Readers Reply

004

Milgrom and Homosexuality

It’s an Abomination for Everyone

While I always find Jacob Milgrom’s scholarship compelling and profoundly human and wise, his recent column “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality?” BR 09:06, is, for me, uncharacteristic of his outstanding writing.

Milgrom contends that the Torah’s laws are directed only toward Israel, and the Noahide restrictions are, for Milgrom, projections of the rabbinic mind upon ancient Israel. Consequently, he argues that Hebrew Scripture does not “prohibit” homosexuality to non-Israelites.

According to a literal reading, of Scripture, homosexuality is a to’evah, usually rendered “abomination.” The fact that Scripture does not directly address the non-chosen does not mean that God does not hold all humankind accountable for basic morality. By defining homosexuality as to’evah, Leviticus condemns it not only for Israel.

Milgrom’s attempt to ameliorate the plight of the homosexual is a reflex of his gentle humanity. The rabbinic sages taught that debates entertained for the sake of heaven will endure. So will Milgrom’s fine writing.

Wrong on Every Point

How Jacob Milgrom can condone homosexuality as being biblically acceptable to the world at large, with the notable exception of Israel, is difficult to comprehend. He is correct that biblical and Talmudic rules of cleanliness oppose the spilling of seed, and therefore the loss of life. But to imply that this is the crux of a case in favor of homosexuality is deceiving. It is clear from biblical sources that homosexuality is abominable in the sight of God. The obvious example, the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19), vividly illustrates God’s revulsion toward this behavior. He did not, as Mr. Milgrom hopes He will, lovingly accept these men. To the contrary they were considered vile deviants who, for this behavior (homosexuality, sodomy, sexual advances toward the angels who visited Lot) were totally destroyed. As we know, when the two angels (who may also be interpreted as messengers) visited Lot, “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, ‘Where are the men who came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.’” When Lot offered his two daughters “who have not known men” (i.e., were virgins) instead of the angels, the Sodomites were angered even more.

The contention that God’s prohibition against homosexuality applied only to the Jews is ridiculous. Sodom was not a city of Jews.

Certainly what God found to be a grievous sin among Jews, He would not consider acceptable behavior among other people. Common logic would tell us that.

In the days of the kings, “Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David, his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land.” (1 Kings 15:11). That God regards this behavior as unacceptable to Jews and gentiles, alike is also attested in 1 Kings 14:24: “And there were also sodomites in the land; and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.” Homosexuality was not acceptable among these nations. Deuteronomy 23:17 states, “There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” Leviticus 18:22 clearly states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.” The punishment for this 006sort of behavior was death to both participants (Leviticus 20:13).

Mr. Milgrom writes that “non-Jews are affected only if they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere.” He then cites the closing exhortation in Leviticus 18:24–30, saying that it is incorrect to apply the restriction on a universal scale. Rubbish! Those very verses say to Israel, “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled, which I have cast out before you” (Leviticus 18:24). Do these verses say that homosexuality is a crime only to Jews, or non-Jews residing in the Holy Land, and is acceptable elsewhere? Absolutely not. It is an “abomination,” committed by the nations, which Israel was forbidden to emulate. That means that it was unacceptable behavior.

Mr. Milgrom’s suggestion that homosexuals adopt children to compensate for their loss of seed is ridiculous. Can this sin be rectified by raising adopted children in an atmosphere in which they are taught that this sin is acceptable? I think not. Raising children in a homosexual or lesbian atmosphere is not in the Jewish tradition. To encourage such action is in opposition to the teachings of the Bible. “Talmudic law extends the prohibition [against homosexuality] … also to lesbianism, i.e., homosexual intimacies between women, based on the general warning not to indulge in the abhorrent practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites (Sifra 9:8)” (The Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 8, p. 961).

Mr. Milgrom should be careful in so casually condoning issues that are clearly biblical abominations, and in leading his congregation in ways that are clearly unacceptable in both Old and New Testament teachings.

Jacob Milgrom replies in his column, “How Not to Read the Bible.”

Homosexuality Is Counter to the Divine Image

It is not often that I find myself in disagreement with my friend and mentor Jacob Milgrom, but his article requires a response.

The law reads: “Do not lie with a male [zakar] as one lies with a woman/wife; it is an abhorrence [to’evah] (Leviticus 18:22). The term to’evah, sometimes associated with idolatry in this passage in an attempt to restrict the prohibition to cultic prostitution,¹ refers only to illicit sex. The prohibition against homosexuality is part of a chapter that forms a strict unit, a sexual charter that forbids additionally incest (verses 6–18); sex with a menstruant (verse 19); adultery (verse 20); giving one’s seed to Molech (verse 21) and bestiality (verse 23).

Homosexuality is a deliberate violation that results in ritual contamination of the individual, the sanctuary and the land of Israel. It is punished by the kareth penalty (“to be cut off”) or death (Leviticus 20:13), as well as expulsion from the land. Clearly, as Milgrom says, the laws are addressed to Israel, for the priestly concern is to produce an exemplary holy people in whose midst God dwells, in a land given to them by God in perpetuity. Only Israel is blessed in this way. But are the sexual guidelines of Leviticus 18 for the benefit of Israel alone? A closer look at the rationale for this chapter suggests otherwise.

The command “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28; 9:1, 7) provides for the mating of male (zakar) and female the human species to duplicate the initial model of humanity provided by God through His creative work. It is a male-female model in the image of God. The command applies to all humanity; it is not aimed at Jews in particular. The use, of zakar at Leviticus 18:22 recalls the creation terminology and the image-of-God doctrine.

Another allusion to the creation model is found in the term ha’adam in Leviticus 18:5: “You shall observe my regulations and my statutes which humanity (ha’adam) shall observe and live there by, I am the LORD your God.” As others have noted, ha’adam is a generic term for humanity in the Priestly account of creation.² Humanity is created uniquely in God’s image: “God said: ‘Let us make humanity (’adam) in our image, according to our likeness…’” (Genesis 1:26). That ’adam, without the definite article, is a collective term is indicated by the plural verb “they shall rule” that follows. “So God created humanity (ha’adam) in His own image. In the image of God he created it; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). The term ha’adam serves to set humanity apart from the other species in the order of creation. Like the command to be fruitful and multiply, the image of God has universal application as well. The use of ha’adam in the phrase at Leviticus 18:5 suggests that all humanity is responsible for the principles of sexual purity. Thus the pollution rules regarding forbidden sex are based on a larger theological foundation. Homosexuality is proscribed because it violates the order of creation as male-female under command to reproduce.

The Priestly rules of impurity are designed to protect the holiness of God and to preserve the people of Israel, God’s chosen vehicle for the communication of His revelation in history. Desecration of God’s name, the land and His sanctuary, the quintessential 008location for His presence in Israel according to the Priestly tradition was a grave offense. Certain body fluids were polluting, including semen, as throughout the ancient Near East. But only blood explicitly stands for life in the Bible (Leviticus 17:11). The biblical writer may have associated semen with the origin of life, as Milgrom says, but that is not the issue in our chapter. Semen out of place, that is, out of the natural sexual relationship with a woman not in her period, was defiling. Seminal emission was not sinful, however, unless it violated a prohibitive command such as Leviticus 18:22.

The prohibition against having sex with a woman during her period has given rise to many interpretations, ranging from demonic powers resident in the blood to the mixing of fluids. In my view, sex with the menstruant is forbidden because she cannot conceive during her period. Molech worship is included not because it is idolatrous (though it may have been) but because it is a sexual crime, terminating the life of the child sacrificed to Molech and thus failing to meet the demand to multiply. Bestiality may be understood in the same way—it is not productive, and cross-species sex denies the creative order. Even adultery and incest fit this rationale; adultery violates the principle of order in society.

In further support of this rationale is the imposition of the kareth penalty for sexual crimes. This divinely executed penalty implies the extinction of the individual and his offspring. Failure to follow the order of creation, to honor the image of God (note the frequent motive clauses “I am Yahweh” in this chapter, which is tantamount to saying “Be holy because I am holy” or “Be careful of My image in you”) and not to be fruitful and multiply, brings about the kareth penalty (Leviticus 18:24–30). But the penalty is not inevitable. As a deliberate sinner, the homosexual’s access to sacrificial privilege is closed (Numbers 15:30–31), unless, as Milgrom has shown elsewhere, confession and repentance occur.³

Lesbianism is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible. However, if my view of the rationale for the sexual laws of Leviticus 18 is correct, it may be inferred that it was tacitly forbidden because it is a sexual relationship that cannot bear fruit, nor does it respect the image-of-God model of the male-female partnership described in Genesis.

In sum, when Leviticus 18:22 is seen within the context of the entire chapter and against the background of the creation account in Genesis 1, the rationale for the ban against homosexuality has universal implications, despite its being addressed specially to Israel. Same-gender sexual relations are prohibited because they flout the divine image and they cannot fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. Modern concern for over population notwithstanding, such is the theology of the Priestly writer.⁴

Jacob Milgrom replies in his column, “How Not to Read the Bible.”

Homosexuality is a Behavioral Trait That Can Be Controlled

I read with interest “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality?” BR 09:06, by Jacob Milgrom, and I feel I must react to it. I am an admirer of Dr. Milgrom, who is one of the most eminent biblical scholars of our time. I deeply enjoy studying his monumental Leviticus 1–16 [Anchor Bible Series], and am looking forward to the publication of the second half of this unique scholarly endeavor.

I have no argument with Milgrom’s interpretation of the biblical reference to homosexuality, and I do not wish to get involved in the question which biblical do’s and don’ts are binding on Christians; the biblical ban on homosexuality of males may be viewed as a law of purity like eating pork, or as an ethical and moral law like incest, adultery or acceptance of bribery. I must leave this question for theologians to answer. My critique of Milgrom’s paper concerns primarily the sociological implications of his views.

Like many others in current American society, Milgrom views homosexuality as an endemic sexual manifestation that normally occurs in a small portion of the population. According to this view, which is outside of Dr. Milgrom’s scholarly expertise, homosexuality is not considered as a sexually related behavioral trait, such as adultery, incest or bestiality.

If I understand Milgrom correctly, he does not consider homosexuality as all that bad since it contributes to population control which might be advantageous on a global scale, As a Jew, however, Milgrom feels that this might be detrimental to the perpetuation of the Jewish people. To me this seems a rather ethnocentric attitude that probably violates the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18). Ultimately, he 052reluctantly accepts homosexuality even among Jews, as long as two Jewish lesbian women raise children conceived by artificial insemination, or as long as two Jewish homosexuals, male or female, raise adopted, presumably non-Jewish, children (if the adopted children were Jewish, it would not increase the number of Jews). Being Jewish myself, I prefer not to comment on the inter-religious or interracial inferences of this suggestion.

My main objection to Milgrom’s thesis that homosexuality is innocuous, possibly even beneficial, is based on sociological consideration. As can be inferred from history, there is little doubt in my mind that by and large homosexuality is a behavioral trait. Looking at Jewish biblical history, we find that homosexual behavior was minimal. Unlike adultery and prostitution, which must have been common, as can be inferred from most of the books of the Prophets, there is no reference to homosexual transgressions. Even the sins of Sodom are generally referred to as social offenses rather than sexual vices. Also Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism does not consider homosexuality a worthwhile subject for debate or ruling, while heterosexual behavior is dealt with in great detail. On the other hand, Japanese history tells us that in the 17th century homosexuality, pedophilia and bisexuality were practiced by the whole Japanese male population.⁵ The history of China of the same period shows a similar behavior, although only in the upper social segments of the population,⁶ similar to the situation in classical Athenian society.⁷ This mode of behavior disappeared later both in China and in Japan where different regimes came to power.

It is clear to me, therefore, that homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon, that may spread or shrink in a given culture depending on its values. It may be widely practiced and considered as fully respectable and desirable (just as the Judeo-Christian traditional family has been in Western culture); it may be accepted as a tolerate fringe behavior, as it seems to be in current American society; or it can be despised and not practiced at all, as was seemingly the case in classical Jewish society. These historical observations do not contradict the possibility that homosexuality, like alcoholism or aggression, can be genetically related. Various expressions of the human genome can be promoted and exhibited or suppressed by societal norms. Given the appropriate social environment, also those who lack the particular genetic tendency, can acquire a given mode of social behavior. In other words, given the appropriate social conditions, many heterosexual people could have been brought up as homosexuals. This is the reason that also in our society, which by and large looks with reservation at homosexuality, more than 10% of children raised by homosexuals adopt this mode of sexual behavior,⁸ which is an order of magnitude higher than the probability of all children in the same population becoming homosexuals. Raising children by homosexuals implies, therefore, a continual increase of the proportion of homosexual members of a society that endorses such a practice.

I think that we are today at a social turning point where we can enhance homosexual behavior, if we so wish, perhaps as a means of population control as suggested by Milgrom. But this must lead to major changes in sex ethics in the whole population, something that has already occurred in the past, as I have pointed out above. This would contribute to further decline of the traditional Judeo-Christian family, which many of us believe is the key to social stability of Western society. Removal of the religious constraints from homosexual modes of social behavior, advocated by Milgrom, is an extremely grave step in this direction, since religion has always determined and maintained social structure. And, being promoted by a highly respected biblical scholar gives the implied endorsement of homosexuality considerable weight. Moreover, following Milgrom’s rationale, one might condone any sexual activity that does not lead to proliferation of humans, and thus mitigates population explosion and world hunger. Pedophilia and bestiality may then be in line for consideration as additional legitimate outlets for human sexual drives. What must be asked is whether all this would be in the best interest of our society, or of any human society.

The biblical constraints on sexual behavior, including homosexuality, are not just a consequence of notions of ritual impurity and symbolic death, as has been so eloquently elaborated in Dr. Milgrom’s writings. They also have important sociological connotations that have evolved over the millennia of human prehistory and early history as part of the crystallization of a stable societal structure; eventually they were formulated in biblical law.

I do not believe that Dr. Milgrom thought out in full the consequences of his reasoning, which probably was based on incomplete information. This should teach all of us academicians to limit ourselves to our own disciplinary expertise.

Jacob Milgrom replies:

My response to Michael Anbar should be titled “How Not to Read Milgrom.” I did not say that I favor homosexuality because it contributes to population control. I took no position on either homosexuality or population control. I simply stated that the universal command “fill the earth” has now been fulfilled. Anbar’s wrong assumption is aggrandized by his conclusion, namely, I am “ethnocentric” because I feel that Jews should make up for the six million exterminated in the Holocaust and because the children adopted by homosexuals (rather, gays since lesbians could give birth to their own) would have to be 053non-Jews. The first charge stemming from a fellow Jew is dismaying. If a plea for Jewish survival is ethnocentric, I guess I’m ethnocentric. The second leaves me bewildered because it is levied not just against homosexuals, but against all adoptive Jewish parents. The Jewish Family Service in my area informs me that 20% of Jewish couples are infertile. According to reader Anbar, they should be denied the right to adopt a non-Jewish child which, in effect, means not to adopt at all!

Anbar’s final point is that “by and large homosexuality is a behavioral trait” and offers as proof: More than 10% of children raised by homosexuals adopt this mode of behavior, which is an order of magnitude higher than the probability of all children in the same population to, become homosexuals.” I was piqued enough to check his source and lo, and behold, I discovered that according to A. C. Kinsey, et al. (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male [Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948]), confirmed by W. J. Blumenfeld and D. Raymond (Looking at Gay and Lesbian Life [Boston: Beacon, 1988]), “approximately 10% of the entire American population can be considered gay or lesbians” (cited in Patterson 1026, n. 1). Although this figure has been contested, it is clear that the percentage of homosexuals among the children of homosexual parents is not much different than the percentage of homosexuals in the adult population of the United States. Moreover, on the basis of the research to date (over 300 offspring of gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples), Patterson concludes: “the development of gender identity, of gender role behavior, and of sexual preference among offspring of gay and lesbian parents was found in every study [my emphasis] to fall within human bounds” (pp. 1031–1032).

Thus, despite Anbar, there is no reason to believe that if homosexual couples rear children (by adoption or birth) they are more likely to be homosexual than children of heterosexual parents.

As I stated in my column, I am only interested in setting the biblical record straight. As reader Yuter correctly notes, I also wish “to ameliorate the plight of the homosexual.” But on the issue of homosexuality, I have no axe to grind. Whether reader Anbar has, others may ponder.

Milgrom Should Have Checked the New Testament

I do not know if Jacob Milgrom intended to be misleading when he wrote in his 054column that “The biblical prohibition is addressed only to Israel. It is incorrect to apply it on a universal scale.”

If Mr. Milgrom was honest about what Bible he was using, he would have stated that his was the Hebrew Bible, If we check the New Testament we will find that homosexuality is prohibited in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and Romans 1:24.

Jacob Milgrom replies:

My apologies to Mr. Kirk and many other letter writers for not making it clear enough (though I was focusing only on Leviticus 18) that I was speaking of the Hebrew Bible and not the Christian Bible.

Depopulating the Kingdom of God

I was startled by Jacob Milgrom’s “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality?” BR 09:06. What jolted me was not so much his stand accommodating homosexuality (as many do today). It was his implicit denial that millions of us who are believing gentiles in the God of Israel have no standards to live by, if we were to take the implications of his article seriously.

The New Testament of course insists that the main moral statements of Torah do apply to all of us who are “wild olive branches grafted into the true root” of believing Israel (Romans 11:17). What could be clearer than the Apostle Paul’s injunction, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

I am embarrassed for Milgrom because of his naivete. I urge him to reconsider his position and to look further into his own faith. He has almost completely depopulated the kingdom of God with his faulty reasoning.

Are Homosexuals Fit Parents?

I am writing in response to “Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality?” BR 09:06, by Jacob Milgrom. Such a liberal interpretation by a rabbi came as a surprise to me. I cannot understand why Mr. Milgrom would even suggest that a child could be brought up as an adopted child by homosexuals, in such an atmosphere of deception of what is natural. Heterosexual parents don’t always make perfect parents, but to knowingly bring a child into this environment of perversion is a crime. I cannot fathom Mr. Milgrom’s motives in condoning such abominations, I just hope that he will reexamine the Torah and see it in God’s light, not watering it down or bending the laws to fit today’s standards. God does not change, and His laws are everlasting.

Making the Gays Happy

I’m sure Jacob Milgrom’s column regarding homosexuality was happy, ear-tickling reading for most men who lay with men.

Fancy Footwork

In spite of all the fancy dancing by the “experts” trying to massage, stretch and twist scripture into a condoning of homosexuality, the plain truth of the Bible, taking everything into consideration, from Genesis to Revelation, is quite clear: It just isn’t right!

Even Farm Animals Don’t Do That

For at least ten years I have been a subscriber to one or all of your magazines, enjoying the variety you produce.

In “Reader’s Reply” sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t, and other times it’s amusing to read the vehemency of differing opinions.

So here I am, just outraged with Jacob Milgrom’s column saying, “It is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale,” with a footnote referring to the Noahide laws.

I am interested in the Noahide laws and own several books on the subject. So do friends of mine, in good standing with rabbis. Thankfully, that’s not been my understanding. Unnatural sex does not seem to be acceptable in whatever form.

What kind of nation would be 055generated by such permissive liberal behavior? And then to take Jacob Milgrom’s advice and use artificial insemination or adopt children to multiply the results! This sounds like a page out of the “Sodom and Gomorrah” story, only it would be here and now extinction!

Does Mr. Milgrom consider those under Noahide laws on a lower level than the animal kingdom? Having been reared on a farm, I can assure you that even dumb animals do not practice such things.

Can Gentiles Commit Murder?

Jacob Milgrom states that there is no prohibition against lesbianism. I disagree. We have to keep in mind that the authors of the Bible were living in a patriarchal society, where the literature was always written in terms of the male gender. All the commandments of Leviticus 18 are directed toward men. For example, “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). Are we to interpret that women are excluded from God’s commandments? Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is it implied that women are not subject to God’s commandments, and yet they are almost all directed toward men. The effects of this patriarchal mode of thought found their way to our own times, in which we still refer, to the whole world as “mankind.”

If the prohibition of homosexuality is restricted to Jews, the same goes for all other commandments. Are we to accept Gentiles murdering one another? Are we to allow robbery in the Gentile world? To adopt such a rationale would be to undermine the very raison d’être of the Jews. If God intended these commandments to be applicable in the Jewish community only, then why the existence of the Jews? The reason why God chose a people is so that they may become Holy, for God is Holy, and be “a light unto the nations” so that the Gentiles recognize an acknowledge the true way of life.

To interpret the prohibition of homosexuality as a simple “loss of seed,” as Milgrom does, is to misunderstand the whole Hebrew Bible, which is about human dignity and the hope that God’s way of life will be practiced not only by Jews, but by the whole world one day.

Jacob Milgrom replies:

In the verse reader Riccio cites, Leviticus 18:5, the word is not ’ish, the usual term for “man,” but the rare ha’adam, thereby emphasizing that the subject is “the person,” male or female. A good example of this usage is Leviticus 13:2, where the ’adam, who contracts one of the enumerated skin ailments (incorrectly translated “leprosy”), surely refers to either man or woman. Besides, in biblical Hebrew, the male noun (such as ’ish) is frequently generic for male or female.

Also, please note, murder is explicitly prohibited to all humanity in Genesis 9:5.

It’s Not Adam and Steve

I do not believe that Jacob Milgrom has substantiated his assertion that the biblical prohibition against homosexuality applied only to Israel. As one wag has 058put it, it is Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This tenet can hardly be for Israel alone, even excluding the New Testament sayings of Jesus.

As we look at Romans 1:18–32, and particularly verses 26 and 27, it would appear that the apostle Paul, a well-educated Jew, would not agree with Milgrom. The passage condemns both male homosexuality and lesbianism for Jew and Gentile across the board. The only Scriptures Paul had were the Old Testament writings.

Lots of Sins Are Not Mentioned by Name

Jacob Milgrom’s conclusion that lesbianism is condoned because it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible seems whimsical. The Bible says nothing specific about child pornography, snuff movies or insider trading. Nevertheless it would be facetious to suggest that they represent biblically acceptable activities.

It seems unlikely that a Bible that prohibits cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5) would accept lesbianism.

A possible explanation for the failure to mention lesbianism by name is offered by the Anchor Bible Dictionary. It says “Lesbian interaction however is not mentioned, possibly because it did not result in true physical ‘union’ (by male entry)” (“Sex and Sexuality”, vol. 5, pp. 1145–6).

Regarding the subject of the blurring of male and female sexual roles, the Dictionary says “The biblical view of creation is one of organization and structure; collapsing the categories of existence is a return to chaos’ (p. 1146).

Jacob Milgrom replies:

Reader Smart confuses accepting lesbianism with punishing lesbianism. All I stated is that the Hebrew Bible does not punish lesbianism. The Anchor Bible Dictionary’s speculations that it “is not mentioned, possibly because it did not result in true physical ‘union’ (by male entry)” is not far removed from my hypothesis that in lesbianism no seed is spilled.

Broken Back Department

The article by Jacob Milgrom was the last straw for me. Cancel my subscription.

Freedman Interview, Part I

Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid

As I glance at one section of my bookcase, shelving the Anchor Bible Series and, directly underneath, the Anchor Bible Dictionary, I send my deep gratitude to you for your interview with David Noel Freedman (“How the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament Differ—An Interview with David Noel Freedman—Part I,” BR 09:06).

Having long admired this wonderful scholar, it was an early Christmas present to have a personal insight into the man within the scholar. Truly, Professor Freedman embodies the noblest aspirations of both Judaism and Christianity. His personal conversion and ongoing motivation must be a fascinating story, yet I’m rather glad he chose not to reduce it to the written word.

What Is the Last Book of the Hebrew Bible?

The interview with David Noel Freedman made excellent reading. I do wish, however, that the sequence of the Jewish Bible in use today and for more than 900 years had been more closely examined.

Freedman cites two manuscripts where Ezra-Nehemiah is placed at the end of the Writings. How many others, complete or not, have Chronicles as the last book? References I have seen claim a majority end with Chronicles. If there is an error, does Mr. Freedman believe it is an accident or was there an ideological purpose?

David Noel Freedman replies:

Herman Elstein asks about the placement of the Book(s) of Chronicles, which in the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex occurs at the beginning of the Ketuvim (Writings), whereas in other Bibles Chronicles comes at the very end, after Ezra-Nehemiah.

We don’t know when the order of books was fixed in the Jewish canon or the Christian canon. The earliest clear manuscript evidence comes much later than the fixing of the order. Even the idea of a fixed order can be questioned, especially in regard to the Hebrew canon, because these books were written on scrolls, and so far as we are aware, the entire Hebrew Bible was never written on a single continuous scroll. It is only with the emergence of the codex (earliest possible date, first century B.C.E., more likely date, first century C.E.) that an order can and even must be fixed. So far as I am aware, the earliest codex of the Hebrew Bible comes from the Middle Ages, and it is possible that the Aleppo Codex is the oldest of all certainly of those extant.

The fact that the two oldest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, representing the Ben Asher Masoretic school, have the books with Chronicles first and Ezra-Nehemiah last in the Hebrew Writings is very weighty evidence indeed. As to the origins and evidence for an alternate order, with Chronicles at the end, see Roger Beckwith’s The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. He collects much of the evidence, but argues, primarily from the New Testament, that the Writings began with Psalms and that Chronicles was probably the last book of the Hebrew Bible.

I would add that the sequence at the end of the standard Hebrew Bible, with Chronicles following Ezra-Nehemiah, is rather illogical even by ancient criteria. As everyone knows, even ancient readers, Ezra-Nehemiah follows Chronicles chronologically, just as Kings follows Samuel. The order of the first nine books of the Hebrew Bible can be determined by anyone on the basis of chronological considerations, and in fact conforms to that order. We would expect (as we find clearly in the Greek Bible, the Septuagint) that Ezra-Nehemiah would follow Chronicles, rather than the other way around.

Furthermore, we have the curious phenomenon that the last paragraph in Chronicles is practically duplicated in the first paragraph of Ezra-Nehemiah. The fact does not help to explain the reverse order given by Beckwith and others, but it does help to explain the separation of the two books in the order we find them in the Aleppo and 060Leningrad codices. If the books were in the correct order, one right after the other, then we would hardly expect this extensive repetition of tag lines. We do not have it between any two books in the long sequence of the Primary History (Genesis through 2 Kings), because those books follow one after the other. The reason for the repetition is understandable if the books are in the correct order but separated by other books, as is the case with Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah in the Aleppo and Leningrad codices. If one reads sequentially, as implied by the codex order, then one may have forgotten about the closing chronological indicator of Chronicles by the time Ezra comes along, but the opening lines of Ezra remind the reader immediately that this book is a continuation of the earlier work. The duplication is best explained by the separation of the books in the Aleppo and Leningrad codices.

Who Changed the Order of the Hebrew Bible?

Thank you for publishing the interview with David Noel Freedman. For years I have learned from him and have admired his amazing scholarship. Now I have an appreciation for the witty, warm-hearted man within the scholar.

The interview seems to imply that the early Christians changed the order of the Hebrew biblical books to lead directly from Malachi(4:5), “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day the Lord comes …” to the Gospels, where John the Baptist is identified as the promised Elijah (Matthew 11:14).

I would appreciate it if Freedman would clarify this point: Was the order changed by Christians or by Jewish scholars in about 200 B.C.E.?

David Noel Freedman replies:

The question raised by Mr. Corbett is different but related to Mr. Elstein’s, as it also has to do with the order of books, this time the difference between the LXX (Septuagint) and the Hebrew canon. Here also we cannot say just when and how the order of the books was fixed, but we can look at the earliest available evidence. Once again we point to the fact that before there were codices and lists of books, it is difficult or impossible to say what the fixed or preferred order was. For the most part we can only go by internal evidence, and when we have a continuous narrative, we can say that the books are in the right, traditional order, because each book follows chronologically the preceding book. Incidently, the inclusion of Ruth in the Primary History (after Judges) can be justified on the basis of the opening line of Ruth, which places the book in the period of the Judges, hence the attachment. But at the same time, it is clearly intrusive, and we can say that the order in the Greek Bible is a secondary development, and that the primitive order did not include Ruth at that point.

When it comes to the Greek Bible, which is the basis for the placement of the Latter Prophets at the end of the Greek Old Testament, just preceding the New Testament, we must point out that there are no surviving copies of the pre-Christian Greek Bible. A few fragments have been found, but these are insufficient to determine the order of any two books, let alone a whole group like the Prophets. All the evidence we have for the Greek Bible comes from the codices beginning in the fourth century C.E. that have survived, such as Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. In these Bibles, which include the New Testament and hence are clearly Christian works the Prophetic corpus immediately precedes the New Testament. It is a reasonable judgment that the order of the books may have been influenced by theological assumptions. Since the New Testament argues at length that Jesus and the early Church fulfilled many of the prophecies of the Old Testament, it is reasonable to suppose that the placement of the prophetic corpus at the end of the Hebrew Bible was not accidental, and may have been the result of such thinking.

It is also quite possible that the order of the books in the Greek Bible was determined on the basis of other criteria and that the placement of the prophetic books at the end of the Greek Old Testament was a pre-Christian decision made by Alexandrian or diaspora Jews on the basis of their interest in prophecy and a belief in the imminent coming of the messianic age. I know of no way to settle this issue, but clearly the order of the books has changed drastically between the Hebrew order and the Greek order. How early the Hebrew order or the Greek order was determined remains the major question. Here we should look at evidence from Josephus, who lived in the first century C.E., but who was not a Christian and not influenced in any way by Christianity. Josephus argues that Ruth and Lamentations should not be counted as individual canonical books; thus he folds Ruth into Judges and Lamentations into Jeremiah. These placements are present to our own day and apparently reflect a divergent tradition from the Hebrew canon, which places those two books among the Five Megillot (scrolls). Also, Josephus does not place The Twelve (Minor Prophets) last in his ordering of the prophets, but has Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra(-Nehemiah) and Esther completing his list. His reasons for this may have been an earlier tradition or it may have been a reworking of the order for his own purposes. We simply do not know. Therefore, whether the placement of Malachi at the end of the Greek Old Testament originated with the Christian Church or an earlier variant Jewish tradition cannot be answered with certainty.

Magi’s Star

Angels Do Not Get a Lunch Hour

Dale Allison’s premise that the star that led the wise men to worship the young Jesus was actually an angel of light is interesting but faulty (“What Was the Star that Guided the Magi?” BR 09:06). If this angel did indeed lead men from the east, why did the wise men have to stop and ask Herod for directions (Matthew 2:1–3)? Did the angel take a break for lunch?

Allison compares the angel who led the wise men to the angel who led Moses and the children of Israel from Egypt, yet nowhere do the scriptures record that Moses had to stop and ask directions. Perhaps Moses’ angel was not as easily distracted.

It is clear that angels came to the shepherds (Luke 2:8–15). Yet these angels did not lead the shepherds, but only announced the birth. While it is certain that angels are indeed referred to as stars in the scriptures, we must not assume that all stars are angels.

Dale C. Allison, Jr. replies:

Ms. Markham’s reasoning is based upon a faulty premise: “We must not assume that all stars are angels.” On the contrary, ancient Jews—as documented in my article—regularly thought of stars as living beings (never inorganic balls of matter—a modern conception); and I find no reason to suppose that they imagined only some stars to be angelic. So when reading the First Gospel I do not distinguish between star and angel. From Matthew’s point of view, to say that the magi saw a star meant that they saw an angel.

Ms. Markham thinks my interpretation implies that the angel took a lunch break, and further that it makes no sense of the inquiry in Jerusalem. But John Chrysostom (c. 344–407 A.D.) at least found no difficulty here: “On their way as far as Palestine it appeared leading them. But after they set foot within Jerusalem it hid itself. Then again, when they had left Herod, having told him on what account they came, and were on the point of departing, it shows itself—all of which is not 061like the [regular] motion of a star [in the sky], but of some power highly endowed with reason. For it had no course at all of its own, but when they were moved, it moved; when they stood, it stood, dispensing all as need required—in the same way that the pillar of cloud [behaved], now halting and now rousing up the camp of the Jews when it was needful” (Homilies on Matthew 6.3).

Finally, we must heed the text itself, which declares that the star “went before” the magi and that “it came to rest over the place where the child was.” What star, in the modern sense of the word, could ever do such things?

Jupiter Is the Royal Star

“What Was the Star that Guided the Magi?” BR 09:06, was a valuable article, but it omits mention of the biblical proof-texts that gave rise to the tradition of a messianic star. Numbers 24:17 reads “A star will come forth from Jacob.”.

Dale C. Allison, Jr. replies:

Rabbi Rosenberg is correct in suggesting that early Christians would have associated Matthew’s star with Numbers 24:17 (“a star will come forth from Jacob”). The translators of the Septuagint gave the verse a messianic meaning, and the covenantors of Qumran identified the star with the levitical Messiah. There is the further circumstance, for whose proof I can only direct attention to the commentaries on Matthew, that Numbers 22:1–24:25 seems to have helped shape the entirety of Matthew 2:1–12.

A Report from the Atheists

It is said that the last recourse of the Bible apologist is to fall back upon allegory. After all, when confronted with the many hundreds of biblical problems, allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might please. And so we find that device used in the otherwise well-written and interesting article, “What Was the Star that Guided the Magi?” BR 09:06. There the author falls back on allegory to propose that the “Bethlehem Star” was actually an “angel.”.

Well, why not? None of the countless other explanations proposed through the centuries have any solid foundations, either. Whether “star,” “conjunction of planets,” a “comet” or other wild speculation, none can be harmonized with the Gospel of Matthew’s account. The fact that Matthew’s account of the Nativity cannot even be harmonized with Luke’s account (with its angels and shepherds, its different genealogy, its census, its “stable,” versus Matthew’s “house,” and so on) is only of secondary importance here.

In fact, the whole account of the Nativity in the Gospel of Matthew reeks of the esoteric and the unreal. It is a fantasy and legend of the birth of just another folk hero. The writings of Virgil, Cicero, Tacitus and Seneca all mention “stars” to herald great events. So too do the pseudepigrapha of Levi 18:3 and Judah 24:1, and the Talmud, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospel of Matthew reveals little originality on that score.

Perhaps familiar to the students of ancient history would be the traditions involving other virgin births and male gods for “fathers.” The Egyptian and 062Persian gods Horus and Mithra, and the Greek gods and heroes Perseus and Hercules all experienced virgin births after being fathered by yet other gods. Horus, Mithra, Dionysus and Krishna were all born on December 25th, their births were announced by “stars,” attended by “wise men,” involved humble birth locations, entailed the massacre of innocents and fleeing for safety from enemies, and so on and on. But for several accidents of history, we might today be worshiping “little baby Horus” during the winter solstice instead of “little baby Jesus”!

In the final analysis however, all these myths, legends and hero tales, culminating in the Nativity, provide us today with a wonderful story and delightful entertainment. It is folklore to be appreciated and enjoyed, but not to be believed. It all adds to and enhances the modern holiday festivities originally associated with the winter solstice celebrations. It can be appreciated on the basis of goodwill, kindness and cheer, no matter the original motivation.

Miracles Can’t Be Analyzed by Academic Methods

Scholars have no business drawing conclusions about the facticity of the miracles surrounding Jesus Christ using the historical method. I back this statement with the following argument.

The historical scholar has a criterion or model—a set of logical rules that helps him or her collect, categorize and analyze data, and draw some type of conclusions. This model is the historico-critical or the logical-empirical method. It is very valuable when used within its limitations. But in the matter of miracles it is wholly inadequate, because the method traps itself in its own logical infinite loop.

The loop is this: the historico-critical method begins with the presupposition that miraculous events do not happen. Therefore, its claimed “conclusion” is in reality that which was its beginning premise! This is what computer programmers call an infinite loop.

It’s Up There Somewhere

I like to think I see the star of Bethlehem every Christmas. I don’t know which one it is. I just pick one.

Potpourri

More Borg Is Better Borg

One of the difficulties Marcus Borg is up against in his column for BR is the limitation of space. One can only convey so much in a few short columns. In his book Jesus: A New Vision, however, he has the space to paint a rich picture of the historical Jesus as a Spirit-filled healer, wisdom teacher and social prophet. As Providence would have it Borg’s book was my introduction to contemporary scholarship on the historical Jesus, and I am exceedingly grateful.

The Jesus Seminar Is Good Scholarship

Among the many advances The Five Gospels (by the Jesus Seminar—see Marcus J. Borg, “Jesus in Four Colors,” BR 09:06) may help to popularize, one of the most important is the realization that, comparable to other religious literature, the canonical gospels are mythic in character and frequently legendary in content. While they do contain historical features it must be faced that there are now very persuasive reasons to conclude that the New Testament gospels are not accurate portrayals of either the historical Jesus or the origins of significant movements within earliest Christianity.

These conclusions already seemed natural to many students of the New Testament, long before the Jesus Seminar convened. Perhaps this is because when these documents are read critically, carefully and centered within their cultural and literary context, such conclusions are nearly irresistible. Their wide acceptance has significantly strengthened the conviction among many scholars that it is time for a new look at Jesus and earliest Christianity. As it continues to undergo an extensive reassessment, the story of Christianity’s origins will need to be rewritten.

For some people, this will be a bitter pill to swallow, if indeed they are able to face these realities at all.

063

For Those Who Have Ears to Hear

It did my heart good to see the number of letters to the editor commending Marcus J. Borg (Readers Reply, BR 09:06). At the end of his column (“Faith and Scholarship,” BR 09:04), Mr. Borg plainly informs us that “this is how I put it together.” He was not being dogmatic, but was merely an honest man speaking from his heart.

The Bible can come alive for us only by our reading other people’s testimony that a spiritual encounter with the living God is possible, encouraging us to seek the same experience. The important thing is not that the words, per se, are divinely inspired, but that the reading of the Bible will lead us into a divinely inspired relationship with God. I find, myself in perfect agreement with Mr. Borg’s statement that “the truth of Easter is that Jesus continued to be experienced as a living reality after his death, though in a radically new way, and not just in the time of his first followers but to this day.”.

For those who have ears to hear, Mr. Borg has something good to tell us.

Next Time, She’ll Give Him a Necktie

My wife subscribed thinking I (as a Bible teacher) would benefit from it. However, I am one of those unthinking, rigid, fundamentalists who can’t conceive of an omniscient God allowing a fallible Bible to stand for thousands of years as a complete guide for Christians.

Your publication is heavily weighted to pseudo-intellectuals of the kind that St. Paul condemns. No thanks.

Stop the Name-Calling

I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian because I believe the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, but I am not an idiot, stupid or intolerant. When I sat down to enjoy the December issue of BR, I was extremely distressed to find three letters attacking fundamentalists (Readers Reply, BR 09:06). Mr. Jones, Mr. Hoard and Mr. Ross by way of their attack were exhibiting the same attitudes they were condemning. Aside from the worthless content of their letters, I am appalled at the space given for these attacks. Whether it is a fundamentalist or liberal doing the attacking, it seems inappropriate to use up valuable space to let them do so. Everyone would benefit if the name-calling were left to the editorial section of newspapers and left out of a magazine that I always thought was above all of that.

We should not have printed the attacks on fundamentalists. We will not do so again.—Ed.

Thank Goodness for All the Letters

I have just started receiving BR and am very glad to find a magazine that prints various religious views, even if many of them differ very much from mine. I’m glad you have a large letters section because it is needed to counter some of the controversial statements presented.

The Naked Truth

If I wanted to look at pictures of naked men and women (BR 09:06) I’d get Playboy or Playgirl. No thank you. Please cancel my subscription.