THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE

Transcription

1 1

2 THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE The first hand-written English language manuscripts of the Bible were produced in 1380's AD by Oxford theologian John Wycliff (Wycliffe). Curiously, he was also the inventor of bifocal eyeglasses. Wycliff spent many of his years arguing against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. Though he died a nonviolent death, the Pope was so infuriated by his teachings that 44 years after Wycliff had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river! Gutenburg invented the printing press in the 1450's, and the first book to ever be printed was the Bible. It was, however, in Latin rather than English. With the onset of the Reformation in the early 1500's, the first printings of the Bible in the English language were produced...illegally and at great personal risk of those involved. William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of reformers,and was their spiritual leader. He worked most 2

3 of his translating years alone, but had help from time to time as God discerned he needed it. Indirectly, he had the help of Erasmus in the publication of his Greek/Latin New Testament printed in Erasmus and the great printer, scholar, and reformer John Froben published the first non-latin Vulgate text of the Bible in a millennium. Latin was the language for centuries of scholarship and it was understood by virtually every European who could read or write. Erasmus' Latin was not the Vulgate translation of Jerome, but his own fresh rendering of the Greek New Testament text that he had collated from six or seven partial New Testament manuscripts into a complete Greek New Testament. The Latin that Erasmus translated from the Greek revealed enormous corruptions in the Vulgate's integrity amongst the rank and file scholars, many of whom were already convinced that the established church was doomed by virtue of its evil hierarchy. Pope Leo X's declaration that "the fable of Christ was very profitable to him" infuriated the people of God. 3

4 With Erasmus' work in 1516, the die was cast. Martin Luther declared his intolerance with the Roman Curch's corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Door. Luther, who would be exiled in the months following the Diet of Worms Council in 1521 that was designed to martyr him, would translate the New Testament into German from Erasmus' Greek/Latin New Testament and publish it in September of Simultaneously, William Tyndale would become burdened to translate that same Erasmus text into English. It could not, however, be done in England. Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in 1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into English. Tyndale was fluent in eight languages and is considered by many to be the primary architect of today's English language. Already hunted because of the rumor spread abroad that such a project was underway, inquisitors and bounty hunters were on Tyndale's trail to abort the effort. God foiled their plans, and in 1525/6 Tyndale printed the first English New Testament. They 4

5 were burned as soon as the Bishop could confiscate them, but copies trickled through and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of Tyndale's forbidden books. Having God's Word available to the public in the language of the common man, English, would have meant disaster to the church. No longer would they control access to the scriptures. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the church's income and power would crumble. They could not possibly continue to get away with selling indulgences (the forgiveness of sins) or selling the release of loved ones from a church-manufactured "Purgatory". People would begin to challenge the church's authority if the church were exposed as frauds and thieves. The contradictions 5

6 between what God's Word said, and what the priests taught, would open the public's eyes and the truth would set them free from the grip of fear that the institutional church held. Salvation through faith, not works or donations, would be understood. The need for priests would vanish through the priesthood of all believers. The veneration of church-cannonized Saints and Mary would be called into question. The availablity of the scriptures in English was the biggest threat imaginable to the wicked church. Neither side would give up without a fight. The Tyndale New Testament was the first ever printed in the English language. Its first printing occurred in 1525/6, but only one complete copy of the first printing exists. Any Edition printed before 1570 is very rare and valuable, particularly pre-1540 editions and fragments. Tyndale's flight was an inspiration to freedom-loving Englishmen who drew courage from the 11 years that he was hunted. Books and Bibles flowed into England in bales of cotton and sacks of flour. In the end, Tyndale was caught: betrayed by an Englishman that he had 6

7 befriended. Tyndale was incarcerated for 500 days before he was strangled and burned at the stake in His last words were, "Lord, open the eyes of the King of England". Myles Coverdale and John Rogers were loyal disciples the last six years of Tyndale's life, and they carried the project forward and even accelerated it. Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament, and in 1535 he printed the first complete Bible in the English language, making use of Luther's German text and the Latin as sources. Thus, the first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible. John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in He printed it under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew", as a considerable part of this Bible was the translation of Tyndale, whose writings had been condemned by the English authorities. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament ( edition) and Coverdale's 7

8 Bible and a small amount of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthews Bible. In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canturbury, hired Myles Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish the "Great Bible". It became the first English Bible authorized for public use, as it was disrtibuted to every church, chained to the pulpit, and a reader was even provided so that the illiterate could hear the Word of God in plain English. It would seem that William Tyndale's last wish had been granted...just three years after his martyrdom. Cranmer's Bible, published by Coverdale, was known as the Great Bible due to its great size: a large pulpit folio measuring over 14 inches tall. Seven editions of this version were printed between April of 1539 and December of The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540's...and into the 1550's. The reign of Queen Mary (a.k.a. "Bloody Mary") was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in 8

9 her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John Rogers ("Thomas Matthew") and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again. In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the reformer refugees and was one of only a few safe havens for a desperate people. Many of them met in Geneva, led by Myles Coverdale and John Foxe (publisher of the famous Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which is to this day the only exhaustive reference work on the persecution and martyrdom of Early Christians and Protestants from the first century up to the mid-16th century), as well as Thomas Sampson and William Whittingham. There, with the protection of John Calvin and John Knox, the Church of Geneva determined to produce a Bible that would educate their families while they continued in exile. 9

10 The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis desribing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches" (an antiquated form of "Britches"), some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible. The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". William Shakespeare quotes thousands of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any 10

11 other source. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611! The Geneva holds the honor of being the first Bible taken to America, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. With the end of Queen Mary's bloody rein, the reformers could safely return to England. The Aglican Church, under Queen Elizabeth I, reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of Geneva version Bibles in England. The marginal notes, which were vehemently against the institutional Church of the day, did not rest well with the rulers of the day, however. Another version, one with a less inflamatory tone was desired. In 1568, the Bishop's Bible was introduced. Despite 19 editions being printed between 1568 and 1606, the version never gained much of a foothold of popularity among the people. The Geneva may have simply been too much to compete with. 11

12 By the 1580's, the Roman Catholic Church saw that it had lost the battle to supress the will of God: that His Holy Word be available in the English language. In 1582, the Church of Rome surrendered their fight for "Latin only" and decided that if the Bible was to be available in English, they would at least have an official Roman Catholic English translation. And so, using the Latin Vulgate as a source text, they went on to publish an English Bible with all the distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had revealed and warned of 75 years earlier. Because it was translated at the Roman Catholic College in the city of Rheims, it was known as the Rheims ( or Rhemes) New Testament. The Old Testament was translated by the Church of Rome in 1609 at the College in the city of Doway (also spelled Douay and Douai). The combined product is commonly refered to as the "Doway/Rheims" Version. In 1589, Dr. Fulke of Cambridge published the "Fulke's Refutation", in which he printed in parallel columns the Bishops Version along side the Rheims Version, attempting to show the error and distortion of the Roman 12

13 Church's corrupt compromise of an English version of the Bible. With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ,etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification when multiple meanings were possible. This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the 13

14 Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known as "The King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical error in Ruth 3:15 rendered the pronoun "He" instead of the correct "She" in that verse. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. It took many years for it to overtake the Geneva Bible in popularity with the people, but eventually the King James Version became the Bible of the English people. It became the most printed book in the history of the world. In fact, for around 250 years...until the appearance of the Revised Version of the King James Version reigned without a rival. Although the first Bible printed in America was done in the native Algonquin Indian Language (by John Eliot in 14

15 1663), the first English language Bible to be printed in America (by Robert Aitken in 1782) was a King James Version. In 1791, Isaac Collins vastly improved upon the quality and size of the typesetting of American Bibles and produced the first "Family Bible" printed in America...also a King James Version. Also in 1791, Isaiah Thomas published the first Illustrated Bible printed in America...in the King James Version. In 1841, the English Hexapla New Testament was printed. This wonderful textual comparison tool shows in parallel columns: The 1380 Wycliff, 1534 Tyndale, 1539 Great, 1557 Geneva, 1582 Rheims, and 1611 King James versions of the entire New Testament...with the original Greek at the top of the page. Consider the following textual comparison of John 3:16 as they appear in many of these famous printings of the English Bible: 1st Ed. King James (1611): "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten 15

16 Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." Rheims (1582): "For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting" Geneva (1557): "For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe." Great Bible (1539): "For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe." Tyndale (1534): "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe." Wycliff (1380): "for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif," 16

17 It is possible to go back to manuscripts earlier than Wycliff, but the language found can only be described as the "Anglo-Saxon" roots of English, and would not be easily recognizable as similar to the English spoken today. For example, the Anglo-Saxon pre-english root language of the year 995 AD yields a manuscript that quotes John 3:16 as: "God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his ancennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif." I hope that this short essay has served to enhance your appreciation for the Bible of our language. Not a Book, But a Roll! Early literary writing materials In the ancient world, down to the second century A.D., the form of literary work was the roll, not the book. The roll was made of papyrus, which we shall later go on to 17

18 describe. Papyrus was manufactured in single sheets about ten inches by eight. The sheets were joined together horizontally when a great deal of writing had to be done. The writing was in narrow columns about three inches long, with margins of about two and a half inches at the top and at the bottom, and with about threequarters of an inch between the columns. The roll commonly had a wooden roller at each end. It was held in the left hand, unrolled with the right, and, as the reading went on, the part in the left hand was rolled up again. We may get some idea of the dimensions of a roll from the following statistics. The epistles of 2 and 3 John, Jude and Philemon would occupy one sheet of papyrus; the letter to the Romans would require a roll 11.5 feet long; the Gospel of Mark, 19 feet; John, 23.5 feet; Matthew, 30 feet; Luke and Acts, 32 feet. The Revelation would occupy a roll 15 feet long. Papyrus was a substance made from the pith of a bulrush which grew in the delta of the Nile. The bulrush was 18

19 about fifteen feet high, with six feet of it below the water; and it was as thick as a man's wrist. The pith was extracted. It was cut into thin strips with a very sharp knife. A row of strips was laid vertically; on the top of them another row of strips was laid horizontally; the whole was then moistened with Nile water and glue; it was then pressed together. The resulting substance was beaten with a mallet and then smoothed with pumice stone; and there emerged a substance not unlike brown paper. From this description it will be seen that on one side the grain of the papyrus would run horizontally; that side was known as the recto; and on that side the writing was done, as it was easier to write on the side on which the lines of the writing ran with the lines of the fibre of the papyrus. The side on which the fibers ran vertically was called the verso, and was not so commonly used for writing. But papyrus was an expensive substance. Its quality varied and the price varied with the quality. So, if a 19

20 person had a great deal to write, he wrote on the front and on the back of the sheet. A sheet written on the back, on the verso, was called an opisthograph, that is, a sheet written behind; and when a person did so use his papyrus sheets, it showed that he had a tremendous amount of material to set down. The Bible Behind the Bible A translation is to be judged above all by how accurately and clearly it conveys the meaning of the original text. However, what is the original text of the Bible? Different translations give different answers to this question. The Transmission of the Text The books of the Bible were written centuries before the invention of printing. They were written out by hand and copied by hand. The original manuscripts have long since disappeared, and we must determine the original text from the copies that have been preserved. 20

21 Due to human frailty, it is difficult to copy accurately. Down through the centuries, scribes made mistakes and then their errors were copied by others. But while one copyist was introducing an error, other copyists were presumably copying the same text accurately. Thus, unless all known manuscripts of a text are copies of the same corrupted manuscript, the original text will be preserved amidst all the errors. By carefully comparing all the ancient manuscripts, and studying the variant readings at each point in the text, Bible scholars endeavor to reconstruct the original text. This is a complicated and vexing task. It is not easy to decide which manuscripts are more reliable than others, or which variant readings are copyists' errors. Scholars disagree on these questions, and the translations on the market reflect that disagreement. It can be unsettling to believers to learn that the Bible in their hands may be and no doubt is, at least in places a translation of a corrupted text. Therefore, two things need to be kept in mind. First, in the great majority of 21

22 cases, variant readings do not change the sense of the passage very much. One text might read "He said" and another "Jesus said" or "He said to them." The problem of variant readings is not trivial, but it is far from catastrophic. Second, no doctrine hangs on a variant reading. The truths of the Christian faith are firmly grounded in many well-settled texts. Only rarely are variant readings theological battlegrounds. The Old Testament The English translations generally available today are all based on the same Old Testament text the Hebrew text that has existed without serious rival and with extraordinarily little variation for about two thousand years, called the Masoretic text. Ancient versions (translations) of the Old Testament, including the Greek (called the Septuagint), differ from the Masoretic text in sometimes significant ways. Modern English versions differ in the extent to which they adopt readings from these and other non-masoretic texts, but they all basically follow the Masoretic text. 22

23 Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered after World War II, the oldest Hebrew Bibles were only about a thousand years old. But the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed that the Masoretic text goes back with remarkable fidelity at least another thousand years to before the time of Christ. However, they have also shown that in those days there were rival Hebrew texts similar to the Septuagint and other versions. Therefore, scholars have been more willing to adopt non-masoretic readings. For example, consider Deuteronomy 32:43. The New American Standard Bible, following the Masoretic text (as do the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version), reads: "Rejoice, O nations, with His people; for He will avenge the blood of His servants." The New International Version and the New King James Version say virtually the same thing, but each indicates in a footnote that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint support the addition of "and let all the angels worship him" after the word "people." The New Revised Standard Version goes further, putting this extra line into 23

24 the text (and changing "nations" to "heavens," also like the Septuagint). Since all these English translations basically follow the Masoretic text, I would not choose an English Bible on the basis of how closely it follows the Masoretic text. However, I would like to add that, in my judgment, the church has not adequately come to grips with the fact that the apostolic church ordinarily followed the Septuagint. In Hebrews 1:6 NASB, for example, we read: "And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.' " Now, if the New Testament finds these words in Deuteronomy 32:43, shouldn't we? The New Testament The various English Bibles may largely agree on their Old Testament text, but not on their New Testament text. The KJV and the NKJV follow what is called the Byzantine or received text (the textus receptus); the others follow what is called the Alexandrian or modern critical text. 24

25 How do these texts differ? Basically, the Byzantine text is fuller. Depending on one's perspective, the Alexandrian text omits or the Byzantine text adds quite a few words here and there, as well as whole clauses, verses, and even two long passages (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11). At the time of the Reformation, almost all of the available Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were Byzantine in character. The early printed Greek Testaments and Protestant translations (including the KJV) naturally followed this text, which was widely accepted down to the nineteenth century. During the nineteenth century, manuscripts came to light that were considerably older than the Byzantine manuscripts, notably Codex Vaticanus (which had been hidden away in the Vatican) and Codex Sinaiticus (which was discovered in a monastery at Mt. Sinai). Then, mostly in the twentieth century, even older papyrus texts were discovered in Egypt (where they had been preserved by the dry climate). These older 25

26 manuscripts generally agreed with each other against the Byzantine tradition, and their type of text became known as Alexandrian (since they were of Egyptian origin). Textual critics, both evangelical and liberal, increasingly embraced the Alexandrian text, and it lies behind most of the translations made in this century. (A third type of text, known as Western, is known mostly from Latin manuscripts, but has not carried much weight outside Roman Catholic circles.) However, various evangelicals have revived interest in the Byzantine or "majority" text during the last generation. Arguments for the Byzantine Text Should we follow the Byzantine or the Alexandrian text? In my judgment, the arguments advanced by both sides are inconclusive. In favor of the Byzantine text, it is pointed out that the overwhelming majority (perhaps 90%) of Greek manuscripts are Byzantine in character. However, it could just be that Byzantine manuscripts were copied more often. After the Western church turned to Latin 26

27 and the Middle East was subjugated by the forces of Islam, only Byzantine areas were left to copy large numbers of Greek Bibles. Besides, if the majority rules, we should follow the Western text, since there are more Latin manuscripts than Greek ones. But, it is argued, God would never have allowed a defective Greek text to pervade his church. However, this supposition is not supported by Scripture. Passages like Matthew 5:18 may imply the preservation of Scripture, but they do not help us evaluate variant readings. It is a fact of history that God has allowed non- Byzantine texts to pervade large areas of the church for long periods. The Latin Vulgate dominated the Western church for over a millennium; the modern critical text has reigned supreme for over a century. Arguments for the Alexandrian Text One would expect earlier manuscripts to be more reliable than later ones. And, indeed, nearly all of the earliest surviving manuscripts (A.D ) are Alexandrian in character. Some show Western influence, 27

28 but not one is Byzantine. However, a fair number of Byzantine readings have been found in the papyri. Furthermore, since all these early manuscripts come from Egypt, they show us only what kind of text was current there, not necessarily what text was being used elsewhere. The earliest manuscripts from Greece and Asia Minor the leading areas of the postapostolic church are Byzantine, and they were copied from earlier Byzantine manuscripts now lost. But, it is argued, all the Christian writers of the second and third centuries used either the Alexandrian or the Western text. However, these few writers lived in areas where those texts were used. There were no writers at that time in Greece and Asia Minor who quoted the New Testament extensively and whose writings have survived. But there were such writers in the fourth century, and their New Testament text was Byzantine. They must have had access to manuscripts at least as old as the papyrus texts extant today. 28

29 It is argued that the Byzantine text looks like a conflation of the Alexandrian and Western texts. But this evidence can just as easily be explained by saying that certain words dropped out in the Alexandrian tradition while others were dropping out in the Western tradition. There is no historical evidence that a conflated text was ever imposed on the Eastern church, and the manuscripts do not indicate a gradual process of conflation. Sometimes, when words are present in the Byzantine text of a Gospel, but not in the Alexandrian text, those words are present in the parallel account of another Gospel. This supposedly shows that Byzantine scribes added words from one Gospel to the parallel account of another Gospel (harmonization). However, if in fact Alexandrian scribes were carelessly omitting words, some of them would have been words present in the parallel account of another Gospel. It is also argued that, as a general principle of textual criticism, the shorter text is to be preferred. However, this "principle" has not been proved by an examination 29

30 of the actual copying process. Besides, modern critics rarely give preference to Byzantine readings that are shorter than Alexandrian readings. Finally, we are told that Alexandrian readings more easily explain the rise of Byzantine readings than vice versa. But this is basically wishful thinking. Ordinarily, one can plausibly argue either way. Reaching a Decision The definitive work on the New Testament text has yet to be done. In the meantime, I will give you my thoughts on the subject. Over the years, my work has often involved checking authors' quotations from the Bible and other sources. I have carefully observed the nature of copying mistakes, and I can report that accidental omissions even of whole clauses and sentences are much more common than additions. My acquaintance with the actual copying process, then, leads me to think that the Alexandrian text is a corruption of the fuller Byzantine text, resulting from accidental omissions (and some deliberate editorial work). 30

31 On the basis of its New Testament text, then, I would favor the New King James Version over the others, since it follows a form of the Byzantine text and has good textual notes. But compare other translations, too. Archaeological Evidence for the Bible Archaeological evidence substantiates many Biblical accounts. To quote Millar Burrows of Yale. "...archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine." Nelson Glueck, reformed Jewish scholar notes: "It is worth emphasizing that in all this work no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood Biblical statement." What follows are example a just a few of the previously controversial claims that the Bible had made and have been proven since. Archaeological discoveries have proved the accuracy of Bible accounts that had long been considered inaccurate 31

32 by scholars who had insufficient information. Because of Luke's detailed descriptions of historical events, some of his writings -- and thus the credibility of the entire New Testament -- had been in dispute for over a century by Bible scholars who didn't believe the details supplied by Luke were accurate. Bible scholars thought that Luke's writings were a fraud, written in the second century by someone who didn't know the history or geography of the time. For example, in Acts 14:6, Luke relates that Paul and Barnabas fled from Iconium to the cities of Lyconium. Bible scholars had believed that Iconium was located in the province of Lyconium -- thus the statement made no sense. It would be like saying someone fled from Miami to Florida. An inscription was later found that proved that when Paul and Barnabas fled from Iconium, the city was part of the province of Phrygia, proving Luke's writing was correct. Bible critics also believed that the circumstances of Jesus' birth were concocted to fulfill the prophecy in Micah that states the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. They doubted that there had been a census 32

33 (Luke 2:1-3) which caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem. A Roman edict was later discovered in Egypt, which stated: "The enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside of their administrative districts that they return at once to their homes to carry out the customary enrollment..." Other discovered documents confirmed that this census was taken every fourteen years. Luke had stated that Quirinius was the Governor of Syria at the time of Jesus' birth, however secular records showed that Saturninus was the governor at that time. An inscription was later found in Antioch which showed that Quirinius indeed was governor of Syria at the time. Pontius Pilate's historical authenticity was in doubt until 1961, when an inscription was found "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans", thus proving his existence. An interesting archaeological discovery appears to document a Roman governor's reaction to the resurrection of the dead. Matthew 28:11-15 describes the reaction of the chief 33

34 priests and elders when the guards around Jesus' tomb told them about the resurrection: "When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." The governor must have heard the report and it must have upset him, because he issued a decree instituting capital punishment for the crime of violation of sepulcher, a crime which had never previously had such a severe penalty. A white marble slab inscribed with this decree was found in Nazareth in In the Old Testament, Joshua followed the Lord's instructions and the walls of Jericho collapsed with a shout from the people, allowing Joshua to take the city c.1400 BC, (Joshua 6:5, 6:20). Archaeological evidence found the walls of Jericho, fallen outward, even though they were 15 ft. high and 10 ft. thick. From pottery and ceramic evidence, the city was destroyed c BC. 34

35 This solitary mountain refuge - a symbol of courage and love of freedom - stands in the Judean Desert overlooking the shores of the Dead Sea. For three years, the Roman Legion laid siege to Masada and to the Jewish zealots who had taken refuge there. On Passover the year 73 C.E., the Jews acknowledged that their cause was lost. And rather than fall under the yoke of Roman slavery, 960 men, women, and children, led by Elazar Ben Yair, committed mass suicide. The events are described in the writings of Josephus Flavius, based on reports by five survivors. 35

36 Excavations have uncovered luxurious palaces, mosaic floors, frescoes, a synagogue and biblical scrolls, bronze and silver coins, human skeletons, and potsherds with Hebrew inscriptions. Tel Megiddo One of the most important archaeological mounds in Israel, Tel Megiddo, contains the remains of historic Megiddo, a fortified city that sat strategically on the ancient trunk road from Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia. Megiddo has served as an important junction and battlefield throughout history. It is mentioned in an Egyptian document over 3,500 years old, was one of the chariot cities of Kings Solomon and Ahab, and was the site where Josiah, King of Judah, fell in battle. In 1918 the British defeated the Turks here and in 1948, during the War of Independence, the Israelis overcame invading Arabs forces at nearby Mishmar Haemek. In the New Testament book of Revelation, Megiddo is identified as the site of the last great battle of the world, 36

37 Armeggadon, a corruption of the Hebrew Har Megiddo. Excavations have uncovered the ruins of 25 cities dating from 4,000 to 400 B.C.E. Ruined structures, now visible, belong to the fortified "chariot city," built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C.E. An ancient water system, dating from the 9th century B.C.E., is well preserved and a remarkable piece of engineering. It consists of a large shaft, sunk 120 feet through rock, meeting a tunnel cut more than 200 feet to a spring outside the city. The spring was hidden by a wall and camouflaged by a covering of earth. 37

38 Finding The Other Ark There are three arks mentioned in Scripture: Noah's Ark, the ark in which the baby Moses was put, and the ark of the covenant. Although it is possible that Noah's Ark may be found, no one would suppose that the ark of bulrushes in which Moses was put would have survived 3,500 years. But what of the ark of the covenant? Could this still exist somewhere? Might it be found by someone? Are there those who know where it is and could produce it some day? We would not have thought to pose such questions had we not read recently of two entirely different groups of people who claim actually to have the ark of the covenant. Do either of these claims have any credibility? 38

39 If they do, does it matter? We will explore in some detail these questions. The 'Ark' in Ethiopia n 1992 a book was published claiming that the ark of he covenant exists in a monastery in Ethiopia. 2 A levision program on the matter also appeared. The ook has on the rear dust jacket a picture of a blackobed Ethiopian monk and the legend, "The subject of his book could constitute the single most shattering ecret of the last three thousand years. This monk is the nly man in the world who knows the truth". The book self does not support such sensationalism; it gives no eason why the finding of the ark should be of such arth-shattering importance, and if the theory of the book true then others know the secret as well as the man in 39

40 h photograph. Graham Hancock is a journalist, and at one time was East African correspondent for the Economist. In 1983 he was in Ethiopia working on a book about the country, commissioned by the Communist government that came to power in 1974 when the Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown, and was itself overthrown in May During his stay in Ethiopia he went to Axum (or Aksum), the ancient capital of the kingdom of Ethiopia, which in Roman times had been an important kingdom, and which had adopted Christianity as its religion in the fourth century A.D. Here he visited a walled compound, containing two churches dedicated to 'Saint Mary of Zion', and the ruins of a much older one, supposedly built in 372 A.D. to house the ark of the covenant. He discovered from his Ethiopian guide that the ark had supposedly remained there ever since, apart from a hundred-year period of turbulence when it had been removed for safekeeping. It was currently said to be housed in a new chapel, built by Haile Selassie. In

41 Hancock decided to investigate the story, and his 600- page book is partly the results of his historical research and partly a travelogue of his journeyings in investigating the story. The book ends with an account of a further visit to Axum in January 1991, in time for a feast of the Ethiopian Church known as Timkat, 3 at which the supposed ark of the covenant is paraded before the populace in a ceremonial procession. Here he met a monk called Gebra Makail, the guardian of the ark of the covenant, and the man portrayed, and so sensationally described, on the dust jacket of the book. Makail refused either to let him see the ark or even to describe it to him. He then witnessed the procession, at which a large rectangular chest, covered with a blue cloth with a dove embroidered on it, was carried at the head of the procession. He concluded, however, that this was not the ark, but a replica, because the guardian of the ark remained at the door of the chapel where it was kept, not even troubling to look at it as it departed. He ends his book, however, firmly committed to the belief that the 41

42 chapel in Ethiopia really houses the original ark. Whether or not one accepts this, his story is an interesting one because of the information he unearthed about aspects of the history of the Jewish people. Ethiopia and the Jews The Ethiopian monarchy, removed from power in 1974, claimed an unbroken line of descent from a supposed liaison between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. The original account of this is in a work called the Kebra Nagast, the oldest manuscripts of which go back to the thirteenth century A.D. The story goes that the son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, conceived in Jerusalem but born in Ethiopia, visited his father at the age of twenty. After a year, Solomon sent him home with a group of first-born sons of the elders of 42

43 Israel, including the son of Zadok the high priest. The latter stole the ark of the covenant from the temple, and it has remained in Ethiopia ever since. This story is, of course, devoid of any evidence from Scripture, and Sheba is the other side of the Red Sea, the country now called Yemen. We know from 2 Chronicles 35:3 that the ark was still in Jerusalem in the time of King Josiah. What is undoubtedly true is that there are ancient links between Israel and Ethiopia. The existence of black Jews in Ethiopia has been known for some time. They are called Falashas, the name being derived from the Amharic (the language of Ethiopia) word for strangers, a reminder in itself of the way in which the Jews have remained separate from the peoples among whom they lived. The Falashas became prominent in when 12,000 of them were airlifted to Israel from refugee camps in the Sudan, where they had fled because of famine, in what was called Operation Moses. Operation Moses came to an abrupt halt once it became public 43

44 knowledge, but in 1990 Israel and Ethiopia established diplomatic relationships, and most of the rest of the Falashas went to Israel. It is generally thought that the Falashas are the descendants of converts made by Jews from Arabia in the first and second centuries A.D. In a visit to Ethiopia in January 1990 Hancock came across another, less well-known, Ethiopian tribe, known as the Qemant, which appeared to have Jewish origins. He visited the Qemant and found that they were mostly adherents of Ethiopian Christianity. However, older members of the Qemant, generally regarded as pagans, in fact preserved beliefs and practices going back to the Law of Moses, particularly food laws and the keeping of the sabbath, but mixed up with other practices relating to their pagan religion. Jewish Practices in the Ethiopian Church This led him to study the Ethiopian Church, and he found that it also practised features of the Mosaic Law - food laws and laws of cleanliness and purification, 44

45 for example. He could see also resemblances between their calendar of feasts and the Jewish feasts, and between the robes of their priests and the high priest's robes described in Exodus. He quotes one authority as describing "the whole cast of religious expression in Ethiopia as antique and ceremonial and imbued with an undercurrent of Judaic practice"; 4 and another as saying that the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) churches, unlike those of any other part of Christianity, contain the threefold division of the temple of Solomon. 5 In that January of 1990 Hancock attended the Timkat ceremony in another ancient Ethiopian city, Gondar. He describes the ceremony as having significant Biblical elements: priests playing primitive musical instruments, the people crying ellel (cp. the Hebrew haliel, 'praise'), the priests dandng as did David, the bringing of an ark out of the third, or holiest, compartment of the church, separated from the rest of the church by a veil behind which only priests could go. Again he quotes Ullendorf, whose words we too quote: 45

46 "It is clear that these and other traditions, in particular that of the Ark of the Covenant at Axum, must have been an integral part of the Abyssinian national heritage long before the introduction of Christianity in the fourth century; for it would be inconceivable that a people recently converted from paganism to Christianity (not by a Christian Jew but by the Syrian missionary Frumentius) should thereafter have begun to boast of Jewish descent and to insist on Israelite connections, customs and institutions". 6 Each Ethiopian church carries out the same ceremonies with a replica of the ark on Timkat, and this convinced Hancock that the original ark was somewhere in Ethiopia. His conclusion, after consulting various authorities, was that it was at Axum, as described earlier in the article. This conclusion, that the practices of Judaism in their original Old Testament form are preserved in Ethiopia, is a very interesting one. It must be remembered that modern Judaism originates with rabbis after the 46

47 destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The removal of their central place of worship, and banishment from Judea (though not initially from Galilee), led to considerable changes in the practices of worship by way of adaptation to the new situation. Does this mean, however, that the ark of the covenant was actually taken to Ethiopia? This is the question we must now consider. Jews in Egypt The conclusion to which Graham Hancock came in his investigations is that the ark of the covenant was removed from the temple at Jerusalem by faithful priests in the days of King Manasseh, because they were concerned at the introduction by the latter of idolatrous worship in the temple. However, 2 Chronicles 35:3, referred to above, reads: "And [Josiah] said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders". 47

48 Hancock maintains that the Levites had in fact removed the ark, and it was not available for them to comply with the king's request. This we find unacceptable. The verse does support the idea that faithful Levites (or priests) had removed the ark for safekeeping in Manasseh's reign, but surely is telling us that the ark was in fact put back into the temple in Josiah's time. Given that this was so, the ark would surely have still been in the temple at the time of the Babylonian invasion of the land. However, this does not affect Hancock's main theory, that the ark was removed to Egypt, since it could have been so removed immediately prior to the destruction of the city and temple by Nebuchadnezzar. There are two passages listing in some detail items looted by the Babylonians from the temple at Jerusalem - 2 Kings 25:13-17 and Jeremiah 52: but neither mentions the ark, nor for that matter any of the items belonging to the holy place. It seems reasonable to suppose from this that they were taken away just before the destruction; and, though we cannot agree that the ark was taken out of the temple in Manasseh's day, we do accept that it 48

49 could have been removed at the very end of the kingdom. Hancock now comes up with a new idea for the origin of the Falasha Jews. The idea that they were the descendants of Jews who went to Ethiopia in Solomon's time he dismisses, correctly we believe, as pious legend. He is not satisfied, either, with the normally accepted idea that they originated from Jewish immigrants in the first and second centuries A.D. He discovered from books written by two nineteenth-century travellers amongst the Falashas that they practised the Jewish feasts apart from Purim, instituted at the time of Esther, and Hanukkah, instituted at the time of the Maccabees. Since both these feasts originated after the Babylonian captivity, he concluded that the Falashas had left Israel before that time. This view was confirmed by an interview with a Falasha rabbi, who also had emigrated to Israel, who said that his ancestors were Jews who had lived in Egypt, and had built a temple there. The Temple at Aswan 49

50 This led Hancock to Aswan (or Assuan), on the Nile in southern Egypt. In Old Testament times it was called Syene, and it is referred to twice in Ezekiel as representing the extreme south of Egypt, "... from Migdol to Syene" (29:10; 30:6, RV mg.), Migdol being in the extreme north. Here, on an island in the Nile called Elephantine, because it was the place where traders from the south sold ivory to the Egyptians, there once existed a Jewish temple. Evidence for this comes from Aramaic papyri discovered at Aswan at the turn of the century. These papyri provide a picture of Jewish life there in the period B.C., when the Persian Empire was supreme and the restoration of the Jews from Babylon was taking place. These papyri refer to the existence of a temple for the worship of Yahweh, modeled on Solomon's temple. The original Jewish settlers at Elephantine are thought to have been Jewish mercenaries in the pay of Egypt, who manned a garrison at this key trading site. However, he cites one authority as saying: "Manasseh's reign was accompanied by much bloodshed and it may be 50

51 surmised that priests as well as prophets opposed his paganization. Some of the priests fled to Egypt, joined the Jewish garrison at Elephantine, and there... erected the Temple". 7 Jewish soldiers at Elephantine would clearly not have built a temple there; it would certainly have required priests to have done so. The actual evidence of these priests going to Egypt in Manasseh's reign is not, however, given, and one wonders why it could not have happened at the fall of Jerusalem. Hancock argues that the priests who went to Elephantine must have had the ark with them, and they built a temple to house it. As stated above, on the basis of 2 Chronicles 35:3 we do not believe that the ark could have been taken from Jerusalem in the days of Manasseh. It is of course possible that, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in 587 B.C., about sixty years later, the ark was rescued by some priests who fled to Elephantine with it, but Hancock does not refer to this possibility. From Egypt to Ethiopia 51

52 Supposing that the ark was in fact contained in a temple at Elephantine in southern Egypt, how could it have got to Ethiopia? In 410 B.C. the Jewish temple at Elephantine was destroyed, apparently by local Egyptian residents. The papyri discovered show that letters were sent to Jerusalem at this time appealing for help in rebuilding the temple, an appeal apparently not successful. Not long afterwards, however, the Jews disappeared from Elephantine. Where did they go? According to Hancock, they went to Ethiopia, bearing the ark with them. This was in accordance with what the Falasha rabbi, Raphael Hadane, had told him (see above). Hancock discovered that, although the general scholarly opinion was that Judaism entered Ethiopia in Roman times, as referred to above, others believed that the Falashas were converted by the Jews of Elephantine who had migrated into Ethiopia after their settlement came to an end. This was supported by the absence of any of the later rabbinical 52