bible code: "Teaching them [wrong] things", The

VII. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I wish briefly to reflect on reasons for the favorable reception afforded the Bible code theory. Why do such approaches to the Bible have seemingly perennial appeal to theologically conservative audiences? It seems to me that our bibliology, stressing as it does the unique quality of Scripture, easily plays into an artificial and in fact inaccurate view of the inspired text. Many sincere Christians seem ready to seize upon whatever appears to accent and emphasize the divine nature of the Bible, apparently hoping to gain an apologetic tool that will both defy refutation on the part of unbelievers and strengthen the faith of believers. In such thinking factual accuracy can easily give way to religious pragmatism. Whether it comes in the form of a contemporary eschatology that borders on such nonScriptural notions as date-setting with regard to the second coming of Christ or, in the matter at hand, in the form of espousing divinely encoded messages in the Bible that are recognizable only by the initiated, many people in our constituencies are drawn to the faddish and even the bizarre in Biblical interpretation. In this they are often encouraged by leaders who should know better and who should do differently.

The Bible code phenomenon is just the latest example of many such distortions of the Bible. What is needed in the contemporary Church is a fresh emphasis on the perspicuity and adequacy of Scripture. There is neither need nor justification for seeking a mysterious code in Scripture that depicts events in advance of their historical occurrence. On the contrary, God has spoken in his revealed Word, and he has spoken clearly. It is this clear message of Scripture that reveals all that we must know about God, about ourselves, and about the world in which we live. The search for a hidden code is little more than a distraction from what is really important in the study of the Bible. There is in fact no code in the Torah, nor is there one in Tanak. Furthermore, even if there were a bona fide code in the autographa, we would have no practical way of recovering it due to the textual factors discussed in this paper. Unfortunately, what we have with the Bible code theory is yet another example of "teaching them [wrong] things."

' Michael Drosnin, The Bible Code (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997) 13. Drosnin's book has attracted a lot of popular fanfare, not all of it positive. On 9 October 1997, in company with the work of Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg, Drosnin's book won the 1997 prize for literature at the IgNoble prize ceremonies presented at Harvard University's Sanders Theater. The tongue-in-cheek purpose of the ceremonies was to honor individuals whose accomplishments "cannot or should not be reproduced." Sternberg has referred to Drosnin's claims as a "scam" and a "patently ridiculous idea." See Shlomo Sternberg, "Snake Oil for Sale," Bible Review 13/4 (August 1997) 24. Most of those who consider themselves serious code researchers (including Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, Yoav Rosenberg, and Harold Gans) have now publicly distanced themselves from Drosnin and other "amateurs." One of the major reasons for this rejection of Drosnin's work concerns his use of Bible codes to predict future events. Most code researchers maintain that the codes can be rightly interpreted only after the events to which they point have taken place. There are also complaints that Drosnin has not been completely aboveboard in fulfilling commitments to those who assisted with his research. The Israeli firm that produced the software that Drosnin used in finding his codes has sued both Drosnin and his publisher for some eighteen million dollars due to alleged breach of agreement for not disclosing the identity of the software that was used. See "Israeli Firm Suing Bible Code,'" The Jerusalem Post International Edition (October 10, 1998) 32. For helpful evaluations of Drosnin's book see the following reviews: George C. Hammond, in WTJ 59 (1997) 329-331; Michael Weitzman,