Well Friday, February 5th, 2010 will always be a milestone in my life. Got out of bed 1am (local time) in Jerusalem and went to bed 11pm (local time) in Portland. That’s quite a day.
I’m glad to be back. It was good to go and good to come home. I traveled well, jet lag, digestion and the various other things that plague travelers were mild to nonexistant for me. I only lost a couple of things (Dang! I loved that hat!) I was reasonably comfortable the whole time and slept well. Good companions, good food and reasonably good weather (it was midwinter there). My family was safe and sound and other than Jess being worn out from doing 100% of the taxiing, they survived my absence without distress.
I really can’t summarize the experience at this point. It will take a while for things to sink in and I look forward to experiencing new meaning for years to come. What I can say right now is, I’ll share for an evening at church in the near future, stay tuned for details.
Anticipating the trip I wrote: “I want to soak in the sense of space. The isolation of Masada, the wind and the waves of the Sea of Galilee, the heat of the desert, the feel of going ‘up to Jerusalem’, the view from Mt. Carmel, the weight of the Dead Sea. Imagination can only take you so far. To experience the walk, the view, the feel of these places — that’s what I’m after. I want the template of the space stamped on my consciousness. Then, whether reading about Joshua or David or Elisha or Jesus, there’ll be a physical orientation reinforcing the sympathetic understanding of their experience. It may sound a little airy-fairy, but that’s what I’m looking for. Of course, God is God, so I may be surprised.”
Re: The Template of the Space
I’m very satisfied on this account. Apart from a few one night stands, three times we spent four nights in one place. First at the southern tip of the Sea of Galilee, the kibbutz of Ma Agan (good food). Second on the shores of the Dead Sea at kibbutz En Gedi (great food). Third in Jerusalem, about a mile away from the Old City at the Dan Boutique (good food but charged $25 a day for wireless access! I made do at a little cafe across the street – the strongest espresso I’ve ever encountered.) In this sense I covered the whole, Galilee in the north, the desert in the south and Jerusalem in the center (traveled the coastal plane but only stayed there the night we arrived). It’s small with roads and cars. Plenty big on foot or horseback. Some examples of orientation gained: Nazareth overlooks the valley of armageddon (I didn’t know that!). The sea of Galilee is a lake (“Is that the WHOLE thing?”) Mt. Carmel, like many of the ‘mountains’ there, is a ridge rather than a distinct peak (No clear identification of the site of Elijah’s battle with the prophets of Baal). I loved the Dead Sea area (probably because we were staying at the oasis of En Gedi, in general it’s pretty inhospitable). It’s the lowest place on earth. The sky is cobalt blue, you can feel the weight of the air with the barren mountains looming above you. You literally float in the water! The hot springs pool for men had the sign “Silence.” Floating in warm water in silence is my idea of a good time! Virtually an out of body experience.
I also talked about walking to Emmaus. I ended up not taking the walk. It turns out the identification of Emmaus is less than certain and whichever way I chose, most of the walk would have been through modern Jerusalem and its suburbs.
There were only two things I would have been severely disappointed if I hadn’t been able to do. One was to walk through Hezikah’s tunnel and the other was to be on Temple Mount. I made it through Hezikah’s tunnel (I got to be in the lead). There’s a great sense of history there. No ‘traditional’ identification involved. This is it baby!. Ironically, we had seen the actual stone inscription put up where the tunnelers (working from different directions) met in the Museum in Istanbul! It was also a personal accomplishment for me. I don’t know if I’m technically claustrophobic, but I sure don’t like enclosed places (Are there people who do?). Anyway this is about as enclosed as you can get. It’s a third of a mile long, 2 feet wide (sometimes narrower) and mostly 7 feet high (with parts as low as 4 feet and as high at 40). I almost balked at the entrance which is at most 4 feet high with the water rushing through it in an ominous manner. But I figured if the mighty men of Hezikah could dig it (2 Chron. 32:2-4), I could at least manage to walk it. What a blast!
I made it onto Temple Mount, though my Bible didn’t (you can’t take one up there). I touched the bedrock under the dome of the Tablets/Spirits which is quite probably the site of the Holy of Holies (long story). But oddly enough, my most significant ‘God moment’ came not on the Mount but below it on the southeast corner. Standing there you can see (and touch) the stones that were thrown down by the Romans in 70 AD. They are left ‘in situ’ which is archeologist speak for ‘as they were found’. There they are, beneath them foot thick marble pavement stones shattered like glass from the impact, off to your right the Mt. of Olives where Jesus gave the Olivet discourse (Mt. 24-25). “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down (Mt. 24:2).” It was like being there the day after it happened. And to think of all that will soon happen there! Amen. Come Lord Jesus!
My deepest gratitude to all who provided the funds and prayed for me and my family. Special thanks to Swede Workentine whose own love for the experience drove him to make the way for me to know it as well. You’ll be hearing about it for years to come.
Shalom,
Chris
I thought I’d get two birds with one stone. Jess and I have stayed in touch via email. Here’s my email to her (minus personal comments) on Tuesday, 2/2.
Big day. We started in the rabbinical tunnel along the western wall of temple mount. Because successive layers of civilizations have been here the first century ‘ground floor’ may be 20 to 40 feet below what you’re walking on. Saw the ground floor of the Herodian temple. Most memorable was walking down the street they’d excavated (it’s a narrow tunnel on street level) and coming to a sudden stop. They were hacking it out of bedrock and you just run right into the bedrock. Why did the street suddenly stop? Because Herod died, and when he died they immediately stopped, the paving stones were just lying there. It’s like a snapshot from the 1st century (B.C. technically). Also saw a pool that became a cistern that served the Antonia (the Roman fortress adjacent to the Temple).
Pool of Bethsaida – actually we saw the remains of churches built above the pool of Bethsaida. As we were leaving I noticed a narrow little stairway in the wall that said ‘no entrance’ but also had an old sign which read “To the edge of the southern pool”. I was tempted but Dennis said no way.
Then in a church we saw what was probably the pavement on which Jesus was judged and/or tormented by the soldiers. It’s a little complex. The Antonia (where Jesus would have been judged) probably doesn’t exist. In 135 after the Bar Kochba revolt Hadrian leveled the city and built and entirely new Roman city here. But they used the stones from the previous city. Anyway, in this pavement there is etched ‘the Kings game’. This was a common practice for Roman soldiers, the tormenting of condemned prisoners. I don’t know exactly how ‘the game’ was played but there it is in stone. The implication is that these stones were the ones the soldiers actually used for the game (they bear the insignia of the Roman 10th legion which was stationed in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus). So they’re the actual pavement stones. Whether they’re in their original position (less likely) or were reused by Hadrian (more likely) they’re almost certainly the stone on which Jesus stood when in the hands of the Romans.
Temple Mount: we got up. Lot’s of security. Again, I don’t like the dome of the rock, but it’s very pretty. I learned the dome’s been covered with lead for most of the centuries. Only in the 20th was it changed to gold. It was a good architectural move. We saw the inside of the ‘Golden Gate’. It was built by Suliman the Magnificent in the 15th century over the Herodian gate of the second temple. It’s the only gate on the eastern side. Messiah comes from the east (Mt. of Olives). When Suliman learned this, he had the gate bricked up to prevent the Messiah from coming. It’s still bricked up. But I don’t think it will be a problem for Messiah when He returns. We also saw the dome of the spirits/tablets. I touched the bedrock. This is probably where the Holy of Holies was. Long story. I’ll fill you in when I get home.
From there through more security to the Western wall. I was struck by the number of birds there and thought of Psalm 84.
On the southern side of Temple Mount is the Jerusalem archeological park. Here are open excavations down to the first century level. The most moving experience for me was standing there and looking at the temple stones which had been hurled down when the Romans destroyed it in 70. They were left ‘in situ’ which means ‘as they were found’. The pavement below was absolutely crushed by the weight of these huge stones. Couldn’t help but think of Jesus’ words in Mt. 24:2 “Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” There they were, just like He said. Stones that size don’t move much over the centuries. At the southwestern corner there’s the stone which was the upper corner stone of the Temple Mount. We know because of its shape and and inscription on it “to the trumpeting place”. There’s a niche in the stone where the trumpeter stood on that corner of the mount. I stepped into it for a moment.
Speaking of trumpets, I’m awfully tired of the droning Muslim calls to prayer 5 times a day. One came as we were eating lunch. Then, shortly after, the bells of the Church of the Redeemer rang out. My, did they sound sweet! I’ve got a whole new appreciation for the sound of Church bells!
I’ve also got a new appreciation for the significance of baptism. The Jews developed the tradition of the ritual bath. It was a symbolic way of cleansing. They’re all over the place and various branches of Judaism used and use them with varying degrees of frequency. Baptism is the single, final, total ritual cleansing. We don’t ever need to be ‘cleansed’ again because we’re clean in Christ!
Tomorrow Hezekiah’s tunnel and the City of David.
All is well with me. Loving it here and looking forward to returning home.
All my love,
Chris
We journeyed south through the Jordan valley. This is modern Israel’s border with Jordan. Yes, they have a border fence. We couldn’t go into Samaria/the hill country of Ephraim for political reasons. The Israeli guide thinks the bus would be stoned. There’s lot’s of history there but …… not this time.
We arrived at Jericho (which is in the Palestinian Authority, but our guide is well known there and felt we wouldn’t have problems). For me the site was a bit of a bust. Jericho was a mud brick city and mud brick doesn’t hold up very well over the centuries. Basically it’s a pile of mud, with a few discernible structures. Still, it’s what happened here that’s important.
It’s also the site of the traditional Mount of the Temptation. Pure tradition but there’s a monastery carved into the side of the mountain. After a cable car ride up, our leader Dennis gave us only 15 minutes there. Somebody asked “How far can we go?” (it’s a long structure), somebody else sagely observed “Seven and a half minutes.” I, along with Kyle my 17 year-old roommate, decided to try to reach the end of the Monastery which had a balcony viewpoint. Lots of steps up and down, hurrying through the monastery, near the end we suddenly entered a room filled with icons. In a typical American tourist blunder I loudly exclaimed “Whoa!” (I’m very fond of icons). I then realized there were a dozen other people in the room deep in prayer and reflection. Whoops. We took a quick look from the balcony and began to hurry back. We agreed that we could cover for being late (that’s breaking one of the ten commandments of the tour) by saying we were looking for one another. Anyway, breathless. at the door of the monastery we met Dennis and the rest of the crew. He’d decided to extend the time and they were going to have a leisurely stroll through the monastery to the viewpoint! So I had time for some personal prayer and reflection (over a cup of coffee) on the Mount of Temptation.
Jericho is on the northwestern edge of the Dead Sea. Just a few miles away is Qumran. WHOA! This was a place I could feel. It’s not a biblical site, there was a monastery there from roughly 100 B.C. to 70 A.D. It’s where the famous Dead Sea Scrolls were found. There’s a lot of controversy about the DSS and the inhabitants of Qumran. Some scholars think it was (or became) a Christian community. Regardless, there’s a sense of isolation/desolation here which is tangible. Huge barren mountains loom over the site, gouged by an enormous ‘wadi waterfall’. A wadi is a dry riverbed through which water flows when there’s rain. This wadi would (3, 4, 5 times a year) have become a scale version of Niagara Falls! They had an elaborate system of aqueducts to channel the water into cisterns. There’s no reconstruction at this site, the rooms and walls were essentially intact, buried under the dust of the ages. In one area they found 100,000 date pits. These guys liked dates. And I liked Qumran. My kind of place. I bought some nice memorabilia here.
We’re staying at En Gedi. It’s a kibbutz at the site of a biblical oasis on the Dead Sea. It’s where Saul pursued David and David cut off the corner of his cloak in the cave (1 Sam. 24). Really amazing place. The Dead Sea is dead, nothing lives in it. It’s surrounded by forbidding desert mountains. Then, out of nowhere. is this lush green canyon, cool and moist, with plants and animals. It’s the power of water, ‘streams in the desert’. The modern kibbutz is a botanical paradise, trees from all over the world grow here, fruit weighing down the branches. Song of Songs 1:14 gives a sense of the luxury, “My lover is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi.” They’ve excavated a first century A.D. synagogue here. It has an inscription in the floor which pronounces a curse on anyone who reveals ‘the secret of En Gedi’. The ‘secret’ appears to have been a production technique for a unique kind of perfume. Everybody prized it, and this was the only place it the world it was produced. A very special place then and now.
Nearby is Masada on the southeastern shore of the Dead Sea. It’s an isolated rock plateau which was almost impregnable. It doesn’t appear in the Bible by name but it may be referred to as one of the strongholds or fortresses in the desert. Herod the Great, a paranoid man who never spent a night outside a fortress, had it magnificently fortified. Two palaces, a full Roman bathhouse, a synagogue and sixteen huge storerooms up there. along with enough cisterns to hold water for an army. The only way up is ‘the snake path’ a narrow set of switchbacks ascending 1400 feet (I walked up, I didn’t set any speed records but it was my accomplishment for the day). In the revolt against Rome which began in 66 A.D., after Jerusalem fell in 70 about a thousand rebels, (men, women and children) fled here. They had a year of relative peace before the Romans determined to wipe them out. The place is virtually impregnable. But Rome was willing to spend the time, treasure and blood to take it down. Over the course of 14 months the Romans build a ramp, a man-made mountain to reach the mountain. They used Jewish slave labor to build it (after the fall of Jerusalem there were so many Jewish slaves available that it was cheaper to buy one and work him to death and then buy another than it was to buy one and feed him). The Jews above wouldn’t fire on the Jews below and so the ramp was built. The night before the Romans finally breached the walls the rebels committed suicide. They destroyed all their valuables but left the storehouses full of food. They wanted to show Rome that they hadn’t starved and they hadn’t suffered. They simply preferred to die free rather than live as slaves. Masada in Israel is like the Alamo in the U.S. only more so. It’s more than the Alamo because it’s more than symbolic. The Jewish people don’t have anywhere else to go and they know it. And so they have a saying, “Masada shall not fall again.”
I like this area a lot but the days are passing and we must ‘go up to Jerusalem’.
It’s great to be in Israel, the journey went well, great considering one can board a plane and 48 hours (3 take offs and landings, and two countries later) end up on the other side of the world.
Here are some observations in no particular order.
I knew it was small but I’m continually adjusting my sense of scale. The Sea of Galilee is a lake. I could have told you the dimensions (13 miles long by 8 miles wide) before I got here but when I’ve envisioned it, I’ve thought ‘sea’. You can see the whole shore line from many points on the shore (when the weather’s clear which it has only rarely been for us). From many points on the mountains which encircle it, you can survey the the whole. On a road map of the country you cover large portions in 15 minutes driving. Although, if I were walking around here, or even riding a horse (or a donkey) it would seem a lot bigger.
The Arbel is a ridge which provides a good view of the whole area. As I was wandering around up there I saw a pair of coneys (rock badgers). This was a special treat for me. Psalm 104 is a great creation psalm. Verse 18 says “The high mountains belong to the wild goats; the crags are a refuge for the coneys.” The treat was that last summer we went to Yellowstone. Early one morning Ari and I climbed up to a viewpoint overlooking Old Faithful and the upper geyser basin. I’d hoped to catch a few eruptions, we didn’t but the view was magnificent. The only wildlife we saw was a coney who popped his head up as if to say “What are you doing in my territory?” I sort of think of it as a way God ‘winks’ at me.
Regarding the sites: We’ve been to Tabga (traditional site of the multiplication of loaves and fishes) and the Mt. of the Beatitudes (traditional site of the sermon on the mount). Big churches at both places. They didn’t do much for me. Traditional sites are just that – traditions. Most were identified in the 4th or 5th century so there’s little likelihood of their being the actual sites. Still, if it wasn’t that place it was a place just like that and near there. I’m sure it’s a very personal thing. Those sites/churches might be the highlight of somebody else’s journey. Just not for me.
Here’s the three most moving things I’ve experienced. First, as we were headed ‘home’ down the west side of the lake (henceforth I’ll think of it as the lake of Galilee rather than the sea of Galilee) we pulled over to the side of the road. Dennis informed us that this was the only spot on the shore that met the criteria for the story of the Gaderene demoniac (Luke 8:26-38). The lake was calm, clouds reflecting in the water, the sun was setting shining a pillar of orange on the water. The story is special for me because it was the first gospel account I read and ‘got’ as I was becoming a Christian in the summer of ‘75. Light and darkness were warring within me, and I remember laughing out loud when I read it because it showed how ugly satan and demons were – even pigs couldn’t stand them!
Second was a boat ride across the lake. It took about a hour and a half one morning. There was some thunder and lightning in the north and we thought we might be in for one of those famous storms (Marika, our Israeli guide was seriously concerned). But it cleared and we even got a little rainbow. Anyway, being on that water, thinking about the water that was fished in and walked on, the sermons preached and the storms stilled. Wow!
Third was the site of Capernaum. It’s a little ways above the lake (most villages were). There’s a relatively intact 4th century synagogue there which is certainly built on the foundation of the 1st century synagogue. There’s also a special place, probably a house. It’s identified as the house of Peter’s mother-in-law. Now there’s a Catholic church built right over it with a glass floor so you can look down on the site (I couldn’t get in because they were having a service when we were there). But you can go right up to the site under the church. What’s special about it is you can see the successive foundations of churches which have been built on that site from the 1st century. That’s important because ‘traditional’ sites date from the 4th century. This place has had a church structure from the first century onwards. This means that from the beginning it was recognized as a sacred place. Jesus spent a lot of time in Capernaum. He probably lived right there! And as far as the synagogue goes, I was reading a passage which has always been important to me, the Bread of Life discourse in John 6. It’s where Peter says “Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life (v68).” Anyway v59 says “He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” So that’s the very spot. Wow!
That’s it for now, I’ll aim to post another blog in a few days from the Dead Sea.
I’ll be leaving for Israel soon (1/18, returning 2/5). Here’s what I’m thinking about the trip:
What am I hoping for? First let me tell you what I’m not ‘hoping for’. I’m not hoping the experience will make the Bible ‘more real’ to me. That may sound odd, here’s what I mean. The Word of God is already real to me. It is the basis of my reality. That’s not to say I live up to it all the time (or even most of the time) but my life, my world-view, my belief system are established and defined by Scripture. I don’t think experiencing the physical space will make it more ‘real’ in that sense (“Wow, there’s the [traditional site of the] empty tomb. Now I really believe it’s empty.”). I’m thinking of Thomas here, to whom Jesus said “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (John 20:29).” The touch of God sparked my belief many years ago. By His grace that faith comes from Him and does not depend on what I’ve seen or haven’t seen or where I’ve been or haven’t been.
Having said that, I can say what I am ‘hoping for’. A good student of history develops the ‘skill’ of projection into historical circumstance, the ability to feel what is was like within the situation. This is no small task, especially because, in the matter of history, we already know what happened. When living through history (as everyone has always done and we’re doing right now) you don’t know what’s going to happen. After it happens, everything seems simple. “This was smart. That was dumb. This should have been obvious. How on earth could you have thought that!?” It’s the Monday morning quarterback syndrome. But to really understand people in history requires an imaginative leap into the circumstances as if you didn’t know. That leap enables one to sympathize with those who were there. To feel the feelings and think the thoughts. Obviously there are limits to this, but (IMHO) this ability is what distinguishes a good historian from the crowd (who usually are out to prove their pet -ism [Marxism, Feminism, Environmentalism, whatever] is the explanation of and solution for the world’s problems).
I want to soak in the sense of space. The isolation of Masada, the wind and the waves of the Sea of Galilee, the heat of the desert, the feel of going ‘up to Jerusalem’, the view from Mt. Carmel, the weight of the Dead Sea. Imagination can only take you so far. To experience the walk, the view, the feel of these places — that’s what I’m after. I want the template of the space stamped on my consciousness. Then, whether reading about Joshua or David or Elisha or Jesus, there’ll be a physical orientation reinforcing the sympathetic understanding of their experience. It may sound a little airy-fairy, but that’s what I’m looking for. Of course, God is God, so I may be surprised.
It’s exciting to think about being in the actual place where such-and-such occurred. In these matters I’m more interested in hills and springs than I am in the Church of the Nativity (the traditional site of Jesus’ birth) or the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (the traditional site of Jesus’ tomb). Geographical landmarks can be identified with great confidence. “That is Mt. Carmel.” “That is the Mount of Olives.” Over the millennia they don’t move. Traditional sites are far less dependable. Most were ‘identified’ centuries after the events. Is that really the physical place where Mary gave birth to the Savior? Sure it’s in Bethlehem, it was probably a place like that. But is it really, actually that place? Maybe, but probably not.
Towering (figuratively if not literally) over it all is Temple Mount. That is the place. As I read Scripture it’s the place where Abraham offered Isaac (Gen. 22). It’s the threshing floor David bought from Araunah the Jebusite (1 Chron. 21), it’s where the glory of the Lord came as Solomon dedicated the temple (2 Chron. 7:1-3), it’s where the glory of the Lord departed in the days of Ezekiel (Ezek. 10). It’s where the glory of the Lord returned in the person of Jesus (John 1:14). And it’s ground zero for things to come. Yes, that is the place. Access is on a day to day basis so I’ll probably be able to go there but it’s not guaranteed. It’s the one thing I’ll be deeply disappointed if I don’t get to do.
I also want to take a walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus, it’s about seven miles (Luke 24:15) and it’s the scene of one of my favorite accounts in Scripture – the playfulness of Jesus with the suffering past, the disciples hearts burning within them. If He met me on the way, would I recognize Him?
On the way there we’ll be stopping for a day in Istanbul. This is frosting on the cake for me, and I’m not talking about shopping in the markets. What is now called Istanbul, was historically Constantinople. The city founded by Constantine, the first Christian emperor of the Rome. The Post-it note version of history has Rome falling in 476 and that’s accurate as far as it goes. The emperor was deposed and the governmental integrity of the Western Roman empire was never restored. But don’t tell the Byzantines Rome fell in 476. The Byzantine or Eastern Roman empire, based in Constantinople, lasted for another thousand years. The walls of that city guarded it for a millennium, until 1453 when people of the ‘religion of peace’ (who’d been hammering on them for 800 years) finally blew them down with a canon, the first use of one in Europe. I’ll get to see what’s left of those walls and I’ll go to church, to the Hagia Sophia. For a thousand years it was the largest cathedral in the world. When the Muslims conquered the city they made it into a mosque (it’s currently a museum), but for me it will be what its builders intended and what it was for the millennium of Byzantium, the Hagia Sophia, the Church of the Holy Wisdom.
Please pray for me and my family … the rigors of travel and the time of separation. Thanks to all and I’ll try to get one post up from ‘the Holy Land.’
Shalom,
Chris
I thought I’d share some lessor known Christmas movies that are among my favorites. Most people are familiar with ‘the classics’— various versions of “A Christmas Carol”, “It’s a Wonderful Life”, “Miracle on 34th Street”. As great as these are, here are some treasures you may not know.
3 Godfathers, 1948
That’s “3 Godfathers” not “Godfather 3″ (a movie definitely not on my Christmas list). This 1913 Peter Kyne story has been filmed several times. The one for Christmas is the 1948 version, directed by John Ford and starring John Wayne. It’s the only “John Wayne Christmas movie” I know of. Of course, it’s a western. Three bad guys rob a bank and as they flee through the desert, come across a woman dying as she gives birth to a son. With her last breath she asks them to care for him, which they promise to do (Who could refuse?). I won’t spoil the plot other than to say this is a highly redemptive movie dripping with biblical allusions and imagery. There’s plenty of humor and drama. Will the baby get safely to “New Jerusalem”? It will take a miracle! John Ford’s visual artistry is on full display (much of it was filmed in Death Valley). It’s in color. Comedy, drama, action, romance and redemption, it’s got it all. Children can enjoy this one.
We’re No Angels, 1955
It’s Christmas eve on Devil’s island and three prisoners are making their escape. They stumble on a shopkeeper and his family and the rest is … well the rest is one of the most charming movies you’ll ever see. The spirituality is more subdued in this thoroughly delightful story. Humphrey Bogart (it’s the only ‘Bogart Christmas movie’ I know of), Peter Ustinov and Aldo Ray play their parts with relish. Three endearing rascals in perfect harmony. The tension is driven by the convicts’ desire to escape and their growing enchantment with the family, who are about to be done in by evil Uncle Andre (played with delicious villainy by Basil Rathbone). They came to pillage and make their escape, but their confliction is captured in Bogart’s line, “We’ll bash their heads in, gouge their eyes out, cut their throats … after we wash the dishes.” It’s directed by Michael Curtiz who also directed Bogart in “Casablanca”. In glorious color, it’s another one that younger viewers can enjoy. Note: Don’t confuse it with a movie of the same title made in 1989 starring Robert De Niro, there’s no relation.
Holiday Affair, 1949
We’re descending in order of spirituality on this list. There’s no spiritual subtext in this delightful romantic comedy. Take a cautious war widow (Janet Leigh) with a young son; swing around to Christmas time when the boy wants a train; bring on Robert Mitchum and you’ve got a story. Alarmed by feelings the romantic stranger arouses, she suddenly consents to marry a thoroughly decent guy (Wendell Correy) she’s been putting off for years. You’ll enjoy every twist and turn of the romantic triangle. All the characters are likable (the boy manages to remain “cute” throughout — no small accomplishment). You end up rooting for everybody and, in a way, everybody wins. Although Timmy may not end up with the train he was hoping for, he does get a train of a sort. Enjoy the ride in the only “Robert Mitchum Christmas movie” I know of. Note: Be careful if you go looking for this one. There’s a 1955 TV version (staring Phyllis Thaxter) and a 1996 TV version (starring Cynthia Gibb). I haven’t seen either one, but they couldn’t possibly be better than the original.
The Shop Around the Corner, 1940
You probably know the story even if you haven’t seen this movie. It was remade as “In the Good Old Summertime”, an MGM musical with Judy Garland and Van Johnson in 1949; and as “You’ve Got Mail” in 1998 (starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan). The plot revolves around two letter-writing (emailing in “You’ve Got Mail) sweethearts, both unaware that their correspondent is a coworker (or competitor in “You’ve Got Mail”) they intensely dislike. Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan star in the original, directed by Ernst Lubitsch. The story is based on a 1937 Hungarian play Parfumerie, which explains why the original movie takes place in Budapest. It’s set in a little retail shop with Jimmy Stewart as the manager and Margaret Sullavan as the new employee. On this very small stage a lot of very big things happen. There’s some serious drama, romance and plenty of laughs, all within a very wintery Christmas atmosphere. The other three movies I watch every year. This one I watch every two or three years, but it’s definitely worth watching once. Note: This is not the only “Jimmy Stewart Christmas movie” I know of.
Let me know what your favorite under appreciated Christmas movie is. I might enjoy it.
Merry Christmas,
Chris
Part 3: What’s the point?
I heard a story about a 19th century Bible conference, about prophecy I think. Anyway there were raucous debates and disagreements about various points as each faction argued their view. A newspaper correspondent was covering the conference and remarked to one of the organizers. “You Christians have such disagreements among yourselves, how can you expect anyone to be drawn to your cause?” The man walked to the platform, interrupted the proceedings and said “I ask everyone here who is saved by faith in the risen Christ to join me in the Lord’s Prayer.” After a brief pause as heads bowed and knees bent, they all spoke with one voice, “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen (Matthew 6:9–13 KJV).”
The story makes the point that what Christians agree about is much more fundamental and much more significant than what they disagree about. Yea and amen. But I relay the story to make a different point. I’m writing about the downside of so many good Bible translations. I’m trying to show what it costs us. What we lose because of them. If such an incident were to take place today there is no way we could spontaneously speak in unison anything, not even the Lord’s prayer. We would have to have one of the dozen or so translations currently in use projected on a screen. Only then could we speak (i.e. read) in unison.
“So what?” You say. “Aren’t we better off with so many translations to choose from?” I don’t think so. Consider Mt. 6:9 from the 10 best-selling translations (in descending order) in the US as of September 2009 (I’ve replaced #9, the Spanish Reina Valera with the NET, see below for full version names).
NIV 9 “This, then, is how you should pray: ” ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
KJV 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
NKJV 9 In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
NLT 9 Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.
ESV 9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
HCSB 9 “Therefore, you should pray like this: Our Father in heaven, Your name be honored as holy.
NASB 9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
MSG 9 Like this: Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are.
NET 9 So pray this way: Our Father in heaven, may your name be honored,
NIRV 9 “This is how you should pray. ” ‘Our Father in heaven, may your name be honored.
Having read these, do you have ten times the understanding, ten times the clarity? I think not. How much better it would be to take one translation and recite it ten times. The ‘diversity’ of expression does not deepen our understanding, it erodes it. Matthew 6:9 doesn’t say ten things, it says one thing. Matthew 6:9 doesn’t say one thing ten different ways, it says one thing one way. Now because it says that one thing in Greek (the original language of the New Testament) those of us who don’t speak Greek need a translation. But we don’t need two, or ten. Multiple translations undermine our understanding and appreciation because they take what is, in its original form, a stable, fixed form of expression and fragment it into a variety of expressions which, don’t miss the irony, mean the same thing.
Each translation is different (it has to be). No two of them use exactly the same words, though they’re all translating the same words and should mean the same thing. Though NIV, NKJV and ESV use the same phrasing “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,” each introduces it with different wording. What is gained? I can’t imagine. You’ll note NLT, HCSB and NIRV avoid ‘hallowed’ and replace it with ‘honored’. Fair enough. ‘Hallowed’ is a word not commonly used. And rather than (God forbid) go to the trouble of learning something, why not use a more common word like ‘honored’? The problem is ‘honored’ doesn’t mean quite the same thing, it lacks the sacred connotation. HCSB accommodates this by adding “as holy,” NLT and NIRV stand pat.
The Message is a paraphrase which purposefully veers off the beaten track to offer a fresh perspective. This is what the New Living Translation did in it’s original incarnation as “The Living Bible (1971)” but it’s ‘evolving’ (progressing or regressing?) into a ‘translation’. But don’t worry about it ‘getting stuck’ anywhere. The New Living Translation (first edition 1996) has already been adjusted (second edition 2004). Stay tuned. But back to the fresh perspective of the Message. Does “Reveal who you are.” mean the same thing as “hallowed/honored as holy be your name”? I don’t think so. If the argument is “That’s what Jesus meant.” then I have to ask, why isn’t it what He said? If it means the same thing, what is the point? And if it means something more or less or other, isn’t it incorrect?
This is the essence of my concern. If two translations mean the same thing and only involve slightly different wording than nothing is gained and something (unity, cohesion, a common language) is lost. If they mean different things then one is better or worse than the other because they are both translating the same thing. And the thing they are translating doesn’t have two (or ten) different meanings. Of course, you want a translation of the Bible from it’s original languages (Hebrew and Greek) into our language (English) which accurately captures its meaning. But you shouldn’t want what we have, which is dozens of translations which relay similar meaning in slightly different wording. That situation erodes memorization, gives followers of Jesus an unnecessary hurdle to unity (“My Bible’s better than your Bible.”) and plays to an immature love of novelty.
Ah, the thrill of novelty. Let’s say you grew up with Bible ‘A’, then you switch to Bible ‘B’. It’s fresh, it’s exciting, it’s stimulating. Oh the joy! You’d be inclined to think it’s because Bible ‘B’ is a better translation than Bible ‘A’. And you’d almost certainly be wrong. What you’re responding to is not superior translation but novelty. Bible ‘A’ is old and familiar. Bible ‘B’ is new and exciting. The problem here is that as you stick with Bible ‘B’ guess what happens? That’s right, it becomes old and familiar. The solution? Bible ‘C’, it’s new and exciting, and so it goes.
Psalm 1 says “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers (Psalms 1:1–3 NIV).” The law the psalmist meditated on never changed, ever, ever. No upgrades, no second editions, no Law 2.0. Yet the result of his meditation made him “like a tree planted by streams of water,” strong and stable, always drawing from the stream of Scripture on which he meditates day and night. There’s no novelty here, just depth and life.
Therefore what? I have no illusions about English-speaking Christians unifying around a single translation. These eggs will not be unscrambled. The best we can do is realize the cost of multiple translations and pick one to hang our lives on. Meditate on it day and night, you’ll become a tree planted by streams of water. But ‘Bible-hopping’, thrill-seeking, upgrade-craving believers will be like trees transplanted from one stream to another.
This subject has many issues I haven’t touched on, But I’m done posting for now. Though it occurs to me that you might be thinking, “Hey, I like multiple translations because ….” Post a comment and let’s pursue it.
News Flash: While preparing this post I learned that a ‘major revision and update’ of the New International Version has been announced, due out in 2011, I can hardly wait.
NIV New International Version (1978, 1984)
KJV King James Version (1611)
NKJV New King James Version (1982)
NLT New Living Translation (1996, 2004)
ESV English Standard Version (2001)
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004)
NASB New American Standard Bible (1971, 1995)
MSG The Message (2002)
NET New English Translation (2005)
NIRV New International Readers Version (1996)
Part 2: Undermining Memorization
This is the second in a series of posts on the problems arising from the widespread use of multiple English translations of the Bible. In the first post -The paradox of choice- I addressed the psychological cost of having to choose, and keep choosing between multiple translations. Now we turn to the devastating effect of the babel of Bibles on a grossly undervalued but fundamental practice of the spiritual life – the memorization of Scripture.
The problem is painfully simple and profoundly debilitating. Different translations of the Bible say essentially the same thing in slightly different ways. What the value of saying the same thing in a slightly different way is I do not know. But I know what the cost is. Instead of a simple, consistent statement, we encounter a variety of slightly inconsistent statements. We can quibble about whether this helps or hinders the understanding of the meaning. But it is poison to the practice of memorizing Scripture.
I’m going to have to do two posts on this subject because many need to be reminded or convinced of the importance of “word for word” memorization of Scripture.
Rote Bible memorization. It may sound like kid-stuff and unpleasant kid-stuff at that; calling to mind images of children being ‘drilled’ to recite passages in pursuit of the inevitable prize. Forget all that. Consider simply what the Bible says about memorizing the Bible.
Psalm 119:11 “I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.”
I won’t take the time or space here to delve into the significance of ‘the word in the heart’. Suffice it to say, it is a fundamental and pervasive image which speaks of internalizing the Word (“bind them upon your heart forever” [Pro. 6:21]; “write them on the tablet of your heart” [Pro. 7:3]; “the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe” [Luke 8:12]). Simply note here that it is the means the psalmist has chosen to be kept from sin. Still haunted by children’s voices droning out Bible verses? Consider the example of Jesus.
- Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him (Mt 4:1-11).
This is the Savior, the Lord, God the Son incarnate. He is assaulted by the tempter, Satan, the Devil. Divinity joined with humanity is confronted by pure evil. How does the Savior respond? What is His defense? How does He resist and ultimately repel the evil one? He quotes Scripture. He quotes it word for word. And that is all He does!
I don’t know about you but I need help resisting the Devil. And I don’t know about you, but I seriously doubt I can improve on Jesus’ technique. He quotes Scripture … I don’t have a better idea!! I guess that’s the thing to do! But in order to quote Scripture word for word, you’ve first got to memorize Scripture word for word like Jesus did (you can be sure He wasn’t carrying Torah scrolls out there in the desert). It was hidden, word for word, in His heart.
Just one more passage.
- Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph. 6:13-17).
The subject is spiritual warfare. The imagery comes from a Roman soldier. The exhortation is defensive rather than offensive, it’s about standing ground, not taking ground. The forces of evil attack, will you be standing when it’s over? You’ll need the full armor of God. And every piece of that armor is defensive with one exception. The shield, the breastplate, the helmet, the belt, the boots, they protect you. There is only one offensive weapon at your disposal. There’s only one thing you strike with – “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
An important note about the Greek term translated “word” in the phrase “word of God.” It isn’t logos, a broad Greek term for word, thought, idea, etc. Rather it’s rhema, which refers to literal words, the things that come out of our mouths.
When Jesus resists the Devil by quoting Deut. 8:3 “Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4), the same Greek term is used. Every rhema that comes from the mouth of God.
So, if we want to be kept from sin, if we want to resist the devil, if we want to be standing when the day of evil passes we’d better memorize the Word of God, word for word (rhema for rhema).
With this truth in mind the next post will evaluate the way multiple translations seriously undermine the vital spiritual discipline of hiding His Word in our hearts.
Part 1: The Paradox of Choice
Many people are excited about the variety of Bible translations available. A major new translation every few years, a niche publication of an existing translation every few months, the thrills keep coming. Many factors go in to the translation of the Bible. This isn’t about those factors. There are a couple, or a half dozen, or a dozen (depends on who’s counting) ‘good’ translations of the Bible in modern English. This isn’t about which one is best or why one is better than another. This is about the cost, the downside, the harm of having so many ‘good’ translations.
What could possibly be wrong with it? I’m glad you asked.
To begin with, there is the cost of choice. We’re used to choices. We like them, assuming the more the better. 32 flavors of ice cream, 500 cable channels, let the good times roll. Unappreciated amongst all this choice is the psychological toll of choosing, and it’s huge. A friend from the mission field was home on furlough. She went to the store to get some yogurt, she left empty-handed and deeply frustrated. Why? All she wanted was yogurt. Where she lives, you go to the corner shop and ask for yogurt. They give you yogurt. You pay for it. You eat it. All is well. What she encountered in an American supermarket was a wall of yogurts: low-fat yogurt; low-cal yogurt; high-calcium yogurt; low-sodium yogurt; Organic yogurt; fair-trade yogurt; live culture yogurt … different brands with different flavors in different sizes at different prices. The unexpected burden of identifying the ‘best’ yogurt, the right kind, the right flavor, the right price, was too much. The downside of making choices is the weight of making the ‘right’ choice and the nagging fear, after deciding, that you could have chosen better. If it sounds trivial think outside the yogurt. Your shoes, your house, your job, your spouse, your time, your toys, your car, your church – they’re all choices. Did you make the best choice? Is it still the best?
Have you chosen the right Bible? Certainly a weightier question than the right yogurt. We’re talking about God and the devil, life and death, heaven and hell. Woe to those who walk away from the wall of Bibles empty-handed. Now you may say, “Well they’re all good so it doesn’t matter.” I’ll talk about the significance of conflicting meaning in another post. For the moment consider, if it doesn’t matter, why do they exist?! Surely one is (or purports to be) better, truer(?), clearer, more accurate, more accessible than another. Since we don’t live on bread alone but on every WORD that comes from the mouth of God (Mt. 6:4) we’d better find the best, truest, most accurate, most accessible words (BTW the Greek term translated ‘word’ there is rhema, which means specific literal words, not meaning in general).
You’d better choose the right Bible. But just choosing the right Bible isn’t good enough. You must keep choosing it. Perhaps you chose the best Bible in 1999. Congratulations. That Word of God you chose was a lamp to your feet and a light for your path (Psa. 119:105). But as you ambled down that path time passed and you know what that means — new translations appear. Although you chose the best Bible in 1999, is it still the best Bible in 2009? Four major translations have appeared in the meantime (ESV 2001, HCSB 2004, NET 2005, TNIV 2005). If they’re not improvements, why do they exist? And if they are improvements, shouldn’t you upgrade to them? Or more precisely, one of them. But which one? Why, the best one of course! Just pick the best one and let it be a lamp to your feet and a light for your path … until a new, improved version arrives. Then choose it, onward and upward ad infinitum.
The unprecedented number of choices we face are a double-edged sword. On one hand they offer the opportunity for expressing individuality, finding fulfillment and experiencing excellence. On the other hand, consciously or unconsciously they exact a psychic tax – the burden of wondering if we made the right choice and the angst of deciding, moment by moment, whether to stick with our choice or choose again. Barry Schwartz’s “The Paradox of Choice: How the culture of abundance robs us of satisfaction” is a great read on this problem as a whole.
The significance of the problem as it relates to any aspect of our lives is in proportion to the significance of that aspect. Yogurt – not very important. The Word of God – of utmost importance. It is eternal (Psa. 119:89), life (Phil. 2:16), truth (John 17:17), like fire and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces (Jer. 23:29), living and active, sharper than a double-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). It is more essential to our lives than food (Mt. 6:4). So what to do? I have no illusions about fixing the problem. The genie is out of the bottle, the eggs will not be unscrambled. What we can do is be aware of the problem and conduct ourselves in a way which minimizes the downsides rather than amplifying them.
Personally and practically it means choosing one Bible translation and sticking with it. Hanging your life on that particular expression of the Word of God. Which translation should it be? I think the act of primarily using one translation is more important than which translation you use. As Napoleon put it “One bad general is better than two good ones.” The point being it’s better to follow one consistent source of direction (even if inferior) than to waver between two ‘good’ ones. Sort of like “No man can serve two masters…” But someone will object “They’re both translations of the Bible, there’s no real difference.” If there’s no real difference do you really benefit? But they are different. And the degree to which they are different is the degree to which the problem festers. To some it may seem like I’m making a mountain out of a molehill. But the more the cultural whirlwind of information, choice and fragmentation increases, the more desperately we need a consistent, unchanging point of reference.
We don’t need a new or better Bible translation. We need to submit ourselves to the eternal power of His unchanging Word. I’ve written here about just one of the downsides of multiple translations: the cost of choosing. In an upcoming post I’ll consider how it erodes the practice of hiding His Word in our hearts (Psa. 119:11).
One of the arguments advanced for evolution is that time and chance, enough of them, would eventually produce the world as we know it. This is often illustrated by saying if you gave enough monkeys enough time (and typewriters) they’d eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. And apparently, many people find that persuasive. I don’t. I find Genesis 1 and Romans 1 provide all the explanation I need. I don’t imagine that a skeptic would be persuaded by the following, but one day I sat down to crunch the numbers on monkeys and Shakespeare.
Take a simple quote from Shakespeare, “To be or not to be,” (Hamlet Act 3, scene 1). This profound question is posed in six basic words. Five of them two-letters, one of them three. Two words are repeated. By considering this very simple quotation we’ll keep things manageable. But even so, the numbers quickly become mind-boggling.
I don’t know how fast monkeys type but let’s assume one keystroke per second. That’s 3,600 keystrokes an hour; 86,400 keystrokes a day (24 hours, not 8, we want to get this done quickly); 31,536,000 keystrokes per year. At 31.5 million keystrokes a year, how long would it take a monkey to randomly type “To be or not to be”? One year? Five? Twenty? A hundred? Maybe you’re familiar with probability and think in terms of thousands or millions of years. Even then you wouldn’t be close. It would take one monkey 3.5 quintillion (a one followed by eighteen zeros) years to randomly type “To be or not to be”. To bring it into a realm of numbers we’re vaguely familiar with, it would take a billion monkeys 3.5 billion years to crank it out.
With such numbers the eyes glaze over and the mind begins to wander – it sounds like a government program – but the math is pretty simple, and instructive. There are 26 letters in the alphabet, add a space bar and a shift key for a total of 28 keys. The odds of hitting any single key on a stroke are 1 in 28. The odds of hitting two particular keys in succession are 1 in 28 times 1 in 28 or 1 in 28 squared. The odds of hitting three particular keys in succession, e.g. “T”* then “o” then “space” are 1 in 28 cubed (i.e. 1 in 21,952). The phrase “To be or not to be” is 18 characters (counting ‘space’ as a character). The odds of randomly typing these 18 characters in succession on a 28 character keyboard are 1 in 28 to the 18th power or 1 in 111 followed by 24 zeros. Not bloody likely! as the Bard might say.
The numbers are so big, the likelihood so small, it’s difficult to envision. Try this on for size – though I have no idea how old the universe actually is, the currently accepted scientific number is 13.75 billion years. At that age it would have taken 258 million monkeys typing from the beginning until now to randomly produce “To be or not to be.”
Yet Shakespeare didn’t merely write ‘To be or not to be’. He wrote:
“To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?”…
“To be or not to be” is the beginning of one of the most famous passages in history, Hamlet’s soliloquy. It’s 276 words, 1,504 characters (including spaces and punctuation). Life’s too short to bother calculating how long it would take monkeys to produce it! Yet it’s a single speech by a single character in a single play. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Love’s Labour’s Lost … thirty-seven plays in all. And don’t forget the sonnets!
Monkeys and typewriters, time and chance couldn’t produce Hamlet’s soliloquy, they couldn’t even get it started. How strange then to believe that they could produce the universe. Time and chance ‘comfort’ those who don’t believe in God insofar as they imagine it accounts for a universe without Him. But nothing would exist without Him. Shakespeare and Hamlet, monkeys and typewriters, you and I are here because He is there. I’ll stick with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).” and leave them with another quote from Hamlet (Act 1, scene 5):
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
*I’ve given the monkeys a break since a capital “T” is not a single keystroke but one stroke, sustained, followed by another — no way to calculate the likelihood of hitting one key and holding it down while you hit another. So for simplicity’s sake (and making their task astronomically easier) I’ve called it a single stroke.