Readers Reply

004

Jesus Seminar Article Repulsive

I am cancelling my subscription because I find such articles as “What Did Jesus Really Say?” BR 05:05, by Marcus Borg, totally repulsive and unworthy of my time or money. People associated with the Jesus Seminar and any favorable article have absolutely no place in any magazine that claims to be “Bible …” anything!

Such an article and approach is more Man Review, as it tries to explain God, Jesus and His written Word from a purely humanistic viewpoint.

The Bible is God’s Word and tells us clearly and authoritatively all we can and need to know about Jesus.

Not by Votes

Marcus Borg’s “What Did Jesus Really Say?” BR 05:05, presents an interesting and compelling discussion of criteria for the authenticity of saying attributed to Jesus by the Evangelists. However, the bottom line is a vote taken by a committee. This disturbs my sense of scholarly discipline. During my long career as a physical scientist, I sat on some important advisory committees. They all had one great taboo: Never was a scientific judgment arrived at by vote.

Seeing the Fern-seeds and Missing the Elephant?

I read with interest and enjoyment the article “What Did Jesus Really Say?” BR 05:05. Your magazine absorbs me more and more!

I have not yet reached any conclusions regarding the Jesus Seminar and its investigations, but I am reading all I can lay my hands on.

I am a fan of C. S. Lewis, and something he said about the character and words of our Lord in his essay “Fern-seed and Elephants” is, I think, worth considering. Allow me to quote it:

“If anything whatever is common to all believers, and even to many unbelievers, it is the sense that in the Gospels they have met a personality. There are characters whom we know to be historical but of whom we do not feel that we have any personal knowledge—knowledge by acquaintance; such are Alexander, Attila, or William of Orange. There are others who make no claim to historical reality but whom, none the less, we know as we know real people: Falstaff, Uncle Toby, Mr. Pickwick. But there are only three characters who, claiming the first sort of reality, also actually have the second. And surely everyone knows who they are: Plato’s Socrates, the Jesus of the Gospels, and Boswell’s Johnson. Our acquaintance with them shows itself in a dozen ways. When we look into the apocryphal gospels, we find ourselves constantly saying of this or that logion, ‘No. It’s a fine saying, but not his. That wasn’t how he talked’—just as we do with all pseudo-Johnsonians. We are not in the least perturbed by the contrasts within each character: the union in Socrates of silly and scabrous titters about Greek pederasty with the highest mystical fervour and the the homeliest good sense; in Johnson, of profound gravity and melancholy, with that love of fun and nonsense which Boswell never understood, though Fanny Burney did; in Jesus of peasant shrewdness, intolerable severity and irresistible tenderness. So strong is the flavour of the personality that, even while he says things which, on any other assumption than that of divine Incarnation in the fullest sense, would be appallingly arrogant, yet we—and many unbelievers too—accept him at his own evaluation when he says ‘I am meek and lowly in heart.’ [I wonder in what shade of red—or black—the Jesus Seminar will decide to print this saying of Jesus?] Even those passages in the New Testament which superficially and in intention are most concerned with the divine, and least with the human nature, bring us face to face with the personality.”

Fern-seed and Elephants

(Fontana/Collins, 1975), pp. 110ff.

Lewis then goes on to make some caustic 005comment on those who he says “ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts” and who thus give evidence of “their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves…. They claim,” he says, “to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.”

Jews and Gentiles

I found the article by Marcus Borg, “What Did Jesus Really Say?” BR 05:05, supremely entertaining.

Without doubt your readers will find the criteria listed in the article of considerable value in helping them to distinguish the genuine words of Jesus from those put into his mouth by a redactor—except for the fifth criterion, which (as Professor Borg points out) is highly controversial (especially in its unwarranted denial of Jesus’ Jewish background).

I would be very interested in learning Professor Borg’s opinion regarding the following statements, all italicized, which I consider to be indubitably genuine words of Jesus. For obviously, had these (embarrassing) remarks by Jesus not been widely and firmly established as authentic, they would have long ago been expunged from the Gospels. I begin with the well-known plea of the Gentile woman who asked Jesus to cure her daughter (Mark 7:25–27; Matthew 15:22–26). Jesus answers: “I was only, sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.

“Go nowhere among the Gentiles … but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5b–6).

These two statements together satisfy Criterion No. 6; they cohere. And they cohere with Jesus telling his disciples: “Do not give dogs what is holy; do not cast your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6)

In the first two statements Jesus refers to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which coheres with his statement that: “The well have no need of a physician” (Matthew 9:12b). In other words, his call is to the lapsed Jews, to urge them to return (repent) to Judaism, (He was, of course, not bent on convening them to Christianity.) The “good” Jew, the devout Jew, he was saying, had no need of his gospel (good news).

Professor Marcus Borg replies:

Mr. Gordon helpfully calls attention to passages that Christians often ignore, and that remind us in the midst of the Jewish-Christian dialogue that the Jesus movement originated as a Jewish movement. The passages he cites are very probably authentic. In all likelihood, Jesus did restrict his mission to Israel; he did not intend to create a new religion which would come to be known as Christianity.

However, to draw the inference that Jesus simply sought to restore lapsed Jews to an “established” Judaism of his day goes too far. Rather, he created a renewal movement within Judaism whose purpose was the transformation of his people’s life. His understanding of what it meant to be a Jew was a radical challenge to many forms of Jewish belief and practice in his time. His movement was a boundary-shattering movement, which redefined boundary-setting notions such as pure/impure, righteous/sinner, compatriot/enemy, rich/poor, male/female, and moved in the direction of inclusiveness. He did not simply invite wayward people back to an already-established way of life.

Finally the inclusion of Gentiles in what was originally a Jewish movement was a post-Easter development, and probably goes beyond the explicit intention of Jesus. Yet it is plausible to see this development as the natural extension of the boundary-shattering qualities of Jesus’ teaching and movement.

BR’s Lack of Balance

I enjoy many of the articles in Bible Review. However, I am bothered by the lack of balance. Not very often is a piece offered by a scholar who holds to the orthodox authority and accuracy of the Bible.

I am not asking to eliminate contributions from those who hold other views. There should be the challenge of different ideas. Yet, now, there is no balance at all. Competent scholars are available who hold the orthodox position. Why do we not hear more from them?

Women Were Disciples, Too

In General, I have been pleased with Bible Review, except for “The Resurrection in Recent Scholarly Research,” BR 05:04, by Malcolm M. Peel. Peel seems to imply—erroneously—that the women at Jesus’ tomb, including Mary Magdalene, were not disciples. He states: “The Gospel narratives also tell us that the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples, as well as to some other individuals (the women, Mary Magdalene …)” (italics mine).

Surely this distinction between “women” and “disciples” is unnecessary.

Who Wants to Be Like “One of Us”?

I would like to respond to the letter of Rev. Peter Besenbruch in Readers Reply, 05:05. He says, “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 [referring to the letters to the editor which support conservative Christian theology] and ponder; you could convert and become like one of us.”

I have bad news for you, dear Reverend. I am not steeped in darkness. I make no apologies for my Torah, my Talmud, Kabbalah, Targumim, Judah Halevi, Spinoza, Maimonides, Rashi, Philo, Josephus, etc., etc. Do not condemn me; it is obvious you do not understand me.

I have no desire to become a Christian. I was born a Jew, yet am a Jew by choice. I am in love with my faith as you are in love with yours. I would not degrade your love of Christianity; why do you feel so driven to convince me that the love of my life is so “steeped in darkness.”

It is true that my understanding of God, history, revelation, etc. may be different from yours. So what? Please, accept the differences and beauty of other faiths, as I attempt to see Christianity’s beauty. But, to condemn those who, you believe, do not have the “one, true faith” shows me more of your own parochial insights than your desire to explore, learn and listen.

This is in response to the Rev. Peter Besenbruch whose letter (Readers Reply, 05:05) advises the likes of me “who do not have the one, true faith” to ponder, convert and “become like one of us.” That son of statement, so typical of the religious button-down mind observable in overzealous Christians and Moslems alike, is precisely the reason that I did, indeed, ponder and derive second thoughts about Christianity in particular and religion in general.

The good reverend and others of his mindset are steeped in tunnel vision, thereby failing to see that any truths of Christianity, of all major religions, are 006philosophical, not literal. It is this deplorable rigidity that accounts for the endless splintering and internecine strife that afflict those otherwise great faiths—and for the dismal fact that “true” Christianity is claimed by 250 different sects, cults, creeds and denominations all calling the others wrong. Naturally, this also applies to Islam.

It doesn’t matter whether Mary/Miriam was a virgin or not at a designated time, or whether Jesus or Mohammed performed actual miracles; their messages are clear in any case. That is, if one is looking for them. But if “becoming like one of us” is the objective, then we might as well resign ourselves to perpetual conflict in the name of religion.

The authors of the foregoing letters completely misunderstood Rev. Besenbruch’s letter (see Readers Reply, 05:05). If Rev. Besenbruch had been serious in the passage quoted by Rabbi Stanway, we would never have printed the letter. Rev. Besenbruch, as is clear from a reading of his entire letter, was writing this paragraph tongue-in-cheek. What he is really saying, quite playfully, is that the letters from “angry crackpots … who profess to be Christians” hardly provide an attractive spectacle to the outsider. He is really suggesting that no one would want to “become like one of us” with all the intolerant fulminating that characterizes us.—Ed.

Howard’s Writing Sparkles

Thank you for George Howard’s summary of the choosing of the books of the New Testament (“Canon—Choosing the Books of the New Testament,” BR 05:05). The appreciation of history reflected in the article sparkles.

Without Revelation, the Theological Meat Is Lean

In “Neither the liberal nor the conservative god is adequate,” BR 05:05, Joanne Swenson opines that “it is time for theology.” I hope it is. But the careful reader will notice the virtual absence of theology in her article. The fact is, without revelation, the theological meat is lean.

Her criticism of liberalism are interesting, but she apparently—to judge from her disparaging remarks on the Bible and evangelicals—holds completely to the naturalistic historicism that produced liberalism in the first place. It is difficult to find a clear word from God in a grab bag of syncretistic tales and political tracts.

One does not have to accept inerrancy (although I do) to recognize that the Bible is at least in some important sense a revelation from God, and normative for the Church. Nor does the belief that God acts in history imply that he is predictable, controllable or other such nonsense. But if he does not reveal himself, we must give up any hope of wresting our God-talk from the teeth of Feuerbach.

Misidentified Cover Picture; David Wears Roman Emperors’ Mantle

It was with accustomed great pleasure that I received the October 1989 issue of Bible Review.

But on this one occasion, I was sorry to see that the color cover supplied by us was misidentified on your contents page. The figure of an enthroned David playing the harp is not part of the Genealogy of the Virgin by Gerard David. (1460–1523). Instead, it is a much earlier manuscript illumination (probably 10th or 11th century) to be found in the Duome of Cividale del Friuli (Udine) in Italy. It does indeed represent the same subject, namely David playing his harp.

This is the first time I’ve known your impeccably meticulous staff to have made an error of this kind, which appears to have resulted from an unintended transposition.

Your readers might be interested to know that the cover shows David seated on a throne and attired in a purple mantle reserved for Roman emperors, with whom he is obviously being compared. It was not uncommon for both David and his descendant Jesus to be depicted attired in the imperial purple in the early Christian art of the Roman empire. This costuming lingered into the early Middle Ages and beyond, especially in works derived from earlier models, as here.

As an art historian and a subscriber to Bible Review, I have been pleased to find reproduced in the magazine biblical art of high quality from various periods, including the medieval.

The cover of the last issue depicted a high-quality reproduction of King David playing his harp. When I read the identification of the illustration on page 1, I realized something was awry. The painting is not by Gerard David but was painted 500 years earlier. As a matter of fact, I believe you will find that it is a tempera painting on vellum in Egbert’s Psalter given by Ruodprecht to the archbishop Egbert of Trier about 983 A.D. The monastic artist created the image at Reichenau or Trier.

I hope you do not mind my pointing out this error in identification, but then I suspect others wrote to inform you about the mistake. In any case, keep up the quality illustrations.

Our thanks to our well-informed, observant readers for correctly identifying the source of our October 1989 cover illustration.—Ed.

Jesus Seminar Article Repulsive