Journal Of Biblical Literature P 522 1914 025

User Manual: P-522

Open the PDF directly: View PDF PDF.
Page Count: 23

DownloadJournal Of Biblical Literature P-522 1914 025
Open PDF In BrowserView PDF
SCHIDDT: YAHWE ELOHIM

25

Yahwe Elohim
NATHANIEL SCHMIDT
CORNELL UNIVERSITY

N Gen. 2 4-3 24 the double name J ahwe Elohim occurs
twenty times. It is also found in Ex. 9 30; II Sam. 7 22, 25;
Jonah46; Pss. 7218 1 8491 12; IChron.1716,17b, 282o, 291;
II Chron. 1 9 1 6 41 twice, 42, 26 18. Whether it was used originally in any of these passages may be seriously questioned.
There seems to be strong evidence that G had only 0 efOS',
without a preceding Kvpto;, in Gen. 2 41 5 1 7, 81 91 19 1 21, 22, 3 13,
14, 22, while the secondary character of Kvptos- in 2 15, 16, 18, 3 1,
sab, 9, 21,23 is highly probable. MSS. that have preserved, more
or less completely, the asterisks of Origen show that he introduced Kvptos-, with this sign, before o 8£os- in 2 4, 5, 7, 8, 3 22, and
there are indications that the same process was followed by
him in 2 9, 19, 21, 22, 3 13, 14.
Grabe, in his edition of A, marked Kvptos- in 2 4, 51 8 with
the asterisk, and in 2 21, 3 13, 22 with the sign x showing that
other indications were relied upon than the hexaplaric MSS.
and direct patristic testimony. Kvptos- in 3 22 should have the
asterisk; but Holmes X was not known until 1715 when Montfaucon's Bibliotheca Coisliniana appeared, and Grabe published
his text in 1707. For Gen. 11-46 28, missing in B, the editors
of the Sixtine used Holmes 19 which has only o 8£os- in 2 5, <,
s, 9, 19, 21, 22, 3 22 (and also 3 11 where MT. has no name), and
KvptOS' 0 efOS' in 2 4, 15, 16, 18, 3 I, 8ab, 9, 13, 14, 21, 23. This is an
excellent MS. closely akin to B and it was reprinted from the
Sixtine by Holmes; but Swete preferred an uncial and, since
N is also wanting, printed A which has only o 8£os- in 2 5, 7, 9,
t9, 21. Brooke and McLean repeated the same text in the
editio major, adding their more extensive critical apparatus.

I

26

JOL"RNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

The Complutensian has o 8€oS' in 2 4, 7, 19, 21,

313,

and neither

KvpwS' nor o 8€oS' in 3 22. It is based on Holmes 108. Among
the deviations from this MS. in Lagarde's attempted rest<>ration
of the Lucianic recension is o 8€0S' in 3 22 which he found in
Holmes 19, 44.t The Aldine, based on Holmes 68,2 has o 9£or
in 2 5, 7, s, 9, 19, 3 9, 13, 22 (and also 3 11), and so, of course, Lonicer's edition of 1526. Holmes 82 and, according to Brooke
and McLean, also the accurate and important Cod. Liguriensis
(Holmes 52) have only o 8£oS' in 3 14; this was also the reading
of Irenaeus, if his Celtic translator can be trusted.
The Old Latin apparently had only Deus in 2 4, 5 1 1, s, 9. 19,21;
in the other passages Sabatier prints Dominus Deus. But in
314 Cyprian read only Deus (Holmes, and Burkitt in the larger
Cambridge edition), and the translator of Irenaeus into Latin
may have been influenced by the Vetus Latina. Sabatier's
quotations from later Latin fathers show how uncertain Dominu.s
is in many cases. The Buhairic seems to have had phnut in
2 5 1 71 9,19 1 21 1 3 8b 1 13 (but not 311)1 and coeis phnut in 2 4 1 8,15,
16, 18, 22, 3 1, Sa, 9, 14, 21, 22, 23, while the Sa idic omitted coeis in
216, and had it in 219. The Palestinian Aramaic had only l~l
at least in 2 4, s, 3 9, 13, 22. The Ethiopic has 'egzi'a bel;ter everywhere (also in 3 u); and the Arabic version of Saadia has everywhere n?~N. It is not easy to say why the former, using
apparently a Greek text of the type presented by Holmes 19, 68,
did not mark the distinction of names by employing 'egzi'a 'amlak
or 'egzt'a beMr 'amlak (cf. e. g. Jub. 21) for KvptoS' o 8£or.
Saadia probably thought it inelegant to use a term like ~f a.l..H,
employed by the translator of the Samaritan text. :1 Neither
is important for text-critical purposes.
In the Greek text presented by MSS., translations, and quotations from early writers, o 8€oS' is the constant element. Only
in 2 22 the Aldine, 31, 83, 121, Georg., have Kt;ptor without
t Cp. Ankilndigung einer ner~ Ausgabe der griechiBchen t"'bersetzung
des AT., 1882, p. 36.
2 Cp. Delitzsch, Fortgesetzte Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der
Complutensischen Polyglotte, 1886, p. 24.
3 The Paris and London Polyglots print 6JJ\ everywhere in Genesis
except in H 6 where they have y}l, but there also Saadia seems to

have written nC,C,ac, according to the edition of Derenbourg.

SCHMIDT: YAHWE ELOHIM

27

o Seas-, and Origen once omits both names and once o 8eoS',
rendering it doubtful whether in his text the subject was expressed at all. We know that Origen addefl KuploS', probably
from Theodotion, in at least five places and put an asterisk
before it. Since he no doubt used a Hebrew text that was
substantially identical with our kethibh, there is a strong presumption in favor of the view that he introduced it wherever
liT. has il'l~. The fact that one hexaplaric MS. has the asterisk in places where it is not found in another, shows how indift'erently these marks were copied even when an attempt was
made to give them. Some copyists clearly omitted the words
marked by Origen as not belonging to G., others preserved them
without the asterisk, and others still reproduced the sign only
in the case of words and phrases that seemed important. Where
the most MSS., and among them the best, have only o SeoS', we
may be reasonably sure that a preceding KuploS' with an asterisk
in Origen's G. column has been left out. This applies to more
than half of the twenty instances. As regards the others, it is
probable, in spite of the vacillating tradition, that some of
them had exhibited the double name long before Origen wrote
his Hexapla.
It is indeed impossible to prove this from the Old Latin
version. A Latin translation made from G. no doubt existed
before Origen. But bow it looked in the first part of Genesis
we have scarcely any means of knowing. Jerome complained
in -the Praefatio in Quatuor Evangelia dedicated to Damasus:
"Si enim exemplaribus fides est exhibenda, respondeant, quibus?
tot enim sunt exemplaria, quot codices." • Even if we could
read Gen. 2-3 in one of these "exemplaria," ·we should, therefore, be in considerable doubt. But Sabatier was unable to
use any MSS. in Genesis, and depended wholly upon quotations,
chiefly from Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose: "Primo quidem
omnes Pentateuchi libros • . . . nonnisi ex collectis veterum
Patrum lectionibus conficere licuit •... Liber Geneseos integer
utcunque est recuperatus et confectus maxima ex Augustini,
Hieronymi et Ambrosii libris." ~ Nor are we much better off
• Migne, Patrologia Latina XXIX, S. Hier. X, p. 526.
5 Bibliorum 1acror11m latinae versiontl antiqt~ae, 1751, Praefatio, p.lxx.

28

JOURNAL OF BffiLICAL LITERATURE

to day so far as these chapters are concerned. For they are
not found either in Cod. Lugdunensis, Cod. Wirceburgensis,
Cod. Ottobonianus, or Cod. Monacensis. The absence of Dominus in 3 14 as quoted by Cyprian and the Latin translator
of Irenaeus is therefore of some importance. Yet far-reaching
conclusions cannot be based on such an isolated instance. The
later writers may be suspected of having used copies corrected
from Greek MSS. influenced by Origen's text.
But Philo's quotations decidedly give the impression that in
respect of the two names the text he used did not differ essentially from Origen's in this particular section. He has occasion
to quote almost every verse in his Allegorical Commentary,
and gives o 8eos- in 2 4, :;, 7, 8, 9, 19, 21, 3 13, Kvpws- o 8eos- in
215,16, 18, 31, sa, 9, 14,23,6 and elsewhere 7 o 8eos- in 3 22. It is
true that we cannot be absolutely sure about these quotations.
Cohn has called attention to the probability that the copyists
were occasionally influenced by the wording in their Bibles, and
in his reply to Nestle's criticism 8 rightly maintains that "bier
kommen nicht nur gewohnliche Corruptelen vor, die den Abschreibern zur Last fallen, sondern auch absichtliche Anderungen,
die von gelehrtenLesern llnd Korrektoren aufGrund anderweitiger
Kenntnis der betreffenden Bibelstellen vorgenommen worden
sind." 9 There is a curious example, showing how easily a translator or copyist may he thus influenced by the form of a familiar
Bible passage, in Leg. alleg. I, 56 (ed. Cohn) where the Armenian
text has Kvpws- o 8eos- against o 8eos- of the Greek MSS. Now
this is precisely what the Armenian version of the Bible has
against all the Greek MSS. in this place. In view of the fact
that all our MSS. of Philo apparently go back to an archetype
in the library at Caesarea, the remarkable agreement with what
seems to be Origen's text of G looks somewhat suspicious. It
also deserves attention that the agreement is especially pronounced between the present text of Philo and Holmes 19, 108.
G The passages in Leg. alleg. are clearly indicated and may be easily
found in the editions of :\Iangey, Richter, Oohn, and Brehier; and the
quotations in other works of Philo, as a rule, agree wit.h those in Lrg. alleg.
1 De confmione linguarum, ed. Wendland, 169.
a Philologus, 1900, p. 250.
• Philologus, 1900, p. 522.

SCHMIDT: YABWE ELOBIM

29

Philo's comment, however, on the double name, giving what
he supposed to be the reason for its employment, shows beyond
the possibility of a doubt that it existed in his text of G, and
also seems to indicate that in this chapter it appeared for the
first time in connection with the placing of man in the garden
of Eden, i. e. in 2 15.1o That, nevertheles11, his text did not
always agree with either our MSS. of G. or MT. is seen in De
coufusione linguarum, 169 (ed. Wendland) where Kupwr o 8eor
is used in a quotation of Gen. 126. Philo's copy of G. manifestly had the double name, but probably not as often as our
text of Philo would suggest. Too much stress must not be laid
which Gen. 2 7 is quoted by Josephus, t t yet
,on
, the form
. eeor,in TOll
, a1117pW7rOII
,__ fl
,
,
,
Q ,
h
h
f'll'/\aCTEII 0
a'Tf'O Tl]f "f1Jf 1\afJWII
aS t e appearance of being an accurate reproduction of the text he used.
~ow it is not ~asy to believe that, three centuries before
Philo, the earliest translator of the Pentateuch into Greek chose
Gen. 2 15 as the proper place for\ the introduction of Kuptor
before o 8eor for the first time in the narrative, and subsequently
alternated between o 8eor and the double name, either because
his Hebrew text demanded it, or arbitrarily in spite of a textual
condition like that of MT. The probability is decidedly in favor
of the assumption that G. found C"i'r?N everywhere in the
Hebrew text and everywhere rendered it with o 8eor. This is
strongly suggested by the fact that Kupwr o 8eor is not limited
in the Pentateuch to Gen. 2 4-3 24. It is used by Philo in
Gen. 1 26; the original of the Buhairic version seems to have
had it in Gen. 1 24; it is well supported in our MSS. in Gen. 4 6,
9, 13, 15 twice, 26, 4 3, 5, s, 12, 13, 7 1, 5, 16, 815,21 twice, 11 s, 6 1 s,
27 zo; Ex. 411, 34 6; Deut. 29 s, and often found in more or less
extensive groups of MSS. where MT. bas only iTii'r or c~n~N.
Philo's unique reading in Gen. 1 26 is possibly supported by a
variant in the Jgnatian Epistle to the Antiochenes. Holmes
~

~

to Leg. alltg. I, 95 (ed. Cohn): •a 6€ ~If -y!Hnu &' dp.tfxrr/pw• Tw•
ml TOU Kvploll ml TOU e~oil, "lHTd'll.a.To" -yap "Kvpwr 6 e~6t" r..a, d p.£.
ni&&To TcUf frllpGI.JIItrftrUI,. int-o TOU 6foil ~wp~tr.WII atU~~8dl!, d &~ d Symmachus followed Sam.; Aquila,
Variae lectiones V. T., 17st, I, 15.
The Arabic versions should not ha,·e been quoted hy De Rossi as
supporting this variant, since they use 6J.I\ for m:t- also.
II A codf'x in my possession, giving in parallel columns the Sam. text
tt

t'i

~

and the Arabic version, has sometimes IJJ \ written with
did, aml (""~ \ with fatJ.ta and kasra.

fat~a

and tash-

32

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Theodotion, the Jewish Targums, the Peshita t 9 and Jerome
followed our kethibh.
It is very generally assumed that the son of J oiada who had
married a daughter of Sanballat, when he was banished from
Jerusalem,2o took with him a copy of the Pentateuch edited by
Ezra and went to his father-in-law who made him the first highpriest of the Samaritan sect, and that, because of the enmity
between Jews and Samaritans, the copies of his MS. and their
descendants never were compared with Jewish MSS. or revised
so as to agree with them. Nehemiah does not connect the son
of Joiada with the founding of the Samaritan cult-community.
But Josephus 2 t relates how a certain Manasse, son of ,Johanan,
put by the elders of Jerusalem to the alternative of divorcing
his wife, Nicaso, daughter of Sanballat, or renouncing the
priesthood, was persuaded by proinises to forego his right to
approach the altar in Jerusalem, and ultimately made priest of
the temple built on Mount Gerizim by Sanballat with the permission of Alexander. Josephus probably knew when the Gerizim
temple was built, and who the first high-priest was, as well as
he knew when the temple in Leontopolis was built and the name
of its first high-priest.
If there was only one Sanballat, the contemporary of N eheiniah, Josephus apparently did not know, as we now do
through the Elephantine papyri, that his sons were grown up
men and John high-priest eighty years before Alexander. If
there were two Sanballats, both of them must have married
daughters of theirs to members of the J udaean ~igh-priestly
family viz. to the unnamed son of J oiada-Jehudah and to
){anasse, the son of Johanan, respectively, which is not altogether
impossible, but somewhat less probable. There is no evidence
in Josephus for the modern notion that Manasse fled from
.Jerusalem with a copy of the Torah, as the Chronicler supposed
Ezra to have left Susa with the Law of God in his hand. This
law may have been taken over later when the exigencies of the
It The Peshi~ differs from MT. only in having 1.._ J.,+~e also in
3:16; so the Polyglots, Lee, the Urmia t>d. and Cod. Ambrosianus.
2o Nth. 13 28.
21 Antt. Jud. XI, 302-347 (ed. Niese).

SCHMIDT: YAHWE ELOHIM

33

new temple demanded it, as Stade 22 and others have maintained.
Montgomery 23 has called attention to the probability of rather
friendly relations between the younger branch of the Zadokite
priesthood at Shechem and the older line in Jerusalem. A.
comparison of the Samaritan and J ew:ish Targums mnst convince any one that they reflect to a certain extent a common
halakhic tradition. Even the Pentateuch itself shows signs of a
revision not confined to the Samaritan text. It is impossible to
prove that the Samaritan Pentateuch has remained the same
since it was brought to Shechem, or that it represents an earlier
type than that used by G. in the third century B.C.
The condusion to which the evidence points is that there
existed at that time two different recensions of the Hebrew text,
one exhibiting nowhere in the Pentateuch the double name,
and another identical in this respect with :MT. The age of the
latter can perhaps be established approximately by the discrimination it shows in the use of the name Y ahwe. It seems
to be in the A.chaemenian period that men began to avoid
placing this name upon the lips of foreigners, of those not supposed to be worshippers of Y ahwe, or of ,Jews in addressing
, such persons. In earlier times a distinction of this sort is not
felt to be necessary. Y ahwe is used by the Philistine kings
Abimelech, Gen. 26 28, and A.chish, I Sam. 29 6 1 the A.ramaean
Laban, Gen. 31 4o9, the Pharaoh of Egypt, Ex. 52, 8 s, 28, 10 10,
n, 16, 17, and his servants, Ex. 10 7, the :Midianite Jethro,
Ex.18 to, 11, Balaam, the Edomitc prophet, Num. 22 s, 18, 23 3, 26,
24 13, the Amalekite who slew Saul, II Sam. 1t6, Hiram, the
king of Tyre, I Kings 57, and the Assyrian Rabshakeh, II Kings
18 30, 32, 35. The angel in Zech. 3 2 exclaims: "Yahwe rebuke
thee, 0 Satan!" In the prose story of Job Yahwe is used,
while it is carefully avoided in our present dialogues; even
Satan says "Yahwe," according to G. Trg. in 1 9, and .lob's
wife in 2 9.
22 Biblische Theologie d. A. T., 1905, p. 355: "Den sich von :\lose herleitenden, in seinen Vorstadien bereits zur Zeit ihrer Entstehung giiltigen
Pentateuch, hat sie ·wie die Hoffnung auf den 1\lessias spater von der
Gemeinde auf Zion entlehnt.''
~3 The Samaritans, 1907, pp. 71 fl'.

34

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATUBE

But Yahwe is avoided in the letter of Tattenai to Darius,
Ezra 57-17, the decrees of Cyrus, 6 3-5, and Darius, 6 6-12, the
firman given by Artaxerxes to Ezra, 7 11-26, and probably also
in the proclamation of Cyrus in Ezra 1 2-4 (II Chron. 36 23)
where MSS. of MT. and of the early versions suggest that miT'
is a later addition. The same applies to the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 3 28-29, 41-37, and of Darius the Mede,
Dan. 6 25-27. In Jonah a clear distinction is made between the
sailors who, having heard from the prophet the name of his
god, 1 9, beseech Y ahwe to deliver them, 114, and become Y ahweworshippers, 116, and the king of Nineveh and his nobles who,
having heard nothing else than that a prophet had predicted
the d~struction of the city after forty days, can only use the
term Elohim in their proclamation, 3 7-9. A similar care was
probably taken originally in the case of The Sayings of Agur
ben Y akeh; Tlr p.e opa (G.) in Prov. 30 9 suggests ntTT' ~c for
inn" ~c. Scruples of this kind may have prevented the insertion
of J ahwe before Elohim in the words of tpe serpent and the
answer of the woman, Gen. 3 1 b-5, as early as the Persian period.
There is not the slightest evidence, however, in the texts representing this recension, of Y ahwe having been originally used
in the conversation and subsequently removed. The hand that
first introduced the double name manifestly hesitated to put it
on the lips of the serpent.
Another consideration leads to the same result. The recension
represented by MT. and Sam. cannot have existed before the
union of the two stories of creation, since in this case it would
be impossible to account for the recension represented by G.
For the same reason it cannot have been created when the two
were united. It is likely to be a development within the substantially completed text of the Pentateuch. But this can
scarcely be later than the fifth century. To suppose that ~mM,
the constant element in the textual tradition, is the addition, .
and ini't', doubtfully supported in the majority of instances,
once existed everywhere, is to lose touch with, and run counter
to, our present witnesses to the text, and to deprive ourselves
of the ability to explain its changes. The absence of ~mM in
some of Kennicott's MSS., as in 2 9 (K. 9), t5 (K. 5), 18 (K.191),

35

SCIWIDT: YAHWE ELOHIM
21 (K.

69, 252),

22 (K. 89), 3 14 (K. 103), 23 (K. 80), and of
(K. 89), 3 22 (K. 152), as well as the presence of
(K. 132), clearly due to the negligence of scribes,

;n;or, as in 2 18

i'nn" in 3 1 b
ca.n have no significance. When Kittel observes: "aut i'ni"l~ aut
C\i"I?M ... additamentum redactoris esse videtur," 24 the second
alternative is not suggested by the textual apparatus, but by a
critical theory.
In Ex. 9 ao MT. is supported by Pes h., Trg., Jerome, Holmes 58,
Arm., probably Sam. which has i'TI~ ~l,M, and Sam. Trg. with
its ;n~ ~~; but B. 29, 130 have Tov Kuptov, Syr.-Hex. marks
l~l with an asterisk, the Arabic translation of Sam., at
least in my MS., has only &.UI, which generally stands for i'ni"l\
and Saadia likewise bas n??M, while A has TOll eeov. The
;n~ ~l,M of Sam. shows that both i'TI~ 'l,M and C\i"I?M rnn~
were pronounced at one time c~mM ~.l,M among the Samaritans
as well as among the Jews. In the context both Pharaoh and
Moses use the name Y ahwe, and there is no reason to suppose
that Elobim is original.
More difficult is the decision in II Sam. 7 22, 25. Kennicott
quotes a large number of MSS. that have i'Tii"l~ ~.l,M in both
verses, and some that have ~i"I?M '.l"1N in vs. 22. G. seems to
have had Kupte p.ou Kupte which clearly points to i'n~ ~l,M.
This term appears in six other places in David's prayer, vss. 18-29.
The Chronicler copied his words (I, 17, 16-27), and a comparison
of the two texts is instructive. W ellhausen says, referring to
vs. 22: "~i"I?M i'Tin" steht in der Chronik Uberall fUr i'TI~ ~nM
unseres Textes; bier und v. 25 ist es auch in diesen letzteren
eingedrungen wie I Sam, 6 n, 11 c~,Mt:)," 2~ and Driver translates
this statement without comment or explanation. 2& Yet neither
does C"i"I?M i'TI~ occur everywhere in the Chronicler's copy of
David's words where the Samuel text has i'TI~ ~.l,M, nor can it
be shown that in all the nine passages where ~i"I?M ;n~ occurs
in the Chronicles it represents i'TI~ ~l,M, if that is the meaning1
nor is it apparent wherein the similarity consists between the
Biblia Hebraica, ad loc.
Der Text der Bucher Samueli.s, 1871, p. 173.
,. Notes on the Hebrtrc Tat of the Books of Samtv.i. lAAO, p. 213; re-

21

,~

peated, without change, in the 2nd Pd., 1913, p. 277.

3*

36

JOURNAL OF :BIBLICAL LITERATURE

addition of glosses in I Sam. 6 11, 17 and the change from one
divine name to another in these vss. In II Sam. 7 18-29 "l1M
rni'T' is found six times, vss. 18, 19ab, 20, 28, 29j to these correSJ>Ond in I Chron. 1716-27 C"~nC,at rnn', vs. 16, C"mM vs. 17a,
C"nC,at rni'T', t7b, rni'T' alone, vss. t9, zs, 21. For C'nC,at rni'T',
II Sam. 22, 25, Chron. has only rni'T', I, 17 20, 23; for miT'
C,at,e"' ?)1 C'mM n,M::l! and C,at,e"' 'nC,at n,M:l'l rni'T'. II Sam.
7 26, 21, I Chron. 17 24, 25 have C"nC,M C,at,e"' "nC,at n,M~ rni'T'
C,at,~ and "nC,at, and both II Sam. 7 24 and Chron. 17 22 have
rnn\ G. seems to have read rnn" "l1M in eight instances in
his Hebrew text of Samuel. If the Chronicler had found the
same text, it is difficult to see why he should have omitted "nat
in six out of eight cases. He probably read rnn" everywhere;
"nM was subsequently added everywhere in these passages of
the Samuel text, and because of the pronunciation C"nC,at 'l1at
was changed in two places to C"nC,at rni'T'. A later copyist of
Chron., remembering the emphatic double name, rni'T' "nM,
that meanwhile had found its way into the passage in Samuel,
may have introduced it in a couple of instances, with the same
consequence that it ultimately changed into C"n~ rni'T'.
The author of Jonah used the name Y ahwe except where
the circumstances seemed to him to demand Elohim. Thus in
1 6, before the mariners have learned to know Y ahwe, they
naturally employ the term Elohim. In 3 3 C"nC,~ nC,l ,., is
an idiom. The Ninevites could not be said to believe in Y ahwe
of whom they had never beard, hence Elohim in 3 5 and in the
proclamation, 3 7-9. In 3 10, however, it is probable that Y ahwe
was originally used, and Kenn. 109 has rnn" in 3 tob. MT. is
no doubt right in giving only n,n.. in 4 3 against !:AernroTa Kvpte
of G., which goes back to an expansion into rni'T' "l1M, natural
in direct address. Five of Kennicott's MSS. read rni'T' "l1M in
4 6. This may have been changed under the influence of the
pronunciation C"nC,at "l1M into J ahwe Elohim, rendered Kvpwr
o 8eor, Dominus Deus, coeis plmut, atnC,M ~~. y;-'1 ill!,
and curiously enough, not 'egzi'a be~1er 'amlak, as in 1 9, 2 2, a,
4 2, but simply 'egzr a bel] er. There can be little doubt that the
author wrote only rni'T'. But the double name continues in G.
and the versions dependent on it in vss. 7, s, 9, and this is

SCm.tiDT: YABWE ELOBIM

37

probably to be regarded as a sign that the text originally had
the name Y ahwe, which is the reading of Kenn. 30, 294 in vs. 9.
When G. is considered, it becomes evident that rnn~ was originally used everywhere in ch. 4, and that c~mN was a later addition. A recourse to the influence of Gen. 2-3, hesitatingly
proposed by Marti,27 is unnecessary.
In Ps. 72 18 ~mN is not read by Kenn. 250, 309, 497, De
Rossi 31, 380, G., Copt., Eth., Aquila, Sym., Theod., Quinta,
Sexta, Pesh., Jerome, Ar. lnPs. 84 9 n'N:l! rnn~ ~l,N, Kenn.l17,
is more probable than nUCJ c~n?N in~ or n'N:l! ~mN iniT',
but the original no doubt had only n'N::lJ inn\ as Kenn. 92.
Similarly, in 84 12 the original in~ seems to have been expanded
into iniT' ~l,N, Kenn. 245 (afterwards changed into C'n?N iniT')
or into ~n?N rnN:l! in~, Kenn. 40.
In I Chron. 28 20 G's Kuptos o 8eos !J.OII shows that the original
was ~n?N iniT', and not ~n?N c~n?M nln'; ~l,M seems to have
been first introduced before iniT', Kenn. 89, and then in~ ~l,M
changed to c~n?N rnn~; the emphasized contrast in I Chron.
29 1 between man and God renders C'n?M?, Kenn. 118, T<-~ 8e<-~,
Holmes 56, more probable than c~n?N ;n~C,. II Chron. 1 9
probably had ~mM iniT', as I Kings 3 7. II Chron. 64Ia.b, 42 are
copied from Ps. 132 8, 9, 10. Only in~ is used in the psalm,
and only once, vs. 11, Kenn. 101 has only rnn~ in II Chron. 6 41&;
in 41 b, 42 the divine name has clearly been added by some copyist.
The Hebrew text which the Syriac translator had before him
in II Chron. 261!! seems to have read: tnpcn 'inY 1?0 1? N?
n"'')pn M::lfC ?)1 ,~pn? 1? M? I')M, ntn; the latter part of the
vs. is an explanatory gloss.
The result of these investigations is that in the thirty-six
passages where MT. has the double name, c~mM alone seems
to have been used originally in 21 instances, viz. the 20 in
Gen. 2-3 and I Chron. 29 1; iniT' alone 10 times, viz. Ex. 9 so,
l l Sam. 7 22, 25, Jonah 4 6, Pss. 72 1s, 84 9, 12, I Chron. 17 16, t7b,
II Chron. 6 41 a.; 'n?N rnn~ twice, viz. I Chron. 28 2o, II Chron.
ls; and no name at all 3 times, viz. II Chron. 6 41 b, 42, 26 18.
It should be added that Astruc looked upon ~mM in~ as
the characteristic name used by the Hebrews for the "Eternal
21

Das Dodekapropheton, 1904, p. 206.

38

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

God" and supposed that it was employed in Gen. 9 26. He explains: "Peut estre que I'Auteur du Memoire B., apres avoir
donne a Dieu, dans le verset precedent, le nom de JehovahElohim, l'Eternel-Dieu, c'est a dire, le nom que les Hebreux
lui donnoient, en parlant de Sem, dont la posterite conserva la
vraie Religion, a cru ne devoir lui donner que le nom d' Elohim,
Dieu, c'est a dire, le nom que les incirconcis lui donnoient, en
parlant, dans le verset suivant, de J aphet, dont la posterite se
livra a l'idolatrie." 2s In spite of the negative conclusions
reached above, it is quite certain that at one time Y ahwe Elohim
was used by the Jews. But in this place the earliest text
assuredly had either Y ahwe or Elohim, and most probably
Elohim.
The fact that Y ahwe Elohim has frequently taken the place
of Adonai Y ahwe because of the common pronunciation Adonai
Elohim has naturally led to the suspicion that Adonai Y ahwe
may occasionally have displaced an original Y ahwe Elohim.
In his critical edition of Ezekiel, Cornill substituted C"mN inn"
for i'ill"r "l,N in 4319, 44 9, 12, 151 27, 45 9ab, 46, 1, 16, 47 13, 23,
48 29. His reasons are that in these passages B. has Kvptor o
8Eor, while elsewhere in the book it employs, as a rule, Kvpwr
Kvptos- for inl"r "l,M ; that Aaw11at K11pws- is of hexaplaric origin,
since Aaw11at alone is translated Kvptor; and that it would be
natural for Ezekiel to use, in his description of the new .Terusalem,
a divine name he had found in the account of the earthly paradise. But these arguments are scarcely convincing. The frequent occurrence of Aaw:~at Kupwr in early MSS. seems to
show that mn" "l,N was translated at least in two ways. While
in some Christian circles at the end of the fourth century
Kvptos- Kvpwr was common, others used Aaw11at Kvptar; and
the latter is less likely to have originated among Christians
than among Alexandrian Jews. In 18 25, 29, 33 11, 20, many MSS.
read i'ill"r. Both Kennicott and De Rossi must be consulted.
The latter does not mention the MSS. having this variant in
18 25, 29. Hence Rothstein does not cite them, while he calls
attention to those in 33 11, 20.29 Later scribes would naturally
2s Conjectures sur la Genese, 1753, p. 346.
~e

In Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, ad loc.

SCHliiDT: YABWE ELOIDll

39

be affected by the form which a common proverb, like that quoted
in the four passages, assumed on the lips of the people of their
own day. There is no suggestion whatsoever that the author of
the sketch of the new theocracy had in mind the description of
the Garden of Eden, and there is no obvious relation between
the two.
Owing to the pronunciation
'.riM, an mn" "l,M would
very easily turn into a C'mM rn.,". It is only necessary to remember that copies were made at dictation. This would a.ccount
for C"mM inn" being written where the original had inn" "l,M.
A comparison of M.T. and G. in Isaiah and the Minor Prophets
tends to show that Kvpws- o 9eor not only appeared where H.,
in all probability, had n'ln" "l,M, but also frequently was an expansion of a simple Kvptor within G. There is no reason to
suppose that the Hebrew text ever had C'i'6M n'ln" in Isa. 41
11, 21, 42 s, 6, 81 13.21, 43 1, a, to, 12, t4, 151 44 2, 45 1, s, 6, 1, 512o 22.
Yet in all these passages G. seems to have had Kvptor o 9eor;
at least our best M.SS. give that reading. On the assumption
that every KvptOr o 9eor stands for C'n?M i11n\ this name
would, in spite of the questionable KuptOr Kvptor in 49 22, 50 45, s,
be as characteristic of the so-called Deutero-Isaia.h as. Cornill
thinks it is of Ezek. 40-48. MT. gives the impression that
Amos frequently employed the term Adonai Yahwe. But in
8 out of 20 instances G. has only KuptOr, viz. 1 8, 4 2, s, 6 8 b,
7 4ab, s, 6a; twice, viz. 3 13, 9 s, Kvptor o 9eor 7raii'ToKpaT(J)P seems
to represent l'nM:D 'n?M n'ln\ used elsewhere 6 times, rather
than l'lm:Dn n'ln" "l,M; 5 times n'ln" '.riM is rendered Kvptor o
8eor, viz. 3 1, ~:~, u, 1 1, 9 8, and 5 times it is rendered Kvptor
Kvptor, viz. 53, 6 2, 8 t, 3, 9. In the last ten cases C"mN i11n" or
only ;n,,.. occurs sporadically in the M.SS. It cannot be proved
that Amos ever used C"n?M n'ln". For emphasis he occasionally
n'ln", or n'ln" ".rtM. Obadiah 1,
seems to have said l'I'M:lJ
Micah 1 2 and Zeph. 1 7 also exhibit the double name Adonai
Yahwe; and among the variants is C"n?M n'ln"; but "l,M n'ln",
.n'IM:D rn,,.., and only n'l.," likewise occur, leaving room for
doubt whether anything more than Y ahwe was used in the
original.
The case of Ezekiel is really not very different from that of

D"mM

"mM

40

JOURNAL OF BmLIC.lL LITERATURE

Amos. According to Cornill MT. has ;n;,~ ~l,at 228 times and
B. Kupwr Kupwr 58 times and A&wvat KvptoS' twice in 1-39. In
40-48 B. has Kvpwr o 8eor 15 times; other MSS. have Kvpwr
o 8eos- in the first part of the book as well as in the second,
and Kvptos- Kvpws- in the second as well as in the first_, or carry
A&wvat Kuptos- through both pa1ts; but rarely is there .a MSS.
that gives a double name where B. does not have one. Consequently G. does not seem to have found rnn~ ~l,N in about
150 Jllaces where MT. has this name. But it is by no means
certain that the original G. had 75 instances of a double name
in his text; the same tendency to expand some solemn formulas
existed before his time; and the pen of many a ready writer is
no doubt reS}lOnsible for most of the constantly reiterated claims
to inspiration in this book. Where a double name was originally used for emphasis, it is likely to have been in~ ~l,at, the
}>reference for Kvpwr o 8eos- by one of the MSS. of G. in one
section of the book cannot be regarded, in the light of usage
elsewhere, as evidence of an original c~n;at in~ in these chapters. In Dan. 9 3, 4 Codex Chisianus has Kvptor o 8eos-; Theodotion had an additional p.ou in vs. 4 and, according to many
MSS., also in YS. a. MT. has c~mat ~l,at in vs. 3 and rnn~
~mat in vs. 4; for c~mNi't ~l,at many MSS. have c~nC,at i'n~;
but it is probable that ~mat in~ was used originally in both
Yss. Probably no double name was intended in the Pra~·er of
Azariah, Dan. 3 45 where (TU Et K. 0 e. p.ovos- (Chisianus) or
rru Et p.OVOS' K. 0 8. (Theod.) rna~· be a translation of in~ i'1nat
,nN c~nC,N and meant as a variation on the Shcma. As for
Tobit 13 11 TO ovop.u. Kuptou Tov 8eov B. may be a rendering of
NnC,at N~-,o ~, MOe' in the Aramaic, but To ovop.a To U.')'LOV rrov
(at) probabl~· represents more closely this original text,3o
In view of all the facts that must be considered it is quite
impossible to determine by the Biblical records alone the age
of the double name Y ahwe Elohim. But we are now fortunate
enough to possess documents that seem to indicate its existence
at least as early as the fifth century B.C. In the Elephantine
m~ occurs, without an~· further
papyri the divine name
modification, seven times, viz. Pap. I 24, 26, II 24, 25, XI 1,

atmat

ao Ct'· J. Rendel Harris, JAm.

Tl~-,

III, 1899, pp. 541 tr.

SCHMIDT: YAHWE ELOHIM

41

XVIII, Col. 2, 1, XXXVI 4. Sachau 3 J translates it "der Gott
Yabo." That is, of course, a possible translation, and it may
seem to be supported by the Mn?M with ::nln, Pap.· I 5, and
after ?M"~,n, Pap. XXVII 7. In the first of these passages,
however, the sentence ::1~::1 ~r MmM :l'ln "t M"~~. "the priests
of I;Inub, the god who is in Yeb," is construed in precisely the
same manner as ::1~::1 "t MmM '~ "t M,,lN, "the temple of Yabo,
the god who is in Yeb," Pap. I 6 (II 7); and in the second,
the last letter of the word following Ml"I?M which is imperfedl~·
preserved may be ::1, so that it would read Mn?M ?Mn~~,n ?y
:l":l, "before Harem-Bethel, the god who is in Y eb," or ;Mn~:ltl,M
Mi1?M is formed on the analogy of Mn;M 'n\ It is true that
the Teima inscription, CIS, II, 114, has M,,C,M C~?, the Carpentras inscription, CIS, II, 141, has Mn?M ","O'M, the Nabataean inscriptions, CIS, II, 160, 199, 442, have Mn?M M,rn-t.
But there is•no indication of this usage among Jews or Samaritans, and these colonists are likely to have brought with
them from their home the characteristic names of their gods.
In the petition to Bagqas it may be supposed that Mn?M was
added to remind the Persian governor that Y abo was a god,
though the context made it abundantly plain and the fact must
have been known to him. But when Ma'uzijah, of Abydos,
evidently a Jew, writes to "Jedonijah, Urijah and the priests
of Yaho Elaha," Pap. XI 1; a Jewish fisherman in Syene,
addressing Mahsijah in Elephantine, swears by Y aho Elaha as
to what he will do with his dried fish, Pap. XXXVI 4; or a list
is drawn up including "the names of the army of the Jews
who gave money to Y abo Elaha," Pap. XVIII, Col. 2, 1, there
can be no need in these cases of identifying Y aho as a god. The
name Mn?M ln~ corresponds exactly to the Syriac l~ .J,..;»,
except that, of course, .J,..;.» (-~.l1M) represents nliT'. Both
stand for Yahwe Elohim.
While it is possible that the custom of employing this double
name was introduced by later arrivals in the course of the fifth
century, it is more probable that the original "Jewish army"
brought it to Elephantine. Concerning the time when this
military colony was placed in Y eb we only know that it already
at AraMiiilclae Papyri und Ostraka, 1911, passim.

42

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

possessed its temple before the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses
in 525 B.C. It has been plausibly conjectured that it consisted
of some 'of "those who bad been sent against the king of the
Ethiopians to battle with Psammeticbus," according to Aristeas,a2
and Aristeas unquestionably refers to Psammetichus II (594-588)
whose Ethiopian expedition is mentioned in the Iring's own inscription at Karnak u and by Herodotus u and to which probably the Abul Simbel inscriptions also bear testimony.u This
campaign was undertaken in the last year of the reign of Psammetichus II (589-588 B.C.).
·
Yet it is not impossible that the Jewish garrison was sent to
Elephantine already by Psammetichus I to take the place of
the rebellious soldiers who fled into Ethiopia u apparently at
some time between 648 and 619 B.C. Eduard Meyer thinks of
the period before the proclamation of the Deuteronomic Code,
in 620 :B.C.37 It is not improbable, however, thAt one of the
effects of the c-entralization of the cult in Jerusalem and the
destruction of the rival sanctuaries at Bethel and elsewhere was
to drive into exile many men who coul~ earn a living for themselves and their families as mercenaries. The temple at Elephantine may then have been as distinct a protest against Zadokite presumption as that at Leontopolis some centuries later
was against an illegitimate Tobiad or Hasmonaean high-priesthood.
A number of interesting facts seem to point to such an origin.
The religious situation at Elephantine is very much the same
as at Bethel, cp. II Kings, 17 28-41. The people serve Y abo
and also other gods; they make unto them from among themselves priests who offer sacrifices. Among their deities are
n Epi8tula ad Philocratem, 13 (ed. Wendland).
n Published by W. Max Muller, Egyptological BesearcMs, 1906, Plates

12, 18. If there is no error in the copy, 'Ib nfr Be within the cartouche
would seem to indicate that Psammetichus II is meant, and not Psammetichus I, as MUller maintains. Cp. also Eduard Meyer, Der .Papyrrufund von Elephantine, 1912, 9 f.
" II, 161.
31

018, I, 1 taG.

31

Herodotus, II, 30.
L. c. p. 35.

37

SCHMIDT: YAHWE ELOHUI

43

1ir, ;Mn'~N. ;Nn'.:lJ"tlV or 1n'nlV, and ~n'~,n. The
goddess Ashim(a) of Bethel is no. doubt identical with the Ashima
introduced in Bethel by the exiles from Hamath. Similarly,
the goddess Anath-Bethel, or Anath-Yaho, is probably identical
with Ana(th) Melek <1;olV where 1;o represents mn') brought
into Bethel by the contingent from Sepharvaim. ::t;larem Bethel
likely means "The Holy One of Bethel." Bethel itself may be
an abbreviation of El-Bethel, or the name of the sanctuary
may be used for him who dwells therein. The gods are referred
to in the plural as M';,;M, and with the verb in the plural. It
is significant that these ".Tudaeans" not only make an appeal
to the high-priest in Jerusalem but also turn in confidence to
the sons of Sanballat in Samaria. That would be natural, if
the original "army" had come from Bethel and the towns of
Samaria as well as from various "cities" in Judah.
Y abo Elohim, or as some preferred to pronounce it, Y ahwe
Elohim, may, therefore, have been used to some extent in
Palestine already at the end of the seventh century, and found
its way to Elephantine where it long maintained itself in the
Aramaic form Y aho Elaha. There evidently was a time when
such double names were not yet in vogue. In the oldest remains of Hebrew poetry, the Songs of the Conquest, Deborah's
Ode, the patriarchal blessings, and the prophecies of Balaam,
as well as in the earliest prose narratives, such as the tales of
eponymous heroes and judges, the excellent account of David's
reign, II Sam. 9-20, the stories of Elijah and Elisha, and the
original annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, we look in
vain for any double name; either Y ahwe or Elohim is used. In
Amos we meet Adonai Y ahwe and Y ahwe Elohe Sebaoth, and
in Isaiah Y ahwe Sebaoth. These names had no doubt been
employed before their time, though words ascribed to David in
later narratives cannot be adduced as evidence. A doni Y ahwe,
or Adonai Y abwe, "my lord Y ahwe" is very natural in direct
address, and the consciousness of the pronominal suffix always
tends to disappear in cases of this kind.
As for n'IN:n m;r or n'M:nn rn;r, it is clearly an abbreviation of n'IN:l!n
m;r, and designates Y ahwe as the god
of the celestial hosts who is surrounded when he comes by

'mN

44

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

these companions, fellow-fighters, followers, servants. In earlier
times they were called ~n?N or ~n?Nn ~~ i. e. individuals of
the speci~s indicated by c~n?N. A distinction was later made
between C'i'I?N and C'i'I?Ni'l 'l:l; but it is doubtful whether the
consciousness of the original divine nature of the angels was
ever completely lost among men who used these terms. "Gods"
like Nabu, Hermes, Mercury were essentially ~=*?0, "angels".
In the light of these facts it is not difficult to surmise what the
original meaning of Yahwe Elohim was. It is probably an abbreviation, in thought at least, of C'i'I?Ni'l "i'I?N ini'l\ whether
that form was ever used or not, and designates Y ahwe as the
god who comes with the ~i'I?M, is at the head of them, is the
chief among them, the greatest of the gods (cp. Deut. 10 li).
That Y ahwe is the god par e.xcellence is all that is meant by .
c~n?Mn Nll'1 i'lli'l\ I Kings 18 39. As a pluralis majestatis
C"l'1?N probably goes back to early times. Just as 'adon and
'adonim were used indiscriminately both in regard to divine and
human lordship, so 'el and 'elohim. Ilani-ya and ili-ya, which
constantly occur in direct address to the king of Egypt in the
Amarna letters, look like translations of 'elohai.
If the positions reached in this article are sound, the story
of the Garden of Eden, which bas been called "the gem of
Genesis," is not the product of a writer who used the divine
name Y abwe. Without going into the textual problem, Budde 3:;;
was led by his critical insight to the conclusion that a text of
this story once circulated in which the name Y ahwe did not
occur at all. But he also supposed that there was another
earlier recension, in the main identical with it, which had only
Yahwe, except in 3 lb·ii, and that, in uniting both, the author
of the story of the fratricide introduced a Y ahwe before Elohim
everywhere, except in 3 lb·5, in one recension and added Elohim
after Yabwe wherever this name was found in the other, so
that every trace of the Elohistic revision by the second Y ahwist
disappeared. Budde, however, did not notice that the Elohistic
recension actually survived for centuries, and that many copyists
followed no definite principle in the use of the double name
either in this section or elsewhere in the Bible. Nor did he
38

Die biblische Urgtscliichte, 1882, pp. 232fT.

•
SCBlllDT! YAHWE ELOHIM

45

explain how, in the light of general usage among writers employing the name Y ahwe, the author of this story in its earliest
form can be supposed to have had any scruples about using it
in the conversation between the woman and the serpent, and
why the final Y ahwistic editor should not have continued his
painstaking operation and put in Y ahwe Elohim everywhere to
the end of ch. 4. The scribe who prefixed K11ptor to o 8eor in
4 26 1 while allowing Eve, 4 1, and Adam, 4 25, to use only o 8eor,
seems to have been more consistent than Budde's J 2, who,
according to him (p. 228) either did not notice mn~ in ch. 4 or
else understood it to be used in a different way from that in
which it was employed in ch. 2-3. In the original text Eve no
doubt said: "I have received a son with (the aid of) the gods,"
and Adam: "The gods have bestowed on me another descendant
in place of Seth."
Gunkel, after some hesitancy, adopts the view of Budde. 39
On the other hand, Eerdmans 40 feels the insufficiency of this
explanation and the force of the different textual tradition exhibited by G. He says: "LXX hat 2 9, 19, 21 Elohim gelesen.
Daraus kann man folgern, dass J ahve an verschiedenen Stellen
in den Text hineingesetzt wurde • . . W enn LXX es 2 9, 19, 21
gekannt hatte, ware es auch Ubersetzt worden." This is quite
correct. Only it is not apparent why just these three verses
should have been choS'en. Gunkel, reading a recently printed
text, noticed the omissions and declared: "LXX liest abweichend
vom hehr. 2 5, 1, 9 1 19, 21 o 8eor." If scholars think so highly
of the manuscript A in these chapters that they are ready to
quote it as LXX, they would do well to use Grabe's edition.
His asterisks and crosses are at least suggestive of Hexaplaric
lt:SS. and generally provocative of doubt and inquiry. Even
the critical apparatus of Brooke and McLean is not a substitute
for, but only a supplement to, Holmes and Parsons; and it is
not easy with both together to find out what readings a certain
liS., daughter-version, or church-father really has to offer. To
lean upon one single printed· MS., though it be a majuscule, is
scarcely more safe than to depend upon the spasmodic quoGent!is,3 1910, pp. 5, 26.
co Alttestamentliche Studien, I, 1008, pp. ifl ff.

38

•
46

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LI"rERATURE

tations of ')1 0'1.3,1'1 in Ginsburg's Hebrew Bible, or of G. in
Kittel's. Eerdmans thinks that the variants are best accounted
for on the assumption that both Y ahwe and Elohim were used,
yet deems it possible, though not capable of proof, that there
was an older form of the story in which Y ahwe was not mentioned. Without a more searching examination o( the witnesses
to the text it is scarcely possible to go beyond such a general
suspicion; and it reveals again the keenness of Eerdmans' critical judgment that, on a basis so much more slender than G.
in reality affords, he rears a conjecture of such intrinsic plausibility.
The removal of Y ahwe from the text in Gen. 2-3, solely on
text-critical grounds, does not weaken the impression that the
two stories of creation come from different hands. Astruc's
clue may prove to be worthless; yet the distinction in style and
thought remains. A new theory of Pentateuchal analysis may
be necessary; but the analytic work will have to continue. Such
a theory, the outlines of which are now becoming discernible,
is likely to be as disappointing to those who, cheerfully yielding
the integrity of our present Hebrew text, are eager to purge it
from all evidences of a post-Mosaic authorship as to those who
are ready to defend, at all hazards, the theory so ingeniously
elaborated by generations of eminent scholars. Science is not
concerned about the maintenance of any 'theory. Its most urgent
demand upon its votaries in this field at present is that methods
of textual criticism, at least as rigorous and exact as those recognized and employed in the elucidation of other Biblical
books, shall be applied also to the study of the Pentateuch. 41
u It was not until this article had gone to the printer that the author
had an opportunity of reading Dahse, Text!..'TitiBche Materialien zur Hexateuchfrage, 1912, though some of his earlier articles were familiar. This
author has made good use of the critical apparatus furnished by Brooke
and Me Lt~an. A careful examination of the entire text of HolmesParsons 52, 54, 55 will be necessary before these MSS. can be recognized
as pre-hexaplaric, and the judgment applies to the other assumed "recensions". Some of the objections to Dahse'e pericope-hypothesis urged
by Skinner, The ExpoBitor, April-Se}Jtember, 1913, seem well founded.
Skinner, however, has no posith·e suggestjons to ofl'er, but simply leans
on the t•eritas Htbrair:a. and the undateable Samaritan text. In regard

SCHMIDT: YAHWE ELOHIM

47

to Gen. 2-3 Dahse assumes, like Budde, first a Yahwistic recension, then
an Elohistic, and finally one with the double name. More insight is
shown in his treatment of "PC". Already in 1902 the present writer
expressed his opinion in an article on the Hexateuch in The New International Encyclopaedia, to the effect that "the so called Priestly Document
never existed in a separate code, but consists of a collection of laws,
illustrative stories, annotations and comments, added to the already
existing books by the priesthood in Jerusalem, chiefly during the Persian
period".



Source Exif Data:
File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.6
Linearized                      : Yes
Author                          : Society of Biblical Literature, Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis [U.S.]
Create Date                     : 2013:01:03 22:18:19Z
Modify Date                     : 2013:01:03 22:18:26Z
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 5.4-c005 78.147326, 2012/08/23-13:03:03
Metadata Date                   : 2013:01:03 22:18:26Z
Format                          : application/pdf
Title                           : Journal of Biblical literature
Creator                         : Society of Biblical Literature, Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis [U.S.]
Document ID                     : uuid:9ec1d240-6f2c-41fd-8f54-224cce732700
Instance ID                     : uuid:dec0c557-5109-44b7-996a-178e434ac39b
Producer                        : Adobe Acrobat 11.0.0 Paper Capture Plug-in
Page Count                      : 23
EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Navigation menu