Readers Reply
006
Satan’s Tool
I hope I never see another copy of your magazine in my life. It is plain to see Bible Review is one of Satan’s tools to cast doubt on God’s Word—or do you think Satan is just a myth, too? I hope you don’t have to find Satan is real the hard way.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Keep ’em Coming
The only way that I would stop my subscription would be if you stopped publication or the world ended.
Sheridan, Indiana
15 Years Later
To the best of my knowledge, every issue of my 15-year subscription to BR has contained at least one letter canceling a subscription. One has to wonder how many people can be left out there who are still willing to lay down their money. I would have thought they’d all have canceled by now.
What is depressing about this cloud of witnesses is the profound anti-intellectualism they reveal in American religious thought. They genuinely believe that the admission price to church is to check your brains at the door. Having grasped “truth” as it pleases them to frame it, they find further discussion not only futile but demonic.
It is through our search, not our orthodoxies, that we grow. I often agree with points made by contributors to BR. Sometimes I disagree. I have even been known to agree and disagree with the same author in the same article! But in 15 years I have never read an issue from which I did not learn something new or have my preconceptions lifted, my vision broadened and my mind challenged.
Meadville, Pennsylvania
Mistranslations
Ralph P. Martin of the Fuller Theological Seminary asks in a letter to the editor (Readers Reply, BR 18:04) why the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translators “added a gratuitous ‘me’ to Philippians 2:12”? I should like to ask why, considering all the truly serious mistakes that have been made in translating Paul’s letters, Dr. Martin is so exercised over a gratuitous “me”? Why not ask why the same translators added a gratuitous “of God” to Romans 11:28 (“As regards the gospel they [the people of Israel] are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors.”)—particularly when the translators admit in a tiny footnote that “Gk lacks ‘of God.’” Clearly Paul did not say that the Jewish people were “enemies of God.”
To try to answer the question Dr. Martin asks, I would suggest that these mistakes are made because translations are in large part based on centuries-old misinterpretations of Paul. It would help considerably if translators would look a bit more closely at what Paul’s Greek actually says.
Towson, Maryland
Ralph P. Martin responds:
Janis L. Koch notes how the NRSV translators add words to Paul’s letters. It is not for me to second guess their motives as competent scholars. At least, in their wisdom they add the footnote to say that “of God” is not in the Greek—a device they do not use in Philippians 2:12.
I suspect that they added “of God” because they are impressed by the parallelism in Paul’s thought. The people of Israel are said to be “enemies of God”; yet in a paradox, Israel is said in the same 008verse to be beloved. Paul at least is not anti-Semitic. How could he be when he himself always remained au fond a Jew?
On Philippians 2:12, I have expressed some reasons for rejection of the NRSV in my A Hymn of Christ (1997). The NRSV text of Philippians 2:12 reads as follows: “Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Paul’s purpose is to enforce obedience to Christ, not to himself. The addition of “me” lessens this point. And it is not in Paul’s text.
Columnists
What Moses Wrote
Prof. Mary Joan Winn Leith’s otherwise intriguing discussion of Yahweh’s voice is unfortunately flawed by her misstatement that “the later tradition that Moses wrote the Bible is never even mentioned in the biblical text” (“From Storm to Scroll,” BR 18:04).
First, Moses is not credited with writing “the Bible,” but “merely” the Pentateuch (Torah) and Psalm 90. Second, this statement ignores such references as Deuteronomy 31:9 (“Then Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests…and to all the elders of Israel”), as well as Deuteronomy 31:24–26; Joshua 1:7–8 and 8:31–35; and Ezra 8:1, which are certainly part of the biblical text.
Professor of Old Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary
Hatfield, Pennsylvania
Mary Joan Winn Leith responds:
Prof. Putnam correctly calls attention to a number of places in the Bible where Moses is described as writing down the Law (Torah). However, Torah as used in the Bible is an extremely fluid term that essentially means “instruction.” For example, no one suggests that “your mother’s torah (teaching)” mentioned in Proverbs 1:8 refers to a Pentateuch written by someone’s mother. Deuteronomy 31:9 says Moses wrote a scroll of the Torah, but does not specify that this was the text of the Pentateuch. It is only in late biblical texts (such as Nehemiah 8:1) that the term “Torah of Moses” may be understood to refer to an early version of the Pentateuch. For readers who are interested in the authorship of the Bible, I recommend the excellent (and bestselling) book by Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (1997).
010
Scripture in Context
Thank you for publishing Ben Witherington’s column “What the Left Behind Series Left Out,” BR 18:04. His point that scripture must be understood in the context that it was written should be printed on the first page of every Bible printed and sold today.
South Burlington, Vermont
Scripture Out of Context
Ben Witherington observes, “A biblical text taken out of its original context can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.” This is not a cardinal sin. It has been and is done a lot, and not just by wishful-thinking interpreters. It was acceptable biblical practice to take a document, rewrite it, modify it, update it, embellish it, embroider it, add to it, delete from it and change its meaning so as to make it fit the beliefs and purposes of the interpreter. Hebrew Scripture material was used to craft the lives of Christ. The imposition of meaning into the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) was the prerogative of the biblical authors, and should not be considered mendacious.
Owen Sound, Ontario
Song of Songs
Summer Reading
How very wonderful of you to choose not to publish both Ronald Hendel’s “Exodus: A Book of Memories” and Robert Alter’s “Song of Songs,” BR 18:04, in a Spring-Passover time issue, when I am too busy to spend the necessary time reflecting on the authors’ words. Summer was perfect for such a fantastic issue!
Hopkins, Minnesota
012
Faded Beauty
Your
Professor of English
Los Angeles Pierce College
Los Angeles, California
Of the many, many images that we reviewed when selecting illustrations for Robert Alter’s article, not one showed the young woman of the Song with black or even dark skin (although she did appear in orange and blue).
The late, great scholar Marvin Pope, in his Anchor Bible commentary on the Song of Songs, traces the history of translators’ and commentators’ efforts to lighten the woman’s skin color. In the writings of the early church fathers, she became “dark” (fusca) rather than “black” (nigra). The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi suggested that her blackness would revert to white if she only stayed out of the hot sun.
Further, the black and beautiful of the original, became “black but beautiful.” Origen, who equated the bride with the church and the daughters of Jerusalem with the synagogue, has the woman say: “I am indeed black, O daughters of Jerusalem, in that I cannot claim descent from famous men, nor have I received the enlightenment of Moses’ law. But I have my own beauty. For in me, too, is that primal thing, the Image of God in which I was created.”
Artists, unfortunately, have not caught up with the plain meaning of the text—unless our readers know of some examples.—Ed.
Correction
The third sentence of Robert Alter’s article on the Song of Songs (see “Song of Songs,” BR 18:04) should have read: “Physical contact between characters in the rapid narrative report is usually reduced to the barest notation” (not “basest”). We apologize to the author and our readers.
Exodus
Watershed Event
Prof. Hendel’s rationale for the namelessness of the pharaohs of the Oppression and Exodus is quite compelling (“Exodus: A Book of Memories,” BR 18:04). At the same time, I cannot help suspecting that something more is at work. It is suggestive that the earliest pharaoh to be named overtly in Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is Shishak (Shoshenk or Sheshonk I) of the tenth century B.C.E. The names of Merneptah and Ramesses appear as toponyms, or place names: Me-Nephtoach, “the waters of Nephtoach” (Joshua 18:15), and the city and land of Ramesses (Genesis 47:11; Exodus 1:11, 12:37; Numbers 33:3, 5), but not explicitly as royal names. After all the ink that has been spilled over this type of issue, it still seems a reasonable suggestion that after the end of the New Kingdom (1070 B.C.E.) there was some sort of a watershed of Israelite historical memory, perhaps related to the establishment of a state archival apparatus in Israel.
Stevens Point, Wisconsin
Ronald Hendel responds:
I think Mr. Meltzer is quite right that a scribal and state apparatus makes a 060difference in the recording of history, so it’s not surprising that Shishak is the first pharaoh named. Centralized states ran on paperwork (see the ninth-century receipts from the royal accounting office, described in “Three Shekels for the Lord,” BAR 23:06) in the past as in the present.
Jots & Tittles
When Politics Clash
Double shame on Hershel Shanks: first, for abusing his position as editor to promote his personal political agenda about Israel and, second, for his condescending and mean “defense” of Harvard University professor Paul Hanson, who apparently dares to have a different personal political agenda (“When Politics Clash,” Jots & Tittles, BR 18:04). As far as I can tell, the politics of modern Israel is completely outside the scope of BR—unless and until the Bible is used as a political tool (which is interesting) and/or politics interferes with Biblical scholarship (which is deplorable). Apparently, Mr. Shanks agrees with this sentiment since he doesn’t think Professor Hanson is disqualified from continued service on BR’s editorial advisory board.
But why then didn’t Mr. Shanks simply mention the Hanson controversy (if it was worth mentioning at all) and state his conclusion as the magazine’s editor to keep the professor on? Why did Mr. Shanks go on to express his personal “sadness” at, and “abhorrence” of, the professor’s “naïve” politics? Why did Mr. Shanks use BR space to present his own rebuttal to the Israel divestment campaign and his own vilification of the Palestinians? Most incomprehensible of all, why did Mr. Shanks reprint an ugly (and embarrassingly paranoid) letter from Jacob Neusner that wasn’t even addressed to Professor Hanson? Is this really what BR is for?
I would like to request that Mr. Shanks confine his Bible Review remarks to the Bible.
Chicago, Illinois
Hershel Shanks responds:
As the New York Times reported, “Harvard University’s president, Lawrence H. Summers, used a quiet prayer meeting on the first day of classes here this week to condemn what he termed growing anti-Semitism at Harvard and elsewhere.” Referring in his talk to the petition that Professor Hanson had signed, Summers stated, “Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.”
Summers, too, was taken to task—for supposedly suppressing campus debate and political expression, favoring Israel and equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. I am proud to be in Summers’s company. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote: “A professor who signs his name to something so grotesque is committing an anti-Semitic act.”
Israel is certainly open to criticism. The suggestion that the university should divest itself of stock in any company that does business with Israel, however, crosses a line. In my view, BR readers were entitled to some explanation of our own position when a member of our editorial advisory board signed such a petition.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman called the petition Professor Hanson signed “deeply dishonest,” “hypocritical” and “shameful,” saying that “any 061university that goes along with it does not deserve the title of institution of higher learning…Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction—out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East—is anti-Semitic.”
Friedman stated that it is also “dishonest because to single out Israel as the only party to blame for the current impasse is to perpetrate a lie.”
In calling signers of such petitions “hypocrites,” Friedman asked: “How is it that Egypt imprisons the leading democracy advocate in the Arab world, after a phony trial, and not a single student group in America calls for divestiture from Egypt?…How is it that Syria occupies Lebanon for 25 years, chokes the life out of its democracy, and not a single student group calls for divestiture from Syria? How is it that Saudi Arabia denies its women the most basic human rights, and bans any other religion from being practiced publicly on its soil, and not a single student group calls for divestiture from Saudia Arabia?”
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz challenged Professor Hanson to a debate on the divestment petition. Professor Hanson declined the invitation, citing “other priorities,” so Dershowitz appeared to present his views to an empty chair at Harvard’s Winthrop House, where Professor Hanson is the House Master.
Professor Dershowitz is a worldwide champion of human rights and a legal expert on the subject. It is worth quoting from an article he wrote in the Harvard Crimson:
“I can confidently assert that Israel’s record on human rights is among the best, especially among nations that have confronted comparable threats…Jordan killed more Palestinians in a single month than Israel has between 1948 and the present.
“Israel has the only independent judiciary in the entire Middle East. Its Supreme Court, one of the most highly regarded in the world, is the only court in the Middle East from which an Arab or a Muslim can expect justice, as many have found in winning dozens of victories against the Israeli government, the Israeli military and individual Israeli citizens. I challenge the proponents of divestment to name a court in any Arab or Muslim country that is comparable to the Israeli Supreme Court.
“Israel is the only country in the region that has virtually unlimited freedom of speech. Any person in Israel, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian, can criticize the Israeli government and its leaders. No citizen of any other Middle Eastern or Muslim state can do that without fear of imprisonment or death.
“Israel is the only country that has openly confronted the difficult issue of protecting the civil liberties of the ticking-bomb terrorist. The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that despite the potential benefits of employing non-lethal torture to extract information, the tactic is illegal. Brutal torture, including lethal torture, is commonplace in nearly every other Middle Eastern and Muslim country.
“Nor is Israel the only country that is occupying lands claimed by others. China, Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Spain, France and numerous other countries control not only land, but people who seek independence. Indeed, among these countries Israel is the only one that has offered statehood, first in 1948 when the Palestinians rejected the UN partition which would have given them a 062large, independent state and chose instead to invade Israel. Again in 2000 Palestinians were offered a state, rejected it and employed terrorism.”
In these circumstances it seemed to me that our readers were entitled to some statement from us regarding Professor Hanson’s position on our editorial advisory board.
Creation Mosaics
Shoeless God
Why is it that in the Creation mosaics from Monreale (Molly Meinhardt, “Seven Luminous Days,” BR 18:04) God is shown wearing sandals on every day of the creation except the sixth day, the day on which humans were created? Could it be that humans were created on sacred ground, and even God (like Moses at the Burning Bush [Exodus 3:5]) had to remove his sandals?
Flemington, New Jersey
The reader is correct that God removes his shoes only for the creation of man. According to Penny Howell Jolly, professor of art history at Skidmore College, in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., and author of Made in God’s Image? (Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1997), figures in medieval art were often depicted without shoes or sandals to show they were on holy ground. Moses at the Burning Bush is the most noted example. At Monreale, however, God is on sacred ground (or air) in every scene. The removal of his shoes for the Creation of Adam might be intended to show a moment of heightened sacredness.
Of course, God’s shoes could also have been removed by a careless restoration team. Or the mosaic artists working at Monreale might have just made a mistake. Or, perhaps, they didn’t want God to get his shoes wet. Note that his feet are dangling just inches above the waves.—Ed.
Books
Dealing with Anti-Semitism
Thank you for Stephen Patterson’s heartfelt review (Bible Books, BR 18:04) of James Carroll’s book Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews—A History, on the history of Christian anti-Semitism.
This history, culminating in the Holocaust, has been a problem for Jews to deal with within our religious tradition, but we are doing it. However, the history of Christian anti-Semitism presents a theological challenge for Christianity that I don’t think the Christian world has adequately addressed—despite the efforts of good people such as Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, Rosemary Radford Ruether, James Carroll, now you, Professor Patterson, and many others I am thankfully and personally aware of.
Lake Forest Park, Washington
Satan’s Tool
I hope I never see another copy of your magazine in my life. It is plain to see Bible Review is one of Satan’s tools to cast doubt on God’s Word—or do you think Satan is just a myth, too? I hope you don’t have to find Satan is real the hard way.
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.