Readers Reply

004

BC Not BR

I have just received, read and thrown away my first and hopefully last copy of BR.

Clearly the title Bible Review is either a misnomer or false advertising to attract unsuspecting readers. The proper title should be Bible Critique.

Where is there the slightest attempt to ensure that Christian truth is the focus and outcome of a magazine that proclaims to be an authoritative read of the Christians’ most holy book, the Bible?

Count me out of your foolishness.

Perplexed by BR

Having just finished my first issue of BR, I am perplexed. How can a magazine claim to study the Word of God and then publish articles designed to undermine the Bible’s veracity? It seems to me, BR prefers to study the Bible as a religious book, but not as the direct revelation of the Truth. I do not intend to cancel my subscription or use BR for a pooper scooper, however. For informed dialogue, it is important to understand others’ opinions, however misled they may be.

Scholar Seeks Help with Translation

A question has come to mind while I am revising Gerald F. Hawthorne’s Philippians commentary for the Word Biblical Commentary. And it touches on Ben Witherington’s recent contribution (“What Gets Lost in Translation,” BR 18:02).

Can anyone explain why the New Revised Standard Version translators added a gratuitous “me” to Philippians 2:12? Clearly Paul did not say, “as you have always obeyed me” (against the Revised Standard Version), but has left the object undefined.

Idol Worship

False Gods Are Still False

It seems to me that Isaiah is in a much better position than Michael B. Dick (“Worshiping Idols: What Isaiah Didn’t Know,” BR 18:02) to understand the nature of the idols in the time and place he lived in.

Isaiah may very well have been ignorant of the intricacies of idol craftsmanship and perhaps he did not appreciate the sincerity and humility that went into making them. But this does not negate Isaiah’s point: False gods are still false—no matter how deeply religious or sincere their makers.

Degrees of Divinity

Concerning the horned helmets found on images of deities from Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia: Major deities, if shown wearing a helmet, always have four sets of horns.

This is true of the god Shamash on the stela of Hammurabi and the stela of Nabu-apla-iddina pictured in the April issue, of Nanna or Sin on the Ur-Nammu stela, of Ishtar on the palace walls of Mari, of the goddess Lamma, and of the unidentified god on the cover of the magazine. As Joan Oates suggests in her book Babylon 006(Thames & Hudson, 1979), at various times in history fewer horns were used to indicate lesser degrees of divinity. Thus, the Winged Bull of Sargon from Khorsabad (now in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) has only three pairs of horns. A king shown as a god on the victory stela of Naram-Sin has only one pair.

Egypt, Too

Thank you for publishing Michael B. Dick’s excellent article, “Worshiping Idols: What Isaiah Didn’t Know,” BR 18:02. What he explains about ancient Mesopotamia holds equally true for Egypt, where the corresponding ritual is also called the “Opening of the Mouth” (see Ann Macy Roth, “Opening of the Mouth,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt [New York, 2001], vol. 2, pp. 605–609, and Aylward M. Blackman, “The Rite of Opening the Mouth in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 10 [1924], pp. 47–59).

Similar perspectives and practices are also found in South and East Asian traditions (see Diana L. Eck, DarsŒan: Seeing the Divine Image in India, 3rd ed. [New York, 1998], esp. pp. 51–55, and Albert C. Moore, Iconography of Religions: An Introduction [Philadelphia, 1977], under “Images, consecration of”).

Bible and Qur’an

The Heavenly Court

In his article on “Abraham’s Sons,” BR 18:02, John Kaltner comments about the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26: “Let us make humankind in our image.” He calls this “an example of the ‘divine we’ used to elevate and exalt the deity.”

Most commentators that I have read believe that the plural pronoun refers to the heavenly court. The New Oxford Annotated Bible says it “probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court” and refers the reader to 1 Kings 22:10 and Job 1:6. The Harper Collins Study Bible says it probably means “God and the retinue of the divine court.” The New Interpreter’s Bible says it “refers to an image of God as a consultant of other divine beings; the creation of humankind results from a dialogical act—an inner-divine communication—rather than a monological one. Those who are not God are called to participate in this central act of creation.” Other commentaries make much the same point. Might the use of the plural in the Koran also imply a heavenly court?

John Kaltner responds:

Professor Lamb’s letter raises a very interesting question. The “We” passages in the Qur’an are not commonly associated with a heavenly court, but some commentators have suggested that they may be referring to angelic agents of revelation, like Gabriel. 008One of the problems with this theory is that the context of many of the passages clearly favors seeing Allah as the speaker. For example, Muhammad is referred to repeatedly throughout the Qur’an as “Our servant” and “Our messenger.” The idea that Muhammad could somehow be the servant or messenger of the angels runs counter to Islamic belief, and so in these cases the deity must be the speaker. Similarly, the story of Abraham and his son discussed in the article contains the sentence “Thus do We reward those who do good.” Muslims maintain that only Allah has the power to reward and punish and must therefore be the implied speaker here as well. In places where the identity of the speaker is more ambiguous an argument might be made that the use of the plural reflects the presence of angelic beings. But one must be careful to avoid any reading or interpretation that would compromise the monotheism that is foundational to Islam.

Multicultural Fluff

Please keep in mind the purpose of this periodical. I’m interested in learning about the Bible, not the Koran. The article “Abraham’s Sons,” BR 18:02, was nothing more than a fluff piece to promote global-multiculturalist ideals. The Koran directly contradicts what the Holy Scriptures teach. To suggest that the Koran is right is to say that the Holy Scriptures are wrong.

It is a lie to say that it doesn’t matter which of Abraham’s sons was nearly sacrificed. It was very important. Only one son was chosen, the one who inherited the proper characteristics. According to the Holy Scriptures lineage is everything. I choose to believe the Holy Scriptures.

John Kaltner responds:

Ironically, my article is an attempt to show how the Qur’an can be an aid in Mr. Nelson’s stated interest to learn about the Bible. To claim that the Qur’an “directly contradicts” what the Bible teaches is a gross generalization that suggests he is not very familiar with the contents of Islam’s sacred text. Many themes, concepts and figures that are central to the Bible are also found in the Qur’an and can serve as useful starting points for dialogue among Jews, Christians and Muslims. Sadly, people from all three communities are sometimes unable to move beyond the distorted stereotypes they have of the other faiths and they miss out on this opportunity.

Abraham’s Other Sons

Your article by Professor John Kaltner in the April issue has a misleading title, “Abraham’s Sons,” BR 18:02. Have we all forgotten that Abraham had eight sons? God seems to have greatly favored Isaac not only over Ishmael but also to the exclusion of Abraham’s last six sons. Remember, in addition to Ishmael and Isaac, there were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. The latter six were by Abraham’s second wife, Keturah.

Teetotaling Jesus

Methodism’s Miracle

I confess to my amazement over Michael M. Homan and Mark A. Gstohl’s assertion in “Jesus the Teetotaler,” BR 18:02, that “several Protestant denominations in America—including many Methodist and 009Southern Baptist churches—claim that Jesus never drank alcohol.”

I cannot speak for the Southern Baptists, but I can say that the rubric calling for the use of unfermented wine at the Lord’s Table is no longer found in the United Methodist Book of Worship. Moreover, when unfermented wine is used in Methodist ritual it is not because Jesus was a teetotaler.

In the Methodists’ “Introduction to the Basic Pattern of Worship,” the following notation is found: “Although the historic and ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by the United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late 19th century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation of children and youth, and supports the church’s witness of abstinence.” Even if others consider such a rationale well intended but ill informed, it is a major and flawed leap of logic to assume that such a statement means the Methodist Church claims Jesus did not drink fermented wine.

There is, of course, no accounting for the reflections of Dr. Welch or for Methodist preachers then or now, or for that matter, even for local congregations, but they did not and do not speak for the denomination as a whole.

Furthermore, the United Methodist Church is a worldwide body; grape juice is used not only in America, but also in Europe, Africa, the Philippines and wherever the Methodist movement is found.

On a lighter side, one of the preeminent historians of our denomination, Dr. Kenneth E. Rowe, has referred to the switch as “Methodism’s miracle”—turning wine into grape juice.

Grape Juice Antidote

The authors of your article failed to cite the verse—Deuteronomy 14:24–26—that has turned more heads on the question of prohibition in these mountains ‘round Asheville than any other:

“And if the way be too long for thee [to go to a pilgrim festival in Jerusalem], so that thou art not able to carry it [the food and drink for the holy barbecue] or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth. And thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household.”

This has worked well as an antidote to Welch’s grape juice.

Sharing the Divine

Take It Seriously

Professor Basser overlooks the claim placed in the mouths of Jesus’ opponents (see “Sharing in the Divine,” BR 18:02), who tell Pilate that Jesus should die because “he made himself the Son of God” 054(John 19:7). If Jesus’ opponents treated the term seriously enough to consider it blasphemy, certainly his followers understood it as more than an indication that he “shared in the attributes of the divine.”

Herbert Basser responds:

I did not really overlook your valid point; I narrowed my view. My article, as I mention throughout it, deals solely with the term “my Son” in the Synoptic Gospels. This phrase does not ever appear in John. At one point I do mention that a “Son of God” is not exactly the same as “my Son.” The editor decided any detailed discussion of the usage of the phrase, “the Son of God” was too intricate to include in one article.

The usage of the term “Son of God” in John, Hebrews and Paul is of a different order than “my Son,” one highly blasphemous to Muslims and Jews, as Edgar A. Nutt rightly observes. Talmudic sources themselves note that the concept “child of X” can have two senses. One sense is “similarity”—as in “my Son” (anthropologists call this imitative); the other is “extension”—as in “made himself the Son of God.” In April, I lectured at Siena College on this second usage and its roots in Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaisms. Perhaps someday my views on this other usage will find their way into BR. The principle I established in the Synoptic Gospels remains: “Son” does not imply any notion of reproductive kinship in John, Hebrews and Paul.

Yahweh & Son

Herbert Basser only hints, in his penultimate paragraph, at the real significance of divine sonship: Divine sonship equals divine mission. In other words, the Son has come to represent the Father on family business. The divine name, power and raiment are Jesus’ business card, establishing him as the official representative of “Yahweh & Son, Saviors.”

Columnists

Ben Mattingly III

The addition of Ben Witherington III to your magazine is the equivalent of a Grand Slam. Ben is insightful and extremely thorough, and he brings to each topic both authenticity and great scholarship. On top of that, his humor is contagious.

Potpourri

Yahweh in Labor

Regarding Richard J. Madison’s letter in the April 2002 issue (see Readers Reply, BR 18:02): I would like to point out that the passage Mr. Madison was upset about is actually found in Isaiah 42:14: “I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once” (King James Version).

What is found here is a sudden shift from Yahweh as a warrior to Yahweh as a woman in childbirth. Such imagery depicts the passion of God in His relation to history. The verse is depicting the birth throes of a new creation.

Blood Libel

In Readers Reply, BR 18:02, Rosalie Gottfried writes that the Nazis were really Christians and that she doesn’t know “of any group of atheists who killed millions of people…during the period of 1932 to 1945.” She never heard of the Communists? Lenin “only” killed as many people as Hitler, but the Communists killed over ten times as many people.

As for the blood libel that the Nazis were Christian, read what Hitler had to say about Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular in Mein Kampf: “The Church did not seem to feel with the German people, but to side unjustly with the enemy. The root of the whole evil lay…in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality.”

As Albert Einstein told Time Magazine: “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth” (December 25, 1940, p. 40).

You Can Keep the Earth

In his Bible in the News column on the meek (see Jots & Tittles, BR 18:02), Leonard Greenspoon seems to presume that inheriting the earth is some kind of a reward. As far as I am concerned, the meek can have the world, for I hope to inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Correction

The credit for Stanley Spencer’s painting “The Last Supper” in the June 2002 issue was incomplete. It should have read ©2002 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/DACS, London/Bridgeman Art Library. We apologize for the error.

BC Not BR
I have just received, read and thrown away my first and hopefully last copy of BR.