On Biblical Exegesis, Revisited

On Biblical Exegesis, Revisited

Back in 2009, I wrote an essay titled On Biblical Exegesis. Then in July of 2011, I presented that paper in the opening portion of an Open Forum, and I do not know whether or not I had at that time expanded on the original essay. Knowing my own impulses, I probably did, but I left nothing in writing. So here I am going to expand on the essay, as there is much to add to the subject, and I have been wanting to revisit it for a long time, but at the present moment I feel a necessity to revisit this subject. So I will also state that, although I will speak for Identity Christians in general, my methods of Biblical Exegesis are just that, mine, and I cannot force them on other Identity Christians. These methods I began to develop at least twenty-five years ago, they were not taught to me, and I would not try to impose them on anyone else. But I would only suggest that others consider them, and perhaps they may even be improved. While I worked closely with Clifton Emahiser for many years, his methods were far different.

As far as I can tell, Identity Christians are the only Christians who seem to have a care for every word of God, and who also seek to reconcile with every word of God their faith, and what they believe about Scripture, and their worldview, and how they conduct themselves on their path through life. None of us can do that perfectly, but that is the endeavor to which we aspire, or, to which we all should aspire. If we do not have such an aspiration, we should not even call ourselves Christians. As Christ Himself had said, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 4, “4 … Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” If we seek to live by every word which comes from the mouth of God, we had better have such an aspiration.

However we must ask, What is that Word of God? And if it is found in English, how can we understand it in the face of hundreds of translations which all differ one from another in so many places? But if we force ourselves to accept only one translation, such as the King James Onlyists do, then we may well be subjecting ourselves to men, and not to God, because men are prone to making mistakes and misrepresenting His Word, and if they make mistakes, then it is no longer His Word, but the words of some man, some man whom we may never even know. So, as I am constantly confronted with what I believe to be poor interpretations of Scripture, people often take it personally when I disagree with them. They usually do that because they are emotionally attached to a certain reading or understanding which makes them comfortable with a certain dogma or belief, but which is not supported by Scripture.

Therefore here is the first principal in my method of Scriptural exegesis: objectivity must prevail over emotions. As we read in Jeremiah chapter 17, “9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Then again, in Proverbs chapter 28, “25 He that is of a proud heart stirreth up strife: but he that putteth his trust in the LORD shall be made fat. 26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.” As Solomon had taught in several other places, a man that walks wisely strives to walk in the wisdom which is from God. The phrase Scriptural exegesis is generally defined as a critical explanation or interpretation of Biblical texts with the objective of understanding the original writer's intended meaning, within the historical and literary context of the time in which it was written. To have such an objective and attain it justly and without bias, we must ignore our own hearts, our own feelings, and attempt to look at the text through the understanding of its writer, as best as we can. So we must put our own feelings aside, and consider only the author and his words in their ancient Biblical context. When we feel we have come to understand the Scriptures in their proper Biblical and historical context, then we must submit to the Truth of God in spite of our feelings, or we cannot live by His Word.

That is why, using our recent commentary on Isaiah chapter 37 as an example, in the course of that commentary I cited or discussed at least fifteen other passages of Scripture, provided texts from ancient Assyrian inscriptions on nearly a dozen occasions, cited alternative sources of Scripture on several occasions, such as the Septuagint, the Hexapla of Origen, and The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, and I provided and discussed definitions of certain Hebrew or Greek words, and alternative translations for certain passages, employing the lexicons found in Strong’s Concordance and Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon. That is how we can determine the historical and literary context of what Isaiah had written. These are the second and third principles in my method of scriptural interpretation: to understand the original languages from the oldest possible sources, and to understand the historical context in which the words of Scripture were written, which is something that can often be achieved through ancient history and archaeology, as well as the other sources or early translations of the Scriptures from which we may garner further insight into the text at hand.

This essay will, I hope, explain what I believe are the most reliable methods for interpreting the Bible, and will also reflect the methods that I have endeavored to employ in my own translations, my essays, and in all of my commentaries and other studies. So where we have already counted three of the principles which serve to formulate my methodology, they are not necessarily numbered in order of their importance, but I am only counting them in the order in which they appear in this discussion. Some of the more important principles still await an explanation.

All too often, interpretations of Scripture are offered where it is obvious that verses are taken out-of-context, meaning that the related statements in the rest of Scripture, and even often in the rest of the passage in which the particular verses are found, have not been thoroughly considered when an opinion concerning the verse or verses in question was first formulated. If we can accept Scripture as the inspired Word of Yahweh our God, then we must realize that no passage of Scripture can be taken out of context and understood apart from all of the others, and also that no two passages of Scripture can conflict with one another. Where two passages seem to conflict, it is evident that the understanding of the person who notices the conflict is at fault, and not either of the passages of Scripture. One cannot force the Word of God to contradict itself. One verse in the Bible does not prove that somehow some other verse is wrong. If that ever appears to be the case, it is not, and the seemingly contradictory verse must be examined. If it does not stand up to English examination, it must be examined in Hebrew and it Greek, alternative but valid translations must be considered, the possibility of glosses or other corruptions must be considered, and doing that, it can always be reconciled, with a few exceptions that we shall explain and resolve later. So this represents the fourth principle of my methods of Biblical exegesis.

Building on this principle, in Jeremiah chapter 8 we read: “8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.” That is the King James Version. In the New American Standard Bible there is a better translation of the verse: “8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.” In the Septuagint according to Brenton’s translation we read: “8 How will ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? In vain have the scribes used a false pen.” So it is evident that at least some passages of the books of the law, which are the books of Moses, were altered and therefore corrupted, even before the time of Jeremiah. There is a way to get around those, which we shall describe further on, in another of our principles.

Now we have already asked, What is that Word of God? But here it may be asked once again, What is Scripture? Firstly, Scripture is not the King James Version or any other translation. All translations are effected by men, all are mere interpretations of Scripture, and all translations contain errors, because all men are fallible. Even within the original Preface to the King James Version this was mentioned, the translators themselves professing that they were not perfect, and admitting that they may have made mistakes. This, of course, I even admit to be true of my own translations, and over the years I have been fortunate to have been able to make many corrections, sometimes with the help of my friends. So to examine Scripture, if one aspires to be an elucidator of Truth and a commentator on the Word of God, it is necessary that one acquaint himself with the original languages of Scripture, which are indeed Greek, Hebrew, and in some Old Testament and Apocryphal books, perhaps Aramaic although the apostles themselves had also called that Hebrew. 

For various reasons, not everyone can learn the original languages, as not everyone can commit the time and not everyone has the resources. Reading a translation is fine, so long as one acknowledges that it is only a translation. But if one wants to actually study, reading several translations from several different sources is better, and that is the least that any serious Bible student should be willing to do. That is necessary because God did not speak to us directly, nor did His prophets write in English, and Yahshua Christ being the last of those prophets, He had usually spoken to men in Greek. This builds on the explanation of our second principle already mentioned, as we should understand the original languages of Scripture. However our topic this evening does not concern mere Bible readers, but rather, this is for those who want to write their own commentaries or topical Bible lessons, or at least, for those who desire to teach others.

Furthermore, manuscript evidence and support for passages of Scripture must be established. The Biblical books have been passed down for many centuries from scribe to scribe, and they are not always accurately copied, as our citation from Jeremiah serves to illustrate. Then in some cases which are quite demonstrable, interpolations appear in some copies which simply did not exist in earlier manuscripts. Some of these were purposeful elaborations or added tales, and others were simply marginal notes that eventually became incorporated into the text. Word variations also appear in many instances upon comparing the ancient copies of the manuscripts of Scripture. While they are never welcomed, most often these word variations are harmless, and reflect an updating of the language to replace obsolete words, or differences in dialect since even Koine Greek had some regional variations.

But others are plain scribal errors. As we have often illustrated in Hebrew, there is even confusion between certain Hebrew letters, such as the dalet, vav and resh, have caused mistakes in either manuscripts or translations. These can usually be rectified by examining the literary context of the passage. To sort all of these problems out, we must rely upon the preponderance of witnesses among the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, which cannot be determined unless we first examine all of the manuscripts which we can possibly access. This is the art of the textual critic, and it is a necessary one as long as the critic is conservative and fair in his estimations. Some textual critics have had their own agendas, but they all must be scrutinized. 

In my own translation of the New Testament, I have usually not relied upon any textual criticism but my own, so far as the information which is provided in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, the latest edition published at the time of my translating. So from that resource, in order to make my translations I had examined the readings of all of the oldest of the uncial manuscripts and recorded papyri fragments. Generally, my translations follow the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which have both been said in the past to represent independent textual traditions), along with the papyri fragments discovered by archaeologists, many of which are much older than the surviving uncial codices. In comparison, the Authorized King James Version translators had generally followed a very limited collection of manuscripts from the so-called Majority Text, although they also had access to the Codex Bezae, which diverges from the Majority Text in many places. Neither are all the manuscripts of the Majority Text in agreement with one another in diverse places.

In the 19th century, the Codex Alexandrinus, along with the Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus and other later codices believed to have been derived from the same general school, were said by scholars to represent the so-called “Alexandrian tradition”. But now, more recent scholars have pulled a sort of bait-and switch, and they identify the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which had formerly been identified as independent texts, with a redefined “Alexandrian Tradition” while they classify the Majority Text as being a “Byzantine Text Type”. Then, the Codex Alexandrinus is considered the oldest text of the Byzantine Text Type, but only in the Gospels, while the balance of its text is considered to be of the Alexandrian tradition. So in my own early commentaries and Bible discussions, where I said “Alexandrian Tradition” I am referring to what the term had originally described: the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus, and others of the same general family of manuscripts, which is determined by their similarities. But lately, I have tried to refrain from using the phrase “Alexandrian tradition” altogether, because scholars have played a shell game with their use modern use of the term.

The phrase “Byzantine Text Type” is also a misnomer, since it represents an effort to consolidate a Biblical text within the later Byzantine churches. Simply because an abundance of manuscripts were copied in the 5th through the 16th centuries, for which reason they are called the “Majority Text”, that does not necessarily mean that they were copied from the most accurate sources. Initially, at least, they were copied under the oversight of a highly politicized Church under the purview of the Byzantine Empire. Therefore, to strive to follow the best source manuscripts is our fifth principle of Biblical exegesis, even if we must fall short on occasions where it is difficult to deduce which sources are the superior.

Settling on the limitations of the King James Version of the Bible is forcing oneself to accept some grave errors of the past, which are found in some of the later manuscripts, and throughout the Masoretic Text. For example, the King James Version contains the verses found at Mark 16:9-20, which come to us through the Codices Bezae and Alexandrinus, but which are completely wanting in the older Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and are therefore not included in my own translation. If there is no ancient evidence for a passage, it cannot be safely included in Scripture. Therefore, to me, New Testament Scripture is that which is found in the oldest Greek manuscripts. And as better manuscript evidence comes along, primarily through sound archaeological research and discovery, we must be willing to evaluate it objectively and even then, if a reading is accepted, we must be willing to emend our canon in order to reflect the new evidence. This we must do without letting our own feelings obstruct us from determining what is Truth.

However, new discoveries must be thoroughly evaluated in their own historical and archaeological context. An example of controversial material in this regard is the discovery at Nag Hammadi. We cannot simply accept something just because of its antiquity, without being critical of its origins. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts themselves conflict with much of the Scripture which has been handed down to us. But fortunately, we have historical testimony from early Christian writers, which enables us to determine that the Nag Hammadi writings were in fact creations of the sect of the Gnostics, a faction of the Judaean community at Alexandria which in the second century had sought to corrupt Christianity by fabricating its own versions of the Gospels and related documents. Arriving at these conclusions through an examination of the historical evidence and the documents themselves, I have therefore excluded these materials entirely from my own work. 

For an understanding of the Greek language, one cannot rely primarily upon “New Testament” lexicons. A proper understanding of a language cannot be acquired if one’s vocabulary is limited to the 5600 or so unique words which are represented in the New Testament, understood as the organized religions would like to present them and defined in a manner which often supports a particular theology. Rather, the same lexicons must be used which have been developed by scholars in order to understand the much larger body of historical, philosophical and other ancient writings which the Greeks have left us. That is why I have always used the Liddell & Scott lexicons for an understanding of Greek. The Scriptures were written in plain language for everyday people to understand, and not in some specialized theological babble. Every word of the Greek New Testament, except where a few Aramaic words appear, was used in a manner that the common Greek-speaking people of that time had understood them.

For this reason, Paul of Tarsus had written in 1 Corinthians chapter 14: “9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” So if the apostles had not used words according to their commonly understood definitions, they also would have been speaking into the air. Then Paul wrote in that same chapter: “19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” If Paul’s words had esoteric meanings, the esoeric meanings which are reflected in many of the definitions offered by churches today, he would have been speaking to his fellow Greek speakers with an unknown tongue. We cannot force Paul to contradict himself by changing the definitions of Greek words which he had used, words such as ἔθνος, which is a nation and not a non-Jew, σπέρμα, which is seed or offspring and not merely a believer or even a solitary individual, φυλή which is a genetically related tribe of men of the same race and not merely a collection of random church attendees, and ἐκκλησία which is an assembly of people called for a particular purpose, and not a church building or organization. There are many other Greek words of which modern churches have corrupted the definitions.

But while we have a large body of ancient Greek literature which has survived to this day, we are not so fortunate with Hebrew. Therefore the Old Testament is far more problematic in interpreting, and especially since there are no extant Hebrew manuscripts of any great antiquity. So while we have several versions of the Old Testament Scriptures available, and it may be asserted that all of them are important, it cannot be justly claimed that any of them may stand by itself as an absolute authority. They all have their unique and particular problems in addition to the many problems that they share in common with one another. 

The Septuagint is a translation, effected by fallible men, and therefore it has the same problems that many modern Bible translations have. It contains many translations which reflect the biases of the time in which it was written, which conflict with the historical context of the original writers, and it often also reflects a poor understanding of Hebrew language, history and Scripture as a whole. Since all translations are to some extent also interpretations, this is especially true in the prophetic books, where the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text is especially valuable. Also, through modern archaeology we have a much better understanding today of remote antiquity than had the translators of the Septuagint. Yet in many instances the Septuagint is much more valuable than the Masoretic Text, since apparently it was translated from far more reliable Hebrew manuscripts than those of the Masoretic Text. For the most part, the Septuagint also represents a text that the apostles knew and used where they themselves had quoted Old Testament scripture. Yet because both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts contain obvious flaws, both must be employed when examining Old Testament passages, and other important witnesses just as old exist to further assist us with that endeavor. 

The historian Flavius Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Judaeans as a summary of the history of Israel from Scripture, along with the more recent history which had led down to his own time appended to it. This work, while it reflects the learning of the first-century Pharisees, is nevertheless crucial to Biblical studies since it also often reflects the Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture from which Josephus had worked. Another viable source is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which although while they are indeed sectarian, contain many books and passages of Scripture in Hebrew and Aramaic, and even some in Greek, and they are therefore an important witness, predating the Masoretic Text by as many as eleven hundred years.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, early in my own studies I had read that the Biblical texts among the Scrolls most often support the Septuagint readings of Scripture, while in fewer instances they instead verify readings from the Masoretic Text. So I must apologize for that, since now I know that such is not true, especially after having taken the time to compare them in Genesis, Isaiah and elsewhere for myself. In those books the Dead Sea Scrolls favor the Masoretic Text much more frequently. However recently I have read, from seemingly authoritative sources, that the Dead Sea Scrolls do favor the Septuagint in certain books, such as Joshua and Samuel, and in the past I have seen examples for myself supporting that assessment. What is clear, however, is that the Septuagint had been translated from Hebrew texts which were much older than those of the Masoretic Text and which must have diverged from the Masoretic Text significantly in many areas. Sections of text are missing in portions of certain books, which are found in both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and also in the writings of Josephus. But this is not to say that the Septuagint is not valuable. Rather, many of the differences it has with English Bibles are a matter of interpretation of the Hebrew into Greek, and then of the Greek into English, and there it is evident that the Septuagint can also be a valuable resource in our study of Hebrew, provided we already have an understanding of Greek. A knowledge of Greek also helps us to understand how the Septuagint translators had understood the Hebrew language, as far as it can be determined that the underlying texts were the same as the Hebrew texts which we have today.

Now, up to this point, the purpose of our discussion has been to further explain those first five principles of our methods of Biblical exegesis which we have already mentioned. Now we shall present a much more important sixth principle: The Old Testament can only be understood through Christian eyes, but never through the eyes of those who have rejected Christ. Therefore the single most important tool which we must employ in order to understand the writings of the Old Testament are the words of Christ and His apostles in the New Testament.

First, since Yahshua Christ and the apostles were much closer to the original meanings of Scripture than we can ever hope to be, then when we interpret the Old Testament we must also examine their words wherever they can elucidate the meanings of Old Testament passages for us. One important example of this is the reading of Genesis 4:1, which is obviously corrupted in its current Hebrew grammatical form, and suffered that corruption at an early time, even before the Septuagint translation was created. Furthermore, there are apocryphal books which are supported by New Testament citations or other evidence left to us by the apostle, which refute the Septuagint and Masoretic readings of passages such as Genesis 4:1, and they must therefore be given merit and consideration. It must also be understood that the Septuagint and Masoretic texts are both “official” versions of Scripture and a reflection of the sentiments of the religious authorities of their respective times and sects, and therefore they must be treated accordingly – not blindly accepted or patently despised, but examined and treated objectively.

Within the plain words of Christ, such as the explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares or the prophecy found in Revelation chapter 12, or the plain and direct statements which Christ had made in John chapters 8 and 10, there are interpretations of Genesis chapters 3 and 4, as well as explanations of the origin and destiny of the fallen angels, the serpent in the garden, and all those whom Christ had called the offspring of serpents in His encounters with His enemies. Since Christ is the Word made Flesh, the incarnation of Yahweh God Himself, He knows the idioms and allegories of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament better than any man, so we should only consider them through His eyes, through the words which He has left us in the New Testament. This is what Paul meant where he said, as it is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, “16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” We cannot instruct Yahweh, but we can have the mind of Christ if we keep His Word and follow His commandments, for which reason Paul had also written, in Romans chapter 8, “29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

For this same reason, that the Old Testament can only be understood through Christian eyes, in 2 Corinthians chapter 3 Paul of Tarsus had explained that men who rejected Christ could not even understand the Old Testament, or especially the books of Moses, and that it may only be understood through Christ. So making an allegory of the vail which Moses had once placed over his own face, so that the children of Israel would not see how his face had shone rather brilliantly, Paul wrote of the fact that the Old Covenant had been done away, and said in part: “11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord [Christ], the vail shall be taken away.”

So in essence, there is no Jew, or anyone else who has not accepted Christ, who could possibly claim to understand the words of Moses and the Old Testament. But the Christian, once he fully accepts Christ and His words, may have the capacity to understand the Old Testament. Therefore the organized Church, which for sixteen hundred years has looked to the Jews as authorities on the Old Testament, has been misled, because according to Christ and His apostles, they cannot possibly be authorities. Christ Himself had called those who had rejected Him blind guides, on several occasions in Matthew chapter 23, and at an earlier point, where in Matthew chapter 15 His apostles had explained to Him that some of the Pharisees had been offended by His words, we read: “13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”

Therefore Paul’s allegory may be interpreted to mean that those who have rejected Christ, being blind themselves, could never see the light which emanated from the face of Moses. However Christ Himself had also told His adversaries this same thing, where we read in John chapter 5: “45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” So we may justly conclude that no Jew could ever be an authority on Scripture, regardless of his knowledge of language or history or literature. In this regard, the Roman Catholic and all other organized Christian churches have failed Christ. But if Jews have preserved the Old Testament writings, it is only in their blindness that they could have done so with any degree of honesty. In their Talmud, where they have their commentaries, their own vile spirits and wicked nature are fully exposed.

In summation of some of these first six of our principles of Biblical exegesis, we must not dismiss any ancient witness to Scripture: whether it be the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, the Aramaic Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the writings of Josephus or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They, along with some other resources in ancient languages, are all important witnesses which may help us arrive at a more accurate understanding of Scripture, yet they must all be examined through the lens of New Testament truth. And in that regard, certain apocryphal books, such as the original portions of the Enoch writings, must also be considered with Scripture since the New Testament writers quoted from them and they certainly regarded them as Scripture. However the so-called Apocrypha and related literature cannot be accepted or rejected without discretion, and each book must be examined individually in its own historical context and from the best evidence of ancient manuscripts. 

The Hebrew language, its vocabulary and idioms, must also be interpreted, whenever possible, through contemporary secular writings, writings as contemporary to the Old Testament period as possible. But of course, if those idioms are repeated in the New Testament writings, the task is far less difficult. Both Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament and the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon are valuable tools for the exegesis of Hebrew, but in my opinion, it is a mistake to look to modern Arabic or maybe even the Syriac of later Byzantine times, for an understanding of Old Testament Hebrew, which is something that both of those works do quite often. Lately, I have been referring to the Akkadian lexicons produced by archaeologists and linguists of the cuneiform inscriptions, which I shall discuss further, but first I must digress.

So here I must also state that, in my opinion, the entire worldly jewish paradigm of “Semitic languages” is a red herring. The often-heard claim that Phoenicians and Hebrews spoke a so-called “Canaanite language” is also a red herring. In my recent Genesis commentary, especially in Part 18 which is titled The Hebrews, I had demonstrated that the Canaanite tribes had their own native languages, of which there are many surviving records, but that they had also all spoken dialects of Akkadian, which was the lingua franca of the old Akkadian Empire and the later Assyrian Empire, and it had remained so from about 2500 BC down to the end of the Assyrian empire and perhaps the early portion of the 7th century BC. So Akkadian was also the lingua franca of the early ancestors of the Hebrews, the Assyrians, the Syrians, the Kushites and others who were not Canaanites, as well as the various Canaanite tribes who were also subjects of the Akkadian Empire. By Biblical times, the time of Moses in which the Bible was written, all of these nations still spoke dialects of Akkadian, and that is why their languages are similar. According to Scripture, Nimrod, a Kushite or son of Cush, was the first ruler of the significant cities of the later Akkadian empire, and therefore Akkadian must have been of Hamitic origin, and not a Semitic language at all. But the Canaanites, and especially the Hittites and the Horites, had nevertheless maintained their own languages which are at least partially known to archaeologists today, and those languages do not even resemble Akkadian. So it cannot justly be said that Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Therefore Jews cannot understand Scripture, and they do not even understand the history of ancient Mesopotamia and the Levant. Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees, and it is without doubt that he had spoken Akkadian as his primary language. 

So that leads me to discuss another advantage that we have now which the translators of the King James Version and other early Bibles, commentaries and lexicons did not have. Today we have a huge corpus of ancient inscriptions and tablets which have become available through archaeology and which were not only written in quite similar languages such as Akkadian and Aramaic, but which were also contemporary with the original writing of the Old Testament itself. These offer invaluable insight into the vocabulary and idioms of ancient Hebrew, and must be considered whenever possible. For this study, I have barely scratched the surface. But an example of such consideration is found with my own comparison of passages from the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh with certain language found in Genesis Chapter 3, in a paper I had written over twenty years ago, titled Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three, available at Christogenea.org, One cannot rely solely upon Strong’s Concordance for Biblical exegesis, since while it is often a valuable tool, by itself it is entirely deficient in language studies, and contains no indications from the original text concerning the grammar of each Hebrew word, which is beyond the scope of the original intent of that work.

Walking through the entire collection of Biblical books, it can clearly be demonstrated that sixty-five books of the common Biblical canon are indeed inspired. Good argument can be made to exclude only Esther, and none of the other books of those found in the King James Version may be excluded. All of the evidence and assertions of the critics fails, and upon scrutiny is seen to be little but the calumny of the Jews and assorted other anti-Christs and scoffers. Additionally, several of the so-called apocryphal books also belong in our canon, but each of them must be evaluated independently. 1 Maccabees, Susanna, and the Wisdom of Solomon should be reckoned as canon. The Wisdom of Sirach is useful for didactic purposes, but it is not prophetic and therefore it is not canon. 1 Esdras should be used in place of Ezra. The books of Tobit, 2 Esdras, Judith, Bel and the Dragon, and the additions to Esther are all fairy tales, or have been so corrupted by interpolations that they cannot be employed. The 3rd book of Maccabees is also a Jewish tale which explains the origins of a Purim festival separately from the explanation given in Esther. But an inquisitive reader should examine these things for himself, and determine why I hold these opinions.

With all of this in consideration, there are certain errors which rather unscholarly men often make in Biblical interpretation that are absolutely beyond the limits of intelligent, rational thought and honesty. Here I have some examples, some of which are quite old in my own experience, because it has been sixteen years since I wrote this paper, but I shall proceed with them regardless of the fact that after sixteen year they may be a little stale, I could probably add many others, but here I shall only add two.

So, for example, there was a sect within Christian Identity which insisted that Yahshua (Jesus) Christ had come through the line of Ephraim. However the New Testament Scriptures clearly state, in both Hebrews and in the Revelation, that He was of the tribe of Judah (not to be confused with today’s Jews), which is also attested in the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. Without any proof except for unfounded accusations, this sect refused both the Revelation and the writer of Hebrews, along with many of the Old Testament Scriptures, in order to maintain its argument. To me, such an endeavor which is not based on any truly ancient knowledge is sheer buffoonery. In blindness and arrogance, it is quite easy, in my opinion, for a man to become the fool. 

A premise, as defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary, is “a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn…. One of the propositions in a deductive argument…” My contention would be that, in any exposition concerning history, Scripture, science, or any other field of study, when presenting an argument, if your premise is wrong, it only naturally follows that your conclusion is wrong, unless you happen to be a very fortunate individual. 

Whenever I read an idea put forth by another student of Scripture (and we are all merely students), as soon as I realize that the person’s basic premise is wrong, I have no need to proceed further, I have no need to examine the balance of his argument. I aim to address the premise, and explain why it is wrong. From there, I would hope that the person investigates further, adjusts his conclusion if necessary, and only then engages in further debate. But from my own experience, many of the people that I have observed developing false doctrines from errant interpretations of Scripture would rather become insolent and return criticism, rather than reevaluate their vested positions. They often do this because, their pet theory being attacked, they then take it personally, judging by their feelings rather than judging objectively. Rather than enquiring further as to why their basic premise may be wrong, a more frequent reaction for many people is to jump up and down and scream, or, at least, to find the door, storm out, and never return.

One good friend, who was even a long time moderator at the Christogenea Forum and the Chat, has recently fallen away because I refused to agree with him, that their will be marriage and children after the resurrection. Now I do not care if there is or not, since I have no personal stake and since my own feelings do not matter. But Christ Himself had said, as it is recorded in three of the Gospel accounts, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but here I shall cite Matthew chapter 22: “29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” I cannot overcome this, and since these are the plain words of Christ according to the best and oldest manuscripts of Scripture, as well as the overall context of the passage, I must accept it in spite of my feelings.

But our friend could not do that, and he proposed to me that we should interpret the words of Christ according to certain statements which he had cited from the prophets, which to him proves that there will be marriage after the resurrection in spite of those plain words of Christ. But his methodology is wrong. As I wrote in the original presentation of this essay, we should understand the Old Testament by the words of Christ. Therefore, because God cannot contradict Himself, we must interpret the passages which our friend had cited in a different manner, and upon examination we must realize that there are indeed other possible interpretations, so they must be true in some other way. Yet our friend’s feelings seem to have inhibited his return for over four months now. It is sad to see a personal bias cause his departure from us, especially since he seemed to be very well-grounded in our common Identity understanding and faith for so many years. However it was the words of Christ which drove him away, something for which I can take no credit or blame.

The ideal attitude for me is not to claim any personal authority. The ideal attitude is that the Word of Yahweh our God alone is the authority. If one has a theory concerning Scripture, and wants to turn it into a doctrine, then one better have Scripture – or at least a very good exposition from demonstrably valid alternative translations or alternative sources of Scripture – in order to support the theory. And the apocryphal books cannot be used to refute Scripture, but they may indeed be used to clarify it. With that in mind, apocryphal books cannot be accepted if they contradict Scripture.

An example of obtaining help from an apocryphal source is found in another one of my two-decades old essays, The Problem with Genesis 6:1-4.

In that essay, I had explained how, since Adam is the son of God, there should be no problem with the sons of God taking wives from among the daughters of Adam, which is stated in the opening verses of Genesis chapter 6. But there, the event was a great sin, so a Christian, looking at the Genesis account through Christian eyes, should understand that there is a conflict. In the aforementioned essay, however, I had explained that in certain of the Enoch literature the phrase is sons of heaven rather than sons of God, and that in certain manuscripts of the Septuagint, which I have more recently examined myself for confirmation, it is angels of God, and both of these phrases could indeed describe the fallen angels. That also agrees with the fact that these sons of God, or rather, sons of heaven, had been associated with the Nephilim in that same passage of Genesis, and nephilim is a term which means fallen ones, another reference to fallen angels. So on that rather definitive basis, yes, I believe that I may revise sons of God in Genesis chapter 6 to sons of heaven, and in that manner all conflict in that chapter disappears. That also agrees with all of the principles of Biblical exegesis which I have just outlined here.

In another example from around the time of the original publication of this essay, in November of 2009 and at a time when the Christogenea Forum was only about four months old, a former contributor to the Forum had made the claim that Noah’s wife was “serpent seed”. His contention was that the whole globe was flooded, with all planetary life except that which was on the ark being destroyed, and that the “serpent seed” was preserved on the ark through Ham and his union with Noah’s wife. Yet nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that there was anything wrong with Noah’s wife. In fact, Noah was chosen by Yahweh to survive the flood because he was perfect in his descent. The flood was brought upon Adam-kind because of their race-mixing, and Noah survived, along with his family, because he was not a race-mixer. Yet this contributor’s interpretation basically accuses Noah of being a race-mixer, and, by extension, accuses Yahweh our God of being a hypocrite!

The bottom line is that this individual was forced into concocting a situation by which the seed of the serpent could survive the flood, since he insisted that the flood destroyed the entire globe and all life on it except for those on the ark. Rather than accept the Scripture for what it says, and look at how it would be possible for the serpent seed, the Rephaim, the Kenites and the other non-Adamic races to survive the flood of Noah, he sought to emend Scripture to fit his own personal theory concerning the flood. In doing so, he blasphemed both Noah – since the race-mixing accusation cannot be avoided – and even Yahweh Himself! Rather, God is True, and this contributor was a liar. He had made himself a fool as soon as he insisted that we accept his lies. In the loss of our more recent friend, he also lied to himself because he has an emotional attachment to the concept of having children in heaven (one chat member had sarcastically called it “space pussy”). For my part, I would not claim any personal authority. But on the other hand, I cannot accommodate someone’s heresy because I fear to hurt their feelings. To hell with the feelings of men, Christians must instead seek to please God.

It is one thing to disagree on what certain obscure words or verses mean, or to disagree on the meaning or impact of certain obscure events. However it is quite another thing to invent your own Scripture out of thin air in order to support your interpretations of those passages or events. One may get away with this in other venues, but one may not get away with it when offering it to people who have actually read their Bibles. Doing such a thing, Scripture itself will always expose the contrivance as a foolish invention. I alone am not calling such a person a fool: Scripture is making them into fools, because Yahweh is True and every man a liar. It is merely my duty to point it out when I see it. So perhaps there is one more principal of Biblical exegesis: Do not lie to yourself in order to support a pet theory, and then try to convince others of your lie.

If someone wants to offer interpretations of Scripture, whether or not they fit the mold, so to speak, that we in Christian Israel Identity have carved out through hard work and much study, one is more than welcome to do so. If one wants to honestly enquire, or even disagree, one is more than welcome to do so. Just don’t get up in your feelings when people who have studied cannot agree, and they can demonstrate why they cannot agree, because you should not be ruled by your emotions.

But if one is making up his own Scripture, and ignoring the greater Biblical context which refutes it, in order to push some pet interpretation of Biblical prophecy or events, then that person is simply wasting his time, the time of other readers, and he should expect to be treated critically, and even harshly. We know that Christian Identity is the true Christianity, yet it is ridiculed enough by the mainstream so-called clerics and scholars as it is. Therefore it behooves us to maintain the highest level of scholarship possible, so that when the critics assail us, they themselves are found wanting. We cannot ever maintain the appropriate level of scholarship by inventing our own scripture or history. We must aim at being overcomers, and not novelists.

This leads to one more issue, which arises in Christian Identity circles from time to time. Our former friend, the one who in 2009 decided to make up his own Scripture in order to explain certain later historical circumstances, had evidently done so because he was emotionally attached to a global flood, and evidently did not even understand Scripture well enough to see that some of the things which he asserted on account of his emotional attachment had contradicted the Word of God in many other ways.

So many people, even among Identity Christians, have run into conflicts with us because they wanted to prove their own pet theories, or they had personal interpretations of concepts or events in Scripture, which actually conflict with Scripture. As the apostle James had said in chapter 3 of his epistle, as I had translated it in the Christogenea New Testament, “1 You must not produce many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive a greater judgment.” These people, with their pet theories, are actually trying to teach others, otherwise, they would not publish their pet theories. So they are inviting a terrible condemnation upon themselves, which is the condemnation that is from God.

So in order to avoid that condemnation, men who profess to be teachers, or who even act as teachers without any self-proclaimed or even appointed position, must teach from Scripture, and in order to teach from Scripture one must be proficiently familiar with Scripture. So the apostle Paul had said, as we have translated it in 2 Timothy chapter 4, and as Paul was advising his young colleague: “1 I affirm before Yahweh, even Christ Yahshua who is going to judge living and dead, and His manifestation, and His kingdom: 2 You must proclaim the word, you must stand ready opportunely and inopportunely, you must bring convincing proof, you must censure, you must exhort with all forbearance and instruction.”

There the word for “bring convincing proof” is a verb, ἐλέγχω, which can mean several other things in different contexts. According to Liddell & Scott, in the primary and earliest use of the word it can mean disgrace, put to shame, or treat with contempt, but there it is explained that this use of the word is found only in the epic poets, who had written nearly seven hundred years before Paul of Tarsus. Furthermore, Paul is encouraging Timothy to persuade men, not to condemn them, and Timothy had no temporal power to condemn anyone. The context in his use of this word here, is for Timothy to “exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine”, and it becomes difficult to do that if you alienate and attempt to disgrace or shame or treat with contempt the people whom you are trying to exhort.

So, moving on to the later definitions of the word, as it was used from the time of the Classical and Hellenistic periods through to the time of Paul, the first definition listed is to cross-examine or question, and as we said, that is not the case here since Timothy was not a prosecutor at a trial. Secondly, it is to test, bring to the proof, and then to prove or bring convincing proof, and that is exactly how I had translated it because it fits both the historical and literary context of Paul’s exhortation to Timothy found in that epistle. In other secondary uses it may mean refute or confute, but Timothy’s mission was to convince men of the Truth of God, not to address the follies of their false gods. So I shall stand by that translation, and only some shining revelation delivered by an angel from heaven could compel me to change it. 

But interestingly, a friend had recently challenged that translation, and tried to persuade me that it was wrong, with absolutely no evidence but his own emotions, and even after I had fully elucidated my reasons. Then, that same friend had initiated several arguments in the Chat at Christogenea, and I had to redress him because he was often teaching what he thought was Scripture, without providing any precise citations. That is precisely what led to his arguments, but it was also the point of his contention with my translation of 2 Timothy 4:2. Evidently, he is inclined to reprove and rebuke, but he does not care to bring convincing proof of what he teaches. He made assertions from Scripture, and could not provide Scripture to support those assertions. Evidently, he did not like my translation because it rebukes him of his own behavior. So he has also lied to himself to support a pet theory. 

This predicament saddens me, because it is easily avoided, and because it causes divisions in our community which should never even occur in a community of students. I did describe Christogenea as “Christianity for the Thinking Man”, when I founded the website over sixteen years ago, and that remains my ideal. We are a community of students.

If I try to force opinions about how Christians should live without providing the appropriate Scriptures to support those opinions, as this friend was doing, then I am asserting a position of authority, whether I realize that or not. But if I elucidate from Scripture how a Christian should live, and I provide the citations, then it is God who is the authority and I fulfill a more suitable role as a mere messenger of His Word. That is an office which is much more suitable for a man, and no man can fill the office of God. Only God makes Scripture, and men are compelled to live by it. 

I do not want to lose friends and alienate people, but I cannot be blamed for not wanting to put up with another man’s innovations in the face of the Word of God and sound doctrine. As Identity Christians, whose beliefs are despised by the world as soon as we open our mouths, we have to be expositors of Scripture to the best of our ability, because the testimony of the Gospel of Christ is His rule of measure by which the world shall stand convicted of its sins. 

The principles to which we try to adhere in our methods of Biblical exegesis, are summarized in their order of mention here:

1. Objectivity must prevail over our emotions.
2. We must understand the original languages of Scripture.
3. We must understand the historical context of Scripture throughout each of its books.
4. God cannot contradict Himself, and we cannot interpret the Word of God in a manner which forces Him to contradict Himself. So we must examine Scripture in English, Greek and Hebrew, recognizing the possibility of glosses and other corruptions.
5. We must strive to follow the best source manuscripts.
6. The Old Testament can only be understood through Christian eyes.
7. We must not lie to ourselves in order to support a pet theory.