Readers Reply

004

Reactions to Bible Review’s Premiere Issue

To the Editor:

I have been waiting a “good long time” for my first issue of the Bible Review and I finally received it. I was sorely disappointed … I’ll now be forced to wait another three months for my next copy! A paper of this quality and of this nature has been needed too long. Thanks for filling the gap so well.

To the Editor:

!

We think that means he liked it!—Ed.

To the Editor:

In reading your introduction to the magazine (February 1985), I was struck by your statements that you are “not looking at the Bible as a source of moral instruction in how to solve today’s problems.” Also, you stated that you would not be looking at the Bible as a source of “inspiration and comfort.’ I was sorry to read these comments. What this world needs are those very things, not speculation on such items as “What the Ass and the Ox Know—But the Scholars Don’t” BR 01:01. I suspect that we all know more Bible than we live. What I don’t need is more questions. If the uncertain trumpeter continues to give uncertain sounds, eventually everyone will lose their memory of the actual tune.

I do appreciate Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), for it is specific as to its aim. I don’t think Bible Review has found its middle initial. May I suggest the letter “S”—for speculation.

Please cancel my subscription.

To the Editor:

I found the first issue of Bible Review disappointing. The articles were ho-hum or less. The article on words used only once in the Bible had a good premise but just didn’t go far enough. But that’s all right; I’m willing to give you a fair chance to hit your stride.

Please don’t underestimate the intelligence of your readers.

To the Editor:

I absolutely love the magazine. Everything about it is wonderful, from your book reviews to your in-depth study of a topic.

Your photographs illustrating the articles are excellent. I especially enjoyed your article “Words That Occur in the Bible Only Once—How Hard Are They to Translate?” BR 01:01.

I am sure my Sunday School students will benefit greatly from the information I have obtained and shared with them.

To the Editor:

I loved my first issue of Bible Review, especially the superb article by Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis on the “Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus,” BR 01:01.

It’s twice as good as BAR!

To the Editor:

Congratulations on your new publication, Bible Review. This is a fine companion piece to BAR.

To the Editor:

Congratulations on the first issue of Bible Review. It demonstrates that Bible Review will be as well received as Biblical Archaeology Review.

To the Editor:

Your premiere issue has arrived, and it is superb! I am so happy that a periodical is now available which is dedicated to this kind of scholarship.

I look forward to future issues. My own area is music, and I hope to see an occasional article on it—uses for it in scripture, 005some recent scholarship on selah, a listing and description of instruments mentioned in the Bible, and the like.

See “But Did King David Invent Musical Instruments?” for a treatment of one musical problem.—Ed.

To the Editor:

I enjoyed Bible Review and read it from cover to cover. But you never consider the spiritual viewpoint. The views expressed are scholarly and secular, never spiritual. I’ll bet the price of a postage stamp not one of you have ever confessed Romans 10:9. If not, it’s french-fry city for you! I suggest you put your head knowledge in the drawer, and get your heart out of moth balls.

On the Difference Between Matthew and Luke

To the Editor:

Your inaugural issue of Bible Review was an excellent start.

Dr. Gros Louis’s article, “Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus,” BR 01:01, was worth the read, but I am not sure it achieved the goals it may have had.

As pointed out by Dr. Gros Louis, the account of Jesus’ birth appears in only two of the four gospels. That is as it should be, one for the Jewish world and one for the gentile world. Matthew’s gospel was written for the Jews of Israel. Luke’s gospel was written for, and directed to, the Greeks, whether they were gentile Greeks or Hellenistic Jews. The distinction is basic to any meaningful comparison of the literary treatrnent given to the story of Christ’s birth. St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians, reminds us that the Greeks seek wisdom and the Jews seek a Sign. Had Dr. Gros Louis recognized the respective readerships of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels, his critique would have been considerably different. Many of his speculations would have been made clear to him. These obvious differences should have been a clue that there may have been different audiences.

Matthew cited Old Testament scripture because the Jews he was writing for would either already know the references or would seek them out. That was Matthew’s primary objective—Jewish facts, not literature as we like to think of it. Matthew knew if his message was to be believed, given the nature of the Jewish world view, he had to tie events of Jesus’ birth to specific prophecy in scripture. Further, given Jewish views concerning the messiah, for whose coming the Jews had been praying for over three hundred years, they were seeking signs. Jews were not interested in such things as the effects on or the emotions of those close to the events. As a Roman tax collector, Matthew had daily personal contact with the entire spectrum of Jewish society. Of all the apostles, Matthew was best equipped to write a gospel to the Jews. In brief, Matthew’s audience was concerned with “what” happened, and not with related esoteric factors.

Luke’s problem was entirely different. He had to prepare a gospel starting even before the main story that would satisfy Greek readers and hearers. As they teach in journalism school, wherever possible, the writer should provide the who, what, when, how, where and why. By 200 B.C. educated Greek society wanted all of these aspects treated. Greeks were more interested in the 006human effects of an event on people than they were in the event. That is why most of our psychological terms are derived from Greek. The more background data provided, the greater impact was achieved. Whether Luke’s personal background was culturally Jewish or Hellenistic has not, to my knowledge, been clearly established. In any event, he knew his problem and wrote his gospel accordingly. Further, his physician’s training also shows throughout the entire gospel. His concern with detailing the emotional effects of events on observers and Participants alike was necessary to depict the full significance of the event to the Greek mind. Cultured and educated Greeks were convinced they already had answers to mankind’s most nagging questions. Knowing this, Luke had to make a supreme effort to write a gospel on as high a literary level as his education would permit. It had to contain much more than anecdotal and prophetic material. It had to demonstrate erudition, organization and accurate chronology.

The very fact that Luke selected so prominent and highly regarded a Greek official as Theophilus to relate the gospel tells us much about Luke’s evaluation of the formidable effort he had undertaken. To convince the Greeks exactly who Jesus was, i.e., that God’s son incarnate had come to earth among the Jews of Palestine, was indeed a stupendous literary assignment. Some biblical historians believe that Theophilus was appointed by Rome to serve in one of the Greek provinces at about the level of procurator because he was able and could be trusted.

As far as he was able to develop the comparison in literary styles, Dr. Gros Louis did about as well as one could expect. Unfortunately, basing the comparison on literary styles is probably the least fruitful basis to make such an analysis. Sometimes we strive styles is probably the least fruitful basis to make such an analysis. Sometimes we strive so valiantly to achieve our immediate and personal goals that we overlook the obvious.

Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis replies:

I, like Mr. Richardson, believe that no single approach can describe all the intricacies of a passage. His focus on the different audiences of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels brings to light an interesting and well-known aspect. Similary, a literary perspective, while recognizing the distinct intents of the authors, examines additional characteristics which affect the reading of the passages. Thus, the exclusion of either approach may limit our understanding of the text.

Does David Noel Freedman Have Poetry in His Soul?

To the Editor:

We have just begun receiving your new periodical Bible Review. Like its companion, Biblical Archaeology Review, it appears to be a quality publication ideally suited to the popular (and seminary student) audience. We look forward to future issues with some anticipation.

However, the article by David Noel Freedman (“What the Ass and the Ox Know—But the Scholars Don’t,” BR 01:01) deserves some comment. It so epitomizes one of my long-standing compliants with current biblical scholarship, I Just had to copy it for my files as “Exhibit A.” Meaning no disrespect to Dr. Freedman, to whose work I have often had recourse, such scholarship is either lacking in the liberal arts, it is simply tone-deaf.

Dr. Freedman’s syntactic analysis is unquestionably accurate. For the purposes of exegesis, the verse clearly has the meaning:

“The ox knows (the crib of) its owner, The ass (knows) the crib of its master.”

007But, “a beautiful piece of symmetrical poetry,” it is not. In his efforts to balance the verse, he has generated the rather tedious, if not boring, prose so common in the modern Bible translation.

Still worse is the result achieved by his rendering of the remainder of the verse. Not every idea has to be spelled out in order to be understood—that is the particular charm and power of poetry. In this instance, Dr. Freedman spells out the thoughts of an accusing God, but, in the process, robs the reader of God’s emotion. Divine emotions are too frequently ignored; we could at least avoid translating them away. The verse in question is this:

“But Israel does not know, My people does not understand …”

It is as if the phrases here are almost too painful to complete. One can almost see the Almighty shake his head, as if experiencing the disillusionment of age. In their relationship to God, Israel has not even risen to the level of dumb beasts. Criticism and disappointment are mingled here with a delicacy beyond the reach of prose.

Dr. Freedman says, “In short, the prophet has hurled a glorious insult at his people,” or was it grief-stricken? “They probably understood it better than most people have ever since,” says Dr. Freedman. If I may be so bold, others, too, have heard the message of this verse. One needs merely a little poetry in the soul.

The Song of Songs and Shorter Books in the Bible

To the Editor:

Congratulations on a fine first issue of Bible Review!

There is one overstatement, however, that needs correcting. In “First Glance,” BR 01:01, you state that the Song of Songs is the book in the Old Testament” and later in the same section refer to it as “the shortest biblical book.” Presumably you took this from Jack M. Sasson’s article (“Unlocking the Poetry of Love in the Song of Songs,” BR 01:01). But he says only that it’s “one of the shortest books of the Bible.”

Quite a number are shorter, of course: Haggai, Obadiah, Ruth, Joel, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Malachi, Jude, 2 Peter, the letters of John …

Thanks for the correction; as you indicate, the error was BR’s, not Professor Sasson’s.—Ed.

To the Editor:

Of the 39 Books in the Hebrew Bible, ten are shorter than “Song of Songs,” as seen from the following list:

Book	No. of Chapters	No. of Verses
1. Obadiah	1	21
2. Haggai	2	38
3. Nahum	3	47
4. Jonah	4	48
5. Zephaniah	3	53
6. Malachi	3	55
7. Habakkuk	3	56
8. Joel	4	73
9. Ruth	4	85
10. Micah	7	105

To the Editor:

There is a significant omission from Jack Sasson’s otherwise thorough and helpful survey of recent research on the Song of Songs in your first issue (see “Unlocking the Poetry of Love in the Song of Songs,” BR 01:01). Although he refers favorably to Marcia Falk’s richly poetic translation in Love Lyrics From the Bible: A Translation and study of the Song of Songs (Sheffield: Almond, 1982), he neglects her contribution to the literary analysis of the Song.

Falk’s insights on the themes, motifs and contexts in the Song of Songs are clear and provocative. She also shows how the wasfs (poetic descriptions of parts of the male and female bodies) in the Song have been distorted in most modern interpretations. Her reading of the Song as an anthology of love poems which express what she calls the “paradox of love in the world” is fascinating although I hope she will develop it further in her writing on the Song.

Combined with her evocative translation which allows modern readers to feel the imagery of these poems, her careful literary analysis makes this the book on the Song of Songs which an interested lay person should read first.

I applaud the intention of Bible Review to make serious biblical study available to a broader audience than the scholarly journals reach. I eagerly await the next issue.

How Many Words in the Hebrew Bible?

To the Editor:

Thanks for an interesting and excellent first issue of Bible Review.

Somehow the statistics in the article by Frederick Greenspahn (“Words That Occur in the Bible Only Once—How Hard Are They to Translate?” BR 01:01) do not make sense to me. He writes that there are 300 absolute hapax legomen and over 1,200 nonabsolute hapax legomena. But three paragraphs later he says, “The Hebrew Bible’s 300 or so absolute hapax legomena represent roughly one quarter of the Bible’s total vocabulary.”

That would mean that the Hebrew Scriptures have a total vocabularly of only 1,200 words! Why, then, is it hard for seminary students to learn biblical Hebrew?

Frederick E. Greenspahn replies:

The problem you and many other readers found arose during the course of editing.

The sentence which says, “The Hebrew Bible’s 300 or so absolute hapax legomena represent roughly one quarter of the Bible’s total vocabulary” should have read “The Hebrew Bible’s 1500 or so hapax legomena …” The reference is to all hapax legomena (absolute and non-absolute). Since the total vocabulary of the Hebrew Bible is generally considered to be between five and ten thousand words, this would accord with my statement that approximately one-quarter of the words in the Bible are hapax legomena.

Computers and Genesis

To the Editor:

A few years ago I came across a news item reporting on a computer study purporting to prove that Genesis was written by one person. I haven’t heard anything further about the matter, and was wondering whether Bible Review might provide some more information about the study itself and responses to it in the scholarly community.

Thanks for the enjoyment that BAR and Bible Review bring me.

We’re working on it.—Ed.

Reactions to Bible Review’s Premiere Issue
To the Editor: