What follows is a slightly expanded version of an assignment submitted as part of my theological studies.
Consisting
of only six words in Hebrew (שְׁמַע
יִשְׂרֵָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד ), this text is known as the Shema due to
the transliteration of the first word (properly šemaʻ).
Despite its brevity and syntactical simplicity, consensus as to its meaning has
eluded modern biblical scholars. Our purpose here is to survey the various
options, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and draw a conclusion as to
the most likely sense.
Block (2004) lists five possible renderings of the
Shema.
(1) Hear, O Israel:[1]
Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one
(2) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh
(3) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one
(4) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is
One/Unique
(5) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh alone (p.
196)
Bord & Hamidović (2002), McConville (2003) and
Fuhrmann (2010) give the same list except that they do not distinguish (4) from
(3). Bord & Hamidović offer a sixth rendering (which they view favourably)
under which Yahweh is the direct object of שְׁמַע:
(6) Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God: Yahweh is unique! (p.
28).
Proponents of the first translation include MacDonald
(2001), McConville (2002) and Kraut (2011), though the latter adds a nuance to
be discussed below. In support of this view, as well as (2) and (6), אֱלֹהִים elsewhere
occurs only in apposition to יְהוָה in Deuteronomy (312 times!) and never as a predicate. The main
difficulty for (1) is that “the second YHWH appears to be superfluous”
(MacDonald, 2001, p. 86).
The main weakness with rendering (2) is that it
appears tautologous to say that Yahweh is one Yahweh. Ancient Israelite
inscriptions have been found associating Yahweh with particular locales, e.g.
‘Yahweh of Teman’ (Block, 2004; Tigay, 1996) which raise the possibility that
the Shema is opposing poly-Yahwism, that is, belief in multiple Yahwehs.
However, as Kraut (2011) observes, “if this proposal were to represent the
actual intent of Deut 6:4, it would be the only instance in the Bible in which
this danger is addressed” (p. 587).
Views (3) and (4) (which are grammatically equivalent)
are defended by Janzen (1987) and Gordon (1970) respectively, although both of
these writers are more interested in the meaning of אֶחָֽד. On this
reading, “it is unclear why it would be necessary to make the declaration ‘YHWH
is our God’” (Macdonald, 2001, pp. 85-86). Moreover, these renderings, along
with (5), require interpreting יְהוָה
אֱלֹהֵינוּ as a
subject-predicate combination. As noted earlier, such usage occurs nowhere else
in Deuteronomy and, according to Kraut (2011), “no earlier than the Book of
Chronicles” (p. 586).
The main strength of view (5) is its close
correspondence to the broader context of Deuteronomy, in which exclusive
devotion to Yahweh is a primary concern (Block, 2004; Christensen, 2001; Tigay,
1996; cf. Deut. 6:14-15). However, this rendering faces several philological
difficulties. Firstly, there is the subject-predicate issue referred to above.
Secondly, Hebrew normally expresses ‘alone’ with לְבָד, not אֶחָֽד (Tigay,
1996). Block (2004) addresses this by pointing out that, as an adverb, לְבָד is
inappropriate in a nominal statement. However, Bruno (2009) identifies two
nominal statements in the Old Testament in which לְבָד does occur
(2 Kgs. 19:15; Isa. 37:16). Thirdly, ancient exegesis runs counter to this
interpretation. The LXX rendering, which is also adopted in Mark 12:29,
explicitly includes a verb (ἐστιν) in the second clause. It is thus consistent with the
first four renderings but not (5). The Nash Papyri (second century B.C.E.) adds
הוּא after אֶחָֽד, which similarly makes the verbal connotation of the second clause
unmistakable (Biddle, 2003; Block, 2004). Furthermore, some Samaritan
inscriptions from the Christian era add לְבָד after אֶחָֽד, suggesting
that these writers did not take אֶחָֽד adverbally
(MacDonald, 2001).
View (6) is very improbable in view of the fact that
“Nowhere else in the bible is anyone enjoined to listen… to YHWH with ‘YHWH’
appearing as the direct object of the verb” (Kraut, 2011, p. 590). Deuteronomy
prefers to refer to hearing the voice (4:30; 5:24-26; etc.), the words (4:10;
18:19; etc.), or the commandments (11:27) of Yahweh. Moreover, in all the other
occurrences of שְׁמַע יִשְׂרֵָאֵל in Deuteronomy, it is followed by the content of the
proclamation without any direct object (5:1; 9:1; 20:3; 27:9). Finally, the LXX
translators clearly did not interpret the Shema according to (6) since the
first κύριος
is nominative and not accusative.
To summarize, the best rendering on philological
grounds is (1). The main difficulty of this rendering is the apparent
superfluity of the second Tetragrammaton; however, Kraut (2011) has offered a
plausible solution on this point. He proposes that “the verse represents an assertion
garbed in poetic syntax – namely, in the AB//AC pattern commonly referred to as
‘staircase parallelism’” (p. 591). When staircase parallelism is present, the
sense can be reduced to prose as ABC. Hence, while a literal translation would
follow (1), the meaning is simply, “Yahweh our God is one” (p. 592). He offers
Exod. 15:6 and Hos. 12:5 as other instances of staircase parallelism with
‘Yahweh’ as the repeating item. He notes that while classic cases of staircase
parallelism occur in “unquestionably poetic contexts” (p. 594), there are other
examples in biblical prose (e.g. Judg. 19:23).
Our conclusion, then, is that rendering (1) is the
best literal translation of the Hebrew, but the sense is simply, “Yahweh our
God is one.”
We now turn to the question of the meaning of אֶחָֽד. Again, a
number of possibilities exist. Perhaps surprisingly, in light of the almost
creedal use of this text in later Judaism (Biddle, 2003; Foster, 2003), most
scholars do not regard the Shema as a direct statement of monotheism. MacDonald
(2001) concludes that it expresses Yahweh’s uniqueness for Israel, which
is actually close to the sense of rendering (5). Bord & Hamidović (2002)
take uniqueness (more broadly) as the meaning, appealing to the echo of the
Shema in Zech. 14:9. Janzen (1987) argues that it refers to the “integrity or
moral unity” of Yahweh’s character (p. 291). Gordon (1970) takes the surprising
view that אֶחָֽד functions
as a personal name here, but offers little supporting evidence.
Numerous scholars think the oneness of the Shema is
multivalent (Biddle, 2003; Craigie, 1976; Fuhrmann, 2010; McConville, 2002;
Willoughby, 1977). Craigie interprets אֶחָֽד in terms of
uniqueness and unity. McConville sees the Shema as expressing both the
indivisibility and integrity of Yahweh. Willoughby regards it primarily as an
oath of allegiance to Yahweh alone but also an implicit declaration of
monotheism. Biddle and Fuhrmann both allow for intentional ambiguity by which
Yahweh’s unity, uniqueness and exclusive claim to Israel’s worship are in view.
Since these are all major concerns in Deuteronomy, it is best to allow for a
multiplicity of meanings. Block (2004) states, “The question addressed here by
Moses is not, ‘How many is Yahweh?’ or ‘What is Yahweh like?’ but ‘Whom will
the Israelites worship?’” (p. 208). In fact, the beauty of the Shema is that in
just four words it answers all three of these questions.
In closing, a brief comment is
in order on the implications of this text for the Trinitarian debate. Scholars
rightly observe that it would be anachronistic to import the theological
concerns of a later age back into this passage (Block, 2004; Janzen, 1987).
From a grammatical-historical point of view, the Shema does not address
philosophical issues around Yahweh’s essential nature (Brown, 2000). The Shema
neither affirms nor denies the notion that Yahweh is a compound unity (as in
the sense of אֶחָֽד in Gen. 2:24). The Shema itself is
consistent with Trinitarian and Unitarian views of God, both of which uphold
Yahweh’s uniqueness in relation to all other reality, exclusive claim to
worship, and unity of character. Only in certain Christological allusions to
the Shema in the New Testament (Mark 2:7f and especially 1 Cor. 8:6) does the
internal complexity of Yahweh’s unity become apparent (Bauckham, 2008; Kim,
2008).
References
Bauckham,
R. (2008). Paul’s Christology of Divine Identity. In Jesus and the God
of
Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s
Christology
of Divine Identity (pp. 182-232). Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Biddle,
M.E. (2003). Deuteronomy. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon:
Smyth
& Helwys.
Block,
D.I. (2004). How many is God? An investigation into the meaning of
Deuteronomy
6:4-5. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 47(2),
193-212.
Bord,
L.-J. & Hamidović, D. (2002). Écoute Israël (Deut. VI 4). Vetus
Testamentum,
52(1), 13-29.
Brown,
M.L. (2000). Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Vol. 2). Grand
Rapids:
Baker Books.
Bruno,
C.R. (2009). A Note Pertaining to the Translation of Deut 6:4. Vetus
Testamentum,
59(2), 320-322.
Christensen,
D.L. (2001). Deuteronomy 1-21:9 (Vol. 6A). Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Christensen,
D.L. (2002). Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 (Vol. 6B). Mexico City:
Thomas
Nelson.
Craigie,
P.C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International
Commentary
on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Foster,
P. (2003). Why did Matthew get the Shema wrong? A study of Matthew
23:37.
Journal of Biblical Literature, 122(2), 309-333.
Fuhrmann,
J.M. (2010). Deuteronomy 6-8 and the History of Interpretation: An
Exposition
on the First Two Commandments. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological
Society, 53(1), 37-62.
Gordon,
C.H. (1970). His Name is ‘One’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29(3),
198-199.
Janzen,
J.G. (1987). On the most important word in the Shema (Deuteronomy VI
4-5).
Vetus Testamentum, 37(3), 280-300.
Kim,
H.T. (2008). The Shema and Early Christianity. Tyndale Bulletin, 59(2),
181-206.
Kraut,
J. (2011). Deciphering the Shema: Staircase Parallelism and the Syntax of
Deuteronomy
6:4. Vetus Testamentum, 61(4), 582-602.
Longman
III, T. (2007). The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and the Writings.
In
S.E. Porter (Ed.), The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (pp. 13-
34).
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
MacDonald,
N. (2001). One God or one Lord? Deuteronomy and the meaning of
'monotheism'
(Ph.D dissertation). Durham University.
McConville,
J.G. (2002). Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary.
Downers
Grove: IVP Academic.
Sherwood,
S.K. (2002). Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Berit Olam: Studies
in
Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
Tigay,
J.H. (1996). Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The
Jewish
Publication Society.
Willoughby,
B.E. (1977). A Heartfelt Love: An Exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:4-19.
Restoration
Quarterly, 20, 73-87.
[1] Block’s commas have
been changed to colons here to highlight the distinctiveness of translation
(6).
