Are You There Yahweh? It's me, Margaret... (Or Armstrong Chapter 5)

The whole idea of Yahweh just weirds me out. These chapters continued to challenge me because Armstrong still refers to the religion of the Temple Mount as Yahwism, or the cult of Zion, or the cult of Yahweh. It seems to me that she doesn't consider any of what went on in the 1st Temple as Judaism, which conflicts with mainstream Jewish historiography...I think. For instance, Armstrong quotes Psalm 137:4 on page 83 as: How can we sing one of Yahweh's songs in an alien land? This is interesting but it's difficult for me to explain why. I want to say that Yahweh doesn't exists in Judaism but that's probably not entirely accurate. What exists for sure is what Jews refer to as "the ineffable name," referring to The One True G-d, King of Kings, Master of the Universe, and so on and so forth. The Hebrew spelling of this name of G-d can be translated as YKVK (with H's in stead of K's...it's complicated) but I can assure you that no Jew today thinks that they are worshipping a deity named Yahweh...they are worshipping G-d, who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He is everything and nothing and exists outside the realm of human comprehension. And, contrary to what Armstrong would have you believe, the same G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

To explain this conflict better, refer back in Chapter 4, to page 73. The last sentences of the first full paragraph read: 

"The Deuteronomists were not yet monotheists: they believed that other gods existed, but thought that Israel had been called to worship Yahweh alone."

The footnote says: This ideal is enshrined in the Sh'ma, the Jewish profession of faith: "Hear, Israel, Yahweh is our elohim; Yahweh alone!" (Deuteronomy 6:4). I can't quite fit into words how this makes me feel and, no offense, but I don't think any non-Jew would ever really  understand. I'll try anyway... Armstrong is correct about two things. 1. That the Sh'ma is the Jewish profession of faith and 2. that there is something enshrined therein. What amazes me is how patently incorrect her interpretation is. Maybe she's referring to what she believes is the original intent of the biblical author. I guess this is plausible if accept her theory of multiple authors. But she says that the Deuteronomists believed that other gods existed... this is in direct opposition to one of the most basic tenets of Judaism, which I always believed, was enshrined in the Sh'ma!

If you ask any Jew who knows anything, they probably still remember the first two lines of the Sh'ma from Hebrew school. And they do not translate it as "Hear Israel Yahweh is elohim, Yahweh alone." Jews translate the Sh'ma as "Hear Israel, Hashem our G-d, Hashem is one." This simple sentence encapsulates multitudes of meanings. Among them, that there is only one G-d. Not only is there one G-d, but nothing exists apart from G-d, the whole of creation is a veiled manifestation of G-d. Simply put, the Sh'ma is an affirmation of many things, most importantly the oneness of G-d, and by default, the oneness of EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE! Mind blowing.

So what bothers me is that Armstrong does not mention any of this! In fact, she makes completely divergent claims, chief among them is that the Israelites acknowledged many gods but chose to worship Yahweh alone. Who IS this Yahweh fellow anyway?