In the current thread (threading in and out of other posts on other things) I have been discussing some of the most interesting features of the Hebrew Bible by (re-)presenting side boxes found in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press). I continue the thread here with discussions of two distinct issues that have a key commonality, “where something originated.”
The first part resumes an earlier post where I explained God’s actual name (“Yahweh” in Hebrew spelled with the four letters YHWH and called the “Tetragrammaton” – a name that was so holy it was not to be pronounced). Here now I explain where the name came from. The second part of the post discusses the origins of Passover, one of the most significant festivals of ancient Judaism, still celebrated today. Enjoy!
BOX 5.1 GOD’S ACTUAL NAME
We earlier saw that the Tetragrammaton YHWH was probably understood by ancient Israelites to be the personal name of God. But where did the name come from? It is not only modern readers who are interested in this question. Ancient speakers of Hebrew wanted to know as well. This is evident in the one passage that is widely thought to be an attempt to answer the question but that appears to answer it in three different ways, possibly indicating the confusion over the matter even in antiquity.
When God first reveals himself to Moses
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
As I understand it, the Ugaritic texts portray El as head of the divine council, with Asherah as his consort. Some scholars, including Dan McClellan, argue that Deuteronomy 32:8–9 may preserve an early stage in which Elyon assigns nations to divine beings and Yahweh receives Israel.
Would it therefore be reasonable, in broad terms, to imagine an early stage in which El was the supreme deity, Asherah was his consort, and Yahweh was one member of the divine council particularly associated with Israel? Other divine beings also appear in biblical heavenly councils—the “satan” in Job, for example, although I understand that this figure should not simply be identified with the later Christian Devil.
Over time, did Yahweh become identified with El and absorb his role and attributes, while Asherah and the other gods were rejected, subordinated, or reinterpreted, eventually resulting in exclusive worship of Yahweh?
How widely accepted is this reconstruction among scholars? In particular, how strong is the evidence that El/Elyon and Yahweh were originally distinct? And does Psalm 82 preserve part of this transition?
Incidentally, I find it interesting that Buddhism also has an *Ashura*, whose famous Japanese representation at Kōfuku-ji has a strikingly feminine or androgynous appearance.
I think something like that is fairly widely held among HB scholars.
Idk about in antiquity, but today, God stating, “I Am”, “I Exist”, “I Am Real” can take on a certain amount of meaning and importance. It’s a profound statement to a number of people.
Could a statement like that have carried real importance in antiquity even with their multitudes of gods and belief systems? Could the reality of the multitude of gods not have been that impressive and somewhat dubious, and the reality of God saying “I Am” stood out as profound and meant something?
Of course any of us can say, “I am”, “I exist”, “I am real”, and these would all be true statements.
But when it comes to God it’s different. People doubt whether God exists. In acient times people may have doubted whether this god or that god was real.
Is “I Am” not so much a name, but a statement about reality? Or is it both? Both a statement about reality and a name as well?
I’d say generally in antiquity people may have wondered if a god was good or wicked, involved or not, but rarely did they wonder if a God existed? (Except, say, when Jews mocked pagans for their “gods” made of wood or metal)
A question related to God’s identity. What’s going on in Deuteronomy 32:8-9? The “Most High” seems to be pairing nations with their respective gods (?) and YHWH gets Israel. Is the “Most High” another name for YHWH in this instance, or is it a higher god who presides over all the other gods (including YHWH), or what?
Yup, interesting passage. The idea is that YHWH is the sovereign God over all. He created all things. The other nations have gods. Those were creations of YHWH. But they are inferior to him. You get this sometimes in the Bible — e.g., Psalm 82.
“It appears clear, at least, that to this author, God’s sacred name was somehow related to the word “to be.””
Since the story of Moses is not historical, how does the writing of God’s three responses figure in?
It seems the author knew he was creating a fictional story about Moses so he was also making up a fictional story about who God says he is, right?
The other confusion is that the author knows he’s writing fiction but it seems that once it started being read that everyone thought it was a historically true story clear up to today, correct?
My sense is that virtually everyone until the modern era assumed the story of Moses was historical.disabledupes{b8fd7e49058489ac5b3f0700790b08be}disabledupes
Hey Bart,
Speaking of God’s name I’ve been wondering how ancient Jews understood its significance, both in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament period.
In the case of the Hebrew Bible, Exodus 20:7 suggests a serious gravity to misusing God’s name but how was this commandment understood in its context? Was it in the sense of not invoking God to legitimise or get away with wrongdoing (e.g. crusaders killing and pillaging ‘in the name of God’), or in some other sense?
And in the case of the New Testament, the NRSVue translates Matthew 6:9 as calling for God’s name to be “revered as holy”. But I was wondering why was it significant to hallow God’s name specifically rather than just hallowing God himself? Thanks.
Exod. 20:7 is often taken to refer to swearing on God’s name in an oath without planning to keep it. The “name” is revered because it represents the person and authority (Kinda like if someone bangs on the door and says “Open up in the name of the king!”)
Luck is the tetragrammaton for God.
You say here re Passover, ‘ The blood was commemorated by the cups of wine drunk at different stages of the meal’. Does this drinking of the cups equate in any way to Jesus asking the disciples to drink his blood at the last supper? I have always thought that Jesus, as a good Jew, would never countenance his followers drinking blood and so would not have suggested this practice to them even symbolically, (ie it must have been something put on Jesus’ lips.) Am I wrong here, please?
Jesus doesn’t actually tell his disciples to drink blood. He says that the bread represents his body and the cup his blood about to be spilled. He is urging a commemorative meal, not literal consumption of his flesh and blood. (“Do this in remembrance of me” — as in the earliest account, 1 Cor. 11:22-24)
Hello Bart,
i was reading Tobit 14 and it talks about Jerusalem and the Temple being destroyed—then everyone will be able to return and a temple would be rebuilt. It then goes on to mention that after time, a more grandiose temple would be allowed to be built. what is Tobit talking about here? And because this book was written in the second century BCE there was an existing temple, but it wasn’t like Solomons. Is Tobit stating that the current temple standing at the time of the writing isn’t sufficient and that eventually a better one will be built? Is there some verification somewhere that the people living in this time period of the early second second century BCE were unhappy with the current lesser temple that had been built after they returned and expected a better one to replace it someday soon?
I know that in the Bible there is no mention of a third temple, but wasn’t sure if Tobit is?
Any help that you can provide on this would be greatly appreciated. I am just trying to discount this as some type of proof that there were writings about a third temple being rebuilt.
Thanks!
Ah, great book. Tobit is claiming to be writing in the 8th century, even though the author is actually five centuries or so later (kinda like the author of Daniel was doing). Scholars debate exactly when he was writing, but sometimes probably between When he “predicts” the destruction and then rebuilding the temple he is referring to the first temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, and its later rebuilding in the late 6th century. (The reason to claim to be writing so much earlier is to “prove” that the author could see the future)