Kirjahaku

The New Kingdom era of Egyptian history emerged from the darkness of the Second Intermediate Period, when the Theban dynasty drove out the Hyksos from Egypt, and went on the conquer Canaan, and Nubia. The Hyksos dynasty appears to have been largely as a result of the Minoan eruption in Greece, which darkened the sky of Egypt and blanketed northern Egypt with up to 2 meters (6 feet) in ash. The Tempest Stele from Karnak described the effects of the storm reaching all the war to southern Egypt during the era of Ahmose I, the Pharaoh that ultimately drove the Hyksos from Egypt.This period of destruction was shortly before Ahmose I launched his successful invasion of Northern Egypt and captured the Hyksos capital of Avaris. The Autobiography of Ahmose pen-Ebana covers many of the early battles that forged the Egyptian New Kingdom, including the Battle of Avaris, and the subsequent Battle of Sharuhen a few years later, which resulted in Egypt taking control over the entire former Hyksos dominion. Ahmose pen-Ebana is often described as an Egyptian Admiral, however, his career in the Egyptian navy encompassed decades under the service of a series of Pharaohs, including Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose I, spanning more than 50 years from circa 1550 to the 1490s BC. As he described himself as a youth at the Battle of Avaris, where he served as his father's replacement in the fleet, it is likely that he did not retire until he was over 60. He listed extensive campaigns throughout his life, mostly in northern Sudan along the Nile and Yellow Nile, before the pharaoh turned his attention to the north, and sent them to occupy Syria.The herald Ahmose pen-Nekhbet's biography covers much of the same era, however, his viewpoint was that of a pharaoh's herald instead of a soldier, therefore, he only mentions the battles that the pharaoh was present at. The first battle that pen-Nekhbet partook in was the battle in Djahy under Amenhotep I, which may have been the Battle of Sharuhen, or a later battle in southern Canaan. He only reported being present at one battle in Nubia, unlike the extensive campaigns that pen-Ebana fought in, however, also reported battles against the Libyans of the Saharan oases and a major invasion of Syria. Pen-Nekhbet served much longer than pen-Ebana, serving the Pharaohs Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, and Hatshepsut, spanning approximately 70 years between 1540 through the 1470s BC. He reported being an old man during Hatshepsut's lifetime and carrying the infant princess Neferure, which been in around 1480 BC.This collection includes the Autobiography of Ahmose pen-Ebana, Autobiography of Ahmose pen-Nekhbet, Inscription of Thutmose II, Autobiography of Thoth the Nobleman, Biography of Thutmose III, Siege of Megiddo, Capture of Jaffa, Dream Stele of Thutmose IV, and Biography of Ramesses III.

In the early Christian era, many Testaments of the Patriarchs circulated in Jewish and Christian communities, and were widely quoted by the earliest Christians. The foremost of the testaments were the Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which circulated together. The other major testaments were grouped together as the Testaments of the Twelve, which included the Testaments of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph, and Benjamin. The Testament of Adam was used by the Sethians and later Sethian Gnostics. While the Testaments of Job and Solomon were used by the Christian Montanist sect, and the Gnostic Valentinian sect in the 2nd century. The Testament of Moses, also known as the Ascension of Moses, appears to have only been used by a Messianic Jewish sect, although it does not appear to have been a precursor to Rabbinical Judaism.These testaments were widely accepted by the early Christian churches, and most continue to form part of the Armenian Bible. The books were popular in Western Europe during the Middle Ages when they were generally considered authentic ancient Jewish texts. Critical analysis in the 16th century changed the view of Protestants and Catholics, as scholars at the time came to the belief that the texts were written in the early Christian era, likely in Greek. Subsequently, the texts fell out of favor in most parts of Europe. However, Hebrew fragments of the Testaments of the Patriarchs were discovered in the 20th century among the Dead Sea Scrolls, proving some of the texts were originally written in Aramaic and Hebrew. The current academic view is that there were simpler Jewish versions that were then updated in the early Christian era by Greek speakers that added the Christian prophesies.

The five books of Enoch are a collection of books written in Semitic languages, and often grouped together as the 'Book of Enoch, ' or '1st Enoch.' The books were likely written at different points in time and different Semitic languages. The first book was the Book of the Watchers, which is generally considered to be the oldest book in the collection, however, the age of the book is debated. The book is now known to have originated long before Christianity since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, was lost for well over a thousand years to Europeans, and assumed to be a Christian-era work when the Europeans rediscovered it in Ethiopia. The five books of Enoch only survive in Ge'ez, the classical language of Ethiopia, however, do not survive intact, and some sections of text do not survive.The Ge'ez texts are believed to be translations from a Greek source, which was itself a translation of an Aramaic source. Many fragments of the Aramaic texts were discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as Hebrew and Greek fragments. The Aramaic texts are mostly the same as the Ge'ez texts, however, scroll 4Q209 also includes a section of text from 3rd Book of Enoch, the Astronomical Book, which is lost from the Ge'ez copies. A few fragments of Greek translations have been found in Egypt in the past two centuries, which generally match the Ge'ez translation. A small fragment of a Latin translation was also preserved by the Vatican through the centuries, which also matches the Ge'ez copies for a small fragment of 4th Book of Enoch, Dream Visions

The book known as Secrets of Enoch is one of the most mysterious ancient texts to survive to the present, and no two analyses of it seem to concur. Almost all copies that have survived to the present are in the Old Slavonic language, the official language once used by the Orthodox church in Slavic nations. As a result, some early scholars concluded the work was written in Old Slavonic, while others believed it was either translated from Greek or complied in Old Slavonic from a variety of ancient sources. Throughout the 1900s, a consensus developed within scholarly circles that work was likely written in a Semitic language and translated into Greek by the 9th century, and then into Old Slavonic by the 13th century. The text was quoted in the 13th century in the Merilo Pravednoe, an East Slavic collection of ethical texts. The view that the work did not originate in Old Slavonic was confirmed in 2009 when Coptic fragments were found in Egypt. As most Old Slavonic and Coptic Judaeo-Christian texts are translations of Greek texts, it is still accepted that the existing copies all derive from a Greek source. This book is also sometimes called Slavonic Enoch because until recently all known copies were written in Old Slavonic, or the 2nd Book of Enoch, which unfortunately conflicts with the other 2nd Book of Enoch, the Book of Parables which is then confusingly referred to as Enoch 2. This conflict over the name 2nd Enoch is based on the fact that Secrets of Enoch was first documented shortly after the Ethiopian Book of Enoch was discovered, and before it had been studied in any depth by scholars. At the time, it was not known that the Ethiopian Book of Enoch was composed of five separate books of Enoch, which has subsequently been confirmed by the study of the fragments of four of the books of Enoch found among the Dead Sea scrolls.The various Old Slavonic manuscripts are not the same but do appear to be derived from a common source. Many manuscripts are missing entire sections of chapters, and most are missing the final few chapters that focus on Methuselah, Nir, Melchizedek, and Noah. The collection of Old Slavonic manuscripts is generally divided into shorter and longer recensions. The various short recensions clearly share a common manuscript that served as an influence but are not simply copies of that manuscript as each has unique lines that were copied from longer recensions. The general conclusion of researchers is that the various short recensions were the works of various Orthodox Christian scholars. The longer recensions contain several Gnostic references, which implies the text may have originally been used in Slavic lands by the Bogomil Gnostic-Christians who were common in the Balkans between the 12th and 14th centuries. Nevertheless, the Gnostic sections of the text do not appear to have been written by the Slavs and were almost certainly in the Greek manuscript by the 9th century AD.

The Revelation of Metatron is a medieval Jewish work, that claims to have been written in the late-2nd century AD by Rabbi Ishmael 'the High Priest.' It is known by various names, including the Sepher Hekhalot (Book of the Palaces), the 3rd Book of Enoch, and the Book of Rabbi Ishmael the High Priest, although its most common name, is the Revelation of Metatron. The earliest name for the work was likely the Sepher Hekhalot (Book of the Palaces), however, all copies have been so reworked that it cannot be known for sure. It is clear that Rabbi Ishmael did not write it, and his name, which is in almost every verse, was inserted to replace another name that the medieval publisher did not want associated with the book. Rabbi Ishmael was the author of the book called Hekhalot Rabbati (Greater Palaces) sometime between 100 and 130 AD, and his name was late used as a pseudonym by many authors of Merkabah literature between 200 and 1000 AD.Several fragments of the Ascension of Moses have survived to the present, however, most of the work is likely lost forever. The Ascension of Moses is almost certainly the precursor to the Revelation of Metatron, in which Rabbi Ishmael was taken up to the sky by Metatron, the supreme archangel. In the Ascension of Moses, it was Moses who was taken up to the sky, and Metatron played a smaller role, although, clearly the same role in the Long Aramaic Revelation of Moses, which is the closest to Revelation of Metatron. In both the Long Aramaic Revelation of Moses and the Revelation of Metatron, Metatron identifies himself as Enoch, Moses' ancestor, which connects this clearly heretical Jewish work with the older Enochian literature. In the other surviving fragments, the connection is less clear, as is the cosmography of the seven skies, and it is, therefore, possible that there were several stages of textual development before the version that was redacted into the Revelation of Metatron. In the Revelation of Metatron, the role of Moses has been replaced by Rabbi Ishmael, a rabbi who lived in Palestine in the late-1st-century and early-2nd-century AD, however, his name was attached to most of the Merkabah literature in that circulated in Babylonia during between 400 and 1000 AD, and is universally considered to have been used to replace an earlier name. Chapter 15B of the Revelation of Metatron is itself an excerpt from the Ascension of Moses, which, if nothing else, proves that the Ascension has been viewed as an earlier copy of the Revelation since at least the 1000 AD, the latest the Revelation was likely to have been edited significantly.The story of Samyaza and Azazel, which like the Yiddish Ascension of Moses is a Yiddish story found among the Chronicles of Jarahmeel, also appears to be a very ancient story bordering about as close as a Jew could get to polytheism without actually crossing that imaginary line. It is included as an appendix as is seems relevant to the question of Metatron's origin within Judaism, however, it is its treatment of Astarah that reveals its true age. The name is a variation of Asherah, who is mentioned many times in the Hebrew Bible, generally in association with Ba'al. Her worship was banned by King Josiah in the Hebrew Book of Kings when he banned the worship of Ba'al and the armies of the sky (hosts of heaven). Archaeological evidence has proven that Jews (or possibly Essenes) continued to worship Asherah until the 6th century BC, during the early Persians era, which is missing from the Talmud's records.

The original version of the Life of Adam and Eve is believed to have been written in a Semitic language, as there as terms transliterated into the surviving Greek, Latin, Armenian, Slavonic, and Georgian versions from a Semitic language, however, it is not known positively which language as the original text is lost, and so far, no fragments have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that firmly be linked to it. The closest text discovered to date among the Dead Sea Scrolls would be the Genesis Apocryphon scroll, written in Aramaic and generally dated to between 37 BC to 50 AD. The original language was probably also Aramaic, as demonstrated by the use of the name Iah in the Apocalypse of Moses, which is found more commonly in Aramaic language books, like Tobit, as well as the transliteration of Belial (ბელადი) in the Book of Adam, which was generally found in Aramaic books. The unusual transliterations of the name of the Devil as Khatanay (Խատանայ), and the name of the archangel Ovel (Ովէլ) in the Penitence of Adam also support a Semitic language other than Hebrew, and the direct transliterations would have been Satana (Սատանա) and Uriyel (Ուրիել).The Greek Apocalypse of Moses is arguably the most influential of these texts, as it is likely the text that the apostle Paul referred to in 2nd Corinthians. A number of references circumstantially date the original work to the era when the Greeks ruled Judea, between 330 and 140 BC. The reference to Iah is itself evidence of a pre-Hasmonean origin, as the Hasmoneans' authorized' version of the Hebrew texts appear to have redacted Iah (יה) to Yahweh (יהוה) when they converted the Jews from the Canaanite (Samaritan/Paleo-Hebrew) script to the Assyrian (Hebrew) script. The name Iah (Jah) does show up in many ancient names, such as Josiah, and phrases such as Hallelujah, implying it was once widely accepted as the name of (a) God, however, virtually disappeared from the Hebrew scriptures at some point, likely during the Hasmonean redaction and standardization circa 140 BC.The longest surviving copy of the Life of Adam and Eve, is its namesake, the Latin Life of Adam and Eve (Vita Adea et Evae). This version was preserved by the Catholic Church, and copies were available to scholars in Western Europe earlier than the East European manuscripts, which is why the entire collection of literature is named after it. The Latin Life of Adam and Eve is very similar to the Armenian Penitinece of Adam, as well as the Georgian Book of Adam, which forms a specific sub-group of the Life of Adam and Eve literature, the Latin-Armenian tradition. The Georgian Book of Adam is very similar to the Armenian Penitence of Adam, and widely believed to have been translated from it, however, neither the Armenian nor Latin versions could have been copied from each other, implying a common Semitic source-text, separate from the Semitic source-text used for the Apocalypse of Moses. While the source-text for the Greek Apocalypse of Moses appears to date to the era when the Greeks ruled Judea, between 330 and 140 BC, the source-text for the Latin-Armenian tradition appears to have been older. One of the indicators for this is the discrepancy between the 72 'strokes' and 70 'wounds/griefs/evils' that God sent to punish Adam. In the Apocalypse of Moses, there are 72, while in the Latin, Armenian, and Georgian versions of the text all have 70, and these numbers are significant.

In the mid-3rd century BC, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt ordered a translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures for the Library of Alexandria, which resulted in the creation of the Septuagint, as well as several other books of Jewish and Samaritan scriptures, including the Book of Enoch, Book of Job, Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Dodeka. The Dodeka was not part of the collection of texts the Jews fleeing Egypt carried with them from the Jewish Temple in Elephantine, and is therefore believed to have been translated into Greek later, circa 180 BC. It would eventually be added to the Septuagint as the Book of Dodeka circa 140 BC, and then much later be divided into its twelve constituent books by the early Christians in the 3rd-century AD, subsequently called the twelve minor prophets. The books comprising the Dodeka all date from between 900 and 500 BC, and represent the works of twelve ancient prophets, which in the original Greek translation, represented several different gods. These were not Jewish prophets, but Israelite prophets, mostly living the age before King Josiah banned the old gods, in approximately 625 BC.Most of the books in the Dodeka were written before King Josiah's reforms. The books of Hosea, Amos, and Micah are set during the 8th-century BC, when the kingdom of Samaria fought a series of wars against its more powerful northern neighbor Assyria, ultimately being conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire circa 722 BC. The books of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah follow, although their exact settings are not clear. The books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah follow, set in the 7th-century BC, as the Kingdom of Judea struggled for its survival between the powers of the time, Assyria to the north, Egypt to the south, and Babylon to the east, ultimately falling to the Neo-Babylonian Empire circa 586 BC. There is a gap in the prophets during the era when Babylon ruled Judea, and they continue with the books of Haggai, and the first half of Zachariah, set in the late-6th-century, after the Persians have conquered the Babylonian Empire.Combining the various Elohim that are appear to have been the text the Greeks translated, including Shaddai (Shaddayin), On (Aven), Dagon, Tirath (Tirosh), Yitzhar, Reshef (Blight), Mot, Hades (Sheol), and Abaddon (Destruction), Ba'al Hadad, Ba'al Hammon, Qetesh Asherah, Sydyk, and Shemesh, it strongly suggests that the text was heavily edited in the Hasmonean era when Yahweh Sabaoth replaced Lord El. Unfortunately, the existing Dead Sea Scrolls shed little light on the situation as they date to the era the edits would have taken place, but are in the script that should only show the edited version. Nevertheless, they are so damaged almost none of the questions about the differences between the Dodeka and Masoretic Texts could be resolved, even if they were in the Canaanite script.

In the early centuries of the Christian era, several texts called the Apocalypse of Ezra were in circulation among Jews and Christians. The original is believed to have been written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac, and is commonly known as the Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra. This version was translated into Greek sometime before 200 AD and circulated widely within the early Christian churches. This book claimed that the prophet Ezra wrote 240 books, and its popularity seems to have inspired several 'Christian' Apocalypses of Ezra, presumably beginning with the 'Latin' Apocalypse of Ezra which claimed to be the "second book of the prophet Ezra." This prophet Ezra is not the scribe Ezra from the Jewish scriptures, but a prophet named Ezra that lived several decades earlier.The Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra was adopted under a variety of names into the Bibles of most older churches before the Protestant reformation. In the 4th-century it was called 3rd Esdras by Archbishop Ambrose (Aurelius Ambrosius) of Milan, which continues to be its name Orthodox Bibles. Catholics call it 4th Esdras, while Protestants call it 2nd Esdras. The Ethiopian version uses another name: Ezra Sutuel, which is derived from the fact that the text claims to have been written by 'Sutuel, who am also called Ezra.' Sutuel is the Ethiopian translation of Shealtiel, the name of one of King Jehoiachin's sons. Jehoiachin the second last king of Judah before it was conquered by the Babylonians, and was considered the first 'King of the Exiles' in Babylon. His son Shealtiel was the second 'King of the Exiles, ' as this does correlate with the time recorded in the Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra, meaning, that if Ezra was not Shealtiel, he would have at least known him well, as Ezra is described as being the leader of the community of Babylon.There is no consensus of when the Latin Apocalypse of Ezra was written, however, it is a Christian era Apocalyse, that is clearly anti-Jewish in nature. The Apocalyse's claim to being the second book of the prophet Ezra implies that the author was positioning it as the sequel to the Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra, and as such it does not repeat the same material as the Jewish Apocalyse, unlike the Greek Apocalypse. In the Latin Apocalyse, the focus is more one declaring that God had abandoned the Jews in favor of Christians, and describing the coming end of the world.The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra is a third Apocalypse of Ezra, which has only survived in two copies both dating both to before the 9th-century. It is a separate text from the Jewish or Latin Apocalypses of Ezra and appears to be a Christian-era composite of various Ezra related materials. There is no consensus of when the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra was written, however, it is a Christian era Apocalyse, which refers to several Christian Apostles in heaven along with the Jewish Patriarchs. This Apocalypse uses a very inconsistent writing style, and switches constantly between first-person and third-person as if it is a composite of material that originated in various earlier Ezra material. Some of the content repeats content found in the Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra, however, the bulk of the material is unique, describing Ezra's journey through the sky (Heaven) and the underworld (Tartarus).

The Ba'al Cycle, or Ba'al Saga, is a collection of stories about Ba'al Hadad, the supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon in the late bronze age. The Ugaritic Texts are ancient tablets that were recovered from archaeological digs at the ruins of Ugarit, a bronze-age city in northwest Syria, at the foot of the mountain Jebel Aqra on the modern Syrian-Turkish border.The Ba'al Cycle is generally divided into several sections, based on the groupings of the tablets that were discovered, however, this series of translations is divided into just two sections, Victorious Ba'al, and Ba'al Defeats Mot. These divisions are always subjective. Some translators divide the central section regarding the building of Ba'al's Temple on Mount Zaphon from the preceding battle with Yam. Others also separate out the intermediate section involving Ba'al's discussion with Anat, however, this series is divided based on the apparent shift in source material between the early section and the later section. The earliest section appears to be a translation from ancient Egyptian and includes Egyptian loanwords, as well as numerous references to the houses of the gods, which seems to be a reference to the system of decans used in Egypt from the Old Kingdom onward, to tell time at night.The main section of Ba'al Defeats Mot, appears to have been translated from an old Akkadian text that retold a Hurrian and Hattic story about two gods descending into the underworld. Many Akkadian, Hattic, and Hurrian loanwords are found in the later section, which are mostly missing from the earlier section, as well as the conclusion. The major exception being the messenger Ủgar, who was a Hurrian psychopomp, like the Canaanite Horon, and Greek Charon. As the city of Ugarit was named after him, this name clearly predates the text itself, and so it cannot be used to date the text. Nevertheless, does indicate that the city was originally a Hurrian settlement before becoming Semitic, which helps to explain why the older second section, appears to be a translation of an Akkadian retelling of a Hurrian story. Additionally, Luwian names are found in the second section, which places the origin of the Akkadian source text to sometime between when the Luwians settled in western Anatolia, generally dated to circa 2000 BC, and when the Hittites absorbed the Hattians around 1700 BC. As the text appears to have then been translated into Egyptian, before Ugaritic, it may trace the route the Hyksos took to Egypt, via the Luwian, Hattic, and Hurrian lands.The first section, Victorious Ba'al, appears to be a later text, written after 1700 BC, when a massive series of earthquakes destroyed most of the Minoan cities and palaces. The earthquake marks the division between the Old Palace Period and the New Palace Period of Minoan architecture. At the time, there was a significant change in the sky, as the Bull stopped being the asterism that marked the northern vernal equinox, and the Ram replaced him. Unlike the Bull, the Ram was not on the ecliptic, the line in the sky that the sun and planets travel on relative to the earth, but above it. Below the ecliptic, and closer to it, was the Sea Monster, later called Cetus. The battle in the Victorious Ba'al, was about the storm-god Hadad battling the sea-god Yam, to take over the kingship from the ram-god Attar, and appears to be about the struggle between these two gods to rule the earth after the bull god El had turned over his throne to the ram god Attar. That transition would have happened in circa 1700 BC, and so this text had to be written later than that.

The Words of Ahikar is the oldest surviving Israelite story, with known copies in Aramaic dating back to the 5th-century BC, making it a couple of centuries older than the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While the story is set during the Assyrian Captivity of the Samaritans during the 7th century BC, it is generally accepted by scholars that the book was written in its current form in the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian Captivity of the Judahites.It does not appear to have been considered a religious book by Judahites under Greek rule, or later when Judea became independent, and was not included in either the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text. Nevertheless, the author of the Book of Tobit, which is in the Septuagint, clearly viewed the Words of Ahikar as authentic, as his protagonist Tobit claimed that he was Ahikar's uncle, and both Ahikar and his nephew Nadan make a brief appearance in the book of Tobit at Tobit's son Tobiah's marriage feast in Nineveh. The Book of Tobit was likely written in the Median Empire, and carried into Judea by the priest Tobiah, who was listed as one of the leaders of the Israelites that returned to Judea after Cyrus II (the Great) released the Judahites when he conquered Babylon.The version of the book of Tobit found in the Codex Vaticanus and most surviving copies of the Septuagint, was translated into Greek from Aramaic and added to the Septuagint, likely before 200 BC when the Judean Revolt against the Ptolemys rule, resulted in most Jews and Samaritans fleeing from Egypt, either east into Judea, or south into Nubia. There is another version of the Book of Tobit found in the Codex Sinaiticus, which appears to be older than the version in the other codices, and not translated in the Ptolemy's Egypt, but somewhere in the Seleucid's Empire.The Book of Tobit is generally viewed as fiction by most scholars for a variety of reasons. One major reason it is viewed as fiction is the presence of Tobit's cousin Ahikar, in both versions of the book, who is the protagonist of the Words of Ahikar, a book set in the same era, which is also considered fiction. It is quite clear from the text of Tobit, that it is the same Ahikar, and not just someone with the same name, as Ahikar's betrayal by his nephew is mentioned, which is part of the early section of Ahikar. Nevertheless, both books, Tobit and Ahikar survive in various forms, meaning that they were edited multiple times before the versions that survive to the present were transcribed. The surviving copies of the Septuagint include two versions of the Book of Tobit, the more common form, found in the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and most other surviving copies of the Septuagint, and the less common version found in the Codex Sinaiticus. Additionally, fragments of Tobit found among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri don't match either the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus version of Tobit. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri are a collection of ancient texts found in southern Egypt dating to the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine eras of Egyptian history, approximately 300 BC to 640 AD. Among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, two fragments of Tobit have been found, Papyrus 1594, dated to circa 275 AD, and Papyrus 1076, dated to circa 550 AD. Unfortunately, these fragments are extremely short, with only a few lines surviving from chapters 12 and 2 respectively. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri fragments of Tobit are in Greek but do not match surviving versions found in the Septuagint codices, meaning there were no less than three Greek versions of Tobit in circulation by 350 AD, when the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are dated to.

The origin of the Book of Judith has been debated for thousands of years, and is often assumed to have been written in Greek as anti-Hellenic propaganda during the Maccabean Revolt. It isn't clear why an anti-Hellenic book would have been written in Greek by an Aramaic-speaking people, however, no ancient copies of it survive in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Phoenician (Samaritan / Judahite). There are Hebrew translations, however, they are dated to the middle ages, 1000 years after the oldest surviving copies of the Judith found in the Septuagint. The Greek translations are remarkably consistent compared to the radically different versions of the Book of Tobit in the surviving copies of the Septuagint.The name of the king in the book of Judith is named Nebuchadnezzar, which was the name of the king of Babylon, between 605 and 562 BC. However, other than the name of the king, no other elements of the story indicate the story originated with the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar did not fight the Medes, and could not have killed the king of Media, as the two countries were close allies at the time, and under King Cyaxares the Median Empire reached its peak. Nebuchadnezzar didn't launch a war against the Elamites, who in fact fell under the control of Cyaxares's Median Empire. As the name Nebuchadnezzar was used to replace Achiacharos in the book of Tobit, when the Sinaiticus version was simplified into the Vaticanus version, it's likely that the name Nebuchadnezzar was simply used to replaces an older name as well.There are several indicators in the book that point to the original king being Ashurbanipal, the king of Assyria between 668 and 627 BC. Ashurbanipal did fight two wars against Elam, and virtually annihilated the Elamites in the second war. Ashurbanipal also invaded Media, and during the fighting the Median king Phraortes was killed, allowing Ashurbanipal to claim victory, even though he didn't consolidate his victory and integrate Media back into the Assyrian Empire. When Ashurbanipal had launched the invasion of Media, in his 17th year, he ordered the local kings from across his empire to send troops to the war, but almost all refused, which was a general insurrection. Therefore, while committed to the war against Media, after defeating the Medians, he was eager to return to Assyria, and restore order to his empire.

The two books of Ezra were translated into Greek and added to the Septuagint before 200 BC when a large number of refugees fled the ongoing wars in Judea and settled in Egypt. 2ⁿᵈ Ezra became in the Masoretic Texts' version of Ezra, and by the year 100 AD the Apocalypse of Ezra was also in circulation as 3ʳᵈ Ezra. The original 2ⁿᵈ Ezra was later divided into two books in Latin translations, making a total of four books of Ezra, although one was later renamed Nehemiah. The two books of Ezra found in the Septuagint, are variously divided into two or three books, depending on the religious denomination. 2ⁿᵈ Ezra is equivalent to the Masoretic Ezra, which is used by Jews, however, there is no Hebrew version of 1ˢᵗ Ezra. Christian Orthodox, Coptic, and Tewahedo Bibles continue to use translations of the Septuagint, and therefore the books continue to be 1ˢᵗ and 2ⁿᵈ Ezra. Catholic Bibles call 1ˢᵗ Ezra 3ʳᵈ Esdras, and have 2ⁿᵈ Ezra divided into the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Most Protestant Bibles do not include 1ˢᵗ Ezra, and have 2ⁿᵈ Ezra divided into the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The book called 4ᵗʰ Ezra in Catholic Bibles was never in the Septuagint and is about a different Ezra who lived earlier during the Babylonian Captivity.The Septuagint's 1ˢᵗ and 2ⁿᵈ Ezra are thematically similar, telling generally the same story, however from two different points of view. They tell the story of the fall of Jerusalem, first to the Egyptians, and then the Babylonians, followed by Babylon's fall to the Persians, and the Judahites to Judah to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. 1ˢᵗ Ezra was written from a non-spiritual viewpoint, common among the Sadducees, and repeatedly makes it clear that the author, Ezra, and various kings, viewed the Lord as the Judahite version of other gods, including the Egyptian creator and Sun-god Atum, and the Zoroastrian 'god of truth' and 'King of the Sky' Ahura Mazda. These views are inconsistent with the view of the Pharisees, which developed under the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty after Judea broke free from the rule of the Greeks, and the Lord became a separate god from all others.Both the Greek translations of 1ˢᵗ and 2ⁿᵈ Ezra, and the Hebrew translation of Ezra, contain relics of an Aramaic source-text, unfortunately, the Aramaic Book of Ezra-Nehemiah is lost. The difference in the surviving Aramaic words within the Greek 1ˢᵗ Ezra, and Hebrew Ezra-Nehemiah (Greek 2ⁿᵈ Ezra), it appears that the two versions of Ezra already existed in the Aramaic versions. The differences between 2ⁿᵈ Ezra and Masoretic Ezra-Nehemiah are minimal and could be accounted for as scribal notes, and the redaction of Simon the Zealot, who added the name Yahweh extensively to the ancient texts when he translated them into Hebrew. 1ˢᵗ Ezra, the less spiritual of the two versions of the Septuagint's Ezra, clearly dates to the end of the Persian era, as it treats the Judahite Lord of the Temple in Jerusalem as another version of Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian God. Several Zoroastrian titles of Ahura Mazda are applied to the Judahite Lord, including King of Truth, and King of the Sky. Letters from the Persian Kings Cyrus II, Artaxerxes I, and Darius II, as included in the book, all of which were closely associated with Zoroastrianism, yet, referred to the Judahite Lord using titles generally associated with Ahura Mazda. In the Greek 1ˢᵗ Ezra and 2ⁿᵈ Ezra, as well as Masoretic Ezra, the temple is described as being a Zoroastrian fire-temple, containing an eternal fire, which 2ⁿᵈ Maccabees even referred to as being burning naphtha in the time of Nehemiah, like the other fire-temples across the Persian Empire.