Readers Reply

014

Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

To the Editor:

The letters are the most entertaining portion of Bible Review. It’s comical how thin-skinned and insecure many of our suppose scholars are.

I’ve always been amused by self-righteous piety blossoming into pompous religious self-importance. But the intolerant and insecure, those afraid of all views other than their own, are real comic relief.

Certainly God must have a sense of humor. Perhaps his children should have a little more of that and a little less indignation.

BR’s Feminist Bias

To the Editor:

I received my first copy of Bible Review and was rather astonished at the masthead. Of the 25 names listed, 20 are women.

Of the 66 books in the Bible, I do not know of one written by a woman. I question, therefore, how a “Review” can be made by such incompetent authorities.

Further, I noticed in Readers Reply that others before me have expressed dissatisfacation with the feminist direction of the contents of the Review.

But what most alarms me is the humanistic, anti-Biblical tenor of the articles. My question is, why then do you go to such effort and expenditure if you don’t believe what it says? Call it by a more appropriate, “The Anti-Bible View.”.

Unless there is a decided change in future issues, do not expect me to renew this subscription.

BR Is Mind Stretching

To the Editor:

I agree with the author’s statement at the end of the article entitled “The Baptism of Jesus,” BR 01:03, “What I have presented is simply what the rabbis would refer to as another interpretation.” The paintings and mosaics illustrating this article were delightful, but the text was not too convincing.

However, keep up the good work. The articles are mind stretching and keep the reader constantly referring to the Bible.

To the Editor:

Congratulations on your vision, taste and creativity in producing Bible Review. As a facilitator who trains adults to conduct Bible study in the local church, I am recommending Bible Review to all the participants in the Adult Biblical Interdependent Learning Program/ABIL and their trained facilitators.

To the Editor:

Please allow me to say a word of appreciation for Bible Review. Though not always in agreement with all that is written in it, I find it more than justifies its existence. Many of the articles are not just interesting, but informative and valuable to the reader. For example, Frank Cross’s reconstruction of 1 Samuel 11 (“New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research II: Original Biblical Text Reconstructed from Newly Found Fragments,” BR 01:03) was a much appreciated service to those of us who do not have easy access to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To the Editor:

The issues I have so far received have been everything you predicted. They have been intelligent, interesting, easily understood, and beautifully illustrated. I have shared several articles with friends and colleagues.

Scholarly Caution Urged

To the Editor:

I would like to express my appreciation for the forum Bible Review provides for a meaningful, interfaith sharing of academically sound Bible study. Above the strident, 016parochial interests voiced by those sociologically insecure elements endemic to all peoples and all faiths, your publication may fairly be viewed as a continuum with that world of open, ecumenical religious and deep philosophical discussion reminiscent of the Golden Age of Al-Andalus, medieval Moorish Spain. Bible Review has been long time in coming.

Your forum also produces a not insignificant byproduct: interdisciplinary cross-fertilization. A case in point: In “The Baptism of Jesus,” BR 01:03, William R. Stegner opens a door into an adjoining field of academic endeavor. Professor Stegner pulls together an intriguing array of literary parallels between the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ baptism and the targumic stories on the binding of Isaac. This essay, in and of itself, merits our approbation, but above and beyond this, it initiates a new avenue of research in targumic studies.

Yet his assertion that “the targumic versions of the story of the binding of Isaac, … served as a model for the story of the baptism of Jesus” is difficult to justify on the basis of the literary facts he adduces. The Gospel accounts do ante-date, the midrashic material. This can be shown linguistically. More importantly, prevailing scholarly opinions is suspicious of just this kind of hasty conclusion. Marvin Pope has expressed it well in his comment on the views of Raphael Lowe “…wherever a piece of rabbinic exegesis implicitly emphasizes Jewish repudiation of a notion or belief so prominently associated with Christianity that any Jew might be expected to have heard about it, [then] anti-Christian apologetics is to be assumed as the main motivation, though not necessarily the sole motivation … The same applies when a Jewish exegete takes pains to enunciate some Jewish notion capable of acting as a counterpart to a well-known Christian idea.” (Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible [Doubleday & Co.: New York, 1979], p. 96.)

I would recommend in this instance that Professor Stegner withhold final judgment on the historical priority of the aggadic texts over the Gospel accounts until the parallels in question can be more fully explored by specialists in the field of targumic studies itself. My caveat urging greater scholarly caution on this point in no way diminishes my esteem for is exposition of others matters dealt with in the article. We must all thank Professor Stegner for having raised an issue properly for having raised an issue properly reserved for the scrutiny of targumists and your publication, Bible Review, for having brought it to light.

Resurrection in the Baptism of Jesus and the Binding of Isaac

To the Editor:

There are two things William Stegner left out of his excellent and helpful article on “The Baptism of Jesus,” BR 01:03.

Both the Binding of Isaac and the Baptism of Jesus were topics on which rabbis and priests debated in print and in words. For the Binding of Isaac encapsulates the history Israel—a vocation of obedience to God. The Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:1–11) encapsulates the story of Jesus

Both Isaac and Jesus rose from the dead. There is a rabbinic tradition that Isaac was fact offered as a sacrifice, and died. In Genesis 22:19 Abraham returns alone from the mountain. Isaac is not there to weep over the death of Sarah (Genesis 23:1–3) and only reappears in Genesis 24:62. This tradition, or midrash, may be due to Christian pressure: “Our Jesus died and rose again … .” On the other hand, it may have predated Jesus among Pharisees who did believe in life after death.

Second, in the Baptism of Jesus, his emergence from the waters of Jordan has also been interpreted (by Paul, by Prayer Books in the Anglican Communion, etc.) as a resurrection to new life, or at least a hint or foretaste of his rising from the dead.

Thus, I believe that besides the points William Stegner has made, resurrection is another element that can be added to the similarities in the stories, although the evidence for Isaac’s resurrection may be an effect of the Baptism account

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

To the Editor:

I enjoyed reading Edward F. Campbell’s review of The Five Scrolls: Hebrew Text, English Translation, Introduction and New Liturgies, ed. H. Bronstein and A. H. Friedlander (New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1984) in Bible Books, BR 01:03. In it, Dr. Campbell remarks that the translators of The Five Scrolls make “a daring change” in Esther 8:11. By means of a quotation mark, “the new translation has made the offending words [‘attack them, their little ones, and their women’) a quotation from Haman’s decree … [in 3:13]. The Jews could respond defensively, but against their attackers only.” He also adds that he finds “this choice by our translators a very important move” (ibid).

It may be instructive to note that this insightful interpretation was already advanced by Robert Gordis in his commentary on the Book of Esther. See Megillat Esther, With Introduction, New Translation and Commentary (New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 1974; distributed by KTAV Publishing House, Inc.). In his notes, Dr. Gordis points out that the passage in 8:11 “has been tragically misunderstood… . Mordecai … quotes the words of Haman’s decree in his own edict authorizing the Jews to defend themselves against their foes.”. He also states that “this passage is an instance of the highly varied use of quotations, which is a very important feature of biblical, rabbinic, and Oriental literature” (ibid.)

I have enjoyed reading the Bible Review and feel it is a perfect addition to BAR. Keep up the good work.