Readers Reply

020

Scriptures Need Understanding Not Interpretation

To the Editor:

The Scriptures do not need interpretation; they need understanding. And understanding comes when one comes to the author with that desire in his heart.

Please cancel my subscription to Bible Review.

To the Editor:

I have read the first two issues of Bible Review. Please accept my congratulations: It is an admirable effort at providing the very best of scholarship in a format accessible to all. It is no small feat to provide such depth of insight and information using style and terminology that is so attractive and so readable.

I know that your most severe critics will be those who will not study the Bible critically. In the face of pseudo-intellectualism, your journal speaks eloquently of a God so creative that the discoveries of scientific research merely confirm His wisdom.

To the Editor:

The Bible is a plain simple book full of three-letter words so everyone can hear God speaking to them. I can’t use a magazine filled with ten-letter words explaining it to me.

Why Wasn’t Bible Review Available 50 Years Ago?

To the Editor:

Your second Bible Review issue (Summer 1985) helped me to relive a recent visit to Qumran and Essene excavations in Israel. Obviously, I enjoyed reading “The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible,&rd BR 01:02, by Frank Moore Cross.

“On the Road and on the Sea with St. Paul,” BR 01:02, by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, also fascinated me. While involved in business administration of a church-related institution in São Paulo, Brazil (St. Paul in Portuguese), I also taught New Testament history. If only Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s research had been available then (over 50 years ago) to visualize better those three amazing Pauline journeys!

To the Editor:

Your article “On the Road and on the Sea with St. Paul,” BR 01:02, was very illuminating. This is the kind of article I was hoping your magazine would print. It leads to a much better understanding of Scripture. I was not pleased with your first issue, but this issue was a vast improvement. Keep it up.

To the Editor:

I have read and enjoyed your recent article entitled “Images of God in Western Art,” BR 01:02.

I’m just finishing my Bachelor’s degree in Art and Literature (after 15 years!) and plan go on to my Master’s. Your article has opened up a world of possibilities for me—thank you for the subject you’ve chosen and the way it was presented.

Feminism, Patriarchy and Homosexuality(?)

To the Editor:

Had I known that I was subscribing to a secular magazine that condones homosexuality and feminism I would not have subscribed.

021The review by Bernadette J. Brooten of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s book, In Memory of Her (Bible Books, BR 01:02), is very offensive and I take it as your own opinion since you offer the book at a special discount price.

I pray, for your sake, that this review and the one in the first issue by Dr. Tikva Frymer-Kensky will not lead people astray. Remember, God is not mocked.

Please cancel my subscription.

To the Editor:

I am very disappointed that Bible Review giving generous space to the promotion of feminist books that use the Bible to justify various degrees of misanthropy. (See Text of Terror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives [Bible Books, BR 01:01] and In Memory of Her—A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Biblical Origins [Bible Books, BR 01:02].)

For every woman abused in history, Jewish or otherwise, thousands of men have suffered worse fates, right on down to the exploitation of American manhood in Vietnam and the current sexism in capital punishment. The Bible is clearly more concerned with men than women. But this concern works both ways. Two examples: (1) The Ten Commandments presumably allow one to covet one’s neighbor’s husband, only the coveting of a neighbor’s wife is forbidden; (2) the Mosaic law generally preaches at, threatens, men far more than women.

Women like Phyllis Trible and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, whose views have been expressed in your magazine, read the Bible through thick feminist spectacles that filter out everything that they don’t recognize as male “oppression” of women.

Finally, why be upset over patriarchy? It evolved as a response to the economic and general living conditions of the Hebrew tribes, and it is silly for a 20th-century woman enjoying an advanced technological culture (invented by men!) to pass moral judgment on it. The feminists would be quite happy to replace it with matriarchy.

Let us study the Bible for its own sake.

Likes Editor’s Chip

To the Editor:

May I express to you my delight with the first issue of Bible Review. It is everything I expected, and more!

I have been a subscriber to Biblical Archaeology Review magazine for many years, and consider that excellent periodical one of my “literary staples.”

I commend you on the content and format of Bible Review. Second only to the contents is the beautiful illustrative material. The reproduction of the paintings is of superior. The way in which you have crossed denominational lines with the approach of the magazine, and yet offered such helpful material, is nothing short of phenomenal.

If, indeed, you are a “chip-on-the-shoulder” editor as Mr. Carasik suggests (Readers Reply, BR 01:01), I like the chip!

022A Literary Critic Looks at Jesus’ Genealogy

To the Editor:

I found the first two issues of Bible Review extremely interesting. Both the subject matter and the method of presentation is considerably different from anything I’ve been exposed to before.

The article by Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis in the first issue (“Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus,” BR 01:01) was particularly interesting. Part of the interest was in the method, which is “literary criticism.” I’ve read about it, but have never been exposed to it before.

After reading this article at least three or four times, however, a question arose which I had never thought about before, and Mr. Gros Louis did not mention. Why should both Matthew and Luke put so much emphasis on Joseph’s genealogy? According to the Gospels, Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus’ birth since Mary was a virgin, had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is the Son of God.

Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis replies:

Your question, “Why should both Matthew and Luke put so much emphasis on Joseph’s genealogy?” is very relevant to the discussion.

I belive the question can be answered from literary perspective in both instances. It seems that Matthew, as I noted, sees history as dominated by male characters who follow predetermined courses of action. In that sense, it is no surprise that he places the birth of Jesus in the context of male characters. Jesus is seen as the son of Joseph, who in turn is posited in the line of Abraham and David.

Luke, on the other hand, waits to present the genealogy until just before Jesus begins his ministry. As I noted in the article, perhaps for Luke, events become major events, become “history,” only after the fact. Luke may be showing that the prior events, which at the time seemed minor, have now become a part of the history of mankind. Thus, his narrative switches to a more historical tone or genre. This change from an account that revolves around two women and a narrative that explores personal relationships to a straightforward genealogy that makes no mention of women and does not expand on any relationships, highlights the switch to a historical perspective. To a literary critic, a change in mode signals an additional message; in this case, it draws attention to the narrative’s affirmation of a series of very personal events as a part of history.

Perhaps I should note that other approaches to the passages might give different answers to your question. For example, a historical critic might say that the genealogies focus on Joseph because he would be viewed as the legal progenitor of Jesus. An analysis from a higher critical perspective might indicate that other sources and documents list the genealogies of Joseph but not of Mary. I, however; chose a different way of looking at these narratives and in so doing arrived at different reasons. I hope this response gives an idea of why a literary critic focuses on certain elements of a narrative.

A Seal on Your Heart—Or Is It a Seal Impression on Your Heart?

To the Editor:

I thoroughly enjoyed your first issue. I found it a refreshing change from the fare usually available.

Having recently read the Song of Songs, I particularly enjoyed your article on this beautiful book (“Unlocking the Poetry of Love in the Song of Songs;&rd Jack M. Sasson, BR 01:01). I can now enjoy it all over again as a beautiful piece of poetic literature.

In the related article by Professor Hallo, “As the Seal Upon Thy Heart,” BR 01:01, I wonder if I might offer another idea for an interpretation of Song of Songs 8:6.

Perhaps the writer did not intend that we read the reference to both seals literally. As is stated in Professor Hallo’s article: “Only one seal was likely to be worn in each place by any one person.” “Seal upon thy heart” could be read in a figurative fashion: A “seal” on her lover’s heart, a permanently engraved record on the organ of love, one that cannot be removed, even in death. Like a tablet, once it dries, the seal is there forever. Even if it is broken and useless (dead), 023the seal is not removed, cannot be removed. Her love is sealed into her lover’s heart forever.

Perhaps the passage should read:

“Make me as the seal upon thy heart,

Like the seal upon thine arm.”

Thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable first issue.

According to your interpretation, it is not the seal itself that is upon the heart, as the seal is worn upon the arm, but rather the seal has made a seal impression on the heart, as the seal makes an impression on clay. Thus, according to your interpretation, the author meant seal impression, rather than seal.—Ed.

The Difference Between the Ox and the Ass

To the Editor:

In response to David Noel Freedman’s article on Isaiah 1:3 (“What the Ass and the Ox Know but the Scholars Don’t,” BR 01:01), I agree with the author that the verb “know” serves a double duty usage. However, I disagree that the noun “crib” also serves a double duty. I believe that the prophet indeed meant to distinguish between the two barnyard animals. The ox, in this context, is used to symbolize selfless service and devotion to his master whereas the ass symbolizes self-interest and is devoted only to his personal needs, i.e., to be fed. This distinction adds richness to the prophet’s indictment of the people of Israel. To paraphrase this couplet, “The people of Israel are not as wise as the dumb ox who at least knows who his master is and is devoted. In fact, they are not even as wise as the selfserving ass, who although motivated only by hunger, at least knows where its next meal is coming from. The people of Israel do not understand that even if they are only motivated by selfish interest, there is a Master, God, who provides all sustenance.”

It is a tribute to the poetic genius of the prophet that he expressed so much in so few words.

Images of God

To the Editor:

In the article by Jane Dillenberger entitled “Images of God in Western Art,” BR 01:02, I found that the illustrations were, as expected in your publications, excellent, but that in this case the text was at times misleading and often left important features of the illustrations unexplored and thus unexplained.

For instance, the illustration identified as “Manuscript Page by Parisian Artists” depicts the opening chapters of Genesis, not the opening verses of John as the text states (though of course it depicts the Genesis passages in the light of the opening of John).

Also, the Adam figure in William Blake’s painting “Elohim Creating Adam,” perceptively characterized by Ms. Dillenberger, suggests simultaneous creation and crucifixion in the positions of arm and hand and hint of the traditional wound in the hand of the crucified Christ.

The characterization of Alben Pinkham Ryder’s “Jonah” as depicting “the only left-handed God known to me” is surprising since such Blake works as the frontispiece to Europe: A Prophecy (known as The Ancient of Days), depicting a left-handed divine figure with compasses that also suggest forked lightning, are better known than the Ryder painting.

I am a devoted subscriber to BAR and BR and use them often in teaching Bible as Literature courses at Texas A&M University.

Jane Dillenberger replies:

Professor Want is quite correct that my intention was that the leaf of the Morgan manuscript was to be understood as representing the creation in the light of the opening verses of John’s Gospel, and not as an illustration, literally understood, of those verses.

Want’s interpretation of Blake’s “Elohim Creating Adam” pleased me and will interest Bible Review readers.

In regard to his pointing to a left-handed God represented by Blake in his “Ancient of Days,” I should like to ask him if he knows of any left-handed God who is engaged in the great acts of creation. Ryder can be viewed as an essentially religious artist and his paintings with biblical themes are unusual iconographically.

Finally, I should like to correct an error in a caption contained in my article: The Isenheim altarpiece was completed about 1515, not 1509.

060Did Gesenius (And Others) Anticipate Freedman?

To the Editor:

Just a comment on your footnote to David Noel Freedman’s article “But Did King David Invent Musical Instruments?” BR 01:02.

Not only does the Good News Bible render Amos 6:5 along the lines of Freedman’s suggestions, but so do two “Evangelical” translations, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version.

In addition, The Bible: An American Translation (1939), under the editorship of J. M. Powis Smith for the Old Testament section, reads as follows for Amos 6:5:

“They who sing to the accompaniment of in the lyre, And compose for themselves like David.”

To the Editor:

I found the second issue of Bible Review far superior to the premiere issue. I enjoyed it 060so much that I read it from cover to cover.

The article by David Noel Freedman (“But Did King David Invent Musical Instruments?” BR 01:02), however, deserves some comment. While most modern translations do translate hashab in Amos 6:5 as “invent,” the suggestion that it should be translated “improvise” or “compose” is by no means a new one. Gesenius over a hundred years ago in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament suggested the following under his listing for hashab:

“Followed by an acc. i. q. ‘to think out,’ ‘to invent,’ ‘to compose,’ as songs (music), Amos 6:5.”

I agree that “to improvise” is a better translation. What I do not understand is why more translations have not adopted it.

Congratulations on an excellent magazine.

David Noel Freedman replies:

I appreciate very much your pointing out that the suggestion I made in Bible Review about proper translation of Amos 6:5 had been anticipated by others. I was unaware of the reference in Gesenius, and no doubt there are others as well. However, it is not clear just what Gesenius had in mind as the proper reading of the text, since I am not aware of just how he intended us to understand the rendering you quote. The point I made had to do with the absence of a preposition, and I am quite certain that that is not at all what Gesenius or anyone else had in mind.

No doubt in some commentary somewhere, the ideas I have suggested are to be found, since it is very logical to conclude that Amos was talking about songs and not about instruments. The important thing is to try to get these improved interpretations into the standard translations. And if I am not as original as I thought I was, so be it. It is at least as important to revive an old idea, if it is a good one, as to create a new one; all I can ever claim is that I came to the point independently.

Words that Appear Only Once in the Hebrew Bible versus English Translations

To the Editor:

A couple of minor errors crept into Mr. Greenpahn’s piece (“Words that Occur in the Bible Only Once—How Hard Are They to Translate?” BR 01:01): “sack” also appears in Joshua 9:4, and “sweep” also appears in Isaiah 28:17.

Frederick E. Greenspahn replies:

The word used for “sack” in Joshua 9:4 is a different Hebrew word from that used in Genesis 43–44; similarly, the word translated “sweep” in Isaiah 28:17 is not the same as the one used in Isaiah 14:23. My point was regarding the Hebrew text of the Bible, not English translations, which obviously vary a great deal.

On Being Able to Recognize Errors in Bible Review

To the Editor:

In the Song of Songs article (“Unlocking the Poetry of Love in the Song of Songs,” BR 01:01), in line 7 of the transliteration on page 16, the “full” vowel symbols representing the sûuÆruÆq waw(s) are “upsidedown,” thus:

yuûkeluû instead of yuÆkeluÆ

Please do not think me arrogant for pointing this out. I was so excited to notice it. I’ve been “studying” William La Sor’s Biblical Hebrew for a year now (after my children finally go to sleep), and being able to notice this mistake represents probably the sum total of my “studies” of ancient Hebrew!

Many of your readers will be people like me. For various reasons, we have not been able to be formally educated in seminaries and universities, but we love to learn about ancient times, peoples, languages and the Bible. We consume what comes to our attention. Until a few years ago, I had never seen a monograph or a dissertation. We are a new market, as you know. Instead of tuition our money goes for literature an self-education (for good or bad).

Is BR Divinely Inspired?

To the Editor:

In Bible Review, February 1985, Frederick Greenspahn writes “God uses hapax legomena four times more often than Job does …. It seems both reasonable and appropriate that God’s vocabulary is more erudite than that of mortals” (see “Words that Occur in the Bible Only Once—How Hard Are They to Translate?” BR 01:01).

Odd. I would have expected that God, in talking to men, would have spoken as simply and clearly as possible in order to increase the likelihood that he would be understood.

It seems, sir, that you and your staff cannot be divinely inspired, as you use simple, clear English and always explain the meanings of unfamiliar words.

Scriptures Need Understanding Not Interpretation
To the Editor:
The Scriptures do not need interpretation; they need understanding. And understanding comes when one comes to the author with that desire in his heart.