Origins of The Ishmaelites and The Israelites

 

The tribe of Judah was a subset of the kingdom of Judah, but there were other Hebrew tribes which belonged to the kingdom of Judah which also made them Jewish, such as the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, for example. The English term Jew originates from the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi, meaning "from the Kingdom of Judah." For a Jew was originally a person from the kingdom of Judah, not the tribe of Judah. What makes things a little confusing is that the kingdom of Judah was named after the tribe of Judah, which was the royal tribe of the kingdom. For the term "Jew" didn’t start out as a descendant identifier, but rather as a national identifier. The word Jew would later go on to include an even broader spectrum which included all the twelve tribes of Israel, but it was never used to identify a single tribe. The attempt of this work will be an effort to clear up the misunderstandings of who is a Jew, and this presentation will also strive to identify the origins of the Ishmaelites, a people group who share the patriarch Abraham as a common ancestor along with the Jews.

Now when it comes to the account of the Ishmaelites, as found in the pages of the book of Genesis, it is clearly understood that Ishmael and his descendants were of both Semitic and Hamitic bloodlines. For example, Ishmael's father Abraham was a Hebrew from the lineage of Shem, and Ishmael's mother was an Egyptian from the lineage of Ham. Going further, we also see that Hagar, Ishmael's Egyptian mother, took for him a wife out of the land of Egypt (Genesis 21:21). So even though Ishmael possessed Hebraic roots through the lineage of his Hebrew father Abraham, Ishmael's descendants would also share strong racial ties to the Egyptians due to the matriarchal elements of both his Egyptian mother and his Egyptian wife. Therefore, the ethnic origins of the ancient Ishmaelites lean more in the direction of the Hamitic races, rather than dominantly stemming from the ancient Semitic people groups. Yet even though the Ishmaelites are of Hamitic stock through their matriarchal DNA, their tribal heritage is firstly Hebraic due to Ishmael's descendant from Abraham who was a Hebrew. For when two people of different ethnicities have children, their offspring are associated with the father's race, due to the dominance of the patriarchal DNA. So even though the Ishmaelites retained much Hamitic blood, they are also classified as Semitic due to their lineage and descent from Abraham.

Concerning Abraham and his people, we see that the geographical area of ancient Mesopotamia was the homeland of the various Semitic tribes which Abraham was a part of. More specifically, Abraham and his entire family originally lived in the Sumerian city state of Ur of the Chaldees, before Abraham was called by Yahweh to leave the land of his birth and go to a land that the Lord would show him (Genesis 12:1). Also in Genesis 14:13 Abraham is called a Hebrew, for it is understood that the title of Hebrew originated with Eber, a distant ancestor of Abraham. Now, the Hebrew word Eber is connected with crossing over. Considering that other names for the descendants of Shem also stand for places, Eber can also be considered the name of an area, perhaps near Assyria. The prevailing view of scholars is that the Hebrews had received their name from Eber, while also pointing out that the name "Hebrew" meant "those who cross", in reference to those who crossed the Euphrates river with Abraham from Ur to Harran, and then to the land of Canaan.

When examining the name "Canaan", we see that it appears all throughout the Old Testament, especially in Genesis where it corresponds to "the Levant", in particularly the areas of the Southern Levant which provides the main setting for the stories found within the Bible. Though the term Canaan referred to a physical location, Canaan was also the name of one of the sons of Ham. For shortly after the Great Flood, the Bible tells us that Noah cursed Canaan the son of Ham, due to Ham uncovering his father's nakedness (Genesis 9:20-27). Now the descendants of Ham are believed to have populated the continent of Africa, and due to the fact that Noah cursed Canaan the son of Ham and prophesied that he would be a servant of servants to his brethren, this has led many to conclude that the plight of the African slave trade can be traced back to the curse placed upon Canaan by his grandfather Noah. However, it is traditionally held that the land of Canaan was not originally populated by Hamites but by Semitic peoples, namely the Phoenicians, within the territory we know today as the country of Lebanon and parts of the modern state of Israel. Additionally, in the Book of Joshua, Canaanites were included in the list of nations that God commanded the Israelites to exterminate. So whether Canaan was African or Lebanese, the fact remains that Canaan was cursed. Yet since the name associated with a generational curse is the same name used to denote a blessed piece of real-estate, described in the Bible as a land flowing with milk and honey, a further study into this anomaly is indeed required, but is beyond the scope of this present work to be expanded upon.

Returning to the origins of the Israelites, the Bible tells us that the second born son of Abraham, and the firstborn to his wife Sarah, was named Isaac who is also known as the child of promise. For it would be through Isaac's bloodline that the promised Messiah would eventually be birthed from, but not through the descendants of Ishmael, Isaac's half-brother. Isaac would go on to father Esau and Jacob. Though Esau was the eldest, the blessing of Isaac was given to Jacob instead through trickery. Esau, in turn, went on to marry the daughter of Ishmael, and his descendants would be known as the Edomites. Jacob, who would later be known by the name "Israel" a name that means to strive or to struggle with God, would father twelve sons which later developed into tribes. And this ancient Biblical family or people group are known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Due to certain circumstances, the initial family of Israel, numbering about seventy souls altogether, found themselves in the land of Egypt and settled there for a period of about 400 years. During their 400-year sojourn in the land of Egypt, the Israelites increased in number and were collectively known as the Hebrews.

After their Exodus from Egypt and their wanderings in the wilderness, the children of Israel established themselves in the promised land around the year 1400 BC or possibly even 1200 BC. At any rate, the Hebrews eventually formed themselves into the united kingdom of Israel around 1000 BC. In approximately 922 BC, the kingdom of Israel split into a northern kingdom, called Israel, and a southern kingdom, called Judah. Although all the twelve tribes were included in the Israelite ethnicity, inhabitants of the northern kingdom were Israelites also by virtue of being from the kingdom of Israel, while inhabitants of the southern kingdom were known as Judeans or Jews by virtue of being from the kingdom of Judah. However, with the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 BC, the only Israelites remaining were the Judeans, and thus the terms Israelite and Jew become somewhat interchangeable. The southern kingdom, consisting of two of the twelve tribes (specifically Benjamin and Judah) became known as Judah, and managed to survive until the year 586 BC, when the Babylonians conquered it. Jerusalem fell, the Temple was destroyed, and a large number of Judeans or Jews were deported into Babylon. Thus began the era of Jewish history known as the Babylonian Captivity.

Under Persian rule at the end of the sixth century BC, the Jews were released from their bondage in Babylon. Upon returning to their homeland, the areas around Jerusalem were now named Yehud and the term Yehudi (often translated “Jew” but more properly “Ju-dean”) referred to an inhabitant of Yehud or Judea. Also, it would be some centuries before the term Yehudi was understood to designate an adherent of the tradition of Judaism making one a Jew, rather than an inhabitant of the province of Judea making one a Judean. Concerning the term Hebrew, it is the name employed in some Biblical sources to designate the most ancient ancestors of the Israelite people. It is primarily an ethnic and linguistic term, denoting persons who spoke Hebrew. Now, what happened to the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel after 722 BC, is a bit of a mystery. For it seems that they have been lost to history. But the tribal heritage of the members of the southern kingdom of Judah were preserved. For the inhabitants of Judea were made up of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, along with elements from the priestly tribe of Levi. And these tribes of Judea would now collectively be known simply as Jews.

In conclusion, it can be understood by combing through the entire Bible that a Jew is not just someone belonging to the tribe of Judah, but is a term that can also be applied to designate all those who make up the various tribes of the children of Israel. For in the Old Testament book of Esther 2:5; we see that someone from the tribe of Benjamin was referred to as a Jew. Also in the New Testament the Apostle Paul calls himself a Jew in Acts 21:39, where elsewhere Paul describes himself as "...of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew..." (Philippians 3:5). So from what has been presented in this work the terms Hebrew, Jew, and Israelite may have had different meanings at different times, spanning all throughout the history of the Hebrews, yet all three are appropriate in their various designations. For the names Hebrew and Jew, are both valid in their descriptions, which include all the twelve tribes of Israel.

References:

Hayes, C. Introduction to the Bible: The Open Yale Courses Series. (Yale University Press, 2012).

Strong, J. The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2010).

Zondervan. The Holy Bible, King James Version. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009).

The Ancient Persian Empire & The Modern State of Israel

 

In modern times, while gazing across the geopolitical landscape of the region known today as the Middle East, do we witness a great tension held between the modern state of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Though these two countries are bitter enemies today, history informs us that at one time Iranians and Jews shared a peaceful and benevolent relationship towards one another. For example, in 539 BC when the Persians conquered the kingdom of Babylon, king Cyrus of Persia not only freed the Jewish captives but also encouraged the liberated Jews to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, which had been previously destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. For it is written in the Bible of how the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia and charged the ancient Iranian king to build Him a house in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1-2). However, this symbiotic friendship which ancient Iran and ancient Israel once maintained in Antiquity, has now unfortunately spiraled downwards into a heated rivalry in the modern era. This work will attempt to go back in time to when these two nations were at peace, and then hopefully discover how the two countries now find themselves at the brink of war.

As previously touched upon, the modern nation of Iran is in fact the surviving remnant of the once great and expansive Persian Empire. Though the country of Iran is currently made up of differing nationalities the majority of Iranians are ethnically Persians, and are not to be confused with Arabs. Though there were several dynasties of the Persian Empire throughout the centuries past, the first and greatest of the Persian Empires was the Achaemenid Empire. Originally founded in 550 BC by Cyrus the Great, the Persian Achaemenid Empire would become the largest empire the world had ever seen up until that time. It would even surpass the vastness of the territories by which the future Roman Empire would go on to conquer. Now by continuing the trend of the ancient camaraderie which existed among Iranians and Jews, do we come to a passage in the Bible that elevates the Persian king Cyrus to such a high degree by which no other person in the entire Old Testament, Israelite or pagan alike, have ever been exalted to or titled. And this most lofty of Biblical titles which has been granted unto Cyrus is none other than “Messiah”.

Now it is of no wonder that the Bible refers to Cyrus as “Mashiyach” or “Anointed”, for Cyrus was a just and benevolent ruler who was even respected by his enemies and rivals. In addition to his humanitarianism of freeing the Jews, Cyrus went on to make a charter on human rights. For discovered in 1879, and dating to the 6^th century BC, an ancient clay cylinder written in the Akkadian cuneiform script relates how Cyrus declared that all people residing in his empire must live in peace. And this ancient clay charter on human rights is known as the Cyrus Cylinder. Compared to the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, and even by some to the Law of Moses, Cyrus' Cylinder stands as a testament of what made this man great. Cyrus nobly died in battle in 530 BC and was buried in a modest yet elegant tomb which still stands to this very day, even after 2,500 years.

In addition to the Persian king Cyrus the Great being mentioned in the Bible, the names of other Persian kings are also found in the pages of the Old Testament. For example, the Persian king Xerxes is know as Ahasurerus in the book of Esther. However, it is at this time when the relationship between the Persians and the Jews begins to go south. Ultimately the Jewish queen Esther would save her people from genocide by winning the favor of her Persian husband king Ahasurerus, also known as Xerxes. The Persian king Darius the Great is also favorably written of in the book of Ezra, where it is recorded how Darius helped in the efforts of repatriating the Jews, and was also highly instrumental in the task of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem.

It would seem that in the couple centuries following the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple, relations between the Jews and the Persians were generally positive. But in the 4^th century BC, Persia would not have little Israel or Judah to worry about. For the forces of Greece were now concentrated on challenging the Persians. For in 331 BC Alexander the Great defeated the Persian army of Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela. After this Alexander marched into Persia's capitol city of Persepolis, looted its treasures, and then burned the palace and the city to the ground. Thus in the year 330 BC did Alexander the Great's Greek Macedonian Empire conquer the Persian Achaemenid Empire.

Now concerning the Jewish migration from Persia back to Judea, it is known that some Jews remained in Persia and established their own communities which have continued to exist within the borders of Iran ever since the days of king Cyrus. For during the height of the Persian Empire, Jews made up about 20% of the empire's population. However, in more recent times there has been a significant decline of a Jewish presence in Iran. During the early 20^th century in the era of the Shah (1925 – 1979), the Pahlavi dynasty instituted modern reforms that the Jews in Iran greatly benefited from. Jews were allowed to be employed in the government, Hebrew was permitted to be taught in Jewish schools, and even Jewish newspapers were given the right to be printed. But once the state of Israel was created in 1948, anti-Jewish attitudes in Iran began to fester. For a new Jewish movement perceived as a threat to Iran had now emerged: Zionism. However, during the Iranian revolution in 1979 many Iranian Jews joined the revolution in the hopes of losing their Jewish identity and become a part of the Utopian dream promised by the architects of the revolution. After the revolution tens of thousands of Iranian Jews immigrated to Israel, while others chose to settle in America and Western Europe. When Ayatollah Khomeini became the leader of Iran, he was clear in his statements that he knew how to differentiate between Zionism and Judaism and that he also believed that not all Jews are Zionists.

Today the modern states of Iran and Israel are at war by proxy, with both sides working hard to outdo the other militarily, while at the same time both are trying to avoid a hot war. As one Iranian intellectual has stated, “war is hell!” Now Israel is a small country and it would be a huge challenge to fight a ground war against Iran, especially since neighboring Lebanon has proven a worthy opponent, as was demonstrated in Hezbollah's victory over Israel in the summer of 2006. Iran supports Hezbollah and supplies them with weapons, which has made Lebanon a deterrence factor against Israeli expansion in the region. Surrounded by enemies domestically, Israel has always had the international backing of the United States of America along with other countries such as Great Britain and Japan. But the government of America stands out among all other world powers in its defense of Israel, both in economic aid and militarily spending. In the world of religion, American Protestant Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals preach pro-Israeli sermons from the pulpit and make sure to support and vote for politicians who are allies of Israel, and then go on to demonize the whole of Iranians as radical religious extremists hell bent on wiping the state of Israel from off the face of the earth.

The fact of the matter is that both the Iranians and the Israelis are highly intelligent people who share an amazing ancient legacy, unmatched in the history of all mankind. It would be a shame to see either one of these nations bombed back to the rubble of Antiquity, leaving nothing for the history books but a smoldering crater. Both cultures are too rich to be destroyed for they have so much to give, not only to their own people, but to the rest of the world. Even if tensions between the governments of Israel and Iran don't settle down, at least the innocent people of both nations will have the relative freedom to live their lives and enjoy the uniqueness of what each of their countries have to offer and be proud of the achievements of their ancestors. Maybe by looking to the past can we all find the answers to the problems we face today, and God willing together we can all build a better future for our descendants.

Bob Marley's Baptism Into The Ethiopian Orthodox Church

In today's world Bob Marley is a household name. For even more than 40 years after his death, the Tuff Gong's legend continues to live on. Due to Bob's universal popularity the message of “One Love” as well as the mystical tenets of the Rastafarian movement have managed to successfully circumnavigate the globe several times over. However, what is not so commonly known about Bob is how he was baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church shortly before his untimely departure from our physical plain of existence on May 11, 1981. For it would be on November 4, 1980 that Robert Nesta Marley was officially baptized as an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian taking the name Berhane Selassie, meaning, “Light of the Trinity.” The attempt of this presentation will be to showcase the events surrounding Bob Marely's baptism into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, as taken from sources which have not been so widely publicized, while at the same time functioning as a concise overview of the story of Bob Marley drawn from accounts which are indeed more generally well known.

Before converting to the Ethiopian branch of Orthodox Christianity, Bob was a Rastafarian. However, even before making the conscious decision to embrace the faith of Rastafari as a young man, Bob was raised as a Catholic from early childhood. For Bob's mother, Cedella Booker, was a Christian and had him baptized into the Catholic Church when he was an infant. It could also be argued that the form of Catholicism Bob Marley was brought up in was a part of the greater Afro-Christian tradition. Now the term “Afro-Christian tradition” encompasses the bulk of Christian teachings incorporated with traditional elements of African spirituality, cultural practices, and philosophies which the indigenous peoples of Africa retained and brought with them across the Atlantic, even after their acceptance of Jesus Christ. Thus the New World would give rise to a unique form of Christian worship, theology, and religious expression. One which reflected the experiences and struggles of people of African descent living in the Western Hemisphere. Eventually, the relatively small Caribbean island of Jamaica would become the world's largest concentration of the adherents to the Afro-spiritual movement of Rastafari, with Bob Marley serving as its primary ambassador and prophet.

The Rastafarian movement originated in Jamaica during the 1930s as a spiritual and social uprising among the descendants of the African slaves, who were first brought to the island by white colonialists within just a couple decades following the “discovery” the New World by Christopher Columbus in 1492. These individuals sought to establish their own identity and achieve empowerment and liberation from oppression. The roots of the Rastafarian movement can be traced back to the Nile Valley in Africa, specifically the territories of Egypt in the north and Ethiopia in the south. Rastafarian beliefs encompass a variety of religious elements primarily derived from the Christian faith, with an emphasis on reading from the Old Testament. Additionally, Rastafarian spirituality draws some of its inspiration from the ancient Egyptian mysteries. Rastafarians also assert that Jesus Christ has returned in the form of His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, the last king of Ethiopia. The speeches of Marcus Garvey, a Jamaican-born Pan-Africanist leader, played a significant role in fueling the Rastafarian movement. Garvey's prophecy, "Look to the east for the crowning of a black king," prompted many Black Jamaicans to associate this phrase with the coronation of the Ethiopian monarch Ras Tafari to the throne of the East African kingdom of Ethiopia in 1930. Upon his enthronement, Ras Tafari adopted the name Haile Selassie, which means "Power of the Trinity," along with titles such as "King of Kings," "Lord of Lords," and "Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah." Due to these titles, which are found written in the Bible, this convinced the Rastas in Jamaica that Haile Selassie really was the second coming, or second incarnation of Jesus Christ.

When Haile Selassie I ascended to the imperial throne of the Orthodox Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia on November 2, 1930, he strengthened the legitimacy of his royal lineage by asserting that he was the 225th descendant of the union between the Israelite King Solomon and the Ethiopian Queen of Sheba. This claim perpetuated Ethiopia's ancient and renowned Solomonic Dynasty. For according to the Bible, the Queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, and traveled to Jerusalem to meet him and to challenge Solomon with hard questions in order to test his wisdom (I Kings 10:1). Solomon successfully answered all her inquiries, leaving the Queen astonished by his wisdom. In addition to being dumbstruck by Solomon's keen intelect, the Queen of Sheba was also deeply impressed by the opulence and richness of Solomon's kingdom. The Bible further relates how Solomon gave the Queen all of her desires from out of his abundant royal bounty. However, legend suggests that Solomon bestowed something else upon the Queen before her departure back to Ethiopia. The Ethiopian holy book, and national epic, the Kebra Nagast, narrates a story of how Solomon seduced the Queen and fathered a child with her. This child, named Menelik I, who was born as a result of Solomon and Sheba's royal love affair would grow up to become the first king in a lineage of Solomonic rulers, spanning across the rich dynastic history of Ethiopia. The seeds of Israelite royalty were planted in Ethiopia, and along with it, the religion of the One True God of Israel also took root. This establishment of the Jewish faith in Ethiopia has created a lasting Jewish presence that stretches back to ancient times and continues to the present day. Even prior to Christianity becoming the official religion of Ethiopia, Judaism was widely practiced in the region. There are even rumors suggesting that the Biblical and legendary Ark of the Covenant finds its resting place in Ethiopia's holy city of Axum.

Now, after the first several years following the birth of the Rastafarian movement, this new Black liberating faith started gaining in popularity. An increasing number of the poor and oppressed masses of Jamaica accepted this inspiring message in the hopes of empowerment. The Rastafarians believed that their ancestors' enslavement and exile in the West Indies, away from their African homeland, paralleled the story of the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews as written in the Bible. According to the Rastas, their life in the West was akin to being trapped in hell, while Africa, primarily Ethiopia, represented heaven on earth. The idea of Ethiopia as a true promised land for Blacks in the diaspora was further reinforced by an act of kindness from Selassie. For in 1948, His Majesty granted 500 acres of land in an area of Ethiopia called Shashamane to be set aside for the repatriation of people of African descent, primarily from the Caribbean. This benevolent gesture made by Selassie was interpreted by the Rastafarians as confirmation that Ethiopia was indeed their spiritual homeland. With Rastas looking to Ethiopia as the Biblical Mount Zion and coupled with the generosity of His Imperial Majesty's land grant, these profound elements would ultimately result in the establishment of a Rastafarian community in Ethiopia: the land of their fathers.

Over the years, as the Rastafarian movement continued to grow, news of Selassie being the Black Messiah reached the ears of Selassie himself, which led to His Majesty's decision to visit Jamaica on April 21, 1966. When he arrived, he addressed the Rastafarian community and told them that he was not God. This, however, only led the Rastas to reason among themselves and conclude that God must be so humble that He doesn't know He is God! At the time of Selassie's visit to Jamaica, Bob Marley was in America visiting his mother who had immigrated to Wilmington, Delaware. Bob left behind in Jamaica his wife Rita, whom he had just recently married in February 1966. Rita was a Christian herself and initially didn't believe that Selassie was the Christ. However, she claimed that if she could see the nail print in Selassie's hand, she would believe, as the Bible states that when Christ returns, He will return in the flesh. It was during the procession of the motorcade with Selassie passing by when his Majesty waved in Rita's direction and gave a nod. At that moment, she perceived to see the nail print of the crucifixion in Selassie's hand and was instantly converted, embracing Rastafari: the belief that Haile Selassie I was indeed the return of Jesus Christ as prophesied in the Bible.

As a result of the spiritual and religious movement in Jamaica, where the inhabitants held a strong attachment to Ethiopian traditions, Emperor Selassie believed that his own faith and that of his nation should be introduced to the people of Jamaica, who were seeking a more spiritually fulfilling way of life. Being a devout Christian himself and a staunch supporter of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Selassie dispatched the Ethiopian cleric, Archbishop Yesehaq, to Jamaica with the purpose of educating the Rastafarians on Church doctrine, with the hope that they would choose to be baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Through Archbishop Yesehaq's efforts, over 20,000 Jamaicans were eventually baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. However, disagreements arose later on regarding the Church's doctrine, including Selassie's divinity, and the use of ganja. Unfortunately, these disagreements led many baptized Rastafarians to leave the Church. On the other hand, Bob Marley fully embraced the teachings of the Church and genuinely repented for his extramarital affairs. According to Archbishop Yesehaq, Bob Marley had great respect for the Ethiopian clergy and opted to be baptized in a private ceremony with only his immediate family in attendance. Thus, on November 4, 1980, Nesta Robert Marley was officially baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, taking the name Berhane Selassie, which means "Light of the Trinity." Abuna Yesehaq also commented that Bob cried for about 30 minutes after his baptism, a sign of holiness and the visitation of divine grace.

Bob Marley was truly a natural mystic. Since childhood, Berhane (Bob Marley) was a devout believer, displaying a disciplined spirit, a wise mind, and demonstrated genuine brotherly love towards people of all nationalities and skin colors. He spread the message of "One Love" to a global audience, putting Jamaica on the map. Even now, more than four decades after his passing, Bob's legacy and legend continues to live on. Despite humble beginnings, he rose to fame and fortune without allowing success or stardom to affect his humility. As a Rastaman, Bob practiced what he preached, and I believe that he did indeed achieve his soul's salvation. For in Orthodox Christianity, we believe in the intercession of the saints, and Berhane Selassie may be counted among those blessed souls in heaven who have overcome this fallen world and now pray for us sinners here on earth, as we go about the struggle after our own emancipation from metal slavery. Bob was not just a troubadour of the ghetto; he was also a conqueror of demons. The positive and uplifting vibes in his music originated from a heart filled with the love of JAH and a deep desire to see all of mankind united in harmony and in goodwill. Even though Bob may no longer be with us here in our physical plain of existence, yet the presence of his spirit is still profoundly felt by all those who have responded to his spiritually uplifting message. Who knows, maybe Bob is now listening to each one of us here in this present time as we triumphantly walk through the roads of creation while singing our own redemption songs.

References:

Archbishop Yesehaq. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church. (Nashville, Tennessee: James C. Winston Publishing Company, Inc., 1997).

Barrett, L.E. The Rastafarians. (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1997).

Boot, A. Bob Marley: Songs of Freedom. (New York, NY: Viking Studio Books, 1995).

White, T. Catch a Fire: The Life of Bob Marley. (New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC., 1983).

A History of The Bible & The Other Lost Books

 

In the Gospel according to St. John 7:38, Jesus is recorded as saying, “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” However, this particular verse of scripture quoted by Christ is nowhere to be found written within the entire library of books which make up the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Old Testament. Now as faithful Christians know, the Lord cannot be wrong. So, the scripture that Christ quoted from in John's Gospel must have been a reference taken from a certain lost book of the Bible. Additionally, the tradition of the Orthodox Church informs us that there is also a lost book of the New Testament. For in Colossians 4:16, St. Paul makes mention of the church of the Laodiceans and gives instructions so that the epistle from Laodicea should be read in the church along with the epistle to the Colossians. Now as all students of the New Testament know, there is no epistle to the Laodiceans listed among the 27 books that comprise the corpus of the New Testament. But the fact that the epistle of Laodicea is referenced to in the New Testament, reveals that there was at least one book that didn't make it into the canon of the New Testament, just as Christ referenced a book that didn't make it into the canon of the Old Testament. It is also of great importance to realize how some Christian sects, such as the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, have more books in their Bibles (specifically within the Old Testament) than what we find in the accepted canon of the 66 books which make up the Protestant version of the Bible that has come down to us in modern times. And these specific books of the Old Testament, held sacred by the Orthodox, were eventually excluded by the Protestants who came to believe that certain books of the Old Testament were not divinely inspired and thus labeled as Apocrypha, (a word of Greek origin meaning: “hidden”). The intention of this Biblical exegesis will be to provide the truth seeker with a heightened awareness concerning the collection of books (known as the Apocrypha) which were taken out of the Holy Bible, and to discuss in thorough detail all the various versions of the Bible that have come down to us over time, and how we arrived at the accepted canon of the scriptures that we read today.

The various books which make up the Apocrypha were removed from the Bible, primarily as a result of the Protestant Reformation which occurred in the early 16^th century AD. Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, was the first to separate the Apocrypha into an inter-testamental section of the holy scriptures with his translation of the Bible into German, which was first published in 1534. The Protestant reformers, including Luther, questioned the authority of the Apocrypha and held that these books were not written under divine inspiration. Now the Authorized King James Version of the Bible published in 1611 AD did originally include the Apocrypha in its canon, but in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. However, by the 19^th century the British Foreign Bible Society, as well as other organizations, began excluding the Apocrypha from their standard printings of the King James Version. The motivating factors behind this omission may have been due to production costs and also because the books of the Apocrypha were not part of the Hebrew Bible. Even though the Apocrypha was included in the Greek Septuagint, the fact that most of the Apocrypha was not originally written in Hebrew also drove the reformers to question the authority of these books. For according to Jewish opinion the books of the Apocrypha (originally written in Greek) did not meet the requirements needed for their use in Jewish religious life and worship. Though the ancient Jewish communities of the latter Second Temple period read from the Greek Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha, these extra books of the Old Testament along with the Septuagint as a whole have been rejected by mainstream Rabbinic Judaism, beginning from late Antiquity and extending all the way up into the modern era.

Now to provide some historical background concerning the Greek Septuagint, we must first focus our attention upon Alexandria, Egypt during the 3^rd century BC. For it was at this place and time where we discover how Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Greek Pharaoh or ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, directed all the scholars and librarians of Alexandria to collect and translate the myriads of scrolls and books from all across the known world in the aspiration of possessing a copy of every book in the world to be included within the famed Library of Alexandria, which was originally established by Ptolemy I Soter, the successor of Alexander the Great. The Library of Alexandria was also attached to a lager complex known as the Mouseion, which was a center for higher learning and research. As an institution of scholarship and culture, the Library of Alexandria encouraged the exchange of ideas, fostered intellectual debates, and supported the research and development into all the various disciplines of the arts and sciences. It was at this time and place when Ptolemy II ordered the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, by employing seventy-two Jewish scholars to complete this noble task. Each one of the seventy-two scholars independently translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek and these translations, which all matched, were then compiled into what became known as the Septuagint, a Greek word meaning “seventy” or “of the seventy.” The Septuagint became a very important translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, which was widely read by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria as well as by other Hellenistic Jewish communities living outside the land of Judea during the first few centuries before the Christian era. It is also interesting to note that in the New Testament we find how the Apostle Paul often quotes from the Septuagint, which suggests that the majority of the early Christians must have been Greek speakers and thus were primarily familiar with the translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Greek Septuagint.

Apart from the Apocrypha, most modern day Protestant Christian sects include the accepted 39 books of the Hebrew Bible as a part of their own scriptures, which they classify as the Old Testament. However, in the Jewish Masoretic Text there are a total of only 24 books listed in this authoritative Hebrew version of the Jewish Bible, which is also known as the Tanakh in Rabbinic Judaism. The reason for the greater number of books listed in the Christian canon is because at a certain point in time Christian scribes (possibly inspired by the Septuagint) divided some of the books in the Hebrew Bible into two or more parts, such as how the book of Chronicles is divided into two parts, along with the book of the Minor Prophets being divided into 12 separate books each. The compilation of the Jewish Masoretic Text took place over the course of a few centuries, beginning in the 6^th century AD, through the efforts of a group of Jewish scribes and scholars called the Masoretes (taken from the Hebrew word masoreth, meaning “tradition”). Through generations of meticulous transmitting, copying, and assembling the Masoretic Text reached its most influential and definitive form in the 10^th century AD with the emergence of the Aleppo Codex which is considered to be one of the most accurate and complete copies of the Masoretic Text ever produced. Along with the Leningrad Codex, written in the 11^th century AD, the Aleppo Codex also serves as the primary source for modern editions and translations of the Hebrew Bible which are widely read and studied today. Now the 24 books in the Jewish Masoretic canon are divided into three sections: The Torah (Pentateuch), the Nevi'im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings). However, not only were some books of the Hebrew Bible divided in the Christian version, but the order of the books listed in the Jewish Masoretic Text also differs from the order of the books listed in the Christian Old Testament. Interestingly, the order of the books in the Old Testament also differs in the Christian world. For in the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Old Testament, the books of the prophets are in a different order from what we find in the Protestant Old Testament. And, returning our attention back to the Apocrypha, it should also be noted that there are more accepted books in the Greek Orthodox Bible than that of the Roman Catholic Bible. But trumping both the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic canons is the version of the Bible held sacred by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, whose accepted canon of scripture (including both the Old and New Testaments) comprises a grand total of 84 books, the most books held canonical out of any other Christian institution.

When it comes to the accepted canon of the 27 books which comprise the Christian scriptures, that we know today as the New Testament, the history of how this canon came to be accepted as the unadulterated Word of God must first be fully understood. Now one of the earliest known canons of the New Testament was first compiled and published around the year 140 AD by the influential, yet controversial early Christian theologian Marcion of Sinope. However, Marcion's canon contained only one Gospel, which is believed to be a highly edited version of the Gospel according to St. Luke. Additionally, Marcion only included ten Pauline epistles in his canon, of which he also made considerable alterations as compared to the original text, such as removing references made to the Old Testament which he believed to be incompatible with the teachings of Christ and therefore (in his opinion) should be rejected by all faithful Christians. Though Marcion held to a form of dualism, believing that the God of the Old Testament was harsh and vengeful compared to the God of the New Testament Who was loving and merciful, he was not completely Gnostic in his theology. However, some of the Early Church Fathers such as St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr denounced Marcion's teachings and branded him as a heretic, which ultimately led to his excommunication by the Church in Rome in the year 144 AD, shortly after he published his heretical Christian canon. One such book in Marcion's canon was the Epistle to the Laodiceans, an epistle previously mentioned as a lost book of the Christian scriptures. But this epistle of Laodicea, found in Marciaon's canon, is considered by the Orthodox Church to be a forgery written by Marcion himself in order to support his own personal point of view, and is not believed to be the original epistle and neither as being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Towards the end of the 2^nd century AD, before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, several books which make up the official canon of the New Testament scriptures were indeed accepted as the inspired Word of God by many Christian groups. However, though the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John along with some other writings were all agreed upon by the majority of Christian communities as legitimate, there was still some doubt regarding the authenticity of other Christian books in circulation that were being passed around among the various Christian communities during this period in the history of the early Church. For it wouldn't be until the year 367 AD when St. Athanasios, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote a letter (known as the “39^th Festal Letter” or the “Easter Letter of Athansios”) to the various Christian churches under his jurisdiction, where he officially listed the 27 books that are now accepted as the New Testament. Yet even though St. Athanasios' list was a huge step for the canonization of the Christian scriptures, it must be known that this canon was not initially met with universal acceptance. But with the Synod of Hippo held in Hippo Regius (modern day Annaba, Algeria) in 393 AD, was confirmation made regarding all 27 books which are recognized today as the Christian New Testament. However, this decision only reached a regional audience and failed to achieve an immediate universal acceptance throughout the early Christian world. This led to the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, where several bishops met to discuss and agree upon all the books that would encompass the definitive New Testament canon. Ultimately these Christian councils held in North Africa in the late 4^th century AD, collectively established the universal recognition and acceptance of the 27 books which now comprise the official canon of the New Testament.

Now during the late 4^th century in Rome, around the same time that the New Testament canon was being universally accepted in North Africa, did Pope Damasus I commission St. Jerome to translate the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) into a common form of Latin. And this version of the Bible, translated into the Latin vernacular, would later be known and referred to as the Latin Vulgate. Though the type of the Latin language used in this translation was originally intended to be more understandable to the general population, as opposed to other Latin versions of the Bible, it was not uniformly written in the same dialect of the Latin spoken by the common people. For the Latin of the Vulgate, referred to as “Vulgar Latin,” possessed a loftier literary style as compared to everyday spoken Latin. Now the term “Vulgar” used to describe this type of Latin does not mean crude, but rather refers to a broader form of Latin which developed over time among the various people groups who lived within the vast territories of the Roman Empire. So it was that St. Jerome began his translation around the year 382, and taking time to revise and refine his work, he finally completed it around the year 405. Jerome translated the Old Testament directly from the original Hebrew and spent a great amount of time in the Holy Land, such as in the city of Bethlehem, where he studied Hebrew and consulted with Jewish scholars in order to ensure that his translation was as accurate as possible. It should also be noted however, that Jerome did consult the Greek Septuagint when at times the Hebrew text was too difficult to accurately translate and interpret. St. Jerome also translated the Old Testament Apocrypha and included these books (along with the translation of the New Testament from the original Greek) in his final version of the Latin Bible. Thus the Latin Vulgate became the standard version of the Holy Bible which has been used by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, and has served as an important element in the historical and liturgical heritage of the Western Church.

When it comes to the books that make up the Old Testament the earliest and the oldest surviving copies that exist today have been pulled from an ancient and vast library, famously known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated to have been written from about the 2^nd century BC to the 1^st century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls were initially discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin shepherd looking for a lost goat in the Judean Desert, near the ancient Jewish settlement of Qumran. As the story goes the shepherd came upon a cave overlooking the Dead Sea and threw a rock inside and heard what sounded like pottery breaking. He then went in and discovered several clay jars with scrolls inside wrapped in animal skins. The Bedouins then sold some of the scrolls to an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem, who in turn sold them to some Jewish scholars. Word of this discovery lead to an expedition of academics and archaeologists from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who surveyed and excavated the areas around the Dead Sea beginning in 1949 up until 1956. During this time a total of 11 caves were discovered which all together contained over 800 scrolls that were written primarily in Hebrew, with a good amount written in Aramaic, and some also written in Greek. All the books of the Old Testament were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls except for the book of Esther. Along with the canonical Old Testament scrolls found, several Apocryphal books were also discovered. Now the most revealing element surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the different versions of the same books within the Old Testament scriptures that were discovered among the cache of scrolls in the Dead Sea Scroll library. For example, there were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls different versions of the Law of Moses, primarily the book of Deuteronomy. Additionally, seven differing versions of the book of Isaiah were also found which do indeed fulfill the teachings of Jesus that He uttered to a couple of His disciplines on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection. For the prophecy that Christ quotes from in the Gospel of St. Luke, stating how the Christ ought to have suffered and to enter into His glory, is not found written anywhere in our Old Testament, but it is found in at least one version of the prophecy of the book of Isaiah within the Dead Sea Scroll collection.

Continuing on the topic of the Old Testament it has been suggested that the books which make up the Hebrew Bible were first compiled (at least in a partial form) when the Jews found themselves in exile in Babylon, after the destruction of the first Temple in the 6^th century BC. The Jewish scribes compiled the religious writings they had brought with them from Judah, such as the books of the law and combined them with the books that were written during their exile, to at least partially form what we known today as the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. But it wouldn't be until after the destruction of the second Temple in 70 AD, when a fixed canon of the holy scriptures for the Jewish people would be established. For towards the end of the first century AD, did Jewish rabbis and scholars assemble at the Synod of Jamnia, also known as the Council of Yavne in Palestine, in order to decide which books in religious circulation were in fact the inspired word of God. During this council, the rabbis engaged in a debate in order to discern which books were authoritative, and they also reasoned together to better decide which books should be excluded. These decisions would go on to solidify the authenticity of the books that are currently accepted in Judaism as the unadulterated word of God, and would also go on to provide the Christian world with an additional set of scriptures to be included along with the accepted books of the New Testament canon. However, some modern day scholars hold that the Judaic canon of scriptures evolved over time and were not decided in just one council, thus making the Synod of Jamnia a concocted story and not a genuine historical event as held in scholarly opinion. For example, citing the later development of how the Jewish Masoretic Text was transcribed over the period of a few centuries strengthens this hypothesis. So, while it is commonly believed among certain rabbis that the council of Jamnia provided the definitive version of the Jewish Biblical canon, the specific details surrounding this council are still a subject of debate among scholars even up to the present day.

Returning to the history of the Church, we see that in the 3^rd century AD, a very influential Christian theologian and scholar named Origen made many significant contributions towards the development of early Christianity. However, some of his ideas were controversial and these teachings were debated by Christian scholars during his lifetime and even continued to be the subject of criticism in the centuries following his death. Yet overall Origen's impact on Christian thought is not to be underestimated. Known for his extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, Origen would go on to compile a comprehensive edition to the Old Testament scriptures, which may in fact be his best work of research. And this Biblical document put together by Origen is known as the Hexapla. Origen presented this translation with multiple versions of the Hebrew Scriptures side by side with other Greek translations which were then divided into six columns altogether, hence the name “Hexapla,” which means “sixfold.” The six Biblical versions in the Hexapla included: the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, a Greek transliteration of Hebrew into Greek, Aquila's Greek translation, Symmachus' Greek translation, The Greek Septuagint, and Theodotion's Greek translation. Origen's intention on presenting these various translations side by side was to revise the Greek Bible, and to provide scholars with a useful tool to better aid them in their study of all the variations between the different versions of the Hebrew Bible and to compare and contrast all these differences in the hopes of producing the most accurate translation of the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language. Origen also believed that even the errors and mis-translations of the Bible were still inspired, for he felt that there must have been a reason why God allowed these various “mistakes” in His sacred Word. Origen ultimately donated his Hexapla to the municipal library of Caesarea in Palestine where it was frequently referenced up until the Muslim invasions of the 7^th century AD, when the library was burned down and Origen's Hexapla was lost.

Along with the scriptures of the Old Testament (which were originally written in Hebrew) which were in turn later translated into Greek, the scriptures of the New Testament (which were originally written in Greek) would go on to be translated into many other languages once the religion of Christianity was introduced into other parts of the world. One such version of the original Greek Christian scriptures that was translated into a foreign tongue, is known as the Syriac Peshitta. The Peshitta (a word meaning “simple” or “clear”) is believed to have been translated somewhere between the 2^nd and 5^th centuries AD in the Syriac language, which is a dialect similar to that of Aramaic. The translation of the Peshitta was most likely transcribed by scholars who were fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, with the aim of providing a reliable and straightforward translation of the Bible into the Syriac language. In addition to the translation of the New Testament scriptures, the Peshitta translation also contains a translation of the books of the Old Testament into Syriac. However, when compared to other versions of the Bible, the Peshitta is quite unique. For example, the Peshitta version of the New Testament does not include the books of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Additionally, the Peshitta also excludes the story of the woman caught in adultery, as found in the 8^th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John in the original Greek text. But by looking past these omissions it should also be noted that the Syriac Peshitta has over the centuries well served the various Syriac speaking Christian communities, such as the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Chaldean Catholic Church. The Peshitta is considered as the authoritative version of the Bible for these Middle Eastern Christian communities, where it is often used in their liturgical worship services, and where it also serves as a valuable resource for private and communal Bible study.

In addition to the various Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, which are considered as uninspired by certain Jewish and Christian groups, there were also in the early days of Christianity a set of esoteric “Gospels” floating around among the various Christian communities that were vehemently rejected as heretical by mainstream Christian Orthodoxy. And these heretical Christian writings are known as “The Gnostic Gospels.” The Gnostics were a group of early Christian mystics who believed that by acquiring a special type of knowledge, spiritual liberation and salvation would be achieved. For the term “Gnostic” comes from the Greek word “gnosis,” meaning “knowledge.” Gnosticism incorporated Christian theology along with various other religious and philosophical traditions and also held dualistic beliefs. For example, the Gnostics believed in a supreme benevolent God, but also believed in a lesser malevolent God known as the Demiurge. The Gnostics in turn sought to unite themselves to the supreme God through the secret spiritual knowledge of gnosis. Now the term “Gnostic Gospel” refers to the collection of ancient Christian texts that were discovered in 1945 by an Arab peasant who was digging for fertilizer in Nag Hammadi, a small town located in Upper Egypt. Similar to what the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (by a Bedouin shepherd) did for a better understanding of Jewish tradition before Christ, so too did the Gnostic Gospels (discovered by an Arab peasant) go on to shed much light on the alternative perspectives on the teachings of Jesus Christ which existed in the first few centuries after Christ. However, since the Gnostic Gospels presented a spiritual alternative which stood in conflict with the accepted writings of the New Testament, the early Christian authorities excluded these texts from the official teachings of the Church.

Now as we have already explained, some books were removed from the Protestant canon of the Holy Bible and the collection of these questionable texts are labeled as the Apocrypha. But in addition to the Apocrypha there are other books labeled as Pseudepigrapha, a term which signifies how certain books have been attributed to a particular author, when in fact the claimed author is not the true author. One such example of the various works of the Pseudepigrapha, is the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch, also known as I Enoch, is an ancient apocalyptic religious text whose authorship has traditionally been attributed to the Antediluvian patriarch Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. However, modern scholars hold that the Book of Enoch was originally written by Jewish scribes somewhere between 300 – 200 BC. The Book of Enoch contains questionable material such as fallen angels mating with human women, which has led both Jewish and Christian institutions to regard it as non-canonical or uninspired. However, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church does accept the Book of Enoch as inspired and includes I Enoch as well as II Enoch in their Biblical canon. Going further, even though several copies of 1 Enoch were preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the entirety of the Book of Enoch only survives in the Ethiopic liturgical language of Ge'ez. It is also of importance to note how the Book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament. For in the Epistle of St. Jude 1:14-15, a quote is taken nearly verbatim from I Enoch 1:9. This quotation of the Book of Enoch in the Christian scriptures leads me to believe that Enoch himself may have indeed authored at least some parts of the book attributed to him, but not the entire manuscript all together, yet again this is only speculation.

Continuing in the Epistle of St. Jude do we come across a verse referencing an event taken from the story of the prophet Moses which is no where to be found in the Torah, nor the rest of the Old Testament, and not even among the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. And this mysterious quote concerning Moses reads as follows: “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 1:9). Since this particular scripture quotation is not taken from any of the books comprising the accepted Biblical canon, including the books of the Apocrypha, this scriptural anomaly has led some modern scholars, and even some ancient writers, to conclude that St. Jude must have been referencing a 1^st century apocryphal text known as the “Assumption of Moses.” The Assumption of Moses, also known as the Testament of Moses, contains the alleged secret prophecies which Moses revealed to Joshua shortly before Moses died, making this final speech by Moses to serve as his last will and testament. Believed to have been originally written in Hebrew, the only surviving copy of the Assumption of Moses is a 6^th century Latin translation from a Greek text. However this manuscript is incomplete, and the rest of the text has been lost. Additionally, since the quote by Jude concerning Moses is not even found among the various surviving fragments that make up the text of the Assumption of Moses, then Jude's quote may have been taken from parts of the missing text. Due to the fact that the text of the Assumption of Moses is incomplete, and also missing certain sections, we cannot prove for certain that St. Jude quoted from this document. It would however make sense if Jude did quote from the Assumption of Moses, when considering how there is no verse in the Old Testament which Jude could have drawn from. Also, since St. Jude quotes from another extra-Biblical source, namely the Book of Enoch, then this could support the notion that Jude was indeed quoting from the Assumption of Moses, or at least another apocryphal text which lays outside of the accepted scriptures.

Another ancient document that was not included in the canon of the New Testament, yet at the same time sheds much light on the early formation of the Christian religion, is called the “Didache”, also known as “The Teachings of The Twelve Apostles.” Although a relatively brief text, the Didache is believed to have been written around the mid-1^st century AD, and served as a guide book for the early Christian priesthood on how to perform the Divine Liturgy. It also functioned as an instruction manual for Christian laity on certain things that a believer should do and other things which were forbidden to do, and ultimately ends with a chapter devoted to end times prophecy. Previously known only in fragmentary copies, the entire Didache was re-discovered by a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan in a monastery in Constantinople in 1873, and has gone on to help modern Christians to become better acquainted with the life of the ancient Church. The origins of the Didache can be traced to a Christian group made up of ethnic Jews who's main focus was on the teachings of Jesus as opposed to the legalism of the law of Moses. Along with the various maxims of what to do and what not to do, the Didache's prime legal structure centers around the golden rule, namely: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Additionally, since this 1^st century Christian document lists instructions on how to perform the various Christian sacraments, such as baptism and holy communion, the Didache indeed serves as a historical element which upholds the legitimacy of the traditions exercised by the Orthodox Church that have been passed down throughout the centuries dating all the way back to the time of Christ Himself.

Shifting our attention back to the Old Testament do we come across an alarming anomaly when comparing the various translations from the original Hebrew into Greek and then later on into English. For when placing the Greek Septuagint along side the King James Bible, it is undeniable how the verses in the last chapter of the book of the prophet Malachi are not in the same order in these two separate versions of the Bible. Though the verses themselves have not been added to, nor has anything been taken away, yet the order in which these specific verses are recorded is different. For example, in the English King James Version of the Bible all six verses of the fourth chapter of Malachi are in order, beginning with verse one on through to verse six. However, in the Greek Septuagint the verses in Malachi chapter four start off from verse one and then on to verse three, but then following verse three the text jumps to verse five followed by verse six, and then continues with verse four ending the chapter after verse six. Though these verses are in a different order the translation between the two is congruent, but the fact remains that somehow somewhere these verses were indeed tampered with. The good new for us Bible believers is that there is no contradiction in the text, even though the order of the verses in Malachi chapter six were rearranged. Also, to the best of my knowledge this is the only place in all of the Septuagint where such a thing like this occurs, so this shouldn't shatter one's faith in the Bible as being the inspired word of God. What it does mean is that somethings do indeed get lost in translation, no matter how much we try to preserve the original meaning of the language of a root text.

In conclusion it is my sincere hope that everything presented in this condensed overview of the history of how all the various ancient scrolls and manuscripts, which were ultimately compiled into the vast and inspired library of books that we know today as the Holy Bible, has enlightened the reader with a better understanding concerning all the various versions and translations of the Bible that have come down to us over the centuries. It was also my intent to present this work to serve as a reference point for the serious Bible student who is interested in the history behind the accepted canon of the holy scriptures, and to guide them with an historical backdrop as they study the theology of both the Old and New Testaments. That being said I must confess that there is indeed much more to say concerning these subjects, which was not covered in this particular study, but again my desire is that what has been presented will inspire the student to do their own private research. So one could say that this presentation has functioned as a primer into the history of how we acquired the 66 books of the Bible that we read today, and hopefully it may even serve as an introduction that explains how some books were taken out of the Bible, and how others books were totally rejected all together and never even made it into the accepted canon held by the Greek Orthodox Church in the first place. In the final analysis of what has been covered in this brief Biblical exegesis, it is evident that a further study of the history of the Bible is indeed required for one to possess a clearer understanding of the Christian Faith and all the prophecies of the Old Testament, which were fulfilled in the New Testament. For in order to rightly divide the word of truth, one must study to show themselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15).

 

Bibliography

• Abegg, M.,Flint, P., Ulrich, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999).

• Brenton. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., 1851).

• Brown, R.K. The Book of Enoch. (Nashville, Tennessee: James C. Winston Publishing Company, Inc., 1997).

• Cambridge University Press. The Apocrypha, New Revised Standard Version. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

• Charles, R.H. Apocalypse of Baruch and the Assumption of Moses. (York Beach, ME: Red Wheel/Weiser, 2006).

• Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. (Saint Ignatius Orthodox Press, 2018).

• Green, J.P. The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible. (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2000).

• Holy Bible: Ethiopic Version. (Saderingrad Productions, 2007).

• Marcionite Christian Church. The Very Fist Bible: Original Scriptures Transcribed by Marcion of Sinope 144AD. (Marcionite Christian Church, 2020).

• Orthodox Study Bible (Elk Grove, CA:St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, 2008).

• Pagels, E. The Gnostic Gospels. (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 1979).

• Schiffman, L.H. & VanderKam, J.C. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000).

• The Complete 54-Book Apocrypha. (Covenant Press, 2022).

• The Jewish Publication Society of America. The Holy Scriptures, According to the Masoretic Text. (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917).

• Vermes, G. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. (London, England: Penguin Books, 2004).

• Zondervan. The Holy Bible, King James Version. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009).

The End of the Crusader Kingdoms in the Holy Land: The Church, The Templars, and The Crusades – Part 9

 

Shortly after king Louis IX left the Holy Land in 1254, a civil war broke out between Venetian and Genoese merchants in the port city of Acre. Acre had replaced Jerusalem as the crusaders military headquarters ever since the loss of the Holy City to Saladin in 1187. During the course of the conflict, the Templars joined with the Teutonic Knights and the corporate powers of Genoa and Barcelona. This vicious battle known as the Saint Sabas War, may have been responsible for the deaths of as many as twenty thousand Christians between 1256 and 1260 AD.

This period was also filled with danger from the Mongol conquests under the leadership of Huelgu. The Mongols had issued threats to both the Templars and the Hospitallers in 1255. In 1258, Huelgu took Baghdad and in 1260, Aleppo fell, as did Damascus shortly thereafter. The Templars, Hospitallers, and Teutonic Knights sent representatives to Europe to raise funds and gather troops. For the fierce barbarity of the Mongols struck fear into the hearts of many, and caused panic and dread throughout all of Europe.

However, the more dangerous threat was closer to home. For in September 1260, the great Mameluke general Baibars defeated the Mongols at Ain Jalut, just south of Nazareth. Baibars murdered the Sultan of Egypt in October 1260 and seized the Mameluke throne. The Mameluke empire eventually included Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and other adjoining territories. In 1265, Baibars launched his offensive against Outremer. He took Caesarea, Haifa, and Arsuf. In 1266, he took Safed, and as soon as Baibars took control of the castle and captured the Templars, he gave them a choice: convert to Islam or death. The Templars chose death rather than to give up the cross. In 1268, Baibars took Beaufort, Antioch, Jaffa, Banyas, and Baghras, the first Templar castle in Palestine.

Pope Clement IV pleaded for help from all the European crowned heads. King Louis IX, now fifty-four years old and the father of eleven children, again answered the call of Christian duty. Louis left France for his second Crusade on July 1, 1270. He arrived at Carthage in Tunisia on July 17, where he contracted dysentery accompanied by fever and convulsions. On August 27 he died, whispering his last words, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem!”

Charles of Anjou took command of the Crusade after the death of Louis IX. The decision was made to withdraw from Carthage after a deal was negotiated with the Emir of Tunis to hand over Christian prisoners, guarantee freedom of worship in the city, and donate over 200,000 pieces of gold. After hearing of the death of Louis and the evacuation of the Crusaders from Tunis, Baibars canceled his plan to send Egyptian troops to fight Louis in Tunis. It was at this point that Edward I of England arrived in Africa, but the part was already over. The fleet sailed back to Sicily to regroup, but any plans to use the military force to make any gains were washed away along with most of the Crusader ships and 1,000 men due to a violent storm out at sea. Only Edward wished to continue on to the Holy Land, everyone else abandoned the Crusade, the most crushing failure of a long line of Crusader catastrophes.

Despite the failure, the Papacy did not abandon the idea of crusading. Edward I and his small force of 1,000 men, along with a regime of French knights, arrived at Acre in September 1271 AD marking the beginning of what is sometimes referred to as the Ninth Crusade. Edward arrived at Acre while it was still under siege, causing Baibars to change his plans and abandon Acre. However, the forces under Edward's command were much too small to take on the Mamelukes. Later, the arrival of additional forces from England and Hugh III of Cyprus under the command of Edward's younger brother Edmund, emboldened Edward. With more support he then launched a larger raid on the town of Qaqun.

Informed of Edward's activity, Baibars came to suspect there would be an attack on Egypt. After building a fleet, Baibars attempted to land on Cyprus hoping to draw Hugh III of Cyprus and his fleet out of Acre, with the plan of conquering the island and leaving Edward and the Crusader army isolated in the Holy Land. Baibars disguised many warships as Christian vessels and attacked Limassol. However, the fleet was destroyed off the coast of Limassol and Baibars and his army were forced back.

Following this victory, Edward realized that to create a force capable of retaking Jerusalem it would be necessary to end the internal unrest within the Christian state. So Edward mediated between Hugh and his knights from the Ibelin family of Cyprus. At the same time, price Edward and king Hugh began negotiating a truce with Baibars. In May 1272, at Caesarea, a 10-year-10-month-10-day agreement was made. In 1273 Edward began his journey home, via Italy and Paris. Edward finally reached England in the middle of 1274, and was crowned King of England on the 19^th of August, 1274 AD. Back in the Levant, in 1291 AD, with the fall of Acre to the Mamelukes, the Latin East, established during the First Crusade, effectively and finally came to an end.

References:

Adduson, C.G. The Knights Templars. (Forgotten Books, 2012).

Haag, M. The Templars: History & Myth. (London, England: Profile Books, 2008).

Robinson, J.J. Dungeon, Fire & Sword. (Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group Inc., 2009).

Wasserman, J. The Templars and the Assassins. (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2001).

The French King Louis IX and the Seventh Crusade: The Church, The Templars, and The Crusades – Part 8

 

The endeavor of the Seventh Crusade began under the French king Louis IX. Louis was an intensely spiritual man, and was canonized as a saint of the Catholic Church twenty-seven years after his death. He brought a holy passion for the Crusades that seemed reminiscent of the victorious First Crusade. Louis' enthusiasm, sincerity, and piety allowed him to gain support for a new crusading effort. The Templars were instrumental in helping him organize and finance the Crusade. So, Louis set sail in August of 1248 AD, and thus began the Seventh Crusade.

Louis' armada stopped off at Cyrus and stayed on the island for eight months to resupply and make ready. The delay also allowed stragglers to join the main army from both Europe and the Middle East. In addition Louis would benefit from the contribution of the military orders based in the Levant, namely the Knights Hospitallers, Knights Templar, and Teutonic Knights. By the summer of 1249, the army was finally ready to begin the Crusade. Louis wrote to the Sultan of Egypt, boldly expressing his intention of not just taking back Jerusalem but of conquering all of Egypt and the Levant:

“I will assault your territory, and even were you to swear allegiance to the cross, my mind would not be changed. The armies that obey me cover mountains and plains, they are as numerous as the pebbles of the earth, and they march upon you grasping the swords of fate.”

Louis' Crusader army landed in Egypt in June of 1249, and met their first of many problems. The heavy and deep-bottomed sailing ships of the Europeans meant that the army could not easily disembark to the sandy beaches of Egypt, and so the knights were forced to wade their way to the shore. Meanwhile, al-Kamil had been busy reinforcing Damietta, the fortress city of the Nile Delta. As it turned out, the Crusaders captured Damietta with surprising ease. An added bonus was that because the garrison had fled in a panic, the cities fortifications remained intact. However, the Sultan's main army waited at a safe distance from Damietta. This was only the opening move of what would be a very long game.

The Ayyubid Dynasty was at this time led by al-Salih Ayyub, the second son of al-Kamil, the previous Sultan of Egypt. Like his father, al-Salih struggled to keep control of his territories due to rivalries between Muslim leaders and even Ayyubid princes. In addition, the Mongol Empire was rapidly expanding westwards and seemed unstoppable. Louis IX had made some diplomatic advances towards the Mongol khan hoping that he might make a usefully ally in pushing the Ayyubids out of Egypt and the Levant. But the Mongols were only interested in conquest, it made no difference to them whether the lands be in the control of Christians or Muslims.

In the Fall of 1249, al-Salih was dying at his camp at Mansourah on the Nile Delta. The people of Cairo were in a panic at the double blow of losing Damietta and now possibly their leader. Meanwhile, Louis was still waiting for an important military force belonging to his brother Alphonse, which did not arrive in Egypt until October. At this time the annual Nile flood was abating, and so the way to Cairo was open. Going against the advice of most of his nobles to wait out the winter in safety at Damietta, Louis ignored their warnings and set off for Cairo on the 20^th of November in 1249 AD.

The Crusaders made very slow progress as they marched along the banks of the Nile. At this point, the end of November 1249, al-Salih died, succumbing to his illness. The officers, led by their commander Fakhr al-Din, then stepped in to smoothly continue the war against the Crusaders. In December, the Crusader army reached the canal separating them from Mansourah. On the other side of the canal were the armies of Fakhr al-Din, and the Mameluke general Baibars. The Muslims held the Crusaders in check until February of 1250, when part of the Christian force was able to cross the canal and attack the Muslim camp at dawn. Fakhr al-Din was killed as he jumped naked from his bath. The Crusaders continued on to Mansourah, where Baibars tricked them. His soldiers hid themselves within the walls of the town. The Crusaders stormed through the gates, where they were ambushed resulting in great casualties on the Christian side. Meanwhile, the rest of the army crossed the river and were attacked by the Egyptian force, where they also suffered a great loss of men.

By the end of February in 1250 AD, the new Sultan of Egypt, al-Mu'azzam Turan Shah, arrived at Mansourah along with vital supplies and reinforcements. The Crusaders, on the other hand, had no means of resupply, since their camp had been cut off from Damietta by a fleet of Muslim ships. Soon starvation and disease spread throughout their camp. Finally, on the 5^th of April in 1250, Louis ordered a retreat. The Crusader army, greatly reduced by disease, starvation and constant attacks from the Ayyubid army, was virtually useless as an effective force. The remaining Crusaders surrendered, and the French king was captured. Louis was released on the 6^th of May, but only after a large ransom was paid for himself, and for what remained of his army, and also the surrender of Christian held Damietta.

Once free from his Muslim captors Louis did not flee back to Europe in disgrace, but remained in the Middle East for four more years. During that time, he oversaw the re-fortification of his base at Acre, as well as the strongholds of Sidon, Jaffe, and Caesarea. Louis also created an innovative new force of 100 knights along with a regime of crossbowmen. Unlike previous knights, who were garrisoned at particular strategic cities or castles, this force was used wherever they were most needed to protect Latin interests in the Middle East. Eventually King Louis IX left the Holy Land in 1254 AD, officially bringing an end to the Seventh Crusade.

References:

Adduson, C.G. The Knights Templars. (Forgotten Books, 2012).

Haag, M. The Templars: History & Myth. (London, England: Profile Books, 2008).

Robinson, J.J. Dungeon, Fire & Sword. (Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group Inc., 2009).

Wasserman, J. The Templars and the Assassins. (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2001).

The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and the Sixth: Crusade: The Church, The Templars, and The Crusades – Part 7

 

The Sixth Crusade was led by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II in 1228 AD. Frederick was an intriguing and exotic person who spoke six languages fluently, including Arabic. He was liked and respected by the Muslims. He enjoyed long-standing friendships with various members of Islamic royalty, kept a harem in Sicily, and was schooled in Arabic philosophy and mathematics. Frederick was known to his contemporaries as Stupor Mundi, the “Marvel of the World.” Frederick II was crowned king of Germany by Pope Innocent in 1215, and immediately announced his intention to go on a Crusade. In 1225, he was married to the daughter and heiress of John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem. John assumed the marriage would encourage Frederick to finally begin his Crusade, but instead he delayed.

In 1227, Pope Honorius III died, and was succeeded by Pope Gregory IX, who immediately ordered Frederick to fulfill his promise to begin the Crusade. Frederick quickly returned however, claiming illness, but Gregory did not believe him. Pope Gregory then excommunicated Frederick for his premature return and for his military efforts against the Templars. Frederick set off again in June 1228, and his resolve to fight a Crusade for two years was initially received with enthusiasm by the Templars and the Hospitalers. Yet soon after his arrival in Acre, a letter from the pope ordered the Templars to play no part in Frederick's efforts because of his excommunication. The pope soon sent another letter to the Templars announcing that he had just excommunicated Frederick a second time. The Templars were now presented with a problem, for it was forbidden for an excommunicate to take part in a Crusade.

Although the Templars were bound by their vows of obedience to the pope, they knew that any changes Frederick might make with the Muslims would effect the balance of power in the Holy Land. Therefore they needed full knowledge of his actions, and in the event of any military or territorial gains, they wanted to be included. Thus the Templars decided on a compromise: they rode one day's journey behind Frederick so they could not be accused of marching with him. Later they marched alongside him. The terms of this arrangement were that Frederick would state that his orders were being given in the name of God, rather than in his own name, that of an excommunicated emperor.

In February 1229, Frederick negotiated a ten year treaty with al-Kamil for the return of Jerusalem and a portion of the land leading to the Mediterranean. In addition, the sultan agreed to the return of Nazareth, western Galilee, and the lands around Sidon and Bethlehem. In March 1229, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem. The very next day, the archbishop of Caesarea excommunicated the entire city of Jerusalem for harboring the excommunicated emperor. Although Frederick negotiated his treaty in the name of all Franks, he never received their permission to do so. The Templars were angry that the site of their original Temple would remain in Muslim hands. The holy war against the infidel was the raison d'etre of the military orders, and Frederick had just undermined it. Feelings were so tense between him and the Templars that he feared for his life and so he left Jerusalem.

The Templars joined in a plan with the patriarch of Jerusalem to take back Jerusalem in the name of the pope. However, Frederick learned of their activities and called them traitors. He also expelled them from Acre, and disarmed them to the extent that he was able. He helped strengthen the newly arrived Teutonic Knights, a German military order founded in 1198, and patterned after the Templars. Meanwhile, the pope had undertaken a Crusade against Frederick in Italy, and the Templars tried to persuade sultan al-Kamil to turn against Frederick. Finally, on May 1, 1229, the pressure from the pope forced Frederick to return to Europe. Thus the Sixth Crusade lasted from 1228-1229 AD, one year.

 

 

References:

Adduson, C.G. The Knights Templars. (Forgotten Books, 2012).

Haag, M. The Templars: History & Myth. (London, England: Profile Books, 2008).

Robinson, J.J. Dungeon, Fire & Sword. (Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group Inc., 2009).

Wasserman, J. The Templars and the Assassins. (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2001).