Nothing in Jewish life is more hallowed than the saying of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” All over the world “the people acclaim His Oneness evening and morning, twice every day, and with tender affection recite the
Shema”... The voice that calls: “Hear, He is One,” is recalled, revived. It is the climax of devotion at the close of the Day of Atonement. It is the last word to come from the lips of the dying Jew and from the lips of those who are present at that moment.1
In the early Christianity, before the takeover of the misleading doctrine trinity, the Shema was also the centerpiece of the New Testament. For instance, in Mark 12: 28-34, the earliest of gospels one reads:
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.This is, of course, a clear statement of the unity of God that should put any self-respecting trinitarian into shame. However, we see in the subsequent gospels although this message is watered down somewhat nevertheless is still markedly detectable. In Luke 10:25-27 we read:
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”. And He said to him, "What has been written in the Law? How do you read it?" He answered, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;" and "your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”In Matthew, 22:36, we see that it is god the father who knows everything.
But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only.
Clearly, some manuscripts in later periods dropped "the son" in the above text, in order to render the forgery of trinity more realistic. However, Paul and other writers including John, who in his gospel tries to exaggerate the narrative of Jesus’ life, realize that the Shema is the main pillar of Christianity.
Triads of divinities, in many polytheistic religions, however, was part of the background information that was used as a filter to interpret the massage of Christianity. The Egyptian triad of Osiris. Isis and Horus, symbolizing father, mother and son,was one of the main influences, because of Egypt's geographical proximity, and the broad similarity of the narrative of god-the-father, Jesus, and Mary to that triad. Of course, the triad of Jesus ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection could also be mapped into the Hindu myth of Brahma's creation of the world, Vishnu's preservation of it, and Shiva's role is to destroy it in order to re-create. Beyond these triads, there has been the superstisus
. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e.g. Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo’s neo-Stoical doctrine of the “powers,” especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham’s three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of “threeness,” and beyond their “threeness” these triads have nothing in common with it.
. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e.g. Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo’s neo-Stoical doctrine of the “powers,” especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham’s three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of “threeness,” and beyond their “threeness” these triads have nothing in common with it.
In a 1947 study, C. K. Barrett makes the intriguing suggestion that John takes the theme of God’s oneness, along with the command to love God and neighbor, and develops them into the movement at the very heart of the Fourth Gospel, weaving these themes throughout the narrative.5 Joel Marcus takes note of Barrett’s article and observes that in both Mark and John, tensions between Jesus and Jewish authorities seem to reflect late first-century conflicts in which Christians are accused of blasphemy for their claims about Jesus. 6 The present study combines the observations of both Marcus and Barrett in an effort to demonstrate that (1) themes of the Shema are presented in a novel way in John’s Gospel, and (2) these Johannine innovations have resulted from a bitter conflict
between believers in Jesus in the late first century and non-Christian Jews, a conflict over Jesus’ identity that is expressed through a novel interpretation of one of the most sacred Jewish texts. John’s use of the Shema provides a lens through which the reader is able to witness the painful process of self-definition and separation of two groups: the Johannine community and the larger community of Jews to which its members once belonged.
To support their claim that there are multiple persons within the godhead, evangelicals insist that the Hebrew word אֶחָד, (echad), meaning “one” at the end of Deuteronomy 6:4 does not mean an absolute one. Rather, they argue, this verse can only signify a “compound unity,” or many things in one. They will often cite two verses to support this assertion.
- Then they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and there cut down a branch with one אֶחָד, (echad)cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs. (Numbers 13:23)
- And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one (אֶחָד, echad) day. (Genesis 1:5)
From these verses, they insist, it is clear that the Hebrew word אֶחָד (echad) can only mean a fusion of a number of things into one. Their sophistry is immediately clear for anybody who is familiar with the elementary rules of logic. It is well understood that the understanding of the grouping of nouns in noun class systems hints at a universal cognitive basis, which underlies such linguistic classifications. Typology in the sense of analyzing a variety of language structures is a source of establishing linguistic universals.
Some variation in noun classes has been ascribed cultural variation. Some linguists also prefer cultural explanations to cognitive theories that are set out to explain the semantic bases of noun class systems.Noun class systems are known to distinguish their inflectional classes according to semantic distinctions, e.g. along the lines of animacy (incl. human/non-human) vs. artifact, various shapes and spatial configurations. The semantic organization does not happen at random.
In classifier systems, ANIMACY can subdivide into human/non-human, person/non-person, and HUMAN can of course subdivide further into sex (masculine and feminine), but also be classified according to social status, function and age, and kinship relationship. In addition, the notion of animacy plays an important part in the syntax and morphology of many languages. Inanimate objects on the other hand, are classified according to (a non-exhaustive list of) nine different properties (which are again subdivided). These may be summarised into i. Other INHERENT NATURE or TIME-STABLE PROPERTIES: plants, houses, canoes, and ii. FUNCTION: what use an object is put to or what type of action is performed on them (cutting, piercing, harvesting). Example: can be eaten, drunk; can be planted, domesticated; transport, clothing, housing may have separate classifiers.
Animacy distinctions, distinctions between human and animal, and categories of food, plants, and tools are directly reflected in present-day human grammars. The evolutionary pressures in ancient human history made us respond to animal and plant life, and to relate to and use tools for our survival. It is easy to imagine that such categories were not only important to discern and understand the surroundings, but also essential in singling out these things for reference in communication with others. However, although such semantic fields lump together in noun class systems, it is more often the case that there is no one-to-one match between the categories of the mind not determined by language and the categories of grammar. First, grammars may draw both finer and coarser distinctions. For example, ‘human’ may be further subdivided into masculine and feminine, black and white, etc.
Evangelical Christians will never offer biblical examples where the word echad refers to non-classifiable “unity.” For example, the Torah states,
עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת: לֹא יוּמַת, עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָדAt the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one (אֶחָד) witness he shall not be put to death.(Deuteronomy 17:6)
לא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ, לְכָל-עָוֹן וּלְכָל-חַטָּאת, בְּכָל-חֵטְא, אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא: עַל-פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, אוֹ עַל-פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה-עֵדִים–יָקוּם דָּבָר.One (אֶחָד) witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.(Deuteronomy 19:15)
יֵשׁ אֶחָד וְאֵין שֵׁנִי גַּם בֵּן וָאָח אֵין לוֹ, וְאֵין קֵץ לְכָל עֲמָלוֹ גַּם עיניו (עֵינוֹ), לֹא תִשְׂבַּע עֹשֶׁר; וּלְמִי אֲנִי עָמֵל, וּמְחַסֵּר אֶת נַפְשִׁי מִטּוֹבָה גַּם זֶה הֶבֶל וְעִנְיַן רָע, הוּא.There is one (אֶחָד) alone, without a companion; yes he has neither son nor brother…(Ecclesiastes 4:8)
כֻּלָּנוּ, בְּנֵי אִישׁ אֶחָד נָחְנוּ; כֵּנִים אֲנַחְנוּ, לֹא הָיוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ מְרַגְּלִים.“We are all one (אֶחָד) man’s sons; we are upright men, thy servants are no spies.”(Genesis 42:11)
וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוָה אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיָּמָת, כֹּל מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם; וּמִמִּקְנֵה בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא מֵת אֶחָדThe next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one (אֶחָד) animal belonging to the Israelites died.(Exodus 9:6)
שְׁלַח לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: אִישׁ אֶחָד אִישׁ אֶחָד לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו, תִּשְׁלָחוּ כֹּל, נָשִׂיא בָהֶם“Send men to scout the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelite people; send one (אֶחָד) man from each of their ancestral tribes, each one (אֶחָד) a leader among them.”(Numbers 13:2)
In the above verses the exact same Hebrew wordאֶחָד is used, and clearly the word (echad) is referring to a non classifiable unity, not a one related to a noun class .
No comments:
Post a Comment