Readers Reply

008

Academics Spew Out Their Indigestion

After reading countless articles and books on biblical topics through the years, I have concluded that the world of academia has perpetrated one of the monumental travesties of justice in the history of religious studies. That travesty is that the majority of intellectuals who have attempted to digest the Bible have developed indigestion to one degree or another and often spew out the results of this indigestion to the general public in the form of bewilderment with God, incredible presuppositional theories, and/or blatant animosity toward God and the ways in which God is revealed.

This is because many biblical scholars have not experienced a transcendent encounter on a personal level with the living God of the Book they are meticulously studying.

The Bible is first and foremost an account of “the mighty acts of God,” as the eminent Harvard scholar G. Ernest Wright put it. It is, therefore, an absolute prerequisite for anyone who is writing about how God acts to have met God one-on-one. Attempting to evaluate the ways of God with only knowledge or scientific formulas, but without a transformational experience with God, is equivalent to attempting to become an authority on fishing without having ever gone out with a master fisherman. No one is really qualified to evaluate or to speculate about spiritual experience unless that individual has literally met God in his/her own spirit.

To those who would say that spiritual experience is outside the realm of objective biblical scholarship, I would remind them that the entire Bible is centered on the theme of God meeting with man on a personal, dynamic level. Ironically, the only reason scholars have a Bible to study is because God revealed a transcendent presence to individuals such as Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Jeremiah, Deborah, Mary and Saul of Tarsus. The greatest pity should go out to those scholars who are afraid to experience God in the death of their souls. Meeting God is not something that can be learned in a university classroom. It is something that is experientially received as a result of hungering and thirsting for God’ presence in a person’s life. Then, a kind “heart transplant” takes place, as Ezekiel 18:30–31 indicates.

Traveling Companion

I want you to know that Bible Review is very beneficial to my walk with God.

Did Luke Err?

James E. Crouch states unequivocally that Luke is in error on the date of Jesus’ birth, because “Quirinius did not become governor [of Syria] until 6 A.D., some ten years after Herod’s death” (“How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus,” BR 07:05).

At least two sources I have consulted clearly indicate the strong possibility that a census was conducted in 8 or 7 B.C., before Herod’s death, and that Quirinius may well have held an official position at the time, even though he was not officially appointed governor until 6 A.D.

Crouch makes a dogmatic statement when he really ought to make no more than a suggestion.

James E. Crouch replies:

Careful historians base their conclusions not on opinions from secondary literature but on their own best reading of the primary sources. Any conclusion is suspect if the historian’s reading of those sources is conditioned by his or her own ideological bias.

Mr. Stevens does not mention which sources he consulted, so we are left to surmise how they arrived at their conclusions. The works I am familiar with from which Mr. Stevens may gave gotten his suggestion begin with the assumption 010that Luke’s dating in 2:1–5 must have been accurate, and then they look for evidence to support that view. W. M. Ramsay, in his turn-of-the-century book, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of St. Luke, for example, makes much of an inscription referring to an unnamed person who twice served as governor of Syria, then prints the text of the inscription under the title “The Inscription of Quirinius.” Nowhere does the inscription mention Quirinius.

Briefly, the problem is as follows: Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and conducted a census of Judea (but not of Galilee) in 6–7 C.E. Yet both Luke and Matthew (2:1) locate the birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod the Great. Since Herod died in 4 B.C.E., Luke’s dating in 2:1–5 is off by about 10 years.

Luke’s confusion is understandable. The death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C.E. led to social upheaval. Ten years later the Romans deposed Herod’s son, Archelaus, and brought Judea under the direct control of the governor of Syria. (Another son, Antipas, maintained control of Galilee.) Quirinius conducted a census in Judea precisely because it had recently come under direct Roman control. The Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 18.1) reports that the census, which included the registration of property for the purpose of taxation, sparked an uprising by Judas the Galilean. It is unlikely that the Jews would have revolted over a census to which they had peacefully submitted only a few years earlier. It is more likely that Luke, writing almost a century later, confused two periods of upheaval that had occurred a decade apart.

I would recommend to Mr. Stevens, and to others who would like a more extensive treatment, the balanced discussion by Raymond Brown in his The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), pp. 547–556. Brown is a careful scholar who is sympathetic to the doctrine of the virginal conception.

Unfortunately, the debate over the accuracy of Luke’s dating diverts attention from the larger question of the validity of his theological insight. In his infancy narrative, Luke makes the theological claim that God acted redemptively in Jesus of Nazareth. And when he relates the birth of Jesus to political events he asserts that such redemption was not an inner psychological experience but was played out on the stage of world history.

Dialectical Materialism or Scriptural Truth?

Ronald Hendel’s blasphemous attacks on God’s judgment (“When God Acts Immorally—Is the Bible a Good Book?” BR 07:03) are totally without foundation. How do you manage to convince your readers that you represent Christian principles (if you indeed do) while allowing such false bombast, which smacks more of dialectical materialism than scriptural truths?

Another Antecedent for “Poor in Spirit”?

James VanderKam (“The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity—How Are They Related?” BR 07:06) suggests that the phrase “poor in spirit,” found in Matthew 5:3, occurs in no ancient text other than the [Scroll of the] War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (14:7).

This is not so. In Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 4:3 Rabbi Levita of Yavneh is quoted as saying: “Be exceedingly humble in spirit because the anticipated end of man is worms.”

The Hebrew phrase ascribed to Rabbi Levita, shfal ruah, is surely the one that was used in the Sermon on the Mount.

James VanderKam replies:

I would be very surprised if the Hebrew phrase in Pirkei Avot 4:3 were the one behind the Greek expression in Matthew 5:3. The Hebrew shfal means “lowliness,” not “poverty,” whereas the Greek word ptoµchos is an antonym of “rich.” Thus the two expressions are worded differently (and my point had to do with the literal phrasing), though they have similar meanings.

Don’t Confuse Christian Ideas with Essene ideas

I enjoyed and appreciated Part One of James C. VanderKam’s “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity—How Are They Related?” BR 07:06. VanderKam is to be commended for a balanced presentation. His otherwise excellent article truly makes me reluctant to call attention to two ill-considered statements.

First, to say, as VanderKam does, that John’s baptism parallels Qumran teaching is theologically unsound. The unassailable uniqueness of John’s baptism (and Christ’s, though not mentioned by Mr. VanderKam) is that a person was only baptized once. In contrast, ritual purification in a mikveh is needed again and again. Accepting that Qumran was an Essene community, that the scrolls were written there and that some of the cisterns (VanderKam’s term) were mikva’ot, then the contrast in theology is evident.

Second, VanderKam says that 2 Corinthians 6:14–15 has elements similar to Qumran texts. On the contrary, here we see another contrast between Christianity and Essene teachings. Essenes were exclusive (VanderKam’s adjective), but Christians were inclusive. Second Corinthians 6:14–15 argues against fellowship (koinonia) with unbelievers. In Paul’s lexicon, koinonia denotes a special relationship (“See how they love one another”) between believers. However, everyone, Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female was invited, nay, urged, to believe in Christ and be welcomed into the koinonia.

Though not mentioned in VanderKam’s article, two other contrasts between Christian and Essene theology are 052significant: (1) Christians were forgiving and Essenes were vengeful, and (2) Christians were bidden to overcome evil with good while Essenes looked forward to annihilating their enemies in battle.

I have no problem with the idea that primitive Christians may have known about Essene teachings. But, if Christian writers considered Essene teachings at all, they intended to refute them.

I’m sure I shall enjoy Part Two of Mr. VanderKam’s article.

Render Unto Greek What Is Greek

I write to correct an inaccuracy in “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity: Part One,” BR 07:06, by James VanderKam, and to counteract an oversimplification regarding how one can make judgments about linguistic interrelationships between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of the New Testament.

VanderKam takes as an example “the Greek expression toµn pleioµn.” As given here this is ungrammatical; the proper Greek phrase is either toµn pleionoµn (genitive plural) or hoi pleiones (or sometimes pleious) (nominative plural), “the many,” or “the majority.” Of the seven citations VanderKam gives of this usage in the New Testament, in fact only one contains the phrase, 2 Corinthians 2:6 (toµn pleionoµn). Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 contain a different word, the simplex adjective polloi, “on behalf of many,” without the definite article (and thus not a phrase), while Luke 22:20 is conspicuous precisely because it diverges at this point and reads not “on behalf of many,” but “on your behalf.” The passages in Acts cited. as usages of the phrase hoi pleiones (6.2, 5, 15:12, 30) also do not contain that phrase, but rather a different word, the noun pleµthos, i.e., “crowd” or “multitude.”

The phrase hoi pleiones is found, however, rather abundantly elsewhere in the New Testament, as in Acts 19:32, 27:12; 1 Corinthians 9:19, 10:5, 15:6; 2 Corinthians 4:15, 9:2; Philippians 1:14; Hebrews 7:23, meaning “the many” or “the majority.” Significantly, the phrase is found in the writings of Luke and Paul, and that of one of the most elegant Greek writers in the New Testament, the anonymous author of Hebrews. Given that sure knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic by any of these three writers is doubtful (all write decent Greek prose, and cite the Septuagint as their Bible), direct dependence on a Hebrew original for any given phrase in their works is most questionable. Thus VanderKam’s easy conclusion that, “in short, hrbym is the Hebrew word that lies behind the New Testament Greek toµn pleioµn” is quite simply inaccurate, both in terms of the lexical evidence cited and the methodological presuppositions upon which it is based. Neither Paul’s letters nor Luke-Acts nor Hebrews are translations; all are Greek compositions either freely made (Paul’s letters) or based upon Greek sources (Luke-Acts). Thus the entire concept of “what lies behind” their chosen locutions is misleading. The phrase hoi pleiones is a very common Greek phrase, found throughout classical (Attic) and Koine writers, as documented in the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon (p. 1415) and the Blass-DeBrunner-Funk 054grammar (Sec. 244/3). It is not found solely in Greek texts that translate Semitic originals, as the evidence of the Septuagint corroborates, where the phrase is found in documents originally composed in Greek (2 Maccabees 11:12 and 3 Maccabees 4:18) but nowhere in originally Hebrew books to translate hrbym. VanderKam’s own caution about the difficulty of “proving direct dependence of something in the New Testament on an item in the scrolls” is especially to be applied in this instance.

James C. VanderKam replies:

Let me begin by admitting to two errors on my part. First, Professor Mitchell is, of course, correct that the proper spelling is toµn pleionoµn; I should have been more careful in proofreading my own work. Second, I should have been more alert to how my point was altered somewhat when my essay was edited. What I originally wrote was: “One example that is often cited is the word ‘many/majority’—a very general term which became a designation for entire groups of Jesus’ followers in several New Testament passages (Matthew 26:28/ /Mark 14:24 [cf. Luke 22:20]; Acts 6:2; 15:12, 30; 2 Corinthians 2:5–6).” I then cited 2 Corinthians 2.5–6 and 1Qs 6:11–12. The published version does say something a bit different, although in the last form of it I saw before publication brackets were still around the Lucan reference and it was preceded by “cf.” As you note, it merely confirms that for the author the term polloi (which was present in his source) was being used in a specialized sense for the group of Jesus’ disciples.

In both my original version and the printed formulation, however, I was not claiming that the various expressions for “many/majority” did not figure elsewhere in the New Testament or Greek literature in their normal, general meanings. The point was simply that in these particular cases they had acquired a special, restricted sense.

One can make a very plausible case that the passages to which I referred reflect Semitic usage as it is illustrated at Qumran. I disagree with Mitchell’s claim that for Paul at least “sure knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic” is doubtful. One could reject the express statement of 055Acts 22:2 that Paul “spoke to them in the Hebrew language,” but I see no compelling reason to do so and find it arbitrary. In the case of Luke-Acts, it may be that the writer used only Greek sources, but the sources for his stories about the Jerusalem church could well rely upon Hebrew or Aramaic accounts. James’ speech in Acts 15 has some nice Semitic touches. Mitchell’s arguments against knowledge of a Semitic language, at least in Paul’s case, are weak: the fact that Paul could write decent Greek means only that he was well educated, not that he knew neither Hebrew or Aramaic; that he cited from the Septuagint (an inexact way of phrasing it) also need say nothing about his knowledge of Hebrew. He simply quoted from a Bible translation in a language in which he was writing. As for the author of Hebrews, he is irrelevant since there are no cases in the book of the particular usage in question.

I think it is quite likely that in the earliest church a word such as hrbym in the specialized meaning of “many/majority” illustrated at Qumran was used by the first followers of Jesus as a self-designation and that when writers wished to express the concept in Greek they chose various words. That one of these renderings—hoi pleiones—never translates hrbym in the Septuagint is irrelevant. I was not arguing about translation practices in the third and second centuries B.C.E. but about Christian usage in the first century C.E.

Thus, Mitchell’s conclusion that “the entire concept of ‘what lies behind’ their chosen locutions is misleading” to some extent misses the point and is not supported by any evidence.

To Be or Not to be

I have particularly enjoyed the instruction in Hebrew and Greek by Professors Schoville and Black in your recent issues. I don’t imagine I will ever read Hebrew, but I enjoy reading about it. The Greek refreshes my memory of some college classes.

However, the Hebrew discussion (“Hebrew for Bible Readers”) in the December 1991 issue raises a question. Professor Schoville says, “Hebrew has no expression for ‘to be’ in the present tense, but English requires one. Hebrew has expressions for ‘to be’ in the past and future tenses, which we will learn later.”

This sounded simple enough until I turned to Professor Choon-Leong Seow’s discussion of the tetragrammaton (“The Ineffable Name of Israel’s God,” BR 07:06) in the same issue. There I read, “The tetragrammaton is understood by scholars be related to the root HWH (originally HWY, later HYY/HYH) ‘to be, exist, be present.’ ”

I’m sure there is some simple explanation, but to those of us uninitiated in Hebrew, these comments seem contradictory. How can “to be” in Hebrew have Semitic a root if “to be” does not exist in Hebrew? I have this silly mental picture of a beet with the top chopped off—all root and no plant!

Does Aramaic express “to be” in the present tense? And if it doesn’t, is there also an Aramaic root without a plant to identify it?

Professor Keith N. Schoville replies:

Hebrew certainly has the root HWH, noted by Professor Seow, normally used to 056express “was” (HYH, hyh), in the past, or “will be” (HYHY, hyhy), in the future, Technically speaking, the present active participle of that root (HWH, hwh) could be used to express “is” (only once is it used in the Bible!); however, the biblical writers almost invariably simply juxtapose two nominal elements—nouns, pronouns, participles, adjectives and the like—to express the present tense, with “is” or “are” understood

In Aramaic, and to a degree in Hebrew, the third personal pronoun may be used as a copula between two nouns to form a nominal clause in the present tense. Aramaic, too, has the root HWH, “to be, exist,” but does not require its use in participial form to express the present tense.

Shift the Stress

In the December 1991 Hebrew column, there seems to be a misleading pronunciation prescribed for the Hebrew word ykna, with the stress on the middle syllable. The stress is usually on the last syllable (in the concordance, ultimate stress clearly outnumbers penultimate stress). The middle stress is only used when the ykna is clause final. We do appreciate the articles.

Keith N. Schoville replies:

You are sharp-eyed, knowledgeable and exactly right! In the future, when ykna occurs in a text we use, we will proofread more carefully.

Did the Romans Destroy the Second or Third Temple?

The articles in the December 1991 issue were great and I enjoyed all of them, There was one phrase in two of the articles, however, with which I have a problem. James C. VanderKam (“The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity—How Are They Related?” BR 07:06) writes, “The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E.” Jacob Neusner (“What We Learn from Studying Religion—and Judaism in Particular,” BR 07:06) writes of “the Roman destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in the year 70.” My research reveals a different scenario.

The First Temple, or Solomon’s Temple, was built by King Solomon about 950 B.C.E. and destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C.E The Second Temple, or the Temple of Zerubbabel, was built about 515 B.C.E. and dismantled by Herod about 20 B.C.E. The third Temple, or Herod’s Temple, was built by Herod about 18 B.C.E. and destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E. Why do some refer to the Second Temple being destroyed in 70 C.E. when it was clearly the Third Temple, or Herod’s Temple, that the Romans destroyed?

Some scholars do refer to three Temples. In Jewish tradition, however, Herod simply expanded the Second Temple. This nomenclature is generally accepted. Thus scholars speak of the “Second Temple period” as including the Herodian Temple.—Ed.

058

As Ineffable as Ever

Professor Seow has made a brave attempt (“The Ineffable Name of Israel’s God,” BR 07:06) to lessen the “ineffability” of the tetragrammaton, the Hebrew divine name—alas, without appreciable success. His claim that the vowel points introduced by the Masoretes “indicated that it was to be read as Adonay” is quite puzzling in view of the fact that the vowel points (when used) for h/hyÒ are sheva (]), holam (o) and kamats (;), not patach (‘), holam and kamats, i.e., “a-o-a” as he claims. Professor Seow further states that “in the case of ’dwny YHWH the tetragrammaton was to be read as Elohim”—unfortunately providing no clue as to where in the Bible to look for this combination of names. “Adonay Elohim” in fact is spelled YHWH Elohim. It may be mentioned here that Adonay can occasionally be found standing alone without YHWH or Elohim (e.g., Psalm 68) and that Jewish tradition prefers the avoidance even of the spelling of the tetragrammaton, using in liturgical texts YY (with the vowel points sheva and kamats) instead of YHWH.

Professor Choon-Leong Seow replies:

Dr. Gonda has raised some questions that show the complexity of Hebrew scribal practices.

1. The first vowel in the word ’aûdoµnaµy is, in fact, not patah but haµtepÐqaµmes (aû), which is regarded by Hebraists as a “composite sûeûwaµ’ ” whose vowel quality was affected by gutturals (in this case, ’aµlep). The shift from the “composite sûeûwaµ’ ” (the hatepÐpatah to the simple sûeûwaµ’ is in accordance to the rules of grammar, since the first consonsant of the tetragrammaton is yodµ, not a guttural. In the case of ‘eûloµhiÆm, the first vowel is also a “composite sûeûwaµ’ ” (hatepÐseûgoµl). When the vowels are used with the tetragrammaton, the composite sûeûwaµ’ is often preserved (thus yeûhoµwih), but sometimes (correctly) shifted to the simple sûeûwaµ’, as in Joshua 7:7 and Judges 6:22.

2. The vocalization of the tetragrammaton as yeûhoµwih occurs 305 times in the Bible. The combination ’dwny yhwh is found, for example, in Genesis 15:2, 8; Isaiah 3:15, 56:8 and Amos 3:13.

3. The vocalization of the name with sûeûwaµ’-qaµmes is probably derived from the vowels of sûeûmaµ’, the Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew hasûsûeµm “the Name.”

Did the Wise Men Head in the Wrong Direction?

Can you help me with a problem concerning Matthew 2:1–2? The verses read in part, “There came wise men from the east to Jerusalem” and “for we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him.”

If they lived east of Jerusalem, and they saw the star to their east, this, would mean they would have to travel toward the east to reach the place under the star! Traveling east would take them into Jordan, not west to Bethlehem!

Then Herod sent wise men to find the babe (Matthew 2:8). They left Jerusalem and followed “the star which they saw in the east” (Matthew 2:9). So they had to travel east to follow the star and find the babe! Bethlehem is approximately south-southwest of Jerusalem.

Both instances of travel are in the wrong direction.

059

John P. Meier, professor of New Testament, Catholic University of America, replies:

The root of the problem raised by Mr. Blew is a faulty translation. In Matthew 2:1 the Greek phrase magoi apo anatoloµn is correctly translated as “wise men from the east.” The absence of the definite article teµ with the plural noun anatoloµn usually indicates a point of the compass. Similarly, the presence of the definite article with the singular anatoleµ in Matthew 2:2 and 2:9 (en teµ anatoleµ) indicates that anatoleµ should not be translated, as it often is, “for we have seen his star in the east” but rather “at its rising” (see the New Revised Standard Version). “At its rising” means, I believe, the birth of a new star. In Matthew’s account an extraordinary celestial event mirrors an extraordinary event on earth—the birth of a stellar individual. We should also note that Matthew does not have the star leading the wise men until they leave Jerusalem (verse 9), when it directs them to Joseph and Mary’s house in Bethlehem. For further information, see Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), p. 173.

Academics Spew Out Their Indigestion