Readers Reply

006

Unprecedented Conflict

This year of Bible Review has seen unprecedented conflict. First, there was the volcanic eruption in response to the article on the virgin birth (“Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, by J. Edward Barrett; Readers Reply, BR 05:01 and Readers Reply, BR 05:03); second, the angry attacks on the Miriam article (“Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows,” BR 05:01, by Phyllis Trible; Readers Reply, BR 05:03); finally the battle between Alter and Kugel (“Alter vs. Kugel—Taking the Heat in Struggle over Biblical Poetry,” BR 05:01, by John Gammie; Readers Reply, BR 05:03). You handled the battle between Alter and Kugel very well. The other two battlegrounds sadden me. I could dismiss those letters as the work of angry crackpots, people who profess to be Christian but are not; but that would be naive. We have a long history full of such defenders of the faith.

I make this appeal to the followers of Judaism and other faiths who read this magazine. You, who are steeped in darkness and who do not have the one, true faith: Read these letters and ponder; you could convert and become like one of us.

Please do not lose your nerve in the face of such attacks. Bible Review is unique in what it does. I may not agree with everything written, but your magazine contains a blend of scholarship and color not found anywhere else. Hang in there, and keep the faith.

BR’s Best Article

I was not going to renew my subscription (I am “over subscribed”), but the article by W. D. Davies, “My Odyssey in New Testament Interpretation,” BR 05:03, proved to be a real gem and has renewed my patience for exceptional articles.

It has been said that what started as a message in Jerusalem became a philosophy in Greece, an institution in Rome, a culture in Europe and an enterprise in America.

Davies, I believe, is right on target, and I give you credit for publishing what so far appears to be the best article you’ve produced. I challenge you to continue in this vein!

More Praise for Davies

I found the article by W. D. Davies, “My Odyssey in New Testament Interpretation,” BR 05:03, one of, if not the most provocative in recent issues. Many of your articles are so narrow in scope that I do not find them of particular interest because I am not a serious enough scholar. However, Mr. Davies’ article was so interesting that I re-read it several times, and underlined it so you would think I was a freshman preparing for finals.

This article raised my interest level enough so that I would like to suggest additional topics for articles:

1. What is the difference between Hellenism and Judaism? Mr. Davies’ article assumes the reader knows. I should, but don’t.

2. What were the various strands, or forms, of Judaism at the time of Jesus?

3. How did Christianity get from the very simple teachings of Jesus and his earliest followers to where it is today?

Future issues will cover various aspects of these important and intriguing questions.—Ed.

The Hebrew Heritage in the Christian Message

Friends, you did all readers of the Holy Scriptures a favor by publishing W. D. Davies’ understated and enlightening article, “My Odyssey in New Testament Interpretation,” BR 05:03. His piece was reminiscent of a series run for years in Christian Century entitled “How My Mind Has Changed,” 008self-disclosure from great contemporary Christian thinkers who had the humility to admit that they had not stopped learning as the years went by.

It was difficult to find anything with which to disagree in Davies’ essay. As a Lutheran, I winced to read his commentary (one with which I must agree) on Martin Luther’s role in fueling anti-Semitism, Surely, failure on the part of Christians to recognize the Hebrew nature of the Christian portion of the Scriptures has contributed to our sad legacy in terms of twenty tortured centuries of squaring off against our mother, Judaism.

I have long believed, and Davies simply reinforces my conviction that when all is said and done the Christian message is not something to replace the Hebrew literary heritage. When we consider what the great themes are that Jesus brought to his impoverished world—a God who cares for, loves, forgives, embraces and participates in history with his people, showering them with grace and giving them the future in spite of our failure to appreciate or to deserve it—we are hard pressed to see how this message can be called “new” when we read a second time the Hebrew portion of our Bible. What may be new is Jesus’ call to speak to God, the great, mysterious One, as “Father” (“Abba” even!), and the sure and certain hope of resurrection. But, on measure, Christianity does not “replace” the Hebrew heritage—it simply celebrates and amplifies it. Thank you, Dr. Davies, for reminding us of that.

I am almost ready, now, in honor of my Jewish friends, to stop referring to the sections of my Bible as “Old” and “New” Testament and start, instead, to speak of “Library I” (the Hebrew portion) and “Library II” (the Christian portion) of the same grace-saturated message from on high.

Luther’s Influence

W. D. Davies’ allegation (“My Odyssey in New Testament Interpretation,” BR 05:03), that Luther largely influenced the dichotomy between the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures as a division between law and grace exposes Davies’ lack of acquaintance with Luther.

Jaroslav Pelikan has observed some-where that were Luther to have served in a seminary with the presently accepted division of departments, Luther would have been listed as a professor of the Hebrew Scriptures.

009

Luther was thoroughly at home in the Hebrew Scriptures. He read the Hebrew Scriptures as the manner in which God deals with the church. Out of grace God called and graciously preserved the Hebrew people as a special and unique people in whom God could give blessing to all the earth. Luther found it impossible to understand the Greek Scriptures apart from the Hebrew Scriptures, and he consistently stressed the evangelical character of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Consequently, Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms did not suggest that “law and grace could not coexist.” Quite the opposite. Luther’s well-known teaching that the Christian is simul iustus et peccator (at the same time a justified, or saint, and a sinner) holds that the Christian lives always under the tension in Law and Gospel, judgment and grace. One cannot be justified by God’s grace without the judgment that produces repentance. Yet even as justified, the Christian is still a sinner daily in need of God’s gracious forgiveness. Luther found that all over the Hebrew Scriptures as well as in the Greek.

Professor Davies replies:

I welcome Mr. Huxhold’s criticism. In view of limitations of space in my article, I expressed myself laconically and too unqualifiedly in stating that it was largely under the influence of Luther that the antithetical attitude toward Judaism, which had previously marked Christendom, became more marked. Certainly no specialist in Luther studies, I was, however, not unaware that his was a return to the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek and that he reveals the attitudes toward which Mr. Huxhold points. I was long ago taught that for Luther the Christian lives always under the tension of Law and Gospel, judgment and grace. I am familiar with the complexity of his teaching on the many uses of the Law and with Luther’s works, for example, Against the Antinomians.

But the massive genius of Luther was often expressed in antinomies. He combined subtleties about the Law and other matters with outright opposition to Judaism and to Jews. This opposition he expressed with stunning force, not in his earlier works but in his later works, for example, in On the Jews and Their Lies and Against the Sabbatarians, and in his treatment of the Sermon on the Mount. Mr. Huxhold will doubtless recall other documents by Luther in which this 010opposition is expressed with typical fiery, explosive power.

This opposition, I suggest, had immense significance and influence. That influence was not strictly in the emergence of a dichotomy between the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures with which I did not intend directly to connect it, as Mr. Huxhold asserts I did. Rather the influence was more indirect in the creation of a climate or atmosphere within which the opposition of Law and Gospel, contrary to Luther’s intent, could be encouraged and allowed to flourish. It is often the case that the epigonoi of great men, not fully comprehending their subtleties and emphasizing some aspects of their thought—sometimes the most dubious—and ignoring others, often misunderstand and misinterpret them. Such, was the case, it is arguable, with Luther. His immense influence on Christendom, often with misinterpretation and incomprehension, but also through the overwhelming force of his own often unmeasured words—to put it mildly—has not always been beneficial—it seems to me—in biblical studies, despite his crucial contribution to them.

The Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception

In the Special Letter Section, BR 05:03, on the virgin birth controversy, some of the letter writers seemed to confuse the terms virgin birth and immaculate conception. The latter term refers to Mary’s own conception and not her conception of Jesus.

When speaking of the virgin birth, most people are really talking about the virginal conception of Jesus. Yet in both Matthew and Luke the angel does say that Mary “shall conceive and bear a son.” And the earliest belief of the Church was, as expressed in the Apostles Creed, that Jesus “was born of the Virgin Mary.”

But what precisely is meant by the virgin birth? The Fathers of the Church struggled with the notion. It was their concept that the virgin birth of Jesus involved the preservation of Mary’s physical integrity. As to the manner of preservation, many of the Fathers represent the birth as taking place from the closed womb without it being opened. They illustrate this, for example, by comparing it with the emergence of Christ from the closed sepulcher and his entry into the upper room through the closed doors.

But to preserve the idea of virgin birth it would seem sufficient to believe that at the time of Jesus’ birth Mary had had no relations with a man.

Orthodoxy and the Immaculate Conception

As pastor of a small parish who has been out of seminary for over 20 years, I hesitate to correct members of such an august body as those who write to you with their well-thought-out opinions and positions. However, in the June issue, there are two statements that prompt this particular missive:

First, G. P. McPhillips in his letter “Beliefs Stored in a Safe Place” states that the word “orthodoxy” comes from the Greek that means “straight opinion.” Actually, “orthodoxy” is derived from the Greek that means “right” or “correct glory or worship.” After all, a “doxology” is not a theological treatise but, rather, an ascription of praise (see Special Letter Section, BR 05:03).

Second, Randy Reed in his letter “Open to the Range of Scriptural Tradition” refers to the immaculate conception as if it had to do with Christ’s virgin birth (see Special Letter Section, BR 05:03). In point of fact, this is the phrase used by Roman Catholics in affirming that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. This is a common mistake but one that should not go unnoticed.

I enjoy your informative magazine.

Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, Zarathustra and Muhammad All Had Remarkable Births

In regard to all the letters produced by J. Edward Barrett’s “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” Lao Tzu was conceived in his mother’s womb by a shooting star, Siddhartha Gautama by a six-tusked white elephant entering through his mother’s right side, Zarathustra emerged laughing from the womb, Muhammad was born clean, without a spot, the umbilical cord already cut, Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit, etc.

The Western mind, generally, has not been able to comprehend the use and meaning of myth. Typically, if something appears in print, it must have happened exactly that way. When my students read about Lao Tzu’s conception, they usually say: “That’s far-fetched! How could anyone believe that?!”

In the course of time, myths automatically attach themselves to great figures, be they religious saints, presidents, athletes or poets (consider, in the latter three categories: Washington and Lincoln, Babe Ruth, Shakespeare). Whether these mythic features are taken literally or figuratively, the significance of the figure is neither enhanced nor diminished. For Buddhists, Siddhartha may be accepted as the “fully enlightened one,” whether naturally or miraculously conceived. For Muslims, Muhammad may be affirmed as “the seal of prophecy” despite the supernatural aspects some claim surrounding his birth. For Christians, Jesus may be said to be “the only begotten Son of God,” whether born of a virgin or not.

Is it not a matter of interpretation? Why is it we have at least 250 denominations in Protestantism alone, in addition to distinct separations in other branches of Christendom?

In the controversy demonstrated by the spate of letters sent to Bible Review, we should consider carefully injunctions from the Sermon on the Mount such as: “Every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment,” and “Blessed are the peacemakers…”

John Wesley said: “If your heart is with my heart, give me your hand.” Christians, in spite of their varying interpretations, can and should extend that handshake of collegiality and love to one another, as they can and should extend that same handshake to members of all religions of the world who are in unity of heart.

I fully support and encourage your right and duty to print what material you deem fit. If a faith has validity, it cannot be hurt by criticism.

Putting God into a Box

I have subscribed to Bible Review and its sister publication, Biblical Archaeology Review, since their inception, and have used them over the years in teaching the literature of the Bible at my university. Now that I have retired I was thinking of letting my subscriptions lapse.

But—on second thought—part of your “fatal attraction” is your Readers Reply section! In all these past years I have not once written you a letter! So, please now let me make up for lost opportunities.

Many letters from fundamentalists, literalists, feminists, denominationalists, while well meaning, are colored by their biases. Is the Bible inerrant? Of course not! Inspired, perhaps, but written by fallible men.

Is God male or female? What sort of 011personal pronoun can one apply to God? He? She? It? God said, “I am Who I am.” The essence of God is simply “being.” Since we human beings tend to anthropomorphize our Deity, or deities, we subscribe to God all our human attributes. So, too, many believers tend, or need, to put God into a neat little box. This makes God, He, She, It much more convenient!

There is an essential distinction between faith and reason. If I could explain a miracle, I wouldn’t have to believe in one. If I could explain the incarnation of God as Man, I wouldn’t need to believe in a virgin birth. Reason should be able to support faith. But, oh my, the problems that arise when people are confronted with scientific facts or theories that seem to contradict their hard-held beliefs! Certainty! That’s what counts!

Your publications are to be congratulated on raising difficult questions, or different points of view. So long as you maintain a reasonable degree of objectivity, adhere to well-established norms of literary criticism and scientific examination, your publications render a valuable service to your readers.

So, let your critics who would make God into goddess, deny the use of poetry and metaphor, interpret every word literally, try not so hard to put God into a box! God’s universe is much too small.

My subscription? Yes, I’ve renewed again. Keep on annoying us.

Read His Word with a Childlike Mind

I am a new subscriber and I must tell you that while the articles are sometimes interesting I thank God in Heaven that my calling was not theology.

I had difficulty understanding how “God’s foolishness was wiser than man’s wisdom.” Then I started receiving Bible Review. Now I know.

The Bible is a treasure map with step-by-step instructions to insure that “he who seeks will find.” If we get caught up along the way in a trap of personal, intellectual interpretation, we are doomed. We must read His word with a humble heart, a childlike mind and a hungry soul.

Unprecedented Conflict