THE ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY TO THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, 1 899 BY HANS H. SPOER PRINTED BY ^be inniverditis o( Cbicago press CHICAGO THE ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY TO THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, 1 899 HANS H. SPOER PRINTED BY Zbe TUnlversitg of Cblcago ipress CHICAGO /Va^^ PREFACE. The problem which the question after the origin and inter- pretation of the Tetragrammaton offers to the historical student of the Old Testament is one of the most fascinating ones of the many which the Jewish Scriptures present. Unfortunately the material from which to work is not very large. As the sources outside of the Old Testament are of a rather doubtful value, we are eompelled to base our investigations mainly upon the few statements contained in the Jewish writings and the study of the historical development of (1) the political status of the Hebrews, and (2) the religious belief of 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 for the kind interest which he has always taken in my work and for his suggestive instruction. I also gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to my teacher, Professor F. Brown. To his inspiring teaching I owe my love for the historical study of the Old Testament. His kind interest has never been wanting, and to him I owe many valuable sug- gestions. My thanks are also due to my teacher, Professor Osborn, for his teaching and the kind interest he has taken in my work. This dissertion was completed in the summer of 1899. Cir- cumstances prevented me from referring to the latest literature on the subject. Hans H. Spoee. New York, October, 1901. THE ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON. The most primitive name of God found in the Old Testament is b^Ti . The root of the word is doubtful. The question of the etymology is very intricate and the conclusions are dubious. Some derive the word from the stem b^J}^ ;' others derive it from the stem TOU^ , with reference to aJf , though the meaning they give to this root varies. This name is very rarely used in prose. According to E bsj^ was the God of the patriarch Jacob, whose center of worship was Bethel, Gen. 31:13; 35:1-3. In early poetry b5< seems to have become a proper name. It is used 217 times. The divine name C^SlbS is a jjluralis majestaticus. It is characteristic of Ephraimitic writers. J uses it chiefly in poetry, e. g., Gen. 3:16, 3, 5; 9:27; 39:9; 44:16; Deut. 32:17, 39. P employs it in Genesis 78 times. DTlbiS is used to signify the God of Israel 2,400 times ; it designates rulers 170 times, e. g., Exod. 21:6;'" "angels," D^nbx (H ^Dn Job 1:6, "divine beings") Gen. 1:27; "gods," e. g., Exod. 18:11. The question arises now, Is Elohim connected with El ? The probability that D^Ilbi^ is a plural of b&< is very strong. There exists in biblical Aramaic^ a number of words with two consonants which insert a iH in form- ing the plural form, e.g., 2i^ "father," plur. I^PQIS* ; DTT "name," plur. "pn^Jir ; also Syriac :' ]!,] "father," plur. )z^| ; )^] "mother," plur. |^(^] ; ]Lso| "female servant," plur. jzoiio] . We have also a Hebrew word which forms the plural in this manner : H^^U^ "female servant," plural form tTin^Jl^ . iGesenins, Thesaurus; F. Hitzig, Zeitschrift filr wiss. Theol., Vol. XVIII; T. NOldeke, ilfB^Tr.,1880, p. 774. la Against this interpretation see ZAW., Vol. XI, pp. 181 sg. 2 Cf. Marti, Grammat. d. bibl. Aram., § 76. 3 Cf. Brockelmann, Syrische Grammatik, % 118. 5 O OFJG:i:K ANT? INTEEPEETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON In this way we may also account for the H in DTibi^ . The 6 is due to the fact that the primitive Semitic d has per- petuated itself only in rare instances, having usually changed into ^/ Noldeke thinks that there may be a possible connection between bi< and DTibsj^ . Another name given to God is ffbi^ . This name occurs 52 times in the Old Testament. Of these it is found 42 times in the book of Job. In pre-exilic times this name is employed only twice, Deut. 32:15, 17, provided this poem is not post-exilic. In fact, such words as 'T'iS! , rilD^Sriri , and ^B3 , which are of a very late origin, would forbid us to regard Deut., chap. 32, as being pre-exilic. CornilP says: "We scarcely dare take an earlier date for the poem than the end of the Babylonian exile, if we have not to assign it to a much later date." Ps. 18, in which this name occurs, I believe belongs to a period not prior to that of Ezra and Nehemiah, perhaps to a very late period. Duhm, in loco, regards the psalm as "sehr jung," and assigns it to the second century, to the times of the Hasmoneans. It is remarkable, how- ever, that Wbs is employed only once in the whole psalm, while in all the other cases the ordinary term for God is used. In the parallel passage, 2 Sam. 22:32, we have bu^ ; it leaves, there- fore, no doubt that ffbjJ^ is an insertion by a later editor. The other passages where the word Wbu^ occurs as a designation of the God of Israel are Pss. 50:22; 114:7; 139:19; Prov. 30:5; Isa. 44:8; Hab. 3:3; Neh. 9:17. None of these passages is pre-exilic. Hab., chap. 3, does not belong to the genuine prophecy, but is a much later addition. This shows that ffbi< has not been used in the Old Testament previous to the times of the exile nor during the exile. Therefore, if J^'bbi is the singular form of D^nb^ , the very curious fact presents itself to us that the plural form has been in use centuries before even anyone thought of iTsing the singular form. It is much easier, however, to account for the form nbi< as being an artificial poetic singular obtained by inference from Elohim. Plbu^ is used a number of times, not of the God of Israel, but of a heathen deity, e. g., 2 Chron. 32:15; Dan. 11:37-39; Hab. 1:11; 2 Kings 17:81, Kethib; Job 12:6. Hab. 1:11 does not belong to the genuine prophecy ; vss. 5-11 were inserted by a later hand. Hence all the passages in which nb!!< occurs are late. ♦ Cf. Stade, Hebraische Oram., § 77a. 5 Einleitung, 4th ed., 1896, p. 64. ORIGIN AND INTEEPRETATION OF THE TETRAGEAMMATON 7 The name "'31!^ , signifying "my Lord," was a divine name in Judah at an early period. When it referred to God it was always written with a Qamets in the final syllable, but with Pathach when it had reference to man. The word is an intensive plural denoting excellency, as is also DTlblJ^. It occurs 485 times in the Old Testament. In later times copyists substituted this name for tTlTT' . T\^^'2'2 , used with ^l^'^'' , another name for God, seems to have originated from the conception of ni»T' as the God of the covenant of David. As nii^QiS he is the god of the battle array of Israel. Some, however, refer it to the heavenly hosts and hosts of Israel. But the conception that he is the God of the heavenly hosts is a much later conception. The name signifies "God of hosts," God being implied. Altogether it occurs 285 times. By these few which I have chosen from the many names given to the Israelitish deity in the Old Testament, we see that each one signifies something definite. As bi< he is either the Strong One or "the one whom men strive to reach," "das Ziel aller Menschen Sehnsucht und alles Menschenstrebens."® As C^Ilbs^ he is the true God Kar' e|o%^J^- As inl^H^ he stands in a definite relationship to David and Israel. This leads us to the conclusion that the different 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 characteristic of the person or god to whom it was given, or it expressed a certain relationship between the person or the god thus named and the people. The most important name given to the Israelitish deity in the Old Testament is the one expressed by the tetragrammaton niH''. Whence does it come and what does it mean ? The name Yahweh is explained by some^ as being con- nected etymologically with the Indo-Aryan " Jovis." It is, then, derived from 6tv "to shine," hence Yahweh would signify the "bright ether." This name is also declared to be ideally, though not etymologically, related to "daeva," "deus." Thus the name 6 Lagardo, Orientalia, Vol. II, p. 3; GOtt. Nachrichten, 1882, p. 173. 7 Von Bohlen, Genesis, p. ciii ; Vatke, Die bibl. Theol. wissenschaftl. dargest., p. 672 ; J. G. MuUer, Die Seniiten in ihrem Verhdltnisse z. d. Chaniiten und Japhethiten, 1872, p. 163; Schlottmann, Buch Hiob, c. 12, 8 sq. [For a recent statement of this view, with some new features of special interest, see Thomas Tyler, " The Origin of the Tetragrammaton," Jetvish Quarterly Review, Vol. XIII, pp. 581-94. — Editors.] 8 OEIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON would signify the "High One," the "Heavenly."* But there is so little common to both languages of which we can speak with any degree of certainty that we cannot think of deriving nilTT' from the Indo-Aryan stem Biv. The untenableness of this deriva- tion was already recognized by F. Tuch,^ who says: "The simi- larity of mn"' with Jovis, Jupiter, which is insufficient enough in itself, disappears entirely when the name is pronounced rightly niri^ = Jahve." Hitzig^" derives the name from the same idea as that seen in the Armenian "Astuads" = the one who is. He does not, however, derive the name from that word. The relationship of this name to "Astuads" is an ideal one, and not an etymological or linguistic one. Moses, he claims, formed after this one ("Astuads") his new divine name, but only because his spirit was prepared to conceive the idea. Thinking over the mean- ing contained in "Astuads," he recognized its truth and depth." But Hitzig does not state by what means Moses came to know the Armenian "Astuads." The improbability of such a connec- tion or derivation of " Yahweh" from "Astuads" is plain, because no traces of the knowledge of that name which would warrant such a theory are found in Egypt. Egypt, more than any other country, has been considered the land in which the name Yahweh originated. Lieblein advanced the theory that Moses was a disciple of the priests of On-Heli- opolis. These priests taught in esoteric doctrine the monotheistic conception of God. This conception they expressed in the name of that deity Chepara, i. e., the One who is. Moses accepted this name for his deity and also the idea which this name conveyed, and expressed it in the tetragrammaton nUl"^ = the One who is. Again Yahweh has been identified with the Egyptian moon-god. Roth'^ says in a very positive way: "That the Egyptian pictures of gods appear as oracle-pictures of the Hebrew high-priest will not seem strange to the one who considers more carefully that the whole Hebrew cult is of Egyptian origin, and that one of the two deities of light I02 became the Hebrew national god Tl'' , nin^ , Ia&)." We cannot pronounce with any degree of certainty 8 Cf. Ewald, 6 VI., Vol. II, pp. 203 sgg. " Genesis erklart, 1838, 2te Auflage, 1871, p. xxvii. 10 Geschichte d. V. Is., I, p. 81. " Cf. Vorlesungen ilber bibl. Theol., herausgeg. von J. J. Kneuken, 1880, p. 38. ''•i Geschichte unserer abendl. Philos., 1, p. 175, note. ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 9 what the Urim and Thummim were, though it is generally sup- posed that they were stones with which lots were cast, and not pictures. ^^ That the whole Israelitish cult is of Egyptian origin is an assumption which no one now accepts. Even the worship of the golden calf, which has been identified by some with Apis or Mnemis, cannot be proved to be such ; for the worship of bulls as symbols of divine power is met with in all ancient religions, and is by no means peculiar to Egypt. The Egyptian phrase, "Nuk pu nuk," is considered by some'* as being the original from which the thought expressed in the name Yahweh has been derived. This derivation rests upon a misconception of the Egyptian phrase, which is an everyday expression and does not contain any mysterious doctrine.'^ The statement made by Diodorus Siculus, I, 94, that the name Jao was found upon the breastplate of the Egyptian priests is without any historic proof, hence worthless. I agree with Kuenen,'^ at least in so far as the non-Egyptian origin of Yahwism is concerned, when he says that the documents upon which are based the theories of the Egyp- tologists "favor the idea that Yahwism was roused from its slum- ber by the Egyptian religion, and was made conscious of its own characteristics by its conflicts with it, rather than that it sprang out of a faith from which it is seen to he radically different." Even the casual reader of the story of the exodus will notice at once that what the writer wants to present is the struggle between the God of Israel and the gods of Egypt. The later prophets" dwell with predilection upon the fact that Yahweh had delivered the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt. It is therefore hardly credible that Moses should have chosen out of the Egyptian pantheon a name for his god, or the god himself. The fact that the exodus was the result of the superiority of the new god over the Egyptian gods would also forbid our seeking for the origin of this the most sacred name of the Israelitish deity in the esoteric teaching of the priests. In view of the existing antagonism between Yahweh and the Egyptian gods, it seems to me doubtful whether the Israelites borrowed anything from their cult or teaching. 13 Cf. Muss-Arnolt, "Urim and Thummim," AJSL., 1900. 1* Wahrmund, Babylonierthum, Isr, und Christenthum, 1882, p. 119. 13 Cf. Le Page Renouf . ^^Hibbert Lectures, 1882, pp. 64 sg. i7£.£r.,Hos. 12:10; 13:4; Amos 2:10; 3:1. 10 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON There are two other theories. The first one I shall only men- tion ; it is the identification of Yahweh with the Indian god Agnis.'* The second one is that by A. K6musant, "M^moire sur Lao-tseu." He identifies the three signs I H W, which he says express the name of the god of Laotse, with 'law. The three signs he pronounces Ii-hl-wei, and this word he declares to be of foreign origin. That the tetragrammaton has been reduced to a trigrammaton he declares to be due to the fact that the last Jl of niH"' was not heard. Victor von Strauss-Torney ^' seems to favor the idea that there was at least some connection between Israel and China. He adduces for proof Isa. 40:4, which is found according to him almost literally in chap. 22 of The Sayings of the Ancients, and also Isa, 49:12, according to which China was known to the Hebrews, That this verse refers to the Chinese is by no means a new theory. As early as the sixteenth century we find that Arias Montanus interprets this verse as having reference to the Chinese. Granted that U^TD 'J"^^ refers to China,^" all it would prove in this case is that Laotse accepted the name of the God of Israel for his deity. But doubtless this mysterious name refers to some other land than China, and in that case the trigrammaton would not prove very much. There would then be no means of showing that it is an abbreviated form of Hin^ . The latest commentators have given up this theory and refer I'^D either to Pelusium (c/. Ezek. 30:15 sq.) or the desert TD . Others, again, have thought of the Egyptian city JlDlD which is mentioned in Ezek. 29:10; 30:6. In that case we have to change the name to D''D10 . It is almost certain that the name Tschin, or Tsin, for China is derived from the Tsin dynasty, which began to reign in 255 B, C. The pronunciation "j^D for Tschin is Greek (Ptol. 7:3), while the Arabs pronounced it i^vy^ = l"'!! . The LXX translators had no idea that this verse had reference to China ; they read Hepcrwz/. Duhm in his commentary refers D^'j'^D to the Phoenician Sinites, mentioned in Gen. 10:17, because Deutero-Isaiah lived among them. However, he calls this theory "eine Hypothese der Verzweiflung," "Yet," he says, "it seems 18 J. B. F. Obry, Jehova et Agnis, etc., Paris, 1870. 19 ZA W., 1884, pp. 31 sqq. ; Delitzsch, lesaia, 3d ed. ; excursus by v. Strauss. 20 So Gesenius, Thesaurus, pp. 948 sqq. ; Lassen, Ir. Alter thumskunde ; Cheyne and Delitzsch commentaries, et al. For the whole question see the RWB., and also T. de Lacouperie in Bahyl. and Orient. Bee, 1, 1886, 1887, ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 11 as if also in 41 : 27 ; 44 : 26 our Unknown were speaking of himself in the same veiled manner." China is out of the question, but it seems to me that the "hypothesis of desperation" is not such a hopeless one after all. Besides, the passages in question are considerably younger than the writings of Laotse, who was born about 604 B. C, while the Great Unknown was active more than sixty years later ; hence von Strauss's theory is not supported by those passages. It is quite natural that the minds of scholars should have turned to Babylonia, the ancient seat of culture, to find a solu- tion for this problem. Two reasons especially favor the theory that Babylonia is the land where the name niri'' originated. Unlike Egypt, there is no conflict recorded between Babylonia and Israel, i. e., between the God of Israel and the gods of Babylonia, at least not at so early a date as that recorded of Egypt. The second reason, which carries with it, perhaps, more weight than the first one, is the similarity of the languages, and the presence in the Assyrian language of a syllable which sounds like the abbreviated form of nin^ , namely. Yah or Yahu. Besides these two reasons a third one is frequently adduced to prove that there existed at one time a close connection between the Assyrians and the Hebrews. We find reference to this in the following passages: Gen. 11:28-30; 12:l-4rt; 15:7; 22:20 sqq.j chap. 24; 27:43; 28:10; 2^-Asqq. These are all J pas- sages. Unquestionably J is emphasizing the fact that Abraham and his relatives resided in Mesopotamia. Gen. 11:31 (P) con- ceives of Ur Kasdim and Haran as two distinct places. In Gen. "* 12:46, 5 (P) Haran is made the point of departure for Canaan, According to Gen. 11:31 Terah and his family start from Ur Kasdim. The existence of the name Ur Kasdim in both J and P admits of only one explanation, viz.: "the presen(^''of it among the historical materials on which these narrati"s^s are based." Ur Kasdim has been identified with Uru Mukayyar. Though 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 for the Hebrews.^' The supposed proof for a Babylonian derivation is found in the great Khorsabad inscription of Sargon. On this inscription 21 Cf. Professor Francis Brown, D.D., " Ur Kasdim," Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, December, 1887. 12 ORIGIN AND INTEKPRETATION OF THE TETEAGRAMMATON a King Ja-u-bi-di = Jahubid is mentioned. This word is pre- ceded by a determinative for a person and one for a deity. Schrader^^ concludes from this that Ja-u or Jahu was held, at least by the writer, to be the name of a deity. In the cylinder inscription of Khorsabad the name of the same king is given as I-lu-u-bi-di, i. e., Ilubi'di. Ilu = god is there substituted for Jahu, which therefore can be only a divine name. Such changes occur very frequently in Hebrew. Jahu suggests the Hebrew ^IT' , ?'. e., "111''. From the occurrence of Jaubi'di and Ilubidi Tiele^^ concludes that Jau must have been with the Assyrians synonymous with II u. However, when speaking of the Assyrians in such connections as the above, it seems to me necessary to exclude the non-educated classes and include only the educated people, and in particular the scribes. It had become the custom of the Assyrian kings to extend their conquests to the west, e. g., Shalmanassar II., Tiglath-Pileser III., but especially Sargon. It is doubtless due to this fact that the scribes came to know these two names, Jau and II u, which were given to the same deity. For how else could we account for the occurrence of the name of the Hamatesian king in two different forms in Assyrian inscriptions ? But, after all, Jahu has not yet been proved to be the name of an Assyrian deity, inasmuch as the name of the Hamatite king can certainly not be considered as conclusive so far as Assyria is concerned. Fried. Delitzsch^* declares Ja-u to be a declined form of ^ , and therefore the sup- posed Yahweh is nothing more than a '' . The same scholar^* declares that the tetragrammaton should not be derived from nin , but that we should seek it from the original forms ^n^, tT*, ■^ . He says that ^!T' is not of Hebrew origin, though he con- cedes that nin*' at least is of Hebrew coinage ; the original word, however, is of Babylonian origin. According to this theory the form commonly used by the Israelites was not the longer form Yahweh, but Yahu or Yah. Delitzsch's theory is supported also by Hommel,''*^ who states that the oldest form of '^^T^'' is Ya, la, Yau, and that this name was identical with the Babylonian divine name Ea. This ancient Semitic divine name Ya was, according to 22 Cf.KAT.2, pp.23 sq. 23 Babyl. Assyr. Geschichte, 1886, p. 259. 2* Assyrische Lesestiicke, 1876, p. 18. 25 Wo lag das Paradies? 1881, pp. 158 sgg. 26 Expository Times, 1898, p. 144. ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 13 that theory, transformed at the time of Moses into Yahweh, and this gave it a new meaning."' Professor HommeP** identifies also the two Assyrian deities Ea and Sin with one another, and shows this by the so-called parallelismus membrorum of the fol- lowing passage taken from the "Journey of Ishtar to Hades": Then went forth Shamash, before his father wept he ; Before Ea, the king, came his tears. Upon this he builds the theory that Ea = Aa, who again was in primitive times identified with Sin, and is the same as Ya = Yahweh. The form Aa or Ya merely presents a somewhat modified phonetic transcript of the name borne by the god of Eridu. Margoliouth,"^ who also identifies Ea with Sin, and in turn again with Yahweh, says that the Israelites received this name from Abraham, who came from Ur, in Chaldea, the primeval sanctuary of the moon-god. At their departure from Egypt, the Israelites of the exodus were first led to Sinai, the ancient sanc- tuary of the moon-god, and here they solemnly adopted him as their deity. These are the most important theories about a Babylonian origin of Yahweh. We will now examine these theories somewhat more closely. According to Fried. Delitzsch the form ordinarily used was the shorter form M"' and not the longer mri"'. Against this is the fact that n"* occurs only in poetry, very seldom in early writings ; cf. Exod. 15:2, "My strength and (my) song is Yah" (17:16). In Exod. 15:2 it occurs for the first time. However, this chapter has been worked over very much, and even if we hear Moses speaking in vss. 16, 3, to speak with Ewald,^° it does not prove anything for the originality of the form »!"' . If the whole song is late,^' and Yah occurs only in post-exilic poetical pas- sages, it proves that the short form tl^ was not known to the people in pre-exilic times. In Isa. 38:11 read with Duhm Tl^TT instead of Tl'' rT' . If H"' were really the older form, it is rather surprising that in colloquial expressions and in swearing the longer form nin"' should have been employed instead of the 27 Expository Times, 1898, p. 48. 28 Altisrael. Ueberlieferung, 1897, p. 64. 29 " Earliest Religion of the Ancient Hebrews," Contemporary Review, October, 1898. 30 Dichter des A. B., 1, 1, pp. 175-8; so also Dillmann and Delitzsch commentaries. 31 Cf. Cornill, Einleitung, 1896, p. 61. 14 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON more convenient shorter form Pl"^ .^^* Besides, the mere fact that T\'' is only found in poetry is against a universal use of this word. Outside of this use it is found only in compound proper names.^'*' That H^ is used only in poetry favors the theory that it is a poetically shortened form of TV^Ti'^ . The longer form nin"' is found on the Mesha inscription, 1. 18. The form W seems to have come into use only gradually, and was employed very little. It is an apocopated form after the analogy of the verbs Ti'b . After the last H had been apocopated, leaving IM'' , the final 1 was vocalized and then dropped, so that JT' remained. The H received then a mappiq fT' . The artificial origin and growth of this form as the name of the deity seems to be out of question.^'" According to Philippi,^^ the form which we should have expected from the Babylonian Yau, in accordance with the regular phonetic laws, would be Y6. Pointing to the different usages of ^Jl"^ and ilT^ in compound names, he asks the ques- tion : "And if Yau became in Hebrew indiscriminately ^H'' or in"' , how is it that the latter never appears at the end of a com- pound proper name, the former never at the beginning ?" We cannot account for it according to Delitzsch's theory, while it is easily explained according to the view advanced above. The abbreviated form ^Ti'^ from n^Ti'' became when forming the first part of a compound name Ye-hau, Ye-ho, after the analogy of "123 from "123 , because Yahu, as a part of a compound word, having an accent of its own, would have drawn the tone unduly back, while the tone would naturally rest upon ^tT for IPl^ when it formed the last syllable of a compound name. That "I" should have been the name of an Assyrian deity, as Delitzsch asserts, has not yet been satisfactorily established, hence this argument also falls to the ground. Driver^'* says in regard to Delitzsch's 31a I am glad to find that I agree with Professor Jastrow as to tlie late origin of the form Yah for the deity. I had not seen his article in the ZA W., Vol. XVI, when I reached the above conclusion. 31b Ibid. In his article in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Vol. XIII, pp. 101-27, Jastrow holds that most of the compound names with a final Jl^ or ^H"^ are not compounds with the divine name, but that the final element represents merely an " emphatic afiormative," while the names with initial in"' are " uncontracted Hiphil forms of verbs with initial vowel letter." 31c So also Jastrow in his article in the ZA W., Vol. XVI, p. 1.5. 32 Zeitschrift fur VOlkerpsychologie, Vol. XIV, pp. 175-90. Cf. also G. B. Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 149 sqq. 33 Studia Biblia, Vol. I, p. 18. ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 15 theory : " The theory of an Accadian origin unquestionably breaks down." Tiele^* expresses himself also to that efiPect. Margoliouth sees a proof for his identification of Yahweh with Ea = Sin in the fact that the Israelites assembled in the open, for religious service, shortly after the appearance of the new moon. He supports his theory with the rabbinical saying: "He who at the proper time pronounces the benediction on the new moon is as one who welcomes the very presence of the Shekinah, or divine glory." The feast of the new moon is of very ancient date, and it was doubtless a feast which was celebrated by almost all Semitic peoples, and therefore also known to the Israelites in pre-Mosaic times. However, it was not an exclusively Semitic custom, for we meet with it in one form or another among almost all peoples. Thus Tacitus ^^ tells us that the ancient Germans met on new and full moon. They even worshiped the moon as late as the early Christian centuries, so that Hrabanus Maurus, who died 858, charged the Hessians that they still saluted their "Her Mon," and that they with noise and shouting came to the assistance of the oppressed moon (by eclipses). The Indians deified the four phases of the moon.^^ The feast of the new moon is not mentioned by J, E, or D ; only by P. In Numb. 10:10; 28:11 sqq. and Ezek. 46:3 it seems that the feast is revived again, having perhaps fallen into oblivion before this time by the introduction of the sabbath, which seems to have taken its place. But the fact that J, E, and D do not mention the feast of the new moon seems to justify us in believing that the law laid much less stress upon the observance of this feast than did the practice of the people. The thought, however, is patent that J, E, and D ignored this feast intention- ally, as superstitious practices probably had grown out of the same. We may take it for granted, even, that many superstitious ideas and heathen customs were connected with this feast, as with other things in the religious life of Israel. Thus the ark of the covenant was looked upon as a fetish, 1 Sam. 4:: 3 sqq. That a rabbinical saying, which without question is of recent date, should be adduced in support of the theory that Yahweh is identical with Ea = Sin, is taking too many things for granted. All that it can prove is that superstitious practices were still prevalent in 3* Theologisch Tijdschrift, March, 1882. 35 Germania, p. 11. 36 Cf. Lassen, Indische Alterth., Vol. II, pp. 1118 sg. 16 OKIGIN AND INTEKPKETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON the Jewish church at a time when the more spiritual side of Yahwism had become a long-established fact. However, the greatest difficulty in regard to this theory is the identification of Ea with Sin. Ea was the god of the abyss, while Sin was the moon-god. Ea freed Sin when he was bewitched through the seven evil spirits.^' This 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 given by him, and thus his theory, as well as that of Margoliouth, falls to the ground because of insufficient proof. The primary conception of Yahweh as we find it recorded in the Jewish records is that of a war-god, who with all his terrible- ness takes the part of his people. He marches out for them or with them to battle, Judg. 4:14; Hab. 3:13; Zech. 14:3; cf. Ps. 44:9. He is presented as a mighty warrior, Exod. 15:3, and in the sacred chest accompanies the Israelites to the battlefield. He comes in fury from his ancient seat, like stormclouds, fore- boding destruction and annihilation to all that is in his way, Judg. 5:4 sg. This is the earliest conception of Yahweh, and if there ever was an identification of Yahweh with the moon-god, this conception must necessarily be of a later date. The theory that Yahweh is derived from Phoenician or north Semites has found the support of many scholars. in1!l^ is iden- tified with 'law or 'leuco. The form 'law is found in Macrobius :^* ^pat,(.o Tov iravTwv virarov ®eov e/Ajaev' law xeifxaTi /xev t' atSrjv, Alu 8' etapos ap-f^ofjiivoio He'Aioi/ ok OepovjJuo and ^Lilvio , and for *6 Der Feuer- und Molochdienst der alien Hebrder, Braunschweig, 1842. 4' Commentary on Samuel. *8 Cf. ZAW., 1882, pp. 53-72, espec. § 14. ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 19 T^yn read T^n^n . These emendations, which furnish the most natural reading, do away entirely with the idea that David sacri- ficed his captives to Moloch or any other deity ; but he put them to hard labor, which was a very natural thing for any oriental potentate to do. These necessary emendations make the hypothe- sis of Daumer and Dozy rather doubtful. Nor was the tabernacle, as Dozy imagines, a sanctuary of Baal ; but Yahweh's principal, perhaps his only, sanctuary at the time of Moses was the ark of the covenant.*'' The verse in Amos, chap. 5, upon which both Daumer and Dozy have based their hypothesis is rather of doubt- ful genuineness. Besides, the two deities mentioned in this verse are Assyrian deities.^" inlSD is the god Adar and "VS (Arab. jjI^-a5^) is Saturn. The verb Dn^^lT^I must refer to the future," which is the only grammatical construction possible. Vs. 26 foretells, therefore, the judgment which is waiting for Israel : "They shall take their gods and go with them into exile." This, however, opens a new difficulty, ^^ as according to Hosea 10:5; Isa. 46:1; Jer. 48:7; 49:3 the gods of a conquered 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 with idolatry, but with an overzealousness for Yahweh. Well- hausen's opinion that this verse has taken the place of an earlier one, which contained a severe threat against Israel, seems to me very plausible. Hence Amos, chap. 5, supports neither Daumer's theory that nin*' is identical with Moloch — Chivan, nor Dozy's hypothesis that Israel commenced with a bj'H worship and that the tabernacle was a sanctuary of Baal, the Phoenician deity. A more plausible explanation of the name niJT^ is that theory which makes him the god of the Kenites.^^ After Moses had killed the Egyptian, he fled to the land of Midian, Exod. 2:15 (J), and married Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian, Exod. 2:21 (J); 3:1 (E). This priest was a Kenite, Judg. 1 : 16 ; read with LXX^ nnn Numb. 10:29; Judg. 4:11 "^2 ■nh nnni .'* « Cf. Wellhausen, Skizzen, Vol. I, p. 9. 50 Cf. Schrader, Stud. u. Krit., 1874, pp. S24:sqq.; KAT.^, pp. U2sqq. 51 Gesenius-Kautzsch, Grammatik, 26. ed., p. 326, a,-; Driver, Tenses, p. 119, a, note 1. 52 Cf. Hitzig, Die kleinen Propheten. 53C/. C. P. Tiele, Vergel. Geschied., etc., 1872, pp. o55sqq.; Outlines of the History of Religion, p. 85; Stade, Geschichte, 1883, pp. 130 sq.; G. F. Moore, Judges, 1895, pp. 134, 139, 179 ; K. Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, 1898. 5* Cf. Moore, Commentary, p, 32. 20 ORIGIN AND INTEEPEETATION OF THE TETEAGRAMMATON Here Moses learned to know Yah well, the god of the Kenites, an earnest, solemn deity, who differed greatly from the voluptuous Egyptian gods. The Kenites were a tribe of the Midianites ; c/. Numb. 10:29 with Judg. 4:11. A part of the Kenites accom- panied the Israelites through the desert ; cf. Numb. 10:29-32, and therefore received dwelling-places in Palestine, Judg. 1:16, in the south of the country, in the neighborhood of their former home. In later years they were frequently associated with the Amalekites, 1 Sam. 15:6; Numb. 24:20 sgg. Much is made of the fact by Tiele that the Rechabites, a Kenite tribe, were assiduous Yahweh worshipers. ^^ The only passage which tells anything about the origin of the Rechabites is 1 Ohron. 2:55, according to which passage Hamath was the father of the house of Rechab, a Kenite, and from him descended also the three families of Kenites which dwelt at Jabez. From the fact that this careful statement is made we may conclude that the Rechabites were not originally Hebrews, but were admitted into their community and religion. According to Jer. 35:6 a son of Rechab was Jonadab, 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 belief of his ancestors ? The reason lies, doubtless, in the fact that the Rechabites who lived before Jonadab were no Yahweh worshipers at all, which also the incident as related in Jer., chap. 35, seems to favor. Besides, the passages which are adduced to prove the connection between the Kenites and Rechabites (1 Chron. 2:55 ; Jer., chap. 35) are not such that we can unques- tionably rely upon them. The statement in 1 Chron. 4: 10, "Jabez called upon the God of Israel," seems to point also to the fact that these families were no Israelites,^* else the statement would not be that Jabez called upon the God of Israel, but rather "his God." The Kenitic origin of the Rechabites cannot be firmly established. They were no Israelites. But even if the connec- tion between Rechabites and Kenites could be proved, the proba- bility is that the latter were a branch of the Amalekites," with whom they are so frequently associated, and not of the Midian- ites. No one would dare to charge the Amalekites, in view of 55 So also Buddo, pp. 35 sq. 56 So also Furrer, art. " Jabez," RHW. 5' So also Professor Moore, p. 34 ; cf. note. ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 21 what we know of them, as having been at any time Yahweh wor- shipers. In view of these facts, and since nothing is told as to the religion of Jonadab's ancestors, but Jonadab is presented rather as a zealot for Yahweh, which is often true in the case of new converts, I conclude that the Eechabites accepted Yahwism when they were admitted into the commonwealth of Israel. No doubt the narrative as given in Exod., chap. 18 (E) , seems intended to convey the impression that the worship of 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- shipers : How is it that we do not find any traces of this worship among the nations with whom they came into such intimate rela- tions as, e. g., the Amalekites, 1 Sam. 15:6; Numb. 24: : 20 sqq., among whom they even sojourned ? For true to their Bedawin instincts they could not stay long in one place, and soon roamed about again and put up their tents wherever they found pasture. So also Heber the Kenite left his southern home, Judg. 4:11, and pitched his tent by Kedesh. The tendency of the ancient peoples was to take up into their pantheon the gods of other nations, especially when such nations or tribes were strong, and in particular when the god of those tribes or nations proved to be such a powerful one as, e. g., Yahweh. But we do not find any traces of Yahwism among the nations with whom the Kenites came into close contact. Does not, therefore, the fact seem evi- dent that the Kenites were no Yahweh worshipers at all, but, like the Rechabites, had accepted Yahweh from the Israelites at the earliest period of the history of the Israelitish nation ? None of the theories examined above gives an adequate answer to the question of the origin of the name Yahweh. "The theory of an Accadian origin unquestionably breaks down." The same is true in respect to a Phrenician origin, while the Greek writings do not prove anything, inasmuch as they are of Gnostic origin and of a very late date. Though there seems to be a point of contact between Hamatite names and Yahweh which cannot be explained away, yet it is safer to accept the theory that some individual Syrians had accepted Yahweh as one of their gods, which Schrader^** considers may have been the case also with the Assyrians. The Kenitic or Midianitic origin cannot be firmly established, though there are, as I have shown, points which ^s Jahrbilcher filr protest. Theol., 1875, p. 317. 22 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGEAMMATON favor such an origin ; yet the arguments against this theory are weightier than the arguments for such an origin. Therefore/* "the hypothesis of the introduction of Yahwism from without must be definitely abandoned." If the advocates of this theory "are to take any account at all of the evidence of the historical documents, then the Egyptians are really the only people that can come into consideration.'"*" However, the impossibility of identifying Yahweh with an Egyptian deity has been shown above. It would be rather an astonishing phenomenon if a people should accept a foreign name for its supreme, for its only, deity. It is fully established that the Israelites worshiped at times other gods, and even recognized the reality of other gods. In Judg. 11:24 Israel acknowledges Chemosh as a true god, i. e., the national god of his people, the Moabites. His reality was no more doubted, at least in the earlier periods, than that of Yahweh. To the fury of Chemosh Israel attributed the signal defeat which it suffered, according to 2 Kings 3:27, at the hand of Moab, However, this does not make it less true that Yahweh was the only God of the Israelites. I ask now : Would a people having such a deep religious feeling as Israel, to 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 deity which was not distinctively Israelitish, but a strange god ? How utterly irreconcilable with this is the whole national life of Israel as it unfolds itself before our eyes ! Surely Egypt, the D''"iny XT'Z , would be least of all the land which gave to the Israelites the name for their national deity. Nor must we look for the origin of this name among the Canaanites. The war which the Israelites waged against them was a war of extermination ordered by Yahweh, which fact is certainly contradictory to the view that Yahweh was an ancient Canaanitish deity. There is more foundation for the theory that Assyria is the land that gave Israel the name for its deity. But even here the proofs adduced in support of the hypothesis are not so strong as to be decisive. We must look for the origin of this name somewhere else. The fact that Yahwism was so inextricably interwoven with the national life of Israel ought to lead us to seek for the origin 59 Kuenen, " National Religions and Universal Religions," Hibbert Lectures, 1882, p. 62. 60 Kuenen, op. cit., p. 63. ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 23 of this name within Israel. We should not seek for it among nations that came in contact with Israel, in whose pantheon a deity with a similar name is found which is almost certainly a corruption of Yahweh,®' as I have shown above. Only Israel could have given birth to this name, in which the very life of the nation pulsates. The first question which confronts us in seeking to establish the Hebrew origin of Yahweh is whether this name was known before the times of Moses. Through P we know that the name of the mother of Moses was in'DT Exod. 6: 20 ; Numb. 26:59. As it stands here it is a compound name of W and 121) . Was this name given by Moses to his mother in later years, or was it her original name? The interpretation, "Yahweh is glory," seems to point to an important event in the life of this woman, perhaps to the turning-point of her religious faith from a non-Yahwistic to a Yahwistic religion. However, when the name of a person, especially of one who occupied a conspicuous position, was changed, we find always a statement to that effect. Thus, accord- ing to Gen. 17:5, the patriarch's name is changed from "Abram" into "Abraham," and, according to vs. 15, "Sarai" into "Sarah." Hoshea the son of Nun is called by Moses "Joshua." We do not find any such statement concerning a change of the name of the mother of Moses, but she is introduced as IHjV . There are two possibilities. The name, which is preserved only by P, was perhaps not understood by the writer as being a compound with t^'', or the name "Yahweh" was known before the time of Moses. There are a number of compound names with T\'' having refer- ence to very remote times. In Gen. 22:2 we find a land named »T'"lTjn . Though the writer interprets it as being a compound with Tl'' , we cannot attribute to it more authority than to the family names H^HX 1 Chron. 2:25; r\^2i<, T?'^'')^ 1 Chron. 7:8, because we know that the chronicler transferred a number of family names to ancient times. These names are of doubtful age, and presumably of very late origin, and certainly post- Mosaic. Yahweh declares himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Exod. 3:6 (JE), but he says in Exod. 6:3 (P), "by my name 'Yahweh' I was not known to them," but as "El Shaddai." Thus when Moses speaks of the God of his fathers he can refer only to El Shaddai ; cf. Exod. 15:2 ; 18:4 (JE). This 61 Cf. also Baudisein, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Vol. I, p. 223. 24 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON explicit statement in Exod. 6:3, and the fact that none of the other compound names with Pi"' (Gen. 22:2 ; 1 Chron. 2:25 ; 7:8) are of pre-Mosaic origin, seem to favor the presumption that the name of the mother of Moses, provided the name is old, was not a compound with tT^ . Perhaps we ought to read with Well- hausen*'^ "Ikabod," or, what is still more plausible, as the name is preserved only by P, regard it as being introduced by P for dogmatic reasons. We are therefore not justified in the least in going beyond the beginning of the public career of Moses in search for the origin of the name TTlTl'' .^^ At the time of the conquest the worship of Yahweh had become an established fact, e. g., Judg., chap. 5, "The Song of Deborah." The narratives in Judges and Samuel mention Yahweh as a tribal deity of Israel. The exclamation in Exod. 15:21, "Sing ye to Yahweh," is very ancient,*^* and seems to be a part of the Mosaic portion of the poem. So also Exod. 17:16; cf. Dillmann, but read with D6renbourg, JA., 1867, pp. 485 sqq., n^D3 = 5^D3 instead of fl^ C3 . This would lead us to seek the origin of the name in the time of Moses. The whole Old Testament agrees in this, that after the deliverance from Egypt a covenant was made between Yahweh and the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai, i. e., Yahweh was formally accepted as the national God of Israel. It was not Molekh**^ or BaaP^ 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 covenant god, making it a pia fraus, but Yahweh. Superior to 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 Yahweh and no other god whom they accepted. Having estab- lished this, we are prepared to express in definite terms the moment when this new religion was born. No other moment 62 Geschichte, Vol. I, p. 360 A. 63 Against this view see Kuenen, De Godsdienst, Vol. I, p. 276; Spurrel, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Genesis, 1887, p. 376 ; Ewald, Tholuck, et al., who hold that the name Yahweh was perhaps known as a designation for " el " in a limited circle, at least in the family of Moses or in the tribe of Joseph. 6* Cf. DUlmann ; Driver, Introduction, 5th ed. Against the above view, Cornill, Ein- leitung, p. 61. 65 Daumer. 66 Colenzo ; Dozy, Die Israeliten zu Mekka. ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 25 can be pointed out for the birth of this new religion than that one in which the Israelites, freed from the bondage of Egypt, united themselves into one nation formally at Mount Sinai. With the political birth of Israel Yahwism took its beginning. And we cannot but "recognize the fact that from the earliest times down to the Babylonian captivity Israel had its own national religion, which we can only call Yahwism."" The new name which Moses had introduced was, indeed, of greatest significance, since a new government necessitates a new name. What El Shaddai could not or did not do, Yahweh accomplished. The time of the origin of the name being decided upon, let us now consider the name itself. The name Yahweh occurs in the Old Testament 6,823 times. "^^ It is the proper name of the God of Israel and was revealed to Moses according to E, Exod. 3:12- 15 and 6:3. Therefore this God and no other god can be the God of the covenant. There are two principal derivations which are offered for the name Yahweh. The one is that it is a Qal form ; the other, first suggested by Gesenius, that it is a Hiph'il form. Almost all scholars agree that the root from which this noun is derived is n^n = tlin . As a Hiph'll form it is variously interpreted, thus : " He who brings to pass," i. e., "The performer of his promises,"*® "The one bringing into being," "Life-giver, Creator."™ Treated as a Qal form, the name is explained as meaning : "The one ever coming into manifestation as the God of redemption,"" "The existing, ever-living."" Nestle^'* inclines to Qal, though he is undecided. Qal = "The one who is;" Hiph'il would convey the idea of the Creator. Driver,'* "He will approve himself." Jewish commentators derive the name from the Qal b^tP2 bpn and interpret it as meaning "The absolute being." But as made known to Moses the name is a causative form bs^S ■p3'D ^j'ln , a Pi'el and not a Hiph'il. It signified then the Creator, 67 Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, 1880, p. 65. 6i5 Professor Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, edited by Professor F. Brown. 69 Lagarde, ZDMG., Vol. XXII, 1868, p. 331 ; GOtt. Gelehrt. Anz., 1885, p. 91. ™Schrader in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, art. "Jahve." Cf. also Thes., p. 577, note; KATfi,V- 25; Kuenen, Religion of Israel, Vol. I, p. 279; Tiele, Histoire comparie, p. 345; Land, Theol. Tijdsch., 1868, p. 158; et al. 71 Frz. Delitzsch. Genesis, Engl, transl., 1888, p. 113. '2 Dillmann. ''^ Eigennamen, pp. 89, 91 ; Jahrbiicher d. d. Theol., 1878. ^iBiblia, p. 17; cf. also Baudissin, Studien, Vol. I, pp. 119 sqq., 1876; E. Smith, British and Foreign Evangel. Rev., Vol. V ; Hitzig, Zeitschrift fiir wiss. Theol., 1875, pp. 9 sqq. ; et al. 26 OKIGIN AND INTEKPEETATION OF THE TETEAGKAMMATON he who has formed the world and in the same wonderful manner forms the history of mankind. This last statement is supported by a quotation from Shemorja Agribos.'^ Most modern scholars derive the name from the Qal form of Tl^fl = tTlfl . Though the latter root is not found in the Old Testament Hebrew, it can be confidently affirmed to be a remnant of an older period in the development of the Hebrew language, as is also the case with ^ITL .'*' Compare the Arabic "1^ and Syriac }om . The pronunciation of the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah" is an absurdity. The earliest appearance of this transliteration we find in two passages of the "Pugio fidei," 1278, though it is not improbable that this is due to a later copyist. We know for certain, however, that this misnomer was brought into prominence by Petrus Galatinus, confessor of Leo X. The discontinuation of the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton by the Jews is doubt- less due to a misinterpretation of Lev. 24:11, 16, in consequence of which the name was considered too sacred to be pronounced. The word np3 , which gave rise to this superstition, does not in any way support such an idea. tV2T rii7J ^" DlIJ npD = "he that blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall be put to death." This sentence does not contain the slightest intimation forbidding the pronunciation of this name, though the Jews explain the com- mand forbidding the pronunciation by the above passages. Another reason, and doubtless the primary one, must be sought in the character of later Judaism, which endeavored after the disappearance of the prophets, with whom also the " living experience of the divine self -manifestation " disappeared, to put between the unapproachable God and man mysterious media." That 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 Psalms the parallel psalms to the first book, e. g., 53 and 70, parallel to 14 and 40:14-18, have substituted U^tlbiii, for nin\ so that we find such phrases as ^^nbi^l D^nbu5 Ps. 50:7; U^rb^ ^nb^ Ps. 43:4; ni5{ "I'lTIJ^ riTli^ ; this is shortened in vs. 14& to HTIU? , and in vs. 15 the name is given as nin*' . nin*' is third person singular imperfect Qal of riTl = tllH and signifies "He will be." This, however, would be a very imperfect and unsatisfactory meaning. The question naturally arises, He will be what ? As we have seen in connection with the other names, either their origin was due to a historic occur- rence or they were war-cries. So also the name nin"' must have taken its origin under similar conditions, and, like those names, was originally b^ TDTl'' contracted into niri'^ . When we con- 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 what was said in regard to the other names, look upon this name as expressing a relationship into which this deity intended to enter with the Israelites. Forsaken, 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 this name, "God will be with us."®° The phrases, "I will be with thee," "I will be with you," "He will be with us," ring through the whole Old Testament. "7)2^ TTTli^ was the word of encour- agement which Moses received when he still hesitated to go and fulfil what he had been ordered to do, Exod. 3:12. So also Joshua (Deut. 31:8, 23; Josh. 1:5; 3:7) received the assurance that he will not be alone, but that "He will be" will be "with him." The same interpretation is implied in Judg. 6:13: W^ y:i2V nin-' = and if "He will be" be "with us;" and also Judg. 6:16 : "7^3? n^TM< = "I will be" will be "with thee." In Numb. 14:10 Yahweh's relationship to the whole people is expressed in the words 15n55 nin^l = but "He will be" will be "with us." That the name was understood to express this relationship becomes clearer when we consider some of the negative phrases in which this relationship is expressed ; e. g., Numb. 14:43 we read, "Because ye turned away from 'He will be,' 'He will be' will not 89 Cf. Mliller, ibid., and G. H. Skipwith, Jewish Quarterly Review, July, 1898. 90 So also Hommel, Expository Times, October, 1898; Skipwith. 30 ORIGIN AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON be with you;" Josh. 7:12, DS^f' nVnb -fCiX i^b , Yahweh will sever this relationship, because the Israelites have become D^nb , and therefore "He will be" can no longer be Grod with them. From these passages we learn that the emphasis is laid upon the preposition which expresses the relation of God to his people. This leads me to the conclusion that the writers must have con- sidered WD'Z^ TrnUi as being synonymous with Ij)^" mn^ . The former expression is that which is put into the mouth of the deity, while the latter is used by man. That this was the original meaning is also confirmed by three passages, Gen. 28:13-16 (J), vs. 20 (E), vs. 21& (RJE). In vs. 13 Yahweh reveals himself to Jacob in the words n^TT ^J5< ; then in vs. 15 he says, y2^ ^i3« , which is the assurance. In vs. 20 Jacob says, ^i:^:? U^tlbi^ n1^•'"D^5 , and continuing his vow in vs. 21 he says, D"^b^5b ^b Hln^ H^HI = "then 'He will be' shall be to me for a god." All these sources are in harmony with what has been said above. Skipwith thinks he finds traces of the original usage of 2pT (bi^) and bjS^ir"' as invocations still lingering in the times of the Great Unknown, in Isa. 44:: 5 ; 48:1, 2. It is true, he argues from the traditional pointing, but this is not permissible. Isa. 44:5 as it stands offers much difficulty, as it would make Jacob a god, but even a superficial study of Deutero-Isaiah would show the monstrosity of such a conception. We ought, therefore, to read 5^^i5'; = "he calls himself," instead of S^'^p"] , and for HBp^ we ought to read PuaP' HSj"; . Compare jS' II, "go by a sur- name." Then the parts in question would read, "and this one calls himself by the name of Jacob, .... and receives the surname Israel." The verse has reference to strangers, who will attach to themselves the names of honor, "sons of Jacob," " Israelites." ^^ This necessary emendation excludes all reference to any such conception as that of which Skipwith seems to find traces in this verse and 48:1, 2, which verses he supports with 44:5. He, however, well remarks that we find in the name "Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14) an exact equivalent of the name of the Deity of Israel. This interpretation of the tetragrammaton seems to me to be more satisfactory than any other. Considering the circumstances under which this name, according to E, was revealed to Moses, 91 So also Oort, Ryssel, Gratz, Duhm, et al. 92 Cf. commentaries of Dillmann-Kittel, Duhm. ORIGIN AND INTERPEETATION OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 31 and by Moses again to the people, was it more likely that Moses, standing before the people, would reveal to them a deity with such an abstract name as "the One who is," "the Creator," "the Living One," or, knowing the needs of his people, a deity whose very name would be a comfort to a downtrodden and outraged people, as "I will be God with you," or in the mouth of Moses, "He will be God with us"? Doubtless the latter. Would any other name have produced such marvelous results, e. g., the exodus itself, the conquest of Canaan, for both of which ni»T', understood as explained above, might fairly be said to furnish the motto ? Ewald'''^ comes nearest to this interpretation in explaining the tetragrammaton as "I shall be it, I, who I shall be, namely, thine and your assistance, helper." The full name of the Deity was primarily 1j?jy bi^ TV]TT = "He will be God with us." Under his direction and protection the exodus was decided, and took place at his command, as also the conquest of Canaan. This new deity, or old deity with a new name, showed himself to the Hebrews first of all as a god of war- fare (Exod., chap. 15; Judg., chap. 5; cf. also Exod. 17:16 as emended). It is therefore quite natural that this name should be used by the people as their war-cry. That it was used as such is plainly shown by Judg. 7:20, ]VTjh^ tl^frb nnn l^^p^T ; mn is here doubtless a gloss due to the interpolation in vs. 14.^* In the parallel passage vs. 18 it is missing. It is found, however, in vs. 14, due to a later and erroneous interpretation. The inter- polator conceived of bX^TT'' "Oi^i^ (vs. 14) as having reference to an individual, while it is, in fact, collective; cf. Judg. 7:23; 8:22; 9:55; 20:20, etc.; with the name of Gideon falls also D^n . This war-cry in vs. 20 is unusually long, but was necessitated by circumstances, while ordinarily the shortest possible abbreviation of the divine name was used, and that was the tetragrammaton niH"' . This abbreviation became soon so familiar to the Hebrews, on account of their constant warfare, that its original significance became entirely lost, and it was soon looked upon as the proper name of the God of Israel. As I hope to have shown, the instances are numerous which almost imperatively demand a different interpretation of TiyTT than that which generally has been given to it. I therefore venture to offer this one. 93 Lehre, II, p. 336. 9* Budde, Richter und Samuel; Moore, Judges. VITA. I was born August 1, 1873, in Crefeld, Germany. When I sailed for America in 1890 I was in the Unter-Prima of the Real- schule at Crefeld. In the spring of 1894 I entered the Bloom- field Theological Seminary. There, and with a competent private teacher, I completed the study of the Grreek and Latin classics, as demanded in the German Gymnasium. In the fall of 1895 I entered the New Brunswick Theological Seminary. In 1898 I was graduated and received from Rutgers College the degree of B.D. The two years' special work which led to this degree was done under Professor Lansing, the two courses being Arabic and Old Testament studies. During my theological course I studied also Semitic languages with Professors Prince and Osborn, of New York University. In the year 1898 I received the degree of Master of Arts from the New York University. In 1898-99 I took a post-graduate course in Union Theological Seminary, in the Semitic department, with Professors Francis Brown, Briggs, and Fagnani. I received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from New York University, 1899. RETURN TO the circulation desk ot any University of California Library or to tlie NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station University of California Richmond, CA 94804-4698 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS • 2-month loans may be renewed by calling (510)642-6753 • 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books to NRLF • Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date. DUE AS STAMPED BELOW JUN 1 3 2000 12,000(11/95) UNIVKRSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ./•v^ '■ ■■' " : 'l:f^ '■■•■• V •>':/;. 'ir-.*;