From Ezra’s time forward, there was an increased demand for copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not all Jews returned to Jerusalem and Palestine during the restoration of 537 BCE and thereafter. Instead, thousands remained in Babylon, while others migrated for business and other reasons, resulting in Jewish communities being found in most of the large commercial centers of the ancient world. Many Jews made annual pilgrimages back to Jerusalem for various temple festivals, participating in worship conducted in Biblical Hebrew. In Ezra’s time, Jews in these faraway lands used local assembly places known as synagogues, where readings and discussions of the Hebrew Scriptures took place. Because of the many scattered places of worship, copyists had to multiply the supply of handwritten manuscripts.

It is not precisely known when the use of synagogues was instituted. It may have been during the 70-year Babylonian exile when there was no temple in existence, or shortly following the return from exile in Ezra’s day.

The Sopherim

The men who copied the Hebrew Scriptures starting in the days of Ezra and continuing to the time of Jesus were called scribes or Sopherim. Over time, they began to take liberties in making textual changes. Jesus himself condemned these would-be custodians of the Law for assuming powers that did not belong to them (Matthew 23:2, 13).

This section considers the textual history of the OT from 300 BCE to 135 CE, the date of the Bar Kokhba revolt. This endpoint is significant because after this time, the text was essentially fixed and did not change substantially. The history of the OT text during this period is pivotal to the entire history of the Hebrew Scriptures. One of the primary reasons for this importance is that there is now clear manuscript evidence for this time period. What was only inferential for the preceding phase of the history of the transmission of the text is now direct. It was during this period that the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek in Egypt and Palestine. Although its status as a translation introduces some complexity into its use as a textual witness, the Septuagint is an important representative of a Hebrew text different from what would later become the fixed Masoretic Text (MT). The Samaritan Pentateuch also witnesses to the state of the text in this period. Having adopted a distinct Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, scribes of the Samaritan religious sect revised it according to their theological positions.

The Bar Kokhba Revolt

The Bar Kokhba revolt was a rebellion against Rome in 132–135 CE in response to Emperor Hadrian’s rebuilding Jerusalem as a pagan city, including plans to replace the Jewish temple with a temple dedicated to Jupiter. After a difficult and costly war, the Romans put down the rebellion, and the rebels were scattered and killed.

Manuscript Evidence from Qumran

Pride of place for the manuscript evidence of this phase belongs to the Qumran biblical manuscripts, often called the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of the manuscripts are fragmentary, but their importance is noteworthy because these are Hebrew manuscripts (not translations) that have been dated to the period between the third and the first centuries BCE, with the majority belonging to the second and first centuries. Prior to the discovery of these manuscripts, which began in 1947, the only access to the practices of this period was through inferences drawn from the study of the early versions. The Qumran scrolls give direct access to scribal activity in these crucial centuries. All of the OT books are represented among the Qumran documents with the exception of Esther.

Evidence from Qumran shows that scribes at this time were practicing a kind of textual criticism in which they corrected their own mistakes as well as mistakes by previous scribes. They placed “cancellation” dots above or below individual characters or words, crossed out elements with lines, and used signs to indicate that two words should be transposed. Scribes also erased letters on parchment by scraping with a sharp instrument. A number of texts contain examples in which one can still recognize the corrected element.

Variant Readings

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Qumran biblical manuscripts is their witness to variant readings that were previously found only in early translations, such as the Greek Septuagint. Before the discovery of the scrolls, scholars could not be certain that the readings reflected true variants, since it was always possible that they had been introduced by the translator in the translation process. But the Qumran scrolls demonstrate that many of these differences in the versions point to variants in the Hebrew tradition. For example, the Greek version of the book of Jeremiah is about one-eighth (or 2700 words) shorter than the Hebrew MT, and it is structured differently. Among the Qumran scrolls, 2QJer, 4QJera, and 4QJerc agree with the reading of the MT, while 4QJerb reflects the Hebrew source text behind the shorter, slightly different Greek version. This and other examples prove that there was real textual variety in this period and that the text form that would later form the basis of the standardized MT was only one of many. Some of the scrolls at Qumran closely parallel this “proto”-MT. Other Qumran manuscripts are similar to the textual tradition of the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Theories of Textual Relationships

The relationship between these texts (MT, versions, and the Qumran scrolls) in this period is complex because of the alignments (or non-alignments) of the texts. There are currently two dominant explanations of these relationships: Frank Cross’s theory of “local texts” and Emanuel Tov’s argument that there is a “multiplicity” of texts.

Frank Cross’s Theory

Cross argues that the new, overwhelming evidence from the wilderness of Judah (e.g., Qumran) demonstrates that the textual variation in this period is not an “indiscriminate mixing of manuscript readings.” Rather, there are recognizable families of textual tradition which are the product of natural growth and development. Each of these textual families shares “bad genes” such as mistakes or secondary additions, and they share traits such as orthographic style, script, and modernized grammar. According to Cross, these text families must have developed in isolation, otherwise they would have cross-contaminated each other. It was the repeated copying and correction, without contact with other texts, that produced particular characteristics. Cross sketches the probable development of these manuscript families in the following way. Sometime in the fifth century BCE, two local texts began to develop independently in Palestine and Babylon. In the early fourth century BCE, the Egyptian family broke off from the Old Palestinian text and began its own independent development. The Egyptian text served as the source text for the translation of the Septuagint in the third to second centuries BCE. The Palestinian family was reflected in the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Emanuel Tov’s Argument

Emanuel Tov has responded to Cross’s influential theory by stating that “textual history can no longer be presented in terms of three textual traditions, for we are now confronted with a textual variety that contradicts the tripartite division.” The emphasis in Tov’s view is on variety. In his view, the three “text-types” described by Cross are merely three types among many, as there are an almost endless number of individual texts. For example, 11QpaleoLev (a scroll of Leviticus from Qumran) sometimes agrees with MT, sometimes with the Samaritan Pentateuch, and sometimes with the Greek Septuagint. It also contains unique readings not found in any of the three major types. Tov argues that the characterization of “families” is too general and cannot be substantiated. In his view, the Greek Septuagint does not exhibit any proven Egyptian characteristics. Perhaps his strongest attack on Cross’s position is that multiple text types were found together at Qumran, not isolated from one another. And yet they all contain their distinctive qualities.

One issue that this point raises is the extent to which the scrolls found at Qumran are representative of the state of the Hebrew text outside of that location. Current research indicates that a number of scrolls were brought from outside, meaning that those scrolls are representative. But Tov has also argued that a particular scribal practice (“Qumran Scribal Practice”) is characteristic of the scrolls that were actually created at the Qumran site. If this is true, it means that even scrolls copied in that one location come from more than one “family” or tradition.

Theories on the Fixation of the Text

Hebrew manuscripts from this same time were found near the Wadi Murabbaʿat, south of Qumran. These finds date from the time of the rebellion of Bar Kokhba (about 135 CE). Their main distinguishing feature is general agreement with the text form later known as masoretic, which became the authorized text in Judaism and the basis for all Hebrew texts and exegesis. Thus, the multiplicity of text types evident at Qumran between the third and first centuries BCE was replaced by a single and authoritative text type by 135 CE at the latest. When and how was this single, authoritative text form of the OT first established?

There are various explanations for this transition. One view is that the proto-MT was intentionally selected by Pharisaic scholars and scribes. According to Cross, they did not make a major revision to the text or conflate and combine several texts. Rather, they simply selected a single textual tradition. The Babylonian manuscript type may have come back into Palestine as early as Maccabean times. By the first century BCE or the early first century CE, it became accepted as the official form of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets within Jewish scribal circles. It was apparently not available in the case of the Latter Prophets, so the Palestinian text type was adopted for these books.

Coincidental Acceptance Theory

A second view, advanced by Bertil Albrektson, is that the acceptance of the standard text was not intentional but rather a coincidence. He points to the peculiarities and flaws in the MT as well as the surprising choice of some texts (such as the MT form of Jeremiah) as evidence that there was no text-critical process at work. Rather, the proto-MT had been the text of the Pharisees. They alone survived as a group after the destruction of the temple, so it was their text that was “victorious.” Tov supports this view as well, stating that it was mere coincidence that the proto-MT was the only remaining text after the destruction of the temple. The Septuagint no longer exerted any influence in Jewish circles since it was in use by Christians, the Samaritan Pentateuch was with the Samaritan community, and the Qumran scrolls were hidden in caves. The MT group did not thrust aside other texts; after 70 CE, there simply were no competing texts.

A related view is that the text was always standardized in Jerusalem (in connection with the temple) and pluriform everywhere else. In other words, the pluriformity evident at Qumran is not indicative of the stability of the one text in Jerusalem that was transmitted and then passed on to us by the Masoretes. Ian Young argues that the prestige associated with the temple became linked to the Scriptures, and there gradually arose the idea that the text should be fixed.

Transmission Practices and the Role of the Scribes

The Sopherim and later scribes played a crucial role in the transmission of the Hebrew text. They meticulously copied manuscripts, ensuring the preservation of the text across generations. Their practices included the use of various correction techniques, such as erasures and cancellation dots, to maintain textual integrity. This meticulous approach is evidenced in the Qumran manuscripts, where scribes corrected errors and standardized the text according to contemporary orthographic practices.

The Samaritan Pentateuch

The Samaritan Pentateuch is another significant witness to the state of the Hebrew text during this period. The Samaritans, a distinct religious sect, adopted their version of the Pentateuch and revised it according to their theological positions. This version provides insight into the textual variations and theological influences that shaped the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Samaritan Pentateuch often aligns more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic Text, highlighting the diversity of textual traditions in this era.

The Septuagint

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint, is a crucial textual witness from this period. The Septuagint was produced in Egypt and Palestine, providing a different textual tradition from the later standardized MT. The translation process and the resulting text reflect the Hebrew manuscripts available to the translators, which sometimes diverged from the proto-MT. The differences between the Septuagint and the MT, such as the shorter version of Jeremiah found in the Septuagint, illustrate the textual diversity present in this period.

The Development of Scribal Practices

The transmission of the Hebrew text from 300 BCE to 135 CE saw significant developments in scribal practices. These practices were instrumental in maintaining the accuracy and consistency of the text across generations. The Qumran scrolls provide direct evidence of these scribal techniques, including corrections, marginal notes, and the use of matres lectionis to aid in pronunciation.

Correction Techniques

Scribes employed various correction techniques to ensure the accuracy of the manuscripts they copied. These techniques included the use of cancellation dots, lines to cross out erroneous characters, and the erasure of letters by scraping the parchment. Such meticulous correction practices are evident in the Qumran manuscripts, where corrected elements can still be recognized.

Marginal Notes and Annotations

In addition to corrections, scribes often added marginal notes and annotations to the manuscripts. These notes could include variant readings, interpretative comments, or instructions for future scribes. The presence of such annotations in the Qumran scrolls indicates a high level of scholarly engagement with the text, reflecting the scribes’ commitment to preserving and understanding the Scriptures.

The Role of the Sopherim and Masoretes

The Sopherim, or scribes, were responsible for copying and transmitting the Hebrew Scriptures from the days of Ezra onward. Their work laid the foundation for the later Masoretic tradition, which would play a crucial role in the standardization of the Hebrew text.

The Masoretic Tradition

The Masoretes, who operated from the second half of the first millennium CE, established a system of vowel points and accent marks to aid in the reading and pronunciation of the Hebrew text. This system, known as the Masora, was developed by three schools of Masoretes: the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian. The Tiberian system ultimately became the standard, and it is this system that is used in the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible today.

The Masoretes did not alter the consonantal text they transmitted. Instead, they meticulously recorded marginal notes in the Masora, drawing attention to textual peculiarities and providing corrected readings when necessary. This careful preservation and annotation of the text ensured the stability and consistency of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Textual Diversity and Standardization

The period from 300 BCE to 135 CE was marked by significant textual diversity. The Qumran scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint all attest to the existence of multiple textual traditions. However, by 135 CE, the proto-Masoretic Text (MT) emerged as the authoritative form of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Factors Contributing to Textual Diversity

Several factors contributed to the textual diversity observed during this period:

1. Regional Variations: Different Jewish communities, such as those in Palestine, Babylon, and Egypt, developed distinct textual traditions due to geographical and cultural differences.

2. Theological Influences: Theological positions and doctrinal preferences also played a role in shaping the text. The Samaritan Pentateuch, for example, reflects the theological views of the Samaritan community.

3. Translation Practices: The translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (the Septuagint) and other languages introduced variations in the text. These translations were based on different Hebrew source texts, contributing to the textual diversity.

The Standardization of the Masoretic Text

The standardization of the Masoretic Text (MT) as the authoritative form of the Hebrew Scriptures was a gradual process influenced by several factors:

1. Pharisaic Influence: According to some scholars, the Pharisaic scholars and scribes played a key role in selecting the proto-MT as the standard text. This selection process did not involve major revisions but rather the adoption of a single textual tradition.

2. Survival of the Pharisees: After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were one of the few Jewish groups to survive. Their textual tradition, the proto-MT, thus became the dominant form of the Hebrew Scriptures.

3. Coincidental Acceptance: Other scholars argue that the acceptance of the MT was coincidental. The proto-MT may have been the text of the Pharisees, and after the destruction of the temple and other competing texts, it emerged as the sole surviving tradition.

The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), discovered at Qumran, are among the most significant archaeological finds for understanding the textual transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures. These scrolls, dating from the third century BCE to the first century CE, provide invaluable insight into the diversity and development of the Hebrew text.

Key Findings from the Dead Sea Scrolls

1. Textual Plurality: The DSS reveal a high degree of textual plurality, with multiple textual traditions coexisting. This plurality is evident in the different versions of biblical books, such as the shorter version of Jeremiah found in the Septuagint and reflected in some Qumran manuscripts.

2. Scribal Practices: The DSS demonstrate advanced scribal practices, including corrections, annotations, and the use of matres lectionis. These practices highlight the scribes’ efforts to preserve the text accurately.

3. Alignment with Early Versions: The DSS provide evidence that many of the variant readings found in early translations, such as the Septuagint, were based on actual Hebrew variants. This confirms that the textual diversity seen in the early versions was not merely the result of translation processes but reflected genuine variations in the Hebrew tradition.

The Role of the Samaritan Pentateuch

The Samaritan Pentateuch is another critical witness to the textual history of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Samaritans, who had their distinct religious and theological traditions, adopted their version of the Pentateuch and revised it according to their beliefs. This version provides an alternative textual tradition that often aligns more closely with the Septuagint than the Masoretic Text.

Theological Revisions in the Samaritan Pentateuch

The revisions made by the Samaritan scribes reflect their theological positions and highlight the interplay between theology and textual transmission. For example, the Samaritan Pentateuch includes changes that emphasize Mount Gerizim as the chosen place of worship, contrasting with the Jerusalem-centric focus of the MT.

The Impact of the Septuagint

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, played a significant role in the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible. Produced in Egypt and Palestine, the Septuagint reflects a different Hebrew textual tradition from the later standardized MT.

Differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text

The Septuagint often contains significant differences from the MT, such as the shorter version of Jeremiah. These differences provide valuable insights into the textual diversity and development of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint also influenced early Christian writings and the textual transmission of the Old Testament in the Christian tradition. 

The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint continues to be very much important today and is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists’ errors that might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts either intentionally or unintentionally. However, it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources. There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT.

Initially, the Septuagint (LXX) was viewed by the Jews as inspired by God, equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, in the first century C.E., the Christians adopted the Septuagint in their churches. It was used by the Christians in their evangelism to make disciples and to debate the Jews on Jesus being the long-awaited Messiah. Soon, the Jews began to look at the Septuagint with suspicion. This resulted in the Jews of the second century C.E. abandoning the Septuagint and returning to the Hebrew Scriptures. This has proved to be beneficial for the textual scholar and translator. In the second century C.E., other Greek translations of the Septuagint were produced. We have, for example, LXX^Aq Aquila, LXX^Sym Symmachus, and LXX^Th Theodotion. The consonantal text of the Hebrew Scriptures became the standard text between the first and second centuries C.E. However, textual variants still continued until the Masoretes and the Masoretic text. However, scribes taking liberties by altering the text was no longer the case, as was true of the previous period of the Sopherim. The scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Ezra down to the time of Jesus were called Sopherim, i.e., scribes.

From the 6th century C.E. to the 10th century C.E., we have the Masoretes, groups of extraordinary Jewish scribe-scholars. The Masoretes were very much concerned with the accurate transmission of each word, even each letter, of the text they were copying. Accuracy was of supreme importance; therefore, the Masoretes used the side margins of each page to inform others of deliberate or inadvertent changes in the text by past copyists. The Masoretes also use these marginal notes for other reasons as well, such as unusual word forms and combinations. They even marked how frequently they occurred within a book or even the whole Hebrew Old Testament. Of course, marginal spaces were very limited, so they used abbreviated code. They also formed a cross-checking tool where they would mark the middle word and letter of certain books. Their push for accuracy moved them to go so far as to count every letter of the Hebrew Old Testament.

In the Masoretic text, we find notes in the side margins, which are known as the Small Masora. There are also notes in the top margin, which are referred to as the Large Masora. Any other notes placed elsewhere within the text are called the Final Masora. The Masoretes used the notes in the top and bottom margins to record more extensive notes, comments concerning the abbreviated notes in the side margins. This enabled them to be able to cross-check their work. We must remember that there were no numbered verses at this time, and they had no Bible concordances. One might wonder how the Masoretes could refer to different parts of the Hebrew text to have an effective cross-checking system. They would list part of a parallel verse in the top and bottom margins to remind them of where the word(s) indicated were found. Because they were dealing with limited space, they often could only list one word to remind them where each parallel verse could be found. To have an effective cross-reference system by way of these marginal notes, the Masoretes would literally have to have memorized the entire Hebrew Bible.

Conclusion on the Original Reading

Based on the documentary method and the weight given to the Masoretic Text, the original reading of the Hebrew Scriptures likely aligns closely with the proto-MT found among the Qumran scrolls. The textual evidence from Qumran, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint provides a comprehensive picture of the Hebrew text’s transmission and highlights the variations and corrections made by scribes over centuries. These practices, combined with the eventual standardization of the MT, underscore the careful preservation and transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Bibliography

Albrektson, Bertil. “Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible.” In Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977, edited by Walther Zimmerli, 59-63. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

Cross, Frank M. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

———. “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text.” Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 81-95. Later published in Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 93-94.

———. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Revised edition. 1961. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

———. “Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.” In The Critical Study of Sacred Texts, edited by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, 47-49. Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979.

Demsky, Aaron, and Meir Bar-Ilan. “Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, 1-38. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Freedman, David Noel. “The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography.” In Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, edited by Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon, 196-211. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Greenberg, Moshe. “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 76, no. 3 (1956): 157-167.

Haran, Menahem. “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-exilic Times.” Journal of Semitic Studies 33 (1982): 161-173.

Hendel, Ronald S. “Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible after Qumran.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins, 281-302. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Johnson, Ricky L. “Bar-Kochba.” In Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, edited by Chad Brand et al., 171. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Lange, Armin. “The Textual Plurality of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Nora David and Armin Lange, 43-96. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.

Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Old Testament Text.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome, vol. 1, edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Christopher F. Evans, 159-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

———. “The Transmission History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran and Other Sites in the Judean Desert.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam, 40-50. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

———. “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls.” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982): 11-27.

———. “Correction Procedures in the Texts from the Judean Desert.” In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, 236-258. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

———. “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status.” In Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, edited by Maxine L. Grossman, 145-162. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

van der Woude, Adam S. “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament.” In Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude, edited by J. N. Bremmer and F. García Martínez, 151-169. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1992.

Young, Ian. “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?” Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002): 364-390.

About the Author

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION