On 'Jesus and Yahweh'

 By

Sampson Onwuka

Harold Bloom is not a name is we forget very easily in the world of Humanities, himself an author of over 25 books, more critical of which is the 'book of J' and 'Jesus and Yahweh'. The sayings 'fault and fatal loins' may apply to his work on Shakespeare Humanities and it opens the sea for us to understand his mindset in breaking down the language of Christ as truly humanistic in 'Jesus and Yahweh' with Jesus calling Yahweh 'Abba father'. But in his 'Book of J' he makes room for a more useful possibility of yahwahistic writers which - and some others believe - continued in theme till the time of fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC. It is necessary for us to understand that the man in question essentially argued for something else other than the presence of Yahweh in the fifth of the Book stories of Genesis, for without which it could be argued that Harold Bloom essentially believe in the God of Yahweh. But as we have hinted in the time past that there is a possibility that Yahweh is no name at all then Harold Bloom is utterly flawed in this interpretation of Yahweh as an actual name of God and given his comparison with Christ – who is called Jesus, he reasons that YAHWEH should be the name of God. Such position will only expand the possibility that Yahweh can be understood through the writings of early Israelites from Egypt and through the life of Moses and his calling in the Bible. In this book 'Jesus and Yahweh' Harold Bloom seem to indicate that Yahweh is a very old name, refuting the fact that Yahweh was a name among the desert dwellers.

 

The rest of the story concerning Yahweh of Host, Yahweh sabaoth, Yahweh Jireh, Yahweh Nissi, all indicate specific episodes of the whole 'Yahweh rendition' which corresponds to specific events in the life of the Israelites through the wilderness leading to the promised land. The root of the name YHWH which in all which connects to an altar after the name of God belongs to a history. For instance Yahweh/Jehovah Jireh would mean Yahweh Ji-reh, referring to the incident of Isaac and his father Abraham, where Abraham wanted to sacrifice Isaac so to speak to God but found a Ram caught on a tree is one incident. Let me rephrase, please don't think it’s easy to show departures in Hebrew language and why, or throw light on YHWH as the same meaning and philological to Emmanuel which is the same as Hammurabi. You won't read this anywhere that Hammurabi is the same as Amun Rah, same and similar to Rah Amun, Emmanua, and YAHWEH. That these names explicate the meaning of YAHWEH and we need not be exercised here or anywhere about its outcomes but we may take from this, differing episodes in history on what needs to be said and done about the people of Israel….that can and has explicated on these ancient meaning. Let me state that there is meaning and definition of the name Allah and you don’t know it, it is not the first letter or so derived from elsewhere, that RAH is the same as YAH, that the Egyptians perhaps used YAH or YAM or YAW as opposed to RAH may not seem had to grasp but to the Jews, the idea of God as preserved by the departing Hebrews whose name of the most high is written YHWH, closer to Awun YaH than Amun Rah - than any names you find in the history.

 

J.A Emerton goes to show some other examples in the Bible where El manages to show up. For instance which co-inside with Phoenician interpretation of El and God, for instance El-Olam, which the Phoenician indicated as the 'Everlasting God' as interpreted by the Phoenician and the last of the Phoenician inscription which he dated was 700 BCE. The El Olam or El Oroi, which appear Genesis 21.33, was interpreted by him and by everyday Bible, as a God of Light, a title Abraham offered to God where he saved from.... This term appear in similar fashion in Phoenician text as the "God Almighty" or the "Everlasting Sun", a serious mimeses on light everlasting. The main point is that El in context of Phoenician and Ugaritic language is used to alternately describe images exulted or set on high, images like the Sun, where Oroi, at least in Igbo if not in Yoruba refers to revelation and not necessary light. The light sparse indicative of the statement inspire all kinds of interpretation about God of light and righteousness, but of the Sun whose who is more revealing and elevated as light.

 

 

But these two words are just the same and in many ways indicate that the word in respect or response to the most high, equally mean God and also Most high God. Moses was truly Egyptian and it his experiences in Africa that guided his origination of Hebrew, at a time when Hebrews and the Africans used Y for R, perhaps older than Ramesses - assuming his name and the names of the Ramesses begins with R than Y, alluring the meaning Yawesses; either high priest of YHWH, chosen by YHWH, or son of RAH. It is undisputed that Hebrew is by origin Africa and Egyptian and Judaism is an extension or a continuation of Egyptian Religion whereas Moses like Akhenaton and as described by Freud was a revolutionary….

 

You really may not find this translation laid out here anywhere….some perhaps for very learned people, but this is strictly by share luck and long practice and I encourage you to give thanks for such knowledge and work on it. Since Pythagoras, some of the assumptions on the numbers has remained the same, but it is possible, that we can accurately transform the spiritual limits of current numbers, to the extent that the spiritual limits of Abulafia and Adret interpretations of the Kabbalah can be enhanced, or rewritten or edited with much opulence, that some of the but we shall not end there. The interpretation of ‘auto de fe’ for Acts of Faith was clearly wrong, that from Igbo as from Hebrew, ‘auto de fe’ in Spain is closer to ‘otu ofufe’ Igbo for ‘one faith’ leads the interpretative history Spanish monarchy and the church to new and foundered theory, that their actions against Jews and Muslims were a form of crusade of ‘one faith’ and by Igbo in comparative performance to Spanish, otu ofufe in Igbo compares to ‘auto the fe’, I think such knowledge including experimental re-evaluation of philosophy of luck and chance between here through, Paschal, Gus and here again to latter question of risk, denying that there is no such thing as Chance and luck, and affirming that divine conscience was not without amelioration of a personal acceptance and willingness to repent, hence the beginning of divinity or duality which derives the divine logos.

 

In the divine logos show that Christ Jesus spoke a language that may closer to what is heard in some Western African Languages, for instance Tali ta kumi, my child rise up, or little girl rise, compares with Igbo ‘tata kulie’ or ‘nwata kunie’ meaning, my ‘child rise up’, a verity of word that has little emphasis on the gender ‘tata’. Jesus’s in upbringing made him a victim of voice and accent, that his Arabic as injured by his years in Africa (first 12 yrs.) perhaps one of the sources of his angst from the elders of Jerusalem. That Christ was probably raised by Meiji who live in Elephantine and are called Star Gazers, with Strabo’s footnote on Sesostris II light house, makes it clear that Christ was not without the prejudice of early years than most of his compeers.

 

In the nature of the names of these gods which were very common in Egypt, that in several records were find 365 or thereabout gods, we can say that enough argument remain on the surface on what happens when humans in the world had accomplished their work, to a very great extent then they become the so-called national god. In deeper knowing, the whole thing comes under the facts that names like Osiris, Seth, Marduk, Shamash, Ishtar are names of humans who became honored as lord and then on and on as god. Adumbration of the whole name goes to explain why the pharaohs in nominal circumstances were called gods. YAHWEH, called by many modern day historians a 'war God' may have given the false indication that Yahweh was among these gods, part man and then god. But nothing from the whole episode can be further from truth. In fact the whole episodes of men and gods like Osiris of 3100 BCE of Egypt, who was supposed to be the brother of Seth, murdered on pretenses of living dead and on jealousy, was supposed to have risen from the sleeping death in the thick of forest reserves, near Adonis where his wife Ishtar through magical process obtained his course. Ishtar herself became a goddess in the order of magicians. But she was a human being, fairly incapable on stopping the second death of Osiris by dismembering by Seth, after he survived the initial casket suffocation. The river that rafted Osiris' body through the area of what became the Upper Egypt today is called Adonis for Greek, Ado-ni for Egypt, meaning 'lord of the Nile' in fellowship of matters concerning living, dying, and perhaps living again. The more accurate word is Ado-ni-jah is "the lord of the Nile" although consensus opinion is that Adonijah refers to the 'Black Lord' living dead, in many ways Osiris. You can recognize that Adoni and Adonijah is one of the Appellations for the God of Israel, indicating that it was merely praise as part of a language, not a particular exaltation of God.

 

Even Marduk and Shamash were personal names among the Assyrians before the 11th century BCE, but with time with the influence of the Babylonians on the country, Marduk who was man, Shamash who was man became epitomized as Astrological triumphs of certain god over chaos, incarnated in mortal flesh. This is where Yahweh comes in history as a departure from this ideology both in the African sense where Heroes and native doctors and Pharaohs do not die a natural death. 4, The fourth implication of the 'verb of verb' as defined by Moses and now understood in Igbo is that the great literary giants and historians like Yehezkel Kaufman among others are probable wrong to suggested that even Israel began as a nation with 'multiple deities'/ a 'Pantheon' or 'assembly of gods' (Polytheism) so to speak, but with time they became monotheist under the condition of the many names of God finally converging into one. From the meaning of YHWH as 'name that is name' 'name above all other name' going back to at least Moses, there is need to understand that the names like Jireh, Nissi, Shaddai, Elo/Elohim, and so on were not names of other gods as we find in Canaanites but names indicating the manifestations of God in certain ways, names that refer to specially acts whose name was all in all, whose name was not known and as such was called Adoni/Adonay, in imitation of 'lord' perhaps in basin to the derived Hebrew language from among the ugaritic and Phoenician; places ruled and cultivated by Egypt. Israel meaning 'people of God' as in El', may have started from day one as a people betrothed to one God, whose name they did not know and who was to be called names nearly equivocal to near east neighbors but never in that decided polytheistic of gods of other lands, but most perhaps in coalescence with much others of Palestine/Cananim origin who believe in the chastity to one God.

 

In command of the paragraph, Yekezel Kaufman's position of polytheistic Israel yielding to one is probably wrong. So much so can be treatment of the Jewish history from the perspective on current schools of interpretations dwelling too much of names that we find in the Bible. Much of these Biblical names could not be understood in Hebrew That Judaic historical process which was began by the likes of Baruch Spinoza, and Isaac Abranavel, who should be mentioned for conciliatory position on Moses as the par giver of the law rather than God - despite his position as not so good a commentator as on the height as Maimenodis, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, nor measure up to the veritable greats of historical scholarly process, of the likes De Vaux, Von Rad, and J.D Gadd. Isaac Abranavel sighted unusual misgivings about Moses and God as if Moses introduced the idea of Israeli God in his 40 days of isolation. This part of our study narrows into the evolution of the names of God in the Bible and the history of Israel over those years will take us into the lot of Biblical archeology and study that center on Israel in its early history. But since the days of Graf and a certain Wellhaussen, there has been all rises of schools of thought concerning the Biblical Study. Before we exploit the lingering necessity of correcting current impressions of God's name, it is worth the effort to find out where in particular does the idea come from and the great ones who so to speak gave birth to the reigning schools of Biblical study. I have come to think that this episode in our daily search for the names of God and its meaning as discovered in the relationship between Hebrew and Igbo languages, will promote our cause for the similarity in the two languages and not just the cause, but enhance corrective measures on the verities of claim evident in today's Biblical history and study. In the names of these great secular archeologist and Archeologist, we shall learn more about the Bible adding who or who may have done their bit in encouraging the search for the better interpretation of Israel history. These dykes of professors include the likes of H. Gunkel, J.B Pritchard who interpreted the ANET, John Bright (history of Israel) who is a student of W. F Albright. W.F Albright pioneered Palestine archeology and supported the theory of Conquest Model in early Israel history, but this is one of the schools.

 

Then there is G.E Wright (Biblical Archeology) who is part of the strong pillar of Conquest Model in terms of other secular near East archeology and sources. N.Glueck, B. Mazar may refer to illustrative model between Israel and the rest of the Near East history with especially emphasis on documentary Hypothesis and critical analysis. This group may not be different from 'Source Theory' in Biblical studies and we can look at the likes of O Eisenfedt who argued for the parallels between Israel’s history and the tradition of Near East, and between these two and the Bible. In a sense, the history of Israel ought to noted first free from what we find in the Bible, and then the parallel. This school of interpreters of early Israeli tradition includes Hallo, Frye, and the very Egyptologist E. Meyer. While Frye is a most articulate commentator, Meyers work borders on the African origin of what became Israel religion may have given birth to the certain formulation in Freud's exertion that Moses was an Egyptian. Sigmund Freud I must say did not deny the source of that inspiration. The young Toby Wilkinson and olden F.M Cross may belong to this group which is not necessary opposed to Mendelham position of the 'materialism' of Israel in Canaan giving birth to their 'spiritualism', a compulsive Revolt Theory. J Van Seters 'In search of History; Historiography in the Ancient World and Origins, never quite made to any category but attention ought to be placed on works like his managed to do towards interpreting the Revolt model and independent history of Israel. This aspect of Israeli history as original to the area we call Palestine deny the model of Exodus that we find in the Bible concerning Israel, and when it does improve on the idea of Exodus, the schools we find are seriously the 'Revolt Model' by G.E Mendenhall and N.K Gottwald, suggesting that Israel was an independent nation who revolted as Peasants in the 'Canaan' to become a nation in Near East.

 

Then there is Noth, Whitelam, Cooke, Alt who represent the 'Pastoral Nomadic' theory of Israel and who are only slightly different from great Bible expert Von Rad and De vaux. De vaux is closer to Meyer as he is to Von Rad. There is however another group that believes that Exodus took place but not in the tradition we find in the Bible is a man called Louis Finkelstein Jr. and a certain Silberman. Silberman's work on a solo piece I have not read but I seem to disagree with him and Finkelstein Jr. on a recent book ('The Bible unearthed; Archeology's new vision of Israel and the Origin of its sacred Texts', 2001) which is a mere adaptation of Finkelsteins Jr. work in 1988 (archeology of Israeli settlement) and in a whole lot of histrionics of Israel am I seem to disagree with these two, especially the claim in that recent 2001 book that forced the argument that Israelites started off in an escape mode and then fought the remaining Egyptian who followed in the Sea of Reeds. The book was also countenanced by A. Dewer's ('Who were the Early Israelites and Where did they come from', 2003, and c/c 'What did the Biblical writers know and when they know it? what archeology can tell us about the reality of Ancient Israel' Dever 2001), especially archeological repeat hypothesis of a certain Benjamin's early presence in Palestine, perhaps as initial area of settlement for Israelites, in which A. Dever countered that if we remove the argument of the archeology of Benjamin based on extensive number of pottery found in the area, the whole position of Finkelstein and Silberman will collapse.