Queries & Comments

014

Reactions to Pastor Grenci’s Letter—Was It Anti-Semitic?

Theology Not Advanced Since Middle Ages

It always saddens me to read of Christians and ministerial colleagues whose theology has not advanced beyond the Middle Ages. Nicola Grenci, a fellow United Methodist minister, wrote in Queries & Comments, BAR 17:02, that the Jews must accept the Christian covenant to be accepted by God.

It seems important for me to say that such a god is not the God that most of us worship. I have never understood the mentality that declares that God decided to negate His eternal covenant with His people. That certainly puts in jeopardy the “new” covenant people, if God decides to do it again.

I have learned a great deal more about the love of God from my Jewish friends who have accepted me than from those “Christians” who cannot tolerate any view but their own. I have no doubt that my Jewish friends have a vital relationship with the God I serve.

Grief for His Flock

It was with dismay, sadness and a sense of grief that I read “Anti-Semitic Pastor Decides Not to Renew” (Queries & Comments, BAR 17:02). I know that prejudiced people often choose ministry as a profession. Where else can you hold center stage and gain the attention of people who listen to you as a knowledgeable leader?

Pastor Grenci holds little respect for Christians who know what Jesus taught concerning prejudice. The pastor calls them “stupid.”

My grief is for the flock who must be guided by this shepherd.

Preaches Love?

It was most unfortunate, indeed, to read the anti-Semitic comments of Nicola Grenci (Queries & Comments, BAR 17:02), one who is in a position of leadership in an organization that claims to preach a message of love. Such sentiments are one reason why many have no interest in “Christianity” as practiced today in all too many churches.

Grenci Not Representative

I have enjoyed BAR for years and look forward to receiving each issue. The Queries & Comments section in the past has contained a mixture of serious comments that can often be quite helpful or clarifying and other material which I have tended to regard as unhelpful and sadly ignorant. To my utter dismay I found myself reading a letter of ignorance, anti-Semitism and hatred from, of all things, a United Methodist minister. Mr. Grenci does not represent me or the United Methodist Church! Our denomination has long fostered a relationship of respect and cooperation with our Jewish brothers and sisters. Such bigoted intolerance and arrogance as Mr. Grenci displayed in his letter would indicate to me that he is seriously at odds with the United Methodist Church. If this letter is truly indicative of Mr. Grenci’s position, I can only feel very sad for him and pray that someday he will grow in his ability to tolerate and accept others different from himself.

One God

What kind of “pastor” would spew out such hateful bigotry against the Jewish people and the way they worship God? I am not Jewish, but I was brought up to respect all manner of worship, be it Catholic, Protestant, Charismatic, Jewish etc. We all believe in God, whether we call him Allah, Jehovah or just plain God.

Why Such Offense?

After reading Queries & Comments, BAR 17:02, I am confused as to why you took such offense to a letter written to you by Reverend Nicola Grenci. The prelude you wrote to his letter described him as someone so anti-Semitic that one would think he might have qualified as a neo-Nazi. However, after reading his letter, I found nothing he wrote to be so offensive as to warrant this harsh commentary.

I am not Jewish; however I do support the Israeli cause. At the same time, I found nothing Reverend Grenci wrote to be anything other than a Christian point of view disagreeing with your opinions.

If This Is the Worst, We’re Blessed

It seems that the thing currently in vogue in intellectual circles is the seeking and finding of anti-Semitism. It seems the uprooting of anti-Semitism has such priority that, if need be, basic Christian doctrine can be jettisoned.

If Pastor Grenci’s is your worst anti-Semitic letter, you are blessed indeed. The letter stated that God’s cleansing is “given in the Christ.” That is basic Christian doctrine. (Incidentally, almost every major world religion, including Judaism, says the same thing Either you come to God by our way, or you don’t come.) Would you consider the Christ to be anti-Semitic if He said, “I am the way…No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)?

I am not anti-Semitic. I feel that anti-Semitism is extremely detestable, second only to denying Jesus Christ as the only Savior.

Serving Someone’s Special Interest

I take you at your word when you say that you receive “hate mail,” including that which is “anti-Semitic.” You offer as an example the letter from a United Methodist pastor. I have read that letter over several times and I find myself in disagreement with your editorial view that it is either anti-Semitic or involves any sort of hate or irrationalism.

Pastor Grenci’s cancellation of his subscription may or may not be rational, but 016his objection to replacing B.C. and A.D. with B.C.E. and C.E. is both well founded and legitimate. In his view, this device represents historical revisionism and a corruption of both language and tradition. Such things always serve someone’s special interest or agenda. Pastor Grenci believes that this agenda has been invented and is being advanced by a certain segment of the Jewish community.

Pastor Grenci goes on to say that Judaism rejects Christ as the Messiah. That is neither anti-Semitic nor a gratuitous insult. It is a statement of fact.

The difficulty with such words as “anti-Semitic” and “racism” is that they lack clear definition while implying and imputing immoral motives and behavior. As such, they make the perfect meat-ax.

Pastor Grenci Responds

I have seen your attack on me which appeared in your letters column. I never imagined you would print such a response. Of course, by calling me anti-Semitic, you have diverted attention from the real problem, which is your magazine’s anti-Christian prejudice. The viciousness of your attack only serves to demonstrate my point.

To deal with the issue at hand: Calling the Christian Era the “Common (or unclean) Era” is both subjective and bigoted. Your pretense that it is either neutral or scholarly is ludicrous at best and deliberately deceptive at worst. Admittedly the use of B.C. and A.D. are expressions of faith, but so are B.C.E. and C.E. If you are genuinely interested in being scholarly, devise historical designations that are accurately historical and not subjective expressions designed to insult a large segment of your reading public.

The Authors’ Choice

The only reason I can discern for your use of B.C.E. and C.E. is the editor’s own anti-Christian bias. I have greatly enjoyed your magazine in the past and have found the articles both timely and interesting, but I now fear your prejudice will cloud your future objectivity. When my subscription is up I will not renew.

We allow our authors to use the designations of their choice—either B.C. and A.D. or B.C.E. and C.E. It’s up to them. We accept either set of designations. When they use the less familiar B.C.E. and C.E., we explain to our readers the meaning of those terms.—Ed.

John Strugnell and Anti-Semitism

Picking on the Boils of John Strugnell

You have picked up the old cudgel of the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls—commendable enough—but have swung it to hysterical heights. You go nattering on about it for page after page in issue after issue. We can put up with a few unhysterical, well-thought-out editorials, but the space you’ve taken in each issue should be devoted to scholarly articles on archaeology—the stuff for which we subscribed.

Now you are picking on the boils of John Strugnell again (“Silence, Anti-Semitism and the Scrolls,” BAR 17:02) for page after page, until they’re inoperable, festering wounds. You pick even after the man is down and out.

Editor Needs Editing

Granted the world is anti-Semitic. It is also racist and anti-female.

You have made your point ad nauseam that Dr. Strugnell made some inappropriate, anti-Semitic remarks that probably reflect his bias (or illness). However, to go on for pages about anti-Semitism, silence, etc., as you did in “Silence, Anti-Semitism and the Scrolls,” BAR 17:02, is self-indulgent, and irrelevant to the things we love about BAR.

Keeping up the pressure about publication and sharing of the Dead Sea Scrolls is one thing. This was something else.

Sometimes the editor needs editing.

Please take this in the spirit it was intended—to make a super publication even better.

Morally Irrelevant Reasons

Well, John Strugnell is out on his ear and good riddance to him. But before we forget him, we had best remember that the grounds used to sack him are morally irrelevant, and highly dangerous to the rest of us.

The basic point is that what Strugnell, or anyone else, thinks is quite irrelevant to our needs. My gardener may be a member of the Black Panthers; my butcher, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood; my lawyer, a Nazi; my doctor, a Jew; my accountant, a radical feminist; my grocer, a WASP. So what difference does it make to me? I am merely hurting myself if I replace any of the above because they do/do not belong to any of the above groups. I want a good gardener/butcher/lawyer/doctor/accountant/grocer/etc., not one that pipes the approved nonsense.

Drumming Strugnell out is dangerous. Fashions change. If Strugnell is canned for not liking Jews today, it is quite likely that tomorrow others will be fired for liking Jews, as has happened in the past. For our own safety, we must stress the immorality of using these irrelevant standards.

Subscribes to Classic Christianity

John Strugnell’s great crime, it seems, is in being bold enough to say today what the apostle Paul said 2,000 years ago and what orthodox Christianity has always believed. I quote Mr. Strugnell: “The correct answer of Jews to Christianity is to become Christian” (Avi Katzman, “Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01). I realize that such statements are not popular, diplomatic or acceptable to your editorial philosophy, but if that is bigotry, anti-Semitic and contemptible, then all of us who still subscribe to classic Christianity are guilty also.

A Form of God’s Love

Individually the Jewish people, like all others on this earth, are given the chance to see Jesus Christ as the only true God. Each of us is given a free will to accept or reject Jesus as our Savior and Lord. When Jesus is rejected, as the Jewish people have done “on the whole,” it hurts the true believer (in this case, John Strugnell) to see his fellowman headed for destruction into Eternal Hell (see Avi Katzman, “Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01).

This heartfelt desire to see our fellowman saved from eternal damnation causes us to plead to God and man for “mass repentance” and “conversion.” This does not mean that they are to be destroyed or punished or put in slavery. It does not mean people are to abandon their culture, like the “established church” once forced upon peoples with whom they came into contact (for example, the Inquisition). It does mean that they are to give up their old nature of sinning toward God and their fellowman, and instead to put their trust in God. This is not being hostile and there is no hatred here. Rather, it is a form of God’s love toward others.

Everything you have written on John Strugnell, except his toast to Kurt Waldheim, leads me to believe Strugnell 018has a true heart that desires to see the Jewish people saved through Jesus Christ.

BAR Keeps Him Up on Heresy

It is out of love for the Jews and their souls that we stand up and say that as long as they reject Christ they are rejected by God. Anyone who can read Romans 11:1–15 can see that Paul states explicitly they have been rejected by God as long as they reject Christ. Therefore we proclaim the truth hoping to convert them and save them. If such loving proclamation is anti-Semitic, so be it. As far as the Christians considering themselves the new Jews, that is also easily seen from reading Galatians 3:7. (Of course, you have to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and Paul to come to such conclusions; and by your other articles, I doubt that you do.)

Moreover, neither the Roman church nor Eugene Fisher (“The Church’s Teaching on Supersessionism,” BAR 17:02) speaks for the entire Christian church. I thought the Reformation took care of this long ago.

Even though I am probably labeled a conservative by your standards, I do enjoy reading your magazine. It keeps me abreast of contemporary findings and heresy, both of which I find very useful in my service to the Lord.

Conversion for Love

Wishing to see a group of people converted to Christ Jesus does not constitute hatred toward that group (“Silence, Anti-Semitism and the Scrolls,” BAR 17:02). In Biblical terms, it is about as loving as someone can be; for only in Jesus is there abundant, eternal life and fellowship with God the Father, according to the New Testament. To say that frustration over Jews’ unbelief is anti-Semitic is to say that Jesus (Mark 3:5) and Paul (Romans 10:1–4) were anti-Semitic. With due respect to the article on supersessionism (Eugene Fisher, “The Church’s Teaching on Supersessionism,” BAR 17:02), one verse from Paul was left out, “And they also [the Jews], if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in…” (Romans 11:23). That “if” is telling and was strangely absent from the Nostra Aetate article.

I am well aware that some have misused the Bible to support hate campaigns. Such people will find no consolation from God. But the answer is not found in implicit or explicit encouragement for believers to compromise their zeal for the Savior.

We must understand the difference between zeal for conversion and hatred for a class, race or religious group. I say these things, well aware of the atrocities of religious groups using Christ as an excuse to “convert” others by violence. That is roundly and soundly condemned by the Scriptures (2 Corinthians 10:3–5; Philippians 2:14–15). But one abuse should not push us to other abuses. Another’s misuse of Scripture does not excuse my own.

A Great Scholar’s Thoughts in This Reader’s Mind

It is hard for me to understand why Christians are anti-Semitic and Jews are not anti-Christian when they in no way intend to bend their opinion to that of the Christian.

It is hard for me to see how any present-day Jews could read the New Testament and still believe as they do. Their slaughter by Hitler has only reinforced their beliefs. As John Strugnell says, “A horrible religion that never should have been” (in Avi Katzman, “Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01). Just how such thoughts got situated in my reasoning I don’t know, but I was surprised to find that such a great scholar as Strugnell could have so near the same thoughts. How one can read of the early persecution of the Christians by the Jews of that day and not be more or less anti-Semitic is hard to see.

Rejects Flabby Relativism

Each of us must decide what we will make of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. If indeed he is “the way, the truth, and the life,” the only way to the Father (John 14:6), then those who reject his claims are tragically mistaken. On the other hand, if his claim is not true, then there is no reason to have a Christian church at all. In this respect, it is a necessary part of Christian faith to believe in the “superiority” of Christ over other purported objects of worship.

I know that many today, some claiming to be Christian theologians, take it as an article of faith (how could they prove such a thing?) that all religions are equal and that no one should ever speak a word of disparagement against the religion of someone else. That is a kind of flabby relativism which is self-contradictory (because relativists are always disparaging those who disagree with their relativism) and would never be tolerated in any other area of life. (Imagine a scientist claiming that all theories are equal; indeed, imagine an archaeologist claiming that all theories about the location of Ai are equally true!)

019

I abhor anti-Semitism and racism, properly defined. I absolutely refuse to accept these labels as properly designating people simply because they choose to worship Christ as the Son of God and, out of love for those who do not so worship Him, seek to bring the good news to all peoples of the world.

Strugnell’s Anger

I have read the last two issues with a growing concern for your failure adequately to distinguish between terms. I refer to the use of “anti-Judaistic” and “anti-Semitic.”

One may be opposed to Judaism as a religion without being opposed to Jews as a people or nation. Whether we like it or not, whether we wish it were otherwise or not, Christianity and Judaism are fundamentally opposed to one another. Judaism rejects the basic claim of Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and was and is the Son of God incarnate. In fact, it is not correct to say we worship the same God: Judaism rejects the Christian belief that God is triune (one God, three persons). It does damage to both faiths to pretend that there are not real differences between them. Christianity is inherently anti-Judaistic (opposed to the Jewish religion), just as Judaism is inherently anti-Christian (opposed to the Christian religion). Each makes claims about God which the other rejects as being false. This does not make Christianity anti-Semitic any more than it makes Judaism anti-Gentilic.

To this extent, then, I, as a Christian, am in agreement with John Strugnell’s position. He sees the fundamental opposition between the two religions.

To acknowledge this opposition, however, need not lead one into intolerance. While I believe holders of the Jewish faith to be in error, and in private discussion with individuals may seek to bear witness to the Christian faith, I recognize also the right of those people to believe as they do. I may be saddened over what I believe to be their error, but I ought not be angry. This is where Dr. Strugnell erred: his view was expressed in such a way as to be understood as anger against both Judaism and Jews.

Supersessionism Is Not Anti-Semitism

You are in error to suggest that supersessionism (Eugene Fisher, “The Church’s Teaching on Supersessionism,” BAR 17:02) equals anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism do exist in the world, but they are not defined by supersessionism. Remember, many of those Dutch Calvinists who risked their lives and property on behalf of Jews fleeing Nazi terror held, and continue to hold, what you call supersessionist views. Their views were not then nor are they now anti-Semitic.

Some of the strongest and most vocal supporters of the nation of Israel are Protestant evangelicals. They believe that the Jewish nation has missed a blessing in its rejection of Jesus, and that the New Testament has invalidated the covenant reflected in the Old Testament. Believing these things does not make them anti-Semites. They are not haters of Judaism or the Jewish people.

The simple fact is that millions of Christians are Christians simply because they believe the teachings of Christ supersede and are superior to those of Moses. If they didn’t, they would be Jewish or some other faith.

It is ironic that the Dead Sea Scrolls and other textual evidence from this time in Jewish history reveal a number of Jewish sects who in their own ways were just as much supersessionists as those who became Christians. It can be argued that the wrath of these groups was as much against the Jewish establishment as against the Romans. Their teachings superseded the dominant expression of Judaism in its day and would eagerly have replaced the Jerusalem establishment if they were able. Were they anti-Semitic?

Insult Inflation Syndrome

I have been following your coverage of the scrolls fiasco with a certain voyeuristic delight. To puncture such towering egos, and to undermine their transparent rebuttals—BAR does it so well.

While I sincerely appreciate your careful thought in dealing with these difficult problems, I feel you have come down with a bit of Insult Inflation Syndrome.

Strugnell’s remarks were obviously astounding and controversial (Avi Katzman, “Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01). However, your charges of anti-Semitism appeared to be based on worst-case interpretation of a few remarks and anecdotes (these outweigh the man’s entire life’s work?).

The foundational tenets of Christianity are heresies to Judaism (and Islam). That a man should be God, much less that he would die on a tree for the sins of the world—these are nearly unbelievable claims. Nevertheless, I and others believe them to be the astounding truth. We believe, as a corollary, that many Jews were and are mistaken about Jesus’ nature. This hardly 020qualifies as anti-Semitism.

To your credit, you did address the substantive issue raised by Strugnell, though somewhat belatedly—that of supersessionism. That article (Eugene Fisher, “The Church’s Teaching on Supersessionism,” BAR 17:02) asserted everything that was needed to support your criticism. However, had you looked a bit closer, perhaps you would not have found nearly so universal an agreement within the church as the article seemed to imply. After all, it does take some violent hand-waving to finesse several relevant Scripture passages and to imply that no really means yes. Us normal folk are not brilliant enough to grasp these principles.

Get Off Your Soapbox

You assume that supersessionism is anti-Semitism. I have never heard such a thing before. Really, your continued ranting verges on paranoia. Anti-Semitism is hatred.

Perhaps you are not being quite honest with us. Perhaps this hysteric disgust with supersessionism is a means of exploiting the first big chance of shaking up the leadership of the Dead Sea Scrolls in hopes of finally knocking something loose. If this is so, it is too extreme. The end does not justify the means.

I find tremendous hypocrisy when you say, on the one hand, that you must remain open-minded and nonreligious (e.g., unorthodox advertisers, black Egyptians, or the use of B.C./A.D. vs. B.C.E./C.E.), and then suddenly demand complete condemnation of those not adhering to your own narrow understanding of such a vital theological issue!

It would appear that your inability to explain the Israeli response is perhaps due to a clearer understanding on their part of the small size of this issue. Yes, it may be a problem with those in charge of the scrolls—their problems seem to be many—but hardly endemic to Christians as a whole.

Please climb down off your soapbox and continue the good work of providing an open forum for scholarly debate regarding Biblical archaeology.

Real Anti-Semitism Is a Foul Thing

If the people of Israel had completely and finally rejected Moses, the man sent to them by God, they would have been in error. If they had denied Joshua’s authority, they’d have been wrong. If Israel had not acknowledged him whom Samuel anointed as king, David, Israel would have been failing to perceive God’s plan. The time came when Israel did fail to acknowledge one who continued in the line of Moses, David and the prophets, and who fulfilled the plan of God. To believe that is not to be anti-Semitic; it is to be, if you will, “pro-Jesus,” to believe Jesus’ claims about himself.

To believe that God would supersede the old covenant with a new one is to be no more anti-Semitic than the prophet Jeremiah: “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…” (Jeremiah 31:31). Evidently God intended his new covenant with Israel to displace the old.

Real anti-Semitism is not a matter of these theological concepts; anti-Semitism is a matter of murderous hatred. It is a foul thing. That you throw the term around so blithely, so cavalierly, that you apply it so smugly to those whose Biblical views raise your blood pressure a notch or two is shameful.

I’m not defending Strugnell; I really don’t know anything about him, other than that some of his comments seem coarse, cruel and entirely un-Christian. But what I am saying is that if you have made your offended sensibilities the final word in theological debate, you are falling into the same error as those in Jeremiah’s Jerusalem.

Israeli Indifference to Anti-Semitism

Israeli scholarly indifference to anti-Semitism defies explanation. These tough, post-Holocaust Jews of the State of Israel now show themselves craven, while the Jews of the exile, led by the editor of this magazine, turn out to be courageous and self-respecting. The dignity of the Jewish people means nothing to those discussed in “Silence, Anti-Semitism and the Scrolls,” BAR 17:02. Strugnell’s Christian colleagues and students, and co-opting Jews as well, dismiss Strugnell’s anti-Semitism merely as a sign of illness (“No Evidence of Anti-Judaism in Strugnell’s Work,” Queries & Comments, BAR 17:02). But these opinions stand for Christian theology through the ages, and every one of them can be documented in Christian authorities, East and West, Latin and Greek and Syriac, from antiquity to our own time. Strugnell’s violent hatred of the State of Israel is certainly the norm in Christian theological circles, as the National Council of Churches proves. So no one has to be “sick” to hold and express what have been (but today are not) normative opinions.

Strugnell is supposed to have had some “best friends” who were Jews. But over the years I personally have heard him make disparaging remarks about the professors of Jewish studies at Harvard, Professor Isadore Twersky in particular, and these remarks extended to Twersky’s Judaism. Israelis who think that anti-Semitism characterizes goyim anyhow, so why get excited, and Diaspora Jews who think that to be an anti-Semite you have to be a drunkard—both show themselves self-serving. Neither wants to face facts. But particularly despicable are the (self-styled) tough, post-Holocaust Jews on the Harvard faculty who, holding professorships of Jewish studies, even in the Divinity School itself, now have run for cover in silence. What a shameful betrayal of the dignity of the Jewish people!

Two parties emerge with honor: Dr. Eugene Fisher, who—speaking for the Roman Catholic Church (“The Church’s Teaching on Supersessionism,” BAR 17:02)—insists that anti-Semitism is evil and anti-Christian, not to be tolerated under any circumstances, and the editor of this journal, who properly maintains that (even) gentiles be held to an honorable standard. To both goes the honor of the hour.

022

An Independent Body Needed to Release the Scrolls

Some relatively independent body should bring pressure to bear to ensure more equitable access and speedier publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So what if the resultant work contains errors? The purpose of scholarship is a free exchange of knowledge so that errors can be corrected. Open discussion of the scrolls in the scholarly literature is mote likely to result in good translations than some one person sitting on the material for what has now become a lifetime.

A Lawsuit on the Scrolls?

For the past few months, I have been reading about the travesty surrounding the censorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I was shocked after reading the BAR 17:02 issue. I can appreciate the concern of the scroll committee and the Israel Antiquities Authority that unqualified people should not be handling such treasures, but why is it that qualified people are not at least able to view photocopies? Even if an unqualified person decided to publish his “translation,” who would give it credence?

Since all arguments I have heard against publishing these texts are absurd, I offer a suggestion: BAR and other interested parties should sue the Israel Antiquities Authority in an Israeli court for access to photocopies of the scrolls.

I think many people, including myself, would be happy to fund such an endeavor.

Adding Insult to Injury

Your apology in Queries & Comments, BAR 17:02, concerning the article “Hell Found Under Siberia,” deeply disturbs me. You added insult to injury when you implied that the thought of discovery of Noah’s Ark or the Ark of the Covenant is ludicrous, worthy of laughter.

Such bias must surely affect your capacity for objective reporting. Please remember, a willingness to accept the “ridiculous” account of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is a prerequisite to anyone’s acceptance by our Living God (Romans 10:9).

Should we not be extremely cautious about our disposition to scoff at, or to treat with humor, this place of hell, of which Jesus so clearly warned?

A Good Balance

This magazine is a sheer delight! Where else can I find under one cover such beauty, excitingly written about, and comic relief?

BAR Is Not a Comic Book

When I read your apology in Queries & Comments, BAR 17:02, stating that you thought the article reporting on the discovery of hell “was so inherently ridiculous that our readers would get a laugh over the story,” I have seldom been so insulted. If I wanted to laugh, I’d read comic books.

Whether this story is true or not, I do not know. However, I do believe that it could be true. “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

I also noticed that of the letters you printed, more than half were from people with higher education. I have nothing against education; however, I have noticed that in most cases, the more educated a person becomes, the less likely he is to believe in miracles, and the more skeptical he becomes of God’s power. I am reminded of Proverbs 3:7, which says, “Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil.”

I am requesting that you cancel my subscription upon receipt of this letter.

How to Attend Annual Meeting

The BAR 17:02 issue mentions the next Annual Meeting of AAR, SBL and ASOR in Kansas City this November (“When 5,613 Scholars Get Together in One Place—The Annual Meeting, 1990,” BAR 17:02). Could you please give me an address to which I can write for information (like how I can attend and what it will cost). I’ve read about the Annual Meeting for the last two years and have enjoyed the reviews thoroughly. They have whet my appetite to attend in person.

To get information about the AAR/SBL/ASOR Annual Meeting in Kansas City on November 23–26, 1991, write Annual Meetings Manager, Society of Biblical Literature, P.O. Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 30333–0399.—Ed.

Protome and Piriform

Whether I am able to attend or not, I enjoy your appraisal of the AAR/SBL/ASOR bash every year (“When 5,613 Scholars Get Together in One Place—The Annual Meeting, 1990,” BAR 17:02).

You tweaked my interest with the words you couldn’t find in your dictionary. I opened my old Webster’s Third International and found out that “protome” is the severed head of an animal and that “piriform” is pear-shaped. I look forward to encountering them in a crossword puzzle.

The other new word I learned from your article was “polymastic,” complete with a color picture of the many-breasted Artemis (Diana), which should prompt some letters and cancellations if past experience is any 023indication. It brought to mind a little doggerel that H. Grady Davis of the Lutheran School of Theology taught to his homiletics students years ago. He recommended that we practice our diction by reciting: “A gaudy goddess was Diana. Her pornic honor had a hundred falsies on her.”

It’s a real mouthful.

Disappointed in BAR

I am disappointed in Biblical Archaeology Review. It doesn’t come out often enough! Your magazine has been invaluable to me over the past 12 years in providing information and perspective to my preaching and teaching in the church.

Thank you for your excellent magazine and its valuable contribution to pastors like me. God bless you!

The Mother Goddess and Patriarchy

William G. Dever (“Women’s Popular Religion, Suppressed in the Bible, Now Revealed by Archaeology,” BAR 17:02) suggests that the problem of the religion of the Great Mother be approached psychologically. He attributes opposition to the Mother Goddess to men’s fear of the unique power of women. This may be made more specific as fear of the Great Mother’s seductiveness and her tendency to exercise domination over men—an echo of earlier times when actual castration of men was practiced.

The return of the Father’s authority under monotheism led to greater restraint of the sexual drives and their sublimation into the ideals of justice and concern for others along with greater advances in intellectuality and abstract thought, as Freud has pointed out. Patriarchy, however, had negative consequences. As man came under the complete domination of the Father, he experienced a loss of autonomy which threatened his sense of masculinity. As we know from psychoanalytic experience, the struggle against the loss of masculinity first appears in the early life of the male child and persists throughout life. Man’s only resource was to challenge the authority of the Father by restoring the Mother’s influence and indulging in greater sexual freedom, which reaffirmed his masculinity. Thus, the worship of the Mother Goddess continued throughout the entire Biblical period, despite all efforts to counteract it.

A change occurred only after the Babylonian Exile, when idol worship appears to have disappeared. Presumably under the influence of Zoroastrian dualism, the idea of the dual godhead was introduced among the Jewish mystical sects in the form of Gnosticism, despite the opposition of the rabbis. Gnostic ideas simmered for centuries and finally erupted in the mysticism of the Kabbalists in the 13th century. According to Gershom Scholem, behind the mystical images of the king and queen of the Kabbalists were the male and female gods of antiquity. The Sophia of the Gnostics—the “daughter of light”—became the Shekhinah of the Kabbalists. Scholem regarded the introduction of the dualistic concept, with the Shekhinah as the feminine opposed to the masculine element in God, as one of the most important and lasting innovations of Kabbalism. He considered the fact that it obtained recognition in the face of the conception of the absolute unity of God and despite the bitter opposition of the strict talmudists, as proof that it responded to a deep-seated religious need.

Professor William G. Dever comments:

The letter of Paul Sloane is, I think, very much worth publishing (that is, it echoes ideas in my paper!). It may annoy some of your other readers, however.

Monotheism Excludes Asherah

I found it odd that in the adaptation of a paper by William Dever titled “Women’s Popular Religion, Suppressed in the Bible, Now Revealed by Archaeology,” BAR 17:02, Professor Dever never mentioned that monotheism may have been the reason for the goddess Asherah or her cult not being integrated into the religion of ancient Israel. While monotheism may be what he calls a manifestation of “Orthodoxy…with its rigid theological systems,” it is one of the foundations and creative innovations of Judaism. Judaism would not be Judaism, or much else, today if it was another “tolerant” pagan religion which accepted a variety of gods, male and female. That the one God in Judaism is referred to as He, not she, is likely due to male dominance in Jewish/Israelite religion. But to castigate Judaism for not being open or tolerant of including a pagan goddess because of male dominance is to question the religion’s monotheistic base. I would hope it is not necessary to elaborate the moral advancement of monotheism over paganistic practices in ancient Israel.

Why Was Worship of the Golden Calf Suppressed?

The piece on the cult of Asherah (“Women’s Popular Religion, Suppressed in the Bible, Now Revealed by Archaeology,” BAR 17:02) is another example of the current fashionable deconstructionist trend to “search and destroy” cultural manifestations of male chauvinism. This time, the revolutionary zealots are grasping at straws: The Bible deliberately suppresses any mention of miniature altars, figurines and clay rattles dedicated to the cult of the goddess Asherah or Ashtoreth. Dever says: “[King] Josiah…dismantled the shrines of Ashtoreth” because of the “deep-seated ambivalence of men regarding women…”

The awesome achievement of the establishment of monotheism by the Jews is thus reduced to a mere conflict between “official” and “unofficial” cults. Are we to be treated next to politico-scientific prattle by animal-rights activists that the suppression of the golden calf was due to the deep-seated ambivalence of men regarding animals?

066

Readers Vote to Print Erotic Oil Lamps

The results are in. Our readers voted overwhelmingly to print pictures of the erotic, indeed pornographic, oil lamps excavated at Ashkelon Here is the count:

1. Don’t print the pictures	20%	(138 votes)
2. Print the pictures	50%	(351 votes)
3. Print them, but with a perforation allowing them to be removed	30%	(214 votes)

Combining the second and third categories, both of which voted to print the pictures in one way or another, the vote was 80 percent to 20 percent.

Nevertheless, to accommodate the sensitivities of those who regard these pictures as inappropriate or who fear they might fall into the hands of children, we have printed them in such a way that they can easily be cut out without damaging the magazine or removing any other editorial matter.

In computing the results, we disallowed the votes that came from an announcement in the Secular Humanist Bulletin asking its readers to vote to print the picture.

We also disallowed 23 of the 24 votes of the Monastery of St. Dominic in Newark, New Jersey, because it was a collective note signed by only one of the sisters.

Many readers accompanied their votes with comments. We print a representative sample below.

Don’t Print Them

I think most (right-minded) people will agree that the human form, whether draped or otherwise, cannot be obscene. On the other hand, the depiction of explicit sexual acts, even on archaeological discoveries, in a semipopular magazine such as BAR (as distinguished from a scholarly dissertation) raises a different set of questions. What purpose will pictures of the erotic lamps serve in this case? Will they help substantiate the dating of the dig or contribute significantly to our understanding of the underlying culture? Or will they only satisfy a kind of “Gee, whiz” curiosity? If there is a substantial reason for printing the pictures (other than proving that the ancients enjoyed a variety of sexual positions), then go ahead; otherwise, there would be no point in unnecessarily offending many of your readers. Verbal description should suffice.

Going beyond your poll, I wish to congratulate you on the general tenor and policy of your journal. It is a rare issue from which I do not learn something new.

This is a tough call. I thoroughly support the free exchange of thought that takes place in BAR. Obviously, the activities portrayed on the lamps were a part of life in that period—thank goodness, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I must assume that most of the readers of BAR already “know about it.” That leaves only the “visual impact” argument and that is strong; but, after consideration, I come down on the side of propriety.

I vote against. But all my kids voted for.

I have no problem with the naked human form, but I feel that depiction of that form involved in a sex act crosses the line into pornography. The age of the material does not render it nonpornographic.

We will continue to read your magazine regardless.

Please! I pray you do not lower yourselves to the level of profit.

My mind is a precious gift from God. I don’t want such dirt dumped on me.

My 14-year-old daughter enjoys your magazine and we just renewed our subscription. I would hate to have to edit a Biblical book that comes into my home for this kind of obscenity.

It shouldn’t need a vote. Your own conscience should tell you that it is quite wrong.

My brother Ellis Hanks doubts that anyone who reads BAR will turn to rape by such pictures. But who knows? Jeremiah 17:9. [“Most devious is the heart; it is perverse—who can understand it?”]

We have always believed in the adage, “When in doubt, don’t.”

The inspired apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 4:8: “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” I do not see the publication of photos of erotic lamps fulfilling this Biblical admonition.

Genesis 3:7 reads, “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” There are numerous lessons to be learned from this verse, but one is the lesson of decency. Note that Adam and Eve were the only humans present when they had opened eyes. Their shame evidently was for how they appeared before a Holy and Righteous God. Since that time those who consider how they appear before God have sought to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Therefore, the question should be: “Which of your readers believe the erotic lamps of Ashkelon will give honor and glory to God?”

Permit me to close with His words. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever cloth make manifest is light” (Ephesians 5:11–13).

Print Them

Print the pictures of the lamps. This is life as it was. If someone is worrying about their children seeing it, clip it out.

I do not want anyone deciding what I may see or not see. I’m not a child. I’m almost 69. I’m a big girl now, in more ways than one, and I do not appreciate anyone restricting my knowing (or seeing) or hearing the truth.

I raised seven children and if they asked, they were told; they are all religious and good family people. Knowing the truth won’t hurt, but hiding it will.

067

Honest reporting of archaeological knowledge is not lewd, nor pornographic.

Let the bluenoses read the abundant literature designed for them. Let BAR readers have the truth—honest, open and undiluted.

Don’t underestimate children’s knowledge of sex.

Don’t underestimate the value of the added excitement of sex in interesting a child in any subject, including archaeology.

Keep us as fully informed on the past as you possibly can, whether or not what you find is offensive to some people’s professed sensibilities. The past contained good and evil, just as does the present—and denial doesn’t change it one bit.

Don’t reduce BAR to the level of a children’s magazine.

If this was part of life in ancient times, we are entitled to know about it.

The whole point of archaeology is to study life as it was lived.

Have the courage and honesty to do the right thing.

If you cannot print the photos, then you are not the scholarly journal I have been led to believe you are.

Why so much fear and trepidation? What are you afraid of? And why ask us? Editor, make up your own mind, and then stand up for what you believe.

The would-be censors of morality love this sort of waffling.

I can’t believe after all the scholastic griping you do concerning the lack of publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls you would even think about withholding information!

I’m a pastor of a Southern Baptist church. I want photos for clear information!

About a year ago some local high school kids came around selling magazine subscriptions as a school band uniform fundraiser. My only previous exposure to BAR was an occasional brief look in the doctor’s or dentist’s office. Anyway, the kids didn’t have much on their list to choose from so I signed up for an introductory subscription to BAR. And you know, it was one of the smartest things I have ever done. Some of the articles are positively riveting.

I am neither student nor scholar, but more of an innocent bystander who enjoys BAR about as much as my first love, aviation and flying. Maybe I don’t even belong in the fraternity of BAR subscribers, because I take a less-than-scholarly approach to it all. That is not to say that I feel that detail and accuracy are unimportant in the reports on the digs and the ancients, only that it interests me less than the articles’ summary and overall impression. Actually, I enjoy the lively section of Queries & Comments because that’s where the readers’ expressions can be heard by all.

Should BAR print the pictures of the erotic lamps? Absolutely! That was a part of life. After all, sex was created by God. It was made dirty by the mind of man. And I suspect that men, and women for that matter, are not so different today than they were 2,000 years ago. You may catch a little flak on the pictures from a few closed minds but that triviality will be more than compensated for by the service to education you will thereby provide your subscribers. So print it all, for all of us. You won’t shock anybody. In fact, it would be a serious disservice to withhold it.

I object to the sadistic violence depicted in many archaeological finds, but I do not think that is a reason to suppress their display.

If we see depictions of war, pillage and plunder, why not sex?

068

Ancient child sacrifice is much more reprehensible than erotic lamps—at least to me. I can’t recall anyone objecting to the report of that (Lawrence E. Stager and Samuel R. Wolff, “Child Sacrifice at Carthage—Religious Rite or Population Control?” BAR 10:01).

Please accept my congratulations—and sympathy!—for your unflinching determination to present the results of current scholarship “no matter whose ox it may gore.”

This is a serious scholarly magazine and I want to know everything you find out about history! I am a 69-year-old widow and in 1979 I got to go on an archaeological cruise to the Mediterranean sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania Museum. It was the high point of my life.

I saw all those places I’d been reading about for so many years. I can die happy now.

Sorry my writing is so bad—I have Parkinson’s disease.

I know of only one person in history who was conceived without the process of sex; and that is more theology than biology. If you withhold publication of an archaeological find because you are afraid some Sunday school teacher might be momentarily embarrassed, then you have surrendered your ethical position as an impartial arbiter in the dissemination of Biblical archaeological information.

If you cave in to the hysterical puritans, then I will cancel my subscription at once because you can no longer be trusted.

Print them! By appealing to the prurient interest, your readership will increase tenfold. Works every time.

Understanding how perverse Ashkelon had become before God’s condemnation is valuable toward gaining a full appreciation of Scripture. The self-evident truth of photos eliminates imaginative conjectures and establishes a solid basis for understanding.

We want an accurate picture of the past, not a sanitized one.

People should be looking at such things as history and keep their minds out of the gutter.

The goal of archaeology is information, not judgment. Truth and knowledge are not served through censorship. Archaeology is the study of all human history, not just the lives of the saints.

Like the apostle Paul, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean” (Romans 14:14).

“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

070

Your magazine is excellent. You good people know it is excellent. Most of the people reading it know that it is excellent. Why bother with a vote relating to any subject. You’ll never please everyone.

Print Them With a Perforation, Facilitating Removal

As a mother, and as a person concerned with the deteriorating morals of this society, I would say no to printing photos of the erotic oil lamps. However, as a person with a B.A. in historic preservation, and as someone whose dream is: to be a Biblical archaeologist, I feel that they should be published. One of BAR’s goals is the dissemination of current archaeological research, and you would be doing your readers a disservice not to publish. My vote therefore is for a perforated page so that those with children, or Sunday schools, etc. can remove them at will.

The Greeks were right that the human form is beautiful, but there is a time and a place to show it. Despite the erotic oil lamps probably being pornographic, I feel that BAR is such a time and a place. I am glad the editors care enough for the sensitivities of their readers to ask for their opinion. We need more such responsible persons in our too-often sex- and violence-oriented media.

In the interest of getting your wonderful magazine into schools and libraries, I vote to have a removable section for the erotic lamps.

I use past editions of BAR in my waiting room for my congregation to read should they arrive early for an appointment.

Thank you for being gracious and ethical enough to poll your constituents to see how they feel. Everyone will not be satisfied with the outcome; however, we all can rejoice in the Christian spirit of cooperation that is being exercised.

I vote for the perforations. But don’t make the perforations too well, lest my copy come with those pages missing.

Many people are interested in seeing these lamps because of their importance in the past. I also believe that those people who do not wish to have those pictures in their magazine also have that right. So putting them on perforated pages would make them happy also.

I know of no other magazine that is so sensitive to its readers.

Reactions to Pastor Grenci’s Letter—Was It Anti-Semitic?