Readers Reply

002

BR Strengthens Faith

I have read your magazine for the first time. I find it a great tool for strengthening our Christian faith these days. I thank God for your devoting such time and effort to such a publication.

Suing Pharaoh

I’m glad that you printed a story about Nabil Hilmi’s laughable proposal (“Moses & Co. on Trial,” Jots & Tittles, December 2003) to sue all the Jews in the world for the value of everything the Bible reports them to have taken when they escaped Egyptian slavery. In my opinion Hilmi has shown so much malice he deserves to have his suggestion widely published so that sensible people can laugh at it.

Has this law school dean considered the Pandora’s box he would open if he pursues this lawsuit?

If Hilmi accepts this biblical account, he must also accept the report that the Children of Israel were so mistreated as slaves of Egypt that divine intervention was necessary (Exodus 2:24; Nehemiah 9:9). A countersuit for compensatory and punitive damages could amount to a sum even greater than the 1,125 trillion tons of gold Hilmi demands.

Another countersuit could be filed for the personal injury and loss of property suffered under the many Egyptian military incursions (for example, 1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Kings 23:29–34) into the Land of Israel. Even Egypt’s own records confirm some of these incursions.

To summarize in Brooklynese, “Hilmi, you want a piece of us? You want a piece of us? Come on. We got your law suit right here!”

Love

Jesus Didn’t Speak Greek

Thank you for Ben Witherington III’s helpful column “From Hesed to Agape” (December 2003).

Witherington failed to mention one important aspect of this topic. Jesus, as far as we know, did not speak Greek. The term he used for “love”—whether Hebrew or Aramaic—was closer to the meaning of hesed than agape. Jesus lived and breathed in the communitarian ethos of his Jewish faith. Hesed, as Witherington points out, captures this emphasis on relationship. Agape, however, is something individuals do. In this one concept, love, we may trace the transformation from a faith-based relationship to an individualistic one.

Perhaps Paul is the villain. He had to bring in his Gentile converts one at a time. Greek culture’s emphasis on the individual served his purposes well. But the church, I fear, has paid too heavy a price for trading the group consciousness of Judaism for Christianity’s individualism.

Ben Witherington responds:

Paul should by no means be seen as an early advocate of modern Western individualism, nor as someone who parrots Greek notions about the value of the individual. Paul, too, was a communitarian, if one wants to put it that way. This is why he speaks of those who are “in Christ” rather than of Christians, as we do. He, too, took a relational approach to things. The term agape, like hesed, is relational in character, and not individualistic. As for Jesus speaking Greek, it is probable that he knew some in order to deal with those centurions or foreigners like the Syro-Phoenician woman who did not speak Aramaic.

50 Years of Agape

I had to laugh when I read that 1 Corinthians 13 (“Love is patient, love is kind …”) has nothing to do with marital love. “This sort of love has nothing to do with attractiveness or attraction,” writes Ben Witherington. How old is Witherington anyway? Being married for 50 years has little to do with attractiveness either.

004

Biblical scholars and preachers are always alert to distance agape from the emotional feelings people often associate with love. They keep saying it is a verb, an act of will, not a feeling. However, Paul said, “If I have all faith … if I give away all my possessions … if I deliver my body to be burned … but do not have love, I gain nothing.” Paul does not seem to believe that deeds alone “profit us” anything. Without good will or love or compassion, even virtues can turn into vices, as people who have encountered the cheerless, sour, self-righteous doers of “good deeds” know very well.

Ben Witherington responds:

In stressing that agape is an action word, I did not mean to suggest that feelings are not involved. Of course they are. Feelings simply are not the emphasis of this term. The stress is on love-in-action, not on mere feelings. Compassion is of no use to the community unless it is translated into action; love is no more than mere sentiment if it does not result in a change of behavior and praxis. The reason love can be commanded in the Bible is that the authors were focusing on deeds of love, not merely on feelings, which cannot be conjured up on command.

Cheeseburgers

Evolving Law

Is it merely coincidence or editorial planning that Jack Sasson’s article on the possibility of kosher cheeseburgers (“Should Cheeseburgers Be Kosher?” December 2003) is back-to-back with the review of what sounds like a fascinating thesis presented by Daniel Friedmann in his new book (To Kill and Take Possession) about evolution and change in Jewish law? Hopefully there is a place for an old joke here, which touches on both efforts.

God spoke to Moses and said: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”

Moses replied: “Does that mean I cannot have meat and milk at the same meal?”

Patiently God repeats: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid …”

Moses queries: “Does that mean that I cannot have milk until a certain time after meat?”

Tiredly God repeats: “Thou shalt not …”

Doggedly Moses asks again: “Well, what if we have milk before meat?”

Irritated God says grimly: “All right, Moses. Have it your way.”

The story matches up quite well with the famous aggadah (rabbinic legend) that has God, angry at the Jews, demanding back his Torah. To his great surprise, instead of five books, he receives volume after volume of interpretation, a not-so-implicit affirmation of Friedmann’s thinking.

Diet Laws

I would like to propose another interpretation of the prohibition “Don’t cook a kid in its mother’s fat.” Could it be that God was warning us about deep-fat-fried foods, which we have only recently discovered are bad for both the arteries and the heart? In this case our cheeseburgers would be 005unkosher not because they contain cheese but because they are bad for us.

King James Version

Still Suppressed

Leonard J. Greenspoon (whose column, “The Bible in the News,” I always enjoy) offers a mostly accurate summary of the history of the English Bible (“How the Bible Became the Kynge’s Owne English,” December 2003) and makes a decent attempt to do justice to William Tyndale’s contribution. Greenspoon acknowledges that over 80 percent of the King James Version (KJV) is Tyndale, yet he still falls victim to the scholarly tradition of overpraising the KJV.

Nowhere does Greenspoon devote any attention to the places where Tyndale is better than the KJV (the books Greenspoon is reviewing rarely do this either). Consider Matthew 6:34. Here is the KJV: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Here is Tyndale: “For the day present hath ever enough of his own trouble.” Which is simpler, more lyrical?

Why this unjust diminishment of Tyndale? One possible explanation is that the KJV became an icon whose status cannot be challenged. But I think a more profound reason is that English-speaking civilization has never forgiven Tyndale for what he did. He didn’t just give us the Bible in English. He brought us closer to the originals and thus released us from the control of scholarly and religious authorities—and for that the scholars will never forgive him.

Tyndale did not attempt to give us the Jewish Jesus, but he did realize how many Semiticisms were in the Greek Gospels. His devotion to accurate translation makes it possible to see how Jewish the Gospels are—something that is still mostly outlawed in current scholarship. Ah, Tyndale. After 500 years, your work and its spirit are still suppressed.

Leonard Greenspoon responds:

For those wishing to follow up on Leon Zitzer’s comments about William Tyndale, I would recommend their reading David Daniell, William Tyndale: A Biography (New Haven, CT: Yale, 1994). Daniell also wrote the introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale, published as Tyndale’s Old Testament (New Haven: Yale, 1992). Copies of Tyndale’s translation are also available online.

More Recommendations

Leonard Greenspoon offers sound advice: “Let the experience of reading the text in translation spur you on to studying the original Hebrew and Greek.” I am currently studying the Gospel of John in Greek. To elucidate the difficult passages, I consult numerous translations old and new. Two translations stand out as exceptionally helpful: William Tyndale’s 1588 translation (the Yale edition with modernized spelling) and the 1979 rendering by the late Richmond Lattimore, a renowned Greek scholar and translator of many classical authors.

045

Although separated by almost four centuries, the Tyndale and Lattimore translations have much in common. Each is the product of a single man’s encounter with the text, rather than a committee’s. Both Tyndale and Lattimore possessed a deep knowledge of Greek, and their translations preserve much of the Greek word order. Both testify to the power of plain English, favoring sturdy words of Anglo-Saxon derivation over lapidary Latinisms. Neither includes verse numbers so as not to impede the flow of the narrative.

I would recommend either to readers who wish to stay close to the Greek.

In the Beginning

I am sure you have received numerous letters calling attention to a mistake in Leonard Greenspoon’s article “How the Bible Became the Kynge’s Owne English.” The article apparently quotes from Tyndale’s New Testament, “In the Beginning God created the Word” (John 1:1). I know of no Bible translation that contains such an absurd rendering.

Of course, the opening line of Tyndale’s translation of John should have been rendered: “In the Beginning was the Word.”—Ed.

Pilate

Blaming the Gospels

Your magazine is better than the disingenuous portrayal that you give of Mel Gibson’s upcoming film, The Passion of the Christ. Your contents page suggests that the film’s potential error is that it has “more in common with anti-Semitic Passion plays than with the New Testament.” Fine. But it seems that part of what actually worries Eric Wargo in his op-ed (“Mel Gibson’s Passion Play,” December 2003), is the film’s potential use of the Matthew 27 blood curse or Pilate’s hand washing, both parts of the New Testament. The fact is, however unsavory we find it, the Gospels do place culpability for Jesus’ death on the Jewish authorities of the day. Eric Wargo might find this anti-Semitic, but BR should just say so, instead of hinting that if only Gibson had made a biblically accurate film, this controversy would not exist.

The crucifixion story is controversial. It always was and always will be. But it deserves to be shown, however uncomfortable it makes us. I would have thought BR would applaud such an effort.

Missing the Point

In reading the editorial “Mel Gibson’s Passion Play,” I found myself smiling at the wondrous whimsy of a God that created such creatures who rail and war over every detail of His word and revelation, while missing the point entirely.

The critics of Mel Gibson’s film dwell 046on who is to blame for the act of crucifixion rather than the great blessing that followed as its result. Without the crucifixion, there would have been no resurrection and without both, no salvation. God merely used Man’s propensity for immorality and duplicity to offer salvation and eternal life through His own physical death. Thus, the Jews and Romans were God’s instruments in securing this blessing for His children. What then is their crime, if Jesus himself forgave them from the cross?

No Help

Re: “The Dark Side of Pilate” and “Mel Gibson’s Passion Play.” It is not helpful to try to establish some supposed error of history in the New Testament. The fact is that tens of millions of Christians hold to the historical accuracy of the Bible and, believe it or not, some of them have earned doctorates. It is dogma for a large number of Christians that the Bible is without error, including in its historical statements. They will have many counterarguments to support the historicity of the biblical accounts. The valid point of anti-Semitism will be lost in arguing over which statements are historical or not. To take a tack that questions the Bible’s historical accuracy is to lose the argument in their eyes from the start. It will play well with those who doubt the Bible, but it won’t win an argument.

It is also not helpful to present a view that those who hold to the validity of the historical statements in the Bible are fostering violence and hatred against Jews. Though it can’t be denied that many who held to the truth of all the Bible’s statements have hated and persecuted Jews, there are many who held to an inspired and inerrant Bible who opposed Hitler and hid Jews. To make all who hold to the historical fidelity of the Bible into Jew-haters is no way to make friends and influence enemies. It is also wrong.

Agrees and Disagrees

Stephen J. Patterson’s thought-provoking article elicited both north-south and east-west head nods (“The Dark Side of Pilate,” December 2003). The gospel writers no doubt minimized the extent to which Pilate could be perceived as actively participating in Jesus’ crucifixion while they at the same time accentuated the role of the Jewish leaders and of the Jewish people in general (Matthean version). And it is critical for readers of these texts not to see them as history but rather as theology, and to attempt to understand and learn from them in this latter context. But that does not mean we should assume they contain little or no history. Dr. Patterson states that there could be no historical basis for Mark’s record of Pilate’s thoughts (Mark 15:10). Agreed. But he continues by stating that the hand-washing scene and the acceptance of guilt by the people in Matthew 27:24–25 “do not record history.” I disagree. If we have to discount every “editorial addition to Mark’s earlier story,” we should then discount any and all of the Matthean text not found in Mark. Same with Luke. Additionally, Matthew’s narrative describes events to which there may have been dozens, even hundreds of witnesses, 047including a follower or two, or more likely, a later convert. Finally, to relieve either the Jews, especially the religious leaders, or the Romans (Pilate) from culpability in Jesus’ arrest, trial and crucifixion (one should look at the entire Passion and not just the last act) is extremely short-sighted. There is plenty of guilt to go around.

Jesus No Peasant

In “The Dark Side of Pilate,” Stephen Patterson calls Jesus a “peasant.” Jesus was descended from the royal House of David (Matthew 1) on his father’s side and a noble house on his mother’s side. They were deposed, it is true, but were certainly important and influential members of the community as a result. Jesus spoke Greek, the language of the educated, as well as the local Aramaic, and he could read and write (Hebrew, certainly, as a devout Jew).

Jesus was no peasant. He was an educated, popular and charismatic member of a beloved royal family whose deposition was mourned by many Jews. That’s what made him so dangerous!

Pilate No Governor

I was surprised to see Robin M. Jensen refer to Pilate as the governor of Judea (“How Pilate Became a Saint,” December 2003). Pilate was the procurator of Judea, not governor.

Procurators were a creation of the principate and were agents of the emperor who governed minor provinces. The people who held the position were originally called prefecti, and Pilate is referred to as a Praefectus Iudaeae. In his role as procurator, Pilate was subordinate to the governor of Syria, who at the time was Lucius Vitellius. It was an accusation before Vitellius of Pilate attacking the Samaritans that led to his recall.

Robin Jensen responds:

According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (OCD), Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judea—a title attested to by the inscription from Caesarea that was illustrated in my article. Turning to the definition of “prefect,” I note that the OCD defines praefectus under the early principate as a title sometimes given to governors of minor imperial provinces like Judea. So, Pilate was a governor, given the official title of “prefect.” It might be technically better for me to have referred to Pilate as prefect, but I would argue that the identification of Pilate as a governor is roughly correct. This is also the terminology used by Warren Carter, author of Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003).

Procurator (according to the OCD) was also a title given to governors of minor provinces, but the dictionary clarifies in this way: “These governors had originally been ‘praefecti’ [as the letter writer notes]; thus Pontius Pilate was officially entitled Praefectus Iudaeae … However, this term [praefecti] came to be reserved for the equestrian governors of Egypt.

One should not, therefore, call Pilate the Procurator of Judea, since, from what I read, this title would have only been used later.

047

More on Pilate

The June issue of BR will include a lengthy debate between Paul Maier, author of Pontius Pilate: A Biographical Novel, and Stephen J. Patterson on the historical Pilate and how bad he really was.—Ed.

BR Strengthens Faith
I have read your magazine for the first time. I find it a great tool for strengthening our Christian faith these days. I thank God for your devoting such time and effort to such a publication.