Evidences of Christ from non Christian Sources

 

Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible. This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life." He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?" The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Why did God tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?

Genesis 22:1-12

Sometime later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"

"Here I am," he replied.

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"

"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.

"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"

"Here I am," he replied.

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Deuteronomy 12:31 (see also Leviticus 20:2-5, Jeremiah 32:35, Ezekiel 20:26, Isaiah 57:4-5)

You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

---

Why would God command Abraham to sacrifice his own child?

First, we should realize what God was not doing:

God was not tempting Abraham. God was not enticing Abraham to do wrong, but was testing him to see if he would do what was right. (See the article on tempting).

God was not instituting or condoning child sacrifice. As seen in Deuteronomy 12:31 and the other passages above, God abhors child sacrifice. It's important to remember that God prevented the sacrifice from actually occurring. He did not desire the sacrifice as an act of worship or for any other reason beyond testing Abraham.

God was not telling Abraham to do wrong. God has the right to take human life (see the article on God's moral authority) and could therefore authorize Abraham to do so in a particular case. Note that had Abraham decided of his own accord to sacrifice Isaac, he would have been wrong and his act would have been condemned by God (as were other human-initiated sacrifices).

Why then would God give this command? The point was for Abraham to demonstrate that he trusted God completely and placed him above all else, even his own son.¹ Though God of course already knew that Abraham had faith in him, it was necessary for Abraham to prove it through action. "His faith was made complete by what he did" (James 2:21-23). Because of his actions, not only God but Abraham, his family and future generations knew that Abraham trusted God. This trust was important because it indicated that Abraham had the proper relationship with God (he was treating God as God deserves to be treated) and could benefit from God's good plans for his life.

Wasn't it wrong for Abraham to obey God?

God's command to Abraham was not wrong, for God has the right to take human life (see the article on God's moral authority) and therefore had the right to command Isaac's death. Abraham had known God for many years prior to this, so he knew God's character and knew that God had the right to give this command. Had Abraham initiated the sacrifice or followed the order of someone who was not authorized by God, then his act would have been wrong.

Furthermore, Abraham knew that God had promised him offspring through Isaac, so this gave him reason to believe that God did not intend for Isaac to die permanently:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

Some have questioned whether Abraham truly loved Isaac if he was willing to sacrifice him. But the passage itself as well as other places in Genesis point out that Abraham did love Isaac:

• Isaac was the only child of his beloved wife Sarah, the son promised to him by God (Gen 17:19)
• He held a feast on the day Isaac was weaned (Gen 21:8)
• God refers to Isaac as "your only son, Isaac, whom you love" (Gen 22:2)
• He made a special effort to get Isaac a godly wife (Gen 24:1-4)
• Isaac received all of the inheritance (Gen 25:5)

While Genesis doesn't record Abraham's emotional reaction to God's command that does not mean carrying it out was an easy thing for him to do.

---

ARUMUGA NAVALAR one who translated the Bible in to Tamil

ARUMUGA NAVALAR one who translated the Bible in to Tamil. Though many translations were made before him his work has been acknowledged and used by the church. The words 'DEVAN' and 'KARTHAR' to denote Jehova and Jesus were coined by him. 

Arumuga Navalar (1822-1879) was born on December 18, 1822 to L. Kanthappap Pillai and Sivagami Ammai as a last son in Nallur, Yazhpanam, Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Unlike the present, he studied the Indian clasiical language Sanskrit and also Tamil. He continued his studies in a Christian Missionary school. Recognizing his knowledge, he was asked to stay on at the Jaffna Wesleyan Mission School to teach students. Peter Percival, the principal, appointed him with a request to translate the Bible into Tamil. He worked with Percival from 1841 – 1848. He was responsible for the current Bible available in Tamil. The words, “Kartthar”, “Devan” etc., were used by him only.

In this context it must be emphasised that though Arumuga Navalar fought against the conversion of the Tamils to Christianity, he was not a religious fanatic. He was a good friend of Rev. Percival who was a Wesleyan missionary teacher at Jaffna Central College. Even the Tamil scholars of Madras of the 19th century acclaimed his effort as the best translation. This aspect of his life revealed not only his command of English and Tamil but also proclaimed to the world his broad thinking and religious tolerance.

 

The Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls

In the spring of 1947 Bedouin goat-herds, searching the cliffs along the Dead Sea for a lost goat (or for treasure, depending on who is telling the story), came upon a cave containing jars filled with manuscripts. That find caused a sensation when it was released to the world, and continues to fascinate the scholarly community and the public to this day.

The first discoveries came to the attention of scholars in 1948, when seven of the scrolls were sold by the Bedouin to a cobbler and antiquities dealer called Kando. He in turn sold three of the scrolls to Eleazar L. Sukenik of Hebrew University, and four to Metropolitan Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel of the Syrian Orthodox monastery of St. Mark. Mar Athanasius in turn brought his four to the American School of Oriental Research, where they came to the attention of American and European scholars.

It was not until 1949 that the site of the find was identified as the cave now known as Qumran Cave 1.

It was that identification that led to further explorations and excavations of the area of Khirbet Qumran. Further search of Cave 1 revealed archaeological finds of pottery, cloth and wood, as well as a number of additional manuscript fragments. It was these discoveries that proved decisively that the scrolls were indeed ancient and authentic.

Between 1949 and 1956, in what became a race between the Bedouin and the archaeologists, ten additional caves were found in the hills around Qumran, caves that yielded several more scrolls, as well as thousands of fragments of scrolls: the remnants of approximately 800 manuscripts dating from approximately 200 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

The manuscripts of the Qumran caves include early copies of biblical books in Hebrew and Aramaic, hymns, prayers, Jewish writings known as pseudepigrapha (because they are attributed to ancient biblical characters such as Enoch or the patriarchs), and texts that seem to represent the beliefs of a particular Jewish group that may have lived at the site of Qumran. Most scholars believe that the Qumran community was very similar to the Essenes, one of four Jewish "philosophies" described by Josephus, a first century C.E. Jewish historian. Some have pointed to similarities with other Jewish groups mentioned by Josephus: the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Zealots.

We do not know precisely who wrote those sectarian scrolls, but we can say that the authors seemed to be connected to the priesthood, were led by priests, disapproved of the Jerusalem priesthood, encouraged a strict and pious way of life, and expected an imminent confrontation between the forces of good and evil.

The Qumran library has proven to be enormously informative. From these texts we have increased our understanding of the transmission of the Bible, we have learned more about the development of early Judaism, and we have gained insight into the culture out of which emerged both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity.

The Qumran site and the Dead Sea.

TQumran Cave 4.

The Qumran archaeological site.

How The Bible Came To Us

                                                                                                

1. What the Bible is

The word bible comes from a Greek word which means books. The Bible contains the writings which are generally considered sacred among Christian people since these writings set forth the principles and background on which the Christian religion is based.

The Bible is divided into two parts called the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Bible used in the Protestant churches contains sixty-six books, thirty-nine of which are found in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. The Bible of the Roman Catholic Church contains a number of books not found in the Protestant Bible.

These books are known collectively by Protestants as the Apocrypha and are not recognized by them as canonical. The books of the Old Testament form an excellent anthology of the literature of the ancient Hebrew nation. They contain the history, laws, poetry, drama, and religious teachings of that gifted people. They contain the dreams and ideals of a race. The New Testament contains the accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus and a history of the early Christian church as well as the teachings of the apostles, particularly St. Paul.

The Bible is without question the most important book in English and American literature. It has been read, either in whole or in part, by more people than any other book. It is more often quoted than any other book; and the material within its pages has provided more inspiration for poets, novelists, dramatists, and artists than any other source. It has also provided a constant source of inspiration and strength to millions of people in ordinary life.

II. Where It Came from and How

The books of the Old Testament were written originally in the Hebrew language. The earliest writings were produced by an unknown writer in the ninth or tenth century B.C. This man put into written form much of the traditional history and legend of the Hebrew people, which had been handed down orally previous to that time.

Sometime later, a second writer living in the Northern Kingdom of Israel set down the traditions of the people as they were current among the tribes in which he lived. About the seventh century B.C. a third writer living in the Southern Kingdom of Judah combined the two accounts into one and added many parts of his own. To this collection of the traditions, history, and laws of the Hebrew people were later added from time to time the books of the prophets, psalms, and other books of poetry, philosophy, and history.

The period from 800 to 200 B.C. when the 'books of the Old Testament were being written was one of the great eras of progress for the human race. This was the period when Greek culture blossomed and flowered under the impetus of such great minds as those of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, and the other great dramatists, poets, philosophers, and artists of the Golden Age of Greece. This was also the period of the great religious teachers of the East such as Confucius and Lao Tze in China, Buddha in India, and Zoroaster in Iran. This period, which also produced the great religious thinkers of the Hebrews such as Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Amos, gave us the Old Testament on which Christianity and much of our modern culture is based.

By the second century B.C. the books of the Old Testament had reached a form very much like their present form and were regarded by the Jewish people as sacred writings.

There was disagreement in the text between the various versions of the Bible which had appeared in English. Consequently, King James I called a conference of the church leaders and scholars in 1604 and commanded that a new translation should be made. The translation was to be done by the learned men of the church. In 1611 this edition of the Bible appeared. It was known as the authorized or King James Version and is still considered the Standard English Bible although more accurate and more modern translations have appeared within the last few years. The scholars who produced the Authorized Version used much of the phraseology and language of William Tyndale's translations of almost a century earlier. Consequently the wording of the English Bible as we know it today owes more to William Tyndale that to any other or a man.

Near the end of the nineteenth century the leading Bible scholars of England and America combined their efforts and produced the revised version which never became very popular since the translators did not modernize the language sufficiently to satisfy very many people. 

Therefore, other translators went to work.

In 1923 a translation of the New Testament into modern English was published by Edgar J Goodspeed, an American scholar and expert in the Greek language. Later a group of Hebrew scholars under the direction of J.M. Powis Smith translated the Old Testament. These two books were published together in 1935 and became known and the Smith-Goodspeed translation of the Bible. A few years before Goodspeed published his New Testament, a British scholar by the name of James Moffat published a translation of the Old Testament into modern English. A little bit later a new translation of the Old Testament was added. However, neither translation ever came into very common use.

In 1946 there appeared in America a new translation of the New Testament into the present day English. This was produced by the best Greek scholars of America working under the sponsorship of the National Council of Churches. For the next six years a similar group of Hebrew scholars worked on the Old Testament and in September of 1952 the entire Bible was published in modern English. This translation is known as the Revised Standard Version. Since this version of the Bible is sponsored by an organization which is made up of most of the Protestant churches in America, there is strong likelihood that this translation will come to be considered the Standard English Bible so far as American Protestants are concerned.

At the same time the Dousi version was revised so that both Catholics and Protestants now have the Bible available in present day English. This revision of the Douai version, which was published in 1952, is known as the Confraternity Edition. More recently the Roman Catholic Churct has adopted for its use the New American Bible, a completely new translation based on Hebrew and Greek rather than the Latin Vulgate.

In 1947 the Church of Scotland, the Church of England, and various Free Churches of England organized a committee to arrange for a new translation of the Bible in the light of all the known facts concerning the linguistic and historical development of biblical literature. The principal aim was to reproduce clearly the meaning and general ef'fect of the biblical passages by means of modern, accurate, and dignified expression. The translation of the New Testament was published in 1961 jointly by the Cambridge University Press and the Oxford University Press, followed by the publication of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha in 1970. Favorable comment emphasized the simplicity and clarity of the translation; unfavorable comment deplored the loss or power and the lack of authoritative tone.

Arriving on the Bible scene in 1973 was The Common Bible, truly an ecumenical book since it has the approval of both the Roman Catholic Church and many major Protestant denominations. It is basically the Revised Standard Version with the differences between these two branches of Christianity ironed out. Of particular interest to the lay reader are the popular, easy-to-read versions, Good News for Modern Man, the New Testament of a translation called 

Today's English Version, and the Living Bible, a paraphrasing of King James.

By the third century B.C. many of the Jews who were scattered through the Mediterranean countries had discontinued the use of Hebrew, and it was necessary to translate the scriptures into Greek so that they could read them. This Greek translation of the O1d Testament is known as the Septuagint.

The New Testament was written in Greek. The letters of St. Paul were the earliest books of the New Testament. They were written to give advice and encouragement to the people of the churches which he had founded. Exactly when the teachings and sayings of Jesus were first put into written form is not known, but probably many or most of these words were written soon after his death. Later these early versions were probably embodied by the writers of the four Gospels in their accounts of the life of Jesus, which were written many years later.

By the fourth century A.D. the Bible, very much as we know it today, consisting of the books of both the Old and New Testaments, was recognized as constituting the sacred writings of Christian people. However, whole Bibles were very uncommon. One found copies of various individual books of the Bible here and there in different monasteries and churches. It was in the fourth century A.D. that the Pope commissioned the great scholar Jerome to make a complete translation of the entire Bible into Latin. Many translations of single books of the Bible into Latin had been made previously but often the text of one translation did not agree with that of another. Jerome, later canonized by the Church as St. Jerome, spent many years at his task and compared the various translations previously made in an effort to arrive at the correct wordings. His translation of the Old Testament was made from Hebrew texts, but he also made use of the Greek Septuapint (LXX). St. Jerome's translation of the Bible became known as the Vulgate because it was written in Latin which was the tongue of the common people of southern Europe at that time. This translation of the Bible is still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

III The English Bible

The first complete translation of the Bible into English appeared about 1396. This translation was made from the Latin Vulgate and is commonly attributed to John Wycliffe. There is no doubt that other men besides Wycliffe worked on this translation and horn much if any of this work is that of Wycliffe himself cannot be determined. Certain it is that Wycliffe was the leader of a band of preachers in England who based their teachings on the Bible rather than on the authority of the Church.

In the early sixteenth century William Tyndale resolved to translate the New Testament and print it in English. He was driven out of England but took refuge in Germany where he completed his translation of the New Testament and had it printed in 1525. The copies were smuggled into England and sold surreptitiously. Later Tyndale translated parts of the Old Testament and published them. Tyndale translated directly from Hebrew and Greek and not from the Latin Vulgate as previous translations had been made. Tyndale did not live to complete his translation of the Old Testament. He was executed for heresy in 1536.

The first complete printed Bible in English was printed by Miles Coverdale in 1535. During the remainder of the sixteenth century several other editions of the Bible appeared in English. Notable among these is the Great Bible authorized by King Henry VIII which appeared in 1539. Also very important is the Douai version which was made from the Vulgate and which became the official Bible of the Catholic Church in English. Another famous edition is the translation known as the Geneva Bible. It was made by a group of English scholars who had been exiled and were living at Geneva. This appeared in 1560 and was the edition of the Bible which was brought to America by the Pilgrim Fathers.

A LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED BIBLES

·        

 King James, or Authorized Version (KJV or AV) Revised Standard Version (RSV) Dartmouth Bible KJV (not complete) - with notes and commentary; easy-to-use reference; PHS Library

·         The Bible Reader: an Interfaith Interpretation - selections from most of the Bible from various translations (Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish cooperation) with notes; also easy to use and in PHS Library

·         The New English Bible (NEB) - prepared by Protestant scholars

·         The New American Bible and the Jerusalem Bible - both prepared by Catholic scholars (the Jerusalem by French) with copoius notes. All three of the above were produced by large committees of scholars, were translated from original Hebrew and Greek, use modern English with uniform spelling, and depend on up-to-date biblical scholarship.

·         The Living Bible - a paraphrasing of KJV in "American" by Kenneth Taylor; also called The Way, The Greatest in Love is the NT title. Good News for Modern Man - the NT of Today's English Version (TEV)

·         Douay-Rheims - Catholic translation of Vulgate into English; comparable to KJV in language except for some spellings of proper names.

·         Confraternity Edition - updating of Douay; comparable to TEV in language except for spellings

·         J.B. Phillips - an accurate translation of the NT into common English; published as a complete NT or in several sections.

·         The Interpreter's Bible (12 vol) - KJV and RSV side by side with copious commentary and notes; the notes are two types: one an objective literary or historical type, the other more of a religious interpretation.

·         The Anchor Bible (38 vol) - Each volume is translated, edited, and annotated by an outstanding Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish authority on the Bible.

·         The Hebrew Bible, which is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, consists of the Law (Torah), the Prophets, and Writings. The books are the same but the organization of them is different.