Readers Reply
004
Discovered Buried Treasure
I do not know how it happened that I received a subscription solicitation from BR, but after reading my first issue (
I am not a trained biblical, scholar, but I am an active United Methodist layman and I am always grateful for thoughtful, accessible material that fosters better understanding of the Bible. Having discovered your magazine, I feel as though I have come across buried treasure.
Belmont, Massachusetts
Praise for Sarna
Thanks for the August 1993 article “Songs of the Heart” by Nahum M. Sarna. It was superb—it fits my “conservative” viewpoint. Let’s have more articles like it!
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Yet Another Letter He Doesn’t Want Printed
I wish BR would stop printing every letter from every idiot in the world.
I have no particular desire to make fundamentalists look good by hiding their stupidity. Their eagerness to defend God is an insult to Him and an embarrassment to everyone else. They drive thoughtful people away from synagogues, churches and mosques by their fanaticism.
Rather, I object on grounds of tedium. You do not need to brag every time someone cancels a subscription, and I trust your objectivity and fairness enough that you do not need to give space to every critic. Some critics deserve an audience more than others.
Please feel free not to publish my letter.
Bakersfield, California.
Don’t Provide a Forum for the “Hate Christians”
BR and Biblical Archaeology Review are two of my favorite publications.
I especially like the Readers Reply section of BR. One of the best letters is from John E. Becker, which appeared in Readers Reply, BR 09:04, under the title “The Gap Between Scholars and Believers.” His succinct letter has defined better than any other the insurmountable gap separating biblical scholarship and the closed minds of Christian fundamentalists. I call them the “Hate Christians” because of their determination to inject their religious bigotry into national politics and because of their rabid intolerance of human diversity. Their unceasing efforts to deny civil rights and protection under the law to those of whom they disapprove prevents them in my opinion, from being true, practicing Christians according to the teachings of Jesus as we understand them. Therefore, would it not be better to stop printing their venomous, ranting letters in your column? I respect your wish to allow readers of all persuasions to express their views, but these people have nothing to offer but distressingly ignorant opinions. Nothing the editor or author of the offending article can say will alter their attitude. They have no place in the halls of scholarship and scientific inquiry, and they surely have nothing to offer the reader.
Black Missouri
Two Extreme Approaches to the Bible
I find BR’ articles thoughtful and provocative.
Most recently I took delight in Phyllis Trible’s article (“If the Bible’s So Patriarchal, How Come I Love It?” BR 08:05), which “witnessed” to her own love for the Bible while at the same time being an ardent feminist biblical scholar. In the August 1993 edition, I found Marcus Borg’s “Faith and Scholarship” 005absolutely wonderful.
Your publication manages to provide an alternative to the two predominant extremes in current approaches to the Bible. It is true that one can be a true believer without suspending the thought processes, as is often the case with Fundamentalism, or without destroying the mystery of Sacred Story, as is often the case with the Historical Critical Schools.
While I can easily guess which of these two sides of the spectrum you fall within, I appreciate your willingness to be somewhat different in your approach. Keep it up!
St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church Harrington Park, New Jersey
Do We Encourage the Loonies?
If I could find any fault with your two wonderful magazines, it would be this: You waste too much space printing worthless letters to the editor. Why not give us a summary? For example: ‘The editorial office received 34 letters from angry fundamentalists condemning Dr. So-and-So to eternal damnation, and 29 letters from sympathetic readers praising his objectivity and creative ideas.” This would save two to three pages per issue that could be devoted to printing the very few letters that actually have something to contribute to the debate.
You encourage the loonies by printing their venomous letters. Let the fundamentalists find another forum for spewing out their hatred and intolerance.
Orlando, Florida
Speaking to the Heart
What a wonderful issue the
First I read the letters, as always, and in the midst of feeling pain for Marcus Borg being referred to as devil-inspired and a Judas, I read your still, small editorial comment on his middle initial, J. for Joel, meaning “Jahweh is God.” I wept. Marcus Borg speaks for those of us who see so much truth in a nonliteral reading of scripture, and to read the meaning of his name, Joel, said it for all of us—God is God. Next, I read his column, and there, finally in print, were all the things I’ve wanted to say to my friends who insist the scriptures are to be read narrowly.
Next, I read the unflattering review of a book called Who Was Jesus? by an N.T. Wright (see Bible Books, BR 09:04). I immediately got out my Oxford Summer School materials and, yes, it is the same tom Wright whose lectures so captivated, infuriated and challenged me for two summers at Oxford. Even that review was able to recall for me the intensity of his lectures. Thank you, John Dominic Crossan, for taking me back to Oxford.
Last, I read the beautiful article on the Psalms (“Songs of the Heart—Understanding the Book of Psalms,” BR 09:04), by Nahum M. Sarna. I am a Christian who has revered Judaism, for itself, for a long time. It’s hard to say why, but the stories of Jewish experiences with, and without, the Psalms touched me and brought back the feeling of gratitude I have for Jewish practice and spirituality. There is in observant Judaism a reverence for, and an implied holiness in, all the ordinary moments and acts of daily life that we Christians are also supposed to see-feel-know-acknowledge but which we seem to have lost by elevating The Holy to a higher plane. The Jewish viewpoint always brings me back to that. Sarna’s article calls me to say to your observant Jewish readers, I thank God for you, and to those who are no longer observant or are going through the motions, let the Psalms speak to your heart, let them crack it open, melt it down, warm it and know from them that no matter how far you go from home, it is never too late, and you are never too unworthy, to return. Without you, my own journey for relationship with God as a Christian would be poorer and so would be the whole world.
Nottingham, Pennsylvania
Satan’s Days Are Numbered
At the close of spring school term, my little grandson was selling magazine subscriptions in order to be able to get a T-shirt. Being a typical loving grand-mother, I ordered BR to help him obtain his goal.
I have never been so outraged as I was when I began reading this magazine. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “all scripture is given by God.” I know that in the last days Satan will try every trick available to deceive, mock and pull people away from the Lord. Satan’s days are numbered and you are carrying out his deeds by printing this piece of blasphemy.
Cancel my subscription immediately.
I don’t want this garbage in my house. How deceitful you are by calling this magazine “Bible Review.” Call it by what it is, “Satan’s Deceit.”
Ashley Illinois
Noncanonical Gospels
Did Early Christians Worship the Risen Lord?
Robert Miller (“The Gospels that Didn’t Make the Cut,” BR 09:04) mentions the fact that many churches do not accept as Christians at all (or “marginal Christians at best”) those who “strive to follow Jesus’ teachings but who do not believe that he is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead.” It does not take a genius to see that Miller’s sympathies are with such “Christians” and that part of his (barely) hidden agenda is to demonstrate that one of the earliest forms of Christianity was indeed of this form.
Miller maintains that the precanonical “Signs Gospel” (imbedded in John), the precanonical “Sayings Gospel” (better known as “Q” and imbedded in Matthew and Luke) and the Gospel of Thomas present evidence for a Christianity based on Jesus’ teachings and/or wonderworking rather than on the person of Jesus himself and his death and resurrection.
First objection: The Signs Gospel and Q are wholly hypothetical (as Miller himself states). How then can he use such confident language about the knowledge and insight we can gain from such documents? Nothing can be “known” based on study of hypothetical documents, however plausible it may be that something like Signs and Q existed. It remains possible that these two documents never existed at all.
Secondly, since these documents are known to us (if at all) only as sources used by later authors, how can Miller or anyone else draw inferences from what is not in these sources? An argument from silence based on documents that no longer exist! We have no way of knowing what was in Signs or Q that the evangelists did not choose to use. Therefore, any such commentary about the alleged lack of material relating to Jesus’ death and resurrection in Signs or Q is meaningless.
006
Thirdly, even if Signs and Q existed, and even if they contained little or nothing more than what we can reconstruct from the evangelists, this still does not prove that these documents were central or exclusive for any Christian community. Q might have been a catalogue of Jesus’ teachings to be used along with other materials in a church which worshiped, just like any other church, Jesus as Son of God who died and rose. Why consider Q or signs as anyone’s complete theology of Jesus, even the communities that used them?
As for the Gospel of Thomas, we have enough Greek scraps of this work to compare to the Coptic version to know that the Nag Hammadi version evidences redactive activity on an earlier document. In fact, our Coptic Gospel of Thomas is solid evidence for nothing more than a second-century Gnostic redaction of earlier Jesus material. What did the Gnostic editor(s) leave on the cutting room floor? This document tells us almost nothing about earliest Christianity, since we cannot know what the Gnostics did or did not use of the materials at their disposal.
In contrast, in passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:1–8, Philemon 2:6–11 and the earliest Christian affirmation we know of, “Jesus is Lord.” These passages furnish us with excellent evidence that the first Christians, right from the start, were worshiping Jesus as Son of God who died and rose. Miller’s early brand of Christianity, where Jesus’ teaching and wonderworking were the central focus, is wishful thinking, merely the shadow of a ghost seen in a dream!
San Jose, California
Robert J. Miller replies:
My agenda in “The Gospels that Didn’t Make the Cut,” BR 09:04, was to encourage the study of the noncanonical gospels and to show that Christianity was a diverse religion from its earliest years, as it has been through all of its history. This is a significant fact because most Christians have considered this diversity to be a Scandal. Many Christians still think that those who do not believe the same things they do are not truly Christians.
Mr. Olson’s objections are legitimate ones that relate to historical method. His first objection is that since Q and Signs are hypothetical texts, it is possible they did not exist and so nothing can be “known” from studying them. I reply that all our knowledge of history is based on probabilities, which is to say that it is hypothetical. To take an extreme example, it is possible that Jesus never existed—his existence is therefore hypothetical. However, it is so overwhelmingly probable that he existed that we can confidently use this hypothesis as the basis for historical knowledge. As another example, consider that the critical edition of the Greek New Testament, the basis for all scholarly research and for all modern translations, is a hypothetical text. No extant manuscript matches its wording. Scholars reconstruct it by comparing the thousands of different readings found in all the manuscript copies of New Testament writings. This reconstructed text is hypothetical, so it is possible, even likely, that the original autographs did not correspond exactly to it. However, it would be irresponsible to dismiss the readings of this text on the grounds that nothing can 008be “known” from the study of hypothetical documents, because this text is the hypothesis that best explains the data (the variant readings of our numerous manuscripts).
The hypothetical nature of Q and Signs is different in degree, but not in kind, from the hypothetical nature of the modern Greek New Testament. The Q hypothesis and the Signs hypothesis are the best ways to explain the data in the Gospels: for Q, the remarkable agreements in the non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke; for Signs, the tensions and inconsistencies in John. A tiny minority of scholars do not subscribe to the Q hypothesis because they believe there is a better way to account for the data (the Farmer-Griesbach hypothesis which states that Luke is based on Matthew and that Mark is based on both Matthew and Luke). However, the vast majority of scholars reject this alternative and believe that Q existed.
Olson’s second objection is that we cannot know what Q and Signs did not contain. Again, we are dealing with probabilities, so we need to examine these texts to see whether they look more like complete texts or more like ragged fragments from which important chunks are missing. Scholarly research strongly favors the first alternative. Both texts have coherent literary structures and distinctive theologies. Q is not simply a catalogue of sayings but a collection of longer, edited units or speeches. Besides, Matthew and Luke seem to use Q quite conservatively, and the same goes for John’s use of Signs. They rearrange and reword their sources, but use the material even when they disagree with it. The fact that they reinterpret material they disagree with is a strong indication that they prefer to retain source material rather than delete it. Olson argues that Signs and Q may have had material attesting to Jesus’ saving death and resurrection, but it seems extremely unlikely that the evangelists would have deleted precisely the material they most agreed with.
Olson’s third objection is that Signs and Q (and by implication any document) may not represent anyone’s complete theology: Communities may have used several texts and so no conclusions can be drawn from what Signs and Q do not say. This is a reasonable possibility, but it far more reflects our age, in which texts are plentiful and cheap, than the ancient world, in which the opposite was true. The available evidence indicates that the earliest Christian communities, if they possessed a written gospel at all, made use of only one. The earliest manuscript containing more than one gospel is from the third century. The first Christian author whose writings show the use of several gospels is Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century. Of course Matthew and Luke used two gospels (Mark and Q), but it is most significant that they used them as sources for writing new gospels, which were meant to render the earlier ones obsolete. In other words, Matthew and Luke (and John) intended their gospels to be complete proclamations of the good news that would replace the earlier ones. There is no good reason to think that the communities for whom Signs and Q were written considered them theologically deficient. It is therefore important to take into account what these gospels do not say. Though it is not unreasonable to assume that early Christians had more beliefs than those 009reflected in their texts, it is exceptionally difficult for us to know what they were. If we confine ourselves to the available evidence, which we are obliged to do when making historical judgments, the only beliefs we can be sure they had are the ones found In their texts.
Olson’s final point that some very early Christians worshiped Jesus as the risen Son of God is surely correct. Nothing in my article denies that. My point is that there were other very early Christians of whom this was not true.
Was Q Written in Jesus’ Lifetime?
Concerning “The Gospels that Didn’t Make the Cut,” BR 09:04, by Robert J. Miller: Could Q have been written, during Jesus’ ministry?
Atchison, Kansas
Robert J. Miller replies:
Answering this basic question requires me to explain two fundamental principles of historical investigation. The first has to do with possibilities. It is possible that Q was written during Jesus’ ministry, but historians cannot do much with sheer possibilities because virtually anything is possible. Historical judgments are almost always judgments about relative probabilities: Given the evidence available to us, is x more probable than y? A second principle is that religious beliefs, no matter how sincere or widespread, do not by themselves constitute historical evidence. For example, Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross Koran 4:157), but this does not mean that historians (even Muslim historians) can use this belief as historical evidence that Jesus was not crucified. One area in the Gospels to which this principle applies is the predictions attributed to Jesus. Some Christians believe that because Jesus was the son of God he had the power to predict the future. However, historians (even historians who are devout Christians), cannot use this belief as evidence that Jesus actually spoke the predictions attributed to him. What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things. Judging from recent letters to the editor, some BR readers fail to appreciate the crucial difference between a profession of faith and a scholarly appraisal of historical evidence.
In Q Jesus says, “Those who do not carry their own crosses and come after me, cannot be my disciples” (Luke 14:27// Matthew 10:38), which presupposes the knowledge that Jesus died by crucifixion. Of course, it is possible that Jesus could predict the future, just as it is possible that the Koran is correct and Jesus did not die on the cross, but scholars have to weigh the evidence when choosing among possibilities. Lacking historical evidence that Jesus predicted the future, historians have little choice but to see the reference to the cross as an indication that this saying was composed after the crucifixion.
In addition, there are several other features of Q that are far more likely to reflect developments after Jesus” death than processes already present during his ministry. Among these are the concern about the rejection and persecution of Jesus’ followers (Luke 6:22–23/ /Matthew 5:11–12) and the violent condemnation of those who reject the message (Luke 10:13–15, 11:49–51/ /Matthew 11:21–24, 23:34–36). Jesus’ ministry seems far too brief a time for his followers to have developed the strong identity, and to have met with the protracted failure in their mission to Israel, that these sayings presuppose. It is far more probable that the sayings that address these situations originated several years, perhaps decades, after the death of Jesus.
Making Jesus “Politically Correct”
Your magazine portrays itself as containing objective scholarship. That’s why I read BR. I often find new ways of looking at things. Even if my eventual conclusion differs from yours or the writer’s, I find them stimulating.
Robert J. Miller offered insight but sloppy scholarship in “The Gospels that Didn’t Make the Cut,” BR 09:04. By introducing the hypothetical Signs Gospel and Q at the beginning (both the figment of some active imaginations) and using them as if they were real, to draw conclusions about the canon and set the tone of the article, Miller shows his prejudice for academic supposition rather than true scholarship [see Miller’s reply to previous letter.—Ed.]. Then Mr. Miller shows his lack of knowledge of the recognized canon by the statement, “the Gospel of Mary shows us a Christian community more faithful to the attitudes of Jesus and Paul [toward women leaders in the church] than to mainstream Christianity.” On what does Miller think mainstream Christianity bases its attitude toward women? One of the most used/misused quotes from Paul with reference to women is 1 Corinthians 14:34: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak. … ” Upon what basis does Miller think Jesus was more “politically correct” toward women than that indicated in the canon? No mention is ever made of women leaders—even in the Gospel of Mary—associating with Jesus; to the contrary, there was a group of women who followed and served Jesus and his disciples in an obvious domestic sense (Mark 15:41).
Why is it that highly educated men like Miller and others who write for BR occasionally find it necessary to try to revise history to suggest it was 052“politically correct” by today’s standards? Where Miller bases his conjectures fact, he is fascinating; where he’s trying to bend facts to fit his theories, he’s illogical and tiring.
Acworth, Georgia
Robert Miller replies:
Mr. Willis assumes that “hypothetical” means “illusory,” He seems to think that because there are no copies of Q or the Signs Gospel (which makes them hypothetical by definition), there is no reason to suppose they existed, In fact, there is solid evidence for their existence, What is lacking is the conclusive proof that actual copies could provide, but this does not mean that “true scholarship” can arbitrarily dismiss these hypotheses. One may as well ridicule physicists for studying sub-atomic particles or astronomers for studying black holes. These entities are hypothetical, having never been directly observed, Scientists accept their existence because these hypotheses are the best explanations for the observable data. Mr. Willis judges Q and Signs to be “figments of some active imaginations,” but they are, in reality convincing explanations of otherwise unexplained anomalies in the Gospels. If Mr. Willis has some better hypotheses to explain these data, I plead with him to make them public.
As for the attitude of Jesus and Paul toward the equality of men and women, I will only comment, briefly since this is not the place for the full discussion this topic requires. Regarding Jesus, some of his authentic sayings imply his belief in the full equality of women, an attitude “politically incorrect” for his time. While it is true that the Gospels do not mention women leaders associating with Jesus, neither do they mention male leaders associating with him. During Jesus’ ministry, he was the only “leader.” Moreover, if we want to use Jesus’ own definition of leadership (see Mark 10:42–44), then the women who served the disciples are the only ones that meet the criterion.
Regarding Paul, there is a well-known dispute among scholars whether 1 Corinthians 14:34 was originally part of 1 Corinthians or a later interpolation, The arguments on both sides are strong and the question is still an open one. However, no one disputes that Galatians 3:28 spells out Paul’s ideal for Christian communities: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all in Jesus Christ.” If Willis wants to call Galatians 3:28 “politically correct,” that is his term, not mine.
Almost as Good as Being There
I enjoy your publications (BR and Biblical Archaeology Review) immensely. They contain a vast amount of information and insight into the lives and minds of biblical people. Other than visiting Israel and experiencing the culture firsthand, I have not come across any nonsacred written material that more expertly depicts the customs, philosophies, antiquities and landscapes of the Bible lands than your magazines. Reading the Bible has become more animated, and the enjoyment of gaining greater understanding of how Jesus lived and taught is invaluable. Thank you.
Concerning “The Gospels that Didn’t Make the Cut,” BR 09:04, by Robert J. Miller, could you please provide the missing word from the phrase, “Truly, I say to you, no one ever will heaven’s domain if I bid him, but rather because you, yourselves are full (Secret James 2:6).” Should the phrase read, “Truly, I say to you, no one ever will enter heaven’s domain if I bid him … ”?
Waterbury, Connecticut
You are correct. Sorry for the dropped word.—Ed.
The Church’s Voice Is the Lord’s Voice
Robert Miller is concerned with more than ancient texts in his article “The Gospels that Didn’t Make the Cut,” BR 09:04. He raises questions about the canonicity of the New Testament, “a product of the Church’s attempt to define its identity in terms of doctrinal conformity.”
For those who accept the doctrine that the authority and saving activity of Jesus continue with a Spirit-enlivened Church, it is not a problem that the Church should have recognized the canonicity of some books and not of others: The Church’s voice is the Lord’s voice.
The acceptance of any Gospel or any other writing as Holy Scripture necessarily involves religious choice. Religious choice is involved in accepting a New Testament; it is also involved in accepting an Old Testament. It is involved in accepting the Bible itself. Why accept the Bible? Why should it be valued as scripture any more than the religious writings of any other faith tradition? It seems to me that the whole notion of “revelation” implies Spirit-guided selectivity. Without a religious authority (like the Church) to decide, then it would seem that it is all up for grabs, and one religious text would be as valuable as any other.
Sacred Heart Church
Lancaster, California
Jesus Will Tell Us
One day Jesus will tell us that the correct Gospels were chosen. I like the way the poet Robert Browning put it, “when eternity affirms the conception of an hour.”
Bryan, Ohio
Joseph, phone home
What the Rabbis Had to Say About Joseph
In the article “Why Didn’t Joseph Call Home?” BR 09:04, by Arnold Ages, there are several errors requiring correction.
Mr. Ages writes, “Yet nowhere in the rabbinic tradition is there any criticism of Joseph for failing to communicate with his family back in Canaan during the years of plenty. Either it was not an issue with the rabbis or they deliberately avoided the issue in the interest of promoting the image of the good Joseph.”
Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, or Nachmanides, 1195–1270 C.E.) writes:
“Similarly I say that all these acts of Joseph are accounted for by his wisdom in the interpretation of the dreams. Otherwise, one should wonder: After Joseph stayed in Egypt for many years and became chief and overseer in the house of a great land in Egypt, how was it possible that he did not send a single letter to his father to inform him of his whereabouts and comfort him, as Egypt is only about a six-day journey from Hebron? Even if it were a year’s journey, out of respect for his father, he should have notified him, in which case even if ransom of his person would be ever so costly, he would have redeemed him. But it was because Joseph saw that the bowing down of his brothers, as well as his father and all his family, could not possibly be accomplished in their homeland, and he was hoping that it would be effected in Egypt when they 053saw his great success there. This was all the more so after he heard Pharaoh’s dream, from which it became clear to him that all of them were destined to come there, and all his dreams would be fulfilled.”1
Another explanation for Joseph’s failure to communicate with his father is alluded to by Ramban and others, concerning the need for genuine repentance on the part of Joseph’s brothers.2 The test was constructed around Benjamin and the “stolen” cup. This could not have been done had Joseph communicated home first.
Bel Air, Maryland
Arnold Ages replies:
Mr. Beale is quite correct in quoting Nachmanides and other Bible commentators who offered views on why Joseph refrained from contacting his family. However, I thought it was clear from the context that when I used the term “rabbinic tradition” I was referring to the rabbis of the talmudic period alone. Their silence on the question is what prompted my inquiry.
No News Is Good News
Why didn’t Joseph call home? He didn’t need money!
Lexington, Kentucky
Joseph Sent a Fax
Arnold Ages (“Why Didn’t Joseph Call Home?” BR 09:04) shows clearly that Joseph didn’t call home—and that he should have. It is interesting, however, to note that there is at least one source which, while it casts no direct light on the Bible, suggests that Joseph did make a certain kind of contact with home.
The 15th-century Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) poem, “Poema de Jocef” (Poem on Joseph)a tells that it was Joseph who stimulated Jacob to send to Egypt for food. Apparently both father and son were experts in the currents of the Mediterranean Sea and the Nile, for Joseph threw straw from the Egyptian threshing-floors into the Nile so that it would be washed upon the shore of Canaan. Jacob, recognizing its place of origin, realized that there must be grain in Egypt and sent his sons to buy grain—with the results that we know. Thus, we might say that while Joseph didn’t call home, according to this version of the story, he did send a fax.
Utica, New York
Don’t Expect an Answer to Every Question
Biblical criticism persists in asking many of the wrong questions, such as, “Why Didn’t Joseph Call Home?” BR 09:04, by Arnold Ages. The fact that the text we received leaves many questions unanswered is insufficient reason for expecting answers to all of them. If Joseph were accessible to us, we might well press him for explanations of many aspects of his behavior that puzzle us; but since he is limited to a literary existence, we may expect to discover only what the ancient writer has told or implied about him.
In October to 1991 I wrote a similar objection to a similar query by Ronald Hendel concerning God’s possible motive for preferring Abel’s offering to Cain’s (“When God Acts Immorally—Is the Bible a Good Book?” BR 07:03). God’s reason, I argued, is not only unknowable but also irrelevant to the movement of the story, which springs entirely from the perceived bias of divine favor and the tragic envy that ensues.
So, too, in the case of Joseph we are constrained by the literary facts to concern ourselves only with the circumstances and consequences of his transportation and estrangement. The writer is telling a story of his own shaping and deserves our attention to the point he wishes to make, There is no story, I suspect, in the Bible or Shakespeare or anywhere else, that anticipates every question the reader might raise as to why a character did this rather than that. The story-telling of the Bible is particularly lean in its reduction of the life it pictures to the elemental lines of moral conduct. Whether Joseph attempted any interim communications with his family back home does not bear on the nature of their ultimate reunion and reconciliation.
Emeritus Professor of English
University of Delaware
Hockessin, Delaware
054
Don’t Spoil the Plot
In response to the question, “Why Didn’t Joseph Call Home?” BR 09:04, the answer is quite simple if one views the story from a literary viewpoint. Joseph’s contacting Jacob would have spoiled the plot, as well as one of the major points of the story: the coming of age of Judah. Much of the story of Joseph reads like the archetypal coming-of-age story, complete with journey and test.
If Joseph’s family had known he was alive, all the dramatic irony in the story would be lost and with it the tension and drama created in the second part of the story, which deals with Joseph’s brothers’ visits to Egypt (from chapter 42 to the end).
But more important is the whole issue of the coming of age of Judah, which hinges upon Joseph’s being able to put him through the ultimate test of his loyalty to the family, specifically to Jacob. there could be no test if Judah knew that Joseph were alive.
I would argue that the story of Joseph is as much the story of Joseph. There is an entire chapter devoted to Judah (Genesis 38) in which Joseph is not even mentioned. The story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38 establishes Judah’s potential as a fine human being who can learn from his mistakes. It prepares us for Judah’s great moment, when he begs Joseph to spare Benjamin and keep himself as a hostage, because if Benjamin did not return, Jacob would die (Genesis 44).
To glorify Judah is essential for the “rest of the plot,” as it is the tribe of Judah that assumes dominance in the history of Israel, and the writer of the story is clearly aware of this point when he details the blessings Jacob gives before he dies (Genesis 49:8–2).
I agree that it is troublesome that Joseph makes no effort to contact Jacob, as he knows how much his father loves him. However, what we would like characters to do and what they actually do are not always the same, and we must be careful of projection. The author cleverly keeps Joseph from doing what any good son would do for the sake of his plot and theme. If we want to exonerate Joseph from the negative image created by his failure to “call” (a negative image, by the way, that the authors do little to relieve), we can perhaps conclude that Joseph was, indeed, prescient and realized that in order to get the whole family reunited (as well as saved), he had to perpetuate the fiction of his death until he felt the family was ready to learn how important was the bond of brotherhood.
New Haven, Connecticut
Arnold Ages replies:
Professor Rosenberry and Susan Elconin. Feinberg are unhappy that I have posed a question that apparently shouldn’t be asked because the interest of plot development requires the suspension of disbelief.
It is amazing to discover that those who approach Scripture as literature only, can, in some way, be less tolerant than the medieval and modern rabbinic tradition, which, as one letter-writer (Benjamin Beale) correctly notes, does suggest answers for Joseph’s silence.
The reason is, I think, obvious. those who look upon the Hebrew Bible as mere literature can easily invoke the dynamics of plot development as an answer to virtually any question. It is all but impossible to engage in profitable discourse with those who hold such a view.
Those who see Hebrew Scripture as literature transcending literature find it entirely legitimate, however, to ask why Joseph, known paradoxically in Jewish tradition as “Yoseph Ha-Tzadik,”—Joseph the Righteous—could have violated one of the Ten Commandments with regard to his father.
It may be true that none of the answers offered to this question is entirely satisfactory, but that does not mean that we are free from asking the question, if only, as the literary critic Northrop Frye put it in another context, to permit us to ask ever greater questions.
Jacob Was Being Punished
Arnold Ages’s article, “Why Didn’t Joseph Call Home?” BR 09:04, is thought-provoking. Still, I think the answer to Professor Ages’s question is that the text is better as it is. As Nahum Sarna argues in Understanding Genesis (Schocken, 1970, pp. 183–184), Jacob’s sin of sharp dealing and gross deception of his father and his brother (Genesis 25:29–34, 27:1–36) is punished by the many disasters in Jacob’s life, including the prolonged and agonizing sense of loss occasioned by Joseph’s apparent death. If Joseph had called home, this significant punishment would have been attenuated.
Morris, Minnesota
056
Yet More on Borg
Warning: Scholars at Play
I have read with some bemusement the continuing interchange in Readers Reply prompted by the articles by Marcus, J. Borg. I was pleased to see his column, “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04.
While it lacked enough “personal relationship with Jesus” tone to suit my taste, nonetheless Marcus Borg is what I suspected him to be despite the furor—a thoughtful, dedicated, conscientious Christian of some depth.
I find his Christianity a little too cerebral and a little too cultural-related, yet Christianity needs believers who are a “little too” of those things, as there are others who are a “little too” of something else.
I am the product of what might be called the prevalent “liberal” scholarly attitude toward biblical exegesis. I was converted to the general acceptance of that view by the considered reasoning of real scholarship in linguistics, archaeology, cultural studies and exegetical history. We owe tremendous thanks to the hard work of courageous and sincere scholars in having a better understanding of the Bible and the people and events portrayed in Holy Scripture.
However, I am disturbed by scholars using the mantle of their education and their scholarly credentials to do unscholarly articles that essentially do the kind of surmising normally restricted to historical fiction. I won’t dispute that their educational background suits them to do this guesswork and imagining, but, it’s pressing the credulity of even someone who values modern scholarship to call such efforts anything but interesting ideas.
Many of Your writers appeal to what I have come to call the unstated “principle of plausibility.” “Is it plausible (reasonable, possible, probable, etc.) that such-and-such could have happened that way?” That makes for good fiction, but it is a poor substitute for real scholarship. It’s like the op-ed page of the newspaper claiming to be hard news.
Using the principle of plausibility, I would love to see what revisionist historians 500 years from now will do with the fall of Communism in the early 1990s, I can see the lead-in now: “Is it plausible to believe that a power as great as worldwide Communism just imploded in a matter of two years?” The obvious answer being no. Therefore someone will postulate that it didn’t happen as history has recorded it, but that American capitalist interests paid to produce that history to buttress its claims to ideological superiority.
BR gives food for thought, but let’s lay aside the fairly arrogant supposition that all of the articles are real scholarship. Certainly some are serious scholarly work, but for many let’s call them what they are: a place for scholars to play and have some intellectual fun. If we keep that in mind then we can all better enjoy the product of their efforts, and not get so worked up over the imaginative use of our God-given intellect.
Trinity Episcopal Church
Houston, Texas
Makes the Judge Think
If the Bible is merely a “response of one broad cultural stream to the experience of God” and, in turn, God is nothing more than a fuzzy “‘more’ than the world of matter and energy disclosed by the scientific worldview” (“Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04), then why bother?
Unlike some of your other readers, I am not calling for Borg’s crucifixion, but for his continued publication. The man does make me think!
Circuit Court Division Five
Marble Hill, Missouri
Found What He’s Looking for
I am impressed with level of scholarship presented in your pages. I have long been a subscriber to Biblical Archaeology Review, but had not subscribed to your sister magazine on the Bible because “I wasn’t interested in that son of stuff.”
I find that your magazine is exactly what I am interested in. I really enjoyed the article on “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04, by Marcus J. Borg. I had been feeling rather alone here in the hinterland with the numbers of fundamentalist Christians, but now I have found a publication I can rely on for unbiased viewpoints and classical scholarship.
Fritch, Texas
058
Where Borg Is Coming From
The article by Dr. Marcus Borg (“Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04) will help many to understand better wherefrom he and others come. This is especially relevant new readers. Many of us already know wherefrom he comes—and regret the continuing stream of confirming evidence.
Denver, Colorado
A Post-Christian Ethic?
In defining what it means to be a Christian (“Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04), Marcus Borg says it is not important to believe that central biblical events actually happened, but rather to be “in relationship to that to which the Christian tradition points.”
I left the parish ministry of the Episcopal Church because I had come to me conclusion that the fundamental historicity of my own historically based religion was in shambles. I continue to be astonished by the divorce between Biblical studies and Christian theology and practice.
Had I been willing to operate within Borg’s definition, I might have avoided a personal crisis of faith and vocation. But I saw people trying to get by as Christians by pretending to believe in something which wasn’t quite real for them, a faith that was incapable of supporting an authentic spiritual and ethical life. And I saw others fleeing to fundamentalism and closing their minds to scientific truth and to living constructively in a pluralistic society. I decided me jig was up and it was time to engage in the honest and sometimes painful work of laying a post-Christian foundation for religion and ethics.
American Ethical Union
Shermans Dale, Pennsylvania
Borg Is Not Alone
Marcus Borg is hardly alone in wanting to move us beyond doctrinal belief. For example, the Presbyterians’ recently adopted Brief Statement of Faith substitutes the words “we trust” for the ancient “we believe.”
Colleyville, Texas
Honest and Courageous
Marcus Borg inspires good thinking. Thank you for featuring the research and opinions of this honest and courageous man.
Glendale, California
Thanks for Borg
Marcus J. Borg’s statement on “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04, comes as close to stating my position on biblical interpretation as anything I have seen in print. My thanks to you for asking him to write it and for publishing it, as well as to him for writing so clearly and coherently.
Salem, Oregon
Out of Both Sides of His Mouth
Marcus J. Borg is what I Call “planted” by the Holy Spirit to help true believers recognize and separate the half truth from the whole truth about Jesus’ life Borg’s ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth amazes me and helps me realize—when I do too!
Tri Cities, Washington
Borg Should Either Accept or Reject
Marcus Borg may be convinced that he can simultaneously deny and have “faith” in the resurrection of Jesus, but he cannot pretend that was Paul’s view or the view of the Gospel writers. Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 15 that the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and that this resurrection was bodily and literal. In Galatians 1, he condemns all who preach any other gospel. Now Borg can accept or reject this gospel, but he cannot reject it and claim to be its heir. I would urge him to truly accept the fact of Jesus’ resurrection and the message of Scripture. If he cannot, for whatever reason, then I would urge him to face the theological consequences.
Bensalem, Pennsylvania
A Crisis of Belief Among Christians?
There is a major crisis of belief among late 20th-century Christians. It begins with the denial of miraculous events relating to the person of Jesus on the grounds of “negative historical 060probabilities” (see letter of Paul W. Harris, Readers Reply, BR 09:03). The next step in the process allows the retention of the nominal term Christian on grounds that, devoid of miraculous events, the tradition itself still carries “universal human truths.” Quite simply put, this process is the mythologizing of Christianity.
As a believing Christian, I’d like to submit to you a better method of responding to this crisis. The body of evidence contained in the historical research on Jesus does not disprove the miraculous events relating to the historical person Jesus. Historical scholars agree that the four Gospels taken together make up the most important source of information on Jesus. I believe that the message contained in the fourfold Gospel is remarkably—yes, miraculously—on solid historical grounds.
Marcus J. Borg (“Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04) states, “I do not define ‘Christian’ primarily in terms of believing … ” Stop right there, please, and check the Scriptures:
“Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘This is the word of God, that ye believe on him whom He hath sent’ ” (John 6:28–29).
“Be not afraid, only believe” (Mark 5:36).
“For what saith the scripture? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness’ ” (Romans 4:3).
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26).
There is such a weight of scriptural evidence that clearly states the importance of believing in Christ Jesus that I can only conclude Borg’s lines were written hurriedly or perhaps carelessly.
Cayucos, California
Would Jesus Be Comfortable in Church?
Thanks for giving vocabulary to my convictions through “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04, by Marcus Borg. He said what I’ve long been trying to express.
Harvey Cox wrote (in the University of Pennsylvania’s Alumni Magazine, Dec. 1988):
“Christians have had to struggle for many centuries with the fact that the founder of Christianity was Jewish and remained so throughout his entire life … [I]f he were to return to the planet Earth today and seek a familiar house of worship in which to pray, he would no doubt seek out a synagogue, not a church.”
If Jesus did go to a church, he would probably be amazed at what the worshipers accredited to him. The accretions from having passed through several cultures would puzzle this peasant Jew who said he came “to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it” (Matthew 5:17).
St. Paul too is understood in a whole new light when seen as a Jew who is a member of the new sect, defending his new understandings of Torah and relationship with God. Later he calls it the New Covenant, but the word (b’rith in Hebrew) is meaningless if one does not know the Old Covenant.
Many of your readers seem unaware 061that Constantine’s motives in turning to the Christians involved the consolidation, East and West, of the fractured empire he had inherited. Though not baptized, he summoned the first ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325 A.D., the seed of the Counciliar Movement that formulated the doctrine of the Christian Church—the Creeds. The bishops had to make sure they were on good terms with the emperor. Is there a more orthodox paradigm for the place of secular politics in bringing in the Kingdom?
Each time I go through this exercise I realize again that these good people are seeking reassurance for their belief. They do not want their belief challenged. They want to be reassured through foolproof formulae. But Christianity is not about belief. It is about faith, which is trust.
How much more exciting is the Biblical call to the adventure in faith with God, in which we must trust him and he must trust us, to convince the world of the basic operating principle of love.
Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande
El Paso, Texas
Opening the Shutters
Concerning Marcus Borg’s column “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04—How marvelous! Praise the Lord!
Borg opened the shutters just a crack but the winds of God rushed in and scattered the debris of cant and confusion—for some, a seeming catastrophe; for the likes of me, a modern Revelation.
For a long time I have wandered in intellectual despair about the Christian tradition. Borg has given me a new and hopeful perspective.
Santa Barbara, California
Thank You, Mr. Borg
A grateful thank you to Marcus Borg. The thoughts he expressed in “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04, have helped confirm and clarify for me convictions that have been growing and strengthening for some time. I was beginning to wonder whether “If I believe these things, I a Christian?” Mr. Borg’s article was for me exactly to the point and I feel reassured and sustained by it.
Bedford, New York
At the Front with Sergeant Borg
Thank you, Professor Borg, for your enlightening and interesting columns. I imagine that you have had to duck more often since becoming a BR columnist than I did in two years of Army service in Vietnam.
Take some advice from an old soldier: Keep up the good work! Keep your head down!
Marble Falls, Texas
With BR at My Side
May God be praised for Marcus J. Borg! I found his recent column “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04, to be a moving and personal statement. He made a fine case for the Christian scholar, and I’m proud to subscribe to a magazine that features his work. I will enter Andover Newton Theological School this fall, and I assure you that a copy of Borg’s article will stay close at hand as I pursue my studies.
It would be wonderful if for every fundamentalist who seeks certainty and easy familiarity in the Word of God, there were a Christian who met the challenge of the Living Word. In the sadly shrinking ranks of liberal mainline Protestantism I take my place, with my copy of BR at my side. Next time a shocked reader cancels a subscription, send the remaining issues to me.
Brookline, New Hampshire
BR as Lightning Rod
I enjoy your magazine very much, although as a biblical scholar my stomach churns when I read the venomous letters from the faithful that apparently you receive by the truckload. Thanks for serving as a lightning rod for these bolts of (self?)righteous indignation!
In the August 1993 issue Marcus Borg presents a statement on “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04, that says extraordinarily well what most of us in the guild grope to say in our classes. In fact, this is such a fine statement that I want to secure your permission to photocopy it and present it to the students in my introductory college classes. Of course, I would give due credit to Marcus Borg and BR.
Associate Professor and Department Head
Department of Religion
Baldwin-Wallace College
Berea, Ohio
You have our permission.—Ed.
Keep the Debate Alive
Many thanks for Marcus Borg’s column “Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04. While the ideas expressed are not new, Dr. Borg stated his position simply and clearly and in so doing took what otherwise might be relegated to the academic classroom or to an advanced textbook in theology and gave it to the ordinary Christian lay person to be considered and debated.
While Dr. Borg must certainly never have intended to be the catalyst in exciting a debate that is long overdue on many of the points he outlined, I hope he will keep the dialogue alive, even if it leads to a radical theological reformation of thinking within the church. Let what happens from such discussions happen! Luther wanted merely to debate some points with the church—and see what came of it!
Keep the debate alive! Stand up to the flak from folks who can’t differentiate between inner and outer truth, the reality of myth versus historical “fact.”
(ordained Presbyterian pastor)
San Antonio, Texas
Discovered Buried Treasure
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.