Grace
Theological Journal 4.1 (1963)
29-43.
Copyright © 1963 by Grace Theological
Seminary.
Cited with permission.
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH
A Critical Monograph
on Exodus 6:3
Abridged
by the Author
JOHN
J. DAVIS
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto
Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but
by my name Jehovah I was not known to
them." (Ex. 6:3 A.S.V.)
Anyone who has committed himself to a
serious study of the Old Testament is
aware of the
fact that certain portions of Old Testament history and in particular certain
verses have
become focal points of critical and theological investigation. The text under
consideration
is one such text. To a rather large
group of Old Testament scholars this
verse has
been more or less the basic proof text for the documentary analysis of the
Pentateuch. Others have either ignored a treatment of the
verse or proposed unsupported
solutions to
the problems it presents. For the
conservative scholar, however, it gives
unmeasurable
light into the relation of the Patriarchs to their God; and more generally,
the method
and scope of Divine revelation in the Old Testament.
Because Exodus 6:3 has become a basic proof
text for the documentary analysis of the
Pentateuch,
it is imperative that we briefly consider this very popular theory. This theory
originated
with Jean Astruc, a French physician, who, by the way, did not deny the
Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch. In his famous treatise, Conjectures Concerning
the
Original
Memoranda which it Appears Moses Used to Compose the Book of Genesis,
Astruc
proposed that on the basis of the use of divine names two basic documents could
be
distinguished: one called A (using Elohim) and B (employing Yahweh). It is
interesting
to note that this idea was applied to Genesis alone. It was not until 1791 that
the theory
was applied to the entire Pentateuch by Eichhorn. From this time on the
variant uses
of the Divine names were employed as a basis for distinguishing various
documents. The theory gained popularity as the years
passed and other methods were
also
employed to distinguish source material for the Pentateuch. The documentary
analysis
reached its peak under the leadership of Julius Wellhausen, who died in
1918.
This system
as it is held today has basically four source documents: (J) Yahwist,
presumed to
have been written about 850 B.C., (E) or Elohist, about 750 B.C., (D) or
Deuteronomy
about 620 B.C. and (P) in the completed Pentateuch about 500 B.C.
Unlike the
view of Astruc, those who advocate this theory today deny the Mosaic
authorship
of the Pentateuch.
Since the days of Wellhausen, there have
been many modifications to this classic form
of literary
criticism of the Pentateuch. The present
day efforts are to assume the
existence of
the documents and extend the analysis even further, that is, back to the
"traditions"
which are contained in the documents.1 In this monograph, we shall not
endeavor to
examine this latter effort in Old Testament criticism. Our major concern is
with the
basic four document analysis which underlies most of the present day
Pentateuchal
criticism.
29
30 GRACE
JOURNAL
With this rather brief introduction let us
proceed to the problems of the text itself.
1. MINOR
PROBLEM: What is the significance of the
name "El-Shaddai" in relation
to the Patriarchs?
There are two basic views in regard to this
Problem. We shall consider each with a
brief
evaluation.
A. The Liberal View: The liberal view generally holds that this
name for God is to be
traced back
to a natural origin. It holds its origin to be like that of the tribal deities
of the
nations that
surrounded the children of
that El
Shaddai represents a primitive form of worship among the Patriarchs. Their
worship,
according to this view, was basically the same as the other nations except for
the
fact that
some of their ideas and moral codes were in some aspects higher.
There are many views as to the etymology
of this title among liberal scholars, but the
one most
commonly held is that "Shaddai" comes from the Babylonian
"Sadda'u," the
gentilic of
Sadu, Saddu, the regular word for mountain.
The chief defender of this view
is Albright.2 Another writer states the liberal position in
the following words:
When the Hebrews left
many respects was like the nature
religion of the
chief god was known as Shaddai (or El
Shaddai), which means "the one of the
mountains"--a mountain deity or
storm deity usually known by the title Baal (lord)
among the Canaanites.3
The liberal view, as previously noted,
holds that El-Shaddai was a humanly-conceived
mountain god
of the Israelites. The relation of
El-Shaddai to the Patriarchs, therefore,
was merely
as a native god, who was only one of many such gods of the land. While this
view is
extremely popular among the liberal critics, it is not a strong view in the
light of
Biblical
evidence. The refutation of this view is
two fold: First, it is a view conceived
and based
upon a false assumption: namely, that
monotheistic religion is a natural
evolutionary
product of human thought. To this we would reply that religious evolution,
upon which
this concept is built, is not a proven theory, but a hypothesis; it does not,
therefore,
provide a sound basis for the liberal view of developed monotheism. Secondly,
the Biblical
evidence is most clearly against the view that man "conceived" or
"became
aware"
of high moral and religious concepts. The liberal view disregards the many
texts
which
clearly point out the fact that man in his sinful, fallen state, cannot conceive
of,
and will not
seek after a Holy God. (Psalm 14, Romans 3:11-18). Furthermore, this view
of the name
El-Shaddai does not fit any context in which it appears unless it is forced
against the
natural reading of the text. The textual
and contextual evidence are totally
against the
idea of this being a "mountain deity."
If the liberal contention were true, we
should expect to find indications of a lower
moral and
religious idea in the use of this name, but such is not the case. The same moral
and
religious concepts are associated with this name as with the name Yahweh. For
example, the
blessing is the same (Genesis 17:1). Notice in this text Yahweh says "I am
El-Shaddai." It would seem from this statement that
identity and equality are asserted of
both these
names. The moral demand is
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH
31
"walk
before me, and be thou perfect." To
contend that Shaddai is merely a mountain
deity is to
disregard the place the name is given in the Scriptures. Also, in this regard,
it
should be
observed that in some contexts the names Yahweh and El-Shaddai are used
alternately
with equal majesty and holiness (cf. Ruth 1:20f.).
It should also be noted that this view
fails to provide a motive and a reason why the
other
nations did not evolve into monotheistic concepts. How did
surrounded
by idolatry and sin, rise above nature worship and arrive at a high
monotheism
while the other nations did not? Without the fact of Divine intervention and
revelation,
no reasonable answer is possible. On the
basis of these facts, and the positive
evidence to
be presented, the writer considers the liberal view false and untenable.
B. The
Conservative view: The basic
understanding of the conservative view is that
the name
"El Shaddai" is of divine, not natural origin. The name, it is asserted, was
revealed by
God, and not conceived by man. While all
conservative scholars agree on
this basic
principle, there is little agreement as to the etymology and significance of
this
name in
relation to the patriarchs. There are
four basic views in this regard. The
first
view is that
Shaddai comes from the root sadad "to be strong" or
"powerful." This view
seems to be
the more popular. The emphasis,
therefore, in respect to the patriarchs, is
that of
God's power and strength. Oehler favors this view in his Theology of the Old
Testament.4
The second view of the name Shaddai is
that its root is sadad "to destroy" or "to
terrify." This view is held by Mack.5
The third view maintains that Shaddai
comes from a compound word (from se (<'aser)
and day
which in Hebrew means "sufficiency."
For a statement of this view compare
John Calvin.6
The fourth, and not too well accepted
view is that proposed by the Scofield Bible.7
This view
contends that the name comes from sad which has primary reference to the
female
breast. The name, therefore, signified
nourishment and strength to the Patriarchs.
The writer feels the conservative view is
the proper view and is the one best
supported by
the Scriptures. The most probable
etymology of this title will be discussed
in the
following arguments in defense of this view.
The arguments for the conservative
view are
two-fold:
1.
Exegetical Argument
The phrase under consideration is in the
English, "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto
Isaac and
unto Jacob as God Almighty . . . "
The key words are "appeared" and "God
Almighty"
in this phrase. The verb 'era
(appeared) is the niphal imperfect first person
singular of
the root raah. This root has the
basic meaning of "to see, to observe, to look
at."8 The niphal, however, carries the idea of
"letting oneself be seen," or "to appear,"
when used
with 'el or le.9 The sense of this statement seems to be that
to these Patriarchs
God
"revealed" Himself or made Himself to appear "in the capacity
of" El Shaddai. The
prepositional
prefix be gives the idea of "in the character of"
or "in the capacity of."
32 GRACE
JOURNAL
The
name El Shaddai has been the subject of much conjecture and argument
especially
as to its etymology. The writer has
become aware of the fact that this name,
apart from
Biblical material, may be explained by several suggested roots, which are
equally
attractive, but he feels that in the light of all evidence that the name
Shaddai
comes from
the root sadad which means "to be strong" or
"powerful." Supporting this
assumption
is a well respected lexicographer, Gesenius, who identifies this name thusly:
Shaddai-Almighty, omnipotent as an
epithet of Jehovah, sometimes preceded by 'el
Genesis
17:1, 28:3, Exodus 6:3. . . 10
The writer will not attempt to argue
further on this point, for the argument would be
like the
liberal argument, purely subjective. He will let the case rest here and proceed
to a
stronger and
more conclusive proof for this position--the contextual argument.
2. Contextual Argument:
The strongest argument in favor of the
view that Shaddai comes from sadad meaning
"to be
strong," and that this name characterized Yahweh as the Mighty One or the
Almighty who
was able to perform the things promised, is found in the contexts in which
this name
appears both in the Pentateuch and in the other books.
The name Shaddai appears some forty-eight
times in the Old Testament. The greater
majority of
these texts regard Shaddai or El Shaddai in the primary aspect of power and
might. Power and might are many times demonstrated
in special blessings and acts. In
the book of
Genesis the name appears only six times (Genesis 17:1, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14,
48:3, 49:25)
and in almost every case the name is used in connection with some blessing.
A careful
study of the nature of these blessings will reveal the fact that only an all
powerful God
could fulfill these promises. The name
occurs in Exodus only once (Ex.
6:3), and
Numbers twice (Num. 24:4, 24:16). This
name really displays its significance
in the books
of Ruth and Job. In Ruth it occurs only twice (Ruth 1:20, 21) but the basic
idea
connected with it is that of chastisement and affliction. In Job it occurs thirty-one
times and
has the same idea basically as that in Ruth.
In many of the passages the idea
connected
with this name is decidedly power and majestic glory. (cf. Job 5:17, 6:4, 14,
8:3, 15:25,
21:20, 22:25, 23:16, 27:2, 34:12). In
Job 37:23 Shaddai is clearly
characterized
as "excellent in power." In
use of the name Shaddai in the Psalms (Ps. 68:
14, 91:1)
seems to support this meaning also.
El-Shaddai is spoken of as "scattering
kings,"
(Psalm 68:14), which is an open display of sovereign power. The other uses of
this name,
Isa. 13:6, Ezek. 1:24, 10:5 and Joel 1:15 also indicate the same basic idea of
power and
might. It will be seen from the preceding
material that while other
etymologies
of the name Shaddai such as in (breasted one) could possibly apply in one or
two texts,
the greater majority of occurences support the idea of power and might. It
should be
remembered that these names for God in the Old Testament were not used
without
purpose or plan. It will be shown that when various ideas and acts of God were
discussed,
the writer under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, carefully selected the name
that
characterized the God who was performing or was about to perform these acts.
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 33
II. MAJOR PROBLEM: Was the name "Yahweh" known to the
Patriarchs?
There are three main solutions proposed
for this problem. Each shall be stated
and
evaluated. A more lengthy treatment of the last view
will be given because it is
considered
to be the proper explanation of Exodus 6:3b.
A.
First Occurrence View:
This view contends that the name Yahweh was not
known to the
Patriarchs but was first made known to Moses.
It generally argues for a
natural
origin of the name rather than a supernatural revelation of it. This is essentially
the view of
all liberal Old Testament theologians.
John Edgar McFadyen expresses this
view as
follows:
Of very great importance is the passage,
6:2-13, which describes the revelation
given to Moses, asserting that the
fathers knew the God of Israel only by the name El
Shaddai, while the name of Jehovah,
which was then revealed to Moses for the first
time, was unknown to them.11
Some holding this view trace the origin of
the name back to the Kenites, a branch
from the
Midianites. This view is expressed by
Karl Budde as follows: "Yahweh,
therefore,
is the God of the tribe to which Moses, on his flight from
himself by
marriage; the mountain god of Horeb, who appears to him and promises him
to lead his
brethren out of
The supposed textual basis for this view
is Exodus 18. From this chapter two basic
assertions
are made which are claimed to be the proof for the origin of the name Yahweh.
First, Moses
is conceived to be a subordinate to Jethro (Ex.
sacrifices
to Yahweh (Ex. 18:12). It is concluded
therefore, that Jethro, priest of Midian,
is in effect
a priest of Yahweh. The objections to
this view are many.
First:
The account in Exodus 18 is hardly a decisive proof of the subordination
of
Moses to
Jethro officially. What Moses received
in this chapter was gracious counsel,
not an
official command.
Second:
Verse twelve does not say explicitly that Jethro himself offered the
sacrifice
but only
that he "took" the sacrifice.
Third:
Jethro's first mention of Yahweh is after the exodus and after he is
told of these
events by
Moses.
Fourth:
Jethro is not called a priest of Yahweh but a priest of Midian. The
Midianites
were regarded as an idolatrous people (Num. 25, 31). There is no evidence
that the
Midianites worshipped Yahweh.
Other arguments could be brought to bear
which would demonstrate the errors of this
view, but
the foregoing should suffice.
34 GRACE
JOURNAL
It may be asked at this point, why this
verse is so important to the critics. As
previously pointed
out, the material found in the Pentateuch can, according to the liberal
critics, be
traced to four main source documents (J, E, D, P). Up to Exodus 6:3, P (by the
critical
analysis) is quite careful not to use the name Yahweh. The reason for this, it
is
claimed, is
that P believed that the name was first revealed to Moses and therefore
refrains
from anachronisms by not using the name in the earlier Genesis narratives
Exodus 6:3
therefore is the reason for the anomaly in P's use of the divine names. The
characteristic
name for P is Elohim according to their analysis.
The primary basis of the documentary
analysis of the Pentateuch, at least originally,
was the use
of different names of God in various passages. The critics of this school of
thought assume
that the employment of various names for God indicates the use of
various
documents in the compilation of the Pentateuch.
There are other areas of study
that are
employed to support this theory, but it is only the use of Divine names that
the
writer is
interested in at this point.
The critics of this school assume that
writers of the original source documents never
used any
name other than was assigned to him or that was in accordance with his peculiar
views. This assumption, in the opinion of the
writer, is not the result of a careful study of
the
occurrence of Divine names, but an arbitrary assumption designed to support an
untenable
theory. If it could be proven that in
just one case a writer used a name other
than by
habit, the theory would collapse.
Against this view we raise the following
objections:
First: A careful exegesis of this verse will not
support this view. A proper
understanding
of the idiom "to know the name Yahweh" reveals that a first
occurrence of
the name is
not implied here. A more complete
discussion of the exegesis of the verse
will be
presented later.
Second: If Exodus 6:3 were a reference to merely the
name of God as a name only,
the passage
would prove equally that before this time Elohim was unknown as a name for
Deity, and
God should appear uniformly as El-Shaddai in Patriarchal history.
Some negative or liberal critics, in
answer to this argument would remind us that
Exodus 6:3
is the first time P used the name Yahweh.
They argue that P was quite
careful in
his use of Yahweh in order to avoid anachronisms. J and E, however, were not
so
careful. The writer of this paper will
show later, that these assumptions will not stand
for at least
two reason. First, P does use the name
Yahweh before Exodus 6:3 (Gen. 17:1,
21:1). The critics realizing this is a serious
problem have concluded that these passages
must have
been changed by a redactor. This answer
is not at all acceptable as will be
shown later
in this discussion. Second, the
assertion that J and E are not careful as to
their use of
the Divine names is easily disproved by a careful study of the contexts in
which these
names appear.
Third: The early occurrence of the name in Genesis
destroys this assumption.
a. The fact that Yahweh occurs in conjunction
with Elohim in Genesis chapter two
causes the
critics considerable difficulty. How
shall the documents be distinguished in
this case?
b. There are passages in the book of Genesis
where the name of Yahweh is introduced in
a way which
utterly precludes the supposition that it is used proleptically, or that it is
anything but
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 35
a correct
account of the incident and the actual term employed. For example the use of
Yahweh in
Genesis 15:7, where God clearly asserts, ". . . I am Yahweh. . . " or
when
Jacob on his
deathbed declares "I have waited for thy salvation, Yahweh" (Genesis
49:18). A more striking passage than even these is
found in Genesis chapter four. There
Eve states,
. . . I have gotten a man with the help of Yahweh."
c.
The use of the name Yahweh after the dispersion of tongues is frequent
and vital to
the
significance of many passages. Genesis
d. The
name Yahweh is compounded with other names long before the time of
Moses.
For example the name appears in the name
of the mother of Moses, Jochebed
(Yokebed)
meaning "Yahweh is glorious" (Exodus 6:20, Numbers 26:59). Against this
argument
some have suggested that Moses changed her name. This, however, is but a
futile
attempt to discredit unmistakable evidence.
That Moses would have done this, to
say the
least, is highly improbable. There are
also some other names from ancient time
which occur
in the genealogies in I Chronicles (I Chron.
that are
compounded with Yahweh.
The occurrence of the name in the word
"Moriah" (Hamoriah cf. Genesis
suggests an
early knowledge of the name.
Fourth: The idiom "to know a name" as it is
used in the Old Testament will not
permit the
liberal understanding of Exodus 6:3.
Consider the following example, noting
the book in
which the reference is found and the chronological setting: Isa. 52:5-6: verse
six reads:
"Therefore people shall know
my name: therefore they shall know
in that day that I
am he that
doth speak; behold it is I." (cf. also Jer. 16:21).
Upon a careful reading of these texts, it
is at once obvious that the higher critical view
of the
expression "to know the name of Yahweh" as it is found in Exodus 6:3
is not only
misleading
but incorrect. If they are correct, then
these texts could mean the name was
not actually
known until Isaiah's and Jeremiah's time, but this on the other hand, would
then be in
conflict with the statement of Moses.
The contradiction disappears when the
proper view
of the idiom is realized. For other
examples of this expression compare II
Chron. 6:33,
Isa. 19:20-21, Ezek. 20:5,9, 39:6-7, Psa. 33:18.
Fifth:
The higher critical method of analysis mutilates the Biblical text, and
beside
that, it is
not a consistent theory. That this
theory mutilates the text is proven by the
analysis of
Genesis 28:19-29 where writers give many alternate changes from E to J back
and forth.
That this
theory is saturated with obvious contradictions in application is evidenced by
the
following facts:
a.
The name "Yahweh" occurs in two passages of P before Ex. 6:3
(Gen. 17:1,
In both cases
a redactor or copyist is invoked to provide the solution to this embarrassing
occurrence.
b. As to E, the name "Yahweh"
occurs in four passages (Gen. 15:1, 2, 22:11, 27:7b).
In these
cases as in the previous a redactor is employed.
36 GRACE
JOURNAL
c.
J uses the term Elohim in many passages (Gen. 3:1, 3, 5,
Once again
redactors are employed to relieve the difficulty.
d.
P contradicts J if the liberal critic's theory is maintained, for J
states that God was
worshipped
by the name Yahweh even before the flood (Gen. 4:25), that He revealed
Himself by
that name to Abram (Gen. 15:7), while P declares in Ex. 6:3 that the name
Yahweh was
not known to the Patriarchs.
Sixth: The experience of literary men and the
history of literature are here in open
conflict
with the pretensions of the critics. None of these scholars now claims to
discover
in the
Pentateuch less than four main writers and a "redactor," while most
of them require
many more.
This skill, it might be noted, is asserted in investigating a foreign and
ancient
tongue, with
no outside documents for comparison, and no knowledge of the alleged
writers. We therefore ask, what is the basis for these
assumptions of the critics? The
answer is
not a careful, objective study of Biblical literature and language, but an
arbitrary,
biased presupposition that the religion of
evolutionary
processes. The fact that there are so
many divergent opinions among the
critics is
evidence that this analysis is not a system, but a scheme. A scheme in which
there is an
agreement on the end to be accomplished, and on the starting point, but the
process is
largely the application of individual and subjective notions.
Seventh: A serious logical fallacy is also to be
discerned in the use of Divine names
as it
relates to the documentary analysis. It can be demonstrated that the higher
critical
method of
documentation is to argue in a circle.
Differences are first created and then
arguments
are based on them. Documents are
distinguished on the basis of the use of
Divine names
and then their correspondences with certain assumed traits or
characteristics
are claimed as proof for the objective existence of these documents.
Eighth: The documentary analysis assumes that the
varied use of the Divine names is
usually an
indication of authorship. The same
argument is applied in respect to various
literary
differences. A more dependable and
proven explanation for these phenomena is
that
different situations and subject matter called for both different literary
styles and
vocabulary.
The constant appeal, by the critic, to a
redactor is a strong evidence that the theory
bears many
fallacies and weaknesses. The redactor
is called to serve in Genesis 2:4b,
3:24, 4:2,
7:9, 9:27, 17:1, 21:1b, 20:18, 28:21, 22:11, etc. Now, the writer should like to
ask at this
point, how is it to be determined what is and what is not the work of a
redactor? If the Divine names are indications of source
documents of the Pentateuch,
then they
must be dependably consistent at this point.
If but one name has been changed
by a
so-called redactor, then how are we to know if the other names have not been
changed? Or
furthermore, how do we know, for example, that where a redactor is
claimed to
have changed Elohim to Yahweh in the E document that perhaps the text is
correct and
a very energetic redactor has not changed the other portion of the context?
Perhaps the
context was really the work of J and a redactor changed all the names of
Yahweh to
Elohim. The reader might argue at this
point that the writer is arguing from
conjecture. The writer would most quickly admit this and
at the same time, would point
out that the
critics holding this theory must be charged with the same fallacy. They have
no more objective
THE PATRIARCHS'
KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 37
proof for
their contentions that the passage was an E document in which a redactor
changed a
name to Yahweh than his contention that it was a J document which had the
Divine name
changed to Elohlm.
B. Interrogative
View: This view holds that the
reading of the text is in the form of a
question not
a statement. It would have Exodus 6:3
read:
"And I appeared unto Abraham,
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty: but
by my name
Yahweh was I not known to them?"
Two writers who find this view acceptable
are Jamieson and Scott.
This view is not necessarily contrary to
the writer's view, but it is not an easily
supported
view. The grammar may permit this view
but a consideration of the movement
of the
general context does not easily support such a reading. Such a reading could
have
been more
clearly indicated in the Hebrew if this reading were intended, but it is not.
Finally,
very few, if any translations have understood this to be the reading of the
Hebrew
text.
C. The
Special Revelation View: The special
revelation view contends that the name
"Yahweh"
was known to the Patriarchs but in a somewhat limited sense. They did not
have a
complete knowledge of many of the aspects of this name especially in its
redemptive
significance. Special redemptive aspects
of the name were revealed and
experienced
in the days of Moses and in particular in the exodus from
is expressed
clearly by Henry Cowles:
The meaning is, not that the name of
Yahweh was never used by them or given of
God to
them: but that its special significance
had not been manifested to them as He was
now: about to make it manifest.13
Others who hold this view or a similar
form of it are
Raven,
Wiener, Allis, Unger and Oehler.
In the light of all the evidence from the
Biblical text, the writer considers this to be the
proper view.
The arguments in support of this view are
three-fold:
1. Exegetical
Argument: In order to deal
accurately with the text at hand, it is
imperative
that there be a clear understanding of the text as it reads in the Hebrew text
Many of the
errors which have arisen in the interpretation of this verse could have been
avoided if
the language and the syntax of this text were more carefully considered. Since
the first
part of the text was dealt with under the consideration of the minor problem,
the
writer shall
proceed to examine the last phrase of the text which translated literally
reads:
“and (in the
capacity of) my name Yahweh I was not known to them."
In the first place it should be observed
that the emphatic word of the sentence is Semi
(“name")
and is so considered because it is first in the Hebrew sentence. The fact that this
word is
38 GRACE
JOURNAL
emphatic is
not without important implications, for it will be shown that the Hebrew
concept of a
name is far more than just that of an identifying title. In the Old Testament
there was a
peculiar signification attached to the name.14
The name "Yahweh" is an
important word not only to this text but to the whole Old
Testament. The etymology of this word has been disputed
by many men for many years.
Some have
attempted to connect it with the Arabic hawa which means to
"blow" or
"breathe." Others have traced the origin of this word to
Egyptian, Phoenician and
Canaanitish
influences. Their arguments for this
etymology are not convincing at all,
especially
since they are based upon the presupposition that the religion of
traced to
natural origins as may the religions of the heathen nations.
As to the formation of the name Yahweh, it
is agreed among most lexicographers and
other
writers on the subject that the term Yahweh, however it might be pointed, is
the
regularly
formed Qal imperfect of the verb Havah (to be) an obsolete form of Hayah.
This view is
not shared by all authorities, however. Some would contend that the name is
to be
understood as a Hiphil imperfect.15
While this view is permissible grammatically, it
is in conflict with Exodus 3:14 where the name is
explained. There the form is clearly a
Qal. When
Moses asked the Lord what name he should use in identifying the "God of
your
fathers" (vs. 13), the Lord answered saying, 'ehey eser 'ehyeh
"I am that I am." He
also told
them that 'ehyeh slahni 'alekem "I am has sent me unto
you." The verb
translated
"I am" in both phrases is ‘ehyeh, which is the Qal imperfect
first person
singular
of hayah. If 'ehyeh therefore, is understood as
the Qal imperfect first person
singular
from the verb hayah and is His name, it is also reasonable to regard
Yahweh as it
appears in
Exodus 6:3 as coming from the same root and also the Qal stem. The latter
form, of
course, is the third person singular of that stem and is translated "He
is." The
only
difference between the two names is, that the one is a verb in the first
person, and
the other is
the same verb in the third person. The
meaning of the one is "I am," and the
meaning of
the other is "He is."
Supporting the view that this stem is the
Qal is Edward Mack who makes the
following
remark:
It is evident from the interpretative
passages (Exodus 3:6) that the form is the future
of the simple stem (Kal) and not future of
the causative (Hiphil) stem in the sense of
"giver of life" an idea not borne
out by any of the occurrences of the word.16
The writer maintains therefore, that the
translation "I am" or" He is "is the proper one