b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Schmuel <schmuel AT bigfoot.com>
- To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: Re: One or One?
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 03:00:36 -0500
Shalom B-hebrew, (resending from earlier today)
JWE
On two different occasions (the most recent being yesterday), I have been told
that the Hebrew word "Echad" (one), means a "Composite unity" i.e. more than a
"Single" one; the examples of this were, Adam & Eve being "one" and your body
having many parts but it is "one" body (This reference was presented in a
discussion on Deut 6:4) . This person also stated if you were talking about a
"Single" one, you would use the Hebrew word, "Yachid"; the example given for
Yachid was "One" moon or sun.
gfsomsel ---
My initial response is the shema (Ex. 6.4) ..... Shema Yisroel YHWH eloheynu YHWH echad
Now for the question. Do you suppose that the author is here saying that YHWH is a "composite unity"? I think not. Hopefully, this will answer your question.
Schmuel
tho I make no claims of Hebrew-savvyness, this is so important that at times
I have had to research it .. and I did a little more research today... :-)
"echad" is the counting number one, quite comparable to "one" in English or "uno" in Espanol...
(just walk around Yerushalayim and ask for one canteloupe at the shouk)
Of course one of anything can have "component parts" (one chair has four legs,
one molecule has multiple subatomic parts,etc)
so *in that sense* one can always talk about any "one" being a "composite unity".
Also one must be aware that Elohim will not be separated from His majesty, his
Hosts, his Glory, Wisdom, and even His manifestation for us (the Word become flesh).
In that sense yachid would be an inappropriate word (and this gets into the
Elohim Gen 1:26 usage as well)... as the chabad article below points out...
There are other words with similar roots...
Yachid would translate more like "alone" "only"
Yachad translates as "unity" or "together"
(behold how good and how pleasant for we, as brethren to dwell in unity .. )
Hinai matov....
There is a whole issue about Maimonides using "yachid" instead of "echad"
in his Shema..... whatever his reasons, imho it is simply a "pseudo-issue"
(it is possible he was already dealing with christians who were mangling
the hebrew, and did it to avoid some debates.. just a guess...perhaps he
felt it fit his theology better...)
The "echad" issue was raised to defend "trinitarian" theology, not because of any
innate special concept of "composite unity" in the Shema "echad" (it would be
interesting to see when it was first raised, if it shows up in Origen/Celsus or
Justin Martyr/Trypho...)
...... it really leaves Messianics and Christians with egg on their face when
they use it in front of a native-born Hebrew speaker.... and you will find it
all over the Net .. a Traditional Jewish fellow named I believe Stephen
Jacobs once had a nice write-up about it.. though I generally consider
socalled "anti-missionary" sources "tainted" on scholarship, on this issue
you would likely find some better articles on their sites than from the "Christians" ...
ironically, on an issue that they should have good literature, they have little based
on my searching...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.revelations.org.za/Oneness.htm
(extract here, a fellow in South Africa with deep Israeli heart and roots...)
Echad v. yachid
Denying mankind has made a mind-boggling controversy based on the otherwise elementary concept of the elementary term 'one' - echad.
My response? Ask any 3 year old Israeli who has barely started talking. 'Echad' is one of the first words of vocabulary in the Hebrew language! It stands for 'one finger pointed up', in response to an almost silly question. Ask the learned theologians and some interpreters amongst the Hebrew Roots Restorers which is fast flooding the world, and they will write chapters of 'Hebraic' wisdom on why 'one' is not one but a multiplicity. "Compound unity" is the magic buzz word. Does not this entire phrase (which professes to denote oneness) convey multiplicity? Deceit upon deceit!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chabad has an interesting discussion, their chassidic kabbalistic view *could* be used
by the "Christian" echad folks, but I believe that would be a misreading....
-----
http://www.chabadonline.com/scripts/tgij/paper/Article.asp?ArticleID=2741
... echad, a word that is the keystone of the Jewish faith. Every morning and evening of his life, the Jew recites the verse Shema Yisrael, Ado-nai Elo-hei-nu, Ado-nai echad--"Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is echad." The Jewish people are called "an echad nation on earth" because they reveal the echad of G-d in the world. And the era of Moshiach is described as "the day that G-d will be echad, and His name echad."
Echad means "one." The Shema proclaims the oneness and unity of G-d, which the people of Israel are charged to reveal in the world, and which will be fully manifest in the era of Moshiach. But is echad the ideal word to express the divine unity? Like its English equivalent, the word does not preclude the existence of other objects (as in the sequence "one, two, three..."), nor does it preclude its object being composed of parts (we speak of "one nation," "one forest," "one person" and "one tree," despite the fact that each of these consists of many units or components). It would seem that the term yachid, which means "singular" and "only one," more clearly expresses the "perfect simplicity" of G-d (which Maimonides states to be the most fundamental principle of the Jewish faith) and the axiom that "there is none else beside Him" (Deuteronomy 4:35).
Chassidic teaching explains that, on the contrary, echad represents a deeper unity than yachid. Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality--if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into an harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity.
As one Chassidic thinker once put it, G-d did not have to create a world to be yachid. He was singularly and exclusively one before the world was created, and remains so after the fact. It was to express His echad-ness that He created the world, created man, granted him freedom of choice, and commanded him the Torah. He created existences that, at least in their own perception, are distinct of Him, and gave them the tools to bring their lives into utter harmony with His will. When a diverse and plural world chooses, by its own initiative, to unite with Him, the divine oneness assumes a new, deeper expression-- G-d is echad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmm.. hope that helps
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
Schmuel AT bigfoot.com
Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe AT yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
-
Re: One or One?
, (continued)
- Re: One or One?, Polycarp66, 01/28/2002
- Re: One or One?, Shoshanna Walker, 01/28/2002
- RE: One or One?, Lisbeth S. Fried, 01/28/2002
- RE: One or One?, Shoshanna Walker, 01/28/2002
- Re: One or One?, JWE, 01/28/2002
- Re: One or One?, Michael McAllister, 01/28/2002
- RE: One or One?, Lisbeth S. Fried, 01/28/2002
- Re: One or One?, JWE, 01/28/2002
- Re: One or One?, JWE, 01/28/2002
- Re: One or One?, Polycarp66, 01/28/2002
- Re: One or One?, Schmuel, 01/29/2002
- Re: One or One?, Schmuel, 01/29/2002
- RE: One or One?, Shoshanna Walker, 01/29/2002
- Re: One or One?, JWE, 01/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.