Readers Reply

004

Why She Changed Her Mind

When I received my trial issue of BR, I happily sent in my one-year subscription. However, having read the protests in Readers Reply, BR 09:01, over the “sexually explicit” articles and “feminist crap,” I’ve changed my mind. Please extend my subscription to two years and send me the back issues for June and October 1992!

Cancel My Subscription to the Bible

How can anyone cancel their subscription because certain articles deal with “sexually explicit” material? I suppose Mr. Standen (Readers Reply, BR 09:01) has canceled his subscription to the Bible, too. It certainly wouldn’t do to have our minds polluted by the explicit stuff we find in Genesis 38, Ezekiel 23 or the Song of Songs, just to name a few sources.

I enjoyed all the articles Mr. Standen Cited and would encourage you to produce more articles of that caliber. I particularly enjoyed the ancient sources cited in “Did Sarah Have a Seminal Emission,” BR 08:01—they were beautiful! And while “Epispasm—Circumcision in Reverse,” BR 08:04, may have gotten my body involuntarily tense as I read it, it was most informative nevertheless.

Of course I disagree with a lot of what appears in BR. But the good stuff far outweighs the dreck. Keep up the good work!

Enhances His Ministry

I write to let you know that I thoroughly enjoy your publication. I look forward to each issue and feel that my ministry and understanding of the Christian faith have been enhanced by spending time in the pages of BR. Not only is the writing enlightening; I also find the photographs and illustrations especially rewarding. Thank you for a job so faithfully performed.

Embarrassing to Change Your Mind

This is embarrassing: I originally submitted a card accepting your offer of a free trial of one issue of BR. I read this issue (Dec. 1992) and decided I was not interested. I returned the invoice With “Cancel” written across it, as per your offer. Then the February 1993 issue arrived. I read Dr. James Charlesworth’s article on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John (see “Reinterpreting John,” BR 09:01), and I immediately changed my mind. This is a fine piece of work. If it is typical of BR’s regular articles, then I want to read it regularly. Although I have some reservations about other aspects of your magazine (notably the ads for books that I consider highly suspect in scholarship), I would like to subscribe to BR after all.

Agreement Is Not Necessary

As a recent recruit to your readership, I would like to express my pleasure at the breadth and vision of your contributors. Although I do not always subscribe to the opinions offered, I still enjoy experiencing those opinions being expressed.

Interested in Studies of Biblical Women

Too often in the past, women have been absent from scriptural passages chosen for study and liturgy or have been seen as much less important then the men. I therefore much appreciate BR’s scholarly studies of biblical women, such as the Genesis matriarchs (“The Mothers of Israel,” BR 02:01), Huldah (“A Woman Was the First to Declare Scripture Holy,” BR 06:02) Susanna (“Susanna—Sexual Harassment in Ancient Babylon,” BR ) and Mary Magdelene (“How Mary Magdalene Became a Whore,” BR 08:05). I also am interested in feminine images/metaphors of God in the scriptures as well 008as studies of the Spirit of God and “Lady” Wisdom. In addition, a study of some of the women in Acts would make an interesting article.

Thanks for the suggestion. We’ll try to follow through.—Ed.

>

Is the River God Jordan Turning Back?

The images of pagan river gods at Jesus’ baptism may have even more dimensions than Robin Jensen describes (“What Are Pagan River Gods Doing in Scenes of Jesus’ Baptism?” BR 09:01). As a pastor who uses Christian art to teach theology and the Bible, I have often had to respond to questions about these same river gods. In the “Eastern” type of baptismal art, the “fleeing Jordan” may be construed as enacting verses from the Psalms that refer to the Jordan flowing backward to allow the Israelites to cross dry-shod to the Promised Land. Gertrude Schiller describes this in Iconography of the Christian Church ([Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst], vol. 1, pp. 132–137). Schiller draws our attention to psalms used in early baptismal liturgies as prefigurings of Jesus’ baptism. Note particularly Psalm 114:3, 5 (compare Psalm 77:16) in which the personification of the water (embodied in art by the river god) is implicit in the anthropomorphism of the text:

“The sea looked and fled;

Jordan turned back

…

Why is it, O sea, that you flee?

O Jordan, that you turn back?”

In later iconographic development (especially in illustrations of the Psalter) the personification of the Jordan is sometimes replaced by the figure of a dragon (or even Satan) fleeing from Jesus’ baptism. In this form the iconography has a further allusion to God’s mythic defeat of chaos, personified in the Bible as Rahab or Leviathan, echoing the Ugaritic contest between Baal (as god) and Yammu (as the personified sea) or the Babylonian myth of Marduk battling against Tiamat (compare Psalm 74:13: “you divided the sea by your might; / you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters”).

Even the “Western” iconographic type of the baptism may portray the figure of the personified river as more than a mere spectator at the baptism of Jesus. Schiller notes how in the Arian baptistry of Ravenna (which Jensen features in her article) the figure of Jordan has raised his left hand as if to acknowledge the authority of Jesus as Lord of all creation.

I have long had a thought that I have never researched. The first time I saw the river god figure (in the mosaic of the Arian baptistry), I was struck by its similarity to Moses (compare the physique, beard and pose of this Jordan with Michelangelo’s sculpture of Moses in San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome). Not understanding the image of the crab claws on the god’s head, I was reminded of the iconographic depiction of horns on the head of Moses; not understanding the jug as a source of the river Jordan, I remembered Moses bringing water from the rock; not realizing that a reed is an attribute of the river god, I thought of Moses and the bullrushes. It may be merely a random thought, but given the propensity of the early church to see Christian types in pre-Christian images and given the theologicl, typological and redemptive relationship between Jesus’ baptism and events in Moses’ life, I still sometimes wonder whether there may be some relationship.

A final observation: In Jensen’s article the descriptive note accompanying the photograph of the mosaic from the Arian baptistry states that “the dove of the Holy Spirit, rather than John, spray[s] Jesus with the lustral water.” The dove is not spraying water, but rather is anointing Jesus with rays (as of light). Such rays (and later, drops of chrism [consecrated oil]) frequently emanate from the dove in baptismal iconography. The baptismal anointing with water is consistently reserved for John.

Robin M. Jensen replies:

It is gratifying to receive such a detailed and thoughtful reply to the problem of the personification of the Jordan in the image of Jesus’ baptism. A few years ago another scholar called my attention to Armenian icons of Jesus’ baptism in which Satan was depicted in the water. This, as well as the suggestions of Rev. Underwood, reconfirms my idea that a malevolent water deity was being exorcised in the imagery.

The comparison of Moses with the river god seems stretching a point (especially by citing a Renaissance example), but there are important connections between Moses and early Christian imagery of baptism, especially in the iconography of Moses striking the rock in the catacombs of Rome, where he only holds a wand and has no jug, reed or horns.

About the “dove’s shower”: The substance that the dove sprays on Jesus in the image of the Arian baptistry has various interpretations. Partly because of the color of the mosaic and its design, I and others opt for water, but scholars have also suggested oil, breath or rays of light. Of course none of these conforms to the Gospel narrative. John the Baptist is almost always shown with his right hand on the top of Jesus’ head and not anointing with water. One exception is the image in the orthodox baptistry in Ravenna, where John holds a paten, but this apparently is a much later reconstruction of the image.

River Gods Put to Flight

One comment on Robin Jensen’s question, “What are Pagan River Gods Doing in Scenes of Jesus’ Baptism?” BR 09:01, is found in St. Athanasius’ Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word (c. 318 A.D.): “And while in times past demons, occupying springs or rivers or trees or stones, cheated men by deceptive appearances and imposed upon the credulous by their juggleries, now, after the divine coming of the word, an end is put to their deceptions. For by the sign of the cross, a man but using it, their wiles are put to flight.”

The Case of the Missing Endnote

I enjoyed Robin Jensen’s great article, “What are Pagan River Gods Doing in Scenes of Jesus’ Baptism?” BR 09:01. I was especially interested in end-note 19, pertaining to the fifth-century apse mosaic of Hosios David in Thessalonica. I plan to visit Salonica next May, so I eagerly turned to the end of the article to see what endnote 19 would tell me. There were the endnotes, all in order, but only through endnote 18. What happened to endnote 19?

Endnote 19 was accidentally dropped during editing. It should have read as 046follows: “The river deity that appears in Hosios David often is referred to as the Jordan, although there is no direct connection between baptism and the rest of the iconography. See R. E. Hoddinott, Byzantine Churches in Macedonia and Southern Serbia (New York, 1963), pp. 173–179.—Ed.

Why Easter Is on Sunday

I take issue with Helmut Koester (“The Passion Narratives and the Roots of Anti-Judaism,” BR 09:01) that the reason the date for Easter was fixed in 325 C.E. as “the Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox” was because it was undesirable “that Christians should celebrate the resurrection on a date dictated by Jewish rabbis….” Since Christ rose on a Sunday, it was more fitting that the resurrection be celebrated on the first day of the week. Also, it seems appropriate that Christians observe their most important holy day on the same day everywhere. These reasons are surely more important than the anti-Jewish one Koester gives.

Passover commemorates the time when the Israelites, still in Egypt, were spared the punishment dealt to Egyptian households when the angel of death passed over Israelite dwellings. The only similarity between Passover and Easter is that Christ died during Passover and that lambs were sacrificed.

John writes that when John the Baptist saw Jesus coming, he said, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Koester would have readers believe that because, during Lent and Holy Week, Christians read Gospel narratives of Jesus’ trial and death, this reinforces the myth that the Jews were responsible for his death.

True Christianity doesn’t place the blame for Jesus’ death on the Jewish people! It teaches that Jesus Christ willingly gave up his life in obedience to his Father. In fact, the Gospel of John reports this: “The father loves me because I am willing to give up my life, in order that I may take it back again. No one takes my life away from me; I give it up of my own free will. I have the authority to give it up and the authority to take it back, for this is what the Father commanded me to do” (John 10:17–18).

047

The message of the resurrection is that because Jesus triumphed over death, both spiritual and physical, we can also. Without the resurrection, Jesus’ death would have been in vain. “Christ has risen from the dead, as the guarantee that all who die will also be raised…. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made to live…. Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?” (1 Corinthians 15:20, 22, 55)

What Christians commemorate during Lent and Holy Week is that Christ died (willingly) for our sins, and because he rose from the dead, so will we. Our joyous Easter greeting is “He is risen!”

Helmut Koester replies:

Christians certainly believed that Christ rose on Sunday (= “the Lord’s Day”) and therefore celebrated each Sunday as the day of the resurrection. However, the concern here is with the date of the Easter festival, which many churches in the first three centuries celebrated on the day after the Jewish Passover, regardless of the day of the week. According to that tradition, Easter this year would have been celebrated on Tuesday, April 6. That this ancient custom was discontinued was certainly related to the desire to distinguish the Christian Easter calendar from the rabbinic lunar calendar.

The Difference Between Anti-Semitic and Anti-Judaic

Both Helmut Koester (“The Passion Narratives and the Roots of Anti-Judaism,” BR 09:01) and Robert Kysar (“John’s Anti-Jewish Polemic,” BR 09:01) are engaged in a bit of historical revisionism Koester says that the guilt for the death of Christ has been shifted [in Christian texts] from the Romans to the Jews. Since all we know is what we are told in the New Testament, one has to wonder where Koester gets that information. We are also assured by him and Mr. Kysar that “The beginnings of history of enmity are clear in the Gospel of John,” written more than 50 years after the death of Christ and in response to his community’s having been “excommunicated from the synagogue.”

All of this would be news to St. Paul, whose First Letter to the Thessalonians, written around 52 A.D., is the oldest book of the New Testament. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians: “Brothers, you have been made like the churches of God in Judea…. You have suffered the same treatment from your fellow countrymen as they did from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus.”

Why should it come as a surprise to Kysar that Christianity was opposed to Judaism? If it had not rejected Judaism, there would have been no need for Christianity. St. Paul says that “Israel did not obtain what she was seeking, but those who were chosen did. The rest became blind” (Romans 11:7). That does not make Paul anti-Semitic, for he not only proclaims himself an Israelite, but that “I could even wish to be separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsman the Israelites.”

The conclusion is that neither Paul nor John nor their writings are anti-Semitic, but they are anti-Judaic. They both also fought back against those who opposed Christians of Jewish descent. That made them opponents, but not anti-Semites.

Helmut Koester replies:

No one doubts that there were hostilities between followers of Jesus and their fellow-Israelites at a very early time. After all, Paul himself persecuted the Christians. However, the passage quoted from 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15 is most likely a later interpolation. Nowhere else does Paul give any indication that he holds the Judeans responsible for Jesus’ death. That the guilt for Jesus’ death was more and more shifted from Pilate to the Jews is evident from the tendentious rewriting of the passion narrative. Matthew wants to exonerate Pilate (not yet in the older form of the story in Mark). And later, a letter of Pilate to the emperor Tiberius is produced, in which Pilate accuses the Jews explicitly.

Gospel of John Does Not Oppose Judaism

As a new subscriber to BR, a Christian and lifelong scientific researcher, I wonder what sort of research led Professor Kysar to some of the highly unusual statements in his article, “John’s Anti-Jewish Polemic,” BR 09:01. I refer to the following: “The vitriolic attack on Judaism is nothing more nor less than the desperate—and perhaps impossible—attempt of the Johannine Christians to find a rationale for their existence in isolation from Judaism.”

First, the comments in the Gospel of John are directed at “the Jews,” which is quite different from Judaism. The particular small group of Jews in several synagogues who expelled the Johannine Christians cannot be equated with Judaism—certainly the Johannine group would not have done so. Second, when expelled, the Johannine group would not have had any trouble differentiating themselves from those Jews who did not, tolerate belief that Jesus is the Son of God. The translation of “the Jews” is a large source of the problem; a truer term must be agreed upon (how about “those Jews who do not tolerate the belief that Jesus is the Son of God”?).

Many Christians in the past, and unfortunately still too many today, held the Jewish authorities responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. My Christian upbringing is that all men and women, past, present and future contribute to the death of Jesus. In effect, we do this each time we reject God or knowingly reject what God wants. Accordingly, we cannot fix blame solely on one group of people.

As a Christian I appreciate Judaism for the origination of much that is at the heart of Christianity, and I appreciate Judaism for preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Hence, I believe that Christians should have special respect and love for Jews who practice Judaism. It is analogous to a parent or a grandparent who is a nonbeliever. A person respects and loves that person because he or she is a family member, even though we sincerely regret that this person does not share in the greatness of believing in Christ. As John quoted Jesus, “It is from the Jews that salvation comes.” (Does this sound like a vitriolic attack on Judaism?)

No Anti-Semitism in Gospels

I wonder if BR stands for “Babel Revisited.” If Israel would have accepted Jesus as its Messiah, there would have been no execution, therefore, no access to God for the gentiles.

God engineered Israel’s blindness to the Gospel, preventing their acceptance of Jesus to show mercy on the rest of the world.

Israel’s reconciliation is assured by promise, while the gentile is reconciled by acceptance and submission to the Gospel.

The Gospel of the Kingdom includes 048Israel; not one grain of anti-Semitism exists within the Gospel.

Helmut Koester replies:

It is time that we Christians repent. The attitude expressed in the sentiment, “aren’t we lucky that God blinded Israel so we could be saved,” is unbearable. For Paul—note well that he was an Israelite—the statement about Israel’s temporary blindness comes out of deep personal despair. We gentiles have no right to repeat it, not after the death camps and gas chambers. True, there is not “anti-Semitism” in the Gospels. But Christian interpretation of the Gospels has often turned these books of the Bible into an instrument of Babel. Please, don’t blame BR.

Charlesworth’s Formidable House of Cards

James Charlesworth has constructed a formidable house of cards to support his theories relative to the Gospel of John (“Reinterpreting John,” BR 09:01). The flimsy nature of currently available evidence doesn’t seem to deter him from leaping to such statements as “The author of John probably placed these remarks in the Baptizer’s mouth.”

Dr. Charlesworth perceives a discontinuity in John’s Gospel; therefore he tells us that portions of the Gospel were “probably added in a second edition.” The unsubstantiated contention that there was a Johannine community, “something like a school,” editing and rewriting the Gospel leads us to the next assumption, that “the Gospel of John took shape over more than a decade.” This seems to be a rather weak rampart from which to lob grenades at a book of the Holy Bible, but Dr. Charlesworth forges ahead with another leap of false logic and states, “John’s Gospel is the product of a group of authors.”

I do enjoy biblical analysis, and I find the Dead Sea Scrolls very interesting, but in the future perhaps BR could include articles such as Dr. Charlesworth’s in a new section entitled “Wild Speculation” or “Fanciful Theories Without Adequate Foundation.”

Why Is the New Testament Silent about the Temple’s Destruction?

I do not want to pick on Professor Charlesworth (“Reinterpreting John,” BR 09:01), but his article was open when I started writing. Bible scholars seem to dislike any logical arguments that could be arrived at from the inspired word. Take the question of when the books of the New Testament were written. Logically, they all (yes, including Revelation) must have been written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

Reflect first on the fact that not one book in the New Testament mentions the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Consider that the Bible is a book that devotes one third of its pages to the unfortunate consequences of the Israelite’s misdeeds. Wouldn’t it seem only logical that all the books in the New Testament would have mentioned the Temple’s destruction and God’s disowning the Israelites as his chosen people if they had been written after 70 A.D.? The Old Testament is just full of particulars on lesser calamities than this befalling the Israelites.

Was Mary Magdalene the Beloved Disciple?

After reading the October 1992 issue, with both Jane Schaberg’s discussion of Mary Magdalene’s reputation (“How Mary Magdelene Became a Whore,” BR 08:05) and Elizabeth Johnson’s review (see Bible Books, BR 08:05) of Joseph Grassi’s book about the identity of the Beloved Disciple (The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple), I have to ask: Has anyone ever seriously considered the possibility that the Beloved Disciple was a woman, or even Mary Magdalene? The reference material I have at hand assumes that the Beloved Disciple was male but does not explain why.

Jane Schaberg replies:

The question is an intriguing one. In the Gospel of John, someone called the Beloved Disciple appears as an intimate of Jesus at the Last Supper, is faithful at the cross, runs with Peter to the tomb and is the first to believe in the resurrection of Jesus (John 13–20). If John 19:35 refers to this person, 049whose name is never given, this is one whose eyewitness testimony may be the basis not only of the crucifixion account but, of the whole section of John’s Gospel from chapters 13 to 20. The person is mentioned also in the appendix in chapter 21 as “the disciple who is bearing witness to these things and who has written these things” (John 21:24).

In all these passages, the figure is referred to as male, with male nouns and pronouns (for example, “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple [masculine form in Greek] whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, here your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home” [John 19:26–27]). Moreover, in John 20:2, Mary Magdalene is depicted as running to Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple to tell them Jesus’ body is not in the tomb. For the author of this Gospel, then, Mary Magdalene is not the Beloved Disciple. In fact, this figure functions in the Gospel as it stands to lessen the importance of Mary Magdalene, since he believes before she does and even without seeing the risen Jesus (“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe” [John 20:29]).

The Beloved Disciple is most likely not just a symbolic literary character but a historical person, possibly a disciple of Jesus (though not one of the twelve). Around the Beloved Disciple a school was founded and a distinctive form of early Christianity developed (see Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple [New York: Paulist Press, 1979]). One of the unusual aspects of this Johannine community is the high value it placed on female leadership and insight. The historian must explore whether at some point Mary Magdalene was involved in the creation of this community and in the traditions behind this Gospel. Further, was she ever known as “the Beloved Disciple”? Compare the Gnostic Gospel of Philip II 3 (63:35–64:5), where she is known as the disciple Jesus loved most. Frequently Gnostic systems devalued the female as that which must be subsumed in the male; in the Gospel of Thomas 114, for example, Jesus defends Mary Magdalene against Peter by saying, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” If Mary Magdalene was known as the Beloved Disciple in John’s Gospel she has been “made male” and split off from herself.

“Scripture” Is Time-Dependent

Mr. Cuevas’ letter (Readers Reply, BR 09:01) brings out a misconception that I believe is widely held. I think that a commission should be extended to write an article on what the author of 2 Timothy had in mind when he referred to “scriptures” (“All scripture is given by inspiration of God”). I don’t mean to speak for Mr. Cuevas, but I imagine when he reads 2 Timothy 3:16, he has in mind the Old and New Testaments as he has them in his Bible.

At the time of Jesus, the word “scripture” referred to a very limited number of writings. In Luke 24:44, Jesus refers to the Law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms. These groups of books were the only ones that were accepted as authoritative by mainstream Judaism. Books such as Daniel and Ezekiel were not yet accepted as scripture. At the time of Jesus, and for some time after, this truncated old Testament was the only scripture for mainstream Judaism, and therefore for early Christians if we are to believe that they followed Jesus in this matter.

For many years, the early Christians had no authoritative writings of their own.^a There were a few letters of Paul and others around, but very few, if any, were available in every area where there were Christians. This was particularly true when 2 Timothy was written. When the author stated that “all scripture is inspired,” this was probably a polemic against the Gnostics, who threw out the Old Testament. There was probably no thought of canonizing Christian writings before Marcion (c. 140 A.D.). By selecting certain writings to suit his theories, he was probably the most instrumental force behind creating Christian scriptures.

If Mr. Cuevas believes (and I’m not, saying that he does) that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the Old and New Testaments as we have them today, he should know that this cannot be. Revelation was not accepted until well into the second or third centuries after Christ, nor was Daniel accepted until after 2 Timothy was written. Furthermore, the Catholic church accepts as canon several books 050that are not in the Protestant and Jewish Bibles. 2 Timothy was written well before the Reformation, at which time these Apocryphal books were deleted from the Protestant Bible. I think this verse should be used very carefully.

Reconciling Historical Probabilities and Christian Belief

I would be most interested to learn in some detail how Professor Borg (“The First Christmas,” BR 08:06) can affirm at the same time the non-historicity of the virgin birth, the star of Bethlehem, the wisemen, the manger, etc., and remain a Christian, that is, one who affirms doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and the incarnation. Once the historical bases for these “events” in the stories are shown to have been lacking, how does one continue to believe in the doctrines above? How does one teach these stories honestly without exposing their legendary nature? Professor Borg is certainly aware that critical examination of the trial, death and resurrection traditions during the last 20 years has yielded similarly negative historical probabilities relative to these “events” as told among the New Testament Gospels. Once such an examination is made, how does one negotiate the distance between the probable historical core and, for example, continuing to believe that the dead Jesus was brought back to life, as the New Testament Gospels and most of Christianity assert? Of course, I am not assuming some sort of static relationship between myth and the supposed “facts of history.” I ask these questions not of Professor Borg as a scholar, but principally in his capacity as Christian preacher and believer. Are historical probabilities, meaning and “truth”—torn asunder as they certainly appear to be—simply in the eyes of the beholder?

Marcus J. Borg replies:

Mr. Harris’ thoughtful letter raises a number of issues. In what sense is it appropriate to speak of “the divinity of Jesus”? Does believing in the resurrection involve believing that the tomb was empty or that something happened to the corpse of Jesus?

In my brief response, I will focus on what is most central: how one defines “Christian.” My own definition: Christians are persons who understand and live their relation to God within the framework of the Christian tradition—its language, symbols, Scripture, worship, etc. I do not see the tradition as something to be believed in; rather, I understand the tradition as “Sacramental,” as a mediator of the sacred. In short, I don’t think that being a Christian has very much to do with believing; rather, it has to do with being in relationship to that to which the Christian tradition points.

Turning the Other Cheek

Perhaps you would be kind enough to help me with what I hope is a relatively simple historical question. Do you know if during the time of Christ there was any culturally sanctioned law or custom 051among the Romans or Jews that permitted a man to challenge another man to fight with a slap on the cheek in order settle a dispute?

I ask this question in reference to Matthew 5:38–42//Luke 6:27–31 (“To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also,” etc.). Some have used these passages to teach that we should let a mugger or rapist do to us as he will. It seems to me that the interpretation turns on whether the antagonist is acting under color of the Cultural rules or laws of acceptable behavior. With reference to two of the three examples given by Christ—the tunic (“To him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your coat as well”) and the extra mile (“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles”)—there were Cultural rules and laws that allowed the antagonist legally to instigate those very specific actions regarding loaned tunics and soldiers’ demands to help carry a load from one mile marker to the next mile marker, This I have learned from commentaries. But I have not seen the commentaries I own address the cheek slap. I ask, was it an illegal mugger slap or a legally sanctioned slap?

We have all seen the “Three Musketeer” movies that dramatically show one man legally slapping the other on the cheek with a glove to signify a formal challenge to defend one’s honor. My guess would be that this Custom goes back to the Romans and that all three examples given by Christ in fact refer to legal or Culturally sanctioned behaviors to which one must then respond either by grudging submission to the letter of the law or by loving humility and cooperation.

Helmut Koester replies:

Yes, there were certain sanctions. That is most clearly evident with respect to the request “to go another mile.” A Roman soldier, one of the hated enemies, had the right to request from an Israelite peasant services for the distance of one mile. As far as the request to turn the other cheek is concerned, I do not know of a similar law or custom, but suspect that you are right in assuming that there was an established legal regulation that one strike on the cheek could not be contested in court. Jesus’ commands certainly do not want to justify rape or any other atrocity. They suggest that hostility can be overcome more readily by love than by insisting on one’s legal rights. To be sure, there is no guarantee of success.

Unreconstructed Deconstructionist

Your short review of Mark and Method (Book Notes, BR 09:01) said that deconstruction “assumes that texts do not in themselves have any given shape or meaning but what readers attribute to them.” Not so. To deconstruct a text means to separate the various points of view contained within it and to let them stand fully exposed with all their presuppositions. When this is done, the contours of these building blocks appear so different that the original “unity of the text” can be regarded only as having been an illusion. Such disassembly is what prompted Michel Foucault to characterize reading texts as archaeology. Mark and Method does not describe deconstruction as subjectivistic. On the contrary, it states that, according to deconstruction, the critic is actually “grasped” by the text. (p. 93).

Elizabeth Johnson replies:

Professor Seeley’s description of deconstruction is much more helpful than mine, and I am grateful for his calling attention to my carelessness. In my attempt to state very briefly the assumptions of a deconstructionist reader, I am afraid I let my prejudices show.