If any man has uttered the [Most] Venerable Name even though frivolously, or as a result of shock or for any other reason whatsoever, while reading the Book or blessing, he shall be dismissed and shall return to the Council of the Community no more.
The Community Rule, 1QS, 6:27-7:2
It is ironic that the Dead Sea sect, which held such high regard for Torah and the Prophets, should go so far as to exclude and banish all who would utter the Most Venerable Name
even though the very texts that defined who they were and around which they ordered their entire lives speak the Name with almost reckless abandon. Had Moses or Isaiah lived in their day, the Dead Sea sect would have ostracised them for blasphemy whilst quoting from their texts as the foundation of their existence. As it stands, however, it is likely that the Dead Sea sect’s strict, non-biblical tradition will be satisfied, since it is probably the case that no one knows how the tetragrammaton was originally pronounced—assuming, of course, that it is the tetragrammaton that was meant. The name revealed to Moses in Exodus is actually אהיה אשׁר אהיה. Whatever the name may or may not be, however, misses the point anyway because in the ancient world, the meaning of one’s name didn’t have much to do with the sounds of consonants and vowels, but referred to a person’s character, being, and role in society. A deity’s name
often referred specifically to their creative force and power and giving things names served to take part in the process of creation. That is why many ancient near eastern creation accounts–including Genesis–refer to the gods as giving form and existence to matter and being by naming them. When Adam named
the animals, this wasn’t significant because he was calling them something vocally, but because he was ordaining what they were and in a very real sense defining their existence. Perhaps the most ironic thing about not speaking the name of YHWH is that, in terms of the ancient world, to fail to speak the name of a deity is to deny that god’s existence. Surely that is the greater blasphemy. Then again, one could always be on the safe side and just say Jehovah.
Is anyone else frustrated with the lack of English translations of the BIBLICAL Dead Sea Scrolls? Currently, so it seems, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible is the only book in existence that offers the BIBLICAL DSS in English. Don’t get me wrong, it is an incredible book. A prize of my collection. But why is it the only thing available? Why are there no other alternatives? Why do we have nothing like The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition for the BIBLICAL texts? Why do we have nothing like The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English with BIBLICAL texts? What’s going on? Why is it nearly impossible to find something that should be ubiquitous? I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but this is simply absurd. It’s been over half a century since these things were found! Something must be going on to restrict access to the biblical material. I am tempted to start doing my own English translations based on the transcriptions in DJD, and offering them online for free (probably in the same format as The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition). But that would be quite an undertaking.
Most articles in the monumental Chicago Assyrian Dictionary are now available online. This is a wonderful resource. And it is even more wonderful that it is freely available. However, there have been several times when I’ve come across references to CAD in the footnotes of various works and I just don’t understand how to trace that back to the dictionary’s articles. For instance, if I see a reference to CAD 1:158, how do I locate this? I would assume that 1 refers to the volume (the letter A) and 158 refers to the page number. But this is obviously incorrect and, further, doesn’t seem like a useful way to reference material that is organized entirely differently in the dictionary online. Anyone care to shed some light on this?
Warning: Major spoilers. Do not read if you have any desire to ever watch the show.
After viewing the show I had been waiting for ever since theories began circulating about a remake of the classic Prisoner series, I scoured the web to gauge what sorts of impressions, thoughts, and perspectives it was creating among the viewing audience. Was this show communicating and interacting with others in much the same way it did with me? Apparently not. Like many others with an interest in the show, I am a die-hard fan of the original. However, I seem to have parted ways with most of its critical viewing audience. I find myself in a familiar situation where the one show I thought was so brilliant and incredible is the one show that gets panned, dismissed, or glossed over. For instance, it seems to me that The Matrix: Reloaded is ostensibly superior to either of the other films in the trilogy, followed by Revolutions. And I think the reason is the same as it was for Reloaded: people don’t understand or just don’t get it. In The Prisoner (2009), what people expected or wanted isn’t want they got. But that is very, very good indeed. This post will focus on just one aspect that has really delivered something that blows (or should have blown) the mind: subversion of American (U.S.) political and economic perspective.
Brian Wilson was a genius. He wanted to create the definitive American music. In the process, he became a prisoner of his own making. He went insane. But after confronting himself and destroying the Village, he escaped and found his way back to the real world where he was finally able to complete his creation. He called it Smile. And it was good. So what was the definitive AMERICAN music doing playing throughout many pivotal parts of the remake of a BRITISH television series (anyone notice the cover of a Pet Sounds vinyl in Michael’s apartment)? And why place the conscious reality in the heart of NEW YORK instead of LONDON? Perhaps you caught the subtle references to terrorism and suicide bombing, or maybe that symbol of American freedom, those twin towers, gleaming in their memorial to the happy
and content
life of its residents in the mental/subconscious realm whilst standing as bastions of protection
and healing
in the other? This is not the original Prisoner, no matter the atavisms. Though the theme is the same as it was before (tyranny), this show is making a political statement that speaks to us, now, in a way the original cannot. The original was making statements about Socialism, which was the major European threat of that era. Today, now, there is a new threat posed by the American front–Fascism–and the remake has engaged it with every bit of vigor as the original did its own. It seems people were expecting another kind of McGoohan to come along and Caviezel was certainly not that. But the kind of answer presented this time is not the same as the original. This is an American answer, spurred on by an American dilemma. A McGoohan would not have fit the coat, badge, and shoes.
In the first series, evil was wrought and sustained by subordinating personal freedom and liberty to the interests, decisions, and control of the state. In the end, Six’s resistance and will found its completion, and the answer to the tyrant and its evil, in the destruction of the absolute power and influence of the state and by restoring autonomy to all. In the second series, evil is wrought and sustained by subordinating personal freedom and liberty to the interests, decisions, and control of an autocratic corporation. In this case, the answer is the nobility
and high moral
vision of the one who controls, coerces, and subjugates the citizens through the power of the corporation. In the end, Six does not destroy the tyrant, but steps into its shoes to remake society, regardless of its will, without its choice or consent, and no matter the cost, according to his own high moral
and noble
vision. He has not, like McGoohan, destroyed the number. Has has merely replaced the old number with a different sort of number. In the first Prisoner, Six’s resignation was detrimental to the tyrant because it meant he was refusing to allow the state to make his decisions for him. In the second, Six’s resignation was detrimental to the tyrant because it meant he was refusing to allow a corporation to have autocratic power to decide and do for people what it believes is best for them. But this very different Six is able to become the head of the corporation (thus reversing his opposition and annulling his resignation) because he believes that right makes might—and he believes he is right. Like his former ambulatory companion, we can only shed a tear at the horror of what Six is about to become because we—not just Americans but even those outside America—are seeing and experiencing it vividly. We have watched as the rights, liberties, prosperity, and security of the people becomes destroyed by our government1 and by the whim of rich and powerful corporate gods like Wall Street and the Federal Reserve2. America is in pain and that pain will continue for a long, long time to come, destroying both people within and without the country as well as the companies that feed off them, until we reject Fascism and throw down the new #2, the creation of BOTH Republican and Democratic parties.
Rethink Afghanistan: Christianity and the Global War on Terror
featuring Jake Diliberto and Glen Stassen
Thursday, Oct 22, 7:00-9:00 PM, Fuller Theological Seminary, Travis Auditorium
In light of the recent escalation of the US presence in Afghanistan, and the 8th year anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, the conversation has often evaded Christians. What are we supposed to think about the global war in light of our faith?
Jake is a Fuller student, and a decorated marine veteran of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. His is a unique story of transformation from a maker of violence to a just-peace peacemaker. He now questions US military policy and the US presence in the Middle East. Jake has testified before congress, and is the founder of Veterans for Rethink Afghanistan,
an organization which has mobilized 20 million peace
activists. Come to hear his story, and why we need to rethink Afghanistan.
Peace and Justice Advocates will show a portion of the poignant documentary created by Rethink Afghanistan. Fuller’s Christian Ethics Professor Dr. Glen Stassen will offer a theological and ethical reflection on the situation.
It is always exciting to stand among a group of Christians who are seriously seeking a way to achieve a good end through nonviolent means instead of supporting violence as a means to that end or even simply accepting it as a necessary evil. More often than not, I stand alone. Even Anabaptists and Mennonites like myself (we who are the historical Peace Church of Protestantism) are divided on the issue. There are large numbers of Anabaptists who have chosen to follow Luther’s two kingdom
dichotomy in which YHWH has willed two different kingdoms to exist side-by-side (the church and the world), providentially ordaining that one should operate one way (do no violence or evil = the church) and one the other (do violence and what would be considered evil of a Christian in order to maintain justice and peace = the world).
On the other hand, even among a group of Christians seeking an end to war and violence like the one meeting this Thursday in Pasadena, there will be some who are there for reasons that I do not share, like, for instance, because they are leftist, liberal Democrats who are pushing their political party’s propaganda and/or agenda, or because they have false notions of social, religious, and political realities, or even, perhaps, because they are stirred more by emotions, guilt, and even false guilt, than they are by reason. Last time I attended one of these meetings, it seemed to me that frightening statistics concerning the escalation in major international terrorist attacks were being fallaciously shoehorned into a polemic against the U.S.’s support and use of torture instead of acknowledging the many other things that have contributed significantly to the dumbfounding rise in terrorist violence that we have seen in the West over the past decade. Hopefully, those attending the meeting this time around will be more willing to struggle with the truths of the matter and not what those in the group wish those truths would be.
The separation of personal from social salvation made it possible for Bible-believing slave traders to conduct daily devotions on ships carrying human cargo like cattle.
Dale Brown, Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective, p. 141
As a Mennonite, I really resonate with the message of this quote. It reminds me that the gospel message can be narrowed down into something that is only inner, personal, and individual, at which point it tends to focus on a kind of salvation from or out of the world, forgetting that the gospel is also about salvation within or for the world. We reclaim this aspect of the gospel when we remember that Yeshua’s salvation was social just as much as it was personal. That he didn’t come only to save us from our sins, from our guilt, or from the influence of sin in our lives, but to free those who were captives to physical and social ills or evils, to bring healing and restoration to heart, mind, and body, and to challenge and overthrow authorities, powers, and structures through self-sacrifice, peace, love, mercy, and by returning evil with good. The Christ who died on a cross for our sins is the same Christ who said the greatest among us will be the servant of all, who told us to give what we had to the poor, who said whatever we did (or by contrast did not do) to the very least of those among us is what we did (or did not do) to him, who reached out to bring healing, restoration, and redemption to those on the boundaries of or even outside the accepted order: women, children, immigrants, untouchables, national and ethnic enemies. YHWH is at work reconciling not just ourselves, but all creation, to himself through Yeshua.
And it was ordained that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]; for it is written, And, Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you.
And they answered him, The Lord bless thee.
(Ruth 2:4) And it is written, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
(Judges 6:12)
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
Later Jewish tradition holds that the name of YHWH is ineffable and therefore offers various other substitutes in its place such as Adonai (meaning My Lord
) or Ha Shem (literally meaning The Name
). In fact, the very texts that underly the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament do not give us the correct pronunciation, substituting instead the vowels for words like Adonai or Elohim (which can make things complicated and difficult for translations that refuse to use the Tetragrammaton). All this, however, is a very late concept and practice in ancient Israel. Throughout most of their history, Israelites were quite open and willing to speak the actual name of YHWH as this quote from the Mishnah attests. In fact, when we read the actual Hebrew texts, we see that the name itself was spoken quite frequently. The psalms themselves, which were used liturgically by the priests and people in the Temple and synagogues, made use of the name extensively. What the actual pronunciation of the name is, however, may be lost to us. A general consensus of scholarship makes the name to be pronounced Yahweh.
However, this is mere conjecture based primarily on an assumption of the linguistic root of the name and its supposed form for which we have no evidence.
And it is written, It is time to work for the Lord: they have made void thy Law (Psa 119:126). R. Nathan says: They have made void thy Law because it was a time to work for the Lord.
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
This is a fun quote because it puts things into better perspective. Some people can focus almost entirely on the problem of breaking Torah or can make the avoidance of breaking Torah a primary concern. But this was only one concern of ancient Israelites. Sometimes, it was necessary to break Torah in order to do what YHWH wanted or required! For instance, an incredible event occurs in the Chronicler’s history of Israel in which the people return to YHWH with their whole hearts after having turned away for so long. They threw down the altars, cleansed their city of idolatry and evil, then determined to re-instigate the ceremony of Passover, which had not been kept in a long time. Unfortunately, they are unable to keep it on the day (or its alternate) commanded by Torah. Additionally, they are forced to break other portions of Torah related to cleanliness and purification. Great multitudes, including four of the twelve tribes, take the Passover defiled in disobedience to the direct commandments of YHWH. Despite doing the rituals defiled and unclean and on a day forbidden to its practice, YHWH forgave Israel, returned to her, and blessed her. Instead of celebrating for one week, the people extended Passover to two weeks and it became one of the most celebrated Passovers in Israel’s history. (See 2 Chronicles 30:17-20, 23, 26-27)
The tension between keeping Torah because that’s what YHWH wanted or required and breaking Torah in order to meed the wants or requirements of YHWH is something the Jews struggled with throughout their history. To give a realistic example of this tension: what do you do if you have been commanded by YHWH to keep the Sabbath by doing no work, it is the Sabbath, you are worshiping in the Temple, and hordes of gentiles come swarming down over Jerusalem ready to slaughter everyone? If you fight, then you break the Sabbath that YHWH commanded you to keep. If you don’t fight, then you are slaughtered, the holy Temple that YHWH commanded to keep clean and holy is defiled and becomes an abomination, and the daily sacrifices that were commanded by YHWH to be kept by you are no longer offered. It’s not an easy question to answer. Various Israelites themselves came up with different answers throughout their history.
The answer Yeshua gave is that the Sabbath was made for humanity–humanity wasn’t made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), meaning the Sabbath is supposed to serve humanity, not the other way around. If the Sabbath ceases to serve humanity, then there is nothing wrong with breaking it. Indeed, it is better to break it! It might even be a sin to NOT break Sabbath! If Sabbath cease to serve humanity, to then turn around and serve the Sabbath would be to make it into an idol. So it is with the rest of Torah. Torah is not absolute and universal. It is not meant to be kept regardless of anything. On the contrary, it was Israel’s relationship with YHWH that made Torah significant. Destroy or change that relationship and Torah ceases to be much of anything.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
He [a man] may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.
m. Berakoth 9:5
Those familiar with the gospel texts of the New Testament should have heard an echo of one of Yeshua’s statements to his disciples in this quote. I have explored the parallels between Yeshua’s statement and the old Temple Mount traditions in a series of posts entitled Shake The Dust Off Your Feet Part I, Part II, and Part III.
At the close of every Benediction in the Temple they used to say, For everlasting
; but after the heretics [Sadducees] had taught corruptly and said that there is but one world, it was ordained that they should say, From everlasting to everlasting.
m. Berakoth 9:5
We are, of course, getting this information from a source with its own biases, agendas, and perspectives. It may be the case that certain groups or sects wanted to change the closing of the Benediction to from everlasting to everlasting
and even taught those who followed their particular traditions to do so, but this doesn’t mean it was actually done that way officially in the Temple. It may have been the case that whoever closed the Benediction did so according to their particular tradition. But it is certainly interesting to discover where this particular saying had its impetus.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
Man is bound to bless [God] for the evil even as he blesses [God] for the good, for it is written, And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might (Deut 6:5). With all thy heart—with both thine impulses, thy good impulse and thine evil impulse; and with all thy soul—even if he take away thy soul; and with all thy might—with all thy wealth.
m. Berakoth 9:5
The first part reminds me of Job’s response to his wife:
Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?
Job 2:10b, NRSV
This is a question that demands an answer. And here is mine. If God is a good and just God according to any definition of good and just that we could comprehend and count on, then yes. If, however, God is capricious, if his goodness is beyond our comprehension or his justice cannot be counted on or measured by any human definition, then no. In drawing this conclusion, I stand in direct conflict with the message of the scroll of Job, which outlines the second situation and replies to the question in the affirmative. For more on this, see Rejecting Job Part 1 and Part 2.
The second part of the quote represents a classic interpretation that would surface again and again in Jewish understanding for many centuries to come. It was made particularly famous by the school of Rabbi Akiva, whose unique understandings would eventually come to dominate Jewish perspective. Akiva stressed suffering and evils against God’s people as something that was part of the plan of God. He actually rejoiced in receiving suffering and evil from the world. When asked why, he turned to this verse and this interpretation. The word translated soul
is more accurately translated life.
Akiva believed that loving the Lord your God with all your life had its ultimate fulfillment in a willingness to give one’s entire life up to destruction because of obedience to God. For Akiva, this present world was of little importance—he set his heart, eyes, and mind on the world to come—and so he was more than willing to have his soul
taken from this world so that he could fulfill this great commandment.
Anabaptists stand near to this tradition in their radical love ethic. Our understanding of Christianity is that of Nachfolge Christi–following after Christ
with one’s entire life, even to the point of death. And, indeed, because Anabaptists knew that the way of Christ was in drastic opposition to the way of the world, they knew their following of Christ would cause them to come into sharp conflict with the world, thus resulting in their suffering, persecution, and even death. Anabaptists, however, embraced this suffering, persecution, and death because it proved that they were following Christ—for Christ himself suffered, was persecuted, and received death at the hands of the world. This all stemmed from the radical Anabaptist belief that true Christianity was not merely an inward acceptance or experience of grace and faith as Luther believed it, but also an outward expression of a fully committed life in all its aspects to the way of Christ. Anabaptists looked for and demanded the fruits of the Spirit in outward living to such an extent and with such consistency that Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists began hunting down and persecuting non-Anabaptists as of they were Anabaptists simply because such believers’ outward lives were irreproachable!
I am being maligned, by both preachers and others, with the charge of being Anabaptist, even as all others who lead a true, pious Christian life are now almost everywhere given this name.
Caspar Schwenckfeld, Epistolar (1564), 1, 203, English translation by Harold Bender
There are those who in reality are not Anabaptists but have a pronounced averseness to the sensuality and frivolity of the world and therefore reprove sin and vice and are consequently called or misnamed Anabaptists by petulant persons.
Heinrich Bullinger (Reformation leader and fierce enemy of Anabaptism), Der Wiedertöufferen Ursprung (1561), fol. 170r., English translation by Harold Bender
But what made the love ethic of Anabaptism so radical was not just that it sought to extend love to God by obeying him with one’s entire life, both inward and outward, but also because it sought to extend love to all humanity–even one’s enemies. In a culture, world, and time in which the proper Christian response to one’s enemies was to either coerce them into Christian faith through force and violence or to slaughter them, Anabaptists were pledged to fulfill both great commandments (to love the Lord their God and to love their neighbor as themselves). In so doing, whether by living or dying, they were committed to loving the Lord their God with all their life.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
The shofar [blown in the Temple] at the New Year was [made from the horn] of the wild goat, straight, with its mouthpiece overlaid with gold. And at the sides [of them that blew the shofar] were two [that blew upon] trumpets. The shofar blew a long note and the trumpets a short note, since the duty of the day fell on the shofar.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:3
This is peculiar because it suggests that the horn notes
on the first of Tishri were long.
Perhaps it only meant long relative to the sound of the trumpets, because the sort of sound decreed on that day in Leviticus and Numbers was a t’ruah. It was a short blast on the horn used as an alarm signal, not a long or prolonged sounding, which went by an entirely different name. The biblical texts refer to the New Year as the Day of T’ruah or a Rememberance by T’ruah (see Mishnaic Musings 7), which specifically means a day of short, alarm-like blasts. And it is fairly evident that what is in mind is not short trumpet blasts, but short ram’s horn blasts.
And it came to pass when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed (Exod 17:11). But could the hands of Moses promote the battle or hinder the battle!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they prevailed; otherwise they suffered defeat. After the like manner thou mayest say, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a standard, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he seeth it shall live (Num 21:8). But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed; otherwise they pined away.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:8
I would be interested in studying these two events more closely to try and figure out what might actually be going on with the raising of Moses’ hands and the making of the serpent. The Rabbinic interpretation offered here in the Oral Law is pleasing from a theological perspective, but not entirely satisfactory. The quote itself would seem to suggest that there were those who actually believed something more was going on in terms of the serpent itself or the raising of Moses’ hands than merely a way for the people to turn their thoughts and hearts to heaven, which one would presume them to be doing anyway when they were in the midst of peril and had seen YHWH work wonders on their behalf already.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
