Readers Reply

008

M. J. Michaux Gets His Comeuppance

To the editor:

I would like to thank you—in a way—for printing the letter of M. J. Michaux in your Winter issue (Readers Reply, BR 01:04).

I read the letter as the opening illustration in my sermon this Sunday, as I was preaching on the importance of taking God’s Word to heart as well as studying it from an academic perspective. Nearly everyone at both services laughed out loud at Michaux’s primitive and anachronistic suggestion that women were “incompetent authorities” to discuss the Bible because the various books were all written by men. I wonder if this person also objects to female reporters interviewing our male President, or to male obstetricians?

It’s hard to believe that there are such blatant chauvinists left in the America of the 1980s. It’s hard to believe that someone who seems to think they are an expert on the Bible hasn’t grasped the significance of the teaching that in Christ “there is neither male nor female.” Surely, even if people don’t take to heart the biblical teachings on equality, they ought to at least know no one will listen to their views when surrounded by statements of tremendous ignorance.

To M. J. Michaux: thanks for reminding us that your ilk is still at large. To the Editor: please cancel his subscription.

To the editor:

I almost choked in outrage at the letter to the editor from M. J. Michaux in the Winter issue (Readers Reply, BR 01:04).

It is one thing to disagree with the contents of the article(s), but quite another to state that women are incompetent biblical authorities because there were no women authors of the 66 Bible books. This is nothing but ignorant sexism. Some of Christianity’s best theologians today are women. For shame, M. J. Michaux!

To the editor:

Since I can find not one of the Bible’s sixty-six books written by anyone named Michaux, how can anyone of that ilk possibly have the competence to pass judgment on who can make a review?

Effrontery, yes, but competence?

To the editor:

M. J. Michaux’s letter to you in the Winter issue of Bible Review is an exercise in absurdity, buffoonery, and bombastic male elitism (Readers Reply, BR 01:04).

Was the Egyptian Ankh Adopted as an Early Christian Symbol?

To the editor:

In the Winter 1985 issue of Bible Review I read about Constantine and how he became a Christian (“Tracing the Spread of Early Christianity Through Coins,” BR 01:04, Stanley Hudson). You printed something partially incorrect in the explanation of the symbol Constantine supposedly saw in either a dream or vision (). “The symbol, like the cross,” the article reads, “was an ancient sign of Christianity, dating to the first century.” This may be true. However, the origin of that symbol goes further back than the first century. In Egypt that symbol is the ankh, a symbol for the sun God, Horus.

At any rate, it is an interesting topic and I thank you and Mr. Hudson for the article.

Stanley Hudson replies:

It would be a mistake to confuse the ancient Egyptian symbol of life, the “ankh,” with the Christian crossogram. Though similar at first glance, the ankh was depicted as a cross with a centered loop at the top (), whereas the crossogram combined the cross with a Greek letter rho (); the latter had its loop not centered, but to the right.

The ancients, especially the Greeks, enjoyed combining different letters into various 009monograms. Interestingly, an early coin of Herod the Great, which used the Greek language, also had the symbol on it; most scholars feel that this represents a monogram combining the first two letters of trito~, or “third.” Since Herod was sensitive on the point as to when his reign legally began (he felt it began in 40 B.C.), this coin was probably minted in 37 B.C., and was meant to denote “minted in the third year.”

So here we have an identical symbol with the crossogram, yet with a clearly different meaning.

Whereas the crossogram and ankh symbols look similar at first glance, it would be difficult to assume that they have the same origin or meaning based solely on that similarity.

To the editor:

I greatly enjoyed your Winter 1985 article, “Tracing the Spread of Early Christianity Through Coins.” BR 01:04. A follow up article on the state of Christianity in current coinage would be equally interesting. I think especially of United States coins with the generic term “In God We Trust” on them.

To the editor:

I enjoyed “Tracing the Spread of Early Christianity Through Coins,” BR 01:04. It is seldom that a publication will risk alluding to the syncretistic features of a faith. This kind of information cannot damage the reputation of the Messiah himself, only that of the traditional developments surrounding him.

New Testament theology does not emphasize the “Execution” over the “Resurrection” and “Eternal Life” and I believe this was foremost in the minds of pagan converts.

The “cross” is a symbol of two major, somewhat related things, from very ancient times. First, it is a solar symbol, even from Sumerian times, and it was commonly used by all pre-Christian peoples. Akhen-aten used several versions of crosses as the symbol of the Life bestowed on him by the Sun. The ankh () and its variations came to symbolize Eternal Life. Strangely enough the Christian use of “crosses” was popularized in Egypt and North Africa (especially in the Phoenician settlement of Carthage). The T-shaped cross was the symbol of Tammuz, who was resurrected in Near Eastern mythology. The Phoenicians were especially fond of Tammuz.

You will notice that the “crosses” on coins C, E, (& F) are ornamental, hardly resembling any execution device. I conclude that their use emphasizes the Resurrection and confusion of the Most High with the Sun, by accommodation of well-known pagan symbology. (The Phoenix also fits well in this conclusion.) So the crosses are not necessarily “Christian” at all, or at best a syncretistic symbol that both pagans and gentile Christians could be comfortable with (along with master politician, Constantine).

The “aureola” (or halo) seen in the mosaic is also a well-known solar device, always shown around and sometimes radiating from the head of the representative or “mediator” of Sol, or Sol himself. The crown shown on coins B & C is a symbol of this, also. The saintly halo surrounding Yahshua’s head in coin S is an “aureola” previously commandeered by Christians. The projections (cross-arms) shown on coin R are just a variation of this. Astral “halos” are shown on various pagan deities and rulers (e.g., the Emperor Trajan shown on 010the Arch of Constantine). The “orb” shown in Yahshua’s hand in the mosaic is also a symbol of “astral” religion and pagan kingship. It recalls the “World Soul” in Plato’s Timaeus (shown with “cross-bands”), and the lion-headed God, Aion, is usually featured standing upon it. This symbol was very popular in medieval times, shown held by kings and the “King of Kings.” The angel on coin Q also holds one.

As for the “angels” “replacing” the Victoria; they are still basically “Victoria” (cf. coins P & Q) which are like the Greek “Nikeµ.” Of course they can be seen as angels because in all Western art these “Victoria” and “Nikeµ” have served as the models for all iconographic descriptions of angels! In the Scriptures the malÕaµkiÆm (“messengers,” etc.) of the winged variety are never explicitly mentioned as having two wings (at least in the Hebrew text). The s^eraµfiÆm of Isaiah, chapter 6, have six wings (with their features covered to impede idolatry). The k^erubiÆm/hayyoÆt of Ezekiel 1 and 10 had four wings. The two “women” of Zekariah 5, with the wings of storks are symbols, not Heavenly Beings.

Is Blenkinsopp or the Documentary Hypothesis in Trouble?

To the editor:

I was intrigued but ultimately unsatisfied by Joseph Blenkinsopp’s article in your Winter issue on the documentary hypothesis (“The Documentary Hypothesis in Trouble,” BR 01:04). I wonder if Professor Blenkinsopp took seriously some of the realities of a largely preliterate society. Very large portions of the tradition of that society are memorized and could be repeated by rote by fairly large numbers of the people. Any major alteration in existing texts would cause a great deal more trouble than the women’s movement is having rewriting some of our favorite hymns. Insertions and deletions are always far easier than alterations. The Priestly editors could not easily have expurgated Yahweh from the ancient texts without appearing as rebels against the tradition. One thing the Priestly writers were clearly not is rebellious. With this in mind, the documentary hypothesis continues to look fairly healthy.

To the editor:

I noticed a reader’s reply (Readers Reply, BR 01:04) in your Winter issue suggesting that a more appropriate name for your publication would be the “Anti-Bible View.” After reading Professor Blenkinsopp’s article, I tend to agree.

In stating the biblical flood story is itself a rather late version of a narrative theme, his view seems to be that this is literature evolved from the figment of someone’s imagination and is accusing the writer of the Genesis account of plagiarism. Well, of course, if this was indeed an actual occurrence, no one is suggesting that Moses was the first to mention it.

That this man can be a Professor of Biblical Studies at Notre Dame University only goes to show why the church is in such trouble today. As the author states, biblical scholars generally write for each other. I can only conclude then that your publication should be subscribed to only by others who have also come to the wrong conclusions.

I went in seach of Noah’s Ark myself, and suggest Professor Blenkinsopp’s students exchange their tuition fee for air fare if they want the truth. I will personally march his students to 6,350 feet and into the Ark.

To the editor:

I take Bible Review to learn something about the Bible. To be perfectly frank I find it a “scholarly” put-down of scholarship. In the Winter issue it was Blenkinsopp’s “The Documentary Hypothesis in Trouble,” BR 01:04.

He admits—in vague terms—that such an hypothesis is not in trouble, it is just the many details fitting into the original system. What I sense in Blenkinsopp is typical of a lot of today’s scholars. I don’t doubt his scholarship, but he chooses to make it support the present trend (landslide) back to conservatism in all things religious. Most of the conservatives (who protect themselves by not exposing themselves to scholarship in Bible) would find this article as proof that the Documentary Hypothesis does not need to be taken seriously, when they do not even know what it is. This article means nothing to the person who knows very much about the Documentary Hypothesis—he is already aware of such problems.

The only thing I found in support of the hypothesis was “it is perhaps too early to jettison it entirely,” and that is a very left-handed compliment (and in the last paragraph). His own treatment of the Flood Story is proof that more than one source was used.

To the editor:

“The Documentary Hypothesis in Trouble,” BR 01:04, raises many valid points concerning the development of the biblical narrative. The attempt to reconstruct this development through textual analysis has shed new light on the meaning of the Bible. You are quite right to point out that if the J, E, P, D thesis has inconsistencies, it still represents a “real advance” and should serve as a springboard to “find better ways of understanding how the biblical narrative was generated.”

The Yahwist frequently has been described as a great theologian of the early monarchy. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the unification of two peoples with overlapping but distinct traditions was an appropriate time for a great theologian to create a single biblical narrative for the new single kingdom. After all, David created a capital in a land neither side could claim; David built a palace from which to build this new kingdom; David started a temple which became the religious center of the kingdom. And then David wrote the Psalms and placed them in the Temple because he knew that they would bring the people together!

052

It is impossible to believe that this brilliant general, politician, poet, artist knew enough to create a capital, palace and temple to unify two peoples and then stopped there. What holidays were the people to celebrate? what traditions to follow? what would a central temple mean? what did the covenant mean when not everyone had come out of Egypt? How could David of all people have been so stupid as to ignore these questions? It is impossible to believe that this Renaissance man supreme, worthy of being the ancestor of the messiah and whose life was chronicled in great detail, never thought to create a biblical unity narrative in the newly united kingdom. Solomon may get the credit for being wise but David is the genius responsible for the Yahwist narrative. Using the Elohist traditions and his own Yahwist heritage, David created the official narrative of the unified people. The golden calves of Jeroboam and Aaron show how long it took to revise it.

The multitude had not wandered for a generation in silence. Moses created the Exodus-Covenant narrative and the people learned and accepted it; David expanded it; and everybody afterwards explained why they weren’t as successful as Moses and David.

The Prophets—God’s Loyal Opposition

To the editor:

Articles like “Who Asks (or Tells) God to Repent?” BR 01:04, by David Noel Freedman make my subscription to Bible Review worthwhile. I would like to point out to your readers a complementary article written by one of my professors, Yochanan Muffs entitled “His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition: A Study in Prophetic Intercession” (Conservative Judaism 33/3, Spring 1980, pp. 25–37).

Muffs proves that God desires the prophet to oppose Him in the name of His mercy in order to restore the divine balance between His attribute of strict justice and His attribute of mercy. He cites references from Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Second Isaiah to prove his thesis. Amos and Moses are the most successful of God’s loyal opposition on Israel’s behalf. Nevertheless, all true prophets attempted to assuage God’s wrath by defending Israel, their attempts were all too often futile.

Kudos and Corrections

To the editor:

Congratulations. If you are able to maintain the quality of your articles, you will have a journal of interest not only to interested non-professionals, but also to members of the craft of professional Bible interpreters.

I especially appreciated the article by Fr. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (“On the Road and on the Sea with St. Paul,” BR 01:02) on travel conditions in the early Roman empire. I wonder whether a copy editor perchance caused an error in his text. In the article, the philosopher Epictetus is dated “several decades earlier” than St. Paul, i.e., dating him in the thirties under Tiberius. Actually, he dates from the period of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, “several decades later” than Paul.

Jerome Murphy-O‘Connor replies:

The error was not the copy editors’, but mine. I gratefully accept Professor Krentz’s correction. The dates generally given for Epictetus are A.D. c. 55–c. 135.

To the editor:

I enjoy Bible Review more than BAR. Your color prints are absolutely fabulous.

To the editor:

I was very pleased to learn from the Winter 1985 issue of BR that F. F. Bruce has been named to your Editorial Advisory Board. However, among his books on Paul (page 4) one is cited incorrectly: the subtitle of Paul is Apostle of the Heart Set Free, not Apostle of the Free Spirit.

M. J. Michaux Gets His Comeuppance
To the editor:
I would like to thank you—in a way—for printing the letter of M. J. Michaux in your Winter issue (Readers Reply, BR 01:04).