November 2017 - Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Image result for Kabbalah God's Name images

Question: The Name Y H V H having discussions with a Hebrew scholar in Jerusalem and he says that the academy have just discovered that The Letters are YeHoVaH, is this correct?

Answer: No, it still is incorrect. To begin with, God’s Name does not have V in it, but the ancient pronunciation was a W. Christians often use the hideous “Jehovah,” which was a medieval corruption of YHWH. Modern scholars prefer writing, “Yahweh” but I believe leaving out the vowels is a better way to show reverence to the actual name. Part of the problem occurred when the English consonant J took the place of Y and with the German pronunciation of the Hebrew W, which was produced the V sound because the Germans and Englishmen never bothered to ask the Jews about its correct transliteration!

Although Orthodox Jews have maintained that nobody knows how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, the Karaite Jews—the same Karaite Jews who are responsible for the Masoretic Text, pronounce Yahweh’s Name as “Yi-Hi-Wa.” Over the centuries Jews became increasingly worried about the integrity of God’s Name, partly because of Gnostic reasons, or because the Jews did not want magicians to evoke God’s Name in their magical rituals.

As to its meaning,

In terms of the grammar, the name אֶהְיֶה is written in the Qal imperfect, first person common singular of the verb הָיָה (haya, “to be”), implying incomplete and continuous ongoing action. It is important to remember that the notion of tenses is a European construct. In Hebrew (as well as Greek), verbs either connote completed action (comparable to the past tense), or incomplete action (the infinitive). Hence, אֶהְיֶה suggests as the Septuagint rendered it, I Am the ONE Who IS” (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν = egō eimi ho ōn). One modern exegete, John Durham offers a clear and most succinct exposition capturing this thought:

“I AM that I AM,” replies God. The verbs are first person common qal imperfects of the verb היה “to be,” connoting continuing, unfinished action: “I am being that I am being,” or “I am the Is-ing One,” that is, “the One Who Always Is.” Not conceptual being, being in the abstract, but active being, is the intent of this reply. It is a reply that suggests that it is inappropriate to refer to God as “was” or as “will be,” for the reality of this active existence can be suggested only by the present: “is” or “is— ing,” “Always Is,” or “Am.”[1]

The 19th century Jewish exegete M. Kalisch observed that the name, “אהיה is the name by which God calls Himself, and He knows His own nature and attributes; but YHWH is the Name by which men call God, and they cannot comprehend His essence and nature.”^{^[2]}There seems to also be a consensus among pre-modern scholars and modern scholars that the name YHWH is associated with the root הָיָה “become, be at hand, exist (phenomenally).” It has a twofold meaning: the active, Self— Existent One (since the word is connected with the verb meaning “to be,” Exod. 3:14); and Israel’s Redeemer (Exod. 6:6). However, God’s actual Name—YHWH—derives from the verb הֹוֶה that means “is present.”

Keil and Delitzsch explain:

The question (v. 13) … presupposed that the name expressed the nature and operations of God and that God would manifest in deeds the nature expressed in the name … (He) designated Himself by this name as the absolute God… acting with unfettered ability and self— dependence.” Commenting on the name YHWH in Gen 2:4, the same scholars say: “He is the personal God in His historical manifestation in which the fullness of the Divine Being unfolds itself to the world … the God of the history of salvation. This is not shown in the etymology of the name but in the historical expansion.” God, then, revealed himself to Moses not as the Creator— the God of power—Elohim, but as the personal God of Salvation, and all that “I am.”

[1] John I. Durham, Exodus (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), Vol. 3, p. 39.

^{^[2]}M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament: Exodus (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1855), pp. 55-56.

Image result for I am Muslim

4 days ago

Image result for victims of the New York Attack park pictures

More images for victims of the New York Attack park Report images

It is one thing to hear people pray in a Mosque saying “Allahu akbar” in unison, for we all have our unique way of expressing prayer.

However, when you hear somebody on a jet that is flying 40,000 feet in the air screaming to the top of his lungs, “Allahu akbar!”, what is your reaction? What is your heart and mind telling you? If you’re like any normal human being, you are most likely experiencing a sense of terror; you fear that your life might be ending within the next couple of minutes or seconds, as your life flashes before you. I can guarantee you the last thing you are worried about is whether feeling this way might get you labeled as “Islamophobic” or a “racist” despite the fact that Islam has nothing to do with race.

Once again, another Muslim terrorist named Sayfullo Saipov, proudly screeched, “Allahu akbar!” after running down some twenty people, killing eight people. One outspoken Muslim imam named Omar Suleiman has successfully persuaded Google to bury anything that is remotely, “anti-Islam.” He complained on CNN how the media perceives “Allahu akbar!” serves what he called, “a nefarious agenda.” Once again, instead of identifying with the victims of the terror attack, Suleiman and his ilk seem as though are trying to get us to identify with the perpetrator.

George Orwell referred to this kind of logic as “doublespeak.”

Frankly, if I were a true Muslim, I would be outraged—but not by those who are complaining about Muslim violence and deviance. Instead I would redirect my rage toward my fellow Muslims who are through their fanaticism single-handedly destroying their religion. They are the ones who have created this problem in perception. It’s time the civilized world of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and responsible Muslims take a different approach and unequivocally condemn religious inspired violence.

It is disturbing that organizations such as CAIR and other Islamic affiliates seldom organize large 100,000-person rallies condemning the kind of violence that is perpetuated by its apostles of hate. Such gatherings now and then occur in Europe, but not in this country. Islamic apologists created a new word, “Islamophobia” as a means of suppressing any kind of criticism toward Islam as a religion. It may seem strange, we do not ever hear of someone being “Judeao-phobic” or “Christian-phobic” because being afraid of Judaism or Christianity doesn’t really make any sense. Being afraid of Islam (which is what Islamophobia suggests) has nothing to do with being afraid of Muslims. I think the Muslim propagandists should have come up with a better term. Criticizing any religion is not a crime in a country that champions free speech.

People often attribute the following remark to the atheist philosopher Christopher Hitchens, who allegedly said, “The word Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” Actually, it was the brilliant physicist Richard Dawkins who made this remark. While I would not use the same caustic language Hawkins uses, I do agree the term “Islamophobia” is a contrived linguistic weapon to suppress honest dialogue about how people feel about Islam as a religion. Islamophobia means “the fear of Islam,” and not the fear of Muslims.

Christopher Hitchens described Islamophobia in the following terms:

“A phobic is a person suffering from irrational or uncontrollable dread. I don’t choose to regard my own apprehensiveness about Muslim violence as groundless or illusory” “Fundamentals,” Tablet Magazine 5/24/10
“This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be phobic. A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.” “A Test of Tolerance,”[1] Slate 8/23/10

Think about it.

Criticism of religion should not equated with hatred; nor should people who criticize ANY religion be tarred and feathered, or shamed for expressing their concerns about militant behavior of certain Muslims who promote violence in the name of the Quran. Nor does criticizing Islam make one into a racist.

Whatever you wish to call it, it is a term designed to suppress criticism of Islam. Whether you are a rabbi, priest, a Zen Roshi, a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister, you have every right to criticize your religion of origin for the problems pertaining to it as a faith. In ancient times, the prophets pulled no punches on criticizing the Judaism of their times and the way it was practiced. Quite the opposite. Judaism benefited from the prophetic critique.

Islam can also benefit from an honest critique of its doctrines, its holy books, and the way people practice their faith. Islam is not the exception, but it can be a great example if its followers pursue this fearless path of moral integrity. Let us pray that responsible imams take this criticism not as a sign of hatred or intolerance, but as an invitation to examine and discuss a topic that demands an ethical response.

In my next column, I will discuss the overuse of “anti-Semitism” to add further balance to the topic I have raised about religious labels.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/08/a_test_of_tolerance.html

*
Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader at Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com

Pronouncing God’s Name

A Tale of Two Perspectives