Readers Reply
010
M. J. Michaux Forgiven, Damned and Laughed At
Though misogynist M. J. Michaux ostensibly gets his shallow, frightened “last word” in Bible Review’s Fall issue (Readers Reply, BR 02:03), any truly intelligent reader, male or female, understands that he has made of himself a blatant example of the rather common male who has never been able to come to very loving terms with the gentle, tender, compassionate, vulnerable, passive, giving, “female” side of his own nature. He’s only half alive. All of us women readers, anyway, do kindly forgive him.
Taos, New Mexico
M. J. Michaux is by no means alone in his interpretation of Scripture. I know many people who share a similar viewpoint.
The attitude reflected in Mr. Michaux’s most recent letter leads me to believe that his character compares closely with that of people I know who share his ideas. This character embraces traditional values; is fearful of change; views life in simplistic terms, with good and evil clearly defined (little or no gray areas); and has a tendency to fight with unusual vehemence any threat to traditional values. In Mr. Michaux’s case, this tendency to defend traditional values results is ridicule directed at Mr. Lockley.
Mr. Michaux speaks for a group that represents a large segment of the population—a group at takes an extremely literal view of certain portions of the Bible—a group that ignores the fact that the Bible chronicles incidents when God placed women in highly influential positions—for example, Deborah (Judges, chapter 4). Mr. Michaux belongs to a group that hinders female servants of God from carrying out their divinely appointed missions to their fullest potential.
No doubt Mr. Michaux will respond to my letter with some derogatory comment about Alabama, just as he derided Mr. Lockley’s hometown; but the fact remains that Mr. Michaux (and each member of his group) will be called into judgment for having been a stumbling block to the female ambassadors of Christ, and, when sentence is passed, undoubtedly M. J. Michaux will be shocked and outraged at God’s “feminist bias.”
Jacksonville Alabama
My Bible Review arrived today and as usual I read the correspondence first. I had to chuckle out loud at M. J. Michaux’s replay to Raymond Lockley. Poor Mr. Michaux, he feels so threatened and is so angry, it would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
For every scripture passage he can quote from Paul and the other founders of the church, I can find two that affirm the ministry of women. Paul was human just like the rest of us; he himself admitted (Romans 7:23) that he often slipped back into the old ways. Even though he could affirm that whoever is in Christ is a new creation, he knew that the old creation still worked in his heart as it does in all of us.
I would ask Mr. Michaux, what does he do with all those passages that speak of women as full partners in spreading the gospel? What about Phillip’s four daughters? What about Phoebe? What about Priscilla? What about, “In Christ there is neither slave nor free, Greek nor Jew, male nor female”?
But most of all what about Jesus? Never once did Jesus denigrate women or tell them to sit down and shut up. In fact, there are at least two examples of Jesus sending a woman to tell the good news to men.
I suppose that Mr. Michaux would consider me to be living in grave error—I am an ordained minister who serves in the parish. I have ministered to women and men who have fallen under the spell of those who think as Mr. Michaux does, and all I can say is that such thinking does great harm to the community of faith when it attacks the worth of some of God’s children. I praise God that my authority and sense of call do not depend on those who believe in that way, but on the grace and mercy of my Lord Jesus Christ.
San Antonio, Texas
Old Testament and New Testament; B.C.E. and C.E.
I agree completely with Bradley Artson’s letter (Readers Reply, BR 02:01) regarding your biased terminology in referring to the Jewish 011and Greek Bibles as the Old Testament and New Testament, respectively. I hope that you will respond with greater sensitivity to this repeated request for more appropriate terminology.
The related point in Mr. Artson’s letter, of your basing chronology on Jesus’ life, is a matter I broached to you before. Your reply that Israeli publications use B.C. and A.D. is, I believe, specious. If it is wrong and offensive, it should not be imitated. Furthermore, most Israeli publications I receive use B.C.E. and C.E.
I write, as do others, out of strong feelings and convictions and not out of a desire to criticize or find fault. Your publications are very respected and influential and therefore should not be a source of divisiveness or offense to any group.
Storrs, Connecticut
BR’s Advertising Policy
Your explanation in the current issue of Bible Review of why you take the ads from the Eschatology Foundation and others, simply does not wash! Your magazine is not a public forum, you owe nothing to the proponents of every religious opinion in the world. You carefully choose your contributors for their scholarship and integrity. Why do you employ a double standard for the ads you print alongside those contributors’ works?
I can only think it is from great unfamiliarity with the traditions of Christianity that you have lumped all of us together under the title “Christian,” and there by you have unwittingly fallen into the chasm between fundamentalist Christianity and the more liberal branches of those who call themselves Christian. The differences are so great between these two traditions that there is virtually no dialogue between them. Each has its own publications because the views of each are unacceptable to the other. Indeed, each has its own colleges and other kinds of schools.
The contents of your magazine are wholly 051on the side of the liberal, scholarly thinkers. This is why it seems so incredible, to us who subscribe for that reason, that you would print things in your magazine that make a mockery of scholarship. We are put in the position of explaining to our students that this fine magazine has editors that exercise terrible judgment about ads, either from disinterest or ignorance.
Birmingham, Michigan
I agree with your advertisement policy (Readers Reply, BR 02:03).
Columbia, South Carolina
Amen to Anderson’s Appreciation of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures)
Amen and Amen! I couldn’t agree more with Bernhard Anderson’s article “The Newness of the Old Testament,” BR 02:03, “I am convinced that the Old Testament has its own word to speak to church, synagogue and to the world.”
For the past year I have been a student at a major university and studied “the texture of the Gospels” with an orthodox rabbi as my professor, His in-depth knowledge of both the Hebrew scriptures (I have since discarded the use of the phrase Old Testament) as well as the New Testament have given a newer, in-depth understanding to not only my study of Scripture but to my faith as well. We owe a great deal to our Jewish brethren for the Hebrew Scriptures and the heritage they have given us. As Mr. Anderson stated, “It is the Scriptures of Israel which constitute the first section of the Christian Bible.” In my opinion, all too often we as Christians have overlooked or forgotten this fact. Thank you for Mr. Anderson!
Bricktown, New Jersey
The Bible, History and God
I appreciated Bernhard Anderson’s analysis of the Mendenhall/Gottwald disagreement (“Mendenhall Disavows Paternity,” BR 02:02).
As Anderson says, the question of the reality of God is “really the crux of the argument.” I have never understood those who reject the fundamental claim of Bible writings—namely, the revelation of a transcendent God—yet look to these writings for historical knowledge. If the book is a fraud, then why fool with it?
The problem, of course, is that there is too much of the Biblical account that is verifiable to reject it completely.
To reject any appeal to “supernatural” causation is a mental flaw. The scientific method takes a hypothesis and sees if it fits the observable facts. If one reaches no contradictions, it is strong evidence that the hypothesis is correct The Bible is marvelously coherent in its stated purpose as the revelation of the transcendent God. Since we exist, is it not likely that there is a creator? Is it not likely that he would reveal himself? Is it not likely that he would identify himself by acts which could be attributed to no other? Is it not possible that the Bible records such occurrences? There is no contradiction in this line of reasoning and thus no grounds for a priori rejection.
Romney, West Virginia
052
Why Psalm Translations Differ
I am a complete stranger to poetic structure. Consequently, when I started to read “The Psalms” by Professor Robert Alter in the
Much to my surprise, the words he was quoting … such as “the opening formula ‘Happy is the man’ ” in the first psalm, and others, did not even appear in my copy of the Bible. Then I noticed the insert “Psalm 1” which gives the translation that Professor Alter was using. The thoughts are the same, but the words and frequently the sentence structure are completely different. There are even a different number of verses: 7 as quoted in Bible Review and only 6 in the Revised Standard edition.
I don’t know enough to know what I don’t know, so I guess my question is this: How valid or worthwhile is a study of poetic structure of the Bible when there are so many different translations … all of which are completely different from the original? Dr. Alter writes on the bottom sentence of the left-hand column and at the top of the right-hand column “poetry, working a system of complex linkages of sound, image, word rhythm, syntax, theme, idea, is an instrument or conveying densely through patterned meaning.” The theme and the ideas are the same, although different words used may give different nuances of meaning, but the rest certainly are not when you read a different translation.
I’m not trying to be picky. I would really like to know.
Seattle, Washington
Robert Alter replies:
It is, of course, an uncertain business trying to make sense of poetry in any translation, and I am afraid that existing translations tend to neglect considerations of the poetic form of the original. The reason why I provide my own translation is to try to mirror the word choices and word order of the Hebrew to a greater extent than is usually done. Hence the discrepancies between my version and the RSV. The RSV says “Blessed is the man,” certainly a permissible translation, but the primary meaning of the Hebrew term is happy, not blessed. The reason for the difference in the number of lines is that I set out the psalm in lines of poetry, and there is one more line than there are verses (the latter reflect later editorial decisions, not the original composition).
M. J. Michaux Forgiven, Damned and Laughed At
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.