It might be that the idea of textual updating is inherently distasteful to many conservative evangelicals, and not without reason, for it shares some similarities with Source Criticism and other such liberal scholarship. It is claimed that the only reason for ideas such as textual updating is the inroads of human ideas, specifically evolution into the study of the biblical text and therefore to have any concepts that are shared by liberal scholars in such theories as the Documentary Hypothesis is to buy into secular humanistic ideas. But while it is true that many scholarly theories do have their roots in a non-miraculous worldview, it does not follow that textual updating is founded upon such presuppositions. Just because someone agrees in part with a liberal scholar it does not mean that he has bought into the entire system that the liberal holds to. For example, the whole concept of Source Criticism is that sources were used in the composition of the Old and New Testament. But this does not mean that the idea of sources behind Scripture is wholly false, for Scripture itself clearly testifies that sources were actually used in some instances (ex. Num. 21:14; 1 Kings 11:42; 1 Chron. 29:29). It would therefore be foolish for someone to come in contact with the notion of textual updating and then just brush it off as liberal agenda. One does not need to have a bias towards the non-miraculous in order to seek an answer to questions that arise from a simple reading of Scripture. In fact, one who believes the Bible is the Word of God has that much more reason to seek out an answer!
The Biblical evidence makes it clear that whether textual updating actually took place or not, one must deal with passages that suggest such activity. One example is Deuteronomy 3:11 where it seems that an archaeological comment is made about the location of Og king of Bashan’s bed. Such comment would not make sense coming from Moses, a contemporary of Og, nor would it really have any value to the immediate audience who had only just defeated Og in battle a few months earlier. Clearly the issue of textual updating is textually driven, not one that comes from a preconceived notion of evolutionary concepts in regard to the writing of Holy Scripture. Therefore, the issue of textual updating is one that must be taken seriously by anyone desiring to be a faithful steward of God’s Word. The question is not if the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy limits textual updating, rather the question is whether or not the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy should allow for textual updating. I seek to show from Scripture that textual updating actually occurred and therefore it is incorrect to assert that textual updating is liberal agenda or an assault against the biblical doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy.
Before going farther, it is important to give a definition of what textual updating involves. A definition for our purposes is that textual updating refers to all the changes made to the text of Scripture by an inspired writer, other than the original author, as evidenced by the fact that its content would not make sense to the original writer and audience or because editorial activity was clearly needed for the completion of the final work. As already shown, textual updating is limited by the text of Scripture. To posit that allowing any sort of textual updating is to surrender to the Documentary Hypothesis or Source Criticism is without basis. Source Criticism assumes sources were used for various sections of Scripture and then seeks to assign sections of Scripture to those sources. The Document Hypothesis divides the authorship of the Pentateuch into four supposed authors over some four centuries ignoring clear authorial statements in Scripture. Scholars who adhere to such theories see a source under every rock. Simple things such as names used for God are understood to be a signal of author change on the baseless assumption that no author would ever use multiple names for God. Liberal scholars disagree with each as to who and what is behind each text to such a high degree that it points to the fatal flaw of their theories-they are purely made up, pushed on the text rather than flowing out of pure objective textual observation. Allowance for textual updating does not permit one to see updating occurring in every portion of Scripture. Such considerations are limited to the Documentary Hypothesis and Source Criticism. While it is true that these liberal theories also acknowledge textual updating, I believe they go much, much farther than the text will allow. Textual updating is limited by grammatical-historical principles, by which a person can examine a text and determine if textual updating is the solution to an exegetical problem. Problem texts include such editorial activity as modernization, explanatory gloss, transition, apologetic commentary, and other like occurrences. Examples of possible modernization include the use of “Chaldees” in regard to Ur (Gen. 11:28, 31), and an update to the city name of Laish to Dan (Gen. 14:14). Possible explanatory glosses include the addition of “Damascus” to clarify Eliezer’s place of origin (Gen. 15:2), and the parenthetical comment that equates Israel’s dispossession of the land to the people of Esau’s dispossession of land of the Horites (Deut. 2:10-12), a fact that had yet to occur. Transitional updates include such as the death of Moses (Deut. 34), the death of Joshua (Josh. 24:29-33), as well as the arrangement and transitional verses between the books of the Psalms (Ps. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48), including the phrase, “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended” (Ps. 72:20). Apologetic commentary is seen in the text where an editor inserted information so as to prove the validity of the narrative or the continuing impact of an event. Examples include the previously mentioned archeological explanation regarding Og (Deut. 3:11), as well as the plentiful occurrences of the phrases, “until this day,” “to this day” and other variations (Gen. 32:32; Deut. 3:14; 10:8; 29:28; Josh. 7:26; 8:28; 9:27; et al.).
While I previously assumed that compilation books such as Psalms and Proverbs contain possible examples of textual updating, some claim that to see any possible textual updating in compilation books is an invalid proposition. They state their reason as following: “it is not wise to evaluate all OT books on the basis of the complex composition of Psalms and Proverbs….There is no way that such compilation should be compared to the dynamics of a single-author work like Exodus, for example.” But with all respect, I disagree. If textual updating took place in any of the compilation books then our understanding of what occurred in the inscripturation process must include textual updating. Compilation books do not get a special exemption just because they are compilations. The fact still remains that if an editor of a multi-author work such as Psalms changed anything-a word, a phrase, or made any addition-then he was either inspired, or we have to reduce ourselves to the possibility that the text of Scripture that we posses is so corrupt that it cannot be of any use-a claim I am sure no conservative would even consider, not for the least reason that the New Testament clearly affirms the authority of the Old (2 Tim. 3:16). This does not prove that textual updating took place in the compilation books, but rather only sets the stage for evaluation to be able to take place within compilation books as to whether textual updating occurred or not.
Before looking specifically at textual evidences of textual updating, it will be helpful to do a brief overview of some of the various views of textual updating in early Church history. A survey from the beginning of Church history is somewhat difficult because the term “textual updating” is a modern designation, as well as the fact that it is a very specific matter, one that was not focused on as it is today because of the attention the concept of textual updating gained in liberal scholarship. But a small window is present as one looks at what some early church fathers say concerning some of the critical passages that contain possible textual updating.
Clearly there were those that believed Deuteronomy 34 and the account of Moses’ death to be an addition by someone other than Moses. But even trying to gain a clear picture on the Church’s position on Deuteronomy can be difficult, for very few fathers wrote verse-by-verse commentaries on the Pentateuch, as a survey of such material in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series shows. And when the fathers did write on the Pentateuch and even on other books, their concern was not so much with small details of the text such as the place-name of Dan or Ur of the Chaldees, but was more spiritually and practically driven. For instance, in commenting on Joshua’s death, Jerome chooses to make a point about Joshua’s chastity in contrast to the married Moses. Outside of Christian Church history, Rabbinic tradition held that Joshua “wrote the book that bears his name and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch.” It is also clear that Jerome held to the possibility that Ezra edited the account adding the words, “unto this day” in verse six. For he writes that he makes no objection to whether one believes in pure Mosaic authorship or in Ezra’s editing the material. Ambrose also possibly believed that someone other than Moses added the last portion of Deuteronomy in that he writes, “…Scripture added, ‘No man has known of his sepulcher until this present day.'”
Hippolytus is the earliest known church father to make a clear reference to the inspiration of the inscriptions. Gregory of Nyssa wrote a whole treatise on the inscriptions of the Psalms, and while the Psalter’s inscriptions are not viewed as solid evidence for textual updating because of their questionable nature, Gregory treats the inscriptions as inspired and though it is difficult to tell if he considered them to be later additions or inscriptions provided by the original authors. But it can be said because he assumed the inspiration of the inscriptions and did not defend himself, one could infer that his view was not one that was uncommon in the Church at that time.
Since the Middle Ages, many passages in the Pentateuch were debated as to their Mosaic authorship because of various textual observations that were made. Though, before the nineteenth century, it must be noted that such arguments against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch were few in number.
So while there is some evidence of the acceptance of some forms of textual updating, as well as some against, the early Church did not address the issue fully, which leaves much of the argument to our own study of the Scriptures along with more modern sources.
While there are many proposed evidences of textual updating in the Old Testament, we will only focus on a few significant passages in order to show that textual updating is a viable option from the text of Scripture.
The phrase, “until this day” and phrases like it are the translations of three Hebrew expressions (עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה, and, כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה). These phrases are not always evidences of textual updating, as they are used at times by Moses to remind Israel of events which effects are still clearly evident, such as the fact that Israel had been brought out of Egypt by God that they might be “a people for His own possession” (Deut. 4:20). Such a use is fully valid. For at the time that Moses wrote it, Israel had been brought out of Egypt by God, and were currently a people for God’s own possession because of His deliverance. Additional evidence of textual is seen when the phrase “until this day” is used for events that would occur so close to the writing of the statement as to make no sense of using such a phrase. Two major examples of such usages are Deuteronomy 3:14 and 34:6.
In Deuteronomy 3:14 makes a statement that Bashan was called Havoth Jair “to this day.” At first glance there does not seem to be any problem, but when one considers that the region of Bashan was only conquered less than three months before Moses wrote the bulk of Deuteronomy, the issue becomes clearer. The use of “to this day” suggests the passage of time, as it did when Moses reminded Israel of the impact of the exodus on Egypt (Deut. 11:4). There would be no reason for Moses to point out the continued effect of the exodus on Egypt if they had just recently been decimated. Rather because of the passage of time that occurred in the wilderness wanderings, Moses uses to the term to remind the people of the fact that even to that very day Egypt was suffering because of God’s great deliverance. Therefore, in order for there to be sufficient passage of time for there to be any significance to the phrase “to this day” the re-naming of the region of Bashan could not have been recent as it would have been if Moses wrote the phrase. Rather, it is better understood to be a textual update, showing that the name given at the time of the conquest continued to that very day and had not faded out of use.
In the closing section of Deuteronomy that contains the narrative of Moses’ death, the phrase “to this day” occurs in relation to the fact that no one knew the precise location of where Moses’ grave was (Deut. 34:6). Again, the usage of the phrase “to this day” makes no sense being written a day after, or even a month after the actual death of Moses as it would not really have any bearing on the hidden nature of the location as a day or even a month of searching would not preclude the possibility of the grave being found in the future. Some take it as a prophetic utterance by Moses, but to do so imposes much on the text and goes against the normal use of language (it is not a reference to the future, but rather to the continuing truth of a past event in the present). The force of the text is that the grave will never be found because it had not been found up to that time, therefore denoting a significant amount of time passing between the actual event and the writing of “to this day.” Taking a closer look at the whole narrative of Moses’ death provides even more evidence for textual updating.
As was shown previously, the idea that someone other than Moses wrote of his death in Deuteronomy 34 is not a new one. And while some hold to the idea that Moses himself wrote of his death prior to his death, such a view leans towards the mechanical dictation of Scripture (a view that has numerous problems), or the recording of a vision that is never stated to have taken place. And even if Moses wrote the account, the events would be future, not past or even present. The simplest understanding of the text would be that someone other than Moses recorded the event. And while it is true that some of what is recorded could not have been known to anyone unless God had revealed it, such is the nature of Scripture in other places as well when someone writes of what someone else experienced with full knowledge of all that occurred, including thoughts and locations (Gen. 1:1; Gen. 17:17; 1 Kings 12:26-27; Job 1:6; et al.). To assert Mosaic authorship on the basis of the clear statements of Mosaic authorship contained in the Pentateuch (Ex. 24:4; 34:27; Deut. 31:9; 31:22; et al.) as well as the New Testament (Matt. 19:7-8; Mark 7:10; Luke 16:29), while at first seemingly bullet-proof, has some difficulty as well. For the statements in the Pentateuch refer to certain sections, and leave room for other sections to have been written by others. Also in the New Testament quotations are given with names assigned to those who were the larger well known prophet (Mark 1:2), even though other prophets and passages might be included in the quote. So such statements in the New Testament do not negate textual updating, they only assert that Moses is the author of the bulk of the Pentateuch.
Another evidence of possible textual updating is found in Genesis 11:28, 31. Abraham’s origin is given as “Ur of the Chaldees.” The difficulty is that the first extra-biblical evidence of the Chaldeans presence in southern Babylon is the annals of Ashurnasirpal II after a record of the Assyrian campaign that took place in 878 B.C. While this attention by an Assyrian military campaign makes the Chaldeans out to be a group that is well established in their first appearance in known archeological evidence, it is not known how exactly they came to power in southern Babylonia. But, it is also clear that they did not have any power over the Babylonian throne until the middle of the eighth century B.C. Because of this, the mentioning of their name in connection with Ur is possibly an instance of textual updating, giving the current position of the city of Ur as the Ur over which the Chaldeans currently ruled. But the evidence that the Chaldeans could not have controlled Ur at the time of the Patriarchs, or at the time when Moses wrote the account is limited to extra-biblical evidence. And even in the extra-biblical evidence, the Chaldeans obviously existed before the eighth century B.C. when the Assyrian record first records them. The view that the use of “Chaldees” was an editorial update also finds issue in that the term is found in other places besides the narrative of Abraham (Gen. 15:7; Job 1:17; Neh. 9:7), and so it gains weight as a legitimate name of a people group at the time of the writing of the material. Yet recognizing them as a people group mentioned in Scripture is not the same as saying they controlled Ur at such an early date. So it could go either way, for as it is with all extra-biblical evidence, all that would be needed to disprove the notion that the Chaldeans did not control Ur would be a tablet containing such proof. But if evidence to the contrary was ever found, it would not shake the biblical world if one allows for textual updating as has been argued. This passage still contains possible textual updating.
In the account of Abraham’s pursuit of Lot’s captors, Dan is given as the resting point of the first segment of Abraham’s pursuit (Gen. 14:14). The issue is raised in regard to textual updating when in the book of Judges, it is said that the city of Dan received its name after the Mosaic period, and was previously known as Laish (Judg. 18:29). The city name Dan is not only seen in Genesis 14:14 but also appears in a frequent designation of the full extent of the Promised Land in the phrase, “from Dan to Beersheba” (1 Sam. 3:20; 2 Sam. 3:10; 1 Kings 4:25; etc.). While some believe Moses was referring to a different place (“Dan-jaan” mentioned in 2 Sam. 24:6) in Gilead, such a claim is not founded on any substantial evidence, neither has the location of Dan-jaan been found. If this “Dan-jaan” was in Gilead, it would not make sense for Abraham to go there in his pursuit of Lot’s captors. On the contrary, the location of Laish/Dan fits perfectly with the narrative of Abraham and the path he took in pursuit of Lot’s captors, for Dan is at the extreme north of the Promised Land, and from Dan Abraham divided his group into two and pursued their enemies as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus (Gen. 14:15). If Moses wrote “Dan” rather than “Laish” his original audience would not have understood his reference, for Dan did not yet exist. Therefore, it would seem best to see the place name of Dan as an update made by someone other than Moses after the Mosaic period.
Psalm 72:20 gives evidence of editorial activity, as it reads, “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.” Whether such activity took place in the compilation of a smaller collection that was then compiled by later editorial work or if the addition of the verse took place at the final compilation of the whole Psalter, the inclusion of the phrase still needs explanation. While it is possible that David wrote the phrase when he wrote the Psalm (even though the inscription to the Psalm makes Solomon out to be the author), the simplest reading would be that it is the work of a later editor who compiled the psalms together. Two options are left, either one has to assume it is not inspired (as many take the inscriptions of the Psalms to be uninspired, though at least the inscription in Psalm 110 is confirmed as being correct in the New Testament by Jesus and Peter), or that the activity was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by someone other than the original author of the psalm. It seems that the editorial comment was contained in a smaller collection of psalms that were then incorporated into the larger book of Psalms in that there are other Psalms of David that later occur in the book of Psalms (Ps. 86; 101; 103; 108; 110; et al.). Such inclusions in the text of Scripture must be explained. So either we must redact the text as we have it today, or textual updating must be seen as a valid means by which God gave His inspired Word.
Another aspect of interest in the discussion of textual updating is the very language of the biblical text itself. We know from our own experience that language is not static, reading an old Shakespearian play or the King James Bible makes that point clear enough. And while it is important not to read our own language experience into the biblical languages, it is key to look at the evidence for such change in the biblical text as we seek an answer to whether or not textual updating occurred.
When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he did not write in the Aramaic script of the current Hebrew bible, but rather most likely in the proto-Canaanite alphabet, which was a pictographic alphabet. During the tenth and ninth centuries B.C. the script changed from the proto-Canaanite to another script, sometimes referred to as Phoenician. Later this Phoenician script developed gradually into the script of Aramaic and then later into the current square script used exclusively by the Jews. While it is possible that the only change that occurred was a script change without any change in vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, it is highly unlikely that such a great amount of time passage would only affect the script, but also other significant areas of the language demand textual updating. But even if the change in the script was an isolated update it is still important to understand that at least in this way, the text was updated, and that the Hebrew language was modernized, at least in its script, over time. But it will be shown, that more than a script change took place over the 1,000 years of the composition of the Old Testament.
In addition to the script changes, the usage of vowels in the Hebrew language also has changed over time. According to epigraphic evidence, Hebrew moved from a script that only contained consonants to a writing system that used matres lectionis or “helping” consonants to indicate vowels developing first to include final vowel letters, later medial long vowels.
From textual evidences from the Amarna correspondence, Ugaritic, and other like evidence, it is possible to reasonably infer that before the Amarna period (ca. 1350 B.C.) Hebrew possessed final short vowels which were used to differentiate between varying cases with nouns as well as distinguished various prefix conjugations. But later, this case system disappeared, while leaving some evidence of its previous existence in Hebrew mainly in names. But it is clear that while some updating did occur, the biblical text was not constantly updated to the present usage of the time by editors in every generation, for the book of Job for example has many archaic forms.
In an analysis of the spelling of “David” in the Old Testament the older spellings of Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Psalms and other books for the most part were not updated to the more modern spelling that exists in such books as Chronicles and Nehemiah. But, looking at the variance in spelling within the Old Testament does not lead to any logical conclusion about their date, as many times books that we know are newer contain spellings that are older, and such sections that are older, as the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5:1-31), contain spellings that seem to be more modern. To account for any variance, one must either assume that all spellings were concurrent, therefore ignoring the normal influence of the passage of time on languages, or view the differing spellings as evidence of textual updating. In the end, textual updating is the solution that makes the most sense of all the evidence, concluding that in some sections spellings were updated, and in others they were not.
Even though the linguistic changes are minor, even such minor changes are sufficient to prove that over the passage of time textual updating did in fact take place. If there was only a minor word change, in spelling or word order, such a change demands textual updating.
One of the major issues raised against textual updating is that such a notion is contrary to the doctrine of inspiration. Dr. William Barrick asserts the only way textual updating could be allowable is if one also believes that, “the divine Author Himself is capable of poor choices in the original wording and could not foresee linguistic and cultural changes.” While at first glance this accusation might seem true, in the end, it does not account for the complexity of how Scripture came into being. If the doctrine of inspiration demands that the original wording never be changed, each author when writing could not have even edited himself. It would mean that when an author sat down to write he made no errors and no revisions to what he included in his writings. Because the moment his pen (or chisel) moved, whatever he wrote was the original wording and therefore could never be changed. And in order for a chapter like Psalm 119 to be written with its amazingly complex alphabet acrostic without any prior thought and planning (including changes) by the author an inscripteration process equivalent to dictation would be necessary. A process that totally overrules the human aspect of the writing of Scripture.  If one allows for each biblical author to edit themselves, that means that part of the process of inscripturation included revision, and therefore revision, whether from that original author or by some other editor can occur as the Holy Spirit worked by human means to write Scripture. Such revision cannot be disallowed because God cannot be subject to revision-for such is the mystery of the way in which God chose to write Scripture. It follows that in composing a book, each author likely took time to think through what he wanted to write (as evidenced in the structure of so many Old Testament books), and in that process the Holy Spirit guided him. But it does not mean that they were not allowed to write notes in order to compose Scripture. As Geisler states: “Regardless of the mystery surrounding how God was able to make His word certain without destroying the freedom and personality of the authors several things are clear….they were not mere secretaries….their freedom was not suspended or negated, and they were not automatons.”
Another difficulty raised by textual updating is its disagreement with many theologians who state that autographa refers to the first or original copy of the biblical document that the author wrote himself (the term means literally, “self-writing”). For such an understanding does not allow for the more complex picture that Scripture gives in regard to the process of the composition of Scripture. Even in the composition of the Pentateuch, there are portions that are explicitly stated to have been written down by Moses (including Ex. 17:8-13, stated in v. 14; Ex. 20:22-chap. 23, 24:4, 37:27; Lev. 18:5, Rom. 10:5; Num. 33:3-49, v. 2; Deut. 5-30, 31:9; Deut. 32:1-43, 31:22), portions that were composed by Moses but not necessarily written down by him (Deut. 1:6-4:40, and 33:2-29), and portions that we have argued were composed and written by someone other than Moses (Deut. 34). And this does not even begin to deal with books such as Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, which were works that were possibly composed over a long period of time with multiple writers involved in the completion of the book. Thus, it is better to view the autographa as being the final form of a book’s composition. Geisler makes such allowance when he states his suggested definition of inspiration: “Inspiration is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, who through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors invested in the very words of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach or imply (including history and science), and the Bible is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for faith and practice of all believers.”
In the end there is substantial evidence for the occurrence of textual updating in the Biblical text, and as it has been shown, while disconcerting at first to some, the possibility of textual updating is not at all contrary to what Scripture teaches about itself, especially in regards to inspiration. Scripture does not speak to exactly how each biblical book came to be in its completed form or when it was completed, but rather speaks to the completed form as the inspired Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). So whether a book was written by many, or just by one, and whether that book went through some process of editing and change, the end result was inspired, and inerrant. We do not know the details of exactly how God worked through fallible humans to produce His infallible Word, but it seems from the evidence that part of that process included textual updating. But this is not a hill to die on, because either way, God inspired His Word, and we can be confident that it will accomplish all that He designed it to accomplish (Isa. 55:11).
Albright, William Foxwell. The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.
Bahnsen, Greg L. “The Inerrancy of the Autographa.” In Inerrancy, edited by Norman L Geisler, 149-193. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.
Barr, James. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford; New York: Published for the British Academy by the Oxford University Press, 1989.
Barrick, William D. “”Ur of the Chaldeans” (Gen 11:28-31): A Model for Dealing with Difficult Texts.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 20, no. 1 (Spring 2009).
__________, “A Brief Examination of So-Called “Inspired Textual Updating”.” Unpublished.
__________, “Genesis 14:14.” Unpublished.
Beecher, Willis Judson. The Dated Events of the Old Testament: Being a Presentation of Old Testament Chronology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007.
Beegle, Dewey M. Moses: The Servant of Yahweh. Ann Arbor: Pryor Pettingill, 1979.
Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Journal for the study of the Old Testament 369. London: T&T Clark International, 2003.
Blau, Joshua. Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1998.
Braun, Roddy. 1 Chronicles. Vol. 14. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986.
Brinkman, J. A. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158-722 B.C. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968.
__________, Babylonia c. 1000-748 B.C. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. The Cambridge Ancient History. London: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.
Cassuto, Umberto. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2006.
Childs, Brevard Springs. “A Study of the Formula, “Until This Day”.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82, no. 3 (1963): 279-292.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Vol. 19. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983.
Cross, Frank Moore. Early Hebrew Orthography; a Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. American oriental series v. 36. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952.
De Vries, Simon John. 1 Kings. Vol. 12. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003.
Epstein, Isidore, ed. Tractate Baba Bathra. Translated by Maurice Simon. Vol. 18. 30 vols. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino Press, 1960.
Farrow, Douglas. The Word of Truth and Disputes About Words. Winona Lake, IN: Carpenter Books, 1987.
Franke, John R, ed. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. 4 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002.
Gregory. Gregory of Nyssa’s Treatise on the Inscriptions of the Psalms. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Grisanti, Michael A. “Inspiration, Inerrancy, And the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating In An Inerrant View of Scripture.” JETS 44, no. 4 (December 2001): 577-98.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Gundry, Robert Horton. A Survey of the New Testament. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1994.
Hill, Andrew E, and John H Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 2000.
Hoerth, Alfred J, Gerald L Mattingly, and Edwin M Yamauchi. Peoples of the Old Testament World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.
Horowitz, Edward. How the Hebrew Language Grew. New York: Jewish Educational Committee Press, 1960.
Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. Vol. 10. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983.
Lienhard, Joseph T, ed. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987.
Longman, Tremper, and Raymond B Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Oden, Thomas C., ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, D.D. Edited by William H. Goold. London: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850.
Pache, René. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1969.
Payne, J. Barton. An Outline of Hebrew History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1954.
__________, “Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy.” In Inerrancy, edited by Norman L Geisler, 83-113. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.
Ridderbos, J. Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, 1984.
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, A. Cleveland Coxe, Allan Menzies, Ernest Cushing Richardson, and Bernhard Pick, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1903.
Ross, Allen Paul. “The Contributions of the Early Hebrew Inscriptions to Old Testament Studies.” Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969.
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius.” In The Principal Works of St. Jerome, translated by W. H. Fremantle, 6:14. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Shulman, Eliezer. The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament. Israel: Investment Co. of Bank Hapoalim, 1987.
Smith, Mark S. The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100. Vol. 20. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990.
Thomas, Robert L, and F. David Farnell. The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.
Waltke, Bruce K, and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.
Wolf, Herbert. An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991.
Wood, Leon James. A Survey of Israel’s History. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986.
Zerbe, Alvin Sylvester. The Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Literature: Or, Problems in Pentateuchal Criticism. Cleveland, OH: Central Publishing House, 1911.
 Robert L Thomas and F. David Farnell, The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 110.
 For a brief survey of the Documentary Hypothesis see: Andrew E Hill and John H Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 579-80.
 William D Barrick, “A Brief Examination of So-Called ‘Inspired Textual Updating'” (Unpublished), 1.
 Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 573. J. Barton Payne, An Outline of Hebrew History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1954), 66-67.
 Michael A. Grisanti, “Inspiration, Inerrancy, And the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating In An Inerrant View of Scripture,” JETS 44, no. 4 (December 2001): 579-80.
 J. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, 1984), 76. Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 106.
 Eliezer Shulman, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament (Israel: Investment Co. of Bank Hapoalim, 1987), 80-81. Willis Judson Beecher, The Dated Events of the Old Testament: Being a Presentation of Old Testament Chronology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 72-73.
 Robert Horton Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 96. Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 573.
 Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 579.
 Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2006), 8.
 Ibid., 3.
 Grisanti, “Inspiration ,” 580.
 Barrick, “A Brief Examination,” 3.
 Joseph T. Lienhard, ed., Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, vol. III (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), xxviii.
 John R Franke, ed., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 97.
 Isidore Epstein, ed., Tractate Baba Bathra, trans. Maurice Simon, vol. 18, 30 vols., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino Press, 1960), 14b. Herbert Wolf, An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 58-59.
 Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius,” in The Principal Works of St. Jerome, trans. W. H. Fremantle, vol. 6, 14 vols., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 337.
 Joseph T Lienhard, ed., Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture vol. III (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 341. Emphasis added.
 Alexander Roberts et al., The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1903), 200.
 Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 342.
 Gregory, Gregory of Nyssa’s Treatise on the Inscriptions of the Psalms, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 124.
 G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 222.
 Ibid., 223.
 Grisanti, “Inspiration,” 582-90.
 Ibid., 585.
 Shulman, The Sequence, 80-81. Beecher, The Dated Events, 72-73.
 Dewey M Beegle, Moses: The Servant of Yahweh (Ann Arbor: Pryor Pettingill, 1979), 347.
 René Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), 66-70.
 J. A Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158-722 B.C (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968), 260.
 J. A Brinkman, Babylonia c. 1000-748 B.C., vol. 3, 2nd ed., The Cambridge Ancient History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 287.
 Alfred J Hoerth, Gerald L Mattingly, and Edwin M Yamauchi, Peoples of the Old Testament World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 56-57.
 William D Barrick, “‘Ur of the Chaldeans’ (Gen 11:28-31): A Model for Dealing with Difficult Texts,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 20, no. 1 (Spring 2009), 17.
 Leon James Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 40.
 Grisanti, “Inspiration,” 583.
 Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 342.
 See Mark 12:35-37; Acts 2:29-35. Peter C Craigie, Psalms 1-50, vol. 19, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex: Word Books, 1983), 33.
 Tate Marvin, Psalms 51-100, vol. 20, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1990), 222.
 Barrick, “A Brief Examination,” 4-5.
 Bruce K Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 17.
 Ibid., 5-9.
 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 219.
 Barrick, “A Brief Examination,” 4.
 Grisanti, “Inspiration,” 589-90.
 Ellis R Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1994), 40.
 Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 17.
 Ibid., 127.
 Barrick, “A Brief Examination,” 5.
 James Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford; New York: Published for the British Academy by the Oxford University Press, 1989), 199.
 Barrick, “A Brief Examination,” 6.
 Pache, The Inspiration , 66-70.
 Norman L Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 4 vols. (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House, 2002), 239.
 Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 150, 167. Wayne A Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 96.
 J. Barton Payne, “Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L Geisler (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 102.
 J. Barton Payne, An Outline of Hebrew History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1954), 66-67.
 Tremper Longman and Raymond B Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 153-58, 171-75, 192-95.
 Grisanti, “Inspiration,” 578.
 Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 241. Emphasis added.