Sunday, March 1, 2015

Note from Dr. Best

With years of Bible study, prayer and the like it always amazes me that some Christian people cannot give other people the liberty in Christ to hold a different opinion on some topics. This research, which was begun in its infancy over 25 years ago, but more directly about ten years ago, has been beset by non-stop problems from the direction of those who do not adhere to the traditional texts.
Since i know that many who read this blog pray, I am asking for your prayer for my family, our safety, and the protection of many years of work. We are currently facing several persons from other locations and other beliefs who have tried to ruin and commandeer the research for their own purposes. One is a former neighbor with no experience, training nor background in any academic area,nor research background.

 We have for years been patient with many different kinds of people who come from different backgrounds than our own, but those in academics mostly respect each other's rights to their own research save for the occasional unhappy soul; we should not hold a lower standard in Christian belief but a higher one. Much mis-information has gone out regarding this work: it is not in error: the work has been meticulous,and accurate, but it requires knowledge of the study. My publication of the work is greatly held up by such audacious tactics as 'uncomely folks' stealing and then handing out my pre-publication materials,or even former pastors or church members taking credit for the work of which they had no part. In one case a person from another faith has tried to 'super-size' what I have said, which may be used later to counter the data.

Yesterday, on one of my more traditional Bible study blogs, I found that yet another person had tried to takeover a site I have written since 2012 called THE PASSOVER BLOGS. Someone had gone on and replaced KJV references with modern version refs. (since corrected) This is not good. I leave their sites alone and expect the same dignity.

I do not hold a degree in Textual Criticism which I have freely admitted, but I have studied in and around the topic for 30 years. I write what I know and can verify carefully. I do hold a doctorate in another field and have designed, implemented and published research for 34 years. research is not 'interchangeable': the researcher knows his or her work better than anyone else can.
Please pray for us, that this ministry which includes scientific research may continue unhindered, and be allowed to freely be heard, and to fairly be heard, without the necessity some feel to ruin my reputation or those who are supportive, to take credit for what is not theirs, etc. We discipline children who steal homework: what shall we do with pastors or church people who try to ruin an important research project out of petty personal motives? I am not requesting divisive 'side taking' but only for prayer that the study be allowed to be heard and that we might not be ruined in the process of sharing information. The study is not skewed: I was overly careful explaining all possibilities for findings and implications. Please pray that this column may be able to continue in the Lord's grace.






Tuesday, February 3, 2015

The Great and Chief Shepherd Before and After the Shoah



Well, it's been a bit since the last post:  I have relocated in Minnesota and am hoping for an easier time at doing my work:  Wisconsin was not friendly to a study on either the Bible nor the dissension of Jewish terms in pre- vs. post Shoah Bible translations, perhaps because a few were related to the principles in the process.  O alas.

I have continued to add to the terms from the original study, and am including here two terms which are used only once or twice in all the translations:  'Great Shepherd' and 'Chief Shepherd'.  Recall once more than though these comparisons of means for verses in pre vs. post Shoah Bibles did not attain statistical significance, that the same principles hold as before:

1. The number of terms is so small that differences statistically are difficult to demonstrate,
  and that
2. In the case of terms in the Scripture with the criteria of inerrancy , and using a total population of words in the comparisons, ANY change is worthy of note, since the terms are not supposed to change greatly over time,  particularly after 2000 years of scholarship, save for idiomatic expressions or language use. (e.g. We no longer use 'f-stop' for an 'S' sound.)  The two terms included today are 'Great Shepherd' and 'Chief Shepherd.'  The term 'Great Shepherd ' is found primarily in Hebrews 13:20:

[Heb 13:20 KJV] 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

One bible translation  leaves the term out completely: the Douay Rheims 1899, and the Good News Translation (which had catholic translators which is worthy of not).  Their rendering is instead:

20 And may the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great pastor of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the blood of the everlasting testament, 
which changes the wording to 'great pastor of the sheep' and changes the syntax.  This does not seem to be a critical change, as the word 'pastor' coming from 'pastoral' or in the Vulgate Latin: "pastorem magnum ovium"  but in Scrivener's (using Strongs) greek: 

μέγας ποιμήν

or 'megas poimen'  meaning literally great (mega) shepherd(poimen) notably following 'that'.  The Tyndale translation translates likewise as follows in what was middle to modern English:

20 The god of peace that brought agayne fro deth oure lorde
 Iesus the gret shepperde of the shepe thorowe the bloud of
 the everlastynge testamet
This does not seem to be a worrisome or great change in the new bibles.Only one bible contains two verses counting 'great shepherd',  the NLT which changes the 'chief shepherd' of I Peter 5:4 to:
4 And when the head Shepherd comes, your reward will be a never-ending share in his glory and honor.

___________________________________________________________


 

Unpaired Student's t test results

P value and statistical significance:
The two-tailed P value equals 0.4231 -By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.
Confidence interval:

The mean of Group One minus Group Two equals -0.25
95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.91 to 0.41

Intermediate values used in calculations:
t = 0.8321
df = 11
standard error of difference = 0.300


Group
Pre-Shoah
Post-Shoah
Mean
0.75
1.00
SD
0.50
0.50
SEM
0.25
0.17
N
4
9

 _________________________________________________

The 'Chief Shepherd'

As mentioned, the 'chief shepherd' also occurs primarily 0 or 1 time in most bibles, but in the  old NIV (new has only 1), TNIV, and NIRV it occurs twice :

1 Samuel 21:7 TNIV

Now one of Saul's servants was there that day, detained before the LORD; he was Doeg the Edomite, Saul's chief shepherd.

1 Peter 5:4 TNIV

And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

In some ways, this is not a problem either, since in only one verse is the reference messianic: in the Old Testament, in I Samuel 21:7,  Doeg the Edomite is mentioned as being 'Saul's Chief Shepherd' but it is clearly an occupation and office and not a messianic title.  Most translations translate the passage in Samuel as 'head shepherd'  which is probably the better translation because it separates the one time only use of 'Chief Shepherd' as a title of Messiah, caring for souls and not physical or natural sheep.  However since even in these translations since the passages are separate and only in the two,  it seems neither deliberate nor directly troublesome.  Again, the two means for pre-Shoah vs. post-Shoah bible translations on the term 'chief shepherd' also does not arrive at statistical significance, but there is a CHANGE, at least indicating a word to watch in the future.  One version of NIV on one search engine counted two verses,  but on BibleStudyTools.com only showed 1, with 2 each for NIRV and TNIV:  one must recall from previous analyses that the NIV, the NIRV, the TNIV and the 2011 'gender neutral' NIV which changed 9% of wordings from the previous, which may sound small, but comes to 39,995 changes!  Beyond the differences with the traditional texts!   Lord bless and keep the NIV far from us. (apologies to Fiddler on the Roof).  More next time.



Welch t-test results

P value and statistical significance:
The two-tailed P value equals 0.3360
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:
The mean of Pre minus Post equals -0.35
95% confidence interval of this difference: From -1.14 to 0.44

Intermediate values used in calculations:
t = 1.0235
df = 8
standard error of difference = 0.342


(Neither Students nor Welches yields statistical significance, and the standard deviations do not vary that much.)



Group
Pre
Post
Mean
0.75
1.10
SD
0.50
0.74
SEM
0.25
0.23
N
4
10

Friday, October 3, 2014

The Henry Bradshaw Society & the Sinaiticus Controversy



Note: This is just a short post to keep things moving along: more coming shortly.  Join us shortly on this site and Judah's Glory for "In a KJV Minute": 60 second 'facts of the day' on the KJV Controversy, &the preservation of the Masoretic text for Hebrew translation and the TR for Greek.


When Count von Tischendorf brought back 43 leaves of the Codex Sinaiticus, most who are already familiar with the modern translation controversy, are aware that after purchase by Frederick, the manuscripts found their way to the Westminister Library in the UK.   Many are also aware that the leaves, still archived at Westminister, both then and now came under controversy, as the Count claimed he was given the leaves for a fee with a promise to return for more, and the abbey posited some questions about the transaction.  Tischendorf himself though describes his initial 'discovery' of the texts while visiting St. Catherines at Sinai:

In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way.1

What was the text which Tischendorf saw, that we refer to as the Sinaiticus?  Simply, by the admission of the steward of the Abbey, it was not a previously undiscovered text of the standard bible,  but it was called by the steward of the Abbey, the SEPTUAGINT.

"And I, too, have read a Septuagint"--i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.

 The 'Septuagint'  was a Greek Bible, Old and New Testament (the new as always in Greek or Aramaic),  and by many was considered the 'find of the century' because many scholars posited that the Septuagint was the Tenach used by Jesus in quoting scripture,  though the evidence for this is faulty and flimsy since Jesus would never have used a Greek copy of the Scriptures, and since at the time of Jesus and ever since, the implied 'Septuagint' was a fabled work supposedly composed all at once by 70 rabbinical scholars in a miracle reported by 'Aristeas' a shadowy character referred to in ancient literature at various times over several hundred years. (2)   The Septuagint modern scholars referred to was the greek translation of the Old Testament or Tenach in the fifth colum of the Hexepla, a work by Origin which could best be described as an ancient 'Amplified bible'.   Origin's work though was not an original Greek text, but the hebrew translated into Greek AFTER the time of Jesus.   Most likely, the great 'find' of Tischendorf was one of the known copies, or the emulated copy which was referred to by Constantine Simonides.

Tischendorf and his 'Codex Fred' (amusingly referred to by scholars) was less of a discovery, and may have been far more of a useful tool in administering a plan to undercut the traditional texts, both hebrew and Greek of the Bible in order to bring about a furthering of the 'Enlightenment', removing the voracious loyalty of believers to the scriptures, for motives which are many and still not all exposed.  That Tischendorf was of the group of scholars wishing to overthrow the Erasmus Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew, the 'Received Texts' of history, is made clear in the following passage---it is no secret that his dismissal of most of the manuscript evidence up to his time was due to his and others clear intent to overthrow what was then over 4800 years of preserved Bible text transmission:

Learned men have again and again attempted to clear the sacred text from these extraneous elements. But we have at last hit upon a better plan even than this, which is to set aside this altogether, and to construct a fresh text, derived immediately from the most ancient and authoritative sources. This is undoubtedly the right course to take, for in this way only can we secure a text approximating as closely as possible to that which came from the Apostles.1
 Henry Bradshaw, Count Tischendorf, Hort & Westcott and the New Bible

Henry Bradshaw Society,  founded in 1890, was founded by Bradshaw's instruction following his death (1831-1886).  Victoria was queen of England at the time and the esteemed Cambridge librarian had a few notable distinctions:
1. He was at the hub of many persons in both Bible Transmission circles, and in Eugenics, or Racial Science, as well as other disciplines
2. His work and societies were notably associated with the Crown
3. His work and activities coincided with the introduction of the Aryan Renaissance spearheaded by the Grimms,
4. His work and activities coincided with the introduction in Europe of Blavatsky's Theosophy and an attempt to re-invent the Bible via translation
The last in the list is remarkable since the 'brand new Sinaiticus' included the two books which most occupied Blavatsky's attention: The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas, along with Mme. Helena's sharp criticism of traditional bible texts.   A few dates are helpful in keeping this perspective:
_________________________________________________________
1844-  Tischendorf's first find of the Sinaiticus: includes Shepherd of Hermas & Epistle of Barnabas
1840s-50s -Grimms & German 'Volk' Renaissance
1849,94-Novum Graece by Count von Tischendorf (Nestle will continue) 
1853-5 Gobineau writes "An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" inspiring Racial Science
1852 Nietzsche writes Fate & History attempting to discredit Christianity

1859-Tischendorf's second trip to claim the Sinaiticus
1859-Darwin's Origin of the Species
1862-Haeckel begins at U of Jena: will found Racial Science
1863-Constantine Simonides vs. Tischendorf controversy over forgery of Sinaiticus in the Guardian:
          Bradshaw dismisses Simonides, supports Tischendorf.
1866-7 -Haeckel meets with Darwin, Huxley
1869-70 First Vatican Council: Papal Infallibility declared
1875  Founding of the Theosophical Society by Blavatsky
1881  Westcott and Hort's 'Revised' New Testament
1882- Society for Psychical Research forms (Ghostly Guild, orig.) Westcott and Hort attend.
1885  Westcott and Hort's 'Revised' Old Testament
1885  Nietzsche writes Thus Sprach Zarathustra
1888,95  "            "        The Anti-Christ: theory of 'Herreman' (the Superman)
1886- Henry Bradshaw dies, designating membership/leadership in forthcoming society
1890   Founding of the Henry Bradshaw Society: members include F.A. Hort & Bishop Westcott, and other members of Translation committee of RV:
1898  Eberhard Nestle publishes Graece Novum based on Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and
          Weymouth.  Continues to now. 

1901 Rudolf Kittel's first edition of Biblia Hebraic: Masoretic text greatly 'adjusted', Samaritan Torah added (Kittel writes on the Jews of today not being the 'Children of Israeland racial superiority. Kittel and son described by Buber as 'theologians making anti-Semitism theologically acceptable.'
1911  Schweitzer, Tubingen writes In Quest of the Historical Jesus : discounts Jesus as a real Messiah
_____________________________________________________________________

What many do not realize is that Bradshaw as a 'hub' person not only was at a juxtaposition among fields of scholarship,  but was able to foster 'politically correct' attitudes of his day:  the move away from traditional religion and belief in the Gospel was already afoot,  and the deliberate attempt to 'adjust' the Scriptures to accept a lower place of authority in the life of Europe and the world can be seen even by the layperson.   Much of the attempt was characterized in outspoken debate leaving little to the imagination.

Beyond this, though,  when examining the rough and brief 'timeline' of about 50 years, we see the intertwining of  the formation of Racial Science, the move toward a 'New Bible' and even toward new religions (though most were reintroductions of pantheism, a common theme of the literature of the day), the interest of Royalty in the purchase of antiquities, and with the introduction of the new Hebrew text by an avowed anti-Semite, the dawning of two world wars on the horizon.

One may easily posit, that what became the Henry Bradshaw Society,  before its foundation already was comprised of the key people who would form the RV committee, though technically, the translation was being done before the founding of the committee, which essentially already existed.


The total committee should not exceed fifteen members
and the proposed members (among them personal friends of Bradshaw) were Rev.
W. C. Bishop, Rev. F. E. Brightman, Mr Duff, Rev. Dr F. J. A. Hort, W. H. St John
Hope, Francis Jenkinson, J. Madan, J. T. Micklethwaite, Rev. H. A. Wilson, Rev.
Christopher Wordsworth, and Wickham Legg as Secretary and Treasurer. 
from                henrybradshawsociety.org/first-decade.pdf pg 5

The move to dismiss the traditional texts of Erasmus' Greek and the Ben Chayim or Masoretic text, was well under way by the mid 1800s.  Further,  the 'new Greek' of today, continuing in the tradition of the Tischendorf Greek,  further credits the 1571 Roman Catholic Greek text,
  the Complutensian Polyglot Bible by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, printed in 1514, but not published until 1520. 2

The conclusions are not for now addressing direct vs. indirect associations,  but the trend of the second half of the 1800s was clearly towards unbelief:  a reformulation of the Word of God, the triumph of man's scholarship over the received text and hundreds of years of believing scholarship, and the simultaneous introduction of Racial Science, Genocide, and the attempt in the years following to eradicate the Jews on the verge of their return to Palestine to reclaim Israel.  One might suggest that the Jews, described in Romans as the 'Oracles of God' might have been the ones to most argue against the modernistic retranslations,  and that when a society seeks a divorce from the Word of God, they must necessarily seek one from the Jews, the constant reminder in this world that God and his Word are real, and true.

till the next
ekbest
__________________________
1,  von Tischendorf, Constantine  When Were Our Gospels Written . Leipzig
2. 

Friday, July 18, 2014

Prince of Peace
(Messianic Terms)
A Comparison of Verse Counts in Pre- vs. Post Shoah Bible Translations


"Prince of Peace" is a title given to the Lord and Savior in only one passage:  Isaiah 9:6, though 'the Prince' is mentioned in other prominent passages:


For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[Eze 46:2 KJV] 2 And the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of [that] gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate: then he shall go forth; but the gate shall not be shut until the evening.

[Dan 8:25 KJV] 25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.


 The term is particularly important because it herald a special title of the incarnate Messiah: God made man, somehow both Counsellor and Mighty God, and correcting false doctrine for centuries, 'El Gibbor' is also the "Prince of Peace".  This critical mention carries in part through Ezekiel and Daniel, as the Prince enters 'by the way of the port of [that] gate without..' , the eastern gate, the 'gate shall not be shut until the evening.'   The messiahship of the Prince is again underscored.  Additionally in Daniel 8:25,  the 'Prince of Princes' is the one which the false prince, the 'vile one' the 'abomination of desolation' stands up against: the Prince of Peace dismantles his authority 'without hand':  no weapons, but the Word, most likely.

While the pre- vs. post shoah difference does not test out as significant, this is one of those cases where statistical significance is actually meaningless, so the raw change can be taken as actual.  Probability levels on sampling from a whole population have to do with how good a sample we took out of the population of whatever data we are looking at, and how representative our findings are of the whole population. For example if we in a sample at the Mall of 800 people find that 798 own a refrigerator, and we find that to be different from a Mall sample in another nation, we say 'there is a statistically significant difference in refrigerator ownership between the two nations ' if the numbers turn out.  We are empiricially 'guessing' the goodness of our observation based upon the size of or estimated size of the population.

Here in the term "Prince of Peace" we have only one mention of the term across bibles, except for one, the NIRV.  (last observed 2008).  Since the total population of verses containing the term is one in every bible save one, there is no 'sampling': we have the whole 'population' of terms.  Therefore, when we seen any difference, whether it comes out significant or not, it is a REAL difference, not a spurious finding.  That is generally true throughout this study though because we are always dealing with the complete set, the total population of number of verses containing the term, pre-Shoah and post-Shoah.   This is problematic more for Statistics, which should render a significant difference where there is one at all, but because of corrections, differing variances etc,  some real differences do not show as significant.  I would have stayed with just the raw count comparisons, but our friends the scientists like data to always look empirical and statistical, so we continue to humor them in the good grace of God.

Today, July 18, 2014,  according to Bible Gateway search engine,  NIRV still does not include "Prince of Peace" but uses the substitute "Prince who will bring Peace".  Well, to many modern theologians that sounds like one of those "dynamic equivalents", but consider for a moment that the 'Vile one', the anti-Christ or anti-'Messiah' will also bring a season of peace, but will hardly be a "Prince of Peace".  Words matter.

Below is a result of the t-test for 'Prince of Peace' but remember with only one count, and only one bible differing, the data yields a real difference, but the statistical test is not powerful enough to detect the only one omission since all other post-Shoah bibles include it.  Do note though in the bar graph below that there is no variance in pre-Shoah variance, obviously because it is one repeated term, but the small s=.03 shows the variance.  Nonetheless if one omitted the NIRV as an 'outlier', there would be no difference,  but the trend to an incorrect translation of this term is worth noting, though not serious presently as most do not change the term and hopefully will keep this title of the Messiah of God intact.  The Hebrew term is "Sar Shalom",  with 'Sar' being the ancient hebrew for Prince, and of course 'Shalom' peace.  This is also worth noting as the 'shalom' portion of his name forms the basis also for the place of his throne, Jerus-shalom  or City of Peace: Jerusalem.

__________________________________________________________


Unpaired t test results  :P value and statistical significance: 
   The two-tailed P value equals 0.5661
   By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:
   The mean of Pre-Shoah minus Post-Shoah equals 0.09
   95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.24 to 0.42

Intermediate values used in calculations:
   t = 0.5888
   df = 13
   standard error of difference = 0.154


Group  Pre-Shoah    Post-Shoah


Mean 1.00 0.91
SD          0.00 0.30
SEM         0.00 0.09
N              4     11


till the next time ekbest

P.S. It is a horror to me that some of these posts are missing and have been truncated and occasionally some whom we are aware of have tried to rewrite the posts.  Only myself, Dr. Best collected and analysed the data over several years.  I know that many in the Christian community are not research oriented but there are some serious ethical issues to be aware of: 1. It can be up to a felony to tamper with data, 2. One NEVER impinges on another's study or research: people lose their careers over that offense, and 3. only the person who has proposed the idea originally and handled the data can field the difficult technical questions about the data.  If anyone attempts to represent this study as having participated in it, they have not, I was the sole principle investigator, and author.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Who are the Jews? Part I and II: Responding to the theories of Rudolf Kittel (1899)

 Mystery of the Jews

A Bible Study Offering of Judah's Glory
                                        Who are the Jews? Part 2













Who are the Jews? Part I: Introduction

Who are the Jews?  No one can offer a satisfactory definition, yet everyone knows who they are.   While there are no two Jews who are alike, and while some may appear as the opposite our stereotypes,  still,  no one can define the Jews, yet everyone identifies the Jews as a people.   The problem of definition of Jewish identity is not exclusive to the non-Jewish community but extends even to Israeli Jews and Jews from other nations,  who debate the qualifications for Israeli citizenship,  for burial in sacred ground, or even for marriage or other rites of passage.    For the believer though,  the definition of who a Jew is, or even ‘what’ a Jew is , is tied up in doctrine and eschatology.
In the years  spent in a fundamental church,  I attended church with many persons of a very different backgrounsd from mine,  and many bore an intrinsic prejudice against the Jews, even while claiming to be Bible -believing Christians, and staying in the Word of God often.  This is a paradox since so much of the Word centers on the Jews and their relation to the God of Israel, and causes one to wonder how such a dichotomy can exist:  the truth is that even many ‘born again’ Christians do not resolve in their minds and hearts, that the Jews of today are the same generation, the same ‘chosen people’  described in the Scriptures.

Forms of Anti-Semitism in the Church

There are several types or forms of anti-Semitism that prevail in the church and that are somewhat shared in the public, and somewhat peculiar to the church.  I have categorized them as follows:
1. Raw Anti-Semitism-a full fledged, hateful stance toward the Jews involving violent thought and action towards the Jews which is primarily racially motivated
2. Political Anti-Semitism- a form which may or may not involve hatred, but a stance which holds the Jews responsible for most of the world’s ills: this may include the belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy,  a desire for Jewish world domination, or a belief that the Jews act in a way contrary to the good of nations.  #1 and 2 are not always mutually exclusive.
3. Doctrinal Anti-Semitism:  this stance includes doctrinal positions in which the Jew is less than those of other national or racial inclusions, or in which the Jew has to try twice as hard to ‘earn’ Salvation as others, while others gain salvation by grace,  or in which the Jews of today are declared a different race of people than those who are in the Bible.  The other form of doctrinal anti-Semitism I have seen includes blaming or retribution against the Jews for everything from the Fall of Man to the death of Christ,  or even their own holocaust.  Doctrinal anti-semitism is any form of anti-Semitism which is either based upon doctrine, or which emanates from doctrine or leads to new formulations of doctrine.
4. Ignorant Anti-Semitism
This form of anti-Semitism in the church has to do more with upbringing and culture, in which persons really bear no animosity towards the Jews, and in some cases may even appear pro-Israel or pro-Semitic, but carry prejudicial information or stereotypes about the Jews: e.g. believing that all Jews look the same and have the same traits, or that they are very good with money, but very tight with it, or that all Jews want to go to Israel, or wear sidelocks etc, etc.  They repeat what their pastors and parents have always told them.  This kind of anti-Semitism responds best to education:  the others are more difficult.
5. Intellectual Anti-Semitism
Intellectual anti-Semitism in some ways can be the most dangerous:  one church I attended before understanding where they stood on a number of issues, amidst tracts and pamphlets had out a magazine edited by two very liberal thinkers, people who normally would not even be known of in fundamental circles.  The two though,  had a decided anti-Israel mindset,  and a sophisticated defense of their position which tried to divorce it from tolerance issues.   It is not unlike a form of pro-Palestinianism which currently is sweeping college campuses,  where Israel is targeted for boycotts and condemnation for the same actions every nation on earth takes in self-defense.  There are always abuses in every nations, but the boycotts, blockades and flotillas seem to come out full force when Israel is involved—when advocates of this position though are unipolar in addressing only Israel’s wrongs,  it becomes dangerous and affects the thinking in the church as many use the ‘intellectual’ arguments to bolster their already anti-Semitic stance.
The ‘kinds’ of anti-Semitism which are fostered in the church though, should be able to be remedied by correct teaching on the Christian doctrine and duty to the Jews:  the Bible makes it very clear who the Jews are before God, and why we are to ‘touch not God’s anointed’  or the ‘apple of his eye’.   The Jews, even suspended in what William Tyndale referred to as ‘disquietness’ or the ‘slumber’ of the KJV,  are still God’s chosen people and have not been cast off, as Paul noted, “God Forbid”.    In this series in Promise of Messiah, we will begin to look at what is referred to as the ‘mystery of the Jews’.   The next post will begin to answer the question of who the Jews are as a people before God.
by Elizabeth Kirkley Best, (more to follow)


Who are the Jews ? Part 2:  Your Mother was a Hittite….(?)

Turning to a Scriptural description of the Jews,  while in many ways the description is very clear,  nonetheless the debate of who the Jews are and where they come from has raged for centuries,  and yet at the same time, even theologians appear to know who they are, and where they are from.   From the outset, the word ‘Jew’ derives from “Judah” and means “Praise”.  The word for Jew or Jews  is (plural determined by use)
יְהוּדִי
and is derived from
יְהוּדָה
(Jehudah)
The first mention of the exact word is the plural “Jews” referring to ‘Jews from Elath’ in I Kings 16:6,  with the first mention of the singular in Esther  2:5, referring to the ‘certain Jew whose name was Mordecai’.

At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day. I Kings 16:6
Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose namewas Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite; Esther 2:5
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Jews either individually or as a nation or people, are mentioned much earlier in the Scriptures than either of these.  The debate among Theologians and Bible Scholars is essentially at which point the Jews as a people are 1) identified as a people or nation and 2) cannot be identified as something else.  Some scholars note the Jewish people as a ‘generation’ all the way back to the Garden of Eden, reasoning that since Adam was the firstborn of mortal men,  and one must assume that he was implicitly chosen and set apart,  that one could reason the generation of the Jews all the way back to Adam,  since it is not at all indefensible to argue that this is where their history with God starts.  Others argue the Semitic line begins with the third child:  Abel, the righteous son of Adam and Eve dies outside of the Garden at the hand of his brother Cain.  Cain is banished, due as much to his fratricide as to his arrogance toward God, and it becomes clear to Eve that when she declares …”I have gotten a man from the LORD.” (Gen 4:1) that Cain, the man she refers to,  is not the promised deliverer of 3:15 who will bruise the serpents head, but instead is the first progeny of the Fall of Man,  a murderer.   Both sons gone,  feeling the sting of departing from God’s presence in the Garden,  Eve bears a third son called ‘Seth’ or ‘Sheth’  (Gen 4:25) meaning ‘compensation’ but literally ‘buttock’ regarding another child coming from the womb,  and some argue that Seth is the beginning of the Semitic line leading to the Jews.
In some ways this cannot be an incorrect argument since at the time,  Eve is the ‘mother of all living’ and it is clear from the genealogy that from this point on, the direct line of Adam continues in Sheth,  and includes such notables s Enoch, Methusaleh and Noah.   Concurrently,  Cain, though banished knows his wife and from him proceeds another line,  and the question of ‘where Cain got his wife’ for the moment is best left to continuing debate.
Since the whole known human race is destroyed in the flood of Noah, save for the eight left alive of Noah’s line,  many other choose to trace the ‘generation of the Jews’ back to one of Noah’s sons:

Gen 6:10  And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth






In Genesis 10:21,  the descendants of Shem begin to be listed:

       Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth  the elder, even to him were children born. 22 
The children of  Elam,Shem;    and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram…(continuing to 10:32).

The reason this is of interest is that some scholars refer to Eber   (עֵבֶר) as the name from which Hebrew derives,  since it is also anglicized as heber.   The name means literally “the land beyond” (Gesenius, BLB) .   The line of Shem  includes also Elam and Asshur (Asshurites, Assyrians), ‘Aram’ whose name will be applied in the northern regions,  and  ’Arphaxad’ , whose name is applied to the region from Assyria to Armenia, the home of the Chadeans.  WebBible Encyclopedia notes that Josephus named Arphaxad as the father of the Chaldeans.
To some this line of Elamites, Asshurites, ‘Chaldeans’ and Aramites might seem to contradict the line of the Jews, or ‘Chosen People’ but this is not the case.  Arphaxad is third from Noah, and only five immediate generations from Abraham.  Further,  though we seldom equate it with genealogy,  Ezekiel 26 notes:

And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan;  thy father was aAmorite, and thy mother aHittite.

The reason the above passage in Ezekiel is interesting is that though it is a rebuke reminding Israel that though she is a favored nation, her beginnings were humble, and Cainan was Arphaxad’s son:  they came from the line of Shem who settled in the region mentioned.  Within short generations of Cainan,  Abraham appears to whom the covenant of the Land and Seed,  Israel and the Jews,  set apart for God’s purposes and blessed with cause and covenant, is made.   While a few anti-Semitic theologians who have made too great a dent in reasonings in the twentieth century, argue that the line of Jews is more Hittite than special origin,  there is little doubt that this is the area to which Abram is called: first to Haran and then to the plains of Moreh,  the land of the Hitittes.   He sends back though to his family when choosing wives for his sons,  though his grandson Esau causes him much pain in choosing wives from local peoples.
While we still have not completely answered the question ‘Who are the Jews?” we begin by examining where they are from by the Scriptures.   They are without question sons of Adam, as the rest of the human race, but they are also set apart.  They are referred to by various names such as Hebrews, Jews, Israelites, Children of Israel, the tribes,  Children of Abraham, and many others.  Where they come from though and from whence they descend is of a critical understanding because the question stands thousands of years later regarding their origins,  and divides Scriptural and lasting accounts of who they are, vs. a wide variety of secular accounts which were manipulated in German theology in WWII,  to divorce the region of Judah and Benjamin from an Aryanized Aram, or northern Israel.  *
We turn next time to and examination of how the Bible defines the Jews.   Elizabeth K. Best
_______________________________________________________________________________–
*Rudolf Kittel in 1899 in writing about the Jews and Israel,  begins his treatise by arguing that Aram is the ‘high land’ north in Israel, and that Kenaan or Canaan, is the ‘lowland’.  He argues that the Aramites were of a more noble ‘master’ race, and that the Canaanites which the Jews in his opinion were never able to subject, were of a subjugated race.   This makes too much sense in terms of what the Kittels attempted to do to the Bible and theology in WWII:  The older Kittel included the Samaritan Torah from the Northern kingdom in his remake of the Hebrew Bible, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.   Grundmann, a student and colleague of the younger Kittel who shared the belief,  also argued for an ‘aryanized’ Jesus,  born in the North in the Hazor-Aram area,  and at least partly aryan.   Further,  one can see the beginning in this reasoning of why they provided an anti-Semitic foundation for a ‘new’ theology,  since later they argued that the Jews of yesteryear were not the 20th century Jews, and they later go on to refer to Judaens as an inferior lot compared to the northern, divided kingdom of Jeroboam.  Scripture though teaches that the ten tribes who went north and formed an emulative form of worship suffered greatly because of it, refusing to worship in Jerusalem and reintroducing idolatry and false worship: the Northern Kingdom was the first to fall to the brutal King of Assyria, and Judah,  not much more obedient, but holding to God’s direction in worship and the Temple, lasted awhile longer.   Kittel tries to erase Israel and the Jews as a nation, by ignoring biblical/Torah accounts of history,  and making even Jacob/Israel into just another clan which comes to be identified among clans who sort of ‘fall together’ as a loosely defined nation:
the patriarchal history states further, that israel is a later name for the founder of the tribe, that originally was called jacob.  From this it may be concluded that there was at one time a tribe called jacob which afterwards blended with and took the name of the tribe of israel to which it was related.”  (from kittel, r. A history of the hebrews, 1899, pg. 19)
The reason the kittels managed much influence is that their work was read out of context,  and they make broad statements as fact, e.g. ‘which afterward blended’, to other theologians who did not specialize in israel and the jews, and most of whom were not orthodox believers.   Too little knowledge of biblical history among germans then and believers now, allowed the kittels to form a theological foundation for the removal of jews from german society.