Journal Of Biblical Literature P 522 1914 025
User Manual: P-522
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 23
SCHIDDT: YAHWE ELOHIM
25
Y ahwe Elohim
NATHANIEL SCHMIDT
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
IN 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. 72181 8491
12;
IChron.1716,17b,
282o, 291;
II
Chron. 1 91 6
41
twice,
42,
26
18.
Whether
it
was
used origin-
ally
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 51
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 intro-
duced
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 Mont-
faucon'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.
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,
Lo-
nicer'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,
51
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 51 71
9,19
1
21
1 3
8b
1
13
(but not
311)
1 and
coeis
phnut in 2 41
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
every-
where (also in 3
u);
and the Arabic version of Saadia has every-
where
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 quota-
tions 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
ex-
pressed
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 pre-
sumption in favor of the
view
that he introduced it wherever
liT. has
il'l~.
The fact that one hexaplaric MS. has the aster-
isk
in places where
it
is not found in another,
shows
how
in-
dift'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, there-
fore,
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 Do-
minus
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 essenti-
ally 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
Ab-
schreibern zur Last fallen, sondern auch absichtliche Anderungen,
die
von
gelehrtenLesern llnd Korrektoren auf Grund anderweitiger
Kenntnis der betreffenden Bibelstellen vorgenommen worden
sind." 9 There is a curious example, showing
how
easily a trans-
lator 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 pro-
nounced 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. mani-
festly
had
the double name, but probably
not
as often as our
text of Philo would suggest. Too much stress must not be laid
on
the form in which Gen. 2 7 is quoted by Josephus, t t yet
, , . e , , ,
__
fl
, ,
~
~
, Q , h h
f'll'/\aCTEII 0
eor
TOll
a1117pW7rOII a'Tf'O
Tl]f
"f1Jf
1\afJWII
aS
t e ap-
pearance 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,
61 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•
K~(l""
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<fnll'ldl"oc,
int-O
TOU
Lplov
.;,
6<trJr6TOII
Kill
lto~~~rl4•
lxo~~Tor
trKopruc£$o,ro.
Brehier omits ml
Toil
Lplol!, probably through an oversight.
u Antiq, Jud.
I,
34
(ed, Niese).
30 JOURNAL
OF
BIBLICAL
LITERATURE
says:
';Kuptor
o
9eor
!gnat. MS. Ep.
ad
Antioch."
But
where
is this
:MS.?
Lightfoot and Hilgenfeld both print o
8eor
and
fail to indicate any other reading.
It
is significant that, in the
stories of Cain and Abel, the Giants, the Deluge, and the
Tower, where
Kuptor
o 9eos-
is
used, o 9eos- is, as a rule,
better supported than
Kupws-.
Even
in
Gen. 9
26
Holmes VI, 57
omit
Kupws-,t2
and this probably represents the original.13
Though the double name in Gen.
27
20
is
sustained
by
many
good MSS. of G. and by
Philo,u
"Yahwe thy God" (MT.) has
also excellent support in MSS. of G., and
is
more probable.
In
Ex. 4 11, where a very large number of 1\ISS. have
Kuptor
before o 9eos-, the context suggests
that
o
9eos-
is
the addition.
The second
iTii'T'
in Ex. 36 6 is lacking in Kennicott
171
and
many
:MSS.
of G., and o 9eos- does not present
c~i'I~M
but
?N.
MT. has only
iTii'T'
in Deut.
29
s; o 9eos-
TJ!J.WV,
was
the original
addition, as many 1\ISS. show, though
TJ~V
has disappeared
from some copies.t
~
H this
Kuptos-
before o 9eos- could have found its
way
into
Philo's
text
frequently and into Origen's, as
it
would seem,
more than twenty times in other parts of the Pentateuch where
the Hebrew to all appearances did not have a
iTii'T'
before
C~i'I~M,
there is no reason to question
that
it
could have drifted
into nine places out of twenty-four where the divinity
was
re-
ferred to in the story of the Garden of Eden, without any special
warrant for
it
in the Hebrew
text
of these nine passages.
The
Jews of Alexandria
no
doubt employed in their synagogue
ser-
vice the name
Kupws-
o 9eos- as a translation of
i'l,i'T'
~l,M
or
c~mN
iTii'T',
both of which would be pronounced
C'mN
~l,M.
This would account for its appearance occasionally for emphasis
12 So also Philo, De sobrietate,
51
(ed. Wendland). according to
Ms.
I.. which formed the basis
of
the editio princeps by Turnebus.
11 Cp. my article on "The Blessing
of
Japhet,"
to appear in
this
JOORNAL.
t•
Quod
deus
sit
immutabilis,
92
(ed. Wendland).
15
Similarly, the original Hebrew
text
in Dent.
14
1 no doubt had a
suffix, whether
it
was
l:l~'mK,
as MT.,
or
'l'l"l?at,
or
'l'mlt, though
Philo
once seems to have left
it
out
and written only
Kup!Of
o
9rot
in
De
con-
fusione linguarum,
14.?
(ed. Wendland).
In
De sacrificantibus,
318
(ed.
Cohn) he added 'lfl."'" (AH.)
or
vp.w11
(R.).
SCHMIDT: YAHWE ELOHIM
31
or variation.
It
is
quite likely that the introduction of
Kvpto~
before o
8Eo~,
in Gen.
1-3
as well as
in
the rest of the Penia-
teuch, belongs to the history of the inner development of
G.
The possibility should indeed be borne in mind that the same
tendency may have led to the use of the name Y
ahwe.
Elohim
in
the Hebrew text before the translation
was
made in the same
haphazard manner as in G. There are many instances recorded
by
Kennicott and De Rossi where one set of MSS. has
iTil'r,
another
c~n?~,
one
~l,~.
another
rn~.
some cases where one
name
has clearly crowded out the other, and some where they
have
fused into a double name. Cod. De Rossi
754
has evid-
ently preserved the original reading in
Gen.16u:
T'l)t?~~tt~~;
"ita enim habetur vera interpretatio nominis Ismaelis," as De
Rossi
rightly remarks;
ts
the longer form
c~m~
is
found in
De
Rossi
669; t i
"iTil'r
ad marginem restitutum est," but scarcely
"ipsa primi scriptoris manu."
In
Ex. 6
2,
where
~ISS.
and
versions differ
as
to
c~mN
or
i1,l'1",
De Rossi
262
has
c~m~
iTil'r.
Yet the remarkable absence of
C'm~
iTil'r practically every-
where
in the
~Iasoretic
text of the Pentateuch outside of Gen.
2-3,
contrasted with the frequent occurrence of
Kvpt~
o
8Eo~
in our
MSS.
of
G., and the systematic manner in which
c~n?~
iTil'r
is
employed in this section of
~IT.,
compared with the late ap-
pearance and irregular use
ofKvpw~
o
8Eo~
in the corresponding
part of the translation,
give
the unmistakable impression that
G.
had before him a recension of the Hebrew text in
which
the
double
name did not occur in the Pentateuch.
On
the bther hand, the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with
~IT.,
and
so
does the Samaritan Targum with its
c~n?~
iTil'r.
The
Arabic version of Sam., unlike Saadia, makes a distinction
between
a.UI
which stands for
rnn~
and
~~
x..Uf
which re-
presents
c~n?~
iTil'r.
~'>
Symmachus followed Sam.; Aquila,
tt
Variae
lectiones
V.
T.,
17st, I,
15.
t'i
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
~
and
the Arabic version, has sometimes IJJ \ written with
fat~a
and tash-
did,
aml
(""~
\ with
fatJ.ta
and kasra.
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 high-
priest 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
,J
ohanan,
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 per-
mission 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
e-
heiniah, 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-J ehudah 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 con-
vince 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 dis-
crimination 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 sup-
posed 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 61 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 her-
leitenden, 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
Ne-
buchadnezzar 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 ahwe-
worshippers,
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 re-
presenting 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 sub-
stantially 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),
SCIWIDT:
YAHWE
ELOHIM
35
21
(K.
69,
252),
22 (K. 89), 3
14
(K.
103),
23
(K.
80), and of
;n;or,
as in 2 18
(K.
89), 3 22
(K.
152),
as
well
as the presence of
i'nn"
in 3 1 b
(K.
132), clearly due to the negligence of scribes,
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
21 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-
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 cor-
reSJ>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
origin-
ally used everywhere in ch.
4,
and
that
c~mN
was a later ad-
dition. 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,
ll
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
ex-
plains:
"Peut
estre que
I'
Auteur du Memoire B., apres avoir
donne a Dieu, dans le verset precedent, le nom de Jehovah-
Elohim, 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
.T
erusalem,
a divine name he had found in the account of the earthly par-
adise.
But
these arguments are scarcely convincing. The fre-
quent 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
D"mM
'.riM,
an
mn"
"l,M
would
very easily turn into a
C'mM
rn.,".
It
is
only
necessary to re-
member 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 ex-
pansion 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,
15
1 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
seems to have said
l'I'M:lJ
"mM
n'ln",
or
n'ln"
".rtM.
Obadiah
1,
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
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. Con-
sequently 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
origin-
ally 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 chap-
ters.
In
Dan. 9
3,
4 Codex Chisianus has Kvptor o
8eos-;
The-
odotion 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
papyri the divine name
atmat
m~
occurs, without
an~·
further
modification, seven times,
viz.
Pap. I
24, 26,
II
24,
25,
XI
1,
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
Y abo." 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 Y abo,
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 Car-
pentras inscription, CIS,
II,
141, has
Mn?M
","O'M,
the Na-
bataean inscriptions, CIS,
II,
160,
199,
442, have
Mn?M
M,rn-t.
But there is•no indication of this usage among Jews or Sa-
maritans, 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
in-
scription
at
Karnak u and by Herodotus u and to which prob-
ably the Abul Simbel inscriptions also bear testimony.u This
campaign
was
undertaken in the last year of the reign of Psam-
metichus
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 them-
selves and their families as mercenaries. The temple
at
Ele-
phantine may then have been as distinct a protest against Za-
dokite presumption as that
at
Leontopolis
some
centuries later
was
against an illegitimate Tobiad or Hasmonaean high-priest-
hood.
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 them-
selves 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
Psam-
metichus
I,
as MUller maintains. Cp. also Eduard Meyer, Der .Papyrru-
fund von Elephantine,
1912,
9 f.
"
II,
161.
31 018, I, 1
taG.
31
Herodotus,
II,
30.
37 L.
c.
p. 35.
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 re-
mains
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 abbrevi-
ation
of
n'IN:l!n
'mN
m;r,
and designates Y ahwe as the god
of the celestial hosts
who
is surrounded
when
he comes
by
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 ab-
breviation, 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
em-
ploying 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
4 261 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 ex-
hibited 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,
91
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 quo-
38 Gent!is,3 1910, pp.
5,
26.
co
Alttestamentliche Studien,
I,
1008, pp. ifl ff.
•
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 men-
tioned.
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' crit-
ical judgment that, on a basis so much more slender than
G.
in reality affords, he rears a conjecture of such intrinsic plaus-
ibility.
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
rec-
ognized 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
Hexa-
teuchfrage,
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
Holmes-
Parsons
52,
54,
55
will be necessary before these MSS. can be recognized
as pre-hexaplaric, and the judgment applies to the other assumed
"re-
censions". 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
Inter-
national 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".
