OK, here’s another post dealing with an extremely interesting part of the Old Testament–the Israelites in Egypt. Is it all myth?

Egypt, Israel, and the Exodus

Is there any evidence for the story of the Israelites being in Egypt? The story takes place near the end of the Bronze Age when there were major social migrations. There are three minimal facts that we know – there were Israelite slaves in Goshen before 1446 B.C. (before the biblical date for the Exodus); Israel arrived in Canaan about 1400 BC; Israel wandered from Egypt to Canaan about the time of the Exodus. Let’s look at each of these.

First, there is evidence for Israel being in Goshen prior to 1400 BC. Researchers note the style of architecture, statues, tombs, pottery, wall paintings, and artifacts that suggest people from Canaan were in Egypt during that time. Also, there are Egyptian household records listing slave names including distinctively Hebrew names. People have discovered public works building projects built by Semites, wall murals depicting Semitic slaves working, wall inscriptions in the Semitic language and written reference to Asiatic (a term used by Egyptians to refer to residents of nations east of Egypt) sheepherders who didn’t worship Ra.

I’ll cover another part of this topic in the next blog post.

Many people have heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they don’t realize the significance of them. Here’s another blog post on the Bible–this time I look at those scrolls.

Dead Sea Scrolls

For a lot of reasons, biblical scholars were excited at the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. In a dusty, dry desert area called Qumran (northwest of the Dead Sea), jars containing ancient manuscripts were found. A group of individuals who wished to live separate from society, called Essenes, hid these manuscripts in the time of Jesus, probably to keep them from falling into the hands of Roman soldiers.

There are scrolls that deal with Essene practices, but the big news was the discovery of Old Testament scrolls (the entire Old Testament except for the book of Esther was found). Up until then, the oldest copy of the Hebrew Bible had been from around 1000 A.D. Scholars were not sure how much of the Bible had changed between the time when the books were written and 1000 A.D. , roughly 1700 years in the case of the book of Isaiah.  What scholars discovered was amazing – there were no significant changes between the Dead Sea Scrolls and copies from 1000 A.D. They concluded, therefore, that what we have probably accurately reflects the original manuscripts written centuries before.

By the way, Dan Brown, who wrote The Da Vinci Code, claims to be such a careful scholar, but he got it wrong when he referred to the Dead Sea Scrolls. He said there were gospels that mentioned Jesus, but that was not true. No Dead Sea Scroll made any reference to the life of Jesus. That was just one of many errors found throughout Dan Brown’s popular book.

Here are a couple more areas that have been controversial and misunderstood in the Bible.

Cain:

A very common question that people ask has to do with Cain – where did he get his wife? In fact, it was asked at the famous Scopes monkey trial early in the 20th century. The answer is so simple that it is embarrassing. Cain got his wife from his sisters — Genesis 5: 4. That may sound creepy to many of us today, but any law against marrying a close relative didn’t start until Moses (Leviticus 18-20 ). In fact, Abraham married his half sister in Genesis.  We may wonder about the possibility of having defective children, but some experts say there were not as many accumulated genetic mistakes then.

Creation:

The Bible sounds pretty modern if you read the first chapter of Genesis where it says all matter, space, time, and energy had a start. For a long time there were many other popular theories about the beginning of the universe. Many believed it had always been here while others thought we were part of a cyclical universe which expanded and contracted repeatedly.    But experiments in the 20th century have caused scientists to believe in what originally was sarcastically referred to as the Big Bang theory. This says that the universe sprang into existence out of nothing around 14-15,000,000,000 years ago. Ever since then the universe has been expanding and cooling. What’s interesting is that other Bible passages may be referring to this expansion –Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 104:2.

We’re continuing with an examination of Bible confusion. Let’s hope I don’t add to it.

For this blog post, I’d like to take a look at an odd topic–Bible codes.

A few years ago there was a book called The Bible Code by Michael Drosnin which was very popular. The author claimed that there were secret messages hidden inside the Bible. People could find these messages through something called equidistant letter sequences (els).

Here’s how it supposedly works. You take a passage from the Bible, ignore all the spaces between words, and count a certain number of letters. Whatever you land on with your count (for example, every five letters) is a letter that you highlight. Then you count another five letters and highlight that letter that you land on. You do this repeatedly to see if those letters you have landed on spell out anything.

Let’s try a simple example. Look at this sentence: “All of our avenues are wide.” We will start with second letter (the letter “L”). Skip the next three letters and mark down the fourth letter (this time it is the letter “O”). If we do this repeatedly for our original sentence, we will have spelled out “LOVE.” Ah ha, we are on to something here–or are we?

It is reported that a scientist and mathematician in 1994 found the names of 34 famous Jewish people in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament). Some verses in Genesis (if you skip every 50 letters) spell Torah.   So, is there something to this?  Skeptics say you can do the same in Moby Dick and end up predicting all sorts of things. Apparently, the probability of creating words and phrases that make sense is high if you use any skip method. There are a couple of websites that you can examine for more details if you are interested – biblecodedigest.com and skepdic.com/bibcode.html.

Ark of the Covenant

Steven Spielberg brought the ark into our movie theaters and homes with his famous movie The Raiders of the Lost Ark. It might be good to set the record straight here. The ark was a sacred portable chest that contained key items important to the Jewish people. It was the most important sacred object of the children of Israel during the wilderness period.

It was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold and four rings of gold through which carrying poles were inserted so that nobody actually touched the ark. On the top was something called the mercy seat, which was a slab of pure gold which fit exactly on the top of the ark. It measured roughly four feet by two feet by two feet, so it was not very big. The Jews constructed that as they wandered in the wilderness after escaping Egypt. Inside the box were placed the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, manna (the miracle food used by God to sustain the people in their wanderings), and the rod of Aaron, representing his priestly role. Later, after they came into the land promised them by God centuries before, they lost the ark to the Philistines in a battle. These enemies of the Jews soon returned the ark to its rightful owners because it had caused disasters for them. David eventually brought it to Jerusalem where it was later established in the Holy of Holies of the Temple which Solomon, David’s son, built.

What’s especially interesting about the ark is its disappearance. In 586 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar, leader of the Babylonians, destroyed Jerusalem. From that point on, the ark disappeared. There are all sorts of stories regarding its final resting place. Some say it was hidden by the Jews as the Babylonians approached their city and is buried somewhere in Jerusalem. Others report that Jeremiah took the ark and buried it on Mount Nebo in today’s Lebanon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims it has the original ark which is kept under guard. There are stories from South Africa and Zimbabwe that natives ended up with the ark and have hidden it somewhere in their territories. The Knights Templar have also figured in stories of the ark’s disappearance; it was claimed that they took the ark to Chartres Cathedral in France. There are even some who suggest the ark made its way to America or Ireland. So, if you have some money and some spare time, you may want to find out for yourself where the ark ended up.

Let’s switch topics here. For the next several blog posts I’d like to discuss  subjects that you may have wondered about. Even if you haven’t given some of these topics any thought, I hope they spark an interest in the Bible for you. They are in alphabetical order, so here goes.

Apocrypha versus Apocalypse

People get these mixed up all the time. The word “Apocrypha” means things that have been hidden away. The term refers to texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where there is confusion about the author. Specifically when it comes to Judeo-Christian writings, it refers to any collection of texts that are not counted among the official 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn’t mean these are bad books or evil in some sense.

These works, which were written sometime between the 200s B.C. to New Testament times, include Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (sometimes called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, various additions to the book of Esther, the book of Daniel, and the prayer of  Manasseh. These books were generally excluded from Protestant churches for a simple reason: Jesus and the apostles never quoted from any of these books. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches included most of them because they believed they were of value for moral uses. One key point to remember is that they were never included in the Hebrew Bible. They did show up in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible).

What’s funny is that the term “Apocalypse,” so easily confused with “Apocrypha,” actually means just the opposite – a lifting of the veil, a disclosing of something previously hidden. The book we often call Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, in Greek is actually called the Apocalypse of John. You can understand why as you read the book, noting the things that are revealed to the author.

Actually, apocalyptic writing is found in other books of the Bible and among other Jewish writings, so it is considered a specific genre of writing with its own rules and expectations. We will be discussing this further, but key features include dreams, revelation of mysteries, visions of the future and end times, use of symbolism, otherworldly beings and activities.

So now we have looked at the history of Bible translations. That’s nice, but the key is to pick one and read it. It can be a bit overwhelming when trying to choose which translation to use. There are several things to keep in mind as you consider this issue. Some translations are considered literal, which means they attempt to keep as close as possible to Hebrew or Greek words and grammar.

Then there are dynamic translations which still want to keep the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek but put their words and idioms in English. Finally, there are free translations which don’t worry as much about using the exact words of the original; instead, they attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another.

So where do well-known translations land with these three types of translations? Literal translations would include the King James Version, New American Standard, Revised Standard Version, and English Standard Version. Those that are considered dynamic translations would include the New International Version, the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and the Revised English Bible. Those that qualify as free translations are Phillips, the Living Bible, the New English Bible, and The Message.

I would suggest staying away from the free translations because the translator has updated the original texts too much. They come very close to being commentaries rather than Bible translations. I think your best bet is to stay with dynamic translations because they attempt to blend specifics of the Hebrew and Greek texts with our English language.

Good ones for you to consider might be Today’s New International Version, the Good News Bible, the New American Bible, or the English Standard Version. A couple of other good ones would be the New American Standard (updated) or The New Revised Standard Version. Whatever you choose, just be sure to read it!

OK, I’m back to my blogging now that Palomar College has started its new semester. Let’s continue our review of translations of the Bible. Take a look at past posts to see the whole history. I’m always amazed at those who stick to the old King James translation. It has beauty in an old-fashioned way, but it is based on few manuscripts and has a 17th-century vocabulary and style that can be confusing to modern readers.

All these alternate translations (see previous posts) were based on the King James tradition, but many other English translations have been made that are entirely independent of this tradition. One example is the New English Bible, which broke away from the word-for-word principle by replacing Greek constructions and idioms with those of contemporary English. In 1963 the New American Standard Bible came out. In addition, the most popular translation, the New International Version, was completed in 1978. Because it is not tied to a literal, word-for-word translation, otherwise obscure expressions frequently are turned into phrases with meaning and appeal. For example, “proselytes” becomes “converts to Judaism,” “all flesh” becomes “all people,” “prayed constantly” becomes “prayed regularly.” The Good News Bible, which came out in 1976, has been a pioneer of translations that employ a simple vocabulary and short sentence structure. Other works such as the Living Bible and The Message are recent paraphrases rather than true translations. A recent success has been the English Standard Version, which appeared in 2001. It’s a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version.

Eventually, some weaknesses in this translation made more recent revisions necessary. For one thing, the King James Version rests on an inadequate textual base, especially regarding the Greek text for the New Testament. The translators had used essentially a medieval text that had some mistakes that had accumulated through the years. The key point is that the King James Version is a translation of an inferior Greek text. Since 1611 so many more early and better manuscripts have been found. Another problem of this translation is its many archaic words – howbeit, holden, peradventure, thee, suffer (today we say “allow”). In addition, the King James Version includes errors of translation.

As a result of these problems, new translations poured forth, especially in the last 150 years. In 1901 the American Standard Version came out, which was based on the Greek text. It was far superior to that used by the King James translators. In 1952 the Revised Standard Version was released in an attempt to improve on past problems. Its greatest achievement was its readability in an attempt to recapture the beauty of the King James style in a way that is clear and pleasing to the reader. Even this translation did not please everyone, so in 1990 the New Revised Standard Version was published. It altered paragraph structure and punctuation, reduced old-fashioned words, strove for greater accuracy and clarity, and eliminated all masculine-oriented language when references are made to both men and women.

A flood of translations and revisions followed. One popular one was the Geneva Bible of 1560. It became the Bible for the family. It was the first translation which printed each verse as a paragraph and to  put words in italics not represented in the original texts. It was the Bible used by Shakespeare in his later plays, it was the one used by the Jamestown settlement in Virginia, it was brought to Plymouth on the Mayflower, and it was the one Bible with its improved Hebrew and Greek scholarship that was an intermediate step between Tyndale and the King James version.

Because some Bibles were used in churches, while others were used at home and some were favored by Protestants while others were favored by Catholics, there was a need for a Bible that was satisfactory to all. In 1604 King James of England summoned a meeting of representatives of diverse religious groups to discuss the question of religious toleration. At this meeting people raised the possibility of a new translation. The Geneva Bible had a lot of commentary added which represented the views of John Calvin and the Reformation. For this new translation the king said there  were to be no notes of comment except what was essential in translating the text. Over 40 Greek and Hebrew scholars were selected and divided into six working companies, which focused on key books and then allowed all the other companies to review their work. As a result, this new translation was the product of no individual or group, but of the reviewers as a whole. In 1611 the Authorized Version, better known as the King James Version, was published. It immediately displaced earlier Bibles used in the churches and established itself as the translation for English-speaking people around the world.

It became hugely popular for several reasons. First, Greek and Hebrew scholarship had made tremendous strides since the time of Tyndale. Secondly, literary scholarship and learning in general at this time were at a high. It was the time of Elizabethan prose and poetry, the time of Shakespeare. As a result, the words and phrases were written in a classic English style. Another reason for its success was its timing. A good English translation was needed, and the translators were able to profit from both the excellencies and the shortcomings of previous translations. One final reason for its success was the fact that it was the work of not a single individual or party. England had been torn by religious factions, and partisan translations would not solve the problem. The King James Version was noted for its deliberate impartiality in regards to religious opinions.