Category Archives: faith

easter-eggs

Whose religion is it anyway? Easter edition

Many of us were able to spend yesterday with family and friends, eating ham and potatoes and deviled eggs that mom (or another varied matronly figure) cooked up for the occasion. Some of us attended our local place of Christian worship in honor of the death and resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua), while others refrained.

Certainly, the Christian church (fragmented though it be) is the primary sponsor of this particular day of rest — which makes it so odd that it’s named after what is almost certainly a pre-Christian, Saxon fertility goddess, Ēostre. It’s sort of like if I created my own religion (like Scientology … but we’ll call it “Give-Jim-all-your-money-ism”), and then decided the biggest holy day of the year, the celebration of when … uh … Supergod ate all the alien bad guys 5 billion years ago … anyway, that day should be called “Buddha.”

To be fair, the early church didn’t start off calling the day “Easter.” In fact, it wasn’t even just one day (it still isn’t), but a whole week, from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday, called then (and now, in most of the rest of the world) “Paschal,” which is a Latin derivation of the Hebrew Pesach, or “Passover.” Passover is the traditional Jewish holiday celebrating the time when God killed all the first-born Egyptian sons because the Pharaoh wouldn’t let Moses’ people go. The Jews were “passed over” because they sacrificed goats and smeared the blood on their front doors.

This event is one of the most visceral representations of the idea that the Hebraic God’s people can be saved (or forgiven, or redeemed) by offering up a blood sacrifice that runs throughout the Old Testament. Since the whole notion of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross ties directly into that, the early Christians decided to just steal the whole holiday: word, time of year, ritual, and theme, whole hat from the Jews (again, to be fair, they technically were Jews themselves … as are Christians, arguably, today — just an extremely “reformed” version).

So if the day already had a perfectly good, if plagiarized, name, why give it a totally different one in English? Simply put, when the Roman Empire started to spread Christianity to the Germans and the Bretons in the early hundreds A.D., those cultures already had an early spring celebration called Ēosturmōna? (“Easter month”). This was the big-deal celebration around those parts, and even if people were willing to be bullied into monotheism and whatnot, they weren’t willing to give up their annual “We survived the winter, now let’s get bizzay” traditions. So the name stayed.

But what do we know about Ēostre anyway? Not that much. There was an 8th-century account by a canonized monk named Bede attesting that the holiday of Easter Month was once used to celebrate a goddess, but that’s the oldest bit of writing available on the subject. It could possibly be that no such goddess had ever existed, and the Breton tribes used the word “Easter” to refer to the dawn (from Proto-Indo-European root aus, “to shine,” shared by the word “east”), and, therefore, to spring, since, y’know, dawn starts happening sooner in spring.

On the other hand, the dawn/fertility goddess of the contemporary Old High Germanic tribes was named Ostara, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many fertility goddesses, from Roman Venus to Babylonian Ishtar to Sumerian Inanna, all derive from a root goddess named something like “Hausōs,” the personification of dawn. It seems likely that the nearby Northumbrians in England would have taken the dawn goddess along with the other deities intrinsic to these cultures.

In the root mythology, Hausōs was a bringer of light who was punished for aiding humanity (much like Christian Lucifer and Greek Prometheus, but unlike Japanese Amaterasu). Typically, the goddess is imprisoned by a dragon or another god and gets rescued by a powerful hero, either another god or a mortal. This, of course, symbolizes the day/night cycle on Earth.

While we’re on the subject of Easter, a quick note or two about bunnies and eggs. Are they really just fertility symbols co-opted by Christians to represent resurrection? Well … maybe, maybe not. One popular theory about dyed eggs is that people had to hard-boil them to preserve them during Lent, when they weren’t allowed to eat them, and frequently put flowers into the pot to color the eggs to make them pretty. Then, the eggs were a treat on Easter Sunday.

As to the bunny, there was a peculiar belief in medieval times that hares were hermaphroditic and able to conceive without losing their virginity. Thus, the idea of the hare was linked to the virgin birth and showed up in illuminated manuscripts and paintings of Mary and the Christ child. That, however, has nothing in particular to do with death and/or resurrection, so it’s anyone’s guess how the Easter Bunny specifically landed the job.

Hope you all had a pleasant “East Day,” and feel free to consider joining the church of Give-Jim-all-your-moneyism. New members are welcome anytime.

horsemen

Apocalypse later: End time prophesies, countdowns

Human religions seem a little obsessed with the idea of a final, conclusive tallying of moral debts and credits. Christians in particular tend to demonstrate a bit of perverse, preemptive schadenfreude over the idea that, when the trumpets sound, some folk (i.e. people we disagree with) are going to the not-happy place, while we, the good ones, are going to have fun in the sun for all eternity. Of course, Christians don’t want sinners to suffer forever, but hey, we can only do so much, right? “So much,” in this case, typically being either handing out vilifying, out-of-touch tracts … or nothing at all. But y’know. Only so much.

The end of the world isn’t just a religious obsession, however. Zombies and nuclear holocausts and plagues have all taken numerous turns in our media. If you’re reading this, you probably live in a relatively safe society (i.e. laws keep bigger people from killing the smaller ones and taking our stuff), even though humans are primed by evolution to use physical force to survive (i.e. kill people and take their stuff); apocalyptic scenarios, no matter how unlikely in reality, are a constant undercurrent in our subconscious awareness. We like to hear stories about desperation and survival in the face of severe adversity, because we want to train ourselves via social learning to survive in those conditions if necessary.

So let’s talk about eschatology for a few minutes. Eschatology (Greek eschatos, “last, furthest, extreme”; logos, “word, being”), literally “word of the end,” refers to the study of the end times as a phenomenon, usually in relation to the biblical book of Revelation (to reveal is to “un-veal,” or unveil), so named on account of the prophecy being revealed to John (a disciple of Jesus and the book’s alleged writer) by an angel on the island of Patmos.

The word revelation is where we get apocalypse (Greek apo, “from”; kalyptein, “cover, conceal”). In the Middle Ages, the word apocalypse was used frequently, not as a catchall for the end times, but with its literal meaning, to discover the truth of something.

Finally, the word Armageddon, which is another of those that is often used in the context of end times, refers to the Palestinian mountain of Megiddo (Har means “mountain,” Megiddo, incidentally, means “place of crowds”), which was specifically mentioned as the site of the final battle in the book of Revelation.

All caught up? Good. Let’s look at what the end of the world is like in Christian, Hindu, and Mayan mythos.

Judgment Day

There are several ways religious scholars and lay folk have interpreted the book of Revelation. The most common (as displayed in Tim LeHaye’s unsubtle Left Behind book series) is to assume that the events discussed have yet to occur. It makes sense if you’re trying to interpret the book more or less literally, as it refers to the sun burning up a third of the Earth, dragons roaming about, and the resuscitation of all the dead martyrs. I’m confident in saying that most of that stuff has not, as of yet, happened. Anyway, this interpretation sees the events of the book, even if symbolic, eventually coming to pass. There will be an Antichrist (virtually every major political figure in the Western World has been called thus by some crackpot at one time or another). There will be rapture (good Christian folk zapped up to heaven before bad stuff starts happening). There will be tribulation (wormwood and locusts and the four horsemen). Everyone fights, nobody quits.

Another interpretation is the preterist version, which sees the book as commenting on or foretelling the fall of Jerusalem, which actually occurred circa A.D. 100, when the temple was destroyed and desecrated. Like much of the contemporary apocalyptic literature (none of which made it into the Bible), major use of allegory and metaphor was used to hide the message, so as to avoid unwanted scrutiny by those people the passages were condemning. Think Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. In this interpretation, the long-haired locusts were the barbarian Huns, the whore of Babylon was Rome, and the beast slouching toward Bethlehem was Roman Emperor Nero, who was famous for throwing Christians to the lions whenever he found them.

A third interpretation mostly focuses on a “broad strokes” view of the book, in which God’s people, who find themselves neck deep in troubles, eventually end up pulling through and overcoming adversity. This interpretation sees the book as a metaphor for hope amid times of trial, rather than an account of real events, past or present.

Kali Yuga

Aside from the fact that every Hindu god is an aspect of another god, or has multiple personae, names, and avatars, there are two Kalis, just to add to the confusion. One of them is Shiva’s consort, a bloody warrior woman frequently depicted with sword in one hand and severed head in the other. Her name means “the black one,” from the Sanskrit root kalah, because she existed before there was light. The one they’re talking about in Kali Yuga, however, is a demon who has nothing to do with that other one. Our Kali’s name comes from kad, which means “suffer, grieve, hurt.” He’s basically a bully.

There are four ages (Yuga) in the Hindu mythic chronology, and Kali Yuga is the last one. The bad news is it’s by far the shortest. In fact, it only lasts 1/10,000th of a Brahma day, and it started in about 3100 B.C., at the Kurukshetra War, the one between the Kaurava and Pandava that I talked about in an earlier article. The good news is that 1/10,000th of a Brahma day is still 432,000 of our years, so we’ve got some time yet. Kali Yuga is the age of meanness and pettiness, when people are impolite, greedy, and murderous. Yep, sounds about right. When it’s over, the cycle will start over again with the first of the four ages, where everybody is righteous and wise.

The long count

The Mayans loved their calendars. They were the most accurate calendars ever created, by some accounts, and the culture was so invested in them that they named their children after the day they were born, with names like “Two Monkey” and “Four Death.” They used a method called the calendar round, in which the calendar didn’t reset every year, but rather every 52 years, meaning they didn’t need leap days, or leap seconds, or whatever. Things just rounded out, and the cycle lasted a normal human lifespan. When they needed a longer way to keep track of dates, they used a method called the long count.

So nearing the end of 2012, there was a big to-do about the Mayan calendar ending. Apocalypse! But no, it turns out this was just a misinterpretation of the long count. You see, one day on that calendar is a k’in. Twenty of those is a winal. Eighteen winals is a tun (about one solar year). Twenty tuns is a k’atun. Twenty k’atuns is a b’ak’tun (we’re up to 400 years). December 21, 2012, was simply switching over to the 13th b’ak’tun on the long count calendar. Nothing more, nothing less. No apocalypse. And, you know, there wasn’t one, so it bears out.

So whether the world ends tomorrow, 400,000 years from now, or it’s already happened and we don’t realize it, here’s hoping that we don’t all get eaten by giant, man-faced locusts.

godsnotdead

God must be dead tired of films like this

I would’ve been content to let God’s Not Dead come and go from theaters un-commented-upon, but a movie that makes $33 million over three weekends demands a response. Mine is: ugh.

There is a moment early in the film that seems to perfectly encapsulate its worldview: a student, tasked by his abusive philosophy professor with proving God exists, includes in his PowerPoint presentation a slide with Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” painting. Something struck me as wrong with the image (mainly because I remembered this) and a quick Google search after the film assured me I was correct: Adam’s penis was gone, airbrushed out of the movie, along with any hints of sensitivity, intellectual rigor, or genuine struggle with faith.

I don’t even want to waste any more time trying to summarize the “plot” of this movie, which many reviewers have already compared to an adaptation of all those infuriating email forwards that well-meaning people sent you years ago. The story exists only to create moments in which Josh (Shane Harper) can refute Professor Radisson’s (Kevin Sorbo of the television series Hercules) increasingly bizarre attacks on religion. This probably shouldn’t have been surprising after the opening sequence credited an “apologetics researcher” as a member of the crew.

About halfway through, I began to wonder if God’s Not Dead takes place in an alternate universe. In that universe, “gotcha” reporters are offended that the Duck Dynasty family hunts and prays — not that they spout antiquated remarks about homosexuality; professors are free to date students currently taking their classes (!); Chinese exchange students speak to their parents in Cantonese but text them in English; minorities exist only as potential converts or awful tropes; men and women get into long-term relationships without realizing the people they’re dating are monsters.

But those are fairly trivial concerns and, in the end, it’s obvious the producers aren’t trying to create a sci-fi vision of another corner of the multiverse — they think what they’re showing us is a reflection of reality. They perceive America as a place in which Christians are part of a dwindling group whose persecutors lurk around every corner.

This is the state of affairs that Fox News commentators often describe to their viewers, despite recent polling showing 74 percent of Americans identify as Christian and despite news of actual persecution of Christians elsewhere in the world. This is the world that Sen. Ted Cruz lives in, saying that, due to the Affordable Care Act, “religious liberty has never been more under attack” in a speech at the ultra-conservative Liberty University. In the world depicted in this movie, Christians are blind to the many, many privileges they receive and instead focus all their energy on utterly trivial slights.

What’s worse, God’s Not Dead shows us very little about what it means to be a Christian. If an alien civilization were given only this film and then asked, “What make someone a Christian?” they would likely respond, “Intellectual assent to the proposition that God exists — and going to Newsboys concerts” (or however they’d say it in alien). They might also mention prayer, because people in the film talk about it fairly often, but there’s only one really memorable prayer in the film, and its purpose is to convert someone to Christianity. There is never a genuine attempt at communion with the divine and there is very little concern with helping one’s neighbor (unless you count telling them that God exists) — the two things Jesus said were most important.

Also absent from the movie is any genuine struggle. Josh certainly takes some risks by accepting the professor’s challenge: he may lose his girlfriend (he’s better off without her) and his future career as a lawyer is somehow in jeopardy (although he is in his first semester of college), but the decisions he makes are never really difficult. Unlike the main character in Noah, Josh is certain that he’s choosing the right path at every fork in the road.

Another of the characters [spoiler alert] is a Muslim who secretly converts to Christianity and, in a disgustingly bigoted scene, is beaten and thrown out of her home by her father. A student from China is inspired to talk about God with his father, who shuts down the conversation and tells him to listen to the professor. But don’t worry — the next day they are both rocking out at the aforementioned Newsboys concert. Aside from these racist stereotypes, there are several other characters who, in the course of the movie, decide to believe in God (and go to that damn concert!), and yet, for the life of me, I can’t explain why. They just … do. The writers chose to spend all their time crafting arguments instead of characters.

This inability to recognize people as people is not just bad film-making, it’s antithetical to Christianity. (I am an ordained Christian minister as well as a flawed person, so please forgive me for the preaching you’re about to read.) My faith means nothing if it doesn’t connect with real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings — people who’ve experienced pain I can’t imagine and who draw strength from beliefs I can’t begin to comprehend. I will have failed in my calling to love my neighbors if I see them only as drones to be assimilated to my way of thinking.

Instead, I must seek “not to be understood, but to understand.” I have to work out my faith with fear and trembling. I have to care for the “least of these” by working to provide food and water, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, and caring for those society deems unworthy. I really need to go volunteer at a Habitat for Humanity work site, or a homeless shelter, or a soup kitchen.

At the very least, I have to start seeing better movies.

noah

Noah makes you think — and keep on thinking

Darren Aronofsky’s epic Noah, which opened this weekend, is facing considerable criticism, primarily from Christians who view it as an unfaithful rendering of the biblical story. Rather than worry about whether or not the film uses the word “God,” I prefer to view it as a successful attempt at the Jewish interpretive practice of Midrash — whether Aronofky realizes it or not — and a meditation on our modern-day limited experience with divine intervention.

Midrash is a practice that seeks answers for the questions that remain once we’re finished reading the stories in the Bible. It explores unexplored details, pushing us to think more deeply about the implications of the text.

“The Holy Scriptures abound with gaps, abrupt shifts, and odd syntax,” writes Judith Kunst in The Burning Word. “Jewish Midrash views these troubling irregularities not as accidents or errors or cultural disparities to be passed over, but rather as deliberative invitations to grapple with God’s revealed word — and by extension, to grapple with God.”

Grappling with God is at the heart of Aronofsky’s film, which presents Noah as a man of faith who, in a departure from the biblical narrative, does not hear directly from “the Creator.” The concern about God’s presence in the film is laughable — even the film’s primary antagonist, Tubal-cain, believes in and despises the Creator, for seeming to abandon humanity. Both men are forced to act with a great degree of uncertainty. Noah is compelled to make certain decisions but has no guarantee that they are, indeed, correct.

I’m glad Aronofsky held back from giving Noah a voice from heaven, because it’s not often that we get one to help guide our choices. Oftentimes, all we can do is acknowledge our imperfections, wrestle with the decisions, and move forward in faith.

The story of Noah is often reduced to cute cartoons about paired animals on a boat with a smiling, grandfatherly character taking care of them. The horrific backdrop to that scenery is the divinely-sanctioned genocide of all of humanity. If I believed the story were historically accurate (rather than an adaptation of an even older Babylonian myth), I would be terrified of the deity it reveals and wonder how the main character could allow innocent human beings to perish outside his Ark.

By filling in some of the narrative gaps that exist in the story, this film actually provides a palatable explanation for how Noah could live with himself [mild spoiler alert], positing that, in fact, he thinks God is calling him not to repopulate the earth with humans, but to rid the earth of them — he and his family included. Further, it shows how much of a struggle this is for Noah and how uncertain he is about what he feels he must do. Aronofsky presents his main character as someone who recognizes how flawed he is and is prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to prevent his flaws from destroying creation.

Here, too, the film explores the ambiguity of the biblical text as it relates to the question of what the Creator has directed humans to do with creation. In the first chapter of Genesis, God creates humankind, giving them “dominion” over all the earth and commanding them to “subdue” the creatures and plants within it. The Hebrew word radah (“dominion”) is used to describe the way kings rule over their territories, while kavash (“subdue”) is used in the context of slavery. Does the Creator want humankind to rule the earth as benevolent monarchs or as heartless slaveholders? The film depicts both viewpoints, obviously coming out in favor of Noah and his message of environmental protection.

In fact, Aronofsky’s surprising lack of subtlety is far more objectionable than any liberties he may have taken with the plot. Consider the conversation between Noah and his adopted daughter, Ila, at the end of the film. He explains a choice he made, and his reasoning is exactly what we would’ve assumed it was. (If I were any more specific, it would dampen some of the climactic tension of the film.) Suffice to say: that conversation is completely unnecessary for intelligent film-goers.

Noah is a film, a story — a character — designed for anyone who’s wondered: Should I take this job? Should I marry this woman? Can I keep this baby? Is this the right college? The right city? The right treatment plan? Do I keep moving forward or try to start over?

Still, this is not a perfect film: the performances by Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, and Emma Watson are great, but the script is at times heavy-handed, the special effects (especially the animals) are nowhere near Life of Pi quality, and the movie overall is weird but “not weird enough.” However, it got me thinking and kept me thinking. For several days, I continued to ponder the moral and ethical questions it posed. This film will bring you face-to-face with questions about humanity’s capacity for good and evil and about the relationship we have with the divine.

Oh, and if you’re hung up on the rock monsters, just know that they’re far from the strangest things found in the Bible.

candidate_pearce_thumb

Choose your own biblical view of marriage

An article published in the Washington Post last week draws attention to the claim in Rep. Steve Pearce’s memoir that a wife is to “voluntarily submit” to her husband. While the fact that this statement issued from the mouth of a U.S. congressman attracted headlines, the idea itself is not news. There is already a best-selling book that posits this idea: the Bible.

Rather, there is an anthology of ancient literature, considered by many to be sacred, containing a couple of letters that posit this idea. It’s important to remember that the Bible as we have it today is not a book like Harry Potter. Instead, it is a compilation of 66 books, letters, collections of poetry, folktales, instructions, myths, and legal codes.

One of my least favorite sentence-starters is, “The Bible says…” because the Bible says a lot — much of it contradictory. After all, these works were written by countless authors and revised by innumerable editors over the course of several thousand years. It’s essential, then, to understand the context in which “the Bible says” something. For example:

The Bible says that polygamy was taking place from the very beginning of the faith, and the practice is never condemned. Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism, had two wives and a slave, all of whom bore him children. His grandson, Jacob, married two sisters and had two concubines. Much later in the history of Israel, King David had at least seven wives, and his son Solomon is said to have had a harem including 700 princesses and 300 concubines. Each of these men was routinely criticized when he failed to do what God wanted of him, and yet polygamy was never something for which they were punished.

So let’s look at the context. At the beginning of a faith intended to spread to the whole world (Genesis 12:1-3), it’s critical for members of that faith to procreate and for their offspring to survive. Polygamy is a social structure that seems particularly suited to achieving these goals. We now live in a context in which very few places in the world — if any — are unaware of the Judeo-Christian faith; polygamy is no longer a necessity. This line of thinking is also pertinent to the conversation about same-sex relationships, which I will not address here.

The Bible says that, should a married man die with no male heir, his brother is to sleep with his widow until she gives birth to a son. This command — and it is a command — is known as levirate marriage, and it is the central conceit of the story of Judah and Tamar. In Genesis 38, Judah is punished for failing to provide one of his sons as a husband for Tamar. In the Book of Ruth, the character of Boaz is commended as a “man of valor” for taking Ruth as a wife after her husband dies.

The law of levirate marriage seems to have developed, in part, as a way for men to maintain control over the wealth within a family; however, it also arose in a context in which there was no social security, no unemployment pay, and no such thing as a homeless shelter. This practice was, in effect, a social safety net for widows and children who would otherwise have no way to care for themselves. In a culture that has systems in place (at least, in theory) to provide for the less fortunate, this practice is truly obsolete.

Before we return to Pearce’s perspective on marital relationships, let’s look at one more thing the Bible says: namely, that it’s better for single people never to marry at all. This idea comes to us most clearly from the Apostle Paul, the author of many of the letters that make up the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Paul recommends to the unmarried and the widowed that they “remain unmarried as I am.” Indeed, Jesus himself was never married.

Marriage clearly wasn’t the highest priority for these two men. The context here is that Jesus and Paul lived their lives believing that the final culmination of history was just over the horizon. Jesus proclaimed that “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Matthew 24:34 and verses following), and Paul wrote that “the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2). In light of such apocalyptic thinking, dedicating oneself to marriage took a back seat to dedicating oneself to the faith. Jesus made this explicit when he said, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Nearly 2,000 years later, we recognize that life on Earth is probably one of God’s long-term projects; perhaps marriage is back on the table.

The New Mexican congressman’s understanding of marriage, namely that “the wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice,” comes from the “household code” found in Paul’s letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians. Paul’s mission was to continue the expansion of the Church. The “code” sections of the letters are a set of directions for maintaining the hierarchical order of society: women obey men, children obey parents, slaves obey masters.

At the time these letters were written, Christianity was a developing faith. Some thought it was primarily subversive — after all, these people were talking about a King up in heaven, which some of the Powers-That-Were took as a threat to their own authority. Christianity does demand radical change, and so these passages may have been an attempt to say, “Yes, we’re different, but we’re not clueless! We know how the world works.” The way the world worked in the first century was that men were in charge. Perhaps the household code was meant to reflect, rather than to legislate, that reality.

In America today, that reality is no longer uniformly the case. Women have more discretion (though not absolute freedom, especially in oppressive or abusive situations) in the forms their relationships will take. Reading the passages from Ephesians and Colossians, we might choose to focus less on the gender of the person in charge and more on the idea of mutual care and respect: that husbands and wives, parents and children, even, er, “bosses and employees,” are to show concern for one another.

In each of these examples, there is a practice and a principle: the practice of polygamy served the principle of spreading a faith; the practice of levirate marriage served the principle of concern for the powerless in society; the practice of eschewing marriage served the principle of wholehearted dedication to one’s faith; the practice of the household code served the principle of maintaining social order. Far too often, we get bogged down in the practice, without going a step further to discern the principle it serves.

So choose your own biblical view of marriage, but do so recognizing that context is crucial and that the Bible isn’t a book of answers; it can’t live our lives for us. What we need is a faith that engages such a book, a faith that is alive, adaptable, and not afraid of change, a faith that is born and reborn each day. That’s the kind of faith that can show us how to live.

The author is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and serves as a chaplain in the Virginia Commonwealth University health system.

For further reading on these topics, check out Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire by Jennifer Wright Knust (New York: HarperCollins, 2011).

198

What in God’s name is God’s name?

Jesus. No other word in our culture packs quite the same punch. Use it (or invoke it, if you will), and the dynamics of a conversation change, one way or another. Sides are drawn, in some cases. Rhetoric and passion bubble up to the surface.

But nobody so much as bats an eyelash if someone starts using the name Joshua. They don’t realize, perhaps, that the man from Nazareth who the Christians revere was called something much closer to the latter than the former.

The name Jesus is an English transcription of a Latin transcription of a Greek transcription of an Aramaic transcription of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. The man himself would have been called Yeshua, which is the Aramaic — the common tongue of the Middle East during the Age of Rome. Doesn’t sound much like Jesus, does it? So how did we get there?

Folk who would have called him Yeshua were using a transcription of a Hebrew word meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” Who’s Yahweh? The Christian god, of course. You thought his name was just “God”? Yeah, so do most Christians.

Anywho, people in the post-Babylonian sunshine belt spoke Aramaic, but they wrote Greek — common Greek, called κοινη (“coin,” eh?), a leftover of the Alexandrian empire that persisted well into the seventh centry, or thereabout. The New Testament of the Bible (“library”) was all written in common Greek, and the spoken “Yeshua” was transcribed into the written Ιησοΰ (“ee yay Sue”).

Around A.D. 400, the upswing of Roman Christendom, Pope Damasus I had the Latin Vulgate (“common,” as in “vulgar”) commissioned. The Vulgate was the Latin translation of all accumulated scriptures, editions of which are still in use today. It was the first Latin version that translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, rather than from the Greek Septuagint (“seventy”).

Funny story about that: Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus was said to have put 72 Hebrew scholars in 72 separate rooms and told them each to write the Septuagint, sure that God would make all the translations exactly the same. Of course, whether the translations actually came out the same or were just reported the same so the translators wouldn’t get flayed or whatnot, who can say?

Anyway, the Church used the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and gathered as much material as they could for the New Testament, filtering out all the stuff they didn’t like. Voila, Ιησοΰ was now Iesus (though not Yeezus).

Well, from there, it just takes John Wycliffe in the 15th century translating the first English Bible directly from the Vulgate to go to Jesus. Easy Peasy. Of course, at the time, this version included footnotes in the borders proclaiming anti-Catholic sentiments. The Church, always eager to turn the other cheek, proclaimed him a heretic, burned several of Wycliffe’s followers, and exhumed and burned his corpse as a response.

Back to Yahweh. You’ve probably heard the word Jehovah, from the third Indiana Jones movie if nothing else, where Indy has to walk across the stones marked with letters and he steps on the “J” by mistake and almost falls in. (“Jehovah starts with an ‘I,’ boy!”) Jehovah is the (once again) anglicized version of the Hebrew tetragrammaton (יהוה), or YHWH, approximately. The word’s roots are Canaanite: roughly, “creator of hosts” (meaning armies).

The word Elohim is also used (usually translated as “God”), which sort of means king of the gods, or leader of the gods. That’s right! He used to have his own pantheon, including Asherah (his very own wife) and Baal. I imagine the wife of God must have been pretty overworked most of the time. Anyway, she later filed for divorce and moved to Sumeria.

Yahweh had a brief time as more of a fuzzy, all-thing, animistic deity due to Eastern influences. Then, around the sixth century BC, he was canonized by the Deuteronomist (“lawyer”) priesthood of the Hebrews into being the only god in existence, and all previous scriptural material was either excised or revised accordingly. Bada-boom: Monotheism.

(You may also choose to believe that God was always the same, and Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, with or without plenary, the direct God’s-mouth-to-scripture-writer’s-hand method … or you can believe both origins at once! It’s a free country.)

So why doesn’t anybody call him Yahweh anymore? After all, the Hindus still call Shiva “Shiva,” and Vishnu “Vishnu.” You see, you may have heard the admonition against taking God’s name in vain. Turns out, that doesn’t mean saying, “God damn it!” or “Jesus Christ!” anytime you smack your thumb with a hammer. No, it means pronouncing the word “Yahweh” aloud, under virtually any circumstances. The Hebrews still scribed the name, but speaking it was forbidden. Leviticus 24:16 states, “He that names the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death.” Oh. Well, that explains why nobody went around saying it. But why shouldn’t he be named?

Again, harkening to animistic spiritualism, the true name of something, as it were, was believed to give someone power over it. I think that’s true today as well from a cognitive-language perspective, but we’ll save that for another article. Suffice to say, the priests didn’t want people to think they were in control, so they guarded the use of God’s name, well, religiously. Only the high priest ever said the name Yahweh aloud, once per year, at the temple in Jerusalem, in the “holy of holies,” the super-secret shrine in the center of the temple. In the English Bible, the name is replaced with “THE LORD,” in all caps.

Some churches have recently started using the name Yahweh out of respect and the desire to, you know, correctly address their deity. But the Catholic Church and many other sects have decided that they won’t advertise it widely. Whether that’s because they like the idea that “God” almost universally means the Christian god, or because they don’t want to cheese off the Jews by blabbing God’s name around everywhere, or because they maybe don’t want to incur his wrath by being careless, I couldn’t say. Perhaps you could, though, if you’re feeling a little cheeky.

So next time somebody asks if you know Jesus, you can say, “I know his real name, at least.”