Charles — Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha Vol. I — Section 588
The reading, its source, and a dependable way back.
Work: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament — Vol. I
Permanent passage identifier
hsu_a45a914e-5142-4aa2-8d53-1fe4cbfcee15This identity belongs to this edition’s reading. Cross-witness correspondence awaits review.
R. H. Charles ed. 1913, Vol. I
Excerpt · the full reading remains in Scripture Library.
(a) The existing versions thus all go back, through the existing Greek, to the same original, their differences being due to alterations within the versions. It is now generally agreed (against earlier scholars such as Fabricius, Jahn, and Eichhorn) that this original was Semitic, and Hebrew rather than Aramaic. Indeed there can be no possibility of doubt if we consider the style of the Greek and the nature of some of the mistakes in it. The language is not merely that popular Greek which we now know from papyri of the early centuries A.D. to have been identical with the κοινὴ διάλεκτος …
- Source
- R. H. Charles, ed., 1913 — Internet Archive
- Rights
- Public-domain-era 1913 edition; unrestricted Internet Archive derivative required
- Reading language
- English
- Completeness
- Not established for this edition
- Review
- Review status not established by this card
Work translation availability: HSLT — No published edition · HSRT — No published edition. A translation of this Work may not cover this exact passage.
Evidence Intelligence
Know what kind of evidence you are looking at.
Helpful Saints keeps direct biblical text, language evidence, ancient witnesses, historical context, research models, and open questions visibly distinct.Direct Biblical Text
The explicit wording and literary context of canonical Scripture.
Original-Language Evidence
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, morphology, lemmas, semantic range, and textual comparison.
Ancient Witness
Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Jewish literature, and early Christian writings—clearly classified.
Historical Context
Geography, material culture, chronology ranges, institutions, customs, and reception history.
Research Model
A configured chronology, theological synthesis, typological pattern, or proposed relationship.
Open Question
Evidence is incomplete, debated, or insufficient for a settled conclusion.