Readers Reply

002

Face Up to What the Bible Says—And Then Ignore It

There is an unfortunate tendency for people to reinterpret passages from the Bible that seem to advocate ideas with which they strongly disagree. Susan Ackerman seems to be doing this in her column “When the Bible Enters the Fray,” BR 16:05. For example, in commenting on Romans 1:26–27, she writes: “For Paul, ‘natural,’ when used in a sexual context, refers to the penetration of a subordinate person by a dominant one.” Now, it might be true that Paul had a peculiar notion of what is “natural” and “unnatural,” and I’ve read a number of fascinating articles that have put forth something very similar. But any suggestion that Paul warmly embraced egalitarian same-sex erotic relationships and only wanted to condemn nonegalitarian same-sex erotic relationships is utter nonsense. There is simply no evidence to support such a claim.

As for the Greek term ajrsenokoißtai (arsenokoitai), found at 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Susan Ackerman claims that it refers only to “homosexual behavior that God is said to find abusive or degrading to human dignity, especially homosexual prostitution and male-male pedophilia.” This is simply unfounded. The fact is that this Greek word is a compound neologism based on the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 20:13. The Septuagint contains both parts of this compound, one right after the other, and thus it seems very clear that ajrseno–koißtai (arseno-koitai) simply refers to men who have anal intercourse with a male partner.

I attend a Lutheran parish that accepts (practicing) homosexuals as full members, and I hope other states follow Vermont’s lead in accepting civil unions between gay and lesbian couples. But intellectual honesty forces me to admit that the Bible occasionally condemns homosexual activity. One should place these few passages in their historic context. That Paul was homophobic and found homosexuality immoral shouldn’t be any more shocking than finding out that the Bible condones slavery and that some first-century Christians owned slaves.

Instead of reinterpreting passages we dislike, we should admit that we dislike them. Conservatives might cite Leviticus 20:13 in an attempt to justify their antigay ideology, but most of them would never suggest that our society should put homosexuals to death so as to follow its teachings to the letter of the law. The truth of the matter is that conservatives don’t wish to follow all the teachings of scripture any more than liberals do.

Not Condemned, but Still Bad

Thanks to Ackerman’s article (see “When the Bible Enters the Fray,” BR 16:05), I now know that when the Bible says “a man shall not lie with another man,” homosexuality is not necessarily condemned, because that particular passage does not preclude a wide variety of other sexual positions. Maybe we should also overhaul the Ten Commandments—they are, after all, quite limiting. Perhaps “thou shalt not kill” was meant to apply only to the use of the stones, knives, arrows and spears of Moses’ day, but leaves open the offing of one’s victims by use of cyanide, firearms or garroting with stainless steel wire, since these things are not openly condemned by the Bible. And perhaps style points or extra credit can be given to the person who intentionally runs over his or her neighbor with a garbage truck!

As far as the “pro” civil union people who claim that Jesus never specifically condemned homosexuality, I must agree. I have never read anything about that topic coming from the lips of Jesus, and I have read the New Testament in many versions. But the contention that we should be allowed to adjust our behavior by what Jesus did not specifically condemn leaves the door open for a wide variety of behavior. The list may include infanticide, pedophilia, tying one’s mother-in-law to the railroad tracks, blowing up a federal building and myriad other activities that Jesus never specifically condemned.

Ackerman states that the Bible does not condemn long-term, committed same-sex relationships. In those exact words it may not, nor does it have to. The Bible already addresses all same-sex relationships in ways that the average rational person can understand. What Ackerman 004leaves out is the intent of the written Word, which is every bit as important as the intent of civil law today.

Thank You for Challenging Me

Authors of the books of the Bible were biblical scholars too. Their positions against homosexuality should not be discounted. Susan Ackerman’s article was excellent though, and I can hardly wait to read more of her work (see “When the Bible Enters the Fray,” BR 16:05). She makes me think and defend my Lord. Thank you Susan Ackerman and BR.

Faustian Bargain

Appalled! BR has finally sold its soul. Mephistopheles takes the form of Susan Ackerman, twisting and distorting the Bible (see “When the Bible Enters the Fray,” BR 16:05). For what purpose? To promote homosexuality, one of the vilest sins.

The “pros” may have won in Vermont, as Ms. Ackerman puts it; but, in G-d’s eyes, they haven’t a prayer. If she comes to our door seeking bread, we will share with her—despite her vile opinions. But let her preach those views to us, and she will politely be shown the door—and BR should do the same.

A Broken Form of Sexuality

Dr. Ackerman’s column is an example of high-handed hijacking of the term “biblical scholarship” in the service of a revisionist sociopolitical agenda (see “When the Bible Enters the Fray,” BR 16:05).

“Biblical scholarship” apparently occurs only at select institutions, like Dr. Ackerman’s own Dartmouth, or Harvard, Yale or Claremont. Apparently it does not occur at Gordon-Conwell (my seminary), Fuller, Bethel or Westminster. It seems evangelicals, by definition, cannot be scholars.

There is a case to be made, for example, that sexual perversion is indeed the key ingredient in the sin of Sodom (which Ezekiel says was the result of their rich, idle arrogance). Homosexuality is never once portrayed in a favorable light in the pages of Scripture, while heterosexual marital union is praised throughout. That alone should give pause to the revisionist approach to biblical teaching on homosexuality.

It should be pointed out that Bernadette Brooten is not the only person to have studied the meaning of “natural” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:26–27, and that her bizarre thesis is not the only one held by responsible scholars. (I think here of James D.G. Dunn’s commentary on Romans and the excellent word-study work of Thomas Schmidt, as in his Straight and Narrow?)

One thing is painfully obvious about the process used by Ackerman and the countless other revisionists I have encountered: It is hardly an impartial process but, typically, the worst kind of deconstructionist thinking. I recall a lengthy written exchange I had with a revisionist pastor in Ohio. By the third letter he admitted: “OK, you win. The real issue is not that I interpret Scripture differently; I reject its ultimate authority in this matter.”

This hacking away at biblical texts to make them fit the 21st century’s current moral confusions is not unlike the efforts of Southern scholars in the early 19th century to batter Scripture into a pro-slavery document.

Ackerman is right that both “right” and “left” tend to select the passages that will best (superficially) buttress their cause. But the question remains: What does the Bible say? Nothing good about this broken expression of sexuality. It is best to call people to flee a burning house, not to assure them that the fire will keep them warm.

Judging from the number of letters we received in response to Susan Ackerman’s column, BR readers are clearly interested in learning just what the Bible does and doesn’t say about homosexuality. We plan to continue to explore this issue from different perspectives in future issues.—Ed.

Jezebel

The Bible and Our Constitution

Janet Howe Gaines, in “How Bad Was Jezebel?” BR 16:05, struggles to find virtue in the much-maligned “bad girl of the Bible” and should be congratulated for her ingenuity in supplying details omitted from the text. In the story of Naboth and the vineyard (1 Kings 21), Gaines cites Jezebel’s role in engineering a judicial conviction of Naboth, replete with perjured testimony that the innocent landholder cursed the king. But, Gaines counters, Jezebel’s actions reflect the customs of her native Phoenicia, where the monarch could seize whatever he laid his eyes on.

This observation should not obscure the more profound truth that we are enormously indebted to the biblical account of the Naboth tale, and especially the details of Jezebel’s machinations, for they reveal a notion of constitutionalism that could easily make the biblical text the forerunner of the constitution of the United States. Neither King Ahab nor his evil consort made any attempt simply to grab the vineyard he so passionately coveted, which implies that there was a clearly understood limitation on the power of the government in favor of an individual’s right to due process of law. The fact that Jezebel insisted on a judicial proceeding, no matter how corrupt, is evidence that even her Phoenician proclivities had to give way before the Israelite concept of fair procedure and personal dignity.

That did not make the result lawful, any more than a flawed trial in our time bars the Supreme Court of the United States from declaring the proceeding a violation of constitutional rights. The analogy is quite apt. In the biblical scenario, the prophet Elijah condemns the royal pair and pronounces punishment. He has no power, merely the word of truth, judgment. Similarly, Alexander Hamilton characterized the Supreme Court as the least dangerous branch of government because it has no power over the purse or the sword, merely judgment. For justice to prevail, both ancient Israel and modern America put their faith in the word.

For this insight we owe a debt to Jezebel, for all her evil.

The writer is a past president of the American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Philadelphia Branch.

Can’t Tell the Goddesses Without a Scorecard

In “How Bad Was Jezebel?” BR 16:05, you (or the author) made a serious (though, unfortunately, common) mistake. The goddess Asherah is equated with Astarte in both text and footnote. The Hebrew Asherah, however, begins with the letter aleph and has no infixed tav. Astarte is a later name for the biblical 005Ashtoreth (“the goddess of the Sidonians,” 1 Kings 11:5), which begins with the letter ayin and is the equivalent of the Ugaritic Athtartu, Akkadian Ishtar, etc. The fact that ancient scribes, editors and translators may have sometimes confused the names Asherah and Ashtoreth in ancient Hebrew texts and in translations into other languages does not validate their mistakes, nor does it give us the right to perpetuate them.

Latest Election News

Ms. Gaines’s article on Jezebel reeks of false doctrine and anti-God bias (see “How Bad Was Jezebel?” BR 16:05). I am amazed that you would print it. No wonder New Mexico voted for Gore. [Gaines teaches at the University of New Mexico—Ed.]

So did Maryland.—Ed.

Ancient Chemotherapy

I received your magazine on a trial basis. I will not be subscribing. I could not believe what I read in “How Bad Was Jezebel?” BR 16:05. When I see a magazine entitled Bible Review, I expect that it will present articles from a biblical perspective, not from the perspective of faithless higher criticism.

The article states that Elijah was “mythical.” Do you really believe that he is an imaginary figure? Who’s next? The author then equates the killing of the prophets of Baal with Jezebel’s ordering the death of believers in Yahweh by referring to Elijah’s “murderous inclinations.” This is political correctness, which tolerates anything without regard to what becomes of a society that turns its back on the living God for gods that are not gods at all. None of us would consider leaving cancer in our bodies under the guise of tolerating cells that are different than others. We eradicate cancer before it consumes the body. This is what God said to do with idolatry. The author’s complaint, then, is with God, not with the prophet. If Elijah has “murderous inclinations,” it can only be because his God also has “murderous inclinations.” Surely this is not what you are trying to espouse.

That’s No Woman, That’s a Goddess

044

A common error in naming an important archaeological artifact, the so-called Woman in the Window, needs to be corrected (see photo in “How Bad Was Jezebel?” BR 16:05). This faulty title is in use throughout the scholarly community, and it also appears in museum tags and archaeological publications. Examples of the artifact have been found all over the Near East, so it is highly improbable that it depicts an ordinary human female. In fact, it represents a goddess and should be titled the Countenance of Asherah in Her Temple.

A useful comparison can be made with another artifact from Carthage, a photograph of which appeared in the January/February 1984 Biblical Archaeology Review. The caption read: “Tanit in the sacred portal of her temple, holding a tambourine…By the seventh century B.C., Tanit had become identified with the Canaanite goddess Astarte.” The only mistake in this description is the use of the word “portal,” which should read instead “inner sanctum.” The recessed frames around the image are intended to depict successively smaller rooms or doorways leading all the way back to the innermost shrine, the holy of holies. The smallest recessed area is this inner sanctum, the next largest frame is the temple nave, the next is the narthex, or vestibule, and the final frame represents he temple’s doorway. The purpose of the sculpture is to allow the viewer to peer deep into the temple, all the way back through the successive rooms, to catch a glimpse of the deity in her secluded and private compartment, into which no one but a high-ranking priest might enter, and then only on very special occasions.

Michael Coogan, professor of religious studies at Stonehill College in North Easton, Massachusetts, and editor of The Oxford History of the Biblical World, responds:

I agree that the best interpretation of the “woman in the window” is that she represents a goddess. But I don’t think that the generally accepted title should be changed. First, the name of the goddess varies according to the locale and the time period: Different texts use Ishtar, Aphrodite and Venus. 045Calling her Asherah is therefore arbitrary and misleading. Second, the motif is also a literary one, and includes not just divine figures, but human ones as well. In the Bible, Rahab, Sisera’s mother, Michal and Jezebel are all described as looking out windows. Finally, once a label has been applied, it’s virtually impossible to change scholarly usage, and in most cases the effort isn’t worth it. The other suggestion, that the recessed frames are intended to give perspective to the viewer who is looking into successive doorways of the goddess’s temple, is possible for some examples of the motif. Others more likely represent a window with balustrades.

Crossan’s Memoir

Groundless Birth Theory

In his new memoir, Professor John Dominic Crossan is up to his old tricks: inventing material out of whole cloth in order to denigrate anything resembling orthodox Christology. I refer to his veiled suggestion (reported in your review “The Bad Boy of Historical Jesus Studies,” BR 16:05) that Jesus’ unusual birth may have come about because of a rape committed by the soldiers of Quintilius Varus during the sack of Sepphoris.

Unfortunately for that theory, the burning of Sepphoris occurred after Herod’s death, when a rebel named Judas the son of Ezechias attacked Herod’s arsenal and began an armed rebellion against Roman rule. (See Sean Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. [Michael Glazier, 1980], p. 123; Richard A. Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City [Baker, 1991], p. 53; and Josephus, The Jewish War 2.56, and Antiquities of the Jews 17.271f.) The tradition appears firm that Jesus’ birth occurred while Herod was still alive. Therefore, most New Testament scholars suggest that Jesus was born in about 6 B.C.E., which would mean that he was around two years old when these purported Galilean rapes occurred. But why allow facts to stand in the way of wild and suggestive speculations?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why Crossan is so sought after for comments on television documentaries about Jesus. His feet appear to this reader to be firmly planted in a fantasy world of his own making rather than in solid historical New Testament scholarship.

John Dominic Crossan, professor emeritus of DePaul University, responds:

I did not “hint” that Jesus was born of legionary rape. I would not have done so because I prefer clarity to hints. I could not have done so because I consider him the normally born child of Mary and Joseph. What I said and here repeat is that when the Roman legions marched across Jewish villages, women were raped (and children were enslaved and men were butchered). I said that unless its inhabitants successfully hid, that is what would have happened to Nazareth in 4 B.C.E. In other words, when the legions appear, woe especially to those who are pregnant or nursing.

A Truth Beyond History

I found your review of John Dominic Crossan’s memoir to be very interesting (see “The Bad Boy of Historical Jesus Studies,” BR 16:05). I have no other knowledge of Crossan or, for that matter, any other historical Jesus scholar, but from the ideas disclosed in the review I do not see what the big controversy is. The distinction between “not historical” and “untrue” is very important. Bishop John Shelby Spong has recently helped us tunderstand that although many gospel stories may not be historical fact, they are honest and true reflections of the impression Jesus made on those who came in contact with him. He seemed to them to be beyond the boundaries of the human. These reflections define a man who can be central in our faith.

Potpourri

Let’s See All the Stories

I immensely enjoyed the three short stories published in your excellent magazine (see “And the Winner Is…BR’s Short Story Contest Results Are In,” BR 16:05). The story of Lot’s wife was touching, and it was interesting to hear the serpent’s version of what happened in Eden. I wish you would publish all of these stories in a future issue for us backward people who do not have the Internet.

We received nearly a hundred submissions, so we are unable to print them all. The three winners and eight runners-up are available on our Web site: Go to www.biblereview.org/bro00/winner-a.html. Readers without access to the Internet can still find our Web site simply by going to a public library, many of which have computers for general use.—Ed.

Face Up to What the Bible Says—And Then Ignore It