cubitxcubit

[cubitxcubit]

The Names of God

Practitioners of many religious traditions have one or more powerful entities with which they associate the machinations of the world or the powerful forces within the world. These beings are ordinarily called gods in Western discourse of religion. Christianity is no exception to this practice, although it does muddy the waters to outside interpreters. In the Christian faith, there is only one God, but this God also has a divine son – Jesus, as well as a divine spirit – the Holy Spirit. A majority of Christians subscribe to the idea of a trifecta God, that is to say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are coeternal (all three existed before time and are eternal) and cosubstantial (all three are of the same substance, yet different in aspects) divine persons; this belief is called Trinitarianism.[1] In contrast, Unitarian Christians affirm that God is singular and unique in his role. Consequently, Jesus is not equal to God, nor is the Holy Spirit.

Christians can set aside differences in the specifics of the nature of the godhead and agree that there is a God who created the Universe. However, anyone who has ever read from the Bible knows that many names and titles are used throughout the text to refer to the divine creator. Each of these names and titles hold unique meanings that reveal the history of the Christian and Jewish faiths, and exploring these will enhance one’s understanding of the totality of God as presented across the Bible – first in the Old Testament and then in the New Testament. No details will be offered regarding the English translations of God’s names, such as God, Lord, the Father, etc.

The names and titles of God present in the Tanakh (Old Testament) showcase the foundational understanding of God as he reveals himself to his followers. Perhaps the most widely known name, YHWH, is also the most common iteration to appear in the Tanakh. This name, also referred to as the Tetragrammaton (named for its composition of four constants), was the one which was revealed to Moses in Exodus.[2] YHWH evidently resembles the third person singular imperfect form of a verb, which means “to be;” this implies YHWH means “He is” or “He will be” or even at a deeper level “to live” or “to breath.”[3] This goes on to impart the idea that God of the Israelites was unique among contemporary gods of their neighbors in that he was and is a living god, the “author of life.”[2]

The next most common name associated with God is Elohim.[2] This name has a complex and largely unknown origin, but some scholars suggest it originated from an old Arabic verb alih, which may mean the name would translate as "He who is the object of fear or reverence," but there is no certain answer.[2] 

A similar name, El, is present in the Tanakh. This title, like Elohim, was used outside of early Jewish traditions in those of other neighboring nations to refer to other deities. It simply means “God,” and it is often used in conjunction with another word, such as in another name for God, El ‘Elyon (“most high God”).[2] Another case, El Shaddai, is used frequently in the Book of Job. Shaddai refers to God as “the Almighty,” but the root word’s meaning imparts a translation of “devastator” or “destroyer.”[2] This may suggest that the author of Job wanted to convey God as a being of unspeakable power and used this name to that end.

Other common names for God in the Tanakh are Adonai, meaning “my Lord,” and Ba’al, which worked as an equivalent to YHWH but also served as an element in compound names like Jerubbaal.[2] Comparably, YHWH and Elohim often appear alongside another name for God, Ẓeba'ot ("hosts,") such as YHWH Elohe Ẓeba'ot ("YHWH God of Hosts.")[2]

The point of the matter is that the God of the Tanakh cannot be simply reduced to anything quite as simplistic as “God” or “Lord” without the loss of the powerful, historical roots of the deity of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Foregoing the exceedingly prevalent forms like YHWH for the generalized God deprives the believer of the depth of the textual meanings behind God’s names.

For brevity’s sake, I will include a list of some of the names for God found in the Tanakh instead of detailing them at length before continuing to the New Testament.

Table 1[4]

Unlike the Tanakh, the New Testament was authored largely in Greek, and the names and titles of God used reflect Greek traditions instead of Hebrew ones. The most common name found in the New Testament is Theos, which was the translation of the Hebrew name Elohim into Greek. Theos was usually used to refer to God the Father. Similarly, the name Kyrios, meaning “lord” or “master,” frequently appears to refer to God in a similar fashion to the Hebrew Adonai, but it is also used at times to refer to Jesus. 

Due to the complexity of the various Greek names used to refer to God as a single entity or as a dual meaning to refer to the Father or Jesus, I will provide a list that will share a few of the most common, less ambiguous names used in the New Testament.

Table 2[4]

[1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/christian-denominations-by-the-numbers.html

[2] https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god 

[3 ] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh

[4] https://www.bartehrman.com/names-of-god

[cubitxcubit]

Jonah and the Whale... or was it?

The story of Jonah is one of the most commonly retold biblical stories in many circles, particularly to Sunday School classes. The Book of Jonah is oftentimes interpreted through a strictly metaphorical lens, but a sizable group considers the whole of it as a literal history. Regardless of the story’s historical reality, readers have commonly misunderstood the passage of Jonah being eaten. The popular depiction of this scene, especially in art, suggests a whale swallowed Jonah. Although this interpretation is common, there is no textual evidence to imply this case. The debate over this detail is complex and longstanding. To provide clarification for what the text can impart, it is necessary to review the original Hebrew text, the later translation into Greek, and the themes of the story as a whole.

In the oldest available Hebrew manuscripts of the Book of Jonah, the scene of Jonah being swallowed uses the word הַדָּ֔ג (had·dāḡ), meaning “of the fish.”[1] This translation merely informs the reader that the creature that swallowed him was a fish, not a whale or other aquatic animal. We know this because there were words to describe these other creatures in use in other places in the Bible, such as תַּנִּין (tannin) meaning “dragon, serpent, sea monster” andלִוְיָתָן (Livyathan) meaning “Leviathan... a wreathed animal, a serpent, dragon.”[2]  

The Hebrew text alone does not fully attest to our understanding of the passage, but it does provide a strong foundation. This is strengthened through the interpretation of the story in the Greek Septuagint. The translators used the word κῆτος (kētos), which means “a sea monster, huge sea fish, whale.”[3] While this word could be used to mean a whale, it did not serve this purpose in Jonah. The Greek-Hebrew concordance of the Bible reveals that kētos was used only in parallel with the Hebrew dāḡ and tannin. Additionally, Greek writers did not use kētosto strictly refer to any one type of sea creature, rather it was used to broadly describe any large sea creature.[3]

The knowledge of the translation history of the verses in Jonah, a clearer vision of the story’s themes can take shape. The most evident themes revealed through the Book of Jonah are repentance, obedience, and God’s mercy. Briefly, the elements of the story suggest its authorship dated to around the 8th century BCE, during which Israel and Judah were under the control of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[4] As such, God’s followers were exiled from their homeland and sought divine intervention to return to their lands. The community’s desires are reflected in the themes of the story. The Israelites sought to repent for their perceived transgressions against God and worked to obediently follow God’s law in order to earn God’s mercy, thus in the story the Ninevites earn the mercy of God thanks to Jonah’s message of repentance and obedience.

[1] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/haddag_1709.htm

[2] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8577.htm ; https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3882.htm

[3] https://biblehub.com/greek/2785.htm

[4] https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1170/the-book-of-jonah/

[cubitxcubit]

What Was The Forbidden Fruit?

The institution of original sin in Christianity manifested in the first book of the Bible, and its foundational nature places it in the spotlight in popular culture depictions. Adam and Eve often appear in the Garden of Eden, adorned with fig leaves over their genitals and standing beneath an apple tree. This common depiction seems to suggest that the general understanding of the story is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must have been an apple tree. However, there is no direct confirmation in the Bible for what species the tree was and what fruit it produced. So, why then is it so often depicted as an apple tree? Moreover, what evidence is available to point to the truth of what may have been the species of this tree?

Understanding why the artists in western culture so often choose an apple is, like most other curiosities in the Bible, difficult to answer directly. One factor in this popular depiction is that the apples that are common in the western world today share a common ancestor in a species still available today: Malus sieversii.[1] Based on its prevalence in Central Asia, it is likely that apple trees were a common sight in Antiquity in the Middle East. That alone does not explain the acceptance of apples as the forbidden fruit. Some scholars suggest it may have been the result of a Latin pun, following its translation into Latin in the 4th century CE by St. Jerome. [2] In this pun (or perhaps a misunderstanding), Eve ate the mālum(apple) and contracted malum(evil). [2] These translators did not have the benefit of a direct translation from the Hebrew, which simply used a generic term (peri) for the fruit hanging from the tree.[2] Not to mention that during Jerome’s lifetime, malus did not strictly refer to an apple, rather it could have been used to describe “any fleshy seed-bearing fruit.” [2]

The only conclusion that can be drawn with certainty is that the there was a fruit hanging from this tree. That said, one can further speculate from information in the surrounding verses. It is noted that Adam and Eve used fig leaves to cover their genitals, and it is not a substantial leap to conclude that they may have simply grabbed leaves from the tree which they had just eaten to fashion their coverings. [Gen. 3:6-7] Regrettably, this matter is without a definitive answer, but the presence of figs and fig trees throughout the Bible, one could argue, imparts a powerful thematic logic for choosing a fig tree as the species of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Sources:

[1] https://www.treesandshrubsonline.org/articles/malus/malus-sieversii/

[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/30/526069512/paradise-lost-how-the-apple-became-the-forbidden-fruit

[cubitxcubit]

King Solomon, Bigger Than Bezos?

Solomon, son of David and fourth monarch of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah c. 1000 BCE, is well known in the common discourse of Christians as a wise king.[1] His sins against God through his acquisition of a multitude of foreign wives and horses is equally discussed in Christian circles. Curiously, there is little discussion of his wealth beyond this vast collection of concubines and animals. His wealth in gold, silver, and other precious materials would rival that of the wealthiest private individuals of today.

Solomon’s story in the accepted canon takes place primarily within in the First Book of Kings and the Second Book of Chronicles, and the details in these two books will serve as the primary sources for determining how wealthy Solomon was during his reign. Before diving into this discussion, some important distinctions must be made. Firstly, all calculations for the value of his possessions will use their present valuations as of 12/29/2024. Secondly, all weights and measures will be presumed to follow standard conventions seen elsewhere in the Bible – for example, one cubit is equal to about 45cm; one shekel is equal to about 11g; and one talent is equal to about 34kg. All tabulations will be placed at the bottom of the article of ease of reading.

The first indication of Solomon’s financial gains comes through a passage in 1 Kings. In 9:14, we see that Hiram sent Solomon 120 talents of gold, and a few verses later in 9:28, Solomon earned another 420 talents of gold from Hiram. In the next chapter, the queen of Sheba visits and gifts him 120 talents of gold, as well as precious stones and a volume of spices “never again” seen in this world.[1 Kings 10:10] During this chapter, it is revealed that Solomon netted a total of 666 talents in that year (probably the year the queen visited), so we can conclude he earned another 446 talents of gold from other sources that year.

In the third chapter of 2 Chronicles, it is noted that Solomon used 600 talents of gold and an additional 50 shekels of gold to furnish the most holy part of the temple in Jerusalem. [2 Chronicles 3:8-9] It is safe to assume that this gold predates the sums from 2 Kings, as this chronologically occurred first. It is worth mentioning that in chapter 17, an individual named Huram (not Hiram) gifts Solomon with 450 (not 420) talents of gold, but for the most accurate calculations, the spelling and weight differences will be presumed to be erroneous. Therefore, the information from 2 Kings will be used.

Gold is approximately $92.42/g or$92,417.79/kg [2]

According to these calculations, Solomon had not less than 5.6 billion dollars during his time as king, and this does not take into account the value of his inheritances from David, nor the worth of any of the precious stones or spices or other valuable metals that he certainly possessed. It is worth mentioning that, according to 1 Chronicles 22, David had accrued over 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver for use in the construction God’s temple. Presumably, Solomon utilized these inherited sums.

Silver is approximately $1.04/g or$1,040.58/kg [3]

As a result, Solomon’s net worth amounted to at least 349.6 billion dollars in today’s currency. That would place Solomon neatly between today’s two wealthiest individuals, Elon Musk ($436.8 Billion) and Jeff Bezos ($237.5 Billion).[4]  Another fascinating detail from this story, the total of gold collected by David is roughly half the sum of the US Federal Reserve’s collection (261.5 million troy ounces or about 239,000 talents), and the amount of silver is roughly 34,000 metric tons (8,000 more than the entire world produced in 2023). [5]

Sources:

[1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Solomon

[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/gold

[3] https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/silver

[4] https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#2d66a9ea3d78

[5] https://www.statista.com/statistics/253293/silver-production-volume-worldwide/

[cubitxcubit]

“Was Jesus’s cross made from dogwood? Where did that belief come from?”

The Legend of the Dogwood Tree, as it is often called, owes its origins to a poem by an unknown author.

In Jesus’ time, the dogwood grew   To a stately size and a lovely hue.   ‘Twas strong and firm, its branches interwoven.   For the cross of Christ its timbers were chosen.   Seeing the distress at this use of their wood   Christ made a promise which still holds good:   “Never again shall the dogwood grow   Large enough to be used so.   Slender and twisted, it shall be   With blossoms like the cross for all to see.   As blood stains the petals marked in brown,   The blossom’s center wears a thorny crown.   All who see it will remember Me   Crucified on a cross from the dogwood tree.   Cherished and protected, this tree shall be   A reminder to all of My agony.”

Additionally, some individuals point to the fact that dogwood trees bloom in April around Easter Sunday, marking the resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion.

While the Middle East is home to a broad array of flora and fauna, the dogwood tree (Genus Cornus) is not, however, one of its native trees. In fact, the dogwood trees most Americans are familiar with (Cornus florida) are only native to eastern North America and parts of northern Mexico.[1] With that said, there is at least one species of dogwood that may well have grown in Israel during the lifetime of Jesus, Cornus mas. This variety does not produce the blossoms described in the poem above. Cornus mas actually produces small yellow flowers that eventually become bright red fruits. Cornus mas also flowers earlier in the year than the Cornus florida of North America.[2]

The question of whether or not Jesus was crucified on a dogwood cannot, of course, be answered with absolute certainty. The available evidence suggests that it is unlikely he was crucified on a dogwood cross, and he certainly was not crucified on a dogwood species native to North America. Unfortunately, there is no record of what wood was used for the crucifixion of Jesus. The word used in the Greek New Testament translations is staurós, which simply refers to “an upright stake, hence a cross (the Rom. Instrument of crucifixion).”[3] It is also worth noting that the word had the previous connotation of referring to a pole or pale (a stake on which one is impaled).[4] With that said, it is entirely possible that the cross that Jesus carried may have only been the cross-beam that would be attached to a pole at the site of execution. It has been noted by scholars that Romans crucified people with varying means, and the details provided by the New Testament do not reveal a definitive answer.

[1] https://bonap.net/MapGallery/County/Cornus%20florida.png.

[2] Steve Whysall, “Cornus mas,” Vancouver Sun (Vancouver, B.C.), October 5, 2009, https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/cornus-mas.

[3] Strong’s Greek Concordance, s.v. “stauros,” accessed March 14, 2024, https://biblehub.com/greek/4716.htm.

[4] Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 241.