LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

cultures, undoubtedly posed challenges to ancient Israel when the newly arrived Hebrews gained entrance into Canaan in the fourteenth-century BCE. The name elyon connects our three Psalms, 90, 91, and 92. There is also evidence to suggest that the inhabitants of the old Jebusite city (pre-Israelite Jerusalem) already entertained religious and cultic conceptions of the Highest God or el Elyon. Consequently, a qualitative distinction was formidably drawn between the worshiping practices in Israel and that of her surrounding neighbors.

      This distinction is critical to any right understanding of the Hebrew conception of the incomparability of יהוה when contrasted to other gods. The religious situation in early Israel, therefore, was extremely complicated. For much of the period of old Israel, it faced a daunting reality that was not merely one of a rampant polytheism, but also of poly-yahwism. The Deuteronomic emphasis, of course, is on the unity of יהוה amid these complexities and ought to be so understood against this background. Israel’s journey to monotheism was a long, complicated and arduous one and was never arrived at easily.

The question of the origin and age of biblical monotheism has again been vigorously discussed in recent times [c. 1994]. Whereas earlier scholars generally saw the exclusiveness of Israel’s worship of Yahweh as an old legacy of the early period, which in the crises of the settlement and formation of the state was gradually developed into the express requirement of monolatry (sole worship) in the face of the threat of ‘Canaanite’ infiltration, and finally, during the exile, into theoretical monotheism (the assertion of a sole God and the denial of all others), in more recent scholarship the exact opposite has been maintained, that throughout its pre-exilic phase the religion of Israel had been a ‘polytheistic religion which was no different from the religions of the surrounding world’. The propagation of the sole worship of Yahweh is said to have begun only at a late stage, at the earliest with Elijah in the ninth century, but really only with Hosea in the eighth century, and to have been the concern of only small opposition groups (the ‘Yahweh alone movement’). According to this view, this movement was only able to influence society for a short period under Josiah, but then finally helped monotheism to victory in the exilic and early post-exilic period.29

The Hebrew text—which the LXX translated into Greek—differed from the MT (Masoretic Text) to some extent. The condition of that earlier text was quite variable and in some cases was doubtless superior to our present Hebrew text. But in other instances it was clearly inferior. Our conclusion here is that the LXX, while certainly indispensable to the study of the Psalms, must be handled with care. Diligence therefore must be exercised in weighing its evidences and appropriating its conclusions to our reading and interpretation of the text. 30

      The MT (Masoretic Text) is the earliest Hebrew text available to us and dates from the ninth-century CE. In the MT the term שדי (Shaddai, Almighty) also appears only twice in the Psalter (91:1 and 68:14) but over thirty times, for instance, in the book of Job. Biblical references to שדי (Shaddai) in their present form, are most likely of post-exilic origin. In the LXX Shaddai has been rendered variously, but the predominant rendition was Almighty and it issued forth in the eastern Christian church, eventually, by the Greek title pantokrator or Lord of all worlds.

Pantokrator-as a Greek title of the divine and cosmic Lordship of Christ first appeared in the Eastern church in the 4th -5th centuries CE. That Jesus was the Christ of God and the one promised in the Old Testament was the central conviction with which Christianity had arisen out of Judaism. The conviction had been worked out in early Jewish -Christian debates, but Byzantine theology expanded the case for this identification of the Christ . . . It was the theme and purpose of Christian writings against Judaism to show ‘from the Scriptures and from the truth itself [that various passages of the Old Testament] speak about the incarnate economy of the Son of God.’ These passages had been fulfilled before the eyes of the entire cosmos, proving [to those who believed in his name] that Jesus was the promised one.31

      In the early apostolic church, the confession (ἐστιν πάντων κύριος)—(“he is Lord of all”) in Acts 10:36, conveys the core conviction of the lordship of the risen Christ through this parenthetical remark by Luke. It is obvious that the early Christian writers utilized the LXX. Luke was certainly familiar with it. The theological significance to the speech by Peter is that the risen Jesus is become Christ, and, by Christians, is subsequently to be proclaimed as the Lord of all worlds. The gospel of the risen Christ—from the beginning of the Christian tradition–was understood, by implication, to have cosmic significance.

      There has been considerable debate about the appearances of the name יהוה in the Pentateuch, primarily because of various theories asserting that the name יהוה was unknown in antiquity. The idea that the name יהוה was revealed here only raises the question of how God was known earlier. God is not a name but rather a concept. אל שדי (el shaddai) is used only a few times in Genesis. Israel would not have had a nameless deity–especially since Genesis says that from the very beginning people were making proclamation of, and erecting altars in the name of יהוה (Gen 4:26; 12:8). It is possible that they did not always need a name if they were convinced that there was only יהוה and there were no other gods.

      Probably what Moses was anticipating was the Israelites’ needing assurance that he came to them with a message from their God and that some sign would serve as verification of the fact that the presence of יהוה was indeed with them. They would have known the Name and they would have known the ways in which יהוה had been manifested. It would have done no good for Moses to come to the people with a new name for God for that would be like introducing them to a new god. It would in no way authenticate to them Moses’s call, only confuse; after all, they would not be expecting a new name since they had been praying to their God all along. They would want to be assured that their God actually had sent Moses to lead them.

To satisfy the Israelites Moses would had to have been familiar with the name יהוה—if nothing more than to convey to them the reality of the divine presence among them; that this indeed was the self-revealing God who had appeared to him in the Exodus 3 theophany. They would also have wanted to know if יהוה had sent Moses and how this was going to work in their deliverance—for they had been crying out to their God for rescue for a very long time. As it turned out the Israelites had less problem with this than Moses anticipated. Indeed, they were delighted when he came. It is likely that much of this concern was Moses’s own need for assurance that this was the God of their ancestors. The promised deliverance was now to take place. Israel’s long communion and worship of יהוה as the covenanted and covenantal people begins at Sinai. This marks the beginning of the Sinai theology tradition which can be traced with clarion accuracy through the Asaphite psalms (50, 73–83) which are songs originating in the north (Israel or Ephraim).32

In the Hebrew Bible, the Name (Heb. hashem), is used in place of יהוה in reverence of the holy Name. This reverence for יהוה is still maintained in various expressions of modern day Judaism. There is a reluctance to appropriate its usage aloud—this in sobering contrast to much of contemporary Christianity’s casual references to the holy One. The only appropriate stance is to tread carefully with awe and worship in the presence of the Holy.33 The acknowledgment of the activity and attributes of יהוה, particularly immanence and transcendence, frequently come to expression through the various images used to describe God’s actions in the Psalms. The more frequent Hebraic images express a knowledge of the nearness and awareness of the presence and help and deliverance of יהוה. It is the presence of יהוה that is, for ancient Israel, the primary locus of divine activity.

      A deep trust and confidence in יהוה emerges out of each of these texts. This trust is rooted in ancient Israel’s common life and work and, most of all, worship. Our three psalms represent some of the highest expressions of trust in the Psalter. In this respect Psalm 91 marks the zenith of the book of Psalms. The

Скачать книгу