Readers Reply
002
What Will You Say?
It’s humorous, really. I thought I was renewing my subscription to Biblical Archaeology Review, but I was really subscribing to BR. Having now read two issues of your accidentally ordered magazine, I’m left with a question. Just exactly why are you, anyway? Though the writers in Biblical Archaeology Review are not believers, they are at least doing scholarly excavations. BR writers, on the other hand, appear to be among those who disdain as uneducated Bible thumpers anyone who is unwilling to trash cherished beliefs because someone with letters after his name says to. You reject as mythical anything the Bible says unless it can be corroborated by external sources, yet you quibble over minor textual points in a game of one-upmanship. Perhaps your careers would be better spent analyzing something in which you had more confidence, like the Koran, or the I Ching or Santa Claus. As for me, when my time comes to stand before the Lord, at least I will be able to say, “I believed you.” What will you say?
Monroe, Washington
Tearing Out His Hair—And Our Ads
Hear! Hear! A toast to Alan Ovimet [who objected to our ad inserts—Ed.] (Readers Reply, BR 16:03)!
The junk is not just in BR. Besides your three magazines, I receive 14 others every month, and they are all filled with those thick pages of advertising that make them hard to read. I go through them and tear out all those pages before I even attempt to read any of them. I would like to see some publisher (hint) start a trend towards printing all ads on normal paper so I wouldn’t have to tear my magazines.
Apple Valley, California
Some people like them and use them. And the revenue helps us keep subscription rates low.—Ed.
Dogma Free
I have been a subscriber to BR for about two years and want to compliment you on your magazine. I look forward to its arrival in my mailbox every other month (I wish it appeared monthly) and read it from cover to cover as soon as it arrives.
What I appreciate about BR is not only its objective and scholarly approach to biblical issues but the fact that your articles are written so that the lay person can understand and appreciate them. Thank you for such a wonderful magazine that provides such a lucid exposition of Jewish and Christian scriptures, history and teachings free of the bias of dogma and exclusivity. It contributes, in its own way, to a climate of religious tolerance and unity.
Edwardsville, Illinois
Intellectual Mill
As a new subscriber to BR, I have appreciated the variety of articles and viewpoints. Although I disagree more than I concur, there is grist for thought.
Yucaipa, California
Abraham
Jubilees Was Not Scripture at Qumran
I was disappointed by one statement in David deSilva’s otherwise fine article, “Why Did God Choose Abraham?” BR 16:03. He says of Jubilees, “At least one Jewish sect—the Qumran community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls—considered the book authoritative Scripture…” He goes on to note that 15 copies of Jubilees were found at Qumran and that the sect accepted its calendar as the true Jewish calendar. However, neither of these facts proves that Jubilees was accepted as Scripture. The fact that 15 copies were found may be an accident of history; other scrolls may not have been preserved. But even if it was the most numerous book at Qumran, all that this proves is that it was popular, not that it was Scripture to the sect. Moreover, their 004acceptance of its calendar proves that they accepted its interpretation of the Law but does not prove that it was Scripture. (As a Lutheran I accept Luther’s Catechisms as an accurate interpretation of Scripture, and many copies can be found in my personal library, but I don’t consider them Scripture.) Finally, deSilva and others who propose that Jubilees was accepted as Scripture ignore or are unaware of a passage in another Qumran scroll, the Damascus Document, that reads, “Therefore, that man will commit himself to returning to the Law of Moses because in it everything is defined…And the exact interpretation [emphasis added] of the eras of Israel’s blindness to all these things is defined in the Book of the Divisions of Times into their Jubilees and Weeks.” (The text can be found in Joseph Baumgarten, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVIII [Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996], pp. 156–157 and 178–179.)
As the Damascus Document clearly states, Jubilees is an interpretation of the Law of Moses for the Qumran sect, but it is not on a par with the Law of Moses.
Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew
Concordia University
River Forest, Illinois
David deSilva responds:
Dr. Steinmann’s point is well made. I should have stopped at “authoritative” rather than going as far as “authoritative Scripture.” I have recently had occasion, while writing the introduction to a forthcoming book on the Apocrypha, to think much more carefully about criteria for considering a text “canonical Scripture” for a particular group, and it would indeed appear that just because a work was normative for the life of a given sect I should not conclude that it was “Scripture” for the sect.
The Bible Tells Us Why God Chose Abraham
In “Why Did God Choose Abraham?” BR 16:03, David A. deSilva resorts to several texts outside the Hebrew Bible to develop his thesis. I believe that a reasonable answer to the question can be developed independent of any outside texts.
Put yourself in Abraham’s situation. An extraterrestrial voice tells you to leave your home, with its air conditioning and indoor plumbing, and go to the Amazon forests on the promise that your descendants will become a great nation, etc. If it happened to me, I would assume I was hearing things and ignore it. Why did Voice choose Believer? Because Believer chose Voice.
Compare Abraham’s instantaneous response with Moses’ behavior. In spite of God’s having impressed Moses with a burning bush, magic tricks, his credentials, etc., Moses asked him to “make someone else your agent” (Exodus 4:13). Even after God sweetened the pot by offering to send an assistant, Aaron, the text never states that Moses actually accepted the commission. He returned to his father-in-law and, rather than recounting his exciting encounter with God, calmly announced that he was going back to Egypt to see how his kinsmen were doing. Perhaps that is why God tried to kill him at the encampment on the way to Egypt.
By responding, without hesitation, to God’s request to leave his native land, his home and his family for an unfamiliar and perhaps hostile destination, Abraham performed an act of monumental faith. In Genesis 22:18, God tells Abraham that he 005is being rewarded with the promise of descendants “because you have obeyed my command.”
Los Angeles, California
Potpourri
Just Wild About Harry
I would like to thank you for the Insight column by Cliff Edwards (“Harry Potter and the Bible: Should They Both Be Banned?” Insight, BR 16:03). I am so eternally weary of intellectual lightweights who can find nothing better to do with their time than target a harmless (and, in some ways, beneficial) bit of children’s literature such as the Harry Potter books. If they want to weigh in on something truly dangerous for our children, why don’t they attack the state of education in this country, or the fact that so many children go to bed hungry or that the children in single-parent homes really need mentors, since the single parent is probably working full time as it is, if not actually holding down two jobs, just to be able to feed, clothe and house their children. Now, there are some Christian issues they should really be able to sink their teeth into if they want to make a difference.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Creationist Bunk
Pastor Phil Ellsworth laments in a letter that “disinformation is rampant.” Indeed it is, and he and Pastor Samuel Solér are prime examples of its deleterious effects (see Readers Reply, BR 16:03).
Contrary to the assertions made in their letters, the evidence supporting the evolutionary process is abundant and growing profusely (see www.talkorigins.org). The theory of evolution satisfies all the requirements of a valid scientific theory and enjoys the endorsement of virtually the entire scientific community throughout the world. Polls in this country reveal that at least 95 percent of practicing scientists consider the theory to represent the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. The vast majority of scientists recognize that modern biology makes little sense without an understanding of the underlying evolutionary principles.
The evolution-bashing pastors appear to be taking their cues exclusively from pro-creation publications, most of which are produced by self-serving apologists who have never done a lick of paleontological research in their entire lives. Having eagerly swallowed the pseudoscientific baloney dished out by the creationist propaganda mill, the pastors now presume to have a better grasp of the technical aspects of this highly complex subject than even the most accomplished research scientists.
Pastor Ellsworth even goes so far as to claim that scientists are mounting a conspiracy to promote a theory that they know violates the fundamental laws of science—just so they will not have to “admit the possibility of God.” Does he really believe such malarkey? If so, his hubris is exceeded only by his gullibility. The dynamic, self-correcting nature of the scientific method ensures that any theories that do not conform to the rules 054for doing science and that are not based on solid, verifiable, well-documented evidence are unceremoniously rejected. “Scientific creationism” represents a case in point.
By definition, science is restricted to the investigation of natural causes and effects. In science class, evolution is taught instead of stories of creation for the same reason that germ theory and astronomy are taught instead of demon possession and astrology. Supernatural explanations simply are not part of the scientific milieu. Anyone who does not understand that basic principle is in no position to be passing himself off as an authority on the theory of evolution.
Sandpoint, Idaho
Diagnosing Goliath
Vladimir Berginer’s recent suggestion that Goliath may have suffered from acromegaly, which could have caused lateral blindness (tunnel vision) and allowed David to advance from the side, is not original (Jots & Tittles, BR 16:03). This idea was first proposed in 1968 by endocrinologist Robert B. Greenblatt (see Search the Scriptures [Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2nd ed. 1968], pp. 38–39). Although it’s only a minor correction, I thought one ought to give credit where it is due.
Thank you for your wonderful magazine!
Cincinnati, Ohio
John, Ironically, Points to Bethlehem
Steve Mason makes a very good case for Nazareth or somewhere other than Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus (“Where Was Jesus Born?: O Little Town of…Nazareth?” BR 16:01). But he misreads John’s gospel, completely missing its irony. The evidence of John’s gospel actually argues for Bethlehem as Jesus’ birthplace.
The Gospel of John is a series of debates, all rigged in Jesus’ favor. In each debate Jesus makes an assertion that is totally misunderstood. His opponents demonstrate their ignorance by countering with an accusation. Unbeknownst to them, their accusation actually makes Jesus’ point, because of something known to the Christian reader but unknown to the opponents. The opponents never “get” the joke. But the Christian reader is confirmed in his faith, because he “got” it all along.
In John 8:32, Jesus says “the truth shall make you free.” He refers to freedom from sin, but his opponents are insulted at the implication that they are slaves; they claim instead to be freeborn sons of Abraham. They counter by accusing Jesus of being a child of sin, a bastard (8:41), implying that he is not really Joseph’s son. The Christian reader, having heard by now the other version—that Jesus actually was not Joseph’s son but rather the son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit—appreciates the irony of the accusation.
Similarly, in John 7:42, the opponents of Jesus assert that the Messiah cannot come from Galilee, but rather must come from Bethlehem. The issue is settled as far as they are concerned: no Bethlehem, no Messiah! The Christian reader, however, has heard by now the Bethlehem birth story, and appreciates the irony: yes, Bethlehem, yes Messiah! The opponents have unwittingly made Jesus’ case! Hurray for Jesus!
Unfortunately, that is the closest the Johannine tradition gets to stating that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This must be frustrating to a historian like Mr. Mason, but there it is—a whole gospel that makes people say falsehoods that turn out to be true. Even worse, instead of spelling it all out for the reader, John’s gospel just lets these “true falsehoods” hang out in space, without comment, while exchanging with the reader an unwritten wink.
Floresville, Texas
Steve Mason responds:
Tom Kane and I do not disagree about the presence of irony in John. Irony was the 055controlling method of my brief analysis, too. The tricky part about ironic interpretations of ancient texts, however, lies in reconstructing what the first audience knew that is not explicit in the text and that originally gave the story its punch. Mr. Kane wants us to believe that John’s audience knew Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem, and that is why the perplexity over his origin in Nazareth is ironic.
I find this proposition implausible and not only because of its circularity. The ironic substructure of John, from the prologue (1:1–18) onward, has to do with the heavenly/earthly dialectic: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:42). Jesus’ identity—the one who brings light and truth into the cosmos—and his origin—from heaven—are inextricably connected and central to the story. These continually confound his antagonists, who are trapped in a world of appearances, claiming to know when, in fact, they, tragically, do not know. And what they miss has precisely to do with Jesus’ heavenly origin, nothing to do with an origin in Bethlehem—which would not help them out of their predicament, I’m afraid. The irony would be rather cheap if it had been resolved thus: “You think he was from Nazareth? Well, your historical sources weren’t good enough; he really was from Bethlehem. So there!” The point seems to be rather that Jesus does in fact appear to be from Nazareth (everyone knows his family), just as he appears to die a humiliating death on the cross. The author and audience know, however: “Wrong on both counts! He came from, and returned to, heaven.”
Jesus’ Family
Richard J. Bauckham’s article “All in the Family,” BR 16:02, which identifies Jesus’ brothers as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, is illustrated by a 13th-century mosaic from the Cathedral of San Marco in Venice depicting the martyrdom of James. However, the martyr on the floor is labeled “Jacob.” Are the two names synonymous?
Dearborn, Michigan
James is an English version of the (transliterated) Greek name Jacob.—Ed.
Sacred—and Unknowable
Kudos to Ronald Hendel for having the courage to broach a subject nearly taboo in modern times. At the end of his column, “Where Is Mount Sinai?” BR 16:03, he writes: “Perhaps Mt. Sinai is not supposed to be a tourist site. The location of the holy mountain is shrouded in mystery, perhaps purposefully obscure, contradictory, plural and unknowable. Perhaps that is what makes it a holy mountain.”
I jumped for joy. Someone dare say that holiness may be unknowable?!
Hendel has but scratched the surface. The entire Bible is “purposefully obscure, contradictory, plural and unknowable,” from the ancient Aramaic scrolls to the latest contemporary English version.
Ajo, Arizona
Correction
Due to an editorial error, we confused Elijah and Elisha in Cliff Edwards’s Insight, “Harry Potter and the Bible,” BR 16:03. It was, of course, Elisha, not Elijah, who conjured up two bears to attack the boys who were teasingly calling the prophet “baldhead.” Also, Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough was originally published in 1890.—Ed.
What Will You Say?
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.