' f ‘ TH E

O R I G I N AND I NTER P R E TA TI O N

OF T H E

TE TR A G R A MMA TO N

SUBMI T T ED I N P A R T I A L FULFILM E NT O F T H E R E Q UI R E M E N T S F O R T H E DE G R E E O F DOCT O R O F PHILOSOPHY T O T H E FA CULT Y O F PH L S P N E W R K N IVE R SI T 1 8 I O O HY , YO U Y , 9 9

HA N S H . SP O R K

- PR I N T E D B Y

' ‘ C bc mntvczétt of Chica o p t eas w g . g CH I CA G O

O R I G I N A N D I NT E R P R E TA T I O N

O F T H E

TE T R A G R A NI IVI A TO N

S U B M I T T E D I N PA R T I A L FULFIL M E N T O F T H E R E Q UI R E M E N T S F O R T H E DE G R E E O F DO C T O R O F P H ux BO P H Y T O T H E F A CUL T Y (M? P I O S P N E W R K N I VE R S I T 1 8 H L O HY , YO U Y , 9 9

H A N H E S . S P O R I\

PR I N T E D B Y

(t he m niv e t s it g o f Chi ca go D re ss CHICA G O

R E F E P A C .

T H E problem wh ic h the question after the origin and inter pr e t a ti o n o f the T etragrammaton Offers to the historical student Of the Old T estament is o n e of the most fascinating ones o f the U many which the Jewish Scriptures present . nfortunately the

n material from which t o work is o t very large . As the sources O T outside Of the ld estament are of a rather doubtful value , we are compelled to base o ur investigations mainly upon the few statements contained in the Jewish writings and the study of the

1 o f historical development Of ( ) the political status the Hebrews , 2 f and ( ) the religious belief o the Hebrews . I count myself happy that my teacher , Professor Prince , has permitted me to choose this subject for my dissertation . My most hearty thanks are due to him fo r the kind interest which he has

f r always taken in my work and o his suggestive instruction .

I t o also gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness my teacher ,

F T o I o we Professor . Brown . his inspiring teaching my love O T for the historical study of the ld estament . His kind interest I has never been wanting , and to him owe many valuable sug gestions .

O fo r My thanks are also due to my teacher , Professor sborn , his teaching and the kind interest he has taken in my work . di i T his s s e r t o n was completed in the summer of 1899 . Cir c um s t a n c e s prevented me from referring t o the latest literature

O n the subject . H H ANS H . SPO R .

W Y K N E R O e r 1901 . O , ctob ,

, : 1 . t 5 “ 2 9 6 a G « $

D

T H E OR IGIN A N D IN T E R PR E T AT ION OF T H E T E T R R T ON AG AMMA .

T h e most primitive name o f G o d found in the Old T estament

T h e o f is T h e root o f the word is doubtful . question the etymology is very intricate and the conclusions are dubious . 1 Some derive the word from the stem 5m ; others derive it from

‘ I 5 IER t o the stem T , with reference aJI , though the meaning they T give to this root varies . his name is very rarely used in prose .

t o E SI G o d According S was the Of the patriarch Jacob , whose — 3 . center Of worship was Bethel , Gen . In early poetry 5x seems to have become a proper name . It is used 2 1 7 times .

’ ‘ T h ‘ lur i m tz u e divine name D TIBN is a p a l s aje s ta c s . It is fl O f E . characteristic phraimitic writers J uses it chie y in poetry ,

D 39 . 6 . . . 3 5 . g , Gen , ; eut

‘ ‘ P employs it in Genesis 7 8 times . D TIBN is used to signify the f 6 o 170 . God Israel times ; it designates rulers times , g

“ ” ‘ ‘ I ” “ E . D I I DR TI 33 J o b xod angels , ( divine beings “ ” E T h e e . . . Gen . gods , g , xod question arises r - n o w E E 1 ? T h e E rtbs , Is lohim connected with probability that 2 o f T is a plural SN is very strong . here exists in biblical Aramaic a number o f words with two consonants which insert a T1 in form “ ” 25“ ” 6 . . . g b D 1 ing the plural form , g , father , plur Tfi j ; name ,

3 - “ . HE I a ls o . 2 . plur T R; Syriac L ] father , plur mother ,

“ . éfih m . 2m . plur If ] 1 ] female servant , plur 1 ] We have also a H ebrew word which forms the plural in this manner :

“ ” ' ' m h II mN female servant , plural for

1 d k G e s e n i us T h a i i Z i h if a r wi se . T h l . . T . N ol e e , es urus F . H tz g , e tsc r t f eo , Vol XVIII ; , M B A W. , 1880, p . 774.

18 a i i i t e e i ee ZA W. Vo l . . 181 . Ag nst th s n rpr tat on s , XI , pp sq

2 G r a m m a 7 Cf. Marti , t . d . bi bl . A ram . , £3 6.

3 B r k l m n n Cf. o c e a , S yri sche G ram m ati k, 118 . 5 ( N 6 O R I G I N ‘ A N R INT ERPRET A T ION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMATON

fo r ‘ In this way we may also account the TI in D TIBN . T h e 6 is due to the fact that the primitive Semitic d has per

e tua t e d p itself only in rare instances , having usually changed into N Olde ke thinks that there may be a possible connection ‘ between 5N and D TISN . T s 2 Another name given to God is E bbg. his name occur 5 O T O it 42 times in the ld estament . f these is found times in the

- book Of Job . In pre exilic times this name is employed only

D 17 - twice , eut . , provided this poem is not post exilic .

11 35319 7 1 59 3 O f In fact , such words as 73 , and , which are a

to D e n 3 2 t . very late origin , would forbid us regard , chap , as 5 “ - Oo r n ill : being pre exilic . says We scarcely dare take an

fo r earlier date the poem than the end Of the Babylonian exile , if

t o P 18 s . we have not to assign it a much later date . , in which

r n o t this name occu s , I believe belongs to a period prior to that o f E N D i n zra and ehemiah , perhaps to a very late period . uhm ,

“ ” lo co d , regar s the psalm as sehr jung , and assigns it to the second

o f k century , to the times the Hasmoneans . It is remar able , how ’ F‘ I DN ever , that is employed only once in the whole psalm , while he d in all the ot r cases the ordinary term for G o is used . In 2 . 5x the parallel passage , Sam we have it leaves , there ‘ T h n o IB . e fore , doubt that E PS is an insertion by a later editor other passages wh ere the word BEN occurs as a designation Of

1 14 z 7 the God of Israel are Pss . ; Prov . N h e . N Isa . Hab . one of these passages is

- 3 pre exilic . Hab . , chap . , does not belong to the genuine e T TI . ER prophecy , but is a much lat r addition his shows that has not been used in the Old T estament previous to the times Of T h . HEN the exile nor during the exile erefore , if is the singular form O f the very curious fact presents itself to us that the plural form has been in use centuries before even anyone

o f . thought using the singular form It is much easier , however , to account for the form TIBN as being an artificial poetic singular E I Obtained by inference from lohim . T ER is used a number Of f f o O e . . times , not the God Of Israel , but a heathen deity , g ,

D a n — H 2 39 e b . 2 Chron . . ; Kings K hi e t b; Job Hab . does not belong to the genuine 5— 11 H prophecy ; vss . were inserted by a later hand . ence all the I passages in which TER occurs are late .

4 5 ’ S e br d i sc h e a m . 77a . E i l i 4t h e d . 1896 . 64. Cf. tade, H G r , n e tung , , , p ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF T H E TE T RAGRAMMATON 7

T h e “ 5 name 1 15, signifying my Lord , was a divine name in

Judah at an early period . When it referred to God it was always a m e t s P a th a ch written with a Q in the final syllable , but with

T h e when it had reference to man . word is an intensive plural ‘ 485 D TIBN . denoting excellency , as is also It occurs times in

O T C the ld estament . In later times opyists substituted this ' " name fo r TI ITI . ' m a ny TI ITI" fo r , used with , another name God , seems to have originated from the conception O f TITH " as the God O f the

f D o f covenant o avid . As m a m he is the god the battle array o f Israel . Some , however , refer it to the heavenly hosts and

o f G o d hosts Israel . But the conception that he is the of the

T h e heavenly hosts is a much later conception . name signifies d f ” 285 G o o . hosts , God being implied Altogether it occurs times . By these few which I have chosen from the many names given th e O T to the Israelitish deity in ld estament , we see that each one signifies something definite . As BR he is either the Strong

“ ” “ O o r o n e t o Z ne the whom men strive reach , das iel aller ” 6 M n h n r e n W Menschen Sehnsucht und alles e sc e s t e b s . As HEN ’ fca ' é o v he is the true G o d r f xfi . As TWI NE }" he stands in a definite

t o D T relationship avid and Israel . his leads us to the conclusion that the diff erent names given to God were not mere designations by which the Israelite could address his deity , but , as was also the case among all primitive peoples , the name either expressed a

o r o d o r characteristic Of the person g to whom it was given , it expressed a certain relationship between the person o r the g o d thus named and the people . T h e most important name given to the Israelitish deity in the O T ' " ld estament is the one expressed by the tetragrammaton TI IH . Whence does it come and what does it mean ? 7 T h e name Yahweh is explained by some as being c o n “ ” n e c t e d - etymologically with the Indo Aryan Jovis . It is , then , Ow “ ” derived fr om to shine , hence Yahweh would signify the T bright ether . his name is also declared to be ideally , though “ ” “ ” a t o T not etymologic lly , related daeva , deus . hus the name

6 L a e O i li I 3 h i h g . . G dtt . N 1882 . 173 . a rd , r enta a , Vol I , p ; ac r c ten , , p 7 l e G e i . iii k D i i h i . J e b bl . T l . w sse n sch a t l d a r e s t . . 672 . . Von Boh n , nes s , p c ; Vat e , eo f g , p ; G ul D i e S m i i n i m Ve r h d lt n i ss a m i i 72 M ler , e ten hre e z . d . Ch te n un d Ja p h e th t e n , 18 , p . 163 ;

S l m a B h i b . 12 8 8 . m i n ch ott nn , uc H o , c , g "For a recent sta te ent of th s v i ew , w ith som e e w a e S i i T m a T T h i i e T e m ” h fe tur s of pec al nterest , see ho s yler , e Or g n of th trag ra m aton , J ewi s

’

- — a l R v i w . I Q . 581 94. D I T OR S . u rter y e e , Vol XII , pp E ] 8 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMATON

“ H O “ H would signify the igh ne , the eavenly . But there is so little common t o both languages o f which we can speak with ' any degree o f certainty that we cannot think of deriving TII TI‘

- SW T h e from the Indo Aryan stem . untenableness of this deriva 9 “ F T : T h e tion was already recognized by . uch , who says simi ” l a r it o f 71131 y with Jovis , Jupiter , which is insufficient enough l in itse f , disappears entirely when the name is pronounced rightly

' ” a h e TI ITIj J v . ' H itzig derives the name from the same idea as that seen “ ” A stua ds o n e H e in the Armenian the who is . does not ,

T h e however , derive the name from that word . relationship of “ ” A s tua ds o n e this name to is an ideal , and not an etymological

o n e . o n e or linguistic Moses , he claims , formed after this

his new divine name , but only because his spirit T was prepared to conceive the idea . hinking over the mean “ 11 d a n d A s tua s . ing contained in , he recognized its truth depth But Hitzig does not state by what mean s Moses came to know “ ” A st ua ds T h e o f the Armenian . improbability such a connec “ ” “ ” o r A stua ds tion derivation of Yahweh from is plain , because no traces of the knowledge o f that name which would warrant E such a theory are found in gypt . E gypt , more than any other country , has been considered the

Li e bl e i n land in which the name Yahweh originated . advanced the theory that Moses was a disciple o f the priests Of O u - H eli T opolis . hese priests taught in esoteric doctrine the monotheistic

o d T conception of G . his conception they expressed in the name f o Oh e a r a i O . e . that deity p , . , the ne who is Moses accepted this

fo r name his deity and also the idea which this name conveyed , ' ' ‘ and expressed it in the tetragrammaton TI IH the One who is .

- o d Again Yahweh has been identified with the E gyptian moon g . ” R oth says in a very positive way : T hat the E gyptian pictures o f gods appear as oracle - pictures Of the H ebrew high - priest will not seem strange to the o n e who considers more carefully that

H E o n e O f the whole ebrew cult is Of gyptian origin , and that the " t wo 10 2 H TI deities Of light became the ebrew national god , ' ” l a w TI ITIZ . We cannot pronounce with any degree of certainty

8 . w G VI . 203 . Cf E ald , Vol II , pp . sqq

9 G n i e r kld r t 1838 2“ A ufl 7 xx e es s , , a g e , 18 1 , p . v ii .

10 G i V s esch chte d . . I . , I , p . 81 .

1 1 Kn uke n 1 . V l ub bi b T h l h r e . n J J . e 880 . 38 . Cf or esungen er l . eo . , e a usg g v o . , , p

12 G i a be d l 7 esch chte unserer n . Phi los . , I , p . 1 5, note . ORIGIN AND INT ERPRE T AT ION OF T H E T E T RAGRAMMAT ON 9

U T what the rim and hummim were , though it is generally sup posed that they were stones with which lots were cast , and not 13 T O f E pictures . hat the whole Israelitish cult is gyptian origin

o n e E is an assumption which no now accepts . ven the worship o f the golden calf , which has been identified by some with Apis o r M n e m i s , cannot be proved to be such ; for the worship Of bulls as symbols Of divine power is met with in all ancient religions ,

t o E T h e E and is by no means peculiar gypt . gyptian phrase , ” “ N uk u p nuk , is considered by some as being the original from which the thought expressed in the name Yahweh has been d T O f erived . his derivation rests upon a misconception the

E n o t gyptian phrase , which is an everyday expression and does

T h e contain any mysterious doctrine . statement made by

D i o do r us S i c ul us 94 , I , , that the name Jao was found upon the E breastplate of the gyptian priests is without any historic proof , 16 Kue n e n hence worthless . I agree with , at least in so far as the

- E non gyptian origin Of Yahwism is concerned , when he says that the documents upon which are based the theories of the E gyp “ t o l o gi s ts favor the idea that Yahwism was roused from its slum

E O wn ber by the gyptian religion , and was made conscious of its

fl r a the r tha n th a t i t s r a n characteristics by its con icts with it , p g ” o ut o f ith fr m whi h i i n r di ll di r e n f a a o c t s s e e to be a ca y fi e t . E ven the casual reader O f the story o f the exodus will notice at once that what the writer wants to present is the struggle

E T h e between the God of Israel and the gods Of gypt . later prophets dwell with predilection upon the fact that Yahweh

o f E had delivered the Israelites from the bondage gypt . It is therefore hardly credible that Moses S hould have chosen out of

E o r . the gyptian pantheon a name for his god , the god himself T h e fact that the exodus was the result of the superiority O f the new god over the E gyptian gods would also forbid our seeking for the origin of this the most sacred name Of the Israelitish

f o f deity in the esoteric teaching o the priests . In view the E existing antagonism between Yahweh and the gyptian gods , it seems to me doubtful whether the Israelites borrowed anything

o r from their cult teaching .

1 “ 3 - O . M A r n o l t i m T m m i m A J S L . 1900. f uss , Ur and hu , , 14 Wa h r m un d 19 . B a b l n i r h um I r un d r i st e n th um 1 2 . 1 , y o e t , s . Ch , 88 , p 15 . P e Cf Le ag Renouf . 16 i bb s 1882 64 . H ert Lecture , , pp . sq 17 E . g . , Hos . A m os 10 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETA T ION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMATON

T T h e o n e here are two other theories . first I shall only men tion ; it is the identification of Yahweh with the Indian g o d 18 T h “ . e R é m us a n t é Agnis second one is that by A . , M moire ”

- . H sur Lao tseu He identifies the three signs I W , which he ’ ’ o d f L a o t e I a a3 T h e O s . says express the name Of the g , with

I i - h i - wei d three signs he pronounces , and this word he eclares t o o f T be foreign origin . hat the tetragrammaton has been reduced to a tr ig r a m m a to n he declares to be due to the fact that ' ‘ 19 I o n - T the last TI Of TI IT was not heard . Victor v Strauss orney seems to favor the idea that there was at least some connection

fo r between Israel and China . He adduces proof Isa . which

22 O f T he is found according to him almost literally in chap .

S a i n s o the A n cie n ts y g f , and also Isa . according to which

China was known to the Hebrews . T hat this verse refers to the Chinese is by no means a new theory . As early as the sixteenth century we find that Arias

o Montanus interprets this verse as having reference t the Chinese . WI P E) fi x 20 Granted that V refers to China , all it would prove in this ca se is that L a o t se accepted the name Of the God o f Israel fo r his deity . But doubtless this mysterious name refers to

t r i r a m m a t o n some Other land than China , and in that case the g

n o t T o f would prove very much . here would then be no means

‘ T h e showing that it is an abbreviated form O f TIWTI . latest commentators have given up this theory and refer TD either to P e l u i um E r O s c . . s . o D . ( f zek q ) the desert T thers , again , have thought Of the E gyptian city mm which is mentioned in

E v zek . In that case we ha e to change the name

' D ‘ S T o r T to I D It is almost certain that the name schin , sin , for T China is derived from the sin dynasty , which began to reign in l 2 5 T h f r T P t o . 5 . e o B . C pronunciation TD schin is Greek ( e while the Arabs pronounced it w TE . T h e LXX translators had no idea that this verse had reference

‘ a é t o China ; they read H ep m. D uhm in his commentary refers ‘ ‘ D U . D to the Phoenician Sinites , mentioned in Gen because

D - H eutero Isaiah lived among them owever , he calls this theory

“ “ ” “ H Ve r z e iflun w . eine ypothese der g Yet , he says , it seems

18 J B . b a e t i e t . i 1 70 h v A c 8 . . F . O ry , Je o gn s , , Par s , 19 Z W 1 4 3 e i I a i 3d ex v . S . A 88 . 1 . e s a . . , , pp sqq ; D l tzsch , , ed cursus by trauss

20 n I r A lte r th um skun d e C S o G e s e ius , T hesaurus , pp . 948 L assen , . ; heyne and

e i m m i e t a t w e i e R WE . a n d T . D l tzsch co entar es , . For the hole qu st on se the , also de

a u r i i n B a b l a n d i R e 18 6 1 7 . L c o p e e y . Or ent . a , I , 8 , 88 ORIGIN AND INT ERPRET ATION OF T H E T E T RAGRAMMA T ON 11 as if also in o ur Unknown were speaking O f himself ” o f in the same veiled manner . China is out the question , but it “ seems to me that the hypothesis Of desperation is n o t such a

o n e . hopeless after all Besides , the passages in question are

O f L a o ts e wh o considerably younger than the writings , was born 4 C U 60 . . about B , while the Great nknown was active more than ’ sixty years later ; hence v o n S tr a uss s theory is n o t supported by those passages .

' It is quite natural that the minds o f scholars should have

t o t o turned Babylonia , the ancient seat Of culture , find a solu

T o tion for this problem . w reasons especially favor the theory I ' I ‘ that Babylonia is the land where the name T IT originated . U E fl nlike gypt , there is no con ict recorded between Babylonia . i e O f and Israel , . . , between the God Of Israel and the gods

o f Babylonia , at least not at so early a date as that recorded

E T h e gypt . second reason , which carries with it , perhaps , more

o n e weight than the first , is the similarity of the languages , and the presence in the Assyrian language of a syllable which - “ f r O TI M I o . sounds like the abbreviated form , namely , Yah Yahu Besides these t wo reasons a third one is frequently adduced to prove that there existed at o n e time a close connection between H the Assyrians and the ebrews . We find reference to this in — - 4 the following passages : Gen . 30 ; a ; ' 24 29 4 T : s . J a s qq . ; chap . ; qq hese are all p s U sages . nquestionably J is emphasizing the fact that Abraham and his relatives resided in Mesopotamia . Gen . (P ) con

o f r Ka s di m two c e i v e s U and Haran as distinct places . In Gen .

5 o f r f r (P ) Haran is made the point departu e o Canaan .

T r According to Gen . erah and his family S tart from U

T h e o f Ur Ka s di m Ka s di m . existence the name in both J and P “ n n o f o e . . r e se c f admits Of only explanation , viz the p ’ it among v the historical materials on which these narrati fie are based .

Ur Ka s di m Ur u M u a a r T has been identified with k yy . hough J

and P do not agree in all instances , yet what they agree in seems to be strongly in favor Of the theory Of an early Babylonian home

f r o the Hebrews . T h e supposed proof for a Babylonian derivation is found in

Kh o r s a b a d O the great inscription Of Sargon . n this inscription

” 21 r Ka s di m n i bli l i P e i w D . D . U l B a n d Cf. rof ssor Franc s Bro n , , , Jour a of ca L terature E e i m b 1 7 x 88 . ges s , Dece er , 12 ORIGIN AND INT ERPRET A T ION OF T H E TET RAGRAMMATON

a - u - b i - a h ubi d T a King J d i J is mentioned . his word is pre

a fo r o n e ceded by determinative a person and for a deity . 22 a - u Schrader concludes from this that J or Jahu was held , at least by the writer , to be the name of a deity . In the cylinder inscription of Kh o r s a b a d the name O f the same king is given as ’ - - - i - I lu di z I l u u b i . bi I l u o d e . . d i , , g is there substituted for Jahu , which therefore can be only a divine name . Such H changes occur very frequently in ebrew . Jahu suggests the " ’ - F H i . o f a u b i d i 1TI . e . TITTI ebrew : , , rom the occurrence J 23 and I l u b i d i T iele concludes that J a u must have been with H the Assyrians synonymous with I l u . owever , when speaking

Of the Assyrians in such connections as the above , it seems to me necessary to exclude the n o n - educated classes and include only the educated people , and in particular the scribes . It had become the custom o f the Assyrian kings to extend their conquests to th e

T i la h - il h a l m a n a a r t P e e r . e . . S ss . s west , g , II , g III , but especially

t o Sargon . It is doubtless due this fact that the scribes came to

a u know these two names , J and I l u , which were given to the

F o r a same deity . how else could we ccount for the occurrence Of the name Of the H a m a t e si a n king i n two different forms in

? n o t Assyrian inscriptions But , after all , Jahu has yet been proved to be the name of an Assyrian deity , inasmuch as the name Of the H a m a tit e king can certainly not be considered as F D 24 conclusive so far as Assyria is concerned . ried . elitzsch declares J a - u to be a declined form Of and therefore the sup 25 posed Yahweh is nothing more than a T h e sam e scholar de cl a r e s that the tetragrammaton should not be derived from ‘ TI I TI S 1TI , but that we hould seek it from the original forms : , " TTI n o t o f b e He says that is Hebrew origin , though con

I I" i s o f cedes that T I T at least Hebrew coinage ; the original word , however , is Of Babylonian origin . According to this theory the form commonly used by the Israelites was n o t the longer form ’ D e lit z s ch s Yahweh , but Yahu or Yah . theory is supported also ” o f H WH by Hommel , who states that the oldest form is Ya , Ia ,

Yau , and that this name was identical with the Babylonian divine

E a T name . his ancient Semitic divine name Ya was , according to

22 2 2 Of . KA T . , pp . 3 sq . 23 a b A i 1 6 259 . B yl . ssyr . G esch chte , 88 , p . 24 7 A ssyri sche L e se stuc ke , 18 6, p . 18 . 25 i 1 1 1 W0 la g das P arad es ? 88 , pp . 58 sqq . 26 E x i T i m 1 98 . 144. p os tory es , 8 , p O R IGIN AND INT ERPRET A T ION OF T H E T E T RAG RAMMAT ON 13

O f that theory , transformed at the time Moses into Yahweh , and 28 this gave it a new meaning . Professor Hommel identifies also

. E a o n e the two Assyrian deities and Sin with another , and shows this by the S O - called p a r a lle li s m us m e m br o r um of the fol

“ ” lowing passage taken from the Journey o f Ishtar to Hades

T h e n f r h Sh s h b f r h i s f h e r t h e en w t o t ama , e o e at wep ;

B e f r E a t h e k c h is a r s . o e , ing , ame te

U E a A a pon this he builds the theory that , who again was in primitive times identified with Sin , and is the same as Ya

T h e A a o r Yahweh . form Ya merely presents a somewhat modified phonetic transcript Of the name borne by the g o d Of 29 E M a r o li o uth E a ridu . g , who also identifies with Sin , and in turn again with Yahweh , says that the Israelites received this

Ur name from Abraham , who came from , in Chaldea , the primeval

- E sanctuary of the moon god . At their departure from gypt , the

Israelites Of the exodus were first led to Sinai , the ancient sanc t ua r - y Of the moon god , and here they solemnly adopted him as their deity . T hese are the most important theories about a Babylonian f origin o Yahweh .

We will now examine these theories somewhat more closely . F D According to ried . elitzsch the form ordinarily used was the

' " shorter form 1 and not the longer TII TI . Against this is the

TI ” I n fact that occurs only poetry , very seldom in early writings E “ cf . xod . My strength and (my ) song is Yah

fo r E . . In xod it occurs the first time However , this

v r chapter has been worked over very much , and e en if we hea 30 1b 3 t o E Moses speaking in vss . , , speak with wald , it does not

n O f P prove a ything for the originality the form : . If the whole 31

- song is late , and Yah occurs only in post exilic poetical pas

“ it TI n o t sages , proves that the short form was known to the “ - D I people in pre exilic times . In Isa . read with uhm T I TI

" ” " H TI . TI instead of If were really the older form , it is rather surprising that in colloquial expressions and in swearing the longer form T fifi " should have been employed instead of th e

27 E x si T i p o tory m es, 1898 , p . 48 . 28 A lt is r a e l . Ue be r li r u 1 97 ef e n g , 8 , p . 64 .

“ 29 i l i i A i w C em R v i e w b 1898 Earl est Re g on of the nc ent Hebre s , ont p orary e , Octo er , .

30 i 5— D i m n n h de s A . B . 1 17 . 8 a ll a i m m a i D c ter , I , , pp ; so lso and Del tzsch co ent r es . 31 o r n il l E i l i Of . C , n e tun g , 1896, p . 61 . ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMAT ON

“ 31“ 51 . more convenient shorter form Besides , the mere fact that

” o f H is only found in poetry is against a universal use this word . O utside Of this use it is found only in compound proper names . T hat TI “ is used only in poetry favors the theory that it is a ' ' " T h e ‘ poetically shortened form Of TIjTI . longer form TI IH is

n i n c r i ti o n l 18 T h e 1 found o the Mesha s p , . . form seems to have come into use only gradually , and was employed very little .

a o f It is an apocopated form fter the analogy the verbs TI 5. TI WTI ‘ 1 After the last had been apocopated , leaving , the final “ T h TI . e TI was vocalized and then dropped , so that remained

m a i - T h e received then a pp q TI: . artificial origin and growth Of this form as the name o f the deity seems to be o ut of

310 question .

According to Philippi , the form which we should have expected from the Babylonian Yau , in accordance with the a YO regular phonetic l ws , would be . Pointing to the different

"‘ ‘ ‘ I- ITI usages of TI and in compound names , he asks the ques

“ tion : And if Yau became in H ebrew indiscriminately WTI: or W‘ 1s o f TI , how it that the latter never appears at the end a com u ? ” po nd proper name , the former never at the beginning We ’ fo r D e lit z sc h s cannot account it according to theory , while it is

d T h e easily explained accor ing to the view advanced above . abbreviated form “ITI ‘ from fi l' TI" became when forming the first

nd Ye - Ye - h O part of a compou name hau , , after the analogy of Wi " D B ll from , because Yahu , as a part Of a compound word , h a v m c g an a cent Of its own , would have drawn the tone unduly HTI TI‘ back , while the tone would naturally rest upon : for T when T “ I ” it formed the last syllable of a compound name . hat should D have been the name of an Assyrian deity , as elitzsch asserts , has not yet been satisfactorily established , hence this argument 33 ’ D D e lit z s ch also falls to the ground . river says in regard to s

318 I a m g lad to fi n d tha t I a g ree wi th Professor Ja st r o w a s to the late orig i n of the

h i i n Z W. XVI e i s i e A . m Ya h . w for for th de ty I had not seen art cl the , Vol , hen I reached the ab ov e conclusi on .

I bi d . h i s i i a l f h S i B i bli l i Vo l . In art cle n the Journ o t e oc ety of ca L terature , XIII , 1—27 Ja s t r o w m m m e wi fi 1 ” pp . 10 , holds that ost of the co pound na s th a nal N or fin are not m u fi m m l m com pounds w ith the div i ne na e , b t that the nal ele ent represents ere y an d p h a t i c ” “ r m t i e i e m w i i i i l H i h il m v e b a fi o a v , wh le th na es th n t a are uncontracted p for s of r s ” wi th ini tial v ow el letter .

3 10 Z W. Vo l . 15. S Ja s t r o w i h i s i i e A . o also n art cle n th , XVI , p 32 ’ — Z i h ift ur VOlke r s c h o lo i e . . 17590. . G . . b w e tsc r f p y g , Vol XIV , pp Cf also B Gray, He re 49 Prop er N a m es , pp . 1 sqq . 33 di i i . 1 S B bl . 8 . tu a a , Vol I , p

16 ORIGIN A N D INTERPRE T A T ION O F T H E TETRA G RAMMATON the Jewish church at a time when the more S piritual side o f

- Y . ahwism had become a long established fact However , the greatest difli c ulty in regard to this theory is the identification Of

E a o d E a . with Sin was the g of the abyss , while Sin was the

- E a moon god . freed Sin when he was bewitched through the 37 T s e v e n e v il . , spirits his is against their identification with one another ; besides , the passage which Hommel cites to prove their identity admits of an entirely different interpretation from that

O f M a r o li o uth given by him , and thus his theory , as well as that g ,

O f falls to the ground because insufficient proof . T h e primary conception O f Yahweh as we find it recorded in

- the Jewish records is that of a war god , who with all his terrible

o f ness takes the part his people . He marches out for them or Z t . . with hem to battle Judg Hab ech . of . E P . S . He is presented as a mighty warrior , xod and in the sacred chest accompanies the Israelites to the battlefield .

H e s t o r m c l o uds comes in fury from his ancient seat , like , fore boding destruction and annihilation to all that is in his way ,

d T O f u s . J g . q his is the earliest conception Yahweh , and if

O f - o d there ever was an identification Yahweh with the moon g , this conception must necessarily be Of a later date . T h e theory that Yahweh is derived from Ph oenician or north

o f a " Semites has found the support many schol rs . TIWTI is iden ’ 38 tifi e d with I a 63 or T h e form T a t?) is found in Macrobius

pot§e o T OY m i l/ r ow Un a r o v (9 6 6V

9 A l I 7 " 0 s e r I a w e t a fl e v r a t 3 v up x u n n ,

' ’ ’ ' ' c ' A t a 3 e t a po s dpxo ue v o w H eh t o v 33

' ’ ee o v er on- (13 m ; 3 3 Ta it} s 01 . p H p , v

T his passage is attributed to an oracle of Apollo Cl a r i us and ’ ' originated with Juda i z i n g Gnostics to whom the names I a a3 and

were Objects Of mystical speculation .

T h e other much - cited passage is that by Porphyry preserved 39 in T h e o do r e t

e a . a I 3 r er a I ' ' ' LO T O GL 36 r a 7r € l I o v Sa t wv a A O r a r a o n Ka t. r o r o w Ka i r a t p p q , w ;

3 I A I I C I 9 A C o v o a o w a v r wv r a o v c wv o r a r a o v wa Gwv o B v ‘n o s e t A g r a w r o u up , a x np nq I t l A e I A A 9 l 40 a a I e o a h o r o v t e e w ®e o v r o v I ev w w p p ufi v p s .

37 O J a s t r o w R li i B b l i a a n d A i a . 276. f . , e g on of a y on ssyr , p 38 57 h . 1 . v 291 m d 2 T S aturn , c 8 , ed Grono . , p . ; ed . A bro . Th e o o s . , p . ; of . o l uck ,

Ve m i h S h if . . 385 . r sc te c r ten , Vol I , pp sq 89 . a e c t . i c di . . 40 e H a ll s G 7 . rac fl curat sp , Vol II , p . , d . 4° . e i P r a e a r a ti o E u Cf Eus b us , p , ORIG IN AND IN T ERPRE T A T ION OF T H E T E T RAGRAMMAT ON 17

Porphyry states here that Za yf xo v m affiwv has written a true Jewish

Za f o v v t dfiwv history , and bases this upon the supposition that yx had received the necessary information from a priest O f ’ ’ P I e v a > T H e identifies with H TT . hough Often adduced to prove h that Yahweh is derived from the Canaanites , t ese two names , ’ I a "3 and do not prove anything of the kind . We must not lose sight o f the fact that these two quotations are Of Gnostic T origin . hese names were doubtless designed to express the

‘ tetragrammaton and have simply been taken o ut of Old T esta

ment reminiscences . Again , certain Canaanitish proper names with an end syllable which appears to be a suffix yah are said to be compounds with TI : T hus the Ph oenician name B ith ya s 42 B t flzfia s . T h e as found in Virgil , Greek name ought to be , per

B ith b a s b haps , y , the having been omitted ; hence the name is 5293 11121 bN fiTIEl T h e 1 , and we must compare it with the biblical other Ph oenician name Often adduced to prove a north - Semitic

’ “ ” A 8 8a lo s N 1 3 }I T h e 1 origin is , his worshiper as well as the N are suffixes of the third person singular . Accord ing to these explanations there exists n o t the slightest point o f relationship between these names and the name Yahweh , in what E o ’ ever form it may be . ven if we did not accept Schr der s explanation , all we can say at the best is that the name Yahweh T in its Greek form sounds through these names . hat we find now and then traces o f that name in n o n - Hebrew names is not at

O f all strange , when we consider the tendency the ancients to worship gods other than their national deities . And it is doubtless the case here that individual men fo r an inexplicable reason worshiped Yahweh , though they did not know what

o t o Yahweh meant t the Hebrews . He was them a god like all

the rest . A still stronger reason , and to my mind a conclusive o n e m , is found in the fact that Yahweh , from earliest ti es onward , warred against the Canaanites . As such he is represented in the “ ” 45 o f D o f O T Song eborah , one the Oldest portions Of the ld esta

I n th i ment . s song it is Yahweh who completely destroyed the f a 4 “ o c . 20 . . 2 kings C naan ; f . vs Vss and , Yahweh , when thou

wentest forth from Seir , when thou marchedst from the region

41 C . e i l i i v um B a udi s s i n R li i hi h . . f esp c al y the dec s e arg ents of , e g onsg esc c te , Vol I , pp

218 sqq . 42 . 8 . 672 . 703 11 . 396 S i i 2 409 Aen ; ; l us . , etc . 43 44 S o P h On i z . m . 114 I i 2 Cf. chr der , G ra , p . . b d . , p . 15.

45 B i l x Of . spec al y the e cellent com m entary of Professor Moore . 1 8 ORIGIN AND INTERPRE T A T ION OF THE T ET RAGRAMMAT ON

o f E dom , the earth quaked , the heavens dripped , in connection

5s . with vss . qq , describe how Yahweh had from earliest times fought against the Canaanites for his people Israel .

T h e fact that we find many proper names , even till the time o f D 5373 t o avid , with has led many critics believe that the name 1 Yahweh is Of later date . In Chron . a person whose 7 2 5n . name is 3 is mentioned the same person is called in Sam , ’ 2—4 ud chaps . , Gideon s name is in J g . e 2 1 7 ’ 1113 . D while he is c lled in Sam . 3 One of avid s sons whose name was originally knows ” is called ‘ ‘ “ 2 D 2 1 5 . in Sam . 3 N God knows Men like avid and also Saul , whose loyalty to Yahweh cannot be questioned , gave to their children names which were compounds o f T his

537: e shows that at one time the name was us d innocently , simply meaning “ lord ” and having no connection whatever with the

- T h f o . e o Syro Ph enician deity , Baal discontinuation names compounded with 5372 after the time of D avid does n o t prove that

C o l e n z o Yahweh had just then been introduced , as seems to think , but rather the substitution of T1115: for 5372 seems to indicate ‘ ‘ o f ITI that the common people Israel confounded fi , the Baal of

Israel , with the Phoenician Baal . It has been held that the g o d whom Israel worshiped during

o f the period their sojourn in the wilderness was not Yahweh , 46 D a um e r but , according to Amos Chivan . identifies

H e Chivan with Moloch and Moloch with Yahweh . bases his ’ theory upon the fact O f Solomon s friendship with the Ph oenicians

2 . and upon Chron which verse , however , has reference

o f 2 only to the repairing the altar . Sam . is adduced by the same writer in proof o f his theory that D avid was a Moloch

T h e o f worshiper . very fact that Moloch was the national god

o f the Ammonites , and that only prisoners war were sacrificed T h t o . e him , is disastrous to this theory parallel passage in “ ” 1 Chron . reads and he sawed , but while he

o ut might saw them with saws , as Professor Smith points , T h e the other instruments would have no suitable verbs . Qeri in 2 Samuel is doubtless right , and we ought to read , instead

z i c k o f 7 57 b r . o 553 3 .2L 1 , 1 ; mold ; f 3 and m , and for

46 ' 1842 Der F euer un d M o l o c h di e n st der alten He br a e r , Braunschweig , .

47 m l Com m entary o n S a ue . 43 — ZA W 1882 . 53 72 . 14 . Of . . , , pp , espec O R IGIN AND INT ERPR E T A T ION OF T H E T ET RAGRAMMAT ON 19

‘ ’ ‘ ’ T 1 2 3 1 2 3 TI . TI read hese emendations , which furnish the most

do D natural reading , away entirely with the idea that avid sacri fi c e d his captives to Moloch o r any other deity ; but he put them to hard labor , which was a very natural thing for any oriental

T h o th e pOt e n t a t e to do . hese necessary emendations make the yp

f a um e r D N o r o D . sis and ozy rather doubtful was the tabernacle , D ’ as ozy imagines , a sanctuary of Baal ; but Yahweh s principal ,

o f perhaps his only , sanctuary at the time of Moses was the ark ‘ 9 T h e 5 the covenant . verse in Amos , chap . , upon which both D a um e r and D ozy have based their hypothesis is rather o f doubt

s ful genuineness . Besides , the two deities mentioned in thi verse 50 d ” 11 o . . 12 D are Assyrian deities 0 is the g Adar and (T (Arab / T h 51 1 . e E t D31 0 7 9 is Saturn verb must refer to the future , 26 which is the only grammatical construction possible . Vs .

: foretells , therefore , the judgment which is waiting for Israel “ T l ” T hey shal . take their gods and go with them into exile . his ,

v difli c ult howe er , opens a new y, as according to Hosea

n Isa . Jer . the gods of a co quered nation are taken away as booty by the victor , who takes them with him into his own country , and mainly for this reason the verse is regarded as an interpolation . Another fact which favors the idea that this verse is interpolated is that Amos nowhere charges Israel

w fo r . with idolatry , but ith an overzealousness Yahweh Well ’ hausen s Opinion that this verse has taken the place o f an earlier o n e , which contained a severe threat against Israel , seems to me ’ D a um e r . 5 s very plausible Hence Amos , chap . , supports neither

‘ ’ TI1TI D o z s theory that is identical with Moloch Chivan , nor y hypothesis that Israel commenced with a 532 worship and that

o f B a a l . the tabernacle was a sanctuary , the Phoenician deity ' ” A more plausible explanation o f the name TI ITI is that theory 53 o d which makes him the g of the Kenites . After Moses had E a d E fle o f . killed the gypti n , he to the land Midian , xod

Z o f (J) , and married ipporah , the daughter of the priest Midian , E 2 21 1 . : E T 1 : 6 xod (J) ; ( ) . his priest was a Kenite , Judg . " LXXA I1 N 7 2 d I1 71 . u . TI 2 2 read with 2 umb . J g 2 T 1

49 Wo ll . ki I S . . 9 . Cf hausen , zzen , Vol , p 50 . S K i 1 74 2 2 Cf S d . . chrader , tu u r t . , 8 , pp . 324 sqq . KA T . , pp . 44 q . 1 5 G e s e n ius - K G m m i k 2 119 e 6. e d 326 x i T s . 1 . autzsch , ra at , . , p . , ; Dr v er , en es , p , a , not 52 . i i D i e kl i h Cf H tz g , e nen P rop eten . 53 O . C . . T i e V l . G e c i li f h e i 55 . Ou t s h e d . 1 72 5 f , . 8 . P el erg e , etc , , pp sqq ; t nes o H story of

R li i . 85 S e G hi h e 3 d 1895 134 39 e g on , p ; tad , esc c t , 188 , pp . 130 sq . G . F . Moore , Ju g es , , p p . , 1 ,

179 K. u d R li i f I a l t h e E xi l 1 ; B d e , e g on o sr e to e , 898 .

54 C m m Cf. Moore , o entary , p . 32. 20 ORIG I N AND I N T E R PR E T AT ION OF T H E T E T RAGRAMMA T ON

o f Here Moses learned to know Yahweh , the god the Kenites , an

difi e r e d earnest , solemn deity , who greatly from the voluptuous

T h e f E gyptian gods . Kenites were a tribe o the Midianites ; 4 1 N . 1 o . : . a f . umb with Judg A part of the Kenites c c o m

a n i e d c N 10 2 4 2 . : 9 3 p the Israelites through the desert f umb . , and

- therefore received dwelling places in Palestine , Judg . in

the south of the country , in the neighborhood of their former

home . In later years they were frequently associated with the

1 N s Amalekites , Sam . umb . qq .

o f the T R Much is made fact by iele that the echabites , a

T h e Kenite tribe , were assiduous Yahweh worshipers . only passage which tells anything about the origin o f the R echabites

1 t o is Chron . according which passage Hamath was the R father of the house of echab , a Kenite , and from him descended F also the three families of Kenites which dwelt at Jabez . rom the fact that this careful statement is made we may conclude that R the echabites were not originally Hebrews , but were admitted into their community and religion . According t o Jer . a s o n R o n a da b of echab was J , who lived under Jehu and was noted for his being a very zealous Yahweh worshiper . Yahweh worship was fully established in Israel at this time . Is it , therefore , not surprising that not a single reference is made to the religious

? T h e belief of his ancestors reason lies , doubtless , in the fact that the R echabites who lived before Jo n a da b were n o Yahweh

s r . worshipers at all , which also the incident as related in J , chap .

3 5 . , seems to favor Besides , the passages which are adduced to prove the connection between the Kenites and R echabites

1 2 : 55 . 3 5 . . un ue s ( Chron Jer , chap ) are not such that we can q l T h t 1 “ ti o n a b . e y rely upon them s atement in Chron . Jabez ” G o d o f called upon the Israel , seems to point also to the fact 56 that these families were no Israelites , else the statement would

“ not be that Jabez called upon the God of Israel , but rather his ” o d T h e Ke n iti c R G . origin of the echabites cannot be firmly T established . hey were no Israelites . But even if the connec R tion between echabites and Kenites could be proved , the proba bi lit o f y is that the latter were a branch the Amalekites , with

n o t whom they are so frequently associated , and of the Midian

N o ites . one would dare to charge the Amalekites , in view of

55 56 ” S 5 . S o a a r t . o e . 3 e J R H W. also Budd , pp sq lso Furr r, abez , 57 S o a l M 34 o so Professor oore , p . ; f . note . ORI G IN A N D INT E R P R ET A T ION OF T H E T E T RAGRAMMA T ON 2 1

o f wo r what we know them , as having been at any time Yahweh

h i e r o f S s s . p In view these facts , and ince nothing is told as to ’ o f o n a da b s a n c e st o r s the religion J , but Jonadab is presented ‘

' c a s e o f rather as a zealot for Yahweh , which is often true in the R new converts , I conclude that the echabites accepted Yahwism

N O when they were admitted into the commonwealth o f Israel . E E . . 18 doubt the narrative as given in xod , chap ( ) , seems intended to convey the impression that the worship o f Yahweh had been practiced by the Kenites , though it is not expressly stated . Yet may we ask ourselves , if the Kenites were really Yahweh wor s h ipe r s : How is it that we do not find any traces of this worship among the nations with whom they came into s uch intimate rela

N s . e . 1 . . tions as , g . , the Amalekites , Sam umb qq , among whom they even sojour ned ? F o r true to their Bedawin

n o t d instincts they could stay long in one place , and soon roame about again and put up their tents wherever they found pasture .

So also Heber the Kenite left his southern home , Judg . a n d T h e o f pitched his tent by Kedesh . tendency the ancient peoples was to take up into their pantheon the gods Of other

o r nations , especially when such nations tribes were strong , and in particular when the g o d of those tribes o r nations proved to

e . . . be such a powerful one as , g , Yahweh But we do not find any traces o f Yahwism among the nations with whom the Kenites D came into close contact . oes not , therefore , the fact seem evi dent that the Kenites were no Yahweh worshipers at all , but like R the echabites , had accepted Yahweh from the Israelites at the earliest period o f the history of the Israelitish nation N one of the theories examined above gives an adequate

“ answer to the question o f the origin o f the name Yah weh T h e f T h e theory o an Accadian origin unquestionably breaks down .

o same is true in respect to a Ph enician origin , while the Greek

o o f writings d not prove anything , inasmuch as they are Gnostic T h h origin and of a very late date . houg t ere S eems to be a point o f contact between H a m a ti t e names and Yahweh which cannot e be explain d away , yet it is safer to accept the theory that some

d o f in ividual Syrians had accepted Yahweh as one their gods , which Schrader 58 consi ders may have been the case also with the

T h K n i r Assyrians . e e ti c o M idi a n i ti c origin cannot be firmly

S established , though there are , as I have hown , points which

58 a h r bil c h e r ur T l 1 7 7 J f p rotest. heo . , 8 5, p . 31 . 22 ORIGIN A N D INTERPRET A T ION O F T H E TETRAGRAMMATON favor such an origin ; yet the arguments against this theory are 59 fo r T weightier than the arguments such an origin . herefore , “ the hypothesis o f the introduction o f Yahwism from without must be definitely abandoned . If the advocates of this theory “ are to take any account at all o f the evidence of the historical h E documents , t en the gyptians are really the only people that “ 0 f . o can come into consideration However , the impossibility E identifying Yahweh with an gyptian deity has been shown above . It would be rather an astonishing phenomenon if a people

f r o . should accept a foreign name for its supreme , its only , deity It is fully established that the Israelites worshiped at times other

o f ud gods , and even recognized the reality other gods . In J g .

o d i e . Israel acknowledges Chemosh as a true g , . , the

o d n o national g of his people , the Moabites . His reality was

h . more doubted , at least in the earlier periods , t an that of Yahweh T o the fury of Chemosh Israel attributed the signal defeat which ff 2 f o . it su ered , according to Kings at the hand Moab

However , this does not make it less true that Yahweh was the d f only G o o the Israelites . I ask now : Would a people having

t o such a deep religious feeling as Israel , which state and religion seemed almost identical , call its God by a foreign name Would it give expression to its religious emotions , to the holiest senti ments which are born in the breasts of men , by calling upon a

n o t h deity which was distinctively Israelitis , but a strange god H o w utterly irreconcilable with this is the whole national life o f o ur " E Israel as it unfolds itself before eyes Surely gypt , a n e the , would be least of all the land which gav to the

f r N o r Israelites the name o their national deity . must we look for

T h e the origin o f this name among the Canaanites . war which the Israelites waged against them was a war of extermination ordered by Yahweh , which fact is certainly contradictory to the T view that Yahweh was an ancient Canaanitish deity . here is more foundation fo r the theory that Assyria is the land that gave

Israel the name for its deity . But even here the proofs adduced r in support o f the hypothesis are n o t so st ong as to be decisive .

We must look for the origin o f this name somewhere else . T h e fact that Yahwism was s o inextricably interwoven with the national life of Israel ought to lead us to seek fo r the origin

9 5 Kue n e n N i R i i iv e a i i i bb 1882 . 62 . , at onal el g ons and Un rs l Rel g ons , H ert Lectures, , p 6° Kue n n o . c i t . . 63 . e , p , p

24 ORIGIN A N D INT ERPRETATION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMA T ON

E f explicit statement in xod . and the fact that none o the “ 1 other compound names with H (Gen . Chron .

o f r o - t o are p Mosaic origin , seem favor the presumption that the

o f o ld n o t name of the mother Moses , provided the name is , was a compound with Perhaps we ought t o read with Well 62 “ I ka b o d hausen , or , what is still more plausible , as the name is preserved only by P , regard it as being introduced by P for

n o t dogmatic reasons . We are therefore justified in the least in going beyond the beginning o f the public career o f Moses in

' ” 6’ search for the origin of the name TIl TI . At the time o f the conquest the worship o f Yahweh had

“ 5 T h e 6 . . become an established fact , . g , Judg , chap . , Song of ” D T h e eborah . narratives in Judges and Samuel mention T E h e . Yahweh as a tribal deity of Israel . e xclamation in xod

“ 64 t o Sing ye to Yahweh , is very ancient , and seems be a

o f O E part the Mosaic portion of the poem . S also xod .

ill n n D 4 8 5s . c D m a é r e n b o ur A 18 7 . J . 6 f . , but read with g , , , pp qq ,

TI:D2 N2 2 instead of TI: D2 . T his would lead us to seek the origin o f the name in the time f T h T o . e O Moses whole ld estament agrees in this , that after the deliverance from E gypt a covenant was made bet ween Yah weh

o f i e and the Israelites at the foot Mount Sinai , . . , Yahweh was

f n o t formally accepted as the national God o Israel . It was 65 M o le kh or Baal with whom the Israelites covenanted and whom the people worshiped down to the time Of the captivity , and for whom Samuel and his school first introduced Yahweh as the

i a fr a us t o covenant god , making it a p , but Yahweh . Superior all doubts which have been expressed in regard to the deity accepted by the Israelites as their national god at the memo

- rable time at Mount Sinai is the self consciousness of the people , which has been recorded by their prophets , namely , that it was

o d Yahweh and no other g whom they accepted . Having estab li sh e d m this , we are prepared to express in definite ter s the

N o moment when this new religion was born . other moment

62 G hi h . . 360 A . esc c te , Vol I , p 63 i i v i R s s d sd i t V l . 276 S ur r e l N t h w G o e n s o . es o n e Ag a nst th s e see u u u, De , I , p ; p , ot

H b e w T x G e i 1887 . 376 E w T h o l uck e t a l . wh o m w e r e t of en s s , , p ; ald , , , hold that the na e Yah eh a s k i l i m il w perhaps now n as a desig nat on for e in a lim ited c rcle , at least in the fa y of i n i Moses or the tr be of Joseph . 64 . D il l m a n n i I d i A i v e v iew o r n ill E i n v 5 . C Cf ; Dr er . ntro uct on , th ed g a nst the abo , , lei tung , p . 61 . 65 66 D a um e r . Co l e n z o D i e I a li z u M kka . ; Dozy , sr e ten e ORIGIN A N D INT ERPRE T A T ION O F T H E TET RAGRAMMATON 25 can be pointed o ut for the birth o f this new religion than that E one in which the Israelites , freed from the bondage of gypt ,

o n e united themselves into nation formally at Mount Sinai . With

A n d the political birth of Israel Yahwism took its beginning . we cannot but “ recognize the fact that from the earliest times down to the Babylonian captivity Israel had its own national ” 67 T h e religion , which we can only call Yahwism . new name which Moses had introduced was , indeed , of greatest significance , E . l since a new government necessitates a new name . What

h a dda i n o o r S t . could did not do , Yahweh accomplished

T h e time of the origin of the name being decided upon , let us n o w e T h e consider the name its lf . name Yahweh occurs in the

O T o f ld estament times . It is the proper name the God f E o E . Israel and was revealed to Moses according to , xod 1 5and T herefore this God and no other god can be the

o d o f G the covenant . T here are two principal derivations which are offered fo r the

T h e name Yahweh . one is that it is a Qal form ; the other , first ’ i u i h i l G e s e n s H . suggested by , that it is a p form Almost all scholars agree that the root from which this noun is derived is ' ‘ H i h ’i l r TI fl 71171 . As a p form it is variously interp eted , thus “ T ” 69 i . h e e . He who brings to pass , , performer of his promises , ” ” 7° T h e - T one bringing into being , Life giver , Creator . reated “ : T h e o n e as a Qal form , the name is explained as meaning ever ” 71 “ G o d T h e coming into manifestation as the of redemption , ” 72 73 - N existing , ever living . estle inclines to Qal , though he is “ ’ T h e H i h i l undecided . Qal one who is p would convey the 74 “ ” o f D idea the Creator . river , He will approve himself . Jewish commentators derive the name from the Qal 522 72 “ ” 5 T h e PTI and interpret it as meaning absolute being . But as made known to Moses the name is a causative form 599 TU2 7J ’ ’ 12 1 P i é l n o H i h i l 1 TI t . a and a p It signified then the Creator ,

67 K n n ue e i bb t 1880 . 65. , H ert Lec ures , , p 68 P i H b w xi i P w rofessor Br g g s , e re Le con , ed ted by rofessor F . Bro n . 69 L a ZD M l 5 G . Vo . 1868 331 h . A n 1 . G ot . G l z . 88 . 91 . g arde , , XXII , , p ; t e e rt , , p 70 ’ “ ” S h i n S k l - e e B i b l xi k J e T . 77 . . 5 v Cf. h . c rad r chen s e Le on , art ah also es , p , note ; 2 KA T . . 25 Kue n e n R i i l n I l V l . I 279 T i l i i m é 34 o . . 5 , p ; , e g o of srae , , p ; e e , H sto re co p ar e , p ; L T l T i dsc h and , heo . j . , 1868 , p . 158 ; e t a l .

71 F r z i i 72 . G . 1888 . 113 . D ill m a n n . Del tzsch . enes s , Eng l transl . , , p 73 E i m . 9 91 a h r u 7 genna en , pp 8 , ; J b ch e r d . d . T heol . , 18 8 . 74 i i B bl . 17 o . B a udi ss in di V l 179 . 1 76 S m i B i is S o . . 8 . h a , p ; f also , tu en , I , pp sqq , ; R th , r t i a n d F E v l . R u i 75 . 9 . t a e . i i Z h if ur wi . T h l . 18 e l . ore gn ang e , Vol V ; H tz g , e tsc r t f ss eo , , pp sqq ; 26 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMATON he who has formed the world and in the same wonderful manner T forms the history of mankind . his last statement is supported 75 h e m o r a A r ib o by a quotation from S j g s . Most modern scholars ‘ o f I I I T derive the name from the Qal form T T TI1T . hough the O T H latter root is not found in the ld estament ebrew , it can be confidently affirmed to be a remnant of an older period in the

o f H development the ebrew language , as is also the case with

Compare the Arabic é; and Syriac 12m . “ ” T h e pronunciation of the tetragrammaton as Jehovah is an

T h e o f absurdity . earliest appearance this transliteration we find “ two o f fide i 127 8 n o t in passages the Pugio , , though it is

t o improbable that this is due a later copyist . We know for certain , however , that this misnomer was brought into prominence l i u f X T h G a a t n s o . e by Petrus , confessor Leo discontinuation o f the pronunciation o f the tetragrammaton by the Jews is doubt 16 less due to a misinterpretation of Lev . , in consequence f h o which t e name was considered too sacred to be pronounced . T h e 2 : word p which gave rise to this superstition , does not in 117 ” 11 17 5 m 2 5 “ any way support such an idea . 2 1 2 : y 12 he that f T blasphemes the name o Yahweh shall be put to death . his sentence does n o t contain the slightest intimation forbidding the

c o m pronunciation of this name , though the Jews explain the mand forbidding the pronunciation by the above passages .

o n e Another reason , and doubtless the primary , must be sought

n in the character of later Judaism , which e deavored after the “ o f disappearance the prophets , with whom also the living ”

- experience of the divine self manifestation disappeared , to put 77 between the unapproachable God and man mysterious media .

T hat this was the reason for the non - pronunciation of the name Yahweh is also proved by the fact that in the second book of the

53 a n d 70 6 . . Psalms the parallel psalms to the first book , g , ,

‘ ' " 14 —18 O TI5N fo r TIWTI parallel to and , have substituted , T ” “ P ‘ T1 so that we find such phrases as I TI 5N D TI5N s . D 5N ‘ P " c s . e t TI5N T11N2 2 D TI5N . . etc , As such a mysterious si medium the name Yahweh was perhaps con dered , and it was pronounced only on certain solemn occasions . We may perhaps infer from Jo m a VI : 2 that this name was pronounced o n the D a y

75 e i m i Ze i ts ch r i t il r I /uth . T h l . 1877. Ahron b n El ah , q uoted fro Del tzsch , f f eo , 76 Cf. E w a D i e h d . B i b l o n . 336 1. v G . ld , Le re e ott, Vol II, p , note 77 O . A i i i 2 4 f Josephus , nt qu t es, II , c . 1 , . ORIGIN A N D INT ERPRE T A T ION OF T H E T ET RAGRAMMA T ON 27

o m a S o f Atonemen t . In J III it is expressly tated that the divine 78 o n D a name was invoked twelve times the y of Atonement . According to Mishna T amid VII : 2 ; Sota VII : 6 the name was

- T h e pronounced in the high priestly blessing . Massoretic text

T h e does not give us even a clue as to the pronunciation . tetra “ r a m m a t o n 1 T IN o d g s generally pointed like , although the initial y ’ Sh wa receives only the simple , while prefixes receive the vowel

’ ' ‘ o f wa . TI ITI the following compound sh If , however , is pre ‘ ' f ‘ I IN o j e . D E T 5N TI . ceded by , it receives the vowels TI f , g ,

D . E Gen . eut Isa . zek . " " Amos etc . TIjTI occurs times ; TI1TI is found T h e am 305times . Septuagint translation o f the tetragr maton is always Kfip t o s “ T IN T h e pronunciation o f the first syllable of the tetragrammaton 1 4 9 10 “ P " 2 9 . : B is fixed by the following names 2 Chron , ;

1 o ni o n 6 : 66 1 7 3 5 . 6 . } 2 53 . , p : Chron 3 Gen , 252 2 . : 6 s 179 2 Gen q . “ A great variety o f transliterations of the name TI 1I1 is found F 80 in the Greek and Latin athers . Clemens of Alexandria reads ’ 81 I a o v ‘ O 1TI . , which doubtless points to the abbreviation rigen l a w w I S “T I a — A reads , hich perhaps C, and also I H , which very probably represents I T h e most important reading is that

E i h a n e s o f found in p p , in his catalogue divine names , and that 82 ’ ” o f T h e o do r e t I a e 121 T , who both write and pronounce B T1 his . m t o pronunciation rests upon living tradition , as they clai have o T r o n un btained it from the Samaritans . hat this was the true p 83 c i a ti o n R is attested by the fact that . Mana , who lived in the fourth century after Christ , said that the Samaritans pronounced

n the holy name in oaths which the Jews should o t imitate . If

n o t the Samaritans had employed the right pronunciation , there would have been no reason for R . Mana to make such a state ment , since to use a substitute , as the Jews themselves did , 2 12 1512 3 was perfectly allowable . Such substitutes were 31 ; 12 ; 2 1 2 . 2 2 Besides , the Samaritans had no reason , as the Jews

I . magined that they had , to keep the pronunciation secret All

78 J l m T m 1 45 l v i t . M o s . erusa e al ud , ed . 5 ; cf. also Phi o , De , III . 79 7 . T ZA W. 1883 . 286 . B a udi s s i n . 1 6 Cf h l . Ti d 1868 i i Land , eo j . , ; D etr ch , , , pp sqq ; , p ; el i P di D tzsch , ara es . 80 31 82 S tr o m a t . 666 I n D a n . ua e s t 15i n E xo d o . , V , . , Q . 83 . T a l . e r S a h 1 m m A n u d ei s hi h 1889 . . G a d o a n G Cf j n , X, ; Dal an , Der ottesn e j s ne e c c te , , p . 41 , note . 28 ORIGIN AND INTERPRET A T ION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMATON this favors the pronun ciation of the tetragrammaton as TIjUj ; besides , the abbreviation can easily be accounted for , if the word 84

. S O is so pointed far as the form is concerned , it can be either ‘ 85 ‘ r i h i l T h e H i h i l Qal o H p . most weighty argument against the p form lies in the fact that the verb ' TI " TI " I1TI does not occur in O T the ld estament writings in that form , but the Piel takes its

E r z . D place ; hence elitzsch , for instance , formerly derived the tetragrammaton from that stem . T h 1 1 e divine name Yahweh occurs in Genesis 6 times . All

t o o r E the passages in which the name occurs belong J J , with

21 : 1b t o the exception of , which belong P , and also which belongs to a special source . J does not mention anything in regard to a revelation of the name Yahweh , but seems to assume that it existed before the time f E o v e o . . . Moses , being known even to Adam and ( f Gen , chaps

2 and and therefore uses it freely . T 7‘ On the lists of hutmoses III . we find the names 5N2 P3 and 85 ‘ f r T 5N2 0 o . , the full names Jacob and Joseph hese names 7 ' " 2 5 “ : 5N3 7 L . . belong to the same category as 2D Gen , chap , May ‘ I " 3 2 “ 5N I . . God hear ; D Gen , chap , May God strive ; “ : “ d o . G o s w ba rn . Josh May , Josh May . T h v o lun t a ti v e T e e s . build . verbs in these nam s are hese

o w e t o names their origin certain historic events , and are pri f T marily invocations o deities . hus when a town was built a deity was invoked under whose protection the population placed 32 " “ itself . Such an invocation was doubtless 5N May God “ ” T h " “ . e 5N2 build , viz the city names P May God sup ‘ ” 2 . o ur 5NEOT plant viz , enemies , and May God increase , ” u 88 viz . , us , have doubtless a similar origin . M ller thinks that

c an these names have reference only to cities , but admits that in this case he cannot see what the relations of these two cities were

- l - l T t o the two persons Ja c o b e and Jo s e ph e . hough the fact that 5N ' 2 3 D 5N ' CD1" these two cities existed , bearing the names P and j , t o o f respectively , is a proof him the great antiquity of these two hero names , I think it best to regard these two names as very

- T h e ancient war cries . tribes of Jacob and Joseph , pastoral

H o f ebrew tribes which were roaming over the plains Syria ,

84 " 85 m m b . 29 . Cf . the apocopated for of the i perfect of fl 5v er s . Cf. pp sq

85 M x M r Of . W. a fil l e , A si en un d E urop a , p . 163 .

87 88 Cf. G b w P 2 i I b d . 164 . ray , He re rop er N am es , p . 18 . , p . ORIGIN AND INT ERPRET A T ION OF T H E T ET RAGRAMMA T ON 29 invoked their tribal deities under the respective names 5N3 P3 " ' T h e bNE . and DT weaker tribe , Joseph , subsequently joined the

T h e s n o ikis m o s stronger tribe , Jacob . y to which this led found

- expression in another tribal invocation or war cry , namely , W " 89 “ E u . . 5N 12 . In this same category belongs r n In xod 1 5we find statements which seem to be an interpretation of this 14 ‘ “W ‘ v s . 0. N 1UN H N name . In the divine name is H H H this is 14 ‘ 1 5 b . shortened in vs . to H H N and in vs the name is given as P " ‘ " H TT . 71171 is third person singular imperfect Qal of fl fl 117 1 “ ” H e T and signifies will be . his , however , would be a very

T h e imperfect and unsatisfactory meaning . question naturally s ? arise , He will be what As we have seen in connection with the other names , either their origin was due to a historic occur

" - rence o r they were war cries . So also the name T1TH must have taken its origin under similar conditions , and , like those names , - " was originally SN T ho l contracted into When we c o n sider the conditions in which the Israelites were at the time when

Moses revealed to them this new deity , we cannot but , in view of a what was said in regard to the other names , look upon this n me as expressing a relationship into which this deity intended to F enter with the Israelites . orsaken , oppressed , without rights , crushed to the ground , they needed a mighty helper who would be with them . And this seems to me to be the full meaning of

“ ” 9° “ T h e this name , God will be with us . phrases , I will be with ” “ ” “ o u thee , I will be with y , He will be with us , ring through ‘ T 7 ’ o f e n c o ur the whole Old estament . j 33 H H N was the word a g e m e n t which Moses received when he still hesitated to g o and

d E o t o o . S fulfil what he had been ordered , xod also D 2 3 . Joshua ( eut . ; Josh received the assurance “ ” “ that he will not be alone , but that He will be will be with T h ud e . him . same interpretation is implied in J g 7 7 ' - “ “ “ 1333 I m l and if He will be be with us and also Judg . “ 7 7 ‘ “ ” “ ” N 133 H H N I will be will be with thee . In umb . Yahweh ’s relationship to the whole people is expressed in

" ' ‘ “ ” “ ” the words Dh N l fifl fi but He will be will be with us . T hat the name was understood to express this relationship

o f becomes clearer when we consider some , the negative phrases N e . . . in which this relationship is expressed ; g , umb we read , “ ‘ ’ ‘ ’ Because ye turned away from He will be , He will be will not

89 i i . Sk i i w l 1898 . Of . Muller , b d . , and G H . ipwith , Jew sh Quarterly R ev e , Ju y,

90 S m m E x i T i m 1 9 S ki w i o also Ho el , p os tory es , October , 8 8 ; p th . 30 O R IG IN AND INT ERPRE T A T ION OF T H E TETRAGRAMMATON

- ' . u p ; w s c ia as be with you ; Josh a q , Yahweh will e r D fi fl sever this relationship , becaus the Is aelites have become b, “ ” n o o d and therefore He will be can longer be G with them . F rom these passages we learn that the emphasis is laid upon the

o f o d t o preposition which expresses the relation G his people . T his leads me to the conclusion that the writers must have c o n

‘ " s ide r e d D 573}? H H N as being synonymous with 137237 T h e former expression is that which is put into the mouth of the deity , while the latter is used by man . T hat this was the original meaning is also confirmed by three — 16 2 E 21 E 0 . 1) E J . passages , Gen . (J) , vs . ( ) , vs ( ) In 1 3 ” ” vs . Yahweh reveals himself to Jacob in the words 71171 EN ” 1 5 . . DfiN . then in vs he says , which is the assurance In vs

‘ ' W 20 “ 17337 D TIBN W D N v o w Jacob says , W and continuing his in 21 . : “ ‘ ’ v s . r m ba b 5m m m he says , m then He will be shall d ” be to me for a g o . All these sources are in harmony with what has been said above . " Skipwith thinks he finds traces o f the original usage o f D PS (SN ) and 5N fi12 ‘ as invocations still lingering in the times o f 4 1 2 U . 8 : . the Great nknown , in Isa , It is true , he argues

n o t . . from the traditional pointing , but this is permissible Isa

44 : 5 ff as it stands o ers much difficulty , as it would make Jacob a

D - god , but even a superficial study of eutero Isaiah would show

t o the monstrosity of such a conception . We ought , therefore , N 2 “ ” N H ) 31 35" read ]? he calls himself , instead of L; and for 35“ “ we ought to read Pual 71 Compare II , go by a sur T “ name . hen the parts in question would read , and this one calls himself by the name of Jacob , and receives the

T h e surname Israel . verse has reference to strangers , who will “ o f attach to themselves the names honor , sons of Jacob , “ ” 92 T Israelites . his necessary emendation excludes all reference to any such conception as that of which Skipwith seems to find

a n d 2 traces in this verse , which verses he supports with

H e , however , well remarks that we find in the name

o f o f Immanuel (Isa . an exact equivalent the name the D f eity o Israel . T his interpretation of the tetragrammaton seems to me to be more satisfactory than any other . Considering the circumstances

E t o under which this name , according to , was revealed Moses ,

91 S o a l E G a h m e t a l . so Oort , yssel , r tz , Du , 92 m m a n - K m . ie D il l m a n i . Cf co ent r s of ttel , Duh

T VI A .

1 1 873 I was born August , , in Crefeld , Germany . When I sailed fo r America in 1890 I was in the Unter - Prima of the R eal

o f 1 8 4 schule at Crefeld . In the spring 9 I entered the Bloom T T field heological Seminary . here , and with a competent private teacher , I completed the study of the Greek and Latin classics , 1895 as demanded in the German Gymnasium . In the fall of N e w T 1 898 I entered the Brunswick heological Seminary . In I was graduated and received from R utgers College the degree ’ o f D T h e B . . two years special work which led to this degree

t wo was done under Professor Lansing , the courses being Arabic O T D and ld estament studies . uring my theological course I studied also Semitic languages with Professors Prince and O N e w U . 1898 sborn , of York niversity In the year I received

N e w the degree of Master of Arts from the York University . — In 1898 99 I took a post - graduate course in Union T heological F Seminary , in the Semitic department , with Professors rancis F f . o D Brown , Briggs , and agnani I received the degree octor

N e w U 1899 . of Philosophy from York niversity ,

R ETUR N TO th e c irc ulatio n d e sk o f a ny Un iv e rsity o f C alifo rn ia Lib ra ry o r to th e N O RTHER N R EG IO NA LLIBR A RY FA C ILITY 4 R i h m o n d Fe d St t o n B d . 00 c a l g . i l i Un iv e rsity o f C alifo rn ia

- R ic h m o nd , CA 94804 4698

A LLBO O KS MA Y BE R ECA LLED A FTER 7 D A YS

2 - m o nth lo a ns m a y b e re ne we d b y c alling

(510) 642 - 6753

I - ye a r lo a ns m a y b e re c h a rg e d by b rin gin g b o o ks to N R LF R e ne wals a n d re c h a rg e s m a y b e m ad e 4 ri t t d ays p o r o d ue d a e .