JEHOVAH-1 (Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible")

From BibleWiki

View the Title page of Volume I of Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"

While the Title page of the London edition of Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" is shown at the link above, Smith's "A Dictionary of the Bible" was also published in Boston, in 1863.

Except for some missing foreign language images, the text found in this article below is as it is found in the Boston edition of Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible".

The title of section # 1. below is "JEHOVAH". All the sub-section titles of this BibleWiki article have been added for clarification, and were not found in Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible".

JEHOVAH ( יְהֹוָה, usually with the vowel points of אֲדֹנָי ; but when the two occur together, the former is pointed יֱהֹוִה, that is with the vowels of אֱלֹהִים, as in Obad. i. 1, Hab. iii. 19: the LXX generally render it by κυριος, the Vulgate by Dominus; and in this respect they have been followed by the A.V., where it is translated "The Lord" ).

The true pronunciation of YHWH has been lost

The Jews and the Samaritans use a substitute name for YHWH

The true pronunciation of this name, by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost, the Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it, and substituting in its stead one of the other of the words with whose vowel-points it may happen to be written. This custom , which had its origin in reverence, and has almost degenerated into a superstition, was founded upon an erroneous rendering of Lev. xxiv. 16, from which it was inferred that the mere utterance of the name constituted a capital offence. In the Rabbinical writings it is distinguished by various euphemistic expressions; as simply "the name," or "the name of four letters" (the Greek tetragrammaton); "the great and terrible name;" "the peculiar name," i.e. appropriated to God alone; "the separate name," i.e. either the name which is separated or removed from human knowledge, or, as some render, "the name which has been interpreted or revealed" ( שׁם המפורשׁ, shem hammephorash ).

The Samaritans followed the same custom, and in reading the Pentateuch substituted for Jehovah ( שׁימא, shema ) "the name," at the same time perpetuating the practice in their alphabetical poems and later writings ( Geiger, Urschrift,&c., p. 262 ). According to Jewish tradition, it was pronounced but once a year by the high-priest on the day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies; but on this point there is some doubt, Maimonides ( Mor. Neb. i. 61 ) asserting that the use of the word was confined to the blessings of the priests, and restricted to the sanctuary, without limiting it still further to the high-priest alone. On the same authority we learn that it ceased with Simon the Just ( Yad. Chaz.c.14, §10 ), having lasted through two generations, that of the men of the Great Synagogue and the age of Shemed, while others include the generation of Zedekiah among those who possessed the use of the shem hammephorash ( Midrash on Ps. xxxvi. 11, quoted by Buxtorf in Reland's Decas Exercit. )

But even after the destruction of the second temple we meet with instances of individuals who were in possession of the mysterious secret. A certain Bar Kamzar is mentioned in the Mishna ( Yoma iii. §11 ) who was able to write this name of God; but even on such evidence we may conclude, that after the seige of Jerusalem the true pronunciation almost if not entirely disappeared, the probability being that it had been lost long before. Josephus, himself a priest, confesses that on this point he was not permitted to speak ( Ant. ii. 12, §4 ); and Philo states ( de Vit. Mos. iii. p. 519 ) that for those alone whose ears and tongue were purged by wisdom was it lawful to hear or utter this awful name.

References to ancient writers are not helpful

It is evident therefore that no reference to ancient writers can be expected to throw any light upon the question, and any quotation of them will only render the darkness in which it is involved more palpable. At the same time the discussion though barren of actual results, may on other accounts be interesting; and as it is one in which great names are ranged on both sides, it would for this reason alone be impertinent to dismiss it with a cursory notice.

The underlying Hebrew of Jehovah is critiqued.

In the decade of dissertations collected by Reland, Fuller, Gataker, and Leusden do battle for the pronunciation Jehovah, against such formidable antagonists as Drusius, Amama, Cappellus, Buxtorf, and Altingius, who, it is scarcely necessary to say, fairly beat their opponents out of the field; the only argument of any weight, which is employed by the advocates of the pronunciation of the word as it is written being that derived from the form in which it appears in proper names, such as Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, &c.

Their antagonists make a strong point of the fact that, as has been noticed above, two different sets of vowel points are applied to the same consonants under certain circumstances. To this Leusden, of all the champions on his side, but feebly replies.

The same may be said of the argument derived from the fact that the letters מוכלב, when prefixed to יהוה, take, not the vowels which they would regularly receive were the present pronunciation true, but those with which they would be written if אֲדֹנָי, adonai, were the reading; and that the letters ordinarily taking dagesh lene when following יהוה would, according to the rules of the Hebrew points, be written without dagesh, whereas it is uniformly inserted.

Whatever, therefore, be the true pronunciation of the word, there can be little doubt that it is not Jehovah.

Greek writers do not preserve the true pronunciation of YHWH

In Greek writers it appears under the several forms of 'Iαω (Diod. Sic. i. 94; Irenaeus, i.4, §1). 'Iευω (Porphyry in Eusebius, Praep. Evan. i.9, §21), 'Iαου (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. p. 666), and in a catena to the Pentateuch in a MS. at Turin 'Iαουε; both Theodoret (Quaest. 15 in Exod.) and Epiphanius (Haer. 20) give Iαβε, the former distinguishing it as the pronunciation of the Samaritans, while 'Aια represented that of the Jews.

But even if these writers were entitled to speak with authority, their evidence only tends to show in how many different ways the four letters of the word יהוה could be represented in Greek characters, and throws no light either upon its real pronunciation or its punctuation. In like manner Jerome (on Ps. viii.), who acknowledges that the Jews considered it an ineffable name, at the same time says it may be read Jaho,— of course supposing the passage in question to be genuine, which is open to doubt.

Conjecture about a non-Hebraic origin of Jehovah

In the absence, therefore, of anything satisfactory from these sources, there is plainly left a wide field for conjecture. What has been done in this field the following pages will show. It will be better perhaps to ascend from the most improbable hypotheses to those which carry with them show of reason, and thus prepare the way for the considerations which will follow.

I. Von Bohlen, at once most sceptical and most credulous, whose hasty conclusions are only paralleled by the rashness of his assumptions, unhesitatingly asserts that beyond all doubt the word Jehovah is not semite in its origin. Pinning his faith upon the Abraxas gems, in which he finds it in the form Jao, he connects it with the Sanscript devas, devo, the Greek Διος, and Latin Jovis or Diovis. But, apart from the consideration that his authority is at least questionable, he omits to explain the striking phenomenon that the older form which has the d should be preserved in the younger languages, the Greek and ancient Latin, while not a trace of it appears in the Hebrew. It would be desirable also that, before a philological argument of this nature can be admitted, the relationship between the Semite and Indo-Germanic languages should be more clearly established. In the absence of this, any inferences which may be drawn from apparent resemblences (the resemblence in the present case not being even apparent) will lead to certain error.

Egypt

That the Hebrew learned the word from the Egyptians is a theory which has found some advocates. The foundations for this theory are sufficiently slight. As has been mentioned above, Diodorus (i. 94) gives the Greek form 'Iαω; and from this it has been inferred that 'Iαω was a deity of the Egyptians, whereas nothing can be clearer from the context than that the historian is speaking especially of the God of the Jews. Again, in Macrobius (Sat. i. c. 18), a line is quoted from an oracular response of Appolo Clarius,

φραζεο τον παντων υπατον θεον εμμεν 'Iαω

which has been made use of for the same purpose. But Jablonsky (Panth. .Aeg, ii. §5) has proved incontestably that the author of the verses from which the above is quoted, was one of the Judaizing Gnostics, who were in the habit of making the names 'Iαω and Σεβαωθ the subjects of mystical speculations. The Ophites, who were Egyptians, are known to have given the name 'Iαω to the Moon (Neander, Gnost. 252), but this, as Tholuck suggests, may have arisen from the fact that in Coptic the Moon is called ioh (Verm. Schriften. th. i. 385). Movers (Phoen. i. 540), while defending the genuineness of the passage of Macrobius,connects 'Iαω which denotes the Sun or Dionysus, with the root הוה, so that it signifies "the lifegiver"

In any case, the fact that the name 'Iαω is found among the Greeks and Egyptians, or among the Orientals of Further Asia, in the 2nd or 3rd century, cannot be made use of as an argument that the Hebrews derived their knowledge of the word from anyone of these nations. On the contrary, there can be but little doubt that the process in reality was reversed, and that in this case the Hebrews were, not the borrowers, but the lenders. We have indisputable evidence that it existed among them, whatever may have been its origin, many centuries before it is found in other records; of the contrary we have no evidence whatever.

China - Burmah

Of the singular manner in which the word has been introduced into other languages, we have a remarkable instance in a passage quoted by M. Remusat, from one of the works of the Chinese philosopher Laotseu, who flourished, according to Chinese chronology, about the 6th or 7th century B.C., and held the opinions commonly attributed to Pythagoras, Plato, and others of the Greeks. This passage M. Remusat translates as follows: — "Celui que vous regardez et que vous ne voyez pas, se nomme j; celui que vous ecoutez et que vous n'entendez pas, se nomme Hi; celui que votre main cherche et qu'elle ne peut pas saisir, se nomme Wei. Ce sont trois etres; qu'on ne pent comprendre, et qui, confondus, n'en font qu'un." In these three letters J H V Remusat thinks that he recognizes the name Jehovah of the Hebrews, which might have been learnt by the philosopher himself or some of his pupils in the course of his travels; or it might have been brought into China by some exiled Jews or Gnostics. The Chinese interpreter of the passage maintains that these mystical letters signify " the void," so that in his time every trace of the origin of the word had in all probability been lost. And not only does it appear, though perhaps in a questionable form, in the literature of the Chinese. In a letter from the missionary Plaisant to the Vicar Apostolic Boucho, dated 18th Feb. 1847, there is mention made of a tradition which existed among a tribe in the jungles of Burmah, that the divine being was called Jova or Kara-Jova, and that the peculiarities of the Jehovah of the Old Testament were attributed to him (Reinke, Beitrage, iii. 65).

Egypt-Greece

But all this is very vague and more curious than convincing, The inscription in front of the temple of Isis at Sais quoted by Plutarch (de Is. et Os. §9), " I am all that hath been, and that is, and that shall be," which has been employed as an argument to prove that the name Jehovah was known among the Egyptians, is mentioned neither by Herodotus, Diodorus nor Strabo; and Proclus, who does allude to it, says it was in the adytum of the temple.

But, even if it be genuine, its authority is worthless for the purpose for which it is adduced. For, supposing that Jehovah is the name to which such meaning is attached, it follows rather that the Egyptians borrowed it and learned its significance from the Jews, unless it can be proved that both in Egyptian and Hebrew the same combination of letters conveyed the same idea. Without, however, having recourse to any hypothesis of this kind, the peculiarity of the inscription is sufficiently explained by the place which, as is well known, Isis holds in the Egyptian mythology as the universal mother.

The advocates of the Egyptian origin of the word have shown no lack of ingenuity in summoning to their aid authorities the most unpromising. A passage from a treatise on interpretation ( περι ερυηνειας, §71 ),written by one Demetrius, in which it is said that the Egyptians hymned their god by means of the seven vowels, has been tortured to give evidence on the point. Scaliger was in doubt whether it referred to Serapis, called by Hesychius "Serapis of seven letters" ( το επταγραμματον Σαραπις ), or to the exclamation הוּא יְהֹוָה, hu yehovah, "He is Jehovah." Of the latter there can be but little doubt.

Gesner took the seven Greek vowels, and arranging them in the order IEHΩOΤA, found therein Jehovah. But he was triumphantly refuted by Didymus, who maintained that the vowels were merely used for musical notes, and in this very probable conjecture he is supported by the Milesiau inscription elucidated by Barthelemy and others.

In this the invocation of God is denoted by the seven vowels five times repeated in different arrangements, Aεηιουω, Eηιουωα, Hιουωαε, Iουωαεη , Oυωαεηι: each group of vowels precedes a "holy" ( αγιε ), and the whole concludes with the following: "The city of the Milesians and all the inhabitants are guarded by archangels." Muller, with much probability, concludes that the seven vowels represented the seven notes of the octave.

One more argument for the Egyptian origin of Jehovah remains to be noticed. It is found in the circumstance that Pharaoh changed the name of Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 K. xxiii. 34), which it is asserted is not in accordance with the practice of conquerors towards the conquered, unless the Egyptian king imposed upon the king of Judah the name of one of his own gods. But the same reasoning would prove that the origin of the Word was Babylonian, for the king of Babylon changed the name of Mattaniah to Zedekiah (2 K. xxiv. 17).

Phonicians and Canaanites

But many, abandoning as untenable the theory of an Egyptian origin, have sought to trace the name among the Phonicians and Canaanitish tribes. In support of this, Hartmann brings forward a passage from a pretended fragment of Sanchoniatho quoted by Philo-Byblius, a writer of the age of Nero. But it is now generally admitted that the so called fragments of Sanchoniatho, the ancient Phoenician chronicler, are most impudent forgeries concocted by Philo-Byblius himself. Besides, the passage to which Hartmann refers is not found in Philo-Byblins, but is quoted from Porphyry by Eusebins (Praep. Evan. i. 9, §21), and, genuine or not, evidently alludes to the Jehovah of the Jews. It is there stated that the most trustworthy authority in matters connected with the Jews was Sanchoniatho of Beyrout, who received his information from Hierombalos (Jerobbaal) the priest of the god 'Iευω.

From the occurrence of Jehovah as a compound in the proper names of many who were not Hebrews, Hamaker (Misc. Phoen. p. 174, &c.) contends that it must have been known among heathen people. But such knowledge, if it existed, was no more might have been obtained by their necessary contact with the Hebrews. The names of Uriah the Hittite, of Araunah or Aranjah the Jebusite, of Tobiah the Ammorite, and of the Canaanitish town Bizjothjah, may be all explained without having recourse to Hamaker's hypothesis.

Of as little value is his appeal to 1 K. v. 7, where we find the name Jehovah in the mouth of Hiram, king of Tyre. Apart from the consideration that Hiram would necessarily be acquainted with the name as that of the Hebrews' national god, its occurrence is sufficiently explained by the tenor of Solomon's message (1 K. v. 3-5).

Another point on which Hamaker relies for Support is the name 'Aβδαιος, which occurs as that of a Tyrian suffete in Menander (Jos. c. .Apion. i. 21), and which he identifies with Obadiah (עֹבַדְיָה). But both Fürst and Hengstenberg represent it in Hebrew characters by עַבְדַּי, 'abdai, which even Hamaker thinks more probable.

Conjecture about a Hebrew origin of Jehovah

II. Such are the principal hypotheses which have been constructed in order to account for a non-Hebraic origin of Jehovah. To attribute much value to them requires a large share of faith.

It remains now to examine the theories on the opposite side; for on this point authorities are by no means agreed, and have frequently gone to the contrary extreme.

S. D. Luzzatto (Anim. in Jes. Vat. in Rosenmuller's Compend. xxiv.) advances with singular naiveté the extraordinary statement that Jehovah, or rather יהוה divested of points, is compounded of two interjections, וָה, vah, of pain, and יָהוּ, yahu, of joy, and denotes the author of good and evil. Such an etymology, from one who is unquestionably among the first of modem Jewish scholars, is a remarkable phenomenon.

Ewald, referring to Gen. xix. 24, suggests as the origin of Jehovah, the Arab. (image) which signifies " height, heaven;" a conjecture of which no one will desire to rob him. But most have taken for the basis of their explanations, and the different methods of punctuation which they propose, the passage in Ex. iii. 14, to which we much naturally look for a solution of the question.

When Moses received his commission to be the deliverer of Israel, the Almighty, who appeared in the burning bush, communicated to him the name which he should give as the credentials of his mission:"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM ( אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה ehyeh asher ehyeh ); and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

That this passage is intended to indicate the etymology of Jehovah, as understood by the Hebrews, no one has ventured to doubt: it is in fact the key to the whole mystery.

But, though it certainly supplies the etymology, the interpretation must be determined from other considerations. According to this view יהוה must be the 3rd sing. masc. fut. of the subtantive verb היה, the older form of which was הוה, still found in the Chaldee הֲוָה, and Syriac (image) a fact which will be referred to hereafter in discussing the antiquity of the name.

If this etymology be correct, and there seems little reason to call it into question, one step towards the true punctuation and pronunciation is already gained.

Many learned men, and among them Grotius, Galatinus. Crusius, and Leusden, in an age when such fancies were rife, imagined that, reading the name with the vowel points usually attached to it, they discovered an indication of the eternity of God in the fact that as the name by which He revealed Himself to the Hebrews was compounded of the Present Participle and the Future and Praeterite tenses of the substantive verb. The idea may have been suggested by the expression in Rev. iv. 8 (δ ην και ο ων και ο ερχομενος), and received apparent confirmation from the Targ. Jon. on Deut. xxxii. 39, and Targ. Jer. on Ex. iii. 14.

These passages, however, throw no light upon the composition of the name, and merely assert that in its significance it embraces past, present, and future.

The rejection of the punctuation of YHWH, that is found in Jehovah

But having agreed to reject the present punctuation, it is useless to discuss any theories which may be based upon it, had they even greater probability in their favour than the ones just mentioned.

Scholars propose other possible punctuations of YHWH

As one of the forms in which Jehovah appears in Greek characters is 'Iαω, it has been proposed by Cappellus to punctuate it יַהְוֹה, yahvoh, which is clearly contrary to the analogy of ל"ה verbs.

Gussetius suggested יֶהֶוֶה, yeheveh, or יִהְוֶה, yihveh,
in the former of which he is supported by the authority of Fürst;

and Mercer and Corn. a Lapide read it יֶהְוֶה, yehveh:
but on all these suppositions we should have יֵהוּ for יָהוּ in the terminations of compound proper names.

The suffrages of others are divided between יַהְוֶה, or יַהֲוֶה,
supposed to be represented by the 'Iαβε of Epiphanius above mentioned,
and יַהְוָה or יַהֲוֶה,
of which Fürst holds to be the 'Iευω of Porphyry, or the 'Iαου of Clemens Alexandrinus.

Caspari (Micha, p. 5, &c_) decides in favour of the former
on the ground that this form only would give rise to the contraction יָהוּ in proper names,
and opposes both Fürst's punctuation יֶהְוֶה or יֶהֱוֶה,
as well as that of יֶהְוָה or יֶהְוָה which would be contracted into יֵהדּ.

Smith notes Gesenius's 19th century punctuation [ i.e. Yahveh ] of YHWH

Gesenius punctuates the word יַהְוֶה,
from which, or from יַהֲוֶה,
are derived the abbreviated form יָהּ, yah, used in poetry,
and the form יַהְיְ = יֲהו = יְהוֹ
(so יִהְיְ becomes יְהִי),
which occurs at the commencement of compound proper names (Hitzig), Jesaia, p, 4).

Delitzsch's criticism of Gesenius's punctuation [ i.e. Yahveh ]

Delitzsch maintains that, whichever punctuation be adopted, the quiescent sheva under ה is ungrammatical, and Chateph Pathach is the proper vowel.

He therefore writes it יַהֲוָה, yahavah, to which he says the 'Aia of Theodoret corresponds; the last vowel being Kametz instead of Segol, according to the analogy of proper names derived from ל"ה verbs ( e.g. יסכה ימרה ימנה and others. ).

In his opinion the form יהּ is not an abbreviation, but a concentration of the tetragrammaton (Comm. über den Psalter, einl.).

Smith notes Gesenius's punctuation [ i.e. Yahveh ] a 2nd time.

There remains to be noticed the suggestion of Gesenius that the form יַהְוֶה, which he adopted,
might be the Hiph. Fut. of the substantive verb. Of the same opinion was Reuss.

Others again would make it Piel, and read יֲהוֶּה.

Fürst (Handw. s. v.) mentions some other etymologies
which affect the meaning rather than the punctuation of the name;
such, for instance, as that it is derived from a root הוה, "to overthrow,"
and signifies "the destroyer or storm-sender;"
or that it denotes "the light or heaven" from a root יפה = הוה, "to be bright,"
or "the life-giver," from the same root = הוה, "to live."

Smith decides that "Yahaveh" is the more probable punctuation.

We have therefore to decide between יַהֲוֶה or יַהֲוָה,
and accept the former, i. e. Yahaveh, as the more probable punctuation,
continuing at the same time for the sake of convenience to adopt the form "Jehovah" in what follows,
on account of its familiarity to English readers.

Distinguishing Jehovah and Elohim

III. The next point for consideration is of vastly more importance:
what is the meaning of Jehovah,
and what does it express of the being and nature of God,
more than or in distinction from the other names applied to the deity in the 0. T. ?

That there was some distinction in these different appellations was early perceived,
and various explanations were employed to account for it.

Tertullian (adv. Hermog. c. 3) observed that God was not called Lord (κυριος) till after the Creation,
and in consequence of it; while Augustine found in it an indication of the absolute dependence of man upon God (de Gen. ad lit, viii. 2).

Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. in Gen. ) considered the two names, Lord and God, as equivalent,
and the alternate use of them arbitrary.

But all their arguments proceed upon the supposition
that the κυριος of the LXX. is the true rendering of the original,
whereas it is merely the translation of אֲדֹנָי, adonai, whose points it bears.

With regard to אֱלֹהִים, elohim, the other chief name by which the Deity is designated in the 0. T., it has been held by many, and the opinion does not even now want supporters, that in the plural form of the word was shadowed forth the plurality of persons in the godhead, and the mystery of the Trinity was inferred therefrom. Such, according to Peter Lombard, was the true significance of Elohim.

But Calvin, Mercer, Drusius, and Bellarmine have given the weight of their authority against an explanation so fanciful and arbitrary.

Among the Jewish writers of the middle ages the question much more nearly approached its solution. R. Jehuda Hallevi (12th cent.) the author of the book Cozri, found in the usage of Elohim a protest against idolaters, who call each personified power אֱלֹהַּ, eloah, and all collectively Elohim. He interpreted it as the most general name of the Deity, distinguishing Him as manifested in the exhibition of His power, without reference to His personality or moral qualities, or to any special relation which He bears to man.

Jehovah, on the contrary, is the revealed and known God. While the meaning of the former could be evolved by reasoning, the true significance of the latter could only be apprehended "by that prophetic vision by which a man is, as it were, separated and withdrawn from his own kind, and approaches to the angelic, and another spirit enters into him."

In like manner Maimonides (Mor. Neb. i. 61, Buxt.) saw in Jehovah the name which teaches of the substance of the Creator,
and Abarbanel (quoted by Buxtorf, de Nom. Dei, §39) distinguishes Jehovah,
as denoting God according to what He is in Himself,
from Elohim which conveys the idea of the impression made by His power.

In the opinion of Astruc, a Belgian physician, with whom the documentary hypothesis originated, the alternate use of the two names was arbitrary, and determined by no essential difference.

Hasse (Entdeckungen) considered them as historical names,
and Sack (de usu nom. dei, &c. ) regarded Elohim as a vague term
denoting "a certain infinite, omnipotent, incomprehensible existence,
from which things finite and visible have derived their origin,"
while to God, as revealing himself, the more definite title of Jehovah was applied.

Ewald, in his tract on the composition of Genesis (written when he was nineteen),
maintained that Elohim denoted the Deity in general,
and is the common or lower name,
while Jehovah was the national god of the Israelites.

But in order to carry out his theory he was compelled in many places to alter the text, and was afterwards induced to modify his statements, which were opposed by Gramberg and Stahelin.

Doubtless Elohim is used in many cases of the gods of the heathen,
who included in the same title the God of the Hebrews,
and denoted generally the Deity when spoken of as a supernatural being,
and when no national feeling influenced the speaker.

It was Elohim who, in the eyes of the heathen, delivered the Israelites from Egypt (1 Sam. iv. 8),
and the Egyptian lad adjured David by Elohim,
rather than by Jehovah, of whom he would have no knowledge (1 Sam. xxx. 15).

So Ehud announces to the Moabitish king a message from Elohim (Judg. iii. 20);
to the Syrians the Jehovah of the Hebrews was only their national God,
one of the Elohim (1 K. xx. 23, 28),
and in the mouth of a heathen the name Jehovah would convey no more intelligible meaning than this.

It is to be observed also that when a Hebrew speaks with a heathen he uses the more general term Elohim.

Joseph, in addressing Pharaoh (Gen. xii. 16), and David, in appealing to the king of Moab to protect his family (1 Sam. xxii. 3), designate the Deity by the less specific title; and on the other hand the same rule is generally followed when the heathen are the speakers, as in the case of Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 23), the Hittites (Gen. xxiii. 6), the Midianite (Judg. vii.14), and Joseph in his assumed character as an Egyptian (Gen. xlii. 18).

But, although this distinction between Elohim, as the general appellation of Deity,
and Jehovah, the national God of the Israelites, contains some superficial truth,
the real nature of their difference must be sought for far deeper,
and as a foundation for the arguments which will be adduced recourse must again be had to etymology.

The derivation of Elohim

IV. With regard to the derivation of אֱלֹהִים, elohim, the pl. of אֱלוֹהַּ, etymologists are divided in their opinions; some connecting it with אֵל, el, and the unused root אוּל, ul, " to be strong," while others refer it to the Arabic (image), aliha, " to be astonished," and hence (image), alaha, "to worship, adore," Elohim thus denoting the Supreme Being who was worthy of all worship and adoration, the dread and awful One.

But Fürst, with much greater probability, takes the noun in this case as the primitive from which is derived the idea of worship contained in the verb, and gives as the true root אוּל = אָלָה " to be Strong."

Delitzsch would prefer a root, אוּל = אָלָה = אָלַהּ (Symb. ad Psalm. illustr. p.29).

From whatever root, however, the word may be derived, most are of opinion that the primary idea contained in it is that of strength, power; so that Elohim is the proper appellation of the Deity, as manifested in His creative and universally sustaining agency, and in the general divine guidance and government of the world.

Hengstenberg, who adheres to the derivation above-mentioned from the Arab., aliha and alaha,
deduces from this etymology his theory
that Elohim indicates a lower,
and Jehovah a higher stage of the knowledge of God,
on the ground that "the feeling of fear is the lowest which can exist in reference to God,
and merely in respect of this feeling is God marked by this designation.".

But the same inference might also be drawn on the supposition that the idea of simple power or strength is the most prominent in the word; and it is more natural that the divine Being should be conceived of as strong before He became the object of fear and adoration. To this view Gesenius accedes, when he says that the notion of worshipping and fearing is rather derived from the power of the Deity which is expressed in his name.

The meaning of Elohim

The question now arises, What is the meaning to be attached to the plura1 form of the word ? As has been already mentioned, some have discovered therein the mystery of the Trinity, while others maintain that it points to polytheism.

The Rabbis generally explain it as the plural of majesty; Rabbi Bechai, as signifying the lord of all powers.

Abarbanel and Kimchi consider it a title of honour, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom, of which examples will be found in Is. liv. 5, Job xxxv. 10, Gen. xxxix. 20, xlii. 30.

In Prov. ix. 1, the plural חָכְמוֹת, chacmoth, "wisdoms," is used for wisdom in the abstract, as including all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Hence it is probable that the plural form Elohim, instead of pointing to polytheism, is applied to God as comprehending in Himself the fulness of all power, and uniting in a perfect degree all that which the name signifies, and all the attributes which the heathen ascribe to the several divinities of their pantheon.

The singular אֱלוֹהּ eloah, with few exceptions (Neb. ix. 17; 2 Chr. xxxii. 15), occurs only in poetry. It will be found, upon examination of the passages in which Elohim occurs, that it is chiefly in places where God is exhibited only in the plenitude of his power, and where no especial reference is made to his unity, personality; or holiness, or to his relation to Israel and the theocracy. (See Ps. xvi. 1, xix. 1,7, 8.)

Hengstenberg's etymology of the word is disputed by Delitzsch (Symb. ad Pss. Illustr. p. 29n.), who refers it, as has been mentioned above, to a root indicating power or might, and sees in it an expression not of what men think of God, but of what He is is in Himself, in so far as He has life omnipotent in Himself, and according as He is the beginning and end of all life. For the true explanation of the name he refers to the revelation of the mystery of the Trinity.

But it is at least extremely doubtful whether to the ancient Israelites any idea of this nature was conveyed by Elohim; and in making use of the more advanced knowledge supplied by the New Testament, there is some danger of discovering more meaning and more subtle significance than was ever intended to be expressed.

Jehovah in His relationship to man

V. But while Elohim exhibits God displayed in his power as the creator and governor of the physical universe, the name Jehovah designates his nature as He stands in relation to man, as the only, almighty, true, personal, holy Being, a spirit, and "the father of spirits" (Num. xvi. 22; comp. John iv. 24), who revealed himself to his people, made a covenant with them, and became their lawgiver; and to whom all honor and worship are due.

If the etymology above given be accepted, and the name be derived from the future tense of the substantive verb, it would denote, in accordance with the general analogy of proper names of a similar form, "He that is," " the Being," whose chief attribute is eternal existence. Jehovah is represented as eternal (Gen. xxi. 33; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16), unchangeable (Ex. iii. 14; Mal. iii. 6), the only being (Josh. xxii. 22; Ps. 1. 1), Creator and lord of all things (Ex. xx. 11; comp. Num. xvi. 22 with xxvii. 16; Is. xlii. 5).

It is Jehovah who made the covenant with his people (Gen. xv. 18; Num. x. 33, &c.).

In this connexion Elohim occurs but once (Ps. lxxviii. 10), and even with the article, Ha-Elohim, which expresses more personality than Elohim alone, is found but seldom (Judg. xx. 27; 1 Sam. iv. 4).

The Israelites were enjoined to observe the commandments of Jehovah ( Lev. iv. 27, &c.), to keep His law, and to worship Him alone. Hence the phrase "to serve Jehovah" (Ex. x. 7, 8, &c.) is applied to denote true worship, whereas "to serve Ha-Elohim" is used but once in this sense (Ex. iii. 12), and Elohim occurs in the same association only when the worship of idols is He spoken of (Deut. iv. 28; Judg. iii. 6).

As Jehovah, the only true God, is the only object of true worship, to him belong the sabbaths and festivals, and all the ordinances connected with the religious services of the Israelites (Ex. x. 9, xii. 11; Lev. xxiii. 2). His are the altars on which offerings are made to the true God; the priests and ministers are His (1 Sam. ii. 11, xiv. 3), and so exclusively that a priest of Elohim is always associated with idolatrous worship.

To Jehovah alone are offerings made (Ex. viii. 8), and if Elohim is ever used in this connexion, it is always qualified by pronominal suffixes, or some word in construction with it so as to indicate the true God; in all other cases it refers to idols (Ex. xxii. 20, xxxiv. 15).

It follows naturally that the temple and tabernacle are Jehovah's, and if they are attributed to Elohim, the latter is in some manner restricted as before. The prophets are the prophets of Jehovah, and their announcements proceed from him, seldom from Elohim.

The Israelites are the people of Jehovah

The Israelites are the people of Jehovah (Ex. xxxvi.See 20), the congregation of Jehovah (Num. xvi. 3), as the Moabites are the people of Chemosh (Jer. xiviii. 46). Their king is the anointed of Jehovah; their wars are the wars of Jehovah (Ex. xiv. 25 ; 1 Sam. xviii. 17); their enemies are the enemies of Jehovah (2 Sam. xii. 14); it is the hand of Jehovah that delivers them up to their foes (Judg. vi. 1, xiii. 1, &c,), and He it is who rises up for them deliverers and judges, and on whom they call in times of peril (Judg.ii. 18, iii. 9, 15; Josh. xxiv. 7; 1 Sam. xvii. 37).

In fine, Jehovah is the theocratic king of his people (Judg. viii. 23), by him their kings reign and achieve success against the national enemies (1 Sam. xi. 13, xiv. 23). Their heroes are inspired by His Spirit (Judg. iii, 10, vi. 34), and their hand steeled against their foes (2 Sam. vii. 23); the watchword of Gideon was "The Sword of Jehovah, and of Gideon!" (Judg. vii. 20). The day on which God executes judgment on the wicked is the day of Jehovah (Is. ii. 12, xxxiv. 8; comp. Rev. xvi. 14).

As the Israelites, were in a remarkable manner distinguished as the people of Jehovah, who became their lawgiver and supreme ruler, it is not strange that He should be in strong contrast with Chemosh ( Judg. xi. 24), Ashtaroth (Judg. x, 6) and the Baalim (Judg. iii. 7), the national deities of the surrounding nations, and thus be pre-eminently distinguished as the tutelary deity of the Hebrews in one aspect of his character.

Such and no more was He to the heathen (1 K. xx. 23); but all this and much more to the Israelites, to whom Jehovah was a distinct personal subsistence,—the living God who reveals himself to man by word and deed, helps, guides, saves, and delivers, and is to the Old what Christ is to the New Testament.

Jehovah was no abstract name, but thoroughly practical, and stood in intimate connexion with the religious life of the people.

While Elohim represents God only in his most outward relation to man, and distinguishes him as recognized in his omnipotence, Jehovah describes him according to his innermost being.

In Jehovah the moral attributes are presented as constituting the essence of his nature; whereas in Elohim there is no reference to personality or moral character.

The relation of Elohim to Jehovah has been variously explained. The former, in Hengstenberg's opinion, indicates a lower, and the latter a higher, stage of consciousness of God; Elohim becoming Jehovah by an historical process, and to show how He became so, being the main object of the sacred history.

Kurtz considers the two names as related to each other as power and evolution; Elohim the God of the beginning, Jehovah of the development; Elohim the Creator, Jehovah the mediator. Elohim is God of the beginning and end, the creator and the judge; Jehovah the God of the middle, of the development which lies between the beginning and end (Die Einheit der Gen.).

That Jehovah is identical with Elohim, and not a separate being, is indicated by the joint use of the names Jehovah-Elohim.

The antiquity of the name Jehovah

VI. The antiquity of the name Jehovah among the Hebrews has formed the subject of much discussion. That it was not known before the age of Moses has been inferred from Ex. vi. 3; while Von Bohlen assigns it a much more recent date, and contends that we have "no conclusive proof of the worship of Jehovah anterior to the ancient hymns of David" ('Int. to Gen. i. 150, Eng. tr.).

But, on the other hand, we should be inclined to infer from the etymology of the word that it originated in an age long prior to that of Moses, in whose time the root הָיָה = הָוָה was already antiquated.

From the Aramaic form in which it appears ( comp. Chald. הֲוָה, Syr. (image), Jahn refers to the earliest times of Abraham for its date, and to Mesopotamia or Ur of the Chaldees for its birthplace. Its usage in Genesis cannot be explained, as Le Clerc suggests, by supposing it to be employed by anticipation, for it is introduced where the persons to whom the history relates are speaking, and not only where the narrator adopts terms familiar to himself; and the same difficulty remains whatever hypothesis be assumed with regard to the original documents which formed the basis of the history.

At the same time it is distinctly stated in Ex. vi. 3, that to the patriarchs God was not known by the name Jehovah. If, therefore, this passage has reference to the first revelation of Jehovah simply as a name and title of God, there is clearly a discrepancy which requires to be explained. In renewing his promise of deliverance from Egypt, "God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am Jehovah; and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by (the name of) God Almighty (El Shaddai, שַׁדַּי אֵל), but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." It follows then that, if the reference were merely to the name as a name, the passage in question would prove equally that before this time Elohim was unknown as an appellation of the Deity, and God would appear uniformly as El Shaddai in the patriarchal history.

But although it was held by Theodoret (Quaest. 15 in Ex.) and many of the Fathers, who have been followed by a long list of moderns, that the name was first made known by God to Moses, and then introduced by him among the Israelites, the contrary was maintained by Cajetan, Lyranus, Calvin, Rosenmuller, Hengstenberg, and others, who deny that the passage in Ex. vi. alludes to the introduction of the name.

Calvin saw at once that the knowledge there spoken of could not refer to the syllables and letters, but to the recognition of God's glory and majesty. It was not the name, but the true depth of its significance which was unknown to and uncomprehended by the patriarchs. They had known God as the omnipotent, El Shaddai (Gen. xvii. 1, xxviii. 3), the ruler of the physical universe, and of man as one of his creatures; as a God eternal, immutable, and true to his promise he was yet to be revealed.

In the character expressed by the name Jehovah he had not hitherto been fully known; his true attributes had not been recognized (comp. Jarchi on Ex, vi. 3) in his working and acts for Israel.

Aben Ezra explained the occurrence of the name in Genesis as simply indicating the knowledge of it as a proper name, not as a qualificative expressing the attributes and qualities of God.

Referring to other passages in which the phrase "the name of God" occurs, it is clear that something more is intended by it than a mere appellation, and that the proclamation of the name of God is a revelation of his moral attributes, and of his true character as Jehovah (Ex. xxxiii. 19,xxxiv. 6, 7) the God of the covenant.

Maimonides (Mor. Neb. i. 64, ed. Buxtorf) explains the name of God as signifying his essence and his truth, and Olshausen (on Matt. xviii. 20) interprets "name" (ονομα) as denoting "personality and essential being, and that not as it is incomprehensible or unknown, but in its manifestation."

The name of a thing represents the thing itself so far as it can be expressed in words. That Jehovah was not a new name Havernick concludes from Ex. iii. 14, where "the name of God Jehovah is evidently pre-supposed as already in use, and is only explained, interpreted, and applied... It is certainly not a new name that is introduced; on the contrary, the אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (I am that I am) would be unintelligible, if the name itself were not presupposed as already known.

The old name of antiquity, whose precious significance had been forgotten and neglected by the children of Israel, here as it were rises again to life, and is again brought home to the consciousness of the people" (lntrod. to the Pent. p. 61).

The same passage supplies an argument to prove that by "name" we are not to understand merely letters and syllables, for Jehovah appears at first in another form, ehyeh (אֶהְיֶה).

The correct collective view of Ex. vi. 3, Hengstenberg conceives to be the following:— "Hitherto that Being, who in one aspect was Jehovah, in another had always been Elohim. The great crisis now drew nigh in which Jehovah Elohim would be changed into Jehovah. In prospect of this event God solemnly announced himself as Jehovah."

Great stress has been laid, by those who deny the antiquity of the name Jehovah, upon the fact that proper names compounded with it occur but seldom before the age of Samuel and David. It is undoubtedly true that, after the revival of the true faith among the Israelites, proper names so compounded did become more frequent, but if it can be shown that prior to the time of Moses any such names existed, it will be sufficient to prove that the name Jehovah was not entirely unknown. Among those which have been quoted for this purpose are Jochebed the mother of Moses, and daughter of Levi, and Moriah, the mountain on which Abraham was commanded to offer up Isaac. Against the former it is urged that Moses might have changed her name to Jochebed after the name Jehovah had been communicated by God; but this is very improbable, as he was at this time eighty years old, and his mother in all probability dead.

If this only be admitted as a genuine instance of a name compounded with Jehovah, it takes us at once back into the patriarchal age, and proves that a word which was employed in forming the proper name of Jacob's granddaughter could not have been unknown to that patriarch himself.

The name Moriah (מוֹרִיָה) is of more importance, for in one passage in which it occurs it is accompanied by an etymology intended to indicate what was then understood by it (2 Chr. iii. 1). Hengstenberg regards it as a compound of מָרְאֶה, the Hoph. Part. of רָאָה, and יָהּ, the abbreviated form of יְהֹוָה; so that, according to this etymology, it would signify "shown by Jehovah." Gesenius, adopting the meaning of ראה in Gen. xxii. 8, renders it "chosen by Jehovah," but suggests at the same time what he considers a more probable derivation, according to which Jehovah does not form a part of the compound word. But there is reason to believe from various allusions in Gen. xxii. that the former was regarded as the true etymology.

Conclusion

Having thus considered the origin, significance, and antiquity of the name Jehovah, the reader will be in a position to judge how much of truth there is in the assertion of Schwind (quoted by Reinke, Beitr. iii. 135, n. 10) that the terms Elohim, Jehovah Elohim, and then Jehovah alone applied to God, show "to the philosophic inquirer the process of the human mind from a plurality of gods to a superior god, and from this to a single Almighty Creator and ruler of the world."

The principal authorities which have been made use of in this article are Hengstenberg, On the Authenticity of the Pentateuch, i. 213-307, Eng. Trans.; Reinke, Phil. histor. Abhandlung uber den Gottesnamen Jehova, Beitrage, vol. iii.; Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften, th. i. 377-405; Kurtz, Die Einheit der Genesis xliii.-liii.; Keil, Ueber die Gottesnamen im Pentateuche in Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift; Ewald, Die Composition der Genesis; Gesenius, Thesaurus; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, and Reland, Decas exercitationum philologicarum de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehova, besides those already quoted. [W. A. W.]