Readers Reply

008

Invasion of the Goddesses?

What is with the fancy BR? Reminds me of some earthly kingdom: Beth Regina? Beatrice Regina? Have the feminist goddesses invaded your offices and chained themselves to your desks? Are they chanting “down with Bible Review, up with Babylon Regina”?

You have gone from the sublime (October 1991 cover) to the ridiculous (June 1992 cover). I couldn’t even find the words “Bible Review” until I tried looking through my magnifying glass (I kid you not).

Go back! Go back! I hope you get 144,000 letters, all pleading to God: “Hosanna! Save us Lord!”

And please don’t give up your Readers Reply section. I enjoy reading them all—from the serious, thoughtful ones to the downright ridiculous. It gives us a firsthand view of what people really believe and think about. I do not often agree with the thoughts of your scholars, but that’s okay because it would be very boring if all one got was an echo of what one thinks. I read to learn, and learning has come from your pages, not necessarily from what your scholars say, but from what God tells me when I think about what I’ve read and talk to Him about it.

Cut the Columnists

Sorry your new additions, Bernhard Anderson and Helmut Koester (see A Worldwide Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Luke’s Holy Land and Jesus’ Company, BR 08:03), just don’t cut it for me. Where is the excitement? Where is the challenge? Bible Review, even with a new name, cannot be all things to all people.

Please continue to be the stimulating, provocative periodical on which I based my subscription. Leave the preaching to the church house organs.

Likes New Format; Columnists Expand Subjects

I enjoy Biblical Archeology Review and Bible Review more than other journals that I receive. Each month they arrive and remind me how exciting biblical studies can be. They are superb.

The changes in BR’s format are most promising. The addition of regular columnists will open an even broader range of subjects than before, which will doubtless make our mail-room staff work harder than ever before.

Too Much Sex

I hope the June BR article dealing with private matters of sex (Carey A. Moore, “Susanna—Sexual Harassment in Ancient Babylon,” BR 08:03) will be the last one. We are deluged with it by press, TV and books. Readers that would care about sexual harassment in ancient Babylon are undoubtedly few in number.

It has been a pleasure to have had at least your magazine devoted to fascinating articles of biblical interest.

The Bible Is Not Anti-Women

I am amazed at the ignorance of scholars like Ronald S. Hendel (review of In the Wake of the Goddesses, Bible Books, BR 08:03), who probably is an extremely well-educated man. But that does not prevent him from being ignorant of some fairly common knowledge—like the fact that men and women are different!

Just as modern-day feminism voids its credibility by missing this obvious fact, so Mr. Hendel runs to feminist “scholars” like Meyers, Hackett, Bird et al. to back his ridiculous statement that there is “anti-woman bias in many biblical texts.”

There may be statements that do not blend with the politically correct, left-wing ideology in academia, but there are no anti-woman statements in the Bible. Far from it: The Bible carefully lays out the roles that men and women are to follow. These roles offer the maximum hope for happiness in this world.

Instead, look at our society today with promiscuity and infidelity the norm; with out-of-wedlock births exceeding those within marriage in some segments 009of society; with angry and frustrated men unsure just what is expected of them today; with women angry and frustrated because of the roles they are left to fill by the rise of feminism; with the continuing breakdown of the prime unit of any society—the family.

“Scholars” should occasionally take a break from their books to get a feel for the real world so that good, intelligent men like Mr. Hendel don’t show quite so much ignorance.

Reading—and Interpreting—Ancient Hebrew Writing

I fully agree with Alan Millard (“Were Words Separated in Ancient Hebrew Writing?” BR 08:03) that modern scholars should respect the generally impressive accuracy of ancient scribes and “only accuse them of error when the evidence is very strong.” In several BR articles (for example, “Coarse Language in the Bible,” BR 05:02; “Problems of Translation,” BR 04:04), I have commented on the apparent eagerness with which some translators emend the biblical text. However, as he points out, the “common opinion” of scholars is that ancient Hebrew writing did not separate words; and my point in “How to Buy a Bible,” BR 08:02, was that this belief is used to justify nontraditional readings of the text. I regret not making clear that other scholars consider this view baseless.

Whose Queen Was Esther?

Michael Heltzer’s article (“The Book of Esther—Where Does Fiction Start and History End?” BR 08:01) brings up the question of whether the king involved should be, per the Septuagint and Josephus, Artaxerxes rather than the accepted Xerxes. This would require some linguistic juggling, but then so does the Xerxes interpretation. It would at least dispose of the argument that the names don’t match, in that the names of the queens of the various Artaxerxes are not known, unlike the cases of Xerxes, where the queen is known from Herodotus. It also brings up the question of whether Old Persian, like Hebrew, has a word for “queen,” or if, like Egyptian, 010the word(s) so translated simply mean “king’s wife,” which in a polygamous society Esther could have been, without any of the authority of “queenship” that would be required to be the official King’s Great Wife (i.e., head queen), as in Egyptian. Esther is not represented as having any co-regnal authority, and in other polygamous societies more than one person could bear the title of “queen” or “empress” simultaneously. Nor does the ruler always have to follow the rules in picking his chief helpmate. For example, an empress of the Shun Chih emperor of the last dynasty was Han Chinese despite a dynastic rule requiring the empress to be a Manchu.

009

Should We Keep Hebrew and Greek Columns?

I say please, please, please do not discontinue them! I am a beginning student of Hebrew. I am profiting from and enjoying the brief lessons every issue. I hope the students of Greek will say the same thing to assure you how helpful they are and to show our gratitude for your thoughtfulness!

Please, do not stop the Hebrew/Greek grammar teaching columns in BR. I have derived the greatest satisfaction from reading and studying them in each issue.

Although I studied Greek in seminary for three years, I did not do all that I might have to maintain, let alone improve, my skill. As for Hebrew, it wasn’t even taught.

It wasn’t until I had retired and was able to attend a class in Hebrew through the facilities offered by Fuller Seminary’s Extension Program in Phoenix that I was able to take Hebrew. A bit late, I know, but it has afforded me much personal satisfaction and has certainly added much to my Bible study classes.

The columns in BR have been notable for their clear presentation of the complexities of Greek and Hebrew. I heartily commend them. Their authors have done a splendid job in presenting the material.

I very much appreciate the Hebrew/Greek section of your magazine. I had one year of Hebrew and two years of Greek in seminary, but the section is very practical and helpful.

In response to your query about keeping the Hebrew and Greek columns in your fine magazine, I vote definitely in the affirmative! The timing was perfect, as it both coincided with my decision to subscribe to BR and with an awakening interest that I have in the ancient Greek language.

Wichita State University (located about 20 minutes from here) is for the first time in several years offering a course in classical Greek this fall. This indicates a renewed interest in the classical languages.

My own interest at this time is in the Greek studies, but I hope one day to at least gain a small familiarity with Hebrew.

Thank you for the opportunity to express myself concerning this column, and thank you for a very enjoyable magazine which I eagerly anticipate.

We do not find helpful the Hebrew and Greek sections. In sharing parts of BR, no one studying/praying the Scriptures (other than scholars who often speak to themselves) has used these pages. We think they would be better used for articles on biblical themes, personalities, etc.

In response to your call for input about the regular Greek and Hebrew features—please do not discontinue them. I look forward to my issue’s arrival in large part because of these regular pieces. Indeed, I enjoy the entire periodical, but the Greek and Hebrew columns are the icing on the cake.

Please continue your Hebrew and Greek columns. I believe that these columns will encourage people to delve deeper into the Scriptures. I taught myself Hebrew several years ago, and have started to learn Greek several times. I am currently reading the Scriptures in the original Hebrew (I am about halfway through Psalms). It was Biblical Archaeology Review and BR that encouraged me to learn Hebrew. (I plan to learn Greek before I get to Matthew.)

The two columns are very interesting. I have enjoyed them, and have learned quite a bit from them. I admit that it might be too elementary for some readers, and that others may not find them relevant, but they are invaluable for some of us.

The overwhelming response has been to continue the Hebrew and Greek columns, so that’s what we’ll do.—Ed.

Invasion of the Goddesses?