Charles — Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha Vol. I — Section 1142
The reading, its source, and a dependable way back.
Work: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament — Vol. I
Permanent passage identifier
hsu_aff7c71b-7e03-4bae-80c0-6c671e682431This 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.
There are numerous additions in the form of explanatory glosses, e.g. the proper names in c. x, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Jacob and Joseph, are inserted, and in xix. 17 (Syr. 16) ἐκεῖνοι rightly explained as the men of Sodom. The text has been thoroughly examined by Joseph Holtzmann, Die Pesch. z. δ. der W., pp. 152, Freiburg im B., 1903. Of his conclusions, the two following deserve mention here: (1) the language of the copy before the translator was Greek, as is shown by mistranslations which could only have arisen from a misunderstanding of the Greek; (2) the Syriac version was used b…
- 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.