Readers Reply

014

Bias and The Book

To the editor:

The review of The Book in the Summer 1986 volume stressed the importance of keeping the Old Testament and New Testament scriptures as close as possible to their original phrases (see Should “The Book” Be Panned? BR 02:02). I found it very interesting that an advertisement shown at the end of the article was for some tapes to “decode Bible riddles.” Also Kyle McCarter’s review of The Hebrew Bible—A Socio-Literary Introduction by Norman Gottwald (“A Major New Introduction to the Bible,” BR 02:02) seems to praise a book that claims that “something quite different actually happened than what the Bible describes.” I, too, find The Book extremely misleading, but its approach is really no different from any other author whose bias interprets scripture through translation or analysis.

Suggest Warnings Placed on The Book

To the editor:

While I’m fairly certain you will receive howls of protest from aficionados of The Book, or one of the other editions of The Living Bible, I want to express my personal appreciation for Eldon Jay Epp’s article Should “The Book” Be Panned? BR 02:02.

I have had many of the same misgivings about The Book but lacked the examples to back up my convictions. I’m carrying a copy of the article in my briefcase to share with folks who ask me what Bible to give to a friend, etc.

Do you think some “advocates group” could negotiate with The Living Bible’s publishers to put a disclaimer on cover and jacket? Something like this might do:

“The biases written into the text of this

biblical paraphrase are those of the

paraphraser and do not reflect the attitude

of the author.”

To the editor.

Thanks for a great magazine for lay people. I wish you could publish bimonthly instead of quarterly.

I have read and enjoyed Should “The Book” Be Panned? BR 02:02, for the second time, and I wish to express my thanks to Eldon Epp for such a carefully documented expose of this product of Madison Avenue thinking. Well Done!

The Federal Trade Commission, in the interest of fairness, ought to require a warning label be affixed to each copy: “Warning, Dangerous to the Uninformed Reader. Read with Care!”

Translator/Paraphraser of Living Bible Replies

To the editor:

I have read with deep interest the comments of Dr. Eldon Epp concerning THE BOOK (one of the editions of The Living Bible). I am always happy to receive comments and criticisms.

It seems to me, however, that Dr. Epp is overly critical of thought-for-thought translating, otherwise known as paraphrasing. To a certain extent any translation involves paraphrasing in order to be understandable. The question that arises is whether the paraphrasing is accurate. Dr. Epp cites as a negative example the translation of the Greek word genea as “nation” instead of “generation” which he prefers. Since the word can be translated either way (see Philippians 2:15 in the King James version), the choice becomes a matter of theology and interpretation. Where there is the need of a choice The Living Bible follows an evangelical position.

I am surprised at Dr. Epp’s criticism that The Living Bible “uses the American Revivalist phrase ‘get right with God.’ ” This is the translation used consistently in the American Bible Society’s paraphrased translation, Today’s English Version, and is a good paraphrase of “justify.” He also questions the use of the word “saved” where he feels “made righteous” would be more accurate. I don’t think so, though it depends on the theological expertise of any particular reader. A scholar will understand the various theological facets of “justified” while the average person will 016often be mystified. The word “saved” has plenty of theological connotations of its own, but better represents the wonderful idea to most laymen. (“Saved” is used as a theological term more than 50 times in the King James version.)

Dr. Epp feels that The Living Bible “appears almost to derive pleasure from castigating and chastening the Jews….” I had thought the opposite is true. In many instances during Jesus’ last days on earth there are references to activities of “the Jews” when in fact it is obvious that the Jewish leaders—the scribes and Pharisees—and not the Jewish people were those involved. The Living Bible in such instances frequently attributes these actions to “the Jewish leaders” rather than to “the Jews.” An example is John 19:12 (Revised Standard Version): “Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, ‘If you release this man you are not Caesar’s friend.’ ” The Living Bible says, “Then Pilate tried to release him, but the Jewish leaders (italics added) told him….”

In my opinion, the Bible in any translation is “anti-Jewish” in the parts of the Old Testament where God so harshly criticizes his beloved people for abandoning him. And any New Testament translation must faithfully record the tirades of Jesus against the Pharisees and the activities of the Jewish leaders during Jesus’ final days on earth.

Dr. F. F. Bruce has well described The Living Bible in his qualified commendation of it:

“The Living Bible is designed to bring out the essential meaning of scripture in simple and contemporary language. Its rapid and widespread acceptance, especially among readers who do not know Hebrew and Greek is evidence of its success in achieving this aim.

“Such readers hear the Word of God addressing them directly in this paraphrase. For them the more scholarly versions would be largely unintelligible. The criticisms which it has attracted from theologians or literary stylists are mainly due to its not meeting goals which it never set out to meet Even so, at times it attains the goal of ‘equivalent effect’ in quite a remarkable way.”

All of which is to say that although I understand Dr. Epp’s scholarly and valid concern for accuracy, I continue to feel that The Living Bible is both accurate and unusually readable; and of course it is gratifying to find that many scholars as well as pastors and laypeople are among its 33 million readers.

Some of Dr. Epp’s comments relate more specifically to THE BOOK than to other editions of The Living Bible, most of which carry footnotes indicating alternative translations or material that is implied but not in the text.

017

BR’s Articles Don’t Enrich and Don’t Encourage Respect for the Word of God

To the editor:

I received and read my Spring issue of Bible Review. I was surprised and dismayed at the absolute contradictions with the Bible: The article by Carl D. Evans (“The Patriarch Jacob—An Innocent Man,” BR 02:01) which portrays Jacob as an innocent man and the article by Maurice Samuel (“Joseph—The Brilliant Failure,” BR 02:01) which describes Joseph as a failure. Both articles give an opposite view of what the Word of God, the Bible, actually says. These articles reveal an unbelief in the Divinely inspired record. They may titillate the intellect and humanists’ minds, but they reject an understanding and faith in the plain Bible truth. They neither enrich nor encourage the reader to love the Lord or His Word, These articles encourage a lack of respect and love for God and His Word. Of course, Jacob was guilty (Genesis 27:19–36, 41) and praise God that Joseph was holy and pure (Genesis 39:4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 21; Chapters 40–50).

I request that you keep your magazine. It is of no benefit to those who want to better know the Bible, since it is filled with human opinion and guesswork.

Memories Evoked

To the editor:

In the dusky light that sifted through the trees into the windows of the cheder [children’s religious school], I, as a child of possibly four, studied in our ancient language the Book of Genesis. It was another world. We were children of the post-World War I era. Our shtetl [small eastern European Jewish village] was never safe. But to the cheder one had to march. Every morning at eight, the one-room school was full. Inside that room, we children knew a world of unbroken repose—only silence interwoven with our sweet voices and the rabbi’s Hebrew and Yiddish elucidations and interpretation. The Book of Genesis, with its tales of love, friction and intrigue, became an unending, deep, silent pool of mysteries that lurk in remote places, And there was budding love in our childrens’ hearts for our forefathers.

As I studied the ancient legends I felt enchantment and delight; there was no hint then of the skepticism that would one day steal into my consciousness. In my childhood days, the mysteries were rational and all marvels probable.

Your Spring 1986 issue brought back to me the delight of our Bible which throws a spell over those that seek and know the Book. A spell woven of many charms, magical powers and powerful incantations.

To the editor:

“The Jacob Cycle in Genesis,” BR 02:01, unfolded new insights on old stories and reawakened and energized questions I have pondered for years. I especially thought on “The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narratives from a Feminist Perspective,” BR 02:01, by J. Cheryl Exum.

“Dasn’t Ask Questions”

To the editor:

“The Jacob Cycle in Genesis,” BR 02:01, so eloquently scrutinized in your Spring issue, stimulates so many thoughts, memories and possibilities.

I remember at the age of 12 being perplexed by Jacob’s duplicity and ultimate elevation to patriarchal importance. My grandfather, an orthodox, immigrant Jew, was not confused at all. I asked him: “Why is Jacob a Jewish hero, when he was so cruel to his brother?” In his Russian accent, he 050pronounced, “You dasn’t ask any questions.”

Off and on, over the years, I have returned to the Jacob-Esau problem and it’s encouraging to see that it also occupies scholars and theologians.

Mind-Stretching Articles

To the editor:

I very much liked the format of your “The Jacob Cycle in Genesis,” BR 02:01. It helped stretch my mind, even as I relaxed and became an “armchair student.”

Do it again sometime.

To the editor:

I have to be pretty mad or otherwise excited before taking the effort to write to any editor. But the “The Jacob Cycle in Genesis,” BR 02:01, did one of those two things. By putting these articles together, you have demonstrated how a person’s point of view determines what he can and what he cannot see when considering the sacred text.

For one who naively believes that the Bible is verbally, even literally, inspired it is nigh impossible to see what Maurice Samuel (“Joseph—The Briliant Failure,” BR 02:01) described. A literal believer may ask: “How could Joseph be so mean to all his brothers, to his innocent full brother, and to his father, to put them through all that anguish?” But such a questioning person will soon find out that this sort of thinking is a no-no: Suffering, he will be told, was necessary for Joseph’s, as well as Jacob’s and Benjamin’s maturation, and anxiety brought his brothers to acknowledge their sin, which in turn was necessary for them to fully benefit from forgiveness.

“Natural man” does not like to be confronted with his sin. Maurice Samuel looks at the narrative with “natural” eyes, and projects a vengeful Joseph. Thanks for including his view.

Also thanks for the excerpt of the Joseph story according to Thomas Mann (“Jacob Takes His Bride,” BR 02:01). The reviewers that I have run across always presented me with snatches of exchanges between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, and I get cheesed off by that sort of thing. I vowed never to touch that book with a three-meter pole (you know we’ve gone metric up here), but now I’m not so sure. Whatever his viewpoint, Mann is a great writer.

M. J. Michaux Gets the Last Word

To the editor:

This is in reply to the editor’s remark in the summer issue (Readers Reply, BR 02:02) that “M. J. Michaux Gets His Comeuppance.”

Your dig and the negative letters (selected, no doubt, from the pro letters) simply confirm the point I raised, namely, that women are not the best judge of women, or of the Bible. The last laugh might well be upon the 20 ladies of Bible Review who had to reach down so low—clear down to Ely, Nevada, and a Mr. Lockley—to establish their claim to fame. [See Lockley’s letter, Readers Reply, BR 02:02]

Ely, Nevada? It appears that Ely is in the Nevada desert. The nearest civilized town of any size is the Babylon of America, Las Vegas, 261 miles to the south. The population of Ely is 4,882 souls. It is near the “Ruth Copper Pits” and “Ward Charcoal Ovens,” not far from the Snake Range mountains in Humboldt Forest, just south of Steptoe Valley.

All of this is highly significant and scarcely recommends our desert pastor to be an authority on women or the Bible.

Like it or not, chauvinistic or not, the Bible does say this: “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man…for the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:3–9).

All the laughter of all of Ely, Nevada’s 4,882 souls will not change those facts. Nor will all the “digs” of you and your female counterparts make the laughter ringing in your editorial offices sound any less hollow and strained and false.

Your desert pastor’s logic is as weak as his authority. You chose a poor defender. If you were right, you would not have to defend yourselves at all, any more than Moses did (Exodus 14:14).

Your desert pastor may visualize himself as a John the Baptist thundering in the wilderness with the voice of prophecy, but he shrieks like a woman. He reasons like one. He is illogical like one.

Let him use his pulpit as a minister of the gospel, not a crusader for women—some women. Let him preach Jesus Christ and him crucified, and he will not have to laugh in his pulpit at some unknown from Colorado. He would object if some plumber would try to teach him theology. Let him stick to his 051calling, or get out of it. Let him “defend the faith once delivered to the saints,” and not be used by women who hate the way God has established the government of His world.

Stretching Parallels

To the editor.

I want to tell you how much I enjoyed John Dominic Crossan’s “From Moses to Jesus: Parallel Themes,” BR 02:02. Crossan’s article brings information and viewpoints not found in most Bible commentaries, and added (for me) a depth of understanding of Matthew I did not formerly have.

To the editor.

In addition to the parallels noted in John Dominic Crossan’s article (see “From Moses to Jesus: Parallel Themes,” BR 02:02), I would point out another parallel: between Moses and the leading character in Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. Moses was found in an ark in the bulrushes. The leading character in Wilde’s play was found in a bag in a London railroad station. Both men underwent identity crises and eventually found their true identities.

052

Likes BR As Is

To the editor.

I hope you will continue to publish Bible Review by the same formula and in the same style as you have. Please do not let the criticism cause you to change directions. In my opinion all the letters criticizing Bible Review have been the result of misunderstanding, short-sightedness and ignorance. Worse than that, they do not seem to be willing to change. The language of the New Testament is “be steadfast, persevere, faint not,” but it never is applied to willful blindness, deafness or closed minds. So, be steadfast, persevere and faint not.

BR’s Detracting Ads

To the editor.

I have been an avid fan of Bible Review since receiving my first copy. The publication is an outstanding scholarly work and occasionally a religious experience. The issue featuring the “Jacob Cycle in Genesis,” BR 02:01, was an especially delightful experience of one textual insight after another as well as a rainbow of artistic representations.

Why then, I wonder, in such a magnificent publication with contributing scholars the calibre of James Charlesworth, Frank Cross and Thomas Mann, etc. would there be reference in advertising to neo-apocalyptic predictions such as found in the Spring 1986 Bible Review? While advertisements may not imply editorial endorsements, it does seem to compromise the quality of biblical scholarship that interprets within the context of biblical understandings of revelation, inspiration and prophecy, as well as an accurate understanding of apocalyptic language—just a question for your consideration while remaining an avid admirer of Bible Review.

God’s best blessings on your future work.

To the editor.

I am thoroughly enjoying the Spring issue of Bible Review. The articles and the artwork are superb.

One thing puzzles me. The high quality of the content in this and most of the other issues of the magazine is, in my opinion, infinitely cheapened by some of the advertisements. Why would a responsible biblical magazine accept the kind of advertising represented by, for example, GLSBR, “The Secret Code” from B’Ret Publ., Eschatology Foundation, Stonehenge Viewpoint? I should think that other advertisers would definitely NOT want to be associated with such stuff which caters to the all-too-prevalent tendency toward sensationalism.

I receive my own subscription, and requested that our library also subscribe. I really mind putting my students in contact with such trashy stuff. It is confusing, to say the least. Perhaps if you are hurting for money, more reputable sources could be enticed if they knew they would have better “neighbors.”

052

Policy on advertising

A few of the ads in this magazine espouse ideas that many find untrue, embarrassing, trashy or low-class—and sometimes all four. Why do we accept them for publication, especially because they are so few among our many fine advertisers? Not for the money, but for the principle. That principle is the same principle that infuses the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That freedom applies not only to what we agree with and find congenial, but also to the ideas we vigorously disagree with, the ideas that embarrass us. In the marketplace of ideas, truth will prevail, not because falsehood is barred but precisely the opposite—because it is given a hearing. The alternative to accepting the few ads that some readers find objectionable is to reject them. Between these alternatives, we believe it is better to give a hearing to the ideas reflected in these objectionable ads than to censor them.

We do have limits. We will not accept ads that are patently offensive, but except for such extreme cases, the marketplace of ideas is open.

We hope the quality of the goods, services and books in our other ads—plus our editorial content—will more than make up for the few ads some find objectionable. We also enlist your support for the principle that guides our ad policy. Truth is most likely to emerge when all are free to contend in the marketplace of ideas.—Ed.