Bobzammel

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might".

This passage, qouted many times in the bible, seems to state that a follower must love only God and therefore it contradicts several passages in which it is said love is to be delivered to neibhor. Perhaps no passage has caused more division in families than the above, since it demands a cult-like devotion, especially since "Heart", in today's laungauge, is the center of emotions.
But is that what it *really* says? A closer look at the Hebrew and it's proper meaning reveals something slightly different.

"Obey Yahweh your El with all your mind, all your vitality, and all your possessions".

So here not a feeling is commanded, but obedience, which seems to line up with most biblical teachings. So all the Christian ranting about an emotional connection with God is pretty meaningless-he's a taskmaster, not a lover.

Apikorus

lama ata choshev zeh?

Haran

Think he will tell us why?

What lexicon are you using there, Bob?

lpetrich

I think that Apikorus is teasing Bob about his claimed expertise in Hebrew.

Haran

I know. So was I...

I was responding to Apikorus' question. Perhaps Bob will too.

Apikorus

The concept of ahavah (= love) plays an important role in Deuteronomy, and is contextualized by earlier prophetic literature, notably Hosea.

In Deut 6:5 there is no reason to translate v'ahavta as anything other than "and you shall love". The Deuteronomist had a distinct word for "obey," which was shema (= "hear/listen"). Typical formulae there include "you shall obey the voice of YHWH" (tishma b'kol YHWH, 8:20, 13:18, etc.) and "obey his/my commandments" (tishm`u el-mitzvotai; Deut 11:13, 11:27).

Among HB scholars, Deuteronomy is often recognized to be a type of treaty between YHWH (the sovereign) and Israel (the vassal). There's a nice description of all this in the introduction to Moshe Weinfeld's Anchor Bible Commentary on Deut 1-11. I believe Weinfeld was among the first to recognize similarities between Deuteronomy and various neo-Assyrian documents such as the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE), as well as to certain Hittite treaties. At any rate, in the VTE the vassal is instructed "to love the king, to speak to him in good faith, to serve him wholeheartedly, to hearken unto his voice, and to obey his commands" (see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, p. 96).

This love is perhaps best likened to a love between father and son. YHWH loved the Patriarchs (Deut 4:37, 10:15) and Israel (7:8). Love is therefore demanded in return. See also 8:5 on the father-son thang. Hosea likens the love of YHWH for Israel as that of a husband for his wife (Hos 2:19), and a father for his son (11:1). Again, love is demanded in return (Hos 6:6).

Very interesting that Bob should claim that m'odekha = "possessions". In the HB "might" is usually rendered as gevurah. But as an adverb m'od means "much" or "exceedingly" and it seems sensible to read m'odekha as "your might/strength". In the LXX m'od is translated as dynamis (= strength). But as Weinfeld points out (Deuteronomy 1-11, ABC), the Aramaic versions translate m'odekha as "with all your property" (Targum Onqelos) or "with all your money" (Targum pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti). The latter reading is also found in rabbinic tradition as well (sifre Deut 32; mishnah Berakhot 9:5). The Syriac has "wealth" and "strength."

Bobzammel

Sorry, when I meant a closer look at the Hebrew I didn't exactly mean a literal translation. I have never claimed to be an expert in Hebrew.
What I meant to state is that the passage doesn't necesarilly mean what it says. Christians have often stated that certain bible passages-especially embarrassing ones like Luke 14:26--don't necesarilly mean what they say but are hyperbole. I'm applying the same argument here.

For instance, "Love" in this case is semetic idiom meaning "Obey"(Duetronomy 5:10) instead of the 'feeling'. The Greek laungauge in the NT also makes distinctions between two kinds of love, Agapeo(Action love, which would mean obedience) and Phileo(emotional love). Some Christians even tell that the latter is inferior--and there are fringe teachings that say feelings must be "put to death"(Hence the drone mentality of some) Heart, in ancient understanding, is linked more closely with thought process than with feeling...(Psalm 14:1) "Soul" is vitality, and "Might" is resources(2 Kings 23-25).

I am mainly stating that the Shema is *not* claiming any emotional commitment in the sense that some Christians claim it does.

Apikorus

Bob, see my comments in the above post. The love required of Israel by YHWH is similar to the love of a son for his father. Obedience is also required, but Deuteronomy uses a distinct word for "obey." As for how Christian dogma spins all this, I simply do not care.

I am curious, though, about where you got the idea that m'odekha = "your possessions/money." As I mentioned (see above), this reading is also found in the Targumim. (Of course the Targumim are often expansive, paraphrastic, and can swerve significantly from the plain sense of the text of the HB.)