-clear hints were everywhere."
Demanding that others jump through your torturous hoops is playing games. If you have a statement or claim to make, make it, then we can research it. I'm not going to try to guess at what you are getting at, particularly when you STILL have not made your point clear, despite your own opinion about its clarity.
Lastly you said, "This is the single most critical variant in understanding Greek Old Testament transmission, and it does seem like the elephant in the living room ... let's not talk about that!"
That is near zero-content rhetoric. I have no referent for anything in that paragraph.
This WHAT is the single most critical variant? You don't say what in the second paragraph, which is dedicated to your demand that I try to figure out what you are thinking. If it's in the first paragraph, it's obscure.
I can only guess that it has something to do with the N.T. being "brought into the so-called 'LXX' line", which also has no referent. How that applies to Greek Old Testament transmission I don't know. The Greek Old Testament, at least the LXX version, came long before the N.T. and influenced the N.T., not the other way around.
You simply aren't making the good sense you think you are.
I'm willing to hear you out, but I need to know what your point is, without you trying to lead me around by the nose.
Here is how Paul developed:
As it is written,
There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (** Psalm 14:1-3 ** and Psalm 53:1-3.)
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; (Psalm 5:9)
the poison of asps is under their lips: (Psalm 140:3).
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: (cf. Psalm 10:7)
Their feet are swift to shed blood: (Isaiah 59:7; cf. Proverbs 1:16).
Destruction and misery are in their ways: (Isaiah 59:7).
And the way of peace have they not known: (Isaiah 59:8).
There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Psalms 36:1).
This was copied into some GOT ("LXX") mss around the 2nd or 3rd century, and .. voila! .. the current "LXX". Hmmmmm....
Now, how much of the "LXX" is tampered with NT "smoothings"?
"But didn't you say that the LXX doesn't really exist?"
Au contraire, John. I specifically said that this is not a phrase I use. Please read more carefully.
, you said, "One sure thing there were no complete Old Testament book like we have today , in v 17 it talks about the book ( scroll) of Esaias not the complete book of scriptures ."
What you mean by that is that the Old Testament wasn't all in a single scroll, I assume. Of course we should all know that. They had scrolls of each of the books of the O.T. in collections, available for reading in the synagogues. However, the collections were roughly what our Old Testament is today--thus the canon of Scripture first developed by the Jews, then the addition of the N.T. canon by Christians.
You also said, "Also when the Pharisees had the counsel at jamina in 90 ad approx did they not adjust some things ?"
The Council of Jamnia is generally regarded as a myth. It was an idea developed to explain the origin of the O.T. canon, but no Council of Jamnia is known to have existed historically.
James OwensSteven Avery
For a good start on the scholarship:
[textualcriticism] The LXX and Psalm 14
Steven Avery - Aug 8, 2009
The Steinmetz citation should have referenced the author, Robert Gerald Hobbs (b.1941).
The learned John Owen (1618-1683) should be included, although he was writing mostly about Hebrews on this question, he did emphasize the phenomenon of NT-->"LXX".
"I've studied the topic for 20 years. Septuagint studies are a favorite topic of mine."
Apparently you missed all the references in the post above. It is amazing that books can be written involving "LXX" origen and transmission without a clear and direct reference. Even Jobes/Silva.
Here is some info about Jamnia from Jewish sources ;
ACADEMIES IN PALESTINE - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Jabneh, (Jamnia) Temporary Center of the Jewish Nation.
The destruction of Jerusalem put as abrupt an end to the disputes of the schools as it did to the contests between political parties. It was then that a disciple of Hillel, the venerable Johanan ben Zakkai, founded a new home for Jewish Law in Jabneh (Jamnia), and thus evoked a new intellectual life from the ruins of a fallen political existence. The college at Jabneh, which at once constituted itself the successor of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem by putting into practise the ordinances of that body as far as was necessary and practicable, attracted all those who had escaped the national catastrophe and who had become prominent by their character and their learning.
Moreover, it reared a new generation of similarly gifted men, whose task it became to overcome the evil results of still another dire catastrophe—the unfortunate Bar Kokba war with its melancholy ending. During the interval between these two disasters (56-117), or, more accurately, until the "War of Quietus" under Trajan, the school at Jabneh was the recognized tribunal that gathered the traditions of the past and confirmed them; that ruled and regulated existing conditions; and that sowed the seeds for future development. Next to its founder, it owed its splendor and its undisputed supremacy especially to the energetic Gamaliel, a great-grandson of Hillel, called Gamaliel II., or Gamaliel of Jabneh, in order to distinguish him from his grandfather, Gamaliel I.
To him flocked the pupils of Johanan ben Zakkai and other masters and students of the Law and of Biblical interpretation. Though some of them taught and labored in other places—Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in Lydda; Joshua ben Hananiah in Beḳiin; Ishmael ben Elisha in Kefar Aziz, Akiba in Bene Beraḳ; Hananiah (Ḥanina) ben Teradyon in Siknin—Jabneh remained the center; and in "the vineyard" of Jabneh, as they called their place of meeting, they used to assemble for joint action.
Palestinian Judaism Restored.
In the fertile ground of the Jabneh Academy the roots of the literature of tradition—Midrash and Mishnah, Talmud and Haggadah—were nourished and strengthened.
There, too, the way was paved for a systematic treatment of Halakah and exegesis.
>>In Jabneh were held the decisive debates upon the canonicity of certain Biblical books; there the prayer-liturgy received its permanent form; and there, probably, was edited the Targum on the Pentateuch, which became the foundation for the later Targum called after Onkelos.<<
>> It was Jabneh that inspired and sanctioned the new Greek version of the Bible—that of Akylas (Aquila). <<
The events that preceded and followed the great civil revolution under Bar Kokba (from the year 117 to about 140) resulted in the decay and death of the school at Jabneh. According to tradition (R. H. 31b), the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh to Usha, from Usha back to Jabneh, and a second time from Jabneh to Usha. This final settlement in Usha indicates the ultimate spiritual supremacy of Galilee over Judea, the latter having become depopulated by the war of Hadrian. Usha remained for a long time the seat of the academy; its importance being due to the pupils of Akiba, one of whom, Judah ben Ilai, had his home in Usha. Here was undertaken the great work of the restoration of Palestinian Judaism after its disintegration under Hadrian. The study of the Law flourished anew; and Simon, a son of Gamaliel, was invested with the rank that had been his father's in Jabneh. With him the rank of patriarch became hereditary in the house of Hillel, and the seat of the academy was made identical with that of the patriarch.
> John McCormick
> The "LXX" is the term for the entire Old Testament.
As I carefully showed you in a post with lots of scholarship references, there is no agreed upon meaning for "the LXX". In fact, often it is referenced for a presumed Pentateuch translation, the Law, about 250 BC. The term is used in directly contradictory ways as to whether it refers to what was written in 250 BC (which would be non-extant) or whether it refers to any Greek Old Testament edition. Maybe you need another 20 years of study?
Or, alternatively, here is how Paul developed Romans 3:10-18:
as it is written: "There is none righteous, no not one; (Psalm 14:1, LXX)
there is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God." (Psalm 53:2, LXX)
"They are all gone out of the way, they have together become unprofitable, there is none that does good, no, not one."
"Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips;
whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;"
"their feet are swift to shed blood;
destruction and misery are in their way,
and the way of peace they did not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Psalm 14:3, LXX)
There isn't the slightest evidence that Paul developed his quote as you suggest, then it was somehow retro-fitted to what we call the LXX today. That's sheer speculation.
John , I am trying to understand your position ,
Do you believe the Lxx translation really existed back then ?
Btw I do .
Any chance you are digging this stuff up from Peter Ruckman's book?
=====================================> John McCormick
> There isn't the slightest evidence that Paul developed his quote as you suggest, then it was somehow retro-fitted to what we call the LXX today.
That's sheer speculation. Any chance you are digging this stuff up from Peter Ruckman's book?"
\Please come up to speed. On the textualcriticism post I gave you many scholarship references. For Bible believers this is trivial stuff, Paul did an incredible midrash, using scripture. The ice is sealed by the variations in the Greek OT mss, about which you are apparently unawares, and the full consistency of the text in Hebrew, Syriac, etc. And does Peter Ruckman mention this in his writings?
About 1/2 way done