Your Bible against Israel/the Jews ?

Surely the Word of God can’t be Anti-Semitic! (or to use a more accurate terminology; Anti Jew and Anti-Israel)

No; but....   The writing of the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and must be read in a similar manner in order for God to communicate to us.   Man can get in the way of this process, if we allow a translator or expositor to colour what the original revelation said.   

The translation you are reading might have been influenced by the prejudices of those brought up in traditions of Replacement Theology and dislike of Jews. You might also be reading your Bible through cultural spectacles.   Our friend Amnon observes that, "Reading the scriptures in a translation (from Hebrew) is like kissing your bride through a handkerchief."   Strive to get as close to the original as you can.

 There are several possible areas to consider.   Remember, most of the Bible (Old and New Testament) was written originally in Hebrew.   Even that which was written in Greek was written by Jews (and one proselyte) who thought in Hebrew idioms and word patterns (which can still be discerned in the Greek).   Church History shows that the Church wilfully rejected its Jewish roots and adopted Replacement Theology and Greek philosophy.

Here are a few problems which you may find in your Bible if you do not use it wisely.

"Palestine in the time of Christ" 

map from an RSV Bible – published in 1971.

This was relatively harmless nonsense when it was published, since there was no Palestine in Jesus’ time.   Jesus lived in Galilee, Judea and Samaria. The land was not given that name until the Romans coined it in 138CE, in order to deny the Jews’ roots in the land.  But, sadly, this error slips easily into belief in the present day myth created by the Palestine Authority, that the land historically belongs to the Arabs who, since 1967, have branded themselves "Palestinians.

The names of people and places

The first people to translate the Bible into English chose to change the Hebrew names of people and places into names which sounded English. (the same is probably true for other languages) This might sound harmless, but tends to mask the Jewish identity of the people in the Bible, and the location of the events in Jewish territory. It certainly obscures the connection between the Bible narrative and the people and places of present day Israel. Most unfortunate is the the conversion of Yeshua to Jesus, which hides his Jewish identity and takes the meaning out of Matthew 1 v21 and Luke 2 v30 .

When you read a Bible which uses transliterations of the Hebrew names, you will notice the continuity between the Bible and present day Israelis, who still use the same names. The characters in your Bible were Israelites; not Englishmen!

The same is true of the place names. It is much easier to deny the Jews’ connection to the land of the Bible if the place names have all been modified.

The name of Paul / Saul / Sha’ul

You may well have been taught that Saul of Tarsus changed his Hebrew name to the Greek name Paul.   This fits conveniently with replacement theology viewpoint that Paul ceased to be Jewish when he became a "Christian" and enables people to interpret Paul’s teachings in terms of Christ having done away with "the Law".

The truth, as explained by Dr David Stern, in his notes on the Complete Jewish Bible, is that Sha’ul (Hebrew name usually known as Saul) would have had two names, as did many Jews living outside Israel then as now. He had a Greek name for use in his Gentile home town, but he also had the Hebrew name which he received at his circumcision. Sha’ul never ceased to be a Jew – he merely became fulfilled in Yeshua.

"The Jews" opposing Jesus in John’s Gospel

A casual reading of John’s gospel will suggest that life was continual confrontation between Jesus and the Jews. Because Jesus is so clearly and approachably presented in the Gospels, and possibly because of Sunday School representations, we may feel Jesus is one of us, in conflict with "alien" or "foreign" Jews.   Anti-Semites can read this gospel whilst maintaining their identification with a Gentile Jesus who is battling against those wicked Jews. But this is nonsense, since Jesus and his followers were all Jews.  All the disputes in these gospels are between Jews and Jews, but they are between those open to God and the religious who were locked in legalism.   John’s labels (as we receive them in English) might not be very helpful to us, but would not have been an issue until his readership had been exposed to hellenisation and antipathy to Jews.

You might hear people who can read Greek referring to "the original Greek texts", but actually they are referring to the oldest surviving manuscripts.   Nehemiah Gordon’s researches suggest that much of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew.  Unfortunately it is possible that a Greek bias and prejudice had already crept in to this first translation.   Translators can only do their best to recapture the full meaning as penned by the (Jewish) author.   David Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible captures so much better the Jewish flavour and meaning, as well as steering clear of the anti-Jewish biases of many translators and expositors.

Man Made Additions

We all know we are not to add to God's word or subtract from it but .....

What about the section headings added in many translations?   They can be useful for finding a section but some folk read the headings as part of "the Word" in church services.   If these reflect prejudices held by the publishers they can seriously influence our understanding.   It is said that one early translation of Romans 11, which says,  "I ask then: Did God reject his people?", was headed "Israel rejected."

David Pawson points out the problems with having a commentary built into your Bible in parallel with the text (or at the foot of the page).  He found that some people quoted from commentaries, but didn't realise they were only quoting the opinions of a man; they thought they were quoting scripture.

This author prefers not to even underline in his Bible, since this action connects a passage to a truth revealed on one particular occasion.   What if God wanted to reveal something else nearby at some future occasion?

Home Page        Jews and Christians