Jots & Tittles

014

When Politics Clash

Readers have recently called our attention to the fact that Harvard University professor Paul D. Hanson, a member of our editorial advisory board, has signed a petition calling on Harvard to sell its investments in companies—like IBM and McDonalds—that do business in Israel—a movement based on a similar boycott years ago to object to South African apartheid.

A committee of cosigners explained that such investments should be made only on condition “that Israel end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and return to its pre-1967 borders, that it vacate its settlements in these territories, that it end government-sanctioned torture and deportation of prisoners and suspects, and that it compensate Palestinian refugees who were forced to leave their homes when the state of Israel was founded…As terrible as suicide bombings are, they do not justify continued occupation or abrogation of the human rights of the Palestinians…Suicide attacks are likely to continue until Palestinians have a real stake in peace and are convinced that Israel will leave the territories permanently.”

Professor Jacob Neusner of Bard College, the most prolific Jewish studies author of our time, wrote a letter to another Harvard professor who had signed the petition, William Graham, with whom Neusner had organized and written a book entitled Three Faiths, One God:

“Dear Bill:

“Had I known you signed that infamous petition to divest Harvard’s investments in the state of Israel, so adding your endorsement to delegitimizing the Jewish state, I would never have wanted to write a book with you…I completely misread you, it was my mistake. In a time in which the existence of the State of Israel is at stake, you signed on with her enemies. That you later on took your name off the list does not change the picture one bit…

“Divest indeed! Go commit your jihad. We Jews have survived worse enemies than you and we will survive you.

“And so will the USA.

“Sincerely,

“Jack Neusner”

Our own reaction is one of sadness more than anger. We have known Professor Hanson for years as a distinguished and articulate Bible scholar whose articles we have been honored to publish. Yet we abhor his political views. It is difficult to summarize our own views in a sentence or two, but suffice it to say that there can be no justification for Palestinians fighting for their rights by targeting schoolchildren for murder. And large segments of the Palestinian leadership—including at times Yasser Arafat—have made it clear that their goal is not simply a state of their own, but the complete eradication of Israel. To believe that unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank and Gaza and compensating Palestinian 015refugees from 1948 will slake the Palestinian thirst is, at best, naïve.

Yet, political views, however naïve, do not disqualify one for service on our editorial advisory board. The only qualification is superior biblical scholarship. Some have said, “Would you allow a Nazi on your board?” The answer is no. But that is entirely irrelevant. However misguided Hanson’s political views are, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Naziism. Any such comparison is ugly and unjustified. Nor, knowing him, do we believe his views are grounded in anti-Semitism. We hope you agree. I know we will hear from you. Whenever difficult questions arise, we often turn to the collective wisdom of our readers.

A Blue Eye Looks Back at Ireland

Fr. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor returned home to western Ireland this spring to receive an honorary degree from University College Cork, part of the National University of Ireland. Born in Cork in 1935, Murphy-O’Connor entered the Dominican Order in 1953 and was ordained priest seven years later. He left Ireland to study theology at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, where he received his doctorate in 1962. Hoping to be assigned to a small parish in Ireland, Murphy-O’Connor was instead asked to join the Ecole Biblique et Archéologique in Jerusalem, where he has taught New Testament ever since. He has published 13 books, including Paul: A Critical Life (1996) and his popular guide to ancient sites in Israel and Jordan, The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700, now in its fourth edition. A member of BR’s editorial advisory board, Murphy-O’Connor contributes frequently to this magazine.

014

Lego My Bible

Winner of the Web’s Worst Bible Art Award: www.thereverend.com/brick_testament

Self-proclaimed reverend Brendan Powell Smith uses Legos—and only Legos—to create hundreds of biblical scenes, including Adam and Eve in Eden (above) and the Last Supper (below). He then shoots the scenes with a digital camera and posts them on his Web site. Paradoxically, Smith finds that his childish renditions bring to the fore the darker side of many biblical accounts. For viewers’ convenience, he rates each story for violence, nudity, sexual content and cursing. Genesis, it seems, is least appropriate for children; Paul’s letters come next.

015

The Bible in the News

Appropriately enough, the phrase “in the beginning” begins the Book of Genesis and therefore begins the Bible in the Jewish and Christian canon. John adopted the phrase for the beginning of his Gospel. And reporters and headline writers have been using it ever since—especially when they are trying to present some aspect of pop culture as an Ur-event. But it often takes a bit of sleuthing (or out-and-out guessing) to determine whether these modern scribes really intended a biblical allusion.

The following phrases that appeared in the popular press this year probably pass muster: “In the beginning there was country music” (New York Times). “In the beginning there was Elvis Presley, Little Richard and Screamin’ Jay Hawkins” (Scotland on Sunday). “In the beginning was the Beatles” (Washington Post). “In the beginning there was Sean Connery” (Evening Post [Wellington]). “In the beginning there was Milton Berle” (San Francisco Chronicle).

The next group more clearly conveys the writers’ intent to connect their text with the Good Book: “In the beginning, there was Shonen Knife [a female Japanese band]…After that came the deluge, of sorts” (Los Angeles Times). “In the beginning there was Disneyland. Then came its spiritual brother, Disneyworld, and a host of followers…Now the greatest story ever told is to get its own theme park—Bibleworld” (Scotland on Sunday). “In the beginning was the word, and for Billy Wilder there’s where it always ended, too” (Montreal Gazette). “In the beginning, there were Nick and Eddie in ‘48 HRS.’ They begat Eddie and Judge in ‘Beverly Hills Cops.’ And so it went, even unto the days of Jackie and Chris in ‘Rush Hour.’ I’m leaving out a few begats” (Atlanta Journal and Constitution). “In the beginning, there was ‘See How They Run.’ And the television moguls saw that it was good. ‘See How They Run’ begat ‘Fame Is the Name of the Game,’ which was also good. They begat ‘The ABC Movie of the Week,’ which was sometimes good, and sometimes not” (San Diego Union-Tribune, March 10, 2002).

Clearly entertainment writers sense an affinity between the origins of their product and the beginnings of the universe. Not surprisingly, sports aficionados detect a similar connection: “In the beginning God created baseball. God saw what he had done, and it was good. Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God has made. He said to the woman, Did God really say, You may not play any sport but baseball?” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch). “In the beginning Roone Arledge created Monday Night Football, as ABC’s prime-time lineup was without form, and there was a void in the ratings, and darkness was upon the brow of network executives” (Baltimore Sun).

If all of this is working up a thirst in BR readers, they might consider: “‘In the beginning, there was an idea and it was good: A microbrew to complement the Jewish American Experience.’ So goes the label of He’brews Genesis Ale” (San Francisco Chronicle).

When Politics Clash