Down an Unfamiliar Road

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT! (Part 5)

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FINDING OUT WHAT THEY MEANT

The use of comparative study proves very useful in the comparison of religions existing during the time when Abram left Ur and later on during the period in which Moses received his divine instructions on the construction of the Tabernacle and everything that went inside in order for the people to properly worship the God of Israel. We find clear evidence within the Hebrew text concerning the distinctiveness of the Israelite religion. To their credit, the writers do not try to hide the fact that what they accepted in theory they did not always carry out in practice. Therefore a comparative study of other religions flourishing in the Near East becomes helpful in finding those religious beliefs and practices with which the religion of Israel contrasted sharply, and those with which they shared a syncretistic relationship. We also find that the religion of Israel differed in many ways for those around them, yet we cannot escape the similarities that often arose alongside that considered to be in line with the divine revelation given to Moses. For instance, the religion of Israel forbid the making and worship of idols designed to represent gods worshiped by other religions, nevertheless they treated objects like the Ark of the Covenant and the altars of incense and sacrifice as sacred and holy objects not to be touched by unclean hands. There also existed a law against so-called “high places,” which the prophets decried with vigor, yet such high places played a role in the legitimate worship of the Israelites during certain periods.

We know that one general theme that persists among Christian theologians involves the continuity between the religion practiced by Israel in preexilic times and those of Christianity in post Apostolic times. However, a comparative study shows less common ground between Christianity than that between the religious ideas of Israel and the religious ideas of Babylon. Therefore, when we compare the Old Testament concepts of rites, rituals, regulations, the priesthood, the story of creation, the nature of sin and communication with deity with that of the Babylonians, we find that the Babylonians would have perceived the practices of the Israelites much more comprehensible than we do today.

One of the thorns in the side of Israel’s religious loyalty to God proved to be their tendency to turn to the god called Baal. Baal is identified as the supreme god worshiped in ancient Canaan and Phoenicia. The practice of Baal worship infiltrated Jewish religious life during the time of the Judges (see Judges 3:7), and became widespread in Israel during the reign of Ahab (see 1Ki 15:31-33), as well as affecting Judah (2Chr 28:1-2). The word baal means “lord”; the plural is baalim. In general, they worshiped Baal as a fertility god who enable the earth to produce crops and people to produce children, much like the attributes of Yahweh. Different religions worshiped Baal in assorted ways, and Baal proved to be a highly adaptable god. Various locales emphasized one or another of his attributes and developed special “denominations” of Baalism. Baal of Peor (Num 25:3); Baal-Berith (Judges 8:33; 9:4, 46); and Baal Zebub (2Ki 1:2) present three examples of such localized deities.

This confirms that although the Israelites did not understand or comprehend all the aspects of the Canaanite and Babylonian religious practices, especially those behind certain rituals, they did become very familiar with the religious practices of their neighbors. The appeal appears to be that in the traditional religion of Israel there existed a maze through which worshipers must go in order to reach the deity YHWH they worshiped, while these idols provided them immediate access and so they adapted their traditional practices of worship to appeal to the local gods for help and assurances.

The next step involves examining the theology underpinning the religion of Israel and those around them. To do so requires that we go beyond identifying the similarities, and concentrate on the functional aspects of these religions. One of the corresponding functions of Israelite religion and that of the Babylonians involved the rituals that transferred the punishment for offenses from the human being to an animal. However, to make sense of such rituals we need to look at the role they played in the whole context of their theology. Similarities and differences between the theology of Israel and that of other religions that affected the rituals they practice, came from a possible sifting process in which those concepts existing in the Near East thought process that represented core beliefs coming down from prior generations after Noah, allowed them to reject those which offended the revelation they received from Moses and absorb those considered non-offensive in worship of Yahweh.

When it comes to deciphering our modern theology’s reliance on Biblical texts, backgrounds studies must be done in order to avoid developing misinterpretations of those texts at certain points. We must view Biblical texts as a cloth woven together with threads of ideas. Therefore, each word and phrase trigger thoughts and ideas in the minds of the reader in a form of silent communication. When we take these words and phrases in an attempt to communicate them to an audience, we find ourselves burdened with the test of filling in the gaps between the potential meaning of these words as written then and their relevance to what we experience and face here and now. Therefore, the audience expects the speaker to fill that space in light of the common language and worldview he or she shares with them, as well as being true to the intentions and ideas of the writer of the text.

The challenge presented here to any speaker remains anchored in the need to understand the culture in which these words, phrases and ideas took place and try to make them understandable in today’s culture and religious environment. For instance, in Genesis, Chapter 11 we find the story of the Tower of Babel. The text tells us that they people living on the plains of Shinar said, “Let us build us a city and a tower, whose top reaches up to heavens.” Without the benefit of Near Eastern ideas as found in their manuscripts, earlier commentators and theologians concluded that these descendants of Noah wanted to build a tower high enough to make an attack on heaven and thereby gain superiority over any higher power existing there. In other words they wanted to be gods and duplicate the rebellion brought on by Satan before God threw him and his followers down to earth. But a background study of Near East culture reveals that the builders intended such high structures to be used by the gods as a bridge or portal between heaven and earth. As such, comparative studies allow for interpreters to find alternative explanations of the text, rather the feeling tied to those interpretations passed down before Near East documents became available.

Therefore, this allows for scholars to pursue interpretations of Biblical texts using all known evidence available that sheds light on why the people of that era told the story and what they wanted to communicate to any future readers in order to be better understood. So for speakers today, the filling in of the gaps becomes mandatory if they desire to give any audience the benefit of the doubt as to what the Bible writers intended to say. As such, it becomes imperative that those gaps be filled with evidence from understanding derived from cultural studies before applying any theological significance to the text that comes solely from our own experience or understanding.

NOTE: This ends this series on What About That! The inspiration and main resource for these articles came from the works done by John H. Walton in his Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, and John N. Oswalt’s The Bible Among the Myths.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part III)

WHY MANY RELIGIONS SHARE THE SAME PRINCIPLES

When Jesus’ parents found Him as a young boy in the Temple amazing the elders with what He knew; and later in His life when two Temple guards were sent to arrest Him but came back saying they had never heard any man speak like this man, it was a clear sign that something Jesus was saying astounded the listeners. Not that they had never heard it before, but that they had never heard it explained this way before. What was the subject that caught their attention, something that had been going around for a long time during the period between 800-200 B.C.

There was an earlier teacher who espoused some of the same principles and ethics. He was known as Kong Qui or K’ung Fu-tzu, but we know him better as, Confucius. He was born on August 27, 551 B.C. in the northeast area of China called, Lu State. Little is known of his childhood. Some say he was born into a royal family, but his own story defies that since he had to work his way up to the top. Others say he was born in poverty, but that does not fit his own account about early studies at the age of fifteen. His teachings, which were copied down by his students, are preserved in the Analects, and focused on creating ethical models of family and public interaction, and setting educational standards. When his life and times are studied, it is clear that Confucius also lived during a time of ideological crisis in China.

What amazes many who study the teachings of Confucius for the first time is how closely his philosophy harmonizes with those of Socrates, Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth. The four never met each other; never read each others writings, and none of them ever wrote a book. Yet their words and models of ethics and virtues have affected the world like no other philosophical quartet.

Confucius believed strongly in “studying.” Not just reading, but studying what is being read. To study means to apply the mind to the acquisition of knowledge through reading, investigation and research. In other words, there’s a difference between “reading” a book and “studying” a book. The two subjects that fascinated Confucius in his studies were History and Literature. These, he said, are a must to anyone who desires to grow intellectually and mature into becoming a role model and teacher of others. How many times did Jesus tell His opponents to go back and study the scriptures again because they had not understood it sufficiently to put it into effect properly (see Matthew 23.) But a time came after Confucius was gone that a group called “Legalists” opposed the teachings of Confucius, saying that mankind could not think on his own but must be guided only by those in charge who knew what was best for them. This would sound to familiar to Jesus who encountered the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians with the same attitude.

If Confucius had a motto, it was, Practice what you preach. “By doing so continuously and faithfully to the principles you’ve learned,” Confucius taught, “you will eventually find The Way.” In Chinese it is referred to as “Tao.” For Confucius, “The Way,” meant walking in the truth on how to live a virtuous life. We find the same reference to “The Way” in the Acts of the Apostles (9:2; 19:9, 27; 22:4; 24:14, 22.) So it was fixed in men’s minds during this period that there was a “Way” to live and conduct oneself so as to give purpose and reason for living. Confucius said that any virtuous man will have deep reverence for at least three things: (l) He will reverence what Heaven decrees, (2) He will reverence great leaders, and (3) He will reverence what the saints’ have to say. But one astounding proverb from Confucius is this: “When worshiping God, one must feel as if He were visibly present.”

Furthermore, this virtuous life for Confucius involved the following four things:

The Virtue of Wisdom: Confucius taught that wisdom is knowing what needs to be done. Furthermore, he noted that the ultimate goal of any seeker of truth, is wisdom, because wisdom is only found in knowing the truth. Even Jesus stated, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” Confucius continues: Having wisdom means that we understand these absolute values to the point that we can apply them to our daily lives. The ripening of wisdom continues as a person gains more and more knowledge—the accumulation of facts and information. With experience, this knowledge is then applied to living out those principles so one can obtain a Good life. In fact, wisdom consists of knowing how to apply the Good to Life; if not, then knowledge becomes worthless. It must be understood, that Wisdom does not necessarily come with age. Just look at Jesus, how wise He was at a young age. If you look up the word “wisdom” in the Gospels as it relates to Jesus, it will open your eyes to how our Lord viewed it.

The Virtue of Justice: For Confucius, passivity (remaining silent because of our own needs) in the face of injustice is in itself an injustice. Always keep your word, but be practical (for there are times when keeping one’s word is wrong because it may harm others). At the heart of all justice is Honor, because it rests on integrity and courage. Arguably, a litigious culture like ours today does not fully appreciate the meaning of justice, because legality often circumvents the foundation of justice. In John 5:30 Jesus gives us a definition of His concept of justice, “I don’t do things on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.”

The Virtue of Courage: Now Confucius says that with courage, which is a fundamental human value, we demonstrate the willingness to stand up and say what is just and true. With courage, we do what needs to be done, steadfast in the truth as we understand it, not allowing fear to hinder our course. When we have an understanding of what is just, it takes courage to uphold what is right. Wisdom is also essential to courage, for without wisdom an individual doesn’t know what he or she should defend. If there was anyone who showed courage in what He believed and was willing to defend it with His life, it was Jesus Christ.

The Virtue of Moderation: Finally, Confucius points out that the virtue of moderation provides a guide to living: nothing in excess; nothing carried to extremes; nothing pushed so far that it becomes harmful or wrong. To Confucius, moderation is the secret ingredient of the four virtues that brings the virtues of justice, courage, and wisdom together, ensuring that they work in harmony. With moderation, we come to know when justice turns into legality. With moderation, we can see when brutality replaces courage. With moderation, we can discern when we are accumulating knowledge for knowledge’s sake rather than letting knowledge ripen into wisdom. Jesus is very clear on this in His teaching in Luke 12.

When we examine the teachings of Jesus as found in Matthew 5:3-12 we find a similar theme as that of what Confucius taught.

3 “God blesses those who are humble and realize their need for Him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
4 God blesses those who grieve when they make a mistake, for they will be comforted.
5 God blesses those who are considerate of others, for they will inherit the whole earth.
6 God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied.
7 God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8 God blesses those whose hearts are pure, for they will get to know God.
9 God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.
10 God blesses those who are persecuted for doing right, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.

11 God blesses those who are mocked and persecuted and lied about and all sorts of evil things are said about them because they are followers of Jesus.

12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way.

Therefore, Justice, Courage, Wisdom, and Moderation are four all-powerful virtues that require a lifetime of study and daily practice. Many great minds believe these four virtues to be a guide to a life of freedom. Even after God’s communication with mankind changed following what happened in the Garden of Eden, He did not stop communicating with His creation. But it would take a special effort for Him to get man’s attention so that what He said would become Gospel. That’s why He sent His only Son to do the job. No wonder Jesus declared, “Yes, I am the gate (Way). Those who come in through me will be saved. They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life” (John 10:9-10.)

But unlike Jesus, Confucius, Socrates, and Buddha never pointed to themselves as “The Way.” They did not found a religion or establish a church. They did not die on a cross for the sins of mankind which was accepted by God as the only way for sins to be forgiven, and they did not rise from the grave victorious over death. As the writer of Hebrews said so eloquently, “In the past God spoke to our people through the prophets. He spoke to them many times and in many different ways. And now in these last days, God has spoken to us again through His Son. He made the whole world through His Son. And He has chosen His Son to have all things. The Son shows the glory of God. He is a perfect copy of God’s nature, and He holds everything together by His powerful command. The Son made people clean from their sins. Then He sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven. The Son became much greater than the angels, and God gave Him a name that is much greater than any of their names.”

So no matter what has been said or taught in the past, when the Son came He came to put God’s final stamp of approval on what He wanted mankind to know. There is no need to look for some new divine teacher in the future. The Word has come in the flesh, and the Word is eternal.

WHY MANY RELIGIONS ARE RELATED

When most believers are asked to tell about their understanding of history as it relates to their Christian faith, they may start with Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, then proceed to Noah’s Flood, followed by God’s call of Abraham, the rescue of Israel from Egyptian bondage, the giving of the Law to Moses, the taking of the Promised Land, the rise of David as King of Israel and Judah, and the coming of the Messiah and introduction of Christianity until the present day.

This might lead some listeners to assume that while all this was going on, the rest of humanity stood isolated and untouched by anything God did or said. But a study of history shows otherwise. As the time for the Messiah to come drew near, there was a sudden burst of spiritual understanding in the civilized world that began to influence humanity in unusual ways.

Between 800 and 200 BC, a concentration of new and different religious beliefs emerged in China, Greece, India, Mesopotamia, and Palestine. This lead to the founding or major development of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Jainism and Taoism. In 1949 the German philosopher Karl Theodor Jaspers coined the phrase “Achsenzeit” (“Axial Age” or “Axis age” in English) to describe this relatively short interval of rapid religious and spiritual evolution.

It seemed as though after a long period of time since Noah’s flood the world was waking up to the need for a set of rules that governed mankind’s conduct and ethics. For instance, Buddha taught about the fact that everyone fears punishment and everyone fears death. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. According to the second of the Four Noble Truths taught by Buddha, egoism (desire, craving or attachment) is rooted in ignorance and is considered as the cause of all suffering. Consequently, kindness, compassion and equanimity are regarded as the untainted aspect of human nature.

This brought about the idea that we should treat others as we would like them to treat us, known as the Theory of Reciprocity, or The Golden Rule, an ethic that emerged almost universally during the Axial Age. We see this in the writings of all the major religions of that period:

Egypt: 1970-1640 B.C. in a manuscript titled The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant we find “Do for one what you might cause him to do for you.”

Judiasm: 1280 B.C. as Moses wrote down what he believed God was inspiriting him to write, he penned, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against a fellow Israelite, but love your neighbor as yourself.” Leviticus 19:18

Persia: 700 B.C. Zoroastrianism teaches “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

China: 500 B.C. In Daoism (or Taoism) the Sage says, “Make the self of the people your self.”

China: 500 B.C. Confucius taught, “Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.” And in another writing “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”

India: 500 B.C. Buddha taught, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

India: 500 B.C. In Jainism it was taught, “Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.”

India: 150 B.C. In the great epic Mahabharata we read, “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”

Christianity: 30 A.D. In His sermon on the Mount, Jesus told the people that the “core essence of all that is taught in the law and by the prophets” is summed up in this: “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.” – Matthew 7:12. It is a matter of God’s wisdom being manifest in our lives. We all know that “information” is all around us, but in order for that information to become “knowledge” we must access the information. Once we have turned that information into personal knowledge, then we must apply it in order for it to become “wisdom.”

But there are other things we must consider:

While most Bible readers know that Abraham was the father of the Children of Israel, they may have overlooked the fact that Abram was not a Jew? He has a Chaldean name since that’s where he was born and lived in the city of Ur before God told him to leave? This area became better known as Babylon and is the southern part of the area known as Iraq today. Abram means “father.”

Bible readers also know that Moses was born to Hebrew parents, but they may not know that Moses’ name is Egyptian (Mose)? It means, “saved out of water.” Not only that, but there were two Egyptian Pharaohs who had Mose in their names: Thutmose and Ramose.

Bible enthusiast have heard of the Hebrew language, but may not know that the word Hebrew comes from the word Hiberu? Sumerians, Hittites, Egyptians and others gave this name to people variously described as nomadic, semi-nomadic, rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, servants, migrant laborers, and slaves. It was only after Jacob wrestled with the angel that the name was changed to Israel, and after they entered the Promised Land they were no longer referred to as Hiberu.

Most believers are aware that Jewish people worship on Saturday because it’s the Sabbath, and Christians worship on Sunday, because it’s the day Jesus rose from the dead. But they may not know that the Babylonians already celebrated every seventh day as a “holy-day” before it became part of the Ten Commandments?”

Many believers know that Jews circumcise their male children and do not eat pork. However they may not know that long before the building of the pyramids, circumcision was practiced in Egypt? Not only that, but the Egyptians didn’t eat pork either.

Most believers are aware that Jews believe in one God, and Christians believe in one God manifested in three persons. But they may not know that long before Judaism became a religion, that Akhenaten, one of many ancient Egyptian pharaohs pledged his loyalty to one deity when the rest of the world worshipped many gods? His rule is reflected in the first commandment given to Moses: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Therefore it is clear that this theme started centuries earlier as God influenced the minds of scholars and those seeking the truth to understand this principle. But it all coalesced into the teachings of one Master who called Himself the only Way, the Truth and the Life, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Since then there is no other religion or revelation that has come or will ever come to supplant Him as God’s choice to teach the world of love, kindness, consideration and compassion.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT! (Part 4)

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

SEEING IT FOR WHAT IT IS

When one launches out in search of determining which documents borrowed from which documents, they take on a difficult task. Neither must it be the major goal of such research in comparative studies. Rather, when finding any similarities and differences in such documents, this assists those who study Biblical manuscripts and those examining the ancient writings of the Near East to get a bigger picture. To anyone really interested in what the Bible says and reveals to human understanding, it must not come as a surprise to discover that their comprehension of God and the world around them can be found in the larger culture from which they came. Therefore, when writers of biblical manuscripts offer criticism and disdain for the larger culture around them, it must be taken in context related to the current thinking, writing and cultural norms of that era. Therefore, effort must be given to understand the Biblical version of events and those found in Near East documents so as to gain a fuller and more complete discernment of each one and how they interacted with each other. In so doing, we give ourselves a better chance of seeing what they thought of themselves and how they conducted themselves rather than what we think of their behavior.

When reading the Old Testament, some are confused as to why the text found in First and Second Kings reads very similar to that contained in First and Second Chronicles. To begin with, in ancient biblical manuscripts, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings constituted one book. Only later as a result of the invention of printing did they become separated for publishing and reading purposes. Most scholars believe that this early recording of the political history of Israel came into being through priests who documented what happened during their era. Later, when the monarchy became more fully established, then royal chroniclers became the resource for documenting how the Nation of Israel developed and the subsequent reign of each king under which they served. Therefore, to understand the intent of the writers in detailing the events they include and to what degree they describe them, can be better comprehended by recognizing that one group saw it from a religious point of view and the other from a royal perspective.

The same formula holds true when trying to understand the literary genres of the Biblical Texts and those of the Near East. Furthermore, just as poetry in Hebrew does not depend on rhyme and meter to express itself in beauty, so we must understand how differently these genres of literature operated in the ancient world than the way similar genres function in our world. Whether we look at Historic Literature, Legal Literature, Wisdom Literature, or Prophetic Literature, we find similarities between Biblical material, Near East material and even modern day literature. But they must be judged on their own, in context, and not dismissed or thought of as being less emotive on our thinking because they do not agree with our methods. We must endeavor to determine as much as possible who wrote it, when they wrote it, why they wrote it and their intent in writing it. This serves as an essential ingredient to the theological and literary explanation of the text when we understand the genre of the manuscript in order to arrive at a legitimate interpretation.

When similarities occur between that written in the Bible and that contained in ancient Near East manuscripts, it helps acknowledging the perimeters and characteristics of the genre active in the ancient mind that penned it. For instance, what did they consider to be historical writing back then. We know that today journalistic perimeters require identifying who, what, where, why, when and how. Furthermore, eyewitness accounts supersede those which come second-hand. So often we find genealogies played an important role for ancient writers. It must be determined if the author assembled them for the same reasons we do today. Furthermore, family relatives and near relatives often morphed into references such as brother and neighbor. Therefore, must we required further delineation in order to consider it acceptable for today’s understanding?

On occasion when comparing genres of Biblical literature and Near East documents, similarities are found in the level of content, and in some cases, even in wording. This poses the question of whether or not each instance must be taken to represent an individual observation. When observing the same law or proverb in both Biblical Texts and Near East Texts, rather than expecting that one preceded the other, we must examine their uniqueness and how the writer intended them to be understood, especially by analyzing the genre and literary context in which these laws and proverbs exist. When both the Hebrew version and that found in the Near East documents appear exactly the same, rather than looking to prove which came first, there exists the option of accepting that both came to be under the influence of an earlier common source which preceded both the Hebrew and the Near East accounts. Just as we trace Abraham from Adam down through Noah and on through Shem, likewise what man understood from encounters with God in the past flowed down into literature through oral traditions in different branches of humankind. And like any account, as each generation passed it on to another, the story grew larger, more complex and designed to meet the mindset of the day.

Another thing to consider involves those laws and proverbs which evince significant differences as being in contrast to one another. For instance, both Hebrew and Mesopotamian literature contain texts that tell the story of a righteous man who suffered for his faith that compares to what we find in the book of Job. First of all, this becomes acceptable when we consider that Job, a contemporary of Abram, lived in Uz while Abram came from Ur, but both descendants of Shem. The difference between the two accounts involves a different theology, while at the same time using a similar mentality prevalent in the Near East with the friends of Job being used a foils to test his resolve. But Job remains faithful to his beliefs by not accepting the mentality of appeasement offered by his friends, a mentality representative of Near East thinking.

Likewise, when we read in Neo-Assyrian literature of the Early Iron Age about Sargon of Akkad, the founder of the Dynasty of Akkad, the forerunner of the Chaldean and Babylonian kings in the area from which Abraham came, he is described as a legendary figure in tablets deposited in the Library of Ashurbanipal from the 7th century BC. According to this legend, Sargon was the illegitimate son of a priestess. She brought him forth in secret, and then placed him in a basket of reeds on the river. He floated down the river until he was found by Akki, a man in charge of the irrigation system fed by the river.  Akki raised him as his own son. This quickly brings to mind the story of Moses. So the question could be raised, was the story of the Israeli lawgiver a retelling of the story of Sargon but from a Jewish perspective. Or, should we allow that such an occasion could have occurred more than once, and that it was a modus operandi of that day in dealing with children whose lives may be in danger.

To miss the point/counterpoint dialogue, forgoes understanding the critical nuances contained in these exchanges. Keeping an open mind and showing appreciation for how similar genres existed with different methods of writing and expression, did not exist in great quantity when the examination of Near East Documents verses Hebrew Documents in the late 1800’s into the early 1900’s began in earnest. Therefore, it becomes important that such oversight must not be continued and exacerbated in today’s climate of research and comparative studies. Let’s give each group credit for telling the story the way they saw it and how it applied to their understanding of God and history. Surely an omniscient God knows how it happened and is pleased to let us investigate how it played out. Abram left Chaldea where God was known by the name Marduk, and when he met Melchizedek they called Him El Elyon, the Highest God or the God on High. Today there are some who still refer to Him as Jehovah and others as Yahweh. What will future generations think when they examine our literature in which similar factors of patience and conditioning must applied when examining ancient documents, as we do today with ancient writings of the past.

WHERE DID ABRAM GET HIS RELIGIOUS TRAINING

When we restrict our knowledge of the origins of our religious heritage to that contained only in the Bible, we deny ourselves the opportunity of enjoying a comparative study of how our faith came down to us and what others had to say about what the Bible reveals.

After the flood deposited Noah and his three sons Shem, Japheth and Ham on Mt. Ararat and they descended into the flat lands below, as they grew in number they began to disperse. The children of Shem moved into the area we know as the Middle East that includes Iran and Iraq. One of Shem’s descendents named Terah ended up in the city of Ur in the land that became known as Chaldea, which is in southern part of Iraq today.

It was there around 2047 BC that three sons were born to Terah: Abram, Nahor and Haran. During this time, there was a ruler in Ur of Chaldea known as Ur-Nammu. Whatever Noah taught had his sons about God, and whatever they passed on to their children was as rudimentary as that which Adam passed on to Seth and his other children.

But something urged Ur-Nammu to write a code of conduct that was meant to govern the society there in Chaldea, and these were the rules and legal code that Terah learned and taught to his sons. It is the oldest known surviving example of such a code to come out of that part of the world. This would be the basis for the ethics by which Abram would live when one day Terah took Abram, his daughter-in-law Sarai (his son Abram’s wife), and his grandson Lot (his deceased son Haran’s child) and moved away from Ur of the Chaldeans. He was headed for the land of Canaan, but they stopped at Haran and settled there. Gen 11:31 The prophet Nehemiah makes note of this historical event in 9:7, “You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him from Ur of the Chaldeans and renamed him Abraham.”

So what was this Code of Ur-Nammu written hundreds of years before the Law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai? Do any of these laws reflect what Moses was given and can be found in both the Ten Commandments and the Laws given in Leviticus? Let’s look at some examples:

1. If a man commits murder, that man must die. (See Genesis 9:6a, “God made humans to be like Himself. So whoever kills a person must be killed by another person.”)
2. If a man commits robbery, that man must die.
3. If a man kidnaps another, he must serve prison time and pay a fine of 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a male slave marries a female slave in the same household, if that female slave is set free the male slave cannot go with her.
5. If a slave marries a person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to the owner.
6. If a man deflowers the virgin wife betrothed to another man, that man must die.
7. If a man divorces his first wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.
8. If a man divorces his first wife who was a widow, he shall pay her one half mina of silver.
9. If a man’s female slave speaks insolently to his wife, the slave’s mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
10. If a man appears as a witness and proves to have perjured himself, he must pay a fine of 15 shekels of silver.

There are some 32 laws in all and a number of them deal with compensation for injuries to others and misuse of property, all of which must be redressed by the paying of fines. All of these laws can be culminated into one simple phrase: do what is right and love your neighbor as yourself. As such, laws were never meant to be tools for punishment, but as warning to keep one from being punished. The law itself does not punish, it is only the breaking of the law that requires punishment.

These were the laws that Abram lived by and taught to Isaac and Ismael, for we see this replicated in the laws of the Semites and Arabs to this day. A successor to Ur-Nammu named Hammurabi became king of Babylonian and reigned from 1795 to 1750 B.C. He is remembered today for promoting and enforcing an organized code of laws that were written some 300 years before Moses was given the laws found in Leviticus in 1440 BC. The Code of Hammurabi, discovered on a stele (a stone slab) in 1901, is one of the best preserved and comprehensive of ancient writings of significant length ever found. The Hammurabian Code is divided into 12 sections and consists of 282 laws, 34 of which are unreadable. The Code is primarily a case-by-case formula of customary regulations covering administrative, civil, and criminal issues. The complexity of the laws and their subject matter reveal much about ancient Babylonian culture.

Both Levitical law and Hammurabi’s Code impose the death penalty in cases of adultery and kidnapping (Lev. 20:10; Ex 21:16 with Statues 129 – If a man’s wife be surprised with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves; & Statute 14 – If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death). Also, there are similarities in the law of retaliation, such as “an eye for an eye” (Lev. 21:23-25) with Statute 196 – If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. Also, Statute 206 of the Hammurabian Code says, “If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, ‘I did not injure him wittingly,’ and pay the physicians.” The Law of Moses is comparable: “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed” (Ex. 21:18-19).

Some of the other unique laws in this code include:

If a man’s property is stolen and the thief is not caught, the owner may make his losses known and the community where he lives will make donations to cover his loss. Statute 23

If a landowner rents out a house, garden or filed and some rents from him and stays there for three years, as long as they continue to pay the rent the owner cannot ask them to leave. Statute 30

If a bartender charges more for a drink that it is worth, then the bartender will be convicted and thrown into a river. But only if the bartender is a woman. Statute 108

If a man marries a woman but refuses to consummate the marriage, the woman cannot be called his wife. Statute 128

If a man wants to throw his son out of the house and is taken to court, if the judge examines all the evidence but finds the son not guilty of any misconduct, the father will be barred from throwing him out. Statute 168

A tooth for a tooth. Statute 200

If a contractor builds a house but does not construct it properly, and the house falls and its owner is killed, the contractor will be charged with murder and executed. Statute 229

If a person is hired to do a job, the one hiring must pay minimum wage. Statute 261

The whole point of this is that God did not leave mankind to wander in ignorance and without guidance from the time of Noah’s flood until the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. Rather, he spoke to man through his conscience and innate desire to protect what was right both for himself and others. But such laws were designed only to find the will of man and not the will of God. That is why the day would come when a more explicit set of rules and commandments would be given to the descendants of Abraham so they could find the will of God to ensure their destiny as His chosen children through which the Messiah would come.

I was reading about the life of the great Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides and the times in which he lived, and came across this story that touched me. Four Jewish Rabbi’s were sailing on a ship from the port city of Bari on the SE coast of Italy, on a fund raising tour to gather money for the Jewish Academy in Sura, Babylonia – SE Iraq today. The ship was hijacked by Ibn Romahis, commander of the naval forces of Abd-er-rahman al-nasr, and the rabbis taken prisoner. One of the prisoners, Rabbi Hushiel, was sold into slavery and sent to Kairuan in Tunisia. Another captured Rabbi named Shemarjaru was sent as a slave to Alexandria, Egypt. Rabbi Moses was sold into captivity and ended up in Cordova, Spain. The fourth Rabbi’s name was never recorded.

When the Jewish communities in all the cities where these Rabbis ended up found out about their plight, they raised the appropriate ransom money and had them redeemed back to their own people. Rabbi Moses, who found himself in Cordova, Spain, the capital of the Muslim caliphate that had taken over Spain, was more than happy to attend the Synagogue on the first Sabbath since he was set free.

The leader of the local Synagogue in Cordova was a well respected scholar, Rabbi Nathan. On this Sabbath, Rabbi Nathan was expounding on the Jewish Talmud, which is a collection of teachings by Jewish scholars. When it came question and answer time, Rabbi found himself unable to give a satisfactory answer to a question that was raised. So he looked around for anyone who might have some input.

Rabbi Moses, because of his ordeal was poorly dressed, and did not appear to be a very educated individual. So when he raised his hand, everyone was surprised. Not only did he answer the question thoroughly, but answered several other difficult questions handed him. At the end, Rabbi Nathan stood up and declared to the assembly: “I am no longer your leader; that stranger in his sackcloth shall henceforth be my teacher, and you shall appoint him as your chief.” When the Muslim admiral heard how astoundingly brilliant Rabbi Moses was, he tried to cancel the ransom deal, but the king would not allow it.

I can only imagine this is how the Pharisees and scribes felt when they tried to teach the people and Jesus dressed in His simple Galilean attire stood up and not only answered all the questions, but showed Himself to be of such persuasion and authority, that even the great Jewish scholar Nicodemus sought Him out. Perhaps this same opportunity can be in our destiny if we vigorously study God’s Word and become familiar with the voice of the Holy Spirit.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT! (Part 3)

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

TAKING MADNESS OUT OF THE METHOD

While speaking to a young college student who volunteered at an American Cancer Society Lodge for cancer patients, the subject turned to music. When asked for one of my favorite songs, I mentioned “Some Enchanted Evening” from the movie South Pacific. The twenty-year old volunteer looked at me as though I spoke in Latin. It didn’t take long before I found out that she knew little of Pearl Harbor, the Battle at Midway, and General Douglas MacArthur’s famous line concerning the Philippines, “I shall return.”

In reflecting on how time changes each generation’s perspective about important people and events, I dare say that subjects and incidents that I used in sermons and lectures some twenty years ago, where I trusted the audience to immediately identify with what I mentioned, no longer proves true. This demonstrates that in order for people to communicate effectively and meaningfully they must be on the same page when it comes to words, terms, phrases, ideas, concepts and themes.

I tried to teach my students in Homiletics that for any audience to truly understand what they communicated and get the main point, they must meet them on the same level of cognition. In order to help them understand this concept I drew a grid with five columns and five rows, creating twenty-five boxes. In the top row, beginning with column two, I wrote: Researched Content; in column three – Sermon Organization; in column four – Spoken Language; and in column five – Sincere Delivery, which spells the acronym COLD. Then in the far left column, starting at the beginning of row two I put: Scripture Factor; in row three – Occasion Factor; in row four – Audience Factor; and in row five – Preacher Factor, which creates the acronym SOAP. Together they spell COLD SOAP, a phrase designed to help them remember it better.

Then I told them to cross reference each box where the row and column met inside the grid. For instance, if they chose the Sermon Organization on top, and Occasion Factor on the left side, then follow the column and row to where they intersect within the grid, allowing them to focus on the importance of knowing how these two factors affect one another in helping the speaker communicate more effectively with the listener. In other words, when a person anticipates giving a lecture or preaching a sermon, they must keep in mind who they plan to speak to. Determine the composition of the group, whether they consist mainly of believers, or unbelievers or a mix of both. Does the group reflect a younger or older generation or both. Does the occasion celebrate a special day or event. This Occasion Factor must then influence the Sermon Organization.

By establishing these factors, the speaker then needs less time to explain the words, terms, phrases, ideas, concepts and themes employed. By being on common ground with the audience, they achieve a common core of comprehension. This leaves the listeners with more time to assimilate the message without constantly struggling over words or phrases they don’t understand because of their being popular before their generation. While the King James Version of the Bible remains eloquent with its Shakespearean form of English, I rarely, if ever, recommend it to a young Christian for daily Bible reading.

They same goes when we study ancient texts, especially for ministers when they go to the original Greek or Hebrew in preparing a sermon. We cannot always take the words as used back then to mean what they mean to us today. Along with the problem of translation, there also exists the need to understand the effect of culture on what the writer wrote or speaker said in their own dialect, time, and place. I insisted that my students remember that each time they chose a particular verse or verses from the Scripture to read as a text, to always inform the audience as to: who wrote it, when they wrote it, to whom they wrote it, why they wrote it, what constitutes the main subject, what problem did they address, if any, and how it relates to the message they’ve prepared for delivery. When a speaker does not do this, many audiences cannot figure all this out even after the sermon comes to a close.

The same lack of general understanding occurred when these ancient manuscripts and tablets, referred to in our opening chapter, came to light in the Near East. The consideration of culture and language did not open the doors to civil dialogue, thus putting all sides on the defensive. So the debate began on whose religion proved more authentic; whose virtues and ethics appeared superior; which document writers borrowed from whom; and whose codes of conduct and laws might be declared as original. They made scant effort to understand why the ancient’s thought the way they did about themselves and their world.

Whenever comparing documents and scrutinizing them for originality, the burden rests on the researcher to determine whether one copied from another, or if by living in proximity to each other under like conditions led to similar conclusions. Also, did these people ever come into contact with each other and share ideas and concepts. Little consideration seemed to be given to the fact that all of these nations descended from one source, through which basic their understanding about God, creation, ethics and values got passed from one generation to another.

If members of one tribe living in one part of the Near East looked up at the sky every night and interpreted what they saw as being so vast and brilliantly displayed that some genius power created it and wrote it down, while members of another tribe hundreds of miles away came to the same conclusion which they wrote down as such, then their geological location, their place in time, and their cultural background and genesis must be taken into consideration. One group while looking up into the sky might conclude they see a polyverse with many gods, while another group looking into the same sky sees a universe with one God.

Therefore, when finding narratives in all these documents related to their understanding of the cosmos and earth’s relationship to it, along with stories of how life came to be here on earth and the acceptance of a higher power, no matter what name they gave him, and a list of certain events of the past as well as those occurring during their time, the question of how did the children of Abraham come into possession of similar subject matter while identifying other origins and outcomes, the question does not become whether they borrowed this from some earlier culture, but that people living in near proximity to each other during that period shared similar ideas and ideals with them.

It must be recognized that a considerable gap exists between one culture borrowing thoughts, concepts and ideas from another then claiming them as their own, and the reality that such ideas infiltrated their culture from outside sources and became part and parcel of how they thought and lived. When such similarities of expression and concepts evidence themselves in subsequent literature, that does not dictate that an indictment of borrowing or coping be levied against one or the other.

For instance, common verbal expressions of my day included, “One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” Also, “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Therefore, when I passed them on to my children, did that make me guilty of plagiarism? I think not! These ideas came into my conscious mind by way of hearing. When I used them in a lecture or sermon, did I purposely borrow them from some other sermon and then present them as being original with me? No! I lived in a world and at a time when these maxims existed as part of the culture.

One of the more intriguing encounters in the Old Testament occurred when Abram, who came from the city of Ur in Chaldea (modern Iraq), found himself needing to rescue his nephew Lot, who lived in the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah near the Dead Sea, from the hands of king Kedorlaomer and his army who took them captive. So after assembling a small army of some 318 trained fighters, Abram chased after the enemy and in a surprise attack successfully rescued Lot and his family. On his way back home, Melchizedek, the king of Salem and a priest of the Highest God, waited for him in the Valley of Shaveh, where they served Abram and his entourage bread and wine. Upon greeting Abram, Melchizedek said, “Abram, may you be blessed by the Highest God, the one who made heaven and earth. And we praise the Highest God, who helped you defeat your enemies.”

Moved by this expression of support and honor, Abram gave Melchizedek one-tenth of everything he had taken during the battle. No known evidence exists that Abram and Melchizedek previously met. So how did they come to share the same belief in this higher power, this Highest God? Certainly they did not read the same manuscripts, nor enjoyed being taught by the same teacher. Such belief in a divine power existed among most, if not all, the cultures of that day. So Melchizedek did not borrow the idea from Abram, but Abram immediately recognized this belief in the Highest God and responded to it favorably.

At this point we must understand that only pure conjecture allows for any postulation that Abram and Melchizedek fully comprehended the same depth of knowledge concerning this Highest God that later came to the people of Israel through the revelation Moses received on Mt. Sinai. After all, Abram was not a Jew, but a descendant of Shem, the son of Noah, while Melchizedek lived where the descendants of Noah’s grandson Canaan, the son of Ham, lived. This clearly points to their arriving at the same conclusion about this Highest God from that passed down to them by their ancestors. So the question of who borrowed from who does not apply here. To take this further, what Moses wrote about concerning his understanding of this Highest God does not include what Isaiah saw in visions and wrote about this Highest God. By the same token, no Old Testament prophet came to know as much about God as those privy to the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

So in this case, the cultural trail appears more evident than a literary trail. Universities did not exist at this time in human history, therefore acceptance of what many thought of as the obvious became part of their common core belief system via verbal traditions. Today we hear this concept referred to as universal consciousness and the metaphysical aspect of reality. It addresses the inner guidance by a higher power found in almost all religions to which each culture gives different names and identities.

This of course, leads us back to the idea of a common creator of all things, one who said He desired to make man in His own image; one who breathed into mankind His breath that brought not only life, but that inner guidance we know as conscience. Therefore, no matter how far apart the descendents of Noah dispersed after the flood, they carried this with them. As cultures changed based on location, time, influence from others, and the need to survive, this inner guidance led to expressions of faith in something not seen but the presence of which remained an accepted fact. This substantiates the fact that essence precedes existence. In other words, creation does not prove the existence of God but the essence of God. Therefore, the essence of God proved necessary before creation came into existence.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT! (Part 2)

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

LETS TAKE A LOOK AT IT

When I lived in Europe and Asia, I experienced people coming up to me and telling me that their relative lived in the United States, and asked how close I lived to them, and sometimes even asked if I knew them. It did not take long for me to realize they did not fathom the immense land size of the United States. Not only that, but I discovered when living in Germany, that the dress, dialect and cuisine in north Germany proved much different than that down in Bavaria to the south. Likewise in the USA. Texans do not sound like people from Boston, who do not converse like those from California.

So, do we not all stand guilty of being shortsighted to believe that the Syrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Moabites and Egyptians all shared the exact same culture, philosophies and religions. Furthermore, the Babylon of Noah’s day differed from what it became in Abram’s day, and what it developed into during the time of Hammurabi and later under Nebuchadnezzar. As a matter of fact, when the King of Babylon took Daniel and his three friends along with the other wise and talented young men from Jerusalem back to Babylon with him, I wonder how many of them actually knew that they now lived close to the very spot where Abraham lived at one time before God instructed his father Terah to move everybody to Canaan.

Nevertheless, through archeological discoveries and ancient forms of writing and record keeping, we discover that many of the kingdoms and empires of those days did adhere to certain mutual cultural and religious norms. And since civilization did not exist as vast and developed as today, these descendants of Noah held common views on many things that gave them a certain sense of understanding for each other’s worldview.

Two ways exist to examine these factors in order to discover specifics about what they thought and what they taught and how they lived in an orderly society. One involved doing a background examination of what they wrote in order to gain a meaningful understanding of their religion, culture, beliefs, virtues and ethics. This can be called Cultural Studies. Not to be done as a way to find fault nor critique their effectiveness, but merely understand what made them tick, as we say. Another option involves taking what we can learn from all these cultures and lay them side by side to take note of any similarities or mirror images of thought and teaching among them. Scholars call this Comparative Studies. They did not designed this study to find out who copied who and who borrowed what from whom. Rather, to answer if they learned from each other and when they compared their worldviews, did it result in any changes, additions or morphing of ideas?

This can be done by examining their writings, art, tools, artifacts, as well as their rules, codes, behavior, forms of government, and social norms. The area of literature often proves to be the most fruitful in that their ways of expression, the idioms they used, and the colloquialisms they employed when telling their stories, myths, parables, allegories and metaphors come to light. Again, this must not lend itself to finding fault with them or form the opinion that they stood somehow uninformed and closed-minded. Rather, they arrived at these conclusions by skillfully employing what information and facts they possessed at the time. Even though many of them lived great distances apart and never interacted with each other, it surprises scholars to find out that although they provide their own version of certain events such as the existence of God, creation, the flood, and religion, worship and morals, a common thread runs through all of them. In so doing, did a higher power hereby shows His influence on the thinking and reasoning of mankind?

Unfortunately, people like Friedrich Delitzsch and his fellow Assyriologists became distracted from such high and lofty goals due to their ulterior motives of destroying one thing in order to superimpose another thing in its place. Whether they defended the validity of Biblical accounts or critiqued them, or if they did the same to these discoveries of Near East writings in pursuit of Cultural Studies or Comparative Studies, their findings became distorted and sunk into a raging polemics. This becomes an important word to understand in such efforts to find the origins of certain practices and beliefs. The word “polemic” means a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something in order to destroy its credibility through condemnation and ridicule. In other words, we see no effort to understand the other side or the opposing point of view. Instead, it must be done away with in the most embarrassing way so as to shame them for even considering it valid in the first place.

So when it came to Judaism and Christianity, some chose to take that being learned from the Near East writings to show that the Bible consists of a fuller and more complete revelation of God, arrived at through the unction and guidance of divine wisdom, while on the other hand others concluded that these two great religions and their holy scriptures existed as products of copycats and plagiarist who did not possess the courage or ethics to confess where their ideas really came from, wanting rather to take credit for it themselves.

It took years for this polemic to play out, and for those on both sides to chose between widening the divide rather than narrowing the debate. Some remained unapologetic and even more adamant in their views to accept no compromise or accommodation of taking a second look. However, we see that others did come together to develop a cooperative method of examination through comparison studies to develop a more definitive picture of what actually took place in the cross-transmission of these concepts.

It becomes important for both sides to understand the Bible and appreciate what these writings of the Near East brought us in the way of new information on the thoughts of men during those ancient periods of enlightenment. Bible scholars must accept that Assyriology, Egyptology and like cultures did develop valid linguistic, academic and cultural disciplines and sciences that they taught and practiced to better themselves in a law abiding society with high goals to excel in ethics and virtues. A comparative study helps Christian scholars appreciate what these civilizations had, so as to better appreciate what their Judaic-Christian ethics delivered to them down through the centuries.

CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PAST?

In the late 9th century, King Alfred, ruler of the kingdom of Wessex (now southwestern England), became concerned about the declining state of learning and the growing unfamiliarity by the citizens of books and works that at one time were considered great works. So he wrote a letter to his bishop, expressing his thoughts and feelings about this situation.

Although it occurred over 1,000 years ago, we see a similar trend today. When you read this letter, where it states England, think United States. See if you can detect where England went and where the United States is going. The text reads somewhat old fashion, but it conveys King Alfred’s thoughts very clearly.

“King Alfred bids bishop Wærferth to be greeted with loving and friendly words; and bids you to know that it very often comes to my mind what wise men there formerly were throughout England, both of sacred and secular orders; and how happy the times were then throughout England; and how the kings who then had power over the people obeyed God and his ministers; and they maintained their peace, their morality and their power within their borders, and also increased their kingdom without; and how they prospered both with war and with wisdom; and also how eager the sacred orders were about both teaching and learning, and about all the services that they ought to do for God; and how men from abroad came to this land in search of wisdom and teaching, and how we now must get them from abroad if we shall have them. So completely had wisdom fallen off in England that there were very few on this side of the Humber estuary who could understand their rituals in English, or indeed could translate a letter from Latin into English; and I believe that there were not many beyond the Humber. There were so few of them that I indeed cannot think of a single one south of the Thames when I became king.

Thanks be to God almighty that we now have any supply of teachers. Therefore I command you to do as I believe you are willing to do, that you free yourself from worldly affairs as often as you can, so that wherever you can establish that wisdom that God gave you, you establish it. Consider what punishments befell us in this world when we neither loved wisdom at all ourselves, nor transmitted it to other men; we had the name alone that we were Christians, and very few had the practices.

Then when I remembered all this, then I also remembered how I saw, before it had all been ravaged and burnt, how the churches throughout all England stood filled with treasures and books, and there were also a great many of God’s servants. And they had very little benefit from those books, for they could not understand anything in them, because they were not written in their own language. As if they had said: ‘Our ancestors, who formerly held these places, loved wisdom, and through it they obtained wealth and left it to us. Here we can still see their footprints, but we cannot track after them.’ And therefore we have now lost both the wealth and the wisdom, because we would not bend down to their tracks with our minds.

Then when I remembered all this, then I wondered extremely that the good and wise men who were formerly throughout England, who had completely learned all those books, would not have translated any of them into their own language. But I immediately answered myself and said: ‘They did not think that men ever would become so careless and learning so decayed: they deliberately refrained,for they would have it that the more languages we knew, the greater wisdom would be in this land.’

Then I remembered how the law was first composed in the Hebrew language, and afterward, when the Greeks learned it, they translated it all into their own language, and also all other books. And afterward the Romans in the same way, when they had learned them, translated them all through wise interpreters into their own language. And also all other Christian peoples translated some part of them into their own language. Therefore it seems better to me, if it seems so to you, that we also translate certain books, which are most needful for all men to know, into that language that we all can understand, and accomplish this, as with God’s help we may very easily do if we have peace, so that all the youth of free men now in England who have the means to apply themselves to it, be set to learning, while they are not useful for any other occupation, until they know how to read English writing well. One may then instruct in Latin those whom one wishes to teach further and promote to a higher rank.

Then when I remembered how knowledge of Latin had formerly decayed throughout England, and yet many knew how to read English writing, then I began among the other various and manifold cares of this kingdom to translate into English the book that is called in Latin Pastoralis, and in English “Shepherd-book,” sometimes word for word, and sometimes sense for sense, just as I had learned it from Plegmund my archbishop and from Asser my bishop and from Grimbold my masspriest and from John my masspriest. When I had learned it I translated it into English, just as I had understood it, and as I could most meaningfully render it. And I will send one to each bishopric in my kingdom, and in each will be an æstel worth fifty mancuses. And I command in God’s name that no man may take the æstel from the book nor the book from the church. It is unknown how long there may be such learned bishops as, thanks to God, are nearly everywhere. Therefore I would have them always remain in place, unless the bishop wishes to have the book with him, or it is loaned out somewhere, or someone is copying it.

It was only a few years after this letter was written, that a new religion was born in Arabia known as Islam and began to spread to Europe and other parts of the world. Let us pray to God that with the threat of this monotheistic religion now raising its head again, but in a more fanatic and radical form, that our country will realize how vulnerable it has become because the works that once stood as the foundation of this country are now no longer read, studied or even considered necessary. God help us!

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT!

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

TELL IT LIKE IT IS

It seems that each generation closes the door behind them to shut out the noise and interference coming from their parents and grandparents about how their way of doing things and their way of dealing with situations proves more superior than the way it’s being done now by their children and grandchildren. While this does not represent the reinvention of the wheel, it does lend itself to a lack of understanding and insight so necessary in coping with what’s happening in their world.

Nothing appears more vulnerable in the process of not learning from history, than our cultural, philosophical, social and religious heritage. As such, we tend to see current breakdowns in virtues and corruption of ethical norms as something new, rather than a recurrence of an old virus that’s been around a long time. For instance, little did I know a few years ago that my sudden case of shingles exploded around my waist due to the fact that I contracted chickenpox as a child. In other words, it lay there all the time but chose to evidence itself only after my immune system weakened due to surgery. The same holds true of the fall of man into periods of disbelief, misbelief and unbelief.

The importance of such reasoning derives from the fact that when we become aware of what our ancestors did to cope with these irregularities, it provides us clues and ideas on how to deal with them today. If we knew how it started, then we can better understand why it expresses itself the way it does at our time and place in God’s ongoing plan of redemption and salvation of mankind. Atheist, skeptics, agnostics, doubters, and naysayers represent a long line into the past, and appear to be reproducing at a healthy rate. While Churches appear as sacred structures and Bibles revered as holy scriptures by many, those for who it remains a farce, an illusion, and the opiate of the people, populate our society in abundance.

Back in the mid 1700’s, scholars dug through the treasure troves of ancient Egyptian documents and etchings that spawned further exploration during the mid 1800’s into the area of Mesopotamia that includes modern day Kuwait, Iraq and parts of Syria. European archeologists and historians deciphered ancient languages and translated the tens of thousands of texts and studies for important content to be shared with colleagues back home.

The texts themselves spoke of a time and era when men thought, perceived, and interpreted their world in ways commensurate with their understanding at the time. But this led to a confluence of conflicting ideas. The ancient writers penned their words to explain their comprehension of the world they live in based on knowledge, history, philosophy, religion and cultural norms not too far removed from the time of Noah’s flood. But the ones translating these texts where looking at them through the eyes of their 18^th and 19^th century knowledge, history, philosophy, religion and cultural norms.

As such, there developed a strange form of apologetics that skeptics today might call identify as cognitive biases. In other words, they looked for ways to debunk those things held as sacred and holy by most religions in their era, especially Judaism and Christianity, while explaining away the veracity of those ancient ideas with scientific reasoning. They did not look for the truth, they looked for ways to encourage and embellish what they saw as the truth in their minds. Not only did religious and philosophical prejudices get woven into the mix, but the added color of politics gave it a special sheen and gloss.

All of this led to various camps of researchers being divided into those who defended Judaism and Christianity and their Bible, and those who sought to show that these borrowed ideas all came from the ancients who told a different story with a unique explanation on how it all happened. So in 1902, under the auspices of the German Oriental Society, a series of scheduled lectures brought together a stream of intellectuals and Bible apologists. Even Kaiser Wilhelm II decided to attend. They planned it to be an historical event designed to lay to rest the argument forever as to where the writings of Moses came from and how they got into the Bible.

While serving as a faculty member at the European Bible Seminary in Wienacht, Switzerland in the 1960’s, I came to appreciate the works and commentaries of Franz Delitzsch, a well-known conservative Lutheran theologian and expert in the Hebrew Language. I used his books for research in my class notes, especially the ten volume commentary he and C. F. Keil wrote on the Old Testament, as well as his commentary on the Psalms.

His son, Friedrich Delitzsch, came cut from the same cloth as his father, but not in the identical pattern or style. He proved to be a product of his day, where instead of intellectuals researching and studying ancient texts in order to validate and corroborate the faith of their fathers, they did the opposite. They drove themselves to find errors and raise questions as to the authenticity of the ancient Jewish and Christian manuscripts.

Friedrich Delitzsch became a noted Assyriologist and lecturer of comparative studies on the relationship between the cuneiform and writings in Syria and Babylon and those writings that purport to be original with Hebrew authors in the Bible. Delitzsch designed on of his lectures entitled “Babel und Bibel,” to focused attention on the impact that Assyriology brought to the formation of Old Testament writings. But one of Delitzsch’s most controversial claims, however, remained that the literature of the Bible depended on, and even borrowed from, the literature of the dominant culture represented in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. He contended that the evidence unearthed in Mesopotamian showed not just parallels to Old Testament customs and ideas, but genuine evidence showing that they in fact existed as the original source of such customs and ideas.

This led to the inevitable conclusion that the inception of the Old Testament text came from human sources, not divine. In other words, that the Jewish and Christian faiths owed their existence to pagan mythology. Young Delitzsch authored two more lectures expounding on this thesis over the next two years. The second one proved even more objectionable than the first. In it Delitzsch questioned the validity of using traditional theological terminology to describe the Bible as a “divine revelation” or authored by “divine inspiration,” in light what had been discovered in these ancient texts.

When this all began, many Assyriologists and researchers identified themselves as people of faith. This resulted in young Delitzsch being vehemently criticized in their written critiques of his lectures. As time when on, however, Assyriology became increasingly influenced by secular ideas, and its scholars began to lose their concerned about the authenticity of the Bible, and instead embraced the secular tenets of critical scholarship. As such, Friedrich Delitzsch’s lectures and writings became accepted as the dividing line that separated the sacred from the secular in comparative studies.

Instead of each side trying to find ways to harmonize their findings, these disagreements only drove them further and further apart. Unfortunately, instead of taking the scientific approach and debating only their differences of opinion, they began to make personal attacks on one another. Those who embraced deeply held Jewish and Christian beliefs in the validity of their faith and the inerrancy of the scriptures, saw these textual discovers as proof of man’s continuing search for meaning and understanding God, which prompted the necessity of Moses’ revelation on Mt. Sinai and the coming of Christ as the final word. On the other hand, those who held secular views argued that the texts contained in the Bible proved mere adaptations of the mythology contained in these earlier manuscripts, and therefore offered nothing new or unique to enhance the dialogue.

Therefore, secular scholars began to label their opponents as naïve traditionalist, while those who held fast to their faith described their adversaries as godless heretics. Not exactly the atmosphere that leads to greater understanding of each other’s points of view. But what established an even more perplexing dilemma, involved the seemingly overwhelming evidence from these ancient Syrian and Babylonian manuscripts that left the traditional scholars scratching their heads for lack of any conclusive explanation on these documented similarities. On the other hand, the secularists found themselves on the defensive when their efforts to uncover the hidden truth about the origin of religious truths as they saw it, received shouts of disdain and ridicule.

When Delitzsch contended that the Jewish Old Testament did not qualify as a valid book to be accepted as part of Christian theology, and ought therefore be excluded and denied having any place in Christian faith, the religious scholars dug in deeper and refused compromise as the arguments drove them further and further apart. As a result, over time Delitzsch’s impact on the religious community began to wane when evidence appeared that showed him to be ardently anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. Instead of being motivated by scientific objectivity, his biases and prejudices fully exposed his gross naiveté in his understanding of Old Testament and New Testament material, and in particular, the person and ministry of Jesus Christ.

This concept of the Old Testament being replete with revised stories taken from ancient myths, and the New Testament made up of wives tales and anecdotes still exists today. Bill O’Reilly in his book entitled “Killing Jesus” makes it clear that most of the Bible contains folk lore borrowed from ancient religions. But as one discovery after another came to light since the 1920’s, the initial excitement by scholars who heralded their arrival as being epic in proportion to our understanding the real story of the Bible, careful study and a contextual approach proved that many of the claims made upon initial exposure of these texts as being exaggerated.

Thus as believers today, two primary points of view stand to be reasoned with. We can either see these ancient manuscripts and parallel accounts of things like the creation of the universe, of earth, of man, of society, Noah’s flood, the commandments, beliefs in God and Angels, heaven and hell as the evolution of religious thought with each succeeding generation building on those ideas of the past, or that what the Bible represents as ultimate truth appears silhouetted against the backdrop of man’s own efforts to explain what God Himself eventually revealed in His Word and through His Son.

Some scholars say there remain two choices. Either we ascribe to what they call parallelomania: the phenomenon where apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies can be perceived and accepted without historical basis, or parallelophobia, which corresponds to an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another point of view. The writer of Hebrews, in Chapters 8 & 9, gives us the best example of interpretation on this subject. Said the writer, “The work that these priests do is really only a copy and a shadow of what is in heaven. That is why God warned Moses when he was ready to build the Holy Tent: “Be sure to make everything exactly like the pattern I showed you on the mountain” (Heb. 8:5).

To take that one step further, all the laws and codes written after Noah’s flood, as seen in the Law Codes of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, for example, simply foreshadowed what God planned to reveal more fully to Moses in the Ten Commandments and Levitical Laws. These in turn prefigured what the Word who was God, and was with God, coming in human flesh to give God’s final say on the subject. As the writer of Hebrews goes on to say in 8:6, “But the work that has been given to Jesus is much greater than the work that was given to those priests. In the same way, the new agreement that Jesus brought from God to His people is much greater than the old one. And the new agreement is based on better promises.”

Such a concept does not harmonize well with secular-humanist logic, and those who try constantly find themselves running into a wall of disbelief in accepting such a construct as being true without passing the test of scientific evidence. Humanist find it hard to accept the fact that there exists a vast difference between the secular worldview and the sacred view of the other world. This gap cannot be bridged by intellect alone, just ask Nicodemus. Faith and belief persist as the only two elements that transcend the world below into the world above. And the only way to come into possession of this ability of a faith that serves as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, relies on being born anew. Not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.