Readers Reply

004

If the Resurrection Isn’t Historical, Neither Is Hiroshima

Malcolm L. Peel’s “The Resurrection in Recent Scholarly Research,” BR 05:04, demonstrates why even those of us who aren’t Fundamentalists tend to hold “modern biblical scholarship” in contempt. According to Mr. Peel, its three principles are skepticism, correlation (“ [E]ach event has an … empirical cause … [T]his principle … must automatically rule out the supernatural”) and analogy (“[A]ny historical event … must be fundamentally similar to … events experienced by the historian in her/his own time”).

Applying these principles to, say, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, we can see that it would fail the triple test of skepticism, correlation and analogy. Since we’re supposed to doubt everything that the Church tells us, I guess that means that we should doubt everything that the government tells us about nuclear weapons as well. And if the principle of correlation automatically rules out the existence of the supernatural, I guess it rules out the existence of particles too small to be seen. I personally believe that the existence of subatomic particles has been proven, but I feel the same way about the supernatural.

As for the principle of analogy, well, I’m in my late thirties: No city has been “nuked” in my time. I suppose that means that if we applied the principles of “modern scholarship” to the story of Hiroshima, we’d “prove” that it was a story created by Americans to reflect their belief in their technological superiority.

The only stories that I’ve heard from veterans are about how friendly the Japanese barmaids and businessmen were; obviously stories about Hiroshima are a later development to the stories about the occupation of Japan.

More seriously, the principles of “modern biblical scholarship” sound similar to the principles that neo-Nazi groups apply to stories of the Shoah [the Holocaust]. They “prove” nothing at all, since their conclusion is embedded in their premise.

Having said this, I should add that I find most of your articles very enjoyable.

P.S. With the revision of the RSV coming out next summer, are you planning another review of the various English translations? I hope so, and I hope you don’t forget the revised New American Bible.

Imposing 20th-Century Ideas on First-Century Writers

Malcolm Peel (“The Resurrection in Recent Scholarly Research,” BR 05:04) falls into the same trap as most contemporary historians and scholars who set up 20th century hypotheses and attempt to force them on first-century writers. For example, the principles of skepticism, correlation and analogy seem to overshadow the scholar’s ability to get into the mind and experience of the New Testament witness to the resurrection. The experience and witness of the New Testament writers are apparently of little value to Peel’s scholars because the ancient writers do not conform to current scholarship’s formulae.

What is Peel’s purpose? Is it truly to understand and experience the resurrection, or is it to add one more grain of sand to the endless beach of scholarship?

Peel Didn’t Go Far Enough

Malcolm L. Peel’s “The Resurrection in Recent Scholarly Research,” BR 05:04, unfortunately suffers from the same ailment from which the “scholarly research” he reviews suffers. It is a combination of inbreeding and job security.

The “responsible biblical scholarship” to which Peel limits his survey is generally 006confined to the efforts of professors of Christian theology and New Testament studies at Christian seminaries, colleges and universities. These are people dedicated to upholding and perpetuating an orthodox Christianity because they are generally employed by those institutions. A person whose job depends upon the quality of a product would be asking for quick dismissal if he were to produce a different or radically distinct product. Indeed, in observing how those institutions have treated those employees whose products were only slightly unorthodox, one is struck by their intolerance of the slightest “heresy.”

Any advances or new insights into the early church and its progression through ideas about the life, teachings, death and “resurrection” of Jesus the Nazarene must come from outside of that Christian orthodoxy, an orthodoxy that can continue its existence only by feeding back the same information that is put into it.

Women As Witness

Malcolm Peel’s overview of recent scholarly work on the resurrection (“The Resurrection in Recent Scholarly Research,” BR 05:04) was informative and helpful. It was properly noted that the prominence of women as the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb and the risen Christ in all four gospels “underscores their being freed from the passivity put on them by a male-dominated culture.” Might I also add another observation?

The fact that women are named as the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb and the risen Christ is a potent argument for the historicity of these things. It is clear from reading the gospel accounts that they were intended to elicit faith in the actual resurrection of Christ. But if these narratives are simply pious fictions or “poetic” interpretations of spiritual realities, it is really inconceivable that the early church would have assigned this crucial eyewitness testimony exclusively to women, since as Peel notes a woman’s testimony was considered less’ weighty than a man’s. One can imagine an early Christian male evangelist feeling somewhat embarrassed in having to admit that the first witnesses to the risen Christ were women. He would probably feel that this weakened his case! The only logical explanation for the presence of women in this role in the gospel narratives is that these accounts are simply telling it the way it in fact happened, however inconvenient those facts might be. An invented story would have been much less awkward.

The Testimony of the Indwelling Spirit

Malcolm Peel’s “The Resurrection in Recent Scholarly Research,” BR 05:04, seeks to determine “what really happened” between the crucifixion and Easter morning. In response to this attempt, I say, give up!

Peel and the cited scholars are perplexed that the pre-Pauline confessions and Paul himself offer no proof of the 039resurrection. How would they go about proving it?

Assume, for a moment, that you are the hypothetical “fly on the wall” in Jesus’ tomb and that you actually witness the reanimation and glorification of Christ. How would you prove the events to humankind?

Does an empty tomb prove the resurrection? Not as long as any other possibility exists for its emptiness (like the removal of the corpse).

Do the appearances of the risen Christ to the disciples provide proof? Hardly, say Peel and the scholars, since these “appearances” may be the result of altered states of consciousness.

Research into the matter only muddies the baptismal waters. The only proof of the resurrection consists in the indwelling Holy Spirit’s testimony to the believer. Certainly not objective, this proof is more reliable than any science could hope to offer.

Certainty of the risen Lord is so strong in some that they have died for it. More important, in many it is so all-pervasive that they live for it.

In What Way Does Christianity “Absorb” Judaism?

W. D. Davies’ article “My Odyssey in New Testament Interpretation,” BR 05:03, argues that, to avoid anti-Semitism, Christians should understand New Testament religion as “a new interpretation of Judaism in the light of Christ.” I have no doubt that Davies is well intentioned in this argument. However, his own language shows the pitfalls of his approach. He claims that Christianity “absorbs” Judaism and carries the latter within itself. It is all too easy to conclude from this line of thought (even against Davies’ intention) that, since Judaism has been absorbed by Christianity, there is nothing left of it. This is the language of consumption and co-optation.

Christianity is not best described as a new and absorptive interpretation of Judaism. Rather, its Gospel story seems to start with certain notions of a man’s divinely ordained, beneficial death, and then combines those notions with an odd. version of Jewish apocalypticism featuring God’s turn against the Jews for their hardheartedness and role in the crucifixion. All this is profoundly different from virtually every pre-Christian strain of Judaism, as well as from the rabbinical Judaism that emerged shortly after Jesus’ time. What would Davies say of those “Judaisms” that were not absorbed by Christianity? No doubt, that they were legitimate in their won terms. But he did not say so in this article, and hence the need for this response.

Professor W. D. Davies replies:

Dr. Seeley raises a very important point. In my article, I stated that I was deliberately postponing the element of newness in Christianity and the precise relation between it and Judaism.

To say that Christianity absorbed Judaism does require examination. By “absorbing Judaism,” I meant that Christianity in the New Testament finds the categories for its self-understanding in Judaism and that these categories became the substructure of Christian theology. That this kind of absorption demands the disappearance of “Judaism” is not what was implied. I would refer Dr. Seeley to my article on “Paul and the People of Israel” in my work Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) for my wrestling with this problem. (The issue turns on the interpretation of Romans 11:25–32.)

I do not fully understand Dr. Seeley’s understanding of the gospel story. It is certainly difficult to believe that early Christianity is, as he implies, “profoundly different from virtually every pre-Christian strain of Judaism.” To substantiate this, I can only refer to what I have elsewhere published. The use of the term “Judaisms,” rather than “Judaism,” has become fashionable. There are some aspects of Judaism in the pre-Christian era that the gospel rejected. There were others it assumed and affirmed. To recognize that Christianity is a new interpretation of Judaism is, in my judgment, an advance on previous emphasis on its opposition to Judaism and distance from it and offers a foothold for the reconciliation between the two faiths.

Davies snags a BR renewal

Thank you for the superb article by W. D. Davies, “My Odyssey in New Testament Interpretation,” BR 05:03.

This is the kind of distinguished scholarship that, alone, is responsible for my renewal.

Was Daniel a Prophet?

I fully agree with the statement of Marc Brettler (“Canon—How Books of the Hebrew Bible Were Chosen,” BR 05:04) that the Book of Daniel was composed in the second century B.C., while implying it was written three centuries earlier. But I do not follow his logic in saying that Daniel would have been listed among the prophets. The literary form of Daniel was not prophecy but apocalypse. Its literary form means that the proper place of this book, recognizable to the ancients as an apocalypse, would have been among the Writings and not the Prophets [in the Tanakh].

Dr. Marc Brettler replies:

I certainly agree with the Most Reverend Whealon that much of Daniel should be considered apocalypse. However, to the best of my knowledge, in rabbinic circles, apocalypse was not differentiated from prophecy. (This contrasts with the early Christian community, in which the Book of Revelation had a major role.) Thus, several examples of apocalypse are seen in typical prophetic books, such as Isaiah or Zechariah. Furthermore, Daniel was often called in rabbinic literature Daniel Ha-Navi, “Daniel the prophet”; this reflects the notion that from the ancient rabbinic perspective, the book bearing his name should have been canonized as part of Nevi’im, the Prophets. The fact that it was canonized among the Writings suggests that it was not extant when the section known as Prophets was canonized.

Which Scholars Accept Brettler’s View?

In the August issue, Dr. Marc Brettler presents a wonderful summary of the Hebrew canon (“Canon—How Books of the Hebrew Bible Were Chosen,” BR 05:04). I hope that we will see much more of his judicious writing in the pages of Bible Review.

But one of his statements struck me—where he remarks that the second century B.C.E. is “the accepted scholarly date of Daniel.” Each set of scholars recognizes members in its own group as being scholars, and tends to ignore or dismiss other scholarly groups. Dr. Edward J. Young, in his An Introduction to the Old Testament (Eerdmans), argues from a Reformed Christian perspective for the early date of Daniel. Dr. Gleason Archer in his A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Moody 040Press), does likewise. With his degrees from both Harvard and Princeton, surely Archer at least should count for something. In a similar vein, I have seen Fundamentalists argue something like this: “All teachers at Bible colleges believe thus and such.” My point is simply that in each scholarly community consensus may be reached, but that it does not speak for other scholarly communities. Perhaps Dr. Brettler could write—“the second century B.C.E. is a commonly accepted scholarly date of Daniel.”

Again, my thanks to Dr. Brettler for his article.

Dr. Marc Brettler replies:

I certainly have no objection to adding the adverb “commonly” to my discussion of the second-century dating of Daniel, but at the same time I must emphasize that the general scholarly consensus that the book dates from that period is supported by substantial evidence, that, at least to me, seems incontrovertible. Daniel betrays a clear knowledge of the Greek language; for example, the word usually translated “bagpipes” in Daniel 3:5 and elsewhere is symphonyah, a Greek loan word, cognate to English “symphony.” The use of Greek words in this verse and elsewhere in Daniel certainly suggests that Daniel was not writing in the early post-Exilic period, as the text claims, but is writing at a much later period, after the conquest of the land of Israel by Alexander the Great, when Greek began to influence the Hebrew language spoken in Israel. Furthermore, the book shows precise knowledge of the events of the second century, which goes far beyond the general predictions typical of the prophetic genre. This suggests that these “predictions” were not prophetic at all, but were written when these events were transpiring in the second century and, in that sense, the Book of Daniel should be characterized as pseudepigrapha, or false writing.

The Earliest Bible Translation

I enjoyed reading Leonard J. Greenspoon’s “Mission to Alexandria—Truth and Legend About the Creation of the Septuagint, the First Bible Translation,” BR 05:04. I have two questions which hopefully some of your scholars might address.

1. Is it not possible or even probable that one of the ancient Targums, the translations of the scriptures from Hebrew into Aramaic, predated the Septuagint?

2. The article quotes the Letter of Aristeas reporting on a request by King Ptolemy to the High Priest Eleazar for “the dispatch of 72 men skilled in the law (six from each of the twelve tribes) to Alexandria to make an accurate translation of the Law into Greek.” This event occurred sometime in the third century B.C. Is it not true that ten of the Israelite tribes had lost their identity, mostly as a result of the destruction of Israel by Assyria in the eighth century B.C., and any remnants of the ten tribes were thoroughly merged and indistinguishable from the tribe of Judah by the third century B.C.? Other than Judah, only the Levites maintained their identity.

Professor Greenspoon replies:

There is reason to suggest, as Mr. Sherman does, that some form (oral or written) of Aramaic translation of at least a portion of the Hebrew Bible was already in existence when the Septuagint translation was prepared. There is, however, no firm evidence that this was the case. Some scholars have detected an Aramaic rather than a Hebrew Vorlage (underlying text) for a few passages of the Septuagint. However, the case for such an early date for a written Aramaic translation of Scripture is far from “proven” at this point. Thus, I prefer to retain the standard designation of the Septuagint as “the first Bible translation,” although I will not be unduly disappointed if further evidence dislodges it from this position.

Mr. Sherman is correct, of course, in noting that there is an element of artificiality when the author of the Letter of Aristeas refers to the 12 tribes long after they ceased to exist. However, in fairness to our author, we should note that he does not name the tribes, but contents himself with writing “first tribe,” “second tribe” and so forth.

You Don’t Need to Agree

I always read BR with much interest and think it a fine magazine. It is not necessary for readers to agree with every idea put forward in it; otherwise, there would be no growth. I tell the members of my Bible study group: “You don’t need to agree with me, nor I with you, but we present views for thought and introspection; if valid as we see it, they can be incorporated into our philosophy; otherwise, we can still see ‘where the other is coming from.’ ”

Religiously Neutral

I find the designations “B.C.E.” and “C.E.” irritating. Why wound a magazine called Bible Review want to use religiously neutral designations? I have no problem with biblical scholarship, but I do have a problem with biblical scholars who are “religiously neutral.”

Old and New Testament

Congratulations on your continued use of the “scholarly, religiously neutral designations” B.C.E. and C.E. They are also more accurate. If B.C. is taken to mean “Before Christ” it could not have reference to the year One, since traditionally Jesus did not become “Christ” until 29 years or so later. As for A.D., “year of our Lord,” this could not count from the year One either, since the Christian Lord was born from 4 to 2 B.C.E., depending on whose chronology is followed.

Now it is time to jettison those thoroughly misleading and religiously offensive designations “Old Testament” for the Hebrew Bible and “New Testament” for the Christian Greek Bible. The “Old Testament” label comes from the King James Version’s mistranslation of Palaia Diatheke at 2 Corinthians 3:14. The words mean. “old covenant” and refer, not to the Hebrew Scriptures per se, but to parts of the Pentateuch (Chumash, in Hebrew). Thus, verse 15 specifies, “when Moses is read.”

On the other hand, the Christian Greek scriptures use another term in reference to the Hebrew Bible; surprisingly, it is the same one many Jewish translations of the Tanakh [the Hebrew acronym for the Hebrew Bible] use: “The Holy Scriptures” (Graphai Hagiai; Romans 1:2). The term “Old Testament” has become a pejorative and belies the fact that, according to Paul, God’s covenant with the Jews is “irrevocable” (Romans 11:29, New International Version).

What We Know and Don’t Know about Crucifixion

Regarding the article by Dr. F. T. Zugibe entitled “Two Questions About Crucifixion” BR 05:02, I wish to make the following comments:

A. Dr. Zugibe writes that Dr. Sekeles and I, in the article on the “Crucified Man from Giv’at Mivtar,” have proposed 041that the male skeleton, which was presumably crucified, had multiple blows administered to his legs after death. Nowhere in our article do we take this position. The numerous breaks observed in the post-cranial skeleton are the result of nearly 2,000 years of normal deterioration in the Roman Age tombs of Jerusalem. Haas, in his original article, mistook these breaks as having been the result of a coup de grace administered during crucifixion.¹ Our reappraisal of the skeletal remains not suggest any traumatic injury to the lower limbs other than the nail which had penetrated the heel.²

B. Artistic renderings of crucifixion scenes generally depict the good and the bad thieves tied to the cross, though the Bible gives no hint of their being tied. On the other hand, Jesus is always represented as having been nailed in fulfillment of the passage in Psalm 22:16, “…they have pierced my hands and feet,” A careful reading of the biblical passages sows that no mention of the use of nails appears in the narrative. In fact, the gospel account of Christ’s death fails to mention a single nail; the Bible simply states “they crucified him.” It is only in the story of the doubting Thomas (John 20:24–29) that we find any hint of nailing and the narrative shows clearly that Thomas did not finger the wounds as artistic representations interpret. Moreover, in the story of the doubting Thomas, no mention of nail wounds in the feet appears, only in the hands, leaving us without any evidence for nailing of the feet.³

C. Artists since the Middle Ages have consistently portrayed Christ on the Cross with three nails for reasons of theology—not history, a portrayal which enables the artist to “cross” the feet and conveniently fulfill the concept of the Trinity.⁴ Ever since the 13th century, artists have consistently portrayed crucifixion scenes in a repetitive style representing theological considerations above history.⁵ Earlier artists, however, were less consistent in their concept of the crucifixion, showing the use of ropes, nails, ropes and nails together or a representation of Jesus standing triumphantly before the cross.⁶

D. There is no evidence anywhere in the gospels which describes or suggests that Christ died on a cross as is shown the article by Zugibe, Peter, in Acts 5:30, RSV states that Christ was “hung on a tree.” Since no archaeological evidence of crucifixion has ever been unearthed except the one case from Jerusalem, I suspect that hanging from a tree may have been the more popular way to crucify.

E. There are numerous reports of mass crucifixions such as the one following the Spartacus revolt in 71 B.C. in which 6,000 captives were crucified on the Appian Way in one day.⁷ This suggests that hanging by the wrists from a tree or pole in which the victim dies in a few minutes by asphyxiation was the normal way in which most victims were crucified, as opposed to nailing in the manner depicted by Dr. Zugibe and many others. This would also explain the lack of evidence the archaeological record throughout the region where crucifixion was widespread.

In view of the limited and conflicting historical information available, the exact manner in which Christ was crucified remains unsettled.

Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe replies:

I would like to apologize to Mr. Zias regarding the statement in my article attributed to Zias and Sekeles: “They also propose that not one but multiple blows were administered to the legs,” That sentence was not submitted With my manuscript and was obviously an error in editing that I had no control over.^a The article, that I submitted stated, “A recent paper by Zias and Sekeles claims that Haas’ interpretation that the broken bones are indicative of crurifragium is incorrect because the breaks situated at different angles and that they must have occurred after death. This interpretation, however, is not correct since there may have been more than one blow at different angles.” My interpretation is based on the experience that I have gained in investigating thousands of trauma cases as a full-time forensic pathologist and after discussions with experienced forensic anthropologists. I disagree that the breaks are due to 2,000 years of normal deterioration.

Zias relates that there is no mention of the use of nails in any of the biblical passages and that the gospel account of Christ’s death fails to mention a single nail. This is certainly not correct because most interpretations of the passage from John 20:25 specifically mention the use of a nail; for example, Thomas specifically says, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and place my finger in the mark the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.” Moreover, while other passages such as John 20:20 and Luke 24:39 only suggest that they were nailed, the passage in Luke is followed by Luke 20:44 which indicates fulfillment of the prophecies such as Psalm 22:16 “… they have pierced my hands and my feet—I can count all my bones,” and others such as Zechariah 12:10, “so that, when they look at him whom they pierced…” In addition, the earliest crucifixes dating back to the 3rd and 4th centuries show nailing of the hands. This type of evidence should not be taken lightly since crucifixions continued up until the fourth century, at which time they were abolished by Emperor Constantine. Therefore, the artists of the day were familiar with them and depicted Jesus’ crucifixion in this way.

Mr. Zias has obviously missed the entire purpose of my article when he relates that there is no evidence anywhere in the gospels that Christ died on a cross as is shown in my article. In the last decade, the crucifixion literature has been inundated with articles directly quoting the work of Dr. Pierre Barbet, the French surgeon, that Jesus died of asphyxiation when he was suspended in the position as seen on most crucifixes and artistic works where the angles of the arms with the upright are about 65 to 70 degrees. Unfortunately, this hypothesis has been entrenched in the literature and widely, quoted as unqualified fact. Therefore, the purpose of my article was to show by both experimentation and logical reasoning that asphyxiation as the cause of death was not tenable for that position and to reconstruct a more accurate cause of death. I was also able to show that asphyxiation does not occur even if the feet were not nailed or bound. Therefore, it is important to understand that the results of my studies in this article are based on the assumption that Jesus was suspended at an angle between 60 and 70 degrees. However, I have indicated in my article that “if Jesus’ arms had been suspended above his head, rather than extended at 60 to 70 degrees, then asphyxiation would be a probable cause of death based on my experiments.” I do, however, believe that the preponderance of evidence, although circumstantial, is most consistent with Jesus’ suspension as indicated in my article.

Zias relates that in Acts 5:30, Peter states that Christ was hung on a tree and indicates that this method may have been the most popular way in which people were crucified. If a person was hung on a tree, this would not be crucifixion by definition. A hanging is defined 042in Webster’s dictionary as “an execution by strangulation or breaking the neck by a suspended noose.” If his interpretation of hanging is suspension by the hands, it would seem rather odd that scripture would have been so vague since the use of the word “hung” used alone would denote a noose around the neck. However, Zias’s interpretation would be contrary to the gospels as explained above.

Zias’s inference from the 71 B.C. crucifixions that they were hung by the wrists from a tree or pole causing death by asphyxiation in which victim dies in a few minutes certainly would not apply to Jesus for the following reasons: First of all, most biblical scholars agree that Jesus was on the cross for at least three hours; secondly, Jesus spoke several times while on the cross, which would not be possible if he was hung by the wrists above his head since the air require to speak would be locked in inspiration and, medically, he would not be physically able to raise himself to speak; thirdly, according to scriptures, he was nailed to the cross (as indicated above); and lastly, the crucifixes, and other artistic pieces in the early centuries near the time when crucifixions were in progress, depict Jesus suspended on a cross with the arms outstretched and the hands nailed to the patibulum (crosspiece).