Cahill weaves anthropology and history into the stories of the Bible, which is why I think the book is so fascinating. But Cahill's underlying theme is how the Jewish worldview changed the humainty's view the world. Judaism and the Torah created a linear history as opposed to a cyclical history. Also, the Jewish vision of G-d is also much different than the role G-d played in ancient Middle Eastern culture.
Here are a couple of selections from the book that I have thought interesting thus far (I'm about half-way done):
- Cahill makes some guesses as to who the Pharaohs in the Book of Exodus were and why one pharaoh was willing to hire Joseph as his vizier/dream interpreter and the pharaoh who followed this "good" pharaoh enslaved the Jews. I am sure that Cahill's guesses in this regard are not novel, but I had never given much thought as to who they might have been, so the guess was novel to me. I also thought it interesting that Cahill points out that none of the Pharaohs are given names, yet at many points in the Torah whole family histories of relatively unimportant characters are given. Cahill posits that this is the ultimate insult to Pharaoh. I've read this idea in other places: the idea that naming something connotes importance and value. I think the first time I read it was with regards to analysis of Genesis in a book my Mom gave me. But I got a good chuckle at Pharaoh's expense in Cahill's book when he pointed this out.
- The other interesting thing that Cahill gets into is the meaning of the Hebrew letters connoting G-d's name which are often translated as YHWH. Apparently no matter how vowels are added to the four consonants, the word YHWH is most definitely a verb. He writes that Biblical anthropologists/historians have basically three educated guesses as to what these consonants once spelled. The first possibility is "I am who I am" or "I am He who causes things to be" from the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Torah. The second possibility is the same phrase, "I am who I am" but meanings "none of your business." The last possibility is "I will be--there with you" emphasizing G-d's continued presence in his creation.
14 comments:
I read the book several years ago, and I was unimpressed by his analysis and commentary. I was hoping for something more inspiring.
i would concur with your view roberta. it was a light book in my view.
ykvk definately a verb, hmmm. i could see how someone might say they believe it to be a verb but to conclude this for certain is merely one authors opinion.....
there is a book with the title...
god is a verb, by rabbi david cooper.
Mom--I don't think the book is a deep, serious read. But it is interesting. It touches on a lot of topics I had never considered (like who was Pharoah?) but it doesn't go into an in depth analysis. It's generally light readings and doesn't pretend to be otherwise.
Larry--Cahill was citing other sources when he discussed the meaning of the word YHVH. Apparently those three translations are the leading contenders among biblical scholars.
The discussion of the meaning of G-d's name starts on page 108 of the paperback version if you'd like to re-read what it says.
Ben--????
Ben--YHVH are the surviving consonants that we have with regards to G-d's name. As you know, most of the time Hebrew is written without vowels, so we are not sure which vowels go with YHVH (or YKVK as Larry writes it with the Eastern European accent). But as for Yehova or Jehova (same thing just two different dialects), we know that translation to be incorrect (but it is popular with many Christians for G-d knows what reason).
YKVK isnt a e-euro accent. it represents a re-representation of YHVH. an unwillingness to articulate the name of G-D.
Larry--The name of G-d is spelled Yud Heh Vav Heh. Modern (Middle Eastern accented) Hebrew would transliterate that as YHVH. How is it not using the European pronunciation of those letters to transliterate them as YKVK? I'm not sure how else you could substitute a "K" for a Heh?
one shouldnt accurately spell or pronounce the name of G-D (this of course presumes that a human would know how).
this is why when we read the YHVH...we say adonai or h'shem....so in that spirit instead of YHVH which is the closest english translit (yud, hay, vov, hay)one could say YKVK without compromising the integrity of the YHVH
Well, to be precise, one shouldn't say or spell G-d's name outside of The Temple. As to YKVK, I don't see the point considering YHVH is not G-d's name just as FRN is not my name.
'outside the temple.' you speak with great confidence. i would say that there is no difference between in and out of the temple.
i would like a cite to support the dilineation between the two.
i am also giving up on the ykvk explanation .....
Larry--Everything I've ever read has said that it was okay to say G-d's name within the The Temple in Jerusalem which is why it is thought that we once knew the correct pronunciation but that it has since been lost. Some sources suggest that it was even okay to say The Name outside of The Temple.
For example, from www.jewfaq.org (written from an Orthodox perspective):
Nothing in the Torah prohibits a person from pronouncing the Name of God. Indeed, it is evident from scripture that God's Name was pronounced routinely. Many common Hebrew names contain "Yah" or "Yahu," part of God's four-letter Name. The Name was pronounced as part of daily services in the Temple.
The Mishnah confirms that there was no prohibition against pronouncing The Name in ancient times. In fact, the Mishnah recommends using God's Name as a routine greeting to a fellow Jew. Berakhot 9:5.
fern
just read bereakhot 9:5. i read 9:5 a and b. then i read all of chapter 9. im just not seeing what youre citation says. please clarify....
thanks
larry
Post a Comment