Fun With Hieroglyphics
“You shall have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:3 ESV
You shall have no – When I visited the British Museum years ago, I bought a game about Egyptian hieroglyphics. It included many rubber stamps of hieroglyphs and an inkpad and provided instructions about constructing sentences by using these markings. Many years later when I discovered Frank Seekins’ work on Paleo-Hebrew, I saw the familiarity with Egyptian writing. But I never tried to investigate whole sentences as pictographic concepts. Since I will be speaking about this in Phoenix in July, I thought you might be interested in a small slice of what I am finding. Let’s take a look at just the opening words of the first commandment in the Decalogue.
Now let’s examine the words as ideographs (pictures). Remember that each symbol (picture) can represent many different things. For example, the Aleph (the second letter/pictograph from the right above) can represent “leader,” “bull,” or “strength.” Therefore, we will often have several different meanings from the same combination of ideographs. We have to work with these to see which one fits the phonetic meaning.
The first word is pronounced as lo. The Hebrew lo means “no” or “not.” Interesting, if we reverse the letters we get el, the basic word for divinity. Lamed-Aleph = no. Aleph-Lamed = God. God is life. The opposite of God is death. We say “Yes” to God, “No” to anything opposed to Him. Now let’s look at the pictographic meanings.
Control/Authority/Tongue – Strength/Leader (Lamed attached to a word often means “toward”). How do we derive “no” from these picture combinations? “No” controls strength. To act upon “no” means to assert authority over a leader. “No” is a verbal assertion of refusing something powerful or something that claims to provide direction.
The next word phonetically is yihiye. It is usually translated “you shall have.” The pictograph is the combination of symbols attached to lo. Its picture sequence is:
Hand/Work/Deed – Behold/Reveal – Hand/Work/Deed – Behold/Reveal (note the double Yod)
Let’s attempt to clarify one of the possible meanings of these pictures. The gods are revealed in their deeds. In all ancient near-Eastern cultures, men were created to work for the gods, to serve them. The doubling of “reveal” and “work” is like putting an exclamation point behind the idea. The gods demand double the work. They claim twice the power. They demand even more work from your hands.
The audience of ex-slaves would certainly know first hand the cruel power of the gods. They served the Egyptian Pharaoh and his taskmasters for generations. The gods of the Egyptians became the spiritual oppressors of the Hebrews. The opening phrase of this commandment is not a universalized prohibition against any generalized pagan god. It is specifically aimed at those gods who demanded work and service.
It is important to note the translation, “shall have,” actually comes from a verb that means “to occur, to happen, to be, to become, to come to pass.” The translation reflects Western philosophic ideas of possession. But Hebrew’s dynamic language uses the verb haya in a different sense. As TWOT notes, haya is almost never used to denote simple existence or identification. As a copula (like “is”) it is strikingly absent. This is why words like “is” are often added to the translated text. In this case, it seems unlikely that haya has an original sense of possession. With the pictograph we notice that the connection is to deeds and work, not to ownership. By extension, we could say that “have” means “to make with your own hands, to reveal something of your own work.” The symbol of the hand (Yod) employed twice could suggest that this is entirely a human effort. Perhaps the better translation given the original audience and the prevailing culture would be, “You shall not make any gods.” Aaron’s action with the golden calf certainly fits this. But this prohibition is explicit in the following commandment so perhaps there is a distinction here. Nothing of the work of your hands will become a god to you.
Nahum Sarna comments, “Hebrew does not feature a verb ‘to have’ but expresses possession by h-y-h le-, literally ‘to be to.’ Since the idea of possession necessarily involves relationship, the same term is used for entering into the marriage bod and for establishing the covenant between God and Israel.”[1]
Compare this pictograph with the usual spelling of the name of the God of Israel, Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey. Work/deed still involved in the name. But this revelation is followed by a Vav, not another Yod. The Vav is the picture of a hook or nail. It secures or attaches one thing to another. In the name YHVH, this letter attaches one Hey to the other Hey. The preceding verse contains this spelling of the divine name. The doubled Yod is absent. Perhaps we could read this name as “And Deeds!” indicating that the God of the Hebrews is known by His deeds and His deeds alone whereas the false gods are known only through the deeds of men because they have no power of their own. The “other” gods are the workmanship of human hands. YHVH is revealed in His own deeds.
This provides another possible interpretation of the pictograph. While the “gods” are revealed in the work of men twice over, YHVH is revealed in the security of His own deeds. His work is guaranteed. The work of the gods depends entirely on the continued efforts of men. The gods are literally “the work of men revealed in the work of men.” But YHVH is the God who is revealed in the covenant of His own deeds.
Our next word is leka. The pictograph is:
Control/Authority/Tongue – Palm/Cover/Open/Allow – (final Kaf)
Here we have the combination of authority and allow. In context, the verse reads, “No gods allow.” We translate this two-pictograph expression as, “to you”. But the pictures amplify the translation. We are not to allow control, authority or the power of speech to be given to any god whose existence depends solely on human work. In other words, we are not to give sovereignty to anything we can make with our own hands. Obviously, this includes the totems and idols common in pagan beliefs, but with this extension we also include anything constructed by human beings, whether material or ideal. Perhaps this leads us to see the connection to the prohibition concerning images or representations of YHVH. “Other” gods includes anything our hands might produce; anything that comes solely from human effort.
This makes perfect sense if we consider the first audience. The children of Jacob have been exposed for several centuries to gods made from human effort, gods who claim power over them. In fact, Pharaoh himself was declared a god who had the power of life and death in his hand. When YHVH establishes His new nation, the people are instructed not to cede sovereignty to any god whose origin is human craftsmanship including a god who is human. “Other” gods is not so much about the multiplicity of divine beings (whether real or not) as much as it is about anything or anyone who rivals the sovereignty of YHVH. YHVH is now the sole potentate of Israel. He is their suzerain Lord. There can be no competitor.
The word highlights the relationship in Hebrew construction. “Not to be to you” is the Hebraic way of saying “You shall not have.” In pictographic imagery, leka is the staff of control plus the open palm of allowing. What a man opens his hand to controls him. Therefore, God instructs His people to close the hand toward other gods.
Ah, so much to explore. Perhaps this same exercise whets your appetite and you will come to the Phoenix conference.
Topical Index: Paleo-Hebrew, Exodus 20:3, lo, yihiye, you shall have, no
[1] Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, p. 109.
Pastor Jim an I will be there with another couple at your Phoenix conference!
All of this is too exciting to me for words. Thank you!!!!! It has kept me up since 3 this morn!
Is it an accident that the yod is pronounced in English almost like we say “god”?
I am reminded of Deuteronomy 8:20 where there is a curse put on everything that a person’s hand does as a consequence of forsaking YHVH.
Love this! I’m looking forward to Phoenix — I see I need to get out my Seekins book and begin doing some review. 🙂
Hi Skip,
Welcome home. It sounds like the Israel trip was an amazing experience. Praise G-d.
I have a question that came to mind after reading today’s word. Actually I’ve been wondering about this for some time now.
Do you think we offend G-d when we have artwork that is exactly that…ARTWORK…but in centuries past represented gods of pagan believers.
Specifically, I’m thinning of Kachina Dolls (Hopi Indians), Huichole Art (beading & weaving from the Huichole Indians of Mexico) or Catrina Dolls (skeleton dolls dressed up in fine clothing, originally created to make fun of the French aristocracy but also to add a bit of comic relief to death.)
I very much appreciate the art, creativity, & talent involved in all of the above, but that’s as far as it goes…appreciation. Just wondering how G-d feels.
Any thoughts??
In my work on the Ten Words, I have been exploring the second commandment about images. There is a lot to it. I will try to send you the study when I am done. Who knows? Maybe I will see you both in Phoenix when all of this is made public for the first time.
Good call Laurita thank you. What a great connection. De. 7 & 8 point directly to this idea and in fact give a picture of what we should do with our hands when YHVH gives His/our enemies into our hands.
This adds some clarity to the double command to take the land and have possession of it.
Two quite different things related to take dominion and rule over………..
We have the authority to take possession of what YHVH puts into our hands and we have the power to keep the peace.
Once we hand peace over to chaos we discover the limits to our power, our need obey to His instructions for keeping the peace, and the limitless power of our Sovereign.
So easy to see. So hard to remember.
Hi Skip,
I love this topic. This is what caught my attention in the very beginning of my journey in my Hebrew roots awakening. Will you be making any written material or DVD available later for those of us who cannot attend?
That’s the plan.
Judi, good questions. I believe Paul addressed this issue when he talked about foods sacrificed to idols, meat available in the market place. For you yourself, as a believer, if you eat such meat or have such dolls, it is nothing. For an idol is nothing. And you know that. What you have to be careful of is how these “things” affect others around you. If it’s going to bother someone else, keep it private. Does this help?
An excellent article. I would point out one criteria that should be recognized: Ancient Hebrew at the time of Joseph the Patriarch would have been phonetically arranged such that its Egyptian meaning would be literally irrelevant – except in cases where no Hebrew equivalent existed. Rational expectation is to infer the import of existing Egyptian terminology to meet the relevant literary requirement. Since the current biblical Hebrew script came from Babylon Israel’s Proto-Sinaitic script would logically derive from the period of Joseph as Egyptian hieroglyphic phonetically arranged. Therefore the book of Leviticus, for example, described as being interred in the Ark of the Covenant would have been written in such script.
I want to understand the full import of your comment, but need some help. Paleo-Hebrew at the time of Joseph “would have been phonetically arranged such that its Egyptian meaning would be literally irrelevant.” I am not sure what you are saying here. Do you imply that Paleo-Hebrew had Egyptian meaning? And why would it be irrelevant if phonetically arranged? Help me out a bit.
Hebrew language and syntax expressed using Egyptian hieroglyphic characters. It is therefore a transliteration of spoken Hebrew dialect where no previous Hebrew alphabet was known to have existed. This paradigm is a hypothetical development of written Hebrew as a language.
Are you suggesting that Paleo-Hebrew actually uses Egyptian hieroglyphs? I don’t see that. Or are you suggesting that Hebrew as a spoken language in the time of Joseph adopted the same technique as Egyptian, i.e. the use of hieroglyphs of their own making? We have archeological evidence of Hebrew glyphs that are not Egyptian so in what way is the development “hypothetical”?
It is just an examination of how language becomes written expression. Many countries had spoken dialects which evolved into written language. A modern example would be the Philippines after the Spanish colonized it. Tagalog is just such an example. Since Joseph was in a position with resources to support such an endeavor in Egypt there is a line of reasoning that follows this paradigm. One would not expect evolved writing in nomadic peoples until they developed social institutions or interacted with those of another culture that possessed them. The process is need driven whose expression is a mathematical probabilistic event. There will be cultural convergence and divergence based on parallel processes of assimilation and dissimulation. In order to preserve Israel’s separate identity steps would have to be taken to protect it which historically have led to ethnic marginalization and discrimination – i.e. a pharaoh would eventually come to power who rejected Israel’s Egyptian ties and saw Israel as a servant to true Egyptians. It is only a rational attempt to fit together the pieces of Israel’s history in Egypt through logical process. It is not necessarily the case since the argument could result in a false positive or negative (alpha and beta errors). I am combining exegesis with probability theory. Therefore it is hypothetical. I am merely trying to fit the events of the text into a logical pattern using classical probability theory.
Try this for a spin. Take any known issue of scriptural interpretation. Define each theory of interpretation and express every assumption as a decision tree. Assign each branch a probability where an explanation with a single branch has the highest result of x=1;x=0. A tree with two branch assumptions resolves to x=.5;x=0 … x=1/n; x=(1/n-|1/n|) where x equals the probability of the event. Next evaluate each assumption to determine if it is causatively linked i.e. predicated from its antecedent. Where a causative relationship exists within a theory the probability of any single event is said to be associatively linked to the first cause so that regardless of the number of branches each branch has the probability of the first cause i.e. x=1; x=0. If the exegesis fits this approach we can evaluate the assumptions upon which it rests with Hilbert-type infinitary logics.
You may recall A first-order infinitary logic Lα,β, α regular, β = 0 or ω ≤ β ≤ α, has the same set of symbols as a finitary logic and may use all the rules for formation of formulae of a finitary logic together with some additional ones:
Given a set of variables V={V_gamma | gamma< delta < beta } and a formula A_0 then forall V_0 :forall V_1 cdots (A_0) and exists V_0 :exists V_1 cdots (A_0) are formulae (In each case the sequence of quantifiers has length delta).
Given a set of formulae A={A_gamma | gamma < delta <alpha } then (A_0 lor A_1 lor cdots) and (A_0 and A_1 and cdots) are formulae (In each case the sequence has length delta).
This approach is only in early development but it shows promise in assigning probabilistic events to correlate exegesis with physical and historical evidence. The goal is to develop a systematic approach to evaluating scriptural assumptions which can be evaluated using rigorous mathematical technique. It is a derivative of Occam’s razor that uses the principle of economy.
This looks like one of the cooler things I know I can’t follow. If a truth table is kindergarten, would this be like college? Would this “evaluating scriptural assumptions” be trying to accomplish the same thing that a truth table also tries to do?
I have a lot of respect for Lord Occam.
Would something similar to this be what Josh McDowell was using to determine the odds #’s he was working off of in his book Evidence That Requires A Verdict?
Who would be doing this,specifically, and is there a way that a person could follow?
Thank you very much.