Readers Reply

006

No More Naked Women

I do not like the pictures of naked women to illustrate the Book of Enoch (“The Strange Visions of Enoch,” BR 03:02). Even assuming that the sons of God does refer to fallen angels (of which I am still not convinced), does it need to be illustrated? Would it be necessary to draw a picture of David and Bathsheba to get the picture of what happened?

I do appreciate your magazine and realize you publish a wide variety of opinion, but I believe the Bible, although I do not understand it completely.

Murphy-O’Connor’s “Hatchet Job” on the Gospels

My initial reaction after reading Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s adept “scissor work’ on the Transfiguration accounts was, “What a pity that the poor, ignorant Bible readers of the last 1,900 years did not have the benefit of the esoteric insights in that marvelous modern discipline called literary criticism!” What is amazing to me is that the modern literary critic knows far more about the biblical events than the disciples who witnessed them. Really now, don’t you agree that it takes far more faith to believe O’Connor’s elaborate reconstruction than it does to believe Matthew, Mark and Luke?

Literary criticism can have its place in the study of Scripture. Your article on the infancy narratives (“Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus,” BR 01:03, by Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis) is a good example. But it ceases to be helpful to us when the literary critic engages in what amounts to a “hatchet job”—clearing away words and phrases which he thinks do not fit his idea of what really happened.

Mr. O’Connor states that the imaginary “development” which he claims to have traced “is rather typical of most of the events narrated in the Gospels.” Are Jesus’ virgin birth and resurrection included in these events encumbered by the legendary accretions of time? And if the editorial additions are cleared away, will they then reveal the “real Jesus,” who actually was no different than you or me? Can this humanized Jesus satisfy the deep needs of my life any better than the human doubts and struggles of an Augustine or a Luther? And, if Jesus is no different than they, then why should I worship Him?

A Finely Honed Bit of Sarcasm

I want to thank Mr. Murphy-O’Connor for his wonderful insight into the story of the Transfiguration! I can honestly say that his account was a completely new revelation to me.

Since Jesus was already well into his ministry by the time of the Transfiguration, it never occurred to me that Jesus hadn’t more fully figured out what his ministry actually was. I just assumed that he pretty much knew what he was doing, and why, by then.

I always understood that Mark’s primary source for his gospel was Peter, who should have been an eye-witness to the event; but since, as Mr. Murphy-O’Connor points out, it was “very unlikely that Mark knew the primitive version,” I understand now that Peter is probably at fault for misrepresenting the facts.

Of no small surprise to me was the fact that Luke would begin his gospel by stating that he was going to set things down in a known and decisive way, and then turn around and write something without “a desire to record the past,” as Murphy-O’Connor says. While it is indeed unfortunate that Luke didn’t know he was doing this even as he did it, I must commend Mr. Murphy-O’Connor for taking the time and making the effort to set the record straight. Well done!

Finally, perhaps the most instructive disclosure of the entire article is the fact that the more the Bible is mistaken, the more we can know the truth. I have to admit this was difficult for me to comprehend; but since “this type of development is rather typical of most of the events narrated,” and “we might never discover how the Gospel 007tradition developed” without these vital errors, I will have to make an effort to forget the truths and look for the errors as I study my Bible, because only then can I “grasp the truth” and come “closer to the historical Jesus.”

Thank you for setting me free with this marvelous piece of work, Mr. Murphy-O’Connor.

An Affront to the Sacred Quality of Scripture

After reading Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s article, I decided it was quite contradictory. Rather than “deepen [my] understanding,” I came to the conclusion that the author’s goal to denigrate the actual event in a verbose way. Let me provide a few examples to support my conclusions.

The author states: “ … the accompanying article is not an affront to the sacredness of the Scriptures.” Yet repeatedly, there are phrases in the article which raise doubts: He tells us it is doubtful Jesus spoke to anyone during the Transfiguration; we are told that in this case the angels were a “literary fiction.” Later, we are told that Jesus’ face did not shine; rather, his face lit up with a physical smile. Speaking of the insight of Jesus, he says: “Such insights are … a common phenomenon and are in no way miraculous.” Lastly, Mark drew “on the symbolism of his age” to create a new and improved image of Jesus; he even “borrowed” a cloud from Exodus!

I cannot think that a literary critic would seek to dismiss events that are deemed miraculous. Most people are aware that if you base your results upon physical, concrete, scientific evidence, you can dismiss all miraculous events. However, spiritual evidence transcends the physical. The author claims the “resources” and “insights” were fictions designed to catch the attention of early religious consumers. This is a disgusting notion! The article did not “deepen … understanding,” but cheapened the entire affair.

Is Murphy-O’Connor a Believer?

I have read many articles in Bible Review and Biblical Archaeology Review that I have not agreed with. None however, gave me quite the reaction as the article on the Transfiguration by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor in the Fall 1987 Bible Review (see “What Really Happened at the Transfiguration,” BR 03:03).

The following paragraphs contain my comments.

Murphy-O’Connor states, “ … the story transmitted … in the gospels did not really happen that way …” using “ … the subsequent behavior of Peter … ” as an example. Murphy-O’Connor also states, “If things really happened as described in the Transfiguration story, Peter’s later behavior is inexplicable.” Obviously, Murphy-O’Connor has never heard of fear. All of the disciples showed this same fear despite the years following Jesus and witnessing His miracles. In similar circumstances, I bet we’d all react the same as the disciples.

Murphy-O’Connor discusses his opinion of Jesus’ feelings and “insight,” etc. All of Murphy-O’Connor’s statements are about a human man not Jesus. Jesus is God’s Son and was during his visit on earth in human form.

Murphy-O’Connor discusses how Mark “embroidered” the story. I don’t know how Murphy-O’Connor could possibly know what Mark embroidered—none of us was there.

I don’t know how Murphy-O’Connor can accurately state, “the early church was not motivated by a desire to record the past … ” Luke is the only gospel author who states his purpose in writing a gospel, “That thou, mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed” (Luke 1:1–4). No one can truly know what motivates their contemporaries, let alone someone who lived in the first century A.D.

Murphy-O’Connor talks about a “serious believer.” I do “not” “seriously” believe Murphy-O’Connor is a “believer,” serious or otherwise.

Writing in the Bible Begins with Erasing

Thank you for the article on Israelite literacy (“The Question of Israelite Literacy,” BR 03:03). It is interesting that the first reference in the Bible to writing that I found actually tells us about erasing information. In Exodus 17:14 [RSV] the Lord tells Moses: “Inscribe this in the document and read it aloud to Joshua: ‘I will utterly blot out the memory of Amelek from under heaven.’ ”

The sofer, or scribe, when he begins to inscribe a Torah scroll, starts by writing, then crossing out, the name Amalek.

Also the first stone tablets of the law given to Moses were broken by him.

Writing in the Bible seems to begin with a form of ending. One might say that literacy in the Bible starts off in a rather contradictory way with the destruction of information.

On Jesus’ Self-Awareness and the Transfiguration

I was very pleased with “What Really Happened at the Transfiguration?” BR 03:03, by Fr. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. I have been quite intrigued with the problem of Jesus’ self-awareness and the question of just how much he knew of his mission and his relationship to the Father. For various reasons, I had come to the conclusion that he did not equate himself with God. If indeed the Transfiguration happened as described in the Synoptics, then certainly Jesus would know exactly who he was; human ignorance would not have entered at all into his makeup. Fr. Murphy-O’Connor has provided a very reasonable and believable explanation for the Transfiguration that I, not being trained as a literary analyst, had some vague ideas about but was never quite able to quantify. Many thanks to Fr. Murphy-O’Connor for his article.

Getting Off on the Wrong Psychological Foot

I was disappointed in Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s “What Really Happened at the Transfiguration?”. His analysis was both interesting, captivating, and well presented, even though I couldn’t buy all of it. But his thesis disappointed me. And my sense is that Father Murphy-O’Connor should have known better. It was a great article, except that it started out on the wrong foot and that threw everything else out of kilter.

Murphy-O’Connor asserts without proof and without argumentation that “Peter’s later behavior [in denying Christ] is inexplicable.” The literary analysis, probing, and exegetical work in the article were superb, but the psychological basis of the article was not worthy of a college freshman!

Why does the author find it so incredible that Peter could have seen a real live miracle and then also deny Christ? The 047multitudes of Israelites in the wilderness reportedly saw and experienced all of the plagues God wrought in Egypt and yet complained in the wilderness. They saw the miracles of Moses in the wilderness and still denied his leadership and wanted to return to Egypt.

How Could the Nephilim Survive the Flood?

I have a question regarding your article “When the Sons of God Cavorted With the Daughters of Men,” BR 03:02, by Ronald S. Hendel.

I was wondering how the Nephilim were around after the flood. Your article implies that the Nephilim were the reason for the flood. During the flood every living thing perished (Genesis 7:21).

How, then, could there by any Nephilim left to be destroyed by the Israelites and King David?

Ronald Hendel replies:

According to the biblical traditions, the Nephilim were destroyed by the flood and by the Israelites during the conquest of the Promised Land. The question we need to ask is how to understand this logical inconsistency in the biblical traditions. The Yahwist even refers to this inconsistency in his abashed remark that “the Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards” (Genesis 6:4).

The way to resolve this problem is to realize that the biblical traditions were fluid and multiform, reflecting their original setting in oral traditions. Just as one can hear different versions of Paul Bunyan or Daniel Boone stories nowadays, so the ancient Israelite would have heard different versions of stories about the Nephilim or different stories about the giant Goliath. In oral traditions multiformity is a constant—only when stories begin to be written down and compiled do the inconsistencies become disconcerting. The biblical composers and editors gathered many of the old stories together, and some show their oral traditional roots by conflicting with other variants—such as the stories of the Nephilim or the stories of the slaying of Goliath. In order to understand the apparent contradictions among the biblical stories, we need to appreciate the oral roots of many of the traditions and to think in terms of fluidity and multiformity.

No More Naked Women