From the Exodus to Pentecost
Though it
sounds like it could be the name of a distant planet in a sci-fi novel, the Tetragrammaton is actually the
arrangement in Hebrew of the letters said to represent the very name of God, as
first revealed by God himself to Moses in the Old Testament. Rabbi Jacobs says,
"The Tetragrammaton is the four-letter name of God formed from the letters
yod, hey, vav, and hey, hence YHVH in the usual English
rendering."[1] Most
commonly the divine name is translated into English letters as YHWH, and
sometimes the vowels A (some say for another divine name, "Adonai") and E (for "Elohim")
are inserted between the two H's to make the more readily pronounceable
"Yahweh."
"The
original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton," continues Jacobs, "has
been lost, owing to the strong Jewish disapproval of pronouncing the name. The
pronunciation Yahveh or Yahweh is based on that used by some of the Church
Fathers but there is no certainty at all in this matter."[2]
This is a rather striking fact, that a community of many millions of people
would be so averse to uttering a certain name for God that its pronunciation
was finally forgotten and left a complete mystery to succeeding generations. All
this naturally leads to the question: "Just why were the ancient Hebrews
so reluctant to use that name?"
One possible
answer is found in a passage from Leviticus:
“Then
you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God
shall bear his sin. And whoever
blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the
congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born
in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death"
(Lev. 24:15-16).
That helps
explain things, in that the Jews weren't keen on the idea of breaking the laws
of God that carried the death penalty. But certain Israelites were evidently
willing to run that risk, at least when it came to things like breaking the
Sabbath, committing adultery or cursing their parents. The question remains why
the particular injunction against blasphemy was treated with such extreme seriousness.
To answer that we may need to trace further back to the beginnings of the Hebrew nation, to God's revelation to Moses at the burning bush. There Moses directly
asked God for a name to identify him before Pharaoh and to distinguish God clearly
from the gods of Egypt:
And
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall
say to the children of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you" (Exodus
3:14).
There the Tetragrammaton
first appears. According to Jewish scholars the name refers primarily to being, and thus means something like, "I
am that I am," or, "I will be that I will be."[3]
Jacobs adds that while names like Elohim are used of God in a universal sense,
"the Tetragrammaton is used of God in His special relationship with
Israel."[4] In
other words this is the name God uses of himself in a highly personal way –
which implies that if that name were to be misused God would likely "take
it personally."
Sometime later,
following the Exodus from Egypt, the fledgling Israelite nation found herself
in direct contact with God himself at Sinai in the wilderness. There God met
with Moses, as the mountain burned with fire and the people trembled in fear
below:
Now
all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of
the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they
trembled and stood afar off. Then they said to Moses, "You speak with us,
and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die" (Ex.
20:18-19).
From all
indications, then, the Israelites' abhorrence of the particular sin of
blasphemy arose from their experience, and ongoing national memory, of God's
holy presence in the wilderness. So frighteningly powerful was this experience
that they collectively decided to take no chances, and in a demonstration of
reverence left off pronouncing God's name altogether. This makes Israel unique,
in being the only nation on earth whose present existence cannot be adequately explained
apart from some powerful historical interactions with the Almighty. That being the case,
the reality of YHWH, the God of Israel, best explains the origins of Israel. As John Bright argues, “The history of
Israel is the history of a people which came into being at a certain point in
time as a league of tribes united in covenant with Yahweh… Since this is so,
Israel’s history is a subject inseparable from the history of Israel’s religion."[5]
Fast-forwarding
some 1500 years from the Exodus brings us to the time of Jesus and the
apostles, and another set of unexpected divine-human historical interactions.
God again appears to his people, this time in a resurrected body following
three years of teaching and miracle ministry culminating in a brutal crucifixion
at the hands of Roman authorities (and at the instigation of jealous religious
leaders). This time he appears to a handful of men and women, whom he charges
with the responsibility of preaching the gospel (good news) of his kingdom
throughout the world. Again the people chosen are (mostly) Jews, and again history
changes course to reflect the will of God.
The
Israelites were afraid to so much as utter the name of YHWH. Now God's people, having
seen Jesus risen and having been filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, boldly
preach God's salvation in the name of Jesus Christ to anyone who willing to
listen. This saving ministry of Christ is all the more astounding when we
realize that Jesus was crucified not for committing crimes or acts of sedition
against the state, but for committing the ultimate blasphemy, that is, claiming
for himself the very identity of the God of smoke and fire who met with Moses
on the mountain so many centuries before. "Before Abraham was," Jesus
declared to some very powerful and pious religious authorities, "I AM"
(John 8:58).
At the cost
of their livelihoods, their reputations, and even their lives, this small band
of disciples thus managed to spread the gospel throughout the first century world.
Just as God's revelation to Moses arguably best explains the origins of national Israel, so the
post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples seem to best explain the rise of the
early church. As a result people like me to this day can confidently proclaim
that the God of Abraham has acted again in history; that Jesus died for our
sins and rose from the dead.
[1] Rabbi Louis Jacobs, "The
Tetragrammaton," My Jewish Learning,
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-tetragrammaton/.
[2] Jacobs, "The Tetragrammaton."
[3] Crawford Howell Toy & Ludwig Blau,
"Tetragrammaton," Jewish
Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14346-tetragrammaton
[4] Jacobs, "The Tetragrammaton."
[5] John
Bright, A History of Israel (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), p. xvii.
Comments
Modern scholar holds that the Exodus was a myth, and the Israelites were originally a mix of Canaanites and other races, living in the highlands. Turns out Israel cannot be adequately explained by powerful historical interactions with the Almighty, but can be from a naturalistic perspective, just like every other nation.
Pix
This is basically a restatement of the "hermeneutics of suspicion," the idea that the Bible, despite countless "unexpected" discoveries over the years confirming myriad details of both Testaments, must be presumed false until proven true.
As the renowned Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen says: "When scholars say such things as 'We have no evidence,' that merely means we do not know. Negative evidence is no evidence. It only takes one fool with a spade to dig up a new inscription and, whoosh!, that 'no evidence' disappears. I'm just amazed over the 40 years I've been in this business how we keep blundering into things you didn't expect that tie in with the Scriptures."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/september7/8ta044.html?start=3 (You'll have to paste the URL into your browser window; I can't use HTML tags using this computer for some reason)
that doesn't effect his argument, even if Israel was totally Canaanites they still have the mystery of the name and that doesn't explain it.
Assume the exile really happened, they could not have produced that many people from one family in three generations. The family went into Egypt with an unknown number of servants,slaves,and employees. When they left the took people of other races with them who were also slaves. So they were Canaanite and other races e en according the Biological record, That changes nothing.
The bit that modern scholarship may disprove is the conquest of Canaan. The evidence indicates no slaughter of the Amalekites, no battle of Jericho and so on. That may strike at inerrency but itgalso elemimates teh Amalekite issue.
DM: This is basically a restatement of the "hermeneutics of suspicion," the idea that the Bible, despite countless "unexpected" discoveries over the years confirming myriad details of both Testaments, must be presumed false until proven true.
The Bible is a book with many stories by many authors. Confirming one story does not automatically grant them all the status of confirmed. Each one should be judged on its merit, with the evidence for and against. With regards to the Exodus we have records from Egypt that entirely fail to mention the sudden departure of a huge group of people, and we have no archeaological evidence of their journey.
I'm not sjre that;s True Px. I'll have to check but I may have seen refutation of that in some way. For me the real issue for the accuracy of OT history is the conquest of Canaan.
DM: As the renowned Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen says: "When scholars say such things as 'We have no evidence,' that merely means we do not know. Negative evidence is no evidence. It only takes one fool with a spade to dig up a new inscription and, whoosh!, that 'no evidence' disappears. I'm just amazed over the 40 years I've been in this business how we keep blundering into things you didn't expect that tie in with the Scriptures."
As this review shows, Kitchen has a very pro-Christian agenda. That does not make him wrong, but if he views archaeology through Christian-tinted glasses, we need to me mindful of that when reading his work.
However, the real point here is that 'We have no evidence' means that there is zero evidence to support your position. When someone blunders into something that offers support for the Exodus, let us know. Until then, given the number of people who failed to find anything when actively looking for it, I shall tentatively assume it was made up.
DM: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/september7/8ta044.html?start=3 (You'll have to paste the URL into your browser window; I can't use HTML tags using this computer for some reason)
I read what I could without subscribing up, but that was not much at all, I am afraid.
DM's link
Not to panic, the content is still there in my post above, the one where only added one sentence in bold all the rest is PX/s post.
Here is a quote from an article that Might be helpful:
"Exodus, Fact or Fictiomn?" Bible History Daily, published by Biblical Archaeological Society (April 10,2016)
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/
>>>"The question “Did the Exodus happen” then becomes “When did the Exodus happen?” This is another heated question. Although there is much debate, most people settle into two camps: They argue for either a 15th-century B.C.E. or 13th-century B.C.E. date for Israel’s Exodus from Egypt.
The article “Exodus Evidence: An Egyptologist Looks at Biblical History” from the May/June 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review1 wrestles with both of these questions—“Did the Exodus happen?” and “When did the Exodus happen?” In the article, evidence is presented that generally supports a 13th-century B.C.E. Exodus during the Ramesside Period, when Egypt’s 19th Dynasty ruled."
Link to Article cited in quote