UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE CODE CONTROVERSY
John A. Jelinek
Seminary Chaplain, Baptist Bible Seminary
Associate Professor, Baptist Bible Seminary
There is a Bible beneath the Bible.
Drosnin, The Bible Code, 25
INTRODUCTION
The so-called Torah Codes or Bible Codes have been much in the news lately because of the excitement
generated by press notices that attended the release of journalist Michael Drosnin’s book. At one point, The Bible
Code was on the “top ten” best sellers list simultaneously in New York, London, Paris, and Rome.1 The Bible Code
has fostered discussion around the world these days and is accompanied by seemingly endless speculation (even
within evangelical circles). The book also has been reviewed widely and has stimulated pieces in Newsweek and
Time Magazines. Drosnin has been making the rounds of the talk-show circuit, including the 700 Club and the
Oprah Winfrey Show in June 1997. One reporter in Time indicated that Warner has purchased the movie rights.2
The impact of the book on American society is a matter yet to be determined, but the presuppositions and
methodology that underlay the book are not limited to the more popular conclusions in the book by Drosnin.
Others (such as Christians, Muslims, and Jews) are employing similar codes and methodologies to draw their own
distinctive conclusions. What is a biblical response to the issue of the Bible codes? Can the codes really be used to
establish divine authorship of the Bible? Will Bible codes become an important weapon in the apologetic arsenal of
evangelical Christians?
The goals of this review are 1) to define common terminology associated with the controversy, 2) to explain in
some detail the various examples of the codes and to discuss in layman’s language both some of the general
mathematical issues and some detailed analysis of the precise method, 3) to illustrate some parallel uses of this
methodology in the apologetical approaches of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian circles, and 4) to critique the
methodology from within the framework of biblical theology. In the process of investigation, some of the more
prominent names and figures associated with the controversy will arise and brief bibliographic information will
attend each key figure.
A careful analysis of the Bible Code controversy indicates that there are many reasons to reject the theory that
there are codes embedded in the Torah (or elsewhere in the Bible) of the type presented by these codes researchers
(whether individuals or groups).
EXPLANATION OF PROCESS AND BRIEF HISTORY
The Bible is constructed like a giant crossword puzzle. It is encoded from beginning to end with words that
connect to tell a hidden story.
What Moses actually received on Sinai was an interactive data base, which until now we could not fully access.
The Bible Code, 25, 98
Explanation of Process
1Drosnin is a reporter by trade. He was formerly on staff with the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
His book is entitled The Bible Code (New York: Simon, 1997).
2David Van Biema, “Deciphering God’s Plan,” Time, 9 June 1997, 56. See also Sharon Begley, “Seek and Ye Shall
Find,” Newsweek, 9 June 1997, 66-67.
In The Bible Code, Drosnin utilized a highly complex code, allegedly embedded in the Hebrew Bible, to propose
that hidden messages3 revealing future events have been placed into the Torah text. His argument depends on the
precise positions of all 304,805 letters in the Torah text.4 The significance of the precise letters of Torah being used is
an issue that should not be overlooked. Many observant Jews believe that every letter of the Torah was directly
dictated to Moses by God. While most evangelicals do not subscribe to a dictation theory of inspiration, they do
hold to the integrity of the autographa, that there was no error in the original manuscripts. Evangelical belief in the
preservation of the Word is often expressed in terms of the smallest letter or stroke of the Hebrew letters of the Law
(Matt 5:18 and Luke 16:17).5
All of the Bible Codes methodologies6 involve searching for so-called Equal Letter Sequences (or Equidistant
Letter Sequences, hereafter simply ELS), which allegedly reveal words separated by the same number of spaces. That
is, one takes the entire Torah (or a specific book within Torah), drops spaces between letters, and looks for new
words in the resulting stream. The coded message is then decrypted (located) by sampling, for example, every 4th or
12th or nth letter rather than following successive letters. The spacings considered can be quite large—for example,
Drosnin’s celebrated location of Yitzhak Rabin’s name has a spacing of 4772 letters, that is there are skips of 4771
“unused” letters between the letters that happen to spell out his name (see Appendix II).7
Reducing this approach to a crude analogy, the authors of the various Bible Codes have constructed a
computerized sieve or strainer for locating meaningfully paired names, dates, and events they hypothesized may have
been systematically hidden in a text. They applied their sieve to particular biblical books (like Genesis and
Deuteronomy) and received a statistical count. They next applied the same sieve to a control (non-biblical) text and to
randomized versions of both texts, in order to get an idea of whether the count for the biblical is high. On the surface,
the count for the Bible books seemed to be improbably (statistically) high.
Such an explanation leaves many open questions (such as what is meant by “meaningfully paired” or
“systematically hidden” words). The process of giving detailed answers to these questions adjusts the holes in the
3The phrase “hidden codes” is redundant. If it is a code, it is hidden in some manner.
4A computer program arranged the Torah into a continuous string of Hebrew letters from the Masoretic Text
(utilizing the Textus Receptus). The Masoretic pointing (vowels) is omitted in the process. The authors of the article
write (p. 436): “In transliterating foreign names into Hebrew, the letter “a” is often used as a mater lectionis {“mother
of meaning” the plural being matres lectionis} for example, “Luzzatto” may be written wtwl or wtawl. In such cases we
used both forms.” Words within {} are this author’s explanation. Other natural questions concern whether they
ignore vowels, whether they distinguish word -final character forms, which spellings they use, etc. These questions
are all settled somewhat arbitrarily. The arbitrariness of the system arises in part from their concern to be statistically
“fair.” They sought not to over-design the study in a way that is somehow rigged to produce the desired result.
5This is an underlying basis for some believers who wish to suggest that God preserved a particular text type or
version. One may believe that the text in its fulness exists, however, without pointing to a particular version or
collection of manuscripts. Reasonable doubts exist about the verities of any textual tradition left standing on its own.
6See the attached bibliography for alternative proposals by Grant Jeffrey, The Signature of God: Astonishing
Biblical Discoveries (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1996), also by Jeffrey, The Handwriting of God:
Sacred Mysteries of the Bible (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1997), Yaacov Rambsel, Yeshua: The Name
of Jesus in the Old Testament (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1996), and others who have devised their
own approaches to the subject.
7The reader should realize that the number of ELS is potentially very large. The number of letters in the
Pentateuch (in Jewish literature, Chumash, lit., “a fifth,” a reference to the five books of Moses in rabbinic writings) is
304,805 which means the number of ELS with spacings of 5000 or less, forwards or backwards, is around 3 billion!
When code authors search for an ELS of a relatively short word, they are unwittingly searching for a blade of grass in
a haystack! To illustrate, consider Drosnin’s prediction concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (The Bible
Code, 27). Drosnin had the computer arrange the letters of the text in 64 equal rows of 4772 letters. What makes
anyone think such an arrangement is intentional, let alone sacred? The intent was arrived at when the searcher found
what he considered significant, and then proceeded to look for other “tidbits” that would “validate” the first trial as
unexplainable.
sieve. If Genesis is special, the sieve should still pick that up, to a greater or lesser extent. At least hypothetically, if
errors have crept into some “truer” original text, the sieve should be robust against it.
Those writing about the subject often display the results of ELS by writing down the section of Torah
containing the ELS with lines as long as the spacing of the ELS or a length a few letters longer or shorter than this
spacing. That way, the ELS appears as a straight up and down vertical or as a neat diagonal “Hebrew ‘Word Search’
puzzle” (see Figure 1 which only shows part of the long lines used horizontally). This method of display has no
special significance, although it appears designed to make readers forget the large spacings between letters that are
sometimes involved. One is allowed to look for coded messages within ELS going forwards, backwards, or, on some
occasions, as a boustrephedon!8 The difficulty, of course, is in determining the meaning of anything found by this
process.9
After sequencing letters and spacing, codes researchers look for words positioned:
Boustrophedonv
y yllaci
e l
r l
horizontally, t a
i n forwards
c o or
a g sdrawkcab
l a
l i
y d
Further, codes researchers can allow one, two, three, or nearly any number of characters to come between adjacent
letters in their dxixsxcxoxvxexrxexdx wxxoxxrxxdxxs! In some cases it is the sound of the word, not the actual spelling,
that counts.
Some codes researchers distinguish between ELS and what they call legitimate codes.10 Legitimate codes are, in
their view, to be distinguished from the whole ELS concept by the accidental nature of ELS versus the purposeful
nature of Bible Codes. The nature of the codes for these researchers is thus defined by the purposeful placement of
the codes into the text by the author of the text. Even where these “codes” are found and demonstrable in texts (a
feature as yet unverified to my satisfaction), the significance is hardly clear. Further, ELS are used to identify these
codes as purposefully placed by the author! One need not dispute the possibility that biblical authors may have
used such methods. It is another question altogether, however, as to what significance should be given to such
placement.
A Brief History
8A boustrephedon refers to an ancient writing method in which the lines of a text alternate in their inscription and
in reading from left to right and then right to left. The word is a combination of the Greek words bou”j (ox) and
strefein (to turn). The metaphorical comparison would be the turning of the oxen while plowing a field. One plowing
with oxen heads down one row and returns along (but below) the row just plowed. For a clear example in Drosnin, see
The Bible Code, 104.
9Doron Witztum seems to acknowledge this in an internet article he has written (with others) which is critical of
Christian uses of the codes. “The most important statement one can make regarding codes research is that it is
impossible to interpret anything you find.” See Rabbi Daniel Mechanic, Doron Witztum, and Harold Gans, “Jesus
Codes: Uses and Abuses” at http://www.cybermail.net/ ~codes/yeshua.html.
10See, for example, “Jesus Codes: Uses and Abuses,” at http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/ yeshua.html, p. 2 of
15.
Drosnin’s approach in The Bible Code is not new. His book is based on a popularized approach to a 1994 study
published in the scholarly journal Statistical Science.11 In that article, three Israeli mathematicians (Witztum, Rips,
and Rosenberg) reported that Genesis contains the names of a list of rabbis correlated to their dates of birth or death.
This was an involved attempt (including a sophisticated statistical analysis done on a computer) to try to show that
the codes cannot be explained by random chance. Likewise, the 1994 theory and presentation by the Israeli
mathematicians in their article in Statistical Science is not new, but is a computer-nuanced approach toward some
much older Jewish Bible study methods (as shall be demonstrated below).
The noted Rabbis example of Rips and his colleagues within the article is a sophisticated statistical analysis
done on a list of celebrated rabbis correlated to their dates of birth or death. This data is provided in an involved
attempt to demonstrate that the codes are not to be explained by coincidence or contrivance.12 Questions about the
original nature of Hebrew writing are not really relevant to the assumed validity of the work performed by Rips and
his colleagues in their article. They ignored Masoretic marks and pointing altogether and did not consider text critical
matters.
The authors took a list of names of 32 noted rabbis. In their initial sampling, they used the names of 34 very
famous rabbis, but after refining their methods of analysis, they reported that they took the moderately known rabbis
to avoid any charges of having fitted the tests to accommodate the data. “Moderately famous” was qualified as
having an entry in the book Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel13 with a length of between 1.5 and 3 columns of
text. The trial took the names of these 32 great men, together with their dates of birth and their dates of death, and
examined how closely the dates were to the names when they searched for the names and dates as ELS in the
consonantal text of Genesis.
There are some mitigating factors of the process that are very significant. First, variant spellings were allowed
and employed for each of the 32 rabbis’ names and dates of birth and death.14 Only the months and days of birth, not
the years, were sought in the trial. Further, the authors did not use the actual dates or names cited in the
Encyclopedia but ones that they had determined from their own research. Other factors could be cited, but one gets
the impression that, when looking for examples of what one wants to see, it helps to increase the probabilities of
getting to see it if one increases the variables.
There is insufficient space to critique the Israeli mathematicians’ conclusions here,15 but these factors suggest
that one should, at the very least, be cautious about drawing dramatic conclusions such as Drosnin has from this
11Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg, “Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis” in
Statistical Science 9, no. 3 (August 1994): 429-38. The paper was reportedly presented in 1988 in the Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. I was unable to access a copy of this earlier article to verify this point. Rips is Associate
Professor of Mathematics at Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Witzum and Rosenberg, his associates, carried out their
research at Jerusalem College of Technology, Jerusalem.
12The methodology of repeating tests on a computer need not be understood as indicating an attempt to deceive
on the part of these men. One searching for codes has to experiment to find what might be encoded. Computers allow
the trial of limitless possibilities so that even a well-meaning searcher can inadvertently produce what appear to be
statistically rare results when doing multiple tests.
13M. Margalioth, ed., Encyclopedia of the Great Men of Israel: A Bibliographical Dictionary of Jewish Sages
and Scholars from the 9 th to the end of the 18th century. Vols. 1-4 (Tel Aviv: Joshua Chachick, 1961).
14The number of alternative names for each rabbi varied from one to eleven so that, all told, the 32 rabbis had a
total of over 100 identifying names!
15Mathematical and scientific critiques of methodology are forthcoming as of this writing. For some initial
responses consider Dror Bar-Natan (of Hebrew University) and Brandan McKay (of Australian National University),
Equidistant Letter Sequences in Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” Web publication posted at
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/WNP.
data. In fact, Rips and others have been vocal in their criticisms of Drosnin, suggesting that he does not understand
the proper uses of codes methods.16
A JEWISH CATECHISM FOR SECULAR JEWS
An active Israeli evangelistic agenda may be behind promoting certain Bible Codes “discoveries.” Discovery
Seminar is a fast-spreading Judaism seminar that purports to offer scientific proof that God exists. The testimonies of
Jews attending the seminar are illustrative, if not enlightening. “I walked in a secular atheist and walked out believing
that the Torah had been handed down by G-d to Moses on Mt. Sinai,” says Ms. Grayson, a 24-year-old graduate
student of Social Work at Columbia University.17 The seminars currently feature Bible Codes evidences and have
provided a forum on their web site for Rips and others who advance codes research.18
According to its own reckoning, about 240 U.S. Jewish community centers, schools, and synagogues looking to
expand their membership have paid Aish HaTorah (the Jerusalem-based organization that runs Discovery) about
$1,000 to put on each Discovery seminar. Aish HaTorah (“Man of the Law”) is a non-profit Jewish education group.
Their mission is to persuade secular Jews to return to observance of Judaism. They have put about 60,000 people
world-wide through the seminar since 1987—more than one third of those just in the past two years.19 Such seminars
do not constitute proof that the Bible Codes are false, but the use of untested evidences in this fashion suggests that
there may be an activist agenda driving some who advocate Bible codes.
CHRISTIAN COPY CODES: A CHRISTIAN REVIVAL OF GNOSTIC GEMATRIA20
Insights long hidden darkly in the Bible text are coming
to light.
Web page claim marketing the book, Yeshua: The Hebrew Factor21
Ever since the work of Witztum and Rips became known (and perhaps before), claims have been made that
hidden messages of Christian theological relevance can likewise be found embedded in the Hebrew text. Most of
these claims have little merit due to a lack of any scientific discipline on the part of those espousing them. In order to
understand the level of “research” often performed by these scholars, consider these words by Linda Rambsel in the
foreword to Yacov Rambsel’s book on Bible Codes and Yeshua:
16For Eliyahu Rips’ explicit statement, see http://www.aish.edu/bibleodes/rips.htm. Rips goes so far as to say,
“All attempts to extract messages from Torah codes, or to make predictions based on them, are futile and are of no
value.”
17“Seminar Tries Science to Revive Faith,” The Wall Street Journal, 11 November 1996.
18See http://aish.edu/biblecodes.
19“Seminar Tries Science to Revive Faith.”
20Authors like Grant Jeffrey try to downplay the connections between their “research” and ancient Jewish
cabbalah and gematria. See, for example, Jeffrey, The Handwriting of God, 116, where he writes: “. . . the Bible Codes
has nothing to do with numerology. Numerology is defined by the authoritative Webster’s Dictionary as ‘the study
of the occult significance of numbers [sic].’” Not only does he fail to indicate which version of Webster’s Dictionary
he used, but he also misleads the reader into thinking that numerology is the only questionable practice at hand in
this debate. The associations with numerology are stronger than he realizes, however, since no one claims that the
Bible Codes authors are using strict numerology to draw their assertions, but a strange blend of modern computer
science, mathematics, and gematria. Jeffrey cites with approval Yaacov Rambsel’s work on the text, and the website
advertisements, by the admission of Rambsel’s wife, indicate that Rambsel utilizes gematria and the numerical value
of each word. Jeffrey cannot have it both ways!
21 As of April 12, 1998, this claim in advertisment for Rambsel’s book could be found at
http://home.cwnet.com/crm/yhf.html.
Let me introduce my husband, Yacov (James) Rambsel—the author—to you. He can sit down with his Hebrew
Bible, scratch paper, pen, artist’s pencils, and calculator. Within seconds he has read the Hebrew, totaled its
gematria (numerical value), and dis covered insights (hidden secrets) within this magnificent language that go
beyond one’s imagination. It is awesome to observe Yacov as he mines for the priceless jewels of wisdom
revealed to him by the Ruach Ha’Kodesh (Holy Spirit). And he often tells me, “Honey, this is too much; this is
too wonderful! I’ve gotta get up and go outside and walk around! These insights are coming in too fast for me to
write them all down!”22
Of course, the actual proof is in the pudding, in the substance and argument of a book that either bears credible
internal consistency or does not.
The strained credibility issue extends from Rambsel to other Christian Bible Codes researchers. For example,
what Grant Jeffrey uses to document his codes research is often questionable at best. Publication in a critical journal
like Statistical Science is not ipso facto proof of the alleged reality of the Bible code. Even the length of time that has
elapsed since the publication is not proof of the accuracy of the statements made by some codes researchers. While
it is true that the codes have not been refuted point-for-point, it is also true that they have not been corroborated by
others’ tests. The complexities of statistics and mathematical probabilities involved prevent a quick response from
the critics. This is not to say that the critics have not weighed in with their responses.
Jeffrey cites articles in Statistical Science and elsewhere in a way as to suggest that he considers the sources
unimpeachable. He cites an article in the liberal Bible Review by Jeffrey Satinover, for example, for its open stance to
the codes. What Jeffrey fails to tell his readers is that subsequent issues of Bible Review provide scathing critiques
of both Eliyahu Rips and Drosnin for their ignorance of basic matters pertaining to Hebrew, mathematical
probabilities, and textual transmission issues. To be sure, the men who write these (and other) critiques are not
Christians, but this does not excuse Jeffrey from answering the specific issues raised by them that invalidate his
entire position. These positions were matters of public record at the time of his later publication of The Handwriting
of God.
To hold to Jeffrey’s and Rambsel’s assertions about the Bible Codes, one must grant them at least the following
presuppositions, none of which are clearly spelled out in their writings. First, one must posit that the Masoretic Text 23
(the Textus Receptus in the Koren edition) as we have it is the autographic text of the Hebrew Scriptures from which
neither “jot nor tittle” will fail.24 Current textual criticism concerning linguistic development25 (the spelling and even
the content of the original Hebrew text) must be rendered moot for purposes of discussion. If even one Hebrew letter
22Yeshua, from the foreword.
23The Leningrad Codex (a codex is a book with pages, not a scroll), which can be dated to about 1010 C.E., is the
basis for the Kittel-Kahle edition of the Bible which many know as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Biblia Hebraica
contains the multiple variant readings fo und in different ancient manuscripts in its critical apparatus. Drosnin,
however, consulted the Koren edition (The Bible Code, 186) also known as the Jerusalem Bible (Koren Publishing
Company, 1992), which differs from the Leningrad Codex by 41 letters in Deuteronomy, but only 23 in Genesis. The
Talmudic citations of the Hebrew Bible also differ from the Koren edition in about 300 citations. Eliyahu Rips used the
Textus Receptus in his experiments
24Indeed, Drosnin, 194, contends that “all Bibles in the original Hebrew language that now exist are the same
letter for letter . . . The Bible code computer program uses the universally accepted original Hebrew text.” Jeffrey, The
Handwriting of God, 60, argues for the ultimate preservation of the text, but seems unaware of this problem. The
argument here is not with the fact that God has indeed preserved His Word, but that any particular text fully is that
Word.
25The alphabet, script, and the orthography of the Hebrew language changed over the centuries during which
manuscripts of the OT were being copied. Grammatical constructions were modernized and the consonants vocalized.
See, for example, B. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 15-19, and Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979), 17-19, 105-110.
is omitted, all of the ELS sequences proposed (with their attendant conclusions) go awry.26 Codes proponents argue
that their system allows for variations within the actual numbers of letters in the text. They argue that the code will
deteriorate proportionate to the number of missing letters, but does not altogether disappear.27
Second, for the Christian, the door must be left open to the possibility that the New Testament contains such
cryptic codes as well, a theory that Jeffrey does not deny.28 One might ask the same question of the New Testament
that has been asked of the Old Testament: On the basis of which text do we make the assertion? The Majority Text?
The critical text of UBS4? Perhaps we should accept the one that provides the most interesting codes messages?
Third, one must first baptize and then advance odd hermeneutical notions such as gematria and gnostic hidden
secrets. The notion that God would “hide” information about Himself that could only be discovered by means of
advanced technology or specious practices is dubious. Jeffrey does allow that others discovered the codes in earlier
centuries without the aid of advanced technology,29 but these were the mystic Jews (a fact he fails to mention) who
were the fore-fathers or leading proponents of gematria. Jeffrey wants to dis tance himself from this system because
of its occultic character.
This would seem to set the plain meaning of the text in tension with a hidden meaning. Why would God be
predis posed to hide in this manner important truths or information when His historical method has been to reveal his
intent and plan in ordinary human language?
Fourth, Evangelicals who believe that mathematically derived codes can be found in some manuscripts must also
be open to the possibility that such codes would be divinely inspired as is the text. To assert this, however, is to
assert that the Bible is no longer the final authority and to read limitless possibilities into their newly discovered
codes. Thus, Jeffrey and Rambsel unwittingly advocate that there is actually more divine revelation, heretofore
undiscovered, yet somehow persuasively, if not equally, authoritative! Thus, they fall into the same difficulty Richard
Gaffin observed pertaining to the charismatics and their views on the non-cessation of prophecy and other revelatory
gifts.30
Grant Jeffrey’s words about his book, The Signature of God, which rose to the position of a number three
bestseller among Christian books (it sold over one quarter million copies, remaining at the top of the bestseller lists
for the last eleven months), illustrate the point.
I believe that God would authenticate His own true revelation by writing His signature on the pages of His
Scriptures. This signature would consist of evidence, knowledge and phenomenon in the text of the Bible that no
unaided human could possibly have written. In other words, the genuine Scriptures should contain supernatural
evidence within its text that no one apart from a Divine Intelligence could create.
26On the surface, this may read like a denial of inerrancy or, at the least, a denial of Jesus’ affirmation that not one
letter of the Law will pass away until all is fulfilled. This is due to the fact that some Christians link the doctrine of
inspiration with the doctrine of preservation. One’s belief that the original text is available to us through textual
criticism of the best available texts (and therefore extant) does not require that we hold to the infallibility of one
particular text or group of texts (in this case the Leningrad Codex, which is the basis for BHS).
27See, for example, Jeffrey Satinover, Cracking the Bible Code (New York: Morrow, 1997), 143.
28See Handwriting of God, 114: “Several researchers have told me they found indications of codes in the Greek
of the New Testament, but no detailed research has been published to date.”
29Handwriting of God, Chapter 7.
30Gaffin suggests that, if the gift of prophecy is available and active today, then what is revealed in such
prophecies bears equal weight with canonical Scripture. See Richard Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1973), 91-102, and Gaffin’s article, “A Cessationist View,” in Wayne A. Grudem, gen.
ed., Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). It will not do to simply say (as
does Jeffrey in Handwriting of God, 116-118) that we do not know why God would put these into the text of
Scripture. God has revealed in the plain text of Scripture that all of his communications have meaning and are given to
be obeyed, not guessed at. If these codes are divinely placed, the implications are difficult to subordinate to t he plain
meaning of the text, and principles of proper hermeneutics for interpreting them must be formulated.
The untrained layperson picks up on the semi-technical nature of these discussions and is unable to understand the
complications afforded by textual critical and statistical difficulties, computer capabilities, and mathematical
probabilities. He begins to wonder whether or not there is something to this codes proposal that he cannot fathom.
The real problem, of course, is that the Bible nowhere suggests in its macroliteral message that hidden codes exist or
have anything to do with proving the validity of the Bible to anyone. It seems doubtful that any believer’s spirituality
would be improved in this process.
CODES: GENERAL PROOFS OF DIVINE INSPIRATION?
Perhaps Christian Bible codes researchers should be wary of attempting to prove too much with their research.
Other world religions (such as Islam and the Baha’i) have long used numerics as well as ELS in demonstrations of the
divine origin of their sacred writings.31 In speeches Islam leader Louis Farrakkhan has applied numerics to the
Washington Monument and to the street maps of Washington, D.C., to support his contention that the city is a
“nerve center” in the white conspiracy against people of African descent. At least one group of Muslims holds the
conviction that the number 19 miracle in the Quran (in combination with ELS) proves its divine origin.32
The point is that, if such demonstrations validate divine inspiration in the case of the Bible codes, could not the
same case be granted to works of other religions, should they care to validate their claims in this way? Perhaps New
Testament scholars should begin working on codes in the Greek New Testament so that we can uncover new “gems”
God may have hidden there.
THE CABALA CONNECTIONS
There are striking similarities between the hermeneutical approach of Drosnin, Rips, Witztum, and others in
locating the Bible code and what is taught in the Cabala (from the Hebrew, “received tradition”). According to at least
one author, the majority of Jews who have held to the presence of codes in the Torah have historically had cabalist
backgrounds.33
The cabala (alternately Kaballah, cabbala, kabala, kaballa, qaballah) is a collection of esoteric writings of various
rabbis and a few medieval Christians which consists of mystical and numerological interpretations of Hebrew
scriptures. Cabala is, generically, Jewish mysticism34 in all its forms but specifically refers to the esoteric theosophy
that crystallized in 13th-century Spain and Provence, France, around Sefer ha-zohar (“The Book of Splendor”),
referred to as the Zohar, and which generated all later mystical movements in Judaism.
The authors of cabala treat every letter, word, number, and accent of the Torah (Scripture) as if it were a secret
code which contains some profound but hidden meaning put there by God for some profound and hidden purpose,
including prophecy. The mysteries are available to those who know the secret. The cabala also provides methods of
interpretation of the occult marks on paper that the less spiritually gifted take to be mere words to be understood
either literall
