Vasileiadis: Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek - a response

In my previous post, I began a short series on Pavlos Vasileiadis' 2014 paper, Aspects of Rendering the Sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek, which had me searching straight away to find the oldest record of the sacred name in Hebrew. We found this in the form of an Israelite amulet dating back to pre-exilic times, known as the silver scroll and written in a script that was significantly different to the Hebrew characters we are more familiar with today. The important point of that introduction was to note that there was initially no problem, no prohibition, no taboo about using the name of Yahweh. Further into the paper (p. 57 of the journal), Vasileiadis correctly refers to evidence arising from other neighbouring, rival nations who also referred to Israel's god. I checked this, and he's quite right - the earliest is astonishingly early and clearly points to a YHWH from an Egyptian hieroglyph, 14th century. You also have the Ugaritic texts that refer to him, albeit as one of 70 sons of Athirat (Asherah) and El. Finally, we have the Mesha Stele stone set up around 840-890 BC. Again, this name/Name was clearly not a taboo.

This was set to change, but why and how broadly?

Vasileiadis consistently points to a variety of practices and debate around what the variety implies. However, he commences with a somewhat bewildering list of factors that he enumerates as contributing to the subsequent non-pronunciation:

- Greek philosophy ('God has no name')

- Hellenization (leading to simple negligence?)

- Syncretism and gnosticism (perhaps implying a special 'secrecy' about the Name?)

- Entrenchment of *use* of Tetragrammaton by exclusivists?

- Paganisation and hypostatisation?

- Moral degradation.

Two of these are quite clear: Vasileiadis' first factor cites an impressive list of sources of possible Greek philosophical influence on the post-exilic growing reticence against pronouncing the name. However, he does not develop the relationship between Greek philosophers and Judaism, but does lift from Marmostein the Greek sources: "Aristotle, Seneca, Maxim of Tyre, Celsus, and Hermes Trismegistus". That said, I have been consistently enough exposed to evidence showing the joining of these two worlds (e.g. the style of the book of Hebrews, some of the theological tendences of the LXX, the NT strong preference for the LXX translation) to listen attentatively to this possibility.

The last factor of moral degradation is probably the most famous of the characteristics of the exiled people and frequently features in preaches from the pulpit. The story classically goes: the Jews so desperately wanted restoration and a wonderful anointed King to rule with them over the surrounding peoples that they were engrossed in a sort of superstitious belief that - since God is not in any way limited in power - he must still be very displeased with them. Any appeasement had to come via super-sanctified living, even exceeding that which was previously required, thus creating a "hedge" around those requirements. And *that's* where the non-pronunciation of the name comes in. Whereas before, you had to be super-careful as to when and how you said it, now it is simply easier to have the hedge around the Name and avoid saying it if at all possible.

Photo by Agricultural Services - Browse landscaping ideas

So those two factors make sense.

However, how negligence, Gnosticism, exclusivistic mindsets and hypostatisation fit into that picture is not completely clear and it is, in my view, a little unfortunate that Vasileiadis hasn't elaborated.

One final point of clarity: this tendency (in its variety of forms) reached a climax by 3rd century AD when Name-pronunciation became a capital offence.

Back tomorrow for more!

Oldest extant biblical "manuscript", wonky Hebrew?!

As a part of my research into the book I am writing on 'Lord's inadequacies, I have started going through an important paper on the Divine Name of Yahweh/Kyrios/LORD by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis. In fact, I will be writing a few more posts on this paper as I go through it, so I hope it's helpful!

In the opening lines, Vasileiadis reiterates what I already sense quite strongly to be the reality among the last centuries before Christ, that is of a diversity of practice on the divine name. Vasileiadis states it perfectly: "the sacred Tetragrammaton [was persistently used] as an effable, utterable name at least in some circles, despite the religious inhibitions against its pronunciation."

So in order to verify this diversity ("at least in some circles") we need to start as early as possible; and that means we need to talk extant manuscripts. This means actual surviving manuscripts, not copies. I didn't know this, but there is actually some verified Hebrew scripture that survives to this day that predates the famous Dead Sea Scrolls - the Silver Scrolls. I'm guessing the fact that they are made out of silver is also a huge reason why they have survived at all, but the amazing thing is that they date back to the period of time prior (although possibly only by a short period) to the Babylonian exile, which means 7th or even 8th century BC. Look at the characters, though, so interesting to see how different they look to Hebrew characters we are familiar with (see right column). This early written Hebrew is referred to as "Paleo-Hebrew". In it, we note with no particular surprise that there is no apparent reticence on writing down Yahweh. His Name, as Holy as it is, could be written and was written.

That point is significant when we realise that this small portion of Scripture, connected to passages in Deuteronomy 5 and 7 (although possibly elsewhere too) was actually also an amulet - an apotropaic amulet, i.e. to ward off evil (that is why I put "manuscript" in quotes in the title of this posting). In other words, some of the Israelites were pretty superstitious. Interesting that Christianity's ancestors combined being both theistic and superstitious. Back soon!

[Image taken from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Birkat_kohanim_22.jpg]

Vasileiadis article is available at: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opth.2014.1.issue-1/opth-2014-0006/opth-2014-0006.xml

Commander-In-Chief

A while back I worked through a series of posts dealing with how we should handle the various authority layers in the Bible indicated by Kyrios. "Lord", as I have repeatedly emphasised on grounds of both English usage and grammar, should no longer be the default choice.

One of the interesting instances that occurs to refer to the supreme authority of God and Jesus is traditionally rendered "Lord of lords". I had to think a bit outside of the box for this one. I finally settled on "Commander-in-Chief", and it remains my favourite. It's only needed a small handful of times. Here it is, alongside some other clarifications, in 1 Timothy 6:

In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame. Do so until God, in his own time, sends back Jesus Christ our King and reveals him as the blessed and only Ruler, King of kings and Commander-in-Chief.  To the only one who is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see, to him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Universalism

Universalism is commonly quite frowned upon within the Christian communities I have been a part of. It usually refers to the idea that whatever one's religious (or even moral) choices, all humans will be saved. From the Christian perspective, this is sometimes even used to emphasise the supreme power and value of Christ's sacrifice and redemption, and plays upon the "all" and "the world" (e.g. For God So Loved The World) such that the redemptive value is so massive as to save everyone.

Today I'd like to offer a slightly different goal to which even atheists or religious fictionalists might be able to adhere (neither of these are my own label). Both groups would describe the contents of the doctrines as "false", while differing as to the utility of conformity to the practices of religion. For the atheist, the whole religious enterprise can be seen as dangerous and harmful to modern humanity - religious fictionalists would say that although strictly speaking false, the practices can be really beneficial. However, if we were to take a step back (as the fictionalists do in part) and ask what are the values that belief in God (in his multiple forms) can MEDIATE? That should not be such a threatening question for any belief system. Christianity has a strong emphasis on mediation: Christ, in particular, mediating God's love. 1 Timothy 2:5 reads:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

The Greek preposition "dia" - through - is also very strong in early Christian thought and communicates just how prominent the mediation principle is in antiquity, including Christian antiquity.

Atheists and religious fictionalists - nice ones anyway - still believe in love, patience, kindness, self-control, joy, gentleness, acceptance, inclusivity. These are very biblical ideas - why not see these as the core ideas? Rather than describing the symbols and structure that mediate the core values as "false", they could see them as story, maybe (although with great difficulty for the atheist) as necessary story.

Thus, a new universalist understanding could potentially emerge uniting at least three meta-perspectives (religious literalist, religious fictionalist and atheist): that goodness and love can be wrapped up in God universally.

Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in GOD's house forever.

PSALM 23:6

Ethics of thankfulness

Why might it be a good idea to be thankful and humble? When we imagine the perfect self we do not imagine a proud, boastful person who only has themselves to thank for their achievements. For a Christian, we usually imagine Jesus as the perfect archetype of this mode of being.

Here's a couple of ideas on that from someone who is convinced of the legitimacy of religious story and expression to narrate our ethical landscape.

Firstly, it is simply false to assert that our accomplishments are not built on the shoulders of the contributions of others. Most would agree that that which is false is usually synonymous with bad. Further affirmation of the inherent goodness of truth can be sourced through the theory of biological evolution: a species operating with erroneous ideas of reality cannot adapt well to it, and its members that attempt to do so may harm their chances of survival. (This is a broad brushstroke on the goodness of truth - there are some notable exceptions).

Secondly, a profound realisation of one's dependence on others should cause social beings like humans to draw from and recognise the social resource. There is thus a harmonisation that occurs when a member of a profoundly social group is able to operate in a balanced dynamic of drawing from and contributing to the larger group.

Thirdly, when faced with a problem, a thankful person may feel less overwhelmed. Previous such challenges were overcome because the social resource was effective and found to be near limitless if engaged via sustainable social transactions.

The spiritual practice of prayer to God develops the gratitude of a person. That's great for a spiritual person, but what about for a non-spiritual person? Perhaps they should simply realise that some form of spirituality could be considered in their process of developing their own humanity. If the person has had a negative introduction into the institutions of abusive religion, then perhaps the process can look something like this.

Look at the good memories. Smile at them. Recognise their beauty, their colour, the privilege of owning them.
Imagine the people we value most. Smile at them. Recognise the beauty of their character and what we value in them.

That word 'privilege' is powerful. Just mulling that is good. Using it in conversation once mulled completes the fermentation of the gratitude and allows it to be served as the quality beverage that it most certainly is! Cheers :)

ps apologies about the promise of the previous post - I still would like to enter the fray of "lies and contradictions" in Christianity and what anti-religious types might mean by such language.

Some thoughts on "Atheism"

What if words are just human inventions that help us survive? I believe that might be possible, but let's have a think about the implications for "atheists".

What might 'theism' mean? That a person believes in a form of divine consciousness independent of humankind? What would define that consciousness as divine? Eternal? Maybe, let's go with that. Now what if a person considers such a being or beings to exist, but feels that they are not relational gods. This "theist" feels and practices no allegiance to the gods. This would be a distinctly narrow view of theism that bypasses the social dynamics that seem to have turbo-powered the development and evolution of our human brains. True theism is always attached to a larger social religious landscape informed by the religions of today.

In parallel, you might have a person who feels belonging and relationship within the context of a faith community. The second person is governed to an equal degree by the communal values as all other members, their only difference being that this person has a sneaky feeling that actual existence of a god may not be necessary beyond the collective symbolism clearly at work binding the community in its values and goals. The values and goals are of maximal importance and the person feels strong allegiance to both the community and the values. They even can experience powerful cathartic sensations as they worship and pray with other believers. They consider life and relationships a privilege to be treasured and would never want to suggest that a person should stop their religious convictions if they were clearly the means by which a person understands, improves and fits into the world.

This last part: about treasuring life and not opposing those with literal religious convictions is key to understanding why the term generates misunderstanding. "The atheist" is commonly understood to mean opposing religious conviction: "you should not believe it, it's nothing but a bunch of lies and contradictions"!

Here, there are commonly a couple of dynamics at play. Firstly, a person may commonly have experienced, as mild as it might appear, a form of power abuse at the hands of those in charge in a religious institution and be reacting against that. Secondly, in light of plausible explanatory alternatives for the existence of all things, there is no reason given as to why the first form of theism as defined above could not be granted (an uninvolved deity). In light of these problems I want to ask:

1. What does it even mean to assert that a religion is "true" or even "real", when the adopted stories are indisputably held authentically and prove powerful to unite a community to positive action?
2. Why even bother to assert that you are an atheist? Why even enter the conversation?

In my next post, I want to address the possibility of "lies and contradictions" in the Christian faith.

Ethics of grace: the key Christian USP?

When I think about my experience of what is uniquely special to me about my Christian faith, the one thing I'd like to incarnate more and see multiplied around me, I think it might be best described as grace. That's not to say that I think that grace might trump love, but I do also happen to agree with some skeptics who consider love to run the risk of being so broad, multidimensional and cultural that it can and does leave the communicative task profoundly unfinished.  Grace less so. It too might well need some clarification, but not so much as to sideline the 100 or so competing ideas of what "love" might mean in a given context.

The best definition I can come up with is that it's like goodness on steroids! A window of hopeful confidence on a future potential good despite an unsure or even absurd human context.

The next morning I had time to read something for guidance in my reflection and installed the 2019 Bonne Semance app. 6 March was a simple testimony resting on Romans 10:9 if you believe God raised Jesus back to life and acknowledge him (Jesus) as Lord, then you'll be saved.

At first I was like, how can I fit this into my new progressive grid? Then it dawned on me. Jesus is the symbol of this raw Goodness of God, not because God is a savage endorsing child sacrifice, but because there is an historic exemplar of the group-imagined kindness of God to us. "Paying the price for us" is thus super powerful if understood through the lens of Grace. Any human can look at the great act of grace to us as humanity's new option for goodness that is not content to mete out justice and rights alone. Someone believes in me, my goodness, my inherent value, my own potential not just to live better but to love and restore as I was "designed" to do. The Christian story of Jesus gives us a powerful narrative to hang all this on and a loving gaze through which to view this exciting new twist of Goodness-perception in our species' history.