Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics 9781575064840

Citation preview

Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary

Advisory Board Leslie C. Allen Fuller Theological Seminary Donald A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary

Elmer A. Martens Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Bruce K. Waltke Knox Theological Seminary

 1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil  2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens  3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr.  4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim  5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer  6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins  7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery  8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews  9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock 10. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament, edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus 11. Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, by Gary G. Hoag 12. Paul and His Mortality: Imitating Christ in the Face of Death, by R. Gregory Jenks 13. “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives, edited by James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg 14. Honor, Shame, and Guilt: Social Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel, by Daniel Y. Wu 15. Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy, by Dillon T. Thornton 16. Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology, by Matthew H. Patton 17. Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus: From Etymology to Literary Onomastics, by Austin Surls 18. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East, by William R. Osborne

Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus From Etymology to Literary Onomastics

by

Austin Surls

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2017

© Copyright 2017 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Surls, Austin, author. Title: Making sense of the divine name in the Book of Exodus : from etymology to literary onomastics / by Austin Surls. Description: Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns, 2017.  |  Series: Bulletin for biblical research supplements ; 17  |  Revised version of the author’s dissertation (doctoral)—Wheaton College, 2015.  |  Includes bibliographical references and indexes.  |  Description based on print version record and CIP data provided by publisher; resource not viewed. Identifiers: LCCN 2017018160 (print) | LCCN 2017018584 (ebook) | ISBN 9781575064840 (ePDF) | ISBN 9781575064833 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: God—Biblical teaching.  |  God—Name—Biblical teaching.  |  Bible. Exodus—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS1192.6 (ebook)  |  LCC BS1192.6 .S87 2017 (print) | DDC 222/.1206—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017018160

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾™

Contents Preface, Dedication, and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . .   vii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ix List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 The Problem of Etymologizing Names as Character Descriptions  1 The Criticisms of James Barr  2 Post-Barr Scholarship on the Word ‫ יהוה‬4 The Biblical Onomastic Interpretive Tradition  8 The Problem of Atomistic Exegesis  10 Thesis 13 Method 14

2. Explicit Naming Wordplays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   25 The Canonical Context: Naming in the Hebrew Bible  25 Explicit Naming Wordplays in the Pentateuch  29 Summary 38 Conclusion 38

3. The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15 . . . . . . . . . . . .   42 The “Macrocontext”  42 The Boundaries of the Textual Unit  43 Genre 45 Literary Structure  47 Commentary 47 Excursus: Rabbinic Interpretation of the Divine Name  58 The Remaining Duologues  60 Conclusion 61 Excursus: Reconstructing the Original Form of the Divine Name  61 Summary and Conclusions  78

4. The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8 . . . . . . . . . .   83 Boundaries of the Textual Unit  83 Genre 86 v

Contents

vi

Literary Structure  89 Linguistic Features of Exodus 6:3  92 The Use of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬in the Book of Genesis  97 The Use of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬beyond Genesis and Exodus  99 Knowledge of Yhwh in the Pre-Mosaic Era  101 Conclusion 113

5. The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9 . . . 116 The Knowledge of the Name Yhwh beyond Exodus 1–15  116 Boundaries of the Textual Units  119 Text-Critical Issues  121 Genre 125 Literary Structure  127 Commentary: Exodus 33:12–23  129 Summary 139 Commentary: Exodus 34:5–9  140 Excursus: The Nature and Extent of Yhwh’s Punishment  157 Conclusion 161

6. Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Method 162 The Relationship between the Decalogue and the DNP  163 Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7  165 Theological Synthesis  180

7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Summary of the Argument  182 Implications for Old Testament Theology  184 Implications for New Testament Studies  190 Excursus: Jesus as κύριος 197 Implications for Systematic Theology  200

Appendix 1.  Divine Designators in the Book of Genesis . . . . 204 Appendix 2.  Avoiding the Names of Foreign Gods in Israel . . 208 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Index of Authors  231 Index of Scripture  236

Preface, Dedication, and Acknowledgments This book is a slight adapation of my dissertation, which I completed in 2015. My mind is too small and flighty to produce such a work. Therefore, I am very grateful for the many who showed me how to develop the scope and argumentation of this project. I want to begin by giving Dr. Daniel Block his well-deserved Prov 27:2 moment. I have learned much about the life-giving message of the First Testament by sitting in his classes, but I learned the most from our many personal interactions and meals together. All who know him will agree that he exudes the grace that he proclaims in the classroom. He has helped refine my writing style and greatly deepened my scholarship. Dr. Michael Graves has been an excellent second reader. I am impressed by his expertise in many fields and was always happy to meet in his office and talk about Hebrew and related matters that we love so much. His comments were consistently helpful and timely. I was pleased when I learned that Dr. Richard Hess would fill the role of my external reader. His insights have greatly refined my onomastic discussion and improved the overall argument and coherence of this work. Along the way, a handful of scholars agreed to meet with me (or respond to my emails) to facilitate my thinking, to field my questions, and to act as sounding boards. Richard Coates kindly accepted an email from this unknown American student and beefed up my introductory chapters with the precision and insight of an onomastician. Daniel Trier, John Walton, Adam Miglio, George Kalantzis, Douglas Moo, and Richard Schultz offered helpful comments from their fields of research. My colleague Carmen Imes was working through related “name stuff ” at the same time as I, which allowed for many good discussions about our work. She has sharpened my thinking, and I am thankful. It’s been a tale of two students indeed! I deeply appreciate all the hard-working, intelligent, and thorough teachers who carried me through years of preparation for doctoral studies. I don’t have the space to list the exemplary professors and educators from The Master’s College, Northwest Baptist Seminary, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Each school enhanced my thinking and living in different ways, and I am so thankful for the experiences! My dear wife, Heather, and my sweet little son David provided muchneeded balance to my busy weeks, months, and years of reading, writing, researching, and random part-time jobs. I was reminded every day that I am loved and appreciated, and that my schoolwork was not my only identity­. vii

viii

Preface, Dedication, and Acknowledgments

The Lord Jesus has given my family to me out of his kindness, and he has graced me with friends and colleagues that helped this project reach its completion. Still, it would be a mistake to ascribe any contributions arising from this monograph to my name: “Not to us, Yhwh, not to us, but to your name give glory, because of your kindness, because of your faithfulness” (Ps 115:1). Of course, you may feel free to ascribe to my name any errors or mistakes you find.

Abbreviations General DNP RF

Divine Name-Proclamation Recognition Formula

Reference Works AB ABD ABRL ACW AJSLL AOAT AOS ASTHLSS ATANT AWL BASOR BCOTWP BDB BETL BibOr BibSem BKAT BHRG BHS BM BN BNP BRLAJ BTSch BWANT BZAW BZNW BZNWKAK

Anchor Bible Freedman, D. N., editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Ancient Christian Writers American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series Abhandlung zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, C. A. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica et orientalia Biblical Seminar Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Merwe, Christo H. J. van der; Naudé, Jackie A.; and Kroeze, Jan H. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield, 1999 Elliger, K., and Rudolph, W., editors. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 Beth Miqra Biblische Notizen Pauly, A. F. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Antiquity. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, and Christine F. Salazar. 16 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002–14 Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

ix

x CAD CahRB CB CBET CBQ CCAG CCSG CCSL CHR CSCD CSEL CTJ DDD DJG DJD DOTHB DSASOR EB EKKNT ETS EvT FAT FC FCI FOTL GCS HALOT

HBM HBS HCOT HOS HSM HTKAT HTR IBHS IDB

Abbreviations Gelb, Ignace J., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Coniectanea Biblica Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum Corpus Christianorum: Series Graeca Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina Classiques de l’histoire des religions Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Calvin Theological Journal Van der Toorn, K.; Becking, B.; and van der Horst, P. W., editors. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995 Green, Joel B.; Brown, Jeannine K.; and Perrin, Nicholas. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013 Discoveries in the Judean Desert Arnold, Bill T.; and Williamson, H. G. M. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005 Dissertation Series (American Schools of Oriental Research) Encyclopaedia Biblica. 7 vols.. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1952–82 Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Erfurter theologische Studien Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Fathers of the Church Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation Forms of Old Testament Literature Die grieschischen christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte Koehler, L.; Baumgartner, W.; and Stamm, J. J. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 Hebrew Bible Monographs Herders Biblische Studien Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Handbook of Oriental Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 Buttrick, G. A., editor. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962

Abbreviations ISBL JAOS JBL JBLMS JEA JETS JIAS JJLP Joüon JNES JSNTSup JP JRAS JSOT JSOTSup JSNT JSQ JTS LASBF LBT LCL LEC LRPT LSAWS NATCP NCBC NGWGött NHS NICNT NICOT NIDOTTE NIVAC NMO NSBT NTGF OBO OBT OTL OTT OS PAS PBM PG PNTC

xi

Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of the Institute of Asiatic Studies Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006 Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements Journal of Philosophy Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements Journal for the Study of the New Testament Jewish Studies Quarterly Journal of Theological Studies Liber Annuus Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Library of Biblical Theology Loeb Classical Library Library of Early Christianity Library of Religious and Philosophical Thought Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project New Cambridge Bible Commentary Nachrichten von der Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse Nag Hammadi Studies New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament VanGemeren, W. A., editor. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 New International Version Application Commentary Nahe und der Mittlere Osten New Studies in Biblical Theology New Testament in the Greek Fathers Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Old Testament Library Old Testament Theology Oudtestamentische Studiën Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Paternoster Biblical Monographs Migne, J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca. 162 vols. Paris: 1857–66 Pillar New Testament Commentary

xii PRSt PSBRL PT PTR PW SAACT SB SBET SBLDS SBLSCS SBLSymS SBLWAW SC SCS SHJ ST TB TCLGT TDNT TDOT TENTS THAT TIL TKEAR TLZ TUGAL TWNT UCOP UFHM VTSup VWGT WBC WUNT YNER ZAW ZNW

Abbreviations Perspectives in Religious Studies Publications of the Society for Biblical Research in Israel Poetics Today Princeton Theological Review Pauly, A. F. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by G. Wissowa. 49 vols. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1980 State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Sources Chrétiennes Septuagint Commentary Series Studying the Historical Jesus Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. 61 vols. New York: McGrawHill, 1964–81 Theologische Bücherei Translations of Christian Literature: Greek Texts Kittel, G., and Friedrich, G., editors. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–76 Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Texts and Editions of New Testament Study Jenni, E., and Westermann, C., editors. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser / Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971–76 Trends in Linguistics Texte und Kommentare Eine Altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe Theologische Literaturzeitung Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Kittel, G., and Friedrich, G., editors. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932– University of Cambridge Oriental Publications University of Florida Humanities Monograph Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

List of Tables Table 1.  Analysis of Explicit Naming Wordplays in the Pentateuch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   39 Table 2.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 3:13–15 . . . . . . . . . .   46 Table 3.  The Literary Unity of Exodus 3:13–15 . . . . . . . . . . .   47 Table 4.  Hebrew Inscriptional Evidence for the Divine Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   73 Table 5.  Evidence for Pronunciation(s) of the Divine Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   80 Table 6.  Explanation of the Textual Apparatus of Stromateis 5.6.34 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81 Table 7.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 6:2–8 . . . . . . . . . . .  87 Table 8.  The Syntax of Ezekiel 20:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Table 9.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 33:12–23 . . . . . . . . . 122 Table 10.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 34:5–9 . . . . . . . . . . 124 Table 11.  Translation of Exodus 20:5–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Table 12.  Translation of Numbers 14:13–19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Table 13.  Synoptic Presentation of Numbers 14:18 and Exodus 34:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Table 14.  Translation of Deuteronomy 7:9b–10 . . . . . . . . . . 169

xiii

List of Figures Figure 1.  Continuum of Sense and Reference across Onomastic Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 2.  Computer Scan of the Text and Apparatus of Clement’s Stromateis 5.6.34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 3.  Non-Semitic Attestations of Yahu . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 4.  Non-Semitic Attestations of Yahweh/Yahveh . . . . . . 78

xiv

Chapter 1

Introduction The book of Exodus defines the divine name ‫יהוה‬, thus providing a foundation for the Hebrew Bible’s reflection about the character of God. This definition extends theologically through the various genres of the Bible. However, studies of the texts that make significant claims about the divine name (Exod 3:13–15, 6:2–8, and 34:6–7) have suffered from two major weaknesses: etymologizing proper names as if they were character descriptions and atomistic exegesis.

The Problem of Etymologizing Names as Character Descriptions Scholars often state that the ancient Israelites and their neighbors viewed names as reflecting the character of the name bearer. 1 This statement is correct insofar as a name relates to character, but the customary means by which scholars make this connection is misguided. Interpreters often appeal to a name’s etymology to uncover its “meaning.” This sort of approach often assumes the grammatical form(s) that may underlie a proper name describe the name-bearer’s character. Scholarly discussions of Exod 3:13­­–15 showcase this etymologizing tendency. Many claim that the supposed original form of the divine name reveals God’s character (that is, “Yahweh,” meaning “he causes to be”). Similarly, others derive the meaning of the Tetragrammaton from the wordplay between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫יהוה‬, which speaks to Yhwh’s “active being” and his presence among his people. 2 The relationship between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬is 1. Johannes Pedersen claims that “to know the name of a man is the same as to know his essence.” Israel: Its Life and Culture I–II (London: Oxford University Press, 1926), 245. J. Fichtner states this with eloquence: “Und der Name ist nicht nur Kennzeichen der Unterscheidung verschiedener Grössen, sondern Bestimmung des Wesens der benannten Grössen––seien es nun Personen, Örtlichkeiten oder Gegenstände.” “Die etymologische Ätiologie in den Namengebung der geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments,” VT 6 (1956): 372. R. Abba even claims that a name determined one’s destiny––the name-bearer “must conform to his essential nature as expressed in his name.” IDB 3:501. See also Samuel Dean McBride, “The Deuteronomic Name Theology” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1969), 69, 77. 2. Most support this claim by connecting ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬with the phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬ ְ ‫“( ִעּמ‬I will be with you”) in Exod 3:12. See R. Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh,” JBL ‫ָך‬

1

2

Chapter 1

so significant to T. C. Vriezen that he wonders whether “nicht gerade dieser Name in dieser Bedeutung der Ausgangspunkt der israelitischen Religion gewesen ist.” 3 Martin Buber rendered the Tetragrammaton with capitalized pronouns in his translation of the Bible (I, MY, YOU, YOUR, HE, HIS, depending on context). He justified this decision on the grounds that in ‫יהוה‬ the biblical authors understood that the meaning of the Tetragrammaton was disclosed at the burning bush. 4 Buber’s capitalized pronouns reflect the supposed grammatical relationship between the first-person form ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and the third-person form ‫ יהוה‬in Exod 3:14–15.

The Criticisms of James Barr James Barr has pointed out the problems that arise when scholars and theologians appeal to a name’s etymology as a character description. Barr articulated his criticisms in his monograph The Semantics of Biblical Language, and later linguists and exegetes added to his work. 5 Specifically, Barr pointed out a number of linguistic fallacies committed by the editors of and contributors to the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (TWNT). The editors of TWNT stated explicitly that they aimed for Begriffesgeschichte (“a history of concepts”), assuming that a study of words would achieve this aim. 6 Barr rightly challenged this presupposition, noting that the overlap between a word and a concept often varied and was never exact. 7 When applying language to God, TWNT (and sections of the biblical theology 80 (1961): 320–28 and Martin Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (New York: Harper, 1958), 48, 52–53. 3. T. C. Vriezen, “ʾEhje ʾašer ʾEhje,” in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag ed. Walter Baumgartner et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950), 511. Reinhard Achenbach’s recent statement resembles Vriezen’s: “Der Satz von Ex 3,14 formuliert die Mitte einer Theologie des Alten Testaments, wie überhaupt einer biblischen Theologie in nuce und fordert zugliech den Gedanken ihrer Explikation heraus, ohne einer solchen doch grundsätzlich zu bedürfen.” “‘Ich bin, der ich bin!’ (Exodus 3,14): Zum Wandel der Gottesvorstellungen in der Geschichte Israels und zur theologischen Bedeutung seiner Kanonisierung im Pentateuch,” in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Rainer Albertz et al., AOAT 350 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008), 90. See also Walther Zimmerli, “Zum Problem der Mitte des Alten Testaments,” EvT 35 (1975): 115. 4. Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, “On Word Choice in Translating the Bible: In Memoriam Franz Rosenzweig,” in Scripture and Translation, trans. Lawrence Rosenwald and Everett Fox, ISBL (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 87. 5. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961); Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1983); Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989); and Susan Anne Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2003). 6. TWNT 1:v–vi. 7. Barr, Semantics, 209.

Introduction

3

movement) often collapsed ontology into linguistics. 8 Arthur Gibson refers to this approach as a “mystic infection.” 9 Barr founded his work on the assumption that words and sentences do not have any inherent meaning. 10 Rather, social convention gives to words a meaning that can be represented by a semantic field or range. 11 Similarly, words do not refer to all their potential meanings in one instance. Barr famously called this fallacy, “illegitimate totality transfer.” 12 Any statement that purports to give all the meanings of one word must describe the semantic range of the word in the abstract rather than in any specific appearance. Moisés Silva notes the danger of commenting broadly on a word’s meaning while overlooking its specific function in a specific text. 13 Similarly, Barr discussed the relationship between lexical meaning and etymology, the latter of which he defined as an interpretive practice involving the derivation of words from previous forms. 14 Given its preponderance of triradical roots, Hebrew offers abundant material for etymologizing. 15 An etymological approach usually focuses on discovering these grammatical forms within nouns. For example, the Hebrew noun ‫ מ ְַלכוּת‬contains the root ‫“( מלך‬to be king’) and the abstract noun ending ‫וּת‬-, indicating “kingship.” Similarly, the noun ‫שׁמָר‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬is built from ‫“( שׁמר‬keep,” “guard”) and a “locative” mem prefix, indicating “custody” or “a lookout.” Similarly, the English word leader is seemingly built from the verb lead and the suffix -er, indicating a person who leads. But Barr cautioned scholars against thinking that Hebrew has “a stock of semantically-charged roots of extraordinary flexibility, spreading the tentacles of an underlying meaning through a whole series of words and concepts.” 16 This thinking sometimes led to abuse of etymology in theological reflection. T. F. Torrance’s treatment of ‫קהָל‬/ἐκκλησία ָ exemplifies this. He claimed that ‫“( ָקהָל‬assembly”) derived from the same root as ‫קֹול‬ (“voice”), which suggests that the Old Testament community was summoned by the divine voice, that is, the word of God. Similarly, he etymologized the Greek equivalent ἐκκλησία according to two forms: ἐκ (“out of ”) and κλήσις (“call”). Therefore, the NT ἐκκλησία was similarly a community 8. However, one can still understand reality and concepts through words. Barr’s trenchant observations about such general matters should not be overstated or used to sweep aside whole areas of research (e.g., the etymological analysis of proper names). 9. Arthur Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis, BibSem 75 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 151. 10. John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 110. 11. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 108. 12. Barr, Semantics, 218. 13. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 26. 14. Barr, Semantics, 107. 15. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 47. 16. Barr, Semantics, 290.

4

Chapter 1

generated and created by God’s Word. 17 Barr provided several reasons why Torrance’s linguistic arguments about Hebrew and Greek were faulty and why his etymologies were unreliable. Those who associate a “common” (or original) meaning with a certain root should not expect this meaning to be present in any of its forms. Cotterell and Turner explain that even if a word once meant what its etymology and word formation suggest, there can be no guarantee that the word has not changed its meaning by the (later) time a particular biblical writer uses it. 18 Every language contains words with a misleading etymology, as the English words undertaker, butterfly, and hangover show. In the quest for meaning, scholars must consider actual usages of words in their literary and historical contexts. This approach assumes that the sentence, paragraph, or entire biblical book is the linguistic vehicle for theological meaning, rather than individual words. 19 The later volumes of TWNT accepted Barr’s critique, and its Old Testament counterpart (TWAT/TDOT) became more linguistically nuanced as well. 20 Later theological dictionaries (esp. NIDOTTE 21) have acknowledged Barr’s influence on their method. Nevertheless, many scholars continue to employ the supposed etymology of the proper name ‫ יהוה‬as a description of the divine character, even though Barr’s criticisms seem to refute this practice. Scholarly publications on Exod 3:13–15 and encyclopedia articles concerning the word Yhwh display this tendency most clearly.

Post-Barr Scholarship on the Word ‫יהוה‬ Scholars continue to publish articles and essays on the “revelation” of the divine name in Exod 3:13–15. Similarly, contributors to Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias continue to create entries on the word ‫יהוה‬. In the following investigation, I will show that scholars who discuss the divine name continue to etymologize it, while often asserting this etymology as a description of God’s character. This approach has continued unabated, even 17. Ibid., 119. 18. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 132 (emphasis original). Barr adds: “the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history . . . it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period” (Semantics, 109). 19. Ibid., 263. 20. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 124–25. See also Richard Erickson, “Biblical Semantics, Semantic Structure, and Biblical Lexicology: A Study of Methods, with Special Reference to the Pauline Lexical Field of ‘Cognition,’” Ph.D. diss. (Fuller Theological Seminary, 1980), 53. 21. See also Peter Cotterell, “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis,” in A Guide to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: The Introductory Articles from the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 131–57.

Introduction

5

after The Semantics of Biblical Language revolutionized lexical studies. I will examine a representative sampling of publications since 1961. 22 Exodus 3:13–15 Interpreters often see the wordplay between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫יהוה‬ as the key to identifying the divine name’s “root meaning.” In most cases, they even parse and translate ‫יהוה‬. Writing nine years after Semantics was published, Lienhard Delekat represented a minority opinion that the word form ‫ יהוה‬developed from )‫( יהו(א‬pronounced “Yehûʾ”). 23 He identified this original form as a shortened imperfect verb in Aramaic and Amorite. Delekat read ‫ יהוה‬as “yahwáe,” an Aramaic verb meaning “he is.” 24 Frank Moore Cross also saw a complex prehistory behind the divine name. He followed his mentor William Albright in arguing that the name ‫ יהוה‬was to be read “yahweh,” indicating a third-person Hiphil causative form that described God’s role as Creator. 25 In a thorough literary analysis of Moses’s call, Peter Weimar argued that Exod 3:14b–15 was added by the final redactor of the Pentateuch. This addition more helpfully addressed Moses’s question about the identity of his forefathers’ God. Weimar claimed that the redactor formalized the relationship between the divine name and the verb ‫ היה‬by putting the thirdperson form ‫( יהוה‬read “Yahweh”) after the first-person form ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫א‬. 26 Within a decidedly philological study of the divine name in Exod 3, Roland de Vaux interpreted ‫ יהוה‬as an imperfect form deriving from the root ‫היה‬, on analogy with other biblical names that corresponded to verbal forms (Gen 36:5, 14, 18; 1 Chr 4:3; 7:2). De Vaux suggested that Yhwh revealed his name in the third person because the first person form ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬would have made for an awkward divine name. 27 22. Many significant studies on the Tetragrammaton in Exod 3:13–15 were published before 1961. See William R. Arnold, “The Divine Name in Exodus iii 14,” JBL 24 (1905): 107–65; P. Haupt, “Der Name Jahwe,” OLZ 12 (1909): 211–14; W. F. Albright, “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” JBL 43 (1924): 363–93, esp. pp. 370–78; M. Z. Segal, “The Revelation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew),” Tarbiz 12 (1940): 97–108; E. Schild, “On Exodus 3:14–‘I am that I am,’” VT 4 (1954): 296–302; David Noel Freedman, “The Name of the God of Moses,” JBL 79 (1960): 151–56; S. Mowinckel, “The Name of the God of Moses,” HUCA 32 (1961): 121–33; and Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh.” 23. Lienhard Delekat, “Yáho-Yahwáe und die alttestamentliche Gottesnamenkorrekturen,” in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Jeremias Gert, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 23–75. 24. Ibid., 60. 25. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 60–75. 26. Peter Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23 – 5,5 (OBO 32; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 344. 27. Roland de Vaux, “The Revelation of the Divine Name Yhwh,” in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. John I. Durham and J. R. Porter (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1983), 48–75.

6

Chapter 1

Werner H. Schmidt agreed with previous scholars that the name ‫ יהוה‬was a form of ‫ היה‬that signaled Yhwh’s presence as promised in Exod 6:7. This name was a third-person verbal form that complemented the first-­person verb ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬in Exod 3:14. 28 In his study on “poetic etymology,” Herbert Marks described the naming report in Exod 3:14–15 as “a figure of absolute freedom, pointing beyond meaning to the vacancy of immanence.” 29 Johannes P. Floss asserted that the author of Exod 3:14 was not practicing etymology, and that the verb ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬simply corresponds to the syllables and consonants of ‫יהוה‬. 30 Floss’s observations ran counter to the scholarly habits of his day. Discussing Exod 3 in light of the later tradition that read the word ‫אֲדֹנָי‬ over ‫יהוה‬, David Volgger noted that listeners of Exod 3:14–15 would have recognized the etymological wordplay (“etymologische Wortspiel”) between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬in its written (etymological) and spoken (phonological) aspects even after this tradition took hold. 31 In a recent study of the composition and canonical placement of Exod 3:14, Reinhard Achenbach identified the verb “be, become” as the divine name’s “etymon.” The significance of the name derives from this verb. Furthermore, the first-person form ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬ represents God’s actual name, while the third-person form ‫ יהוה‬reflects a name that humans could use. 32 Continuing to support Albright’s position in a 2008 article, David Noel Freedman asserted that scholars should vocalize the name ‫ יהוה‬as the verbal form “Yahweh.” He claims that the divine name ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫[ א‬sic] appears three times in Exod 3:14. 33 In a recent literary reading of Exod 3:14, Jean-Pierre Sonnet has helpfully noted that the phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬invites narrative that fills out the divine name’s sense in the book of Exodus. Nevertheless, Sonnet retains common scholarly language when claiming that Yhwh provided his name with an “authorized etymology” at the burning bush. 34 28. W. H. Schmidt, “Der Jahwename und Ex 3, 14,” in Textgemäß: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 126–27, 136. 29. Herbert Marks, “The Language of Adam: Biblical Naming and Poetic Etymology,” Ph.D. diss. (Yale University, 1985), 38. 30. Johannes P. Floss, “‘Ich bin mein Name’: Die Identität von Gottes Ich und Gottes Namen nach Ex 3,14,” in Text, Methode und Grammatik, ed. W. Gross, H. Irsigler, and T. Siedl (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1991), 76 n. 62, and p. 78. 31. Volgger helpfully recognized the “lautliche bzw. schriftliche Ähnlichkeit von ʾhyh und Yhwh.” He is one of few commentators who mention the phonological aspects of the wordplay. David Volgger, “Wer Bin Ich? Oder Noch Einmal Zu Ex 3,14,” LASBF 49 (1999): 27–28. 32. Achenbach, “‘Ich bin, der ich bin!’ (Exodus 3,14),” 84, 86. 33. David Noel Freedman, “The Real Formal Full Personal Name of the God of Israel,” in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Shawna Dolansky (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 85. 34. Jean-Pierre Sonnet, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Exodus 3:14): God’s ‘Narrative Identity’ among Suspense, Curiosity, and Surprise,” Poetics Today 31 (2010): 342.

Introduction

7

Encyclopedia Entries Barr noted that Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias have been particularly vulnerable to errors of lexical study. Published in 1971, the entry on the name ‫ יהוה‬in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament reflects Barr’s influence. Here, Ernst Jenni cautioned scholars about etymologizing the divine name. 35 Nevertheless, he noted that a theological interpretation of Exod 3:14 reveals ‫ יהוה‬to be a Qal form of ‫היה‬. From this, Jenni asserted that this verb-name indicates dynamic action rather than static action. 36 In a lengthy article on the divine name in TDOT, David Noel Freedman examined in detail extrabiblical attestations that seem to illuminate the etymology of ‫יהוה‬. 37 Agreeing with his mentor William Albright, he argued that the name was originally a Hiphil form of ‫ היה‬that later became a proper name. Freedman’s argumentation is patently grammatical: the Hebrew verbal system demands the ending ē, and so the Tetragrammaton’s pronunciation during the biblical period was yahwēh. 38 Freedman’s argument remained unchanged in the essay he wrote more than 30 years later. 39 In a short entry in ABD, Henry O. Thompson noted that the pronunciation “Yahweh” is a guess that scholars justify on grammatical grounds. While pointing out that the meaning of the name ‫ יהוה‬is unknown, he concluded that Exod 3:14 involved a folk etymology based on the verb ‫היה‬. 40 Terence Fretheim has taken Barr’s insights seriously. He consciously avoided etymological analyses, relegating the possible morphology of the name to a parenthetical statement. 41 He agreed that a proper name functions differently from a description of identity or character––the divine name thus made God accessible while safeguarding his otherness. The revelations of the name in Exod 3:14–15 and 6:2–3 displayed Yhwh’s character, but not definitively. 42 Two years later, Karel van der Toorn issued a warning to those who analyze the name ‫יהוה‬: they must apply Barr’s observations about the abuse of etymologizing to divine names as well. The interpreter should discern the characteristics of the god from his worshipers’ statements, not from analysis of the name’s (supposed) underlying forms. 43 However, even Toorn 35. For example, “Schlüsse von der Wortbedeutung auf das ‘ursprüngliche’ Wesen Jahwehs sind daher nur mit größten Vorbehalten gültig . . . sei mag, selbst wenn sie [the theological meaning of the form “Yahweh”] möglicherweise der ‘richtigen’ Etymologie nahe kommt, für nur einen bestimmten Kreis im Volke Israel maßgebend gewesen sein.” Ernst Jenni, “‫ יהוה‬Jhwh Jahwe,” THAT 1:702. 36. Ibid., 702–3. 37. D. N. Freedman, H. Ringgren, and M. O’Connor, “‫ יהוה‬Yhwh,” TDOT 5:500–521. 38. Ibid., 512. 39. See above, p. 6 n. 33. 40. Henry O. Thompson, “Yahweh,” ABD 6:1011. 41. Terence Fretheim, “Yahweh,” NIDOTTE 4:1295. 42. Ibid., 1296–97. 43. K. van der Toorn, “Yahweh ‫יהוה‬,” DDD, 913.

8

Chapter 1

speculated about the pre-history of the name, giving particular emphasis to ancient Near Eastern parallels. He argued that Yhwh was originally perceived as a storm deity, which explains why he finds a south Semitic meaning in the root hwy. The name’s performative yod indicates a third-person form: “he blows” or “he causes to fall.”  44 While often acknowledging the dangers of studying etymology for theological conclusions, few scholars have changed their approach to understanding the divine name. Based on a study of Exod 3:13–15, many still assert that the name ‫ יהוה‬derives from a Qal or Hiphil form of the verb ‫היה‬, and that this verbal name describes Yhwh’s existence, active being, presence, or his creative acts. Theological discussions on the divine name and the divine character continue to orbit around etymological analyses of the word ‫יהוה‬.

The Biblical Onomastic Interpretive Tradition In the preceding studies, biblical scholars employed the supposed etymology of the divine name as a description of Yhwh’s character. Such etymological/grammatical study of proper names in the Bible is not without precedent. Because most proper names in Hebrew are semantically transparent, certain Old Testament scholars have analyzed these names grammatically and used their results to reconstruct the history of Israel’s religion by compiling diachonic lists of Israelite personal names. However, it will be shown that these scholars had different assumptions about the place of etymology in descriptions of the name-bearer’s character. George Buchanan Gray studied names within the Hebrew Bible according to four categories: names compounded with a term of kinship, animal names, names containing an element denoting dominion, and names compounded with a divine name. 45 For example, Gray discussed names containְ ‫ֲבי ֶמל‬ ing the element ‫ֶך( אב‬ ִ ‫א‬, ‫ֲבי ֶעזֶר‬ ִ ‫א‬, etc.), considering the relationship ִ ‫א‬, ‫ֲבּיָה‬ between ‫ אב‬and the second element of the name. Against the opinion of the day, he concluded that this relationship was not construct-genitive (“father of the king”), but subject-predicate (“my father is king”). His goal throughout was to recover the history of Israelite popular religion from Israelite personal names. 46 Thirty years later, Martin Noth published his studies on the grammatical structure of Semitic personal names in which he compared Israelite namegiving to broader Semitic name-giving. He analyzed theophoric names and Israelite names expressing piety, and then concluded with a discussion of “secular names” (Die profanen Namen). Noth compared Israelite names with their supposed ancient Near Eastern counterparts. For example, the name ‫( ְּבנָיָהּו‬1 Chr 11:25) corresponds to the Babylonian name El-bana, or the fa44. Ibid., 913–16. 45. George Buchanan Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names (London: Black, 1896), 75–86. 46. Ibid., 10.

Introduction

9

mous Ašur-bān-apli (Ashurbanipal). These names expressed the parents’ wish that God would build up their household. 47 Jeaneane Fowler’s study is more focused than Gray’s and Noth’s. She thoroughly analyzed all known Israelite theophoric names that involved a shortened form of the Tetragrammaton. 48 From the Bible and from the archaeological data available to her, Fowler argued that Israelite theophoric names became common during the seventh century BCE. 49 For example, under Fowler’s entry of the element ykl, she lists the Biblical Hebrew name ‫ָליָהּו‬ ְ ‫ ְיכ‬, “Yhwh is able” (2 Kgs 15:2) along with the extrabiblical Israelite name yhwkl. 50 Each of these scholars discovered the same principle from their etymological studies. Rather than describing the name-bearer, Israelite names often memorialized the faith of the parents who placed their confessions onto their children. While Gray, Noth, and Fowler have recognized this, most other biblical scholars continue to etymologize the divine name as if it contains a description of Yhwh’s character. However, one could object that the divine name ‫ יהוה‬differs from Israelite (theophoric) names and should be seen as reflecting the deity’s character. Divine and human names in Ugaritic, Hittite, Phoenician, Akkadian/Sumerian, Ammonite, Amorite, and in the Amarna letters 51 often contained identifiable nominal and verbal forms, some of which could describe the name-bearer. Burkhart Kienast created a typology of divine names according to the following grammatical categories: “proper” (Echte) divine names, appellatives, substantival epithets, nisben (adjectives derived from nouns), adjectival epithets, and sentence names. He applied this typology to the Semitic pantheon (with their Akkadian names) and to the larger Sumerian­ 47. Martin Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928), 172–73, 236. 48. Jeaneane D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, JSOTSup 49 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). 49. Fowler’s charts list all Hebrew theophoric names over the course of ancient Israelite history known at the time. She has made available many extraBiblical Hebrew names that were unavailable to Gray and Noth. See ibid., 366–82. 50. Ibid., 82. 51. Ugaritic: R. S. Hess, “The Onomastics of Ugarit,” in A Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, ed. N. Wyatt and W. G. E. Watson, NMO 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 499–528. Hittite: Gary Beckman, “A Contribution to Hittite Onomastic Studies,” JAOS 103 (1983): 623–27. Phoenician: Frank L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions, Studia Pohl 8 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972). Akkadian/Sumerian: Johann J. Stamm, Die Akkadische Namensgebung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939). Ammonite: M. O’Connor, “The Ammonite Onomasticon: Semantic Problems,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 25 (1987): 51–64. Amorite: H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965). Some Amorite names contain the prefix yāhwî. See pp.  63–65 for a discussion of these names as possible evidence for reconstructing the original form of the divine name. Amarna letters: R. S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names, DASOR 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993).

10

Chapter 1

pantheon. 52 The vast majority of Mesopotamian divine names can be analyzed grammatically, and sometimes describe the deity’s essence (for example, Bēlet-ilī [substantive in a genitive relationship], “Mistress of the Gods”; Gibil [appellative], “Fire”; Iqbīdumqī [sentence name], perhaps “He has spoken for my good,” etc.). Only a few names were truly “proper,” that is, they contained no identifiable etymology (Eštar, Utu, Uraš, etc.). Kienast’s study shows that each divine name must be analyzed on its own terms to determine the relationship of its etymology to broader theological claims. Those who analyze the name ‫ יהוה‬etymologically have often adopted the sound methods of scholars such as Gray, Noth, Fowler, and Kienast, but they usually apply their results differently. Whereas scholars of biblical names saw the names as statements of faith made by name-givers, many biblical scholars and theologians see divine names as descriptions of the namebearer. This subtle distinction calls greater attention to Toorn’s remark that Barr’s cautions against etymologizing should also apply to the proper name ‫יהוה‬. This divine name may not be as etymologically transparent as other divine names. Even if so, its supposed etymology may not make a statement about Yhwh’s character. The divine name should be defined by its use in the biblical narrative and not according to an uncertain etymological analysis. The study of the possible etymology of the name ‫ יהוה‬should be distinguished from theological claims about the divine character.

The Problem of Atomistic Exegesis Scholars tend to overlook the revelation of the divine character (as tied to the name ‫ )יהוה‬throughout the book of Exodus because they have divided its organic narrative into isolated parts. They have often adopted the Documentary Hypothesis to explain the discrepancies in the laws and narratives of the Pentateuch. 53 According to this theory, independent written sources stemming from various points in Israel’s history were eventually combined by a process of redaction (or supplementation) into the canonical Torah. 54 Classical documentarians have argued that close attention to apparent divergences and seams in the Torah narrative yields four coherent base documents ( J, E, P, and D). These scholars consider the central “divine name texts” in Exodus as distinct “revelations” that accord with the continuous narrative of these literary sources. Most documentarians claim that 52. Burkhart Kienast, “Überlegungen zum ‘Pantheon Babylonicum,’” Orientalia 54 (1985): 109–11. 53. While many scholars today have moved on from reconstructing the compositional history of the Torah, few have done so out of a conviction that the Documentary Hypothesis has been refuted. 54. Some claim that these sources were written without knowledge of rival sources. Documentarians have espoused two main theories of redaction: either all four documents were combined and redacted into the Pentateuch at once or one document was joined to another over time, with the final redaction bringing the entire Pentateuch together.

Introduction

11

Exod 3:13–15 belongs to the E source, Exod 6:2–8 belongs to the P source, and Exod 34:6–7 belongs to the J source. 55 Exodus 3:13–15 (and especially Exod 6:2–3) seems to assume that the name ‫ יהוה‬was previously unknown. Many have asserted this as incontrovertible proof of the Documentary Hypothesis. The pioneers in the critical study of the Hebrew Bible, H. B. Witter and Jean Astruc, tried to explain Exod 6:3 by discerning two narrative strands in Genesis that used different divine “names.” 56 However, they assumed that these literary divisions (or sources) stopped at Exod 2, and that Exod 6:3 did not contradict the book of Genesis. Nevertheless, later biblical scholars extended these two sources into the entire Pentateuch. 57 These sources appeared to be consistent in their use 55. See Martin Noth, Exodus, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (London: SCM, 1962), 43–44, 58, 261; A. S. van der Woude, “‫ ׁשֵם‬šēm Name,” THAT 2:935–63; Allan K. Jenkins, “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 10 (1978): 51; and William Henry Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2A, (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 603. It should be noted that Propp only tentatively assigns Exod 34:6–7 to the J source. Recently, some have questioned whether Exod 34:6–7 belongs to J. Their skepticism is part of a larger challenge against the validity of the J source. H. H. Schmid raised doubts about the antiquity of J. See Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976). Around the same time, Rolf Rendtorff published his monograph Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977). He argued that continuous and unified literary sources could not explain independent complexes of traditions within the Pentateuch. Erhard Blum has practiced a more cautious form of source criticism, reducing the sources to a “pre-Priestly” source (“Die vor-priesterliche Komposition,” KD) and a P source (“Die priesterliche Komposition,” KP). See Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). For evidence of these scholars’ influence on recent pentateuchal scholarship, see Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, eds., A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), esp. pp. 1–7. 56. H. B. Witter’s work has rarely been recognized as the beginning of source critical approaches. See Jura Israelitarum in Palæstinam terram Chananæam commentatione in Genesin: perpetua sic demonstrata, ut idiomatis authentici nativus sensus fideliter detegatur, Mosis Autoris primæva intentio . . . ipse textus Hebræus cum versione Latina (Hildesheim: Schröderus, 1711). Jean Astruc’s famous Conjectures offered a more regulated and methodical approach to the issue of varied divine “names” in Genesis. See Conjectures sur les memoires originaux Dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genese: avec des Remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces Conjectures (Chez Friex: Bruxelles, 1753); repr., Conjectures sur la Genèse, ed. Pierre Gibert, CHR (Paris: Noêsis, 1999). Aulikki Nahkola goes so far as to call Astruc’s work the “genesis of method in biblical criticism,” because Astruc consistently demonstrated why discrepancies in the narrative may have occurred. “The Memoires of Moses and the Genesis of Method in Biblical Criticism: Astruc’s Contribution,” in Sacred Conjectures: The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowth and Jean Astruc, ed. John Jarick (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 204–19. 57. Astruc’s method was popularized among German biblical scholars by the work of Hermann Hupfeld. See Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung (Berlin: Wiegandt & Grieben, 1853).

12

Chapter 1

of divine names and titles, as well as the moment when Yhwh revealed his name. 58 The “revelations” of the divine name in Exod 3 and 6 became fixed reference points that anchored the narrative of each literary source. In a stimulating and thorough defense of the Documentary Hypothesis in its classical form, Joel Baden has followed his mentor Baruch Schwartz in basing his source divisions on narrative inconsistencies rather than on the more problematic categories of theme or language. 59 These scholars helpfully distinguish literary and historical issues, thus refusing to assign the sources to a particular time in Israel’s history. Baden also avoids searching for further layers within the four sources, because the Documentary Hypothesis, in his opinion, should only account for existence of sources immediately before they were combined into the canonical whole. 60 For Baden, the Documentary Hypothesis is a literary solution to a literary problem, and historical reconstruction must remain a secondary reflex. 61 Julius Wellhausen did better than his predecessors in “fitting” J, E, D, and P into the history of Israelite religion as critically reconstructed. 62 However, J, E, D, and P had been discovered earlier through the literary scholarship of his predecessors who did not share his historical concerns. 63 When applying historical criteria to literary problems, scholars’ arguments in defense of the Documentary Hypothesis often become circular. 64 Therefore, the Documentary Hypothesis is an attempt to resolve what for Baden is the Pentateuch’s primary literary problem. He remarks that any attempt to read the Pentateuch (or parts of the Pentatech) holistically, 58. Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012), 22, 258–59. 59. See Baruch J. Schwartz, “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection?” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3–16, esp. pp. 10–12. 60. See Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 30–31, as quoted on p. 32. 61. Ibid., 32. 62. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Reimer, 1883). Because of its methodological rigor, its trenchant literary observations, and its coherent presentation of Israel’s religious history, this work remains a classic of biblical scholarship. Wellhausen’s greatest contribution of the time was dating the P source late. For summaries of post-Wellhausian scholarship of Exod 6:3, see below, p. 92 n. 36. 63. For a further discussion of the interplay between historical and literary concerns in 19th-century biblical scholarship, see John Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 76. 64. R. N. Whybray notes that problems have arisen when scholars assign passages to P according to their conformity to P’s supposed postexilic “arid” or “formal” character. Since one can determine a source’s character only from passages that make it up, this approach must assume that P passages reflect postexilic theological developments. See The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 60, 92.

Introduction

13

is difficult or perhaps impossible. 65 Documentarians have argued that the coherence of the Pentateuch’s narrative arises only once the sources are isolated.

Thesis In this monograph, I will analyze Exod 3:13–15, 6:2–8, and 33:12–23, 34:6–7 according to a literary-onomastic method. 66 I propose that the canonical book of Exodus presents a gradual revelation of the divine character, tied to the divine name. Therefore, Yhwh’s proclamation in Exod 34:6–7 (rather than Exod 3:13–15) should be seen as the climax of this revelation. Through this literary approach to the canonical text, I aim to make sense of the divine name. 67 Chapters 2 and 3 offer an alternative to the common etymologizing approach to the name ‫ יהוה‬in Exod 3:13–15. This important text is cast in the form of an “explicit naming wordplay” (commonly called a “folk etymology”), which contains features that elucidate Yhwh’s mysterious reply to Moses about the divine name. I will survey the explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch to discern their common features. These analogues suggest that the phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬in Exod 3:14 should be translated, “I will be whoever I will be,” which anticipates Yhwh’s future revelations of his character. The third chapter concludes by arguing that the personal name ‫יהוה‬ does not contain an obvious etymology. Chapter 4 engages the critical issue in Exod 6:3 by reading the book of Genesis as well as the account of Israel’s exodus from Egypt for ascriptions made to the name ‫יהוה‬. Yhwh’s use of the “recognition formula” demonstrates how Moses’s generation came to know Yhwh in a way the patriarchs did not. Chapter 5 studies the “Divine Name-Proclamation” of Exod 34:6–7 as a response to Moses’s intercession in Exod 33:12–23. Yhwh emphasized his forgiveness, as well as the tension inherent in the two “polarities” of his revealed character. Chapter 6 considers the Hebrew Bible’s many verbal echoes of Exod 34:6–7, classified according to genre, to show that these verses are central to the presentation of God’s character in the Hebrew Bible. This literary onomastic approach aims to address the weaknesses inherent in certain etymologizing approaches and in atomistic exegesis. 68 65. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 13. 66. I will define this approach below, pp.20–23. 67. I intend the phrase “make sense” in two ways. First, according to the colloquial meaning, I endeavor to bring clarity to important “name texts” in the book of Exodus that critical scholars often view as contradictory or disconnected. Second, according to the technical meaning, I aim to discover the sense (that is, character descriptions) that one can ascribe to the otherwise sense-less name ‫ יהוה‬through a literary onomastic reading of the book of Exodus. 68. A few studies indicate a trend toward holistic, literary readings of the divine name in Exodus. See Bernard Renaud, “Proche est ton Nom”: De la révélation à la invocation

14

Chapter 1

Method Onomastic Theory and the Meaning of Proper Names Literary onomastics is a subdiscipline within the broader field of onomastics. Onomasticians analyze names and naming in society and in literary texts, and their discussions offer helpful interpretive categories for this monograph. The majority of these scholars have come to a consensus regarding the semantic difference between proper names and common nouns. The first to highlight the special role of proper names was Chrysippus, a Stoic philosopher from the third century BCE. 69 In a discussion on the parts of speech, he divided the “noun” (ὂνομα) into the “appellative” (προσηγορία), which expresses common qualities, and the “proper name” (ὂνομα), which signifies particular qualities. 70 While Chrysippus’s Stoic contemporaries rejected his distinction, the classical (Latin) tradition accepted it, translating his terms as appellatio and nomen. 71 Later grammarians added the term κύριον (“proper”) to ὂνομα, which gave rise to the English title “proper name.” 72 Modern onomasticians and linguists have built on Chrysippus’s work. In his well-regarded work, Semantics, John Lyons introduced the categories of reference, sense, and denotation to explain how nouns function. Lyons defines reference as “the relationship between an expression and what that expression stands for on particular occasions of its utterance,” and sense as “descriptive meaning.” 73 Denotation refers to all the objects or properties to which a word refers outside its specific contexts. 74 du Nom de Dieu, Lire la Bible 149 (Paris: Cerf, 2007), esp. pp. 21–22; Graham I. Davies, “The Exegesis of the Divine Name in Exodus,” in The God of Israel, ed. R. P. Gordon, UCOP 64 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 139–56; and Daniel Premaselan Niles, “The Name of God in Israel’s Worship: The Theological Importance of the Name Yahweh,” Ph.D. diss. (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1975), 96–166. For a similar holistic approach to Exod 3:13–15 and Exod 6:2–3, see Jill Middlemas, “Exodus 3 and the Call of Moses: Rereading the Signs,” in The Centre and the Periphery: A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Jill Middlemas, David J. A. Clines, and Else Kragelund Holt, HBM 27 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 141–43. These helpful studies sketch what I will develop fully in this monograph. 69. This is third-hand information: Diogenes Laertius learned of Chrysippus’ work from Diogenes the Babylonian. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, trans. R. D. Hicks, 2 vols., LCL 185 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 1:167. 70. Karlheinz Hülser, ed., Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker: Neue Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentaren, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Frommann Holzboog, 1987), 1:592. 71. Holger Steen Sørensen, The Meaning of Proper Names with a Definiens Formula for Proper Names in Modern English (Copenhagen: Gad, 1963), 69. 72. P. Ackroyd and A. Wouters, “On the Origins of the Participle as a Part of Speech,” ASTHLSS 112 (2007): 59. 73. John Lyons, Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 174, 197. 74. Onomastician Richard Coates helpfully describes a word’s denotation as its “reference potential.” See “Properhood,” Language 82 (2006): 359.

Introduction

15

Lyons’s categories help onomasticians distinguish the semantic role of proper names vis-à-vis common nouns. 75 Most onomasticians agree that proper names have no sense. 76 According to Richard Coates, names can identify individuals but do not therefore utilize any of their characteristics. 77 Therefore, a proper name makes direct reference to the name-bearer without describing him or her. In contrast, common nouns make reference through their conventionally defined sense, and their denotation may vary. Proper names do not “mean” in the same way as common nouns, because they are characterized by sense-less, direct referring. 78 The philosopher John Searle lucidly concludes: “[Proper names] function not as descriptions, but as pegs on which to hang descriptions.” 79 Whereas proper names make direct reference without an attached meaning, common nouns make reference through their conventionally defined meaning. Application to the Bible: Onomastic Categories One could object that onomasticians’ categories and theories do not apply to an ancient literary work such as the Hebrew Bible, especially if, as is commonly thought, Exod 3:13–15 ascribes a “meaning” to the name ‫יהוה‬. However, I will argue that modern onomastics can be a helpful tool for interpreting the book of Exodus. In order to understand this name in its literary context, it is necessary to specify the above onomastic categories while briefly illustrating them from relevant biblical texts. The broad category, “proper names,” should be divided into personal names (with an opaque or transparent etymology), toponyms, and gentilics, while “common nouns” should be divided into epithets and titles. Figure 1 demonstrates how sense and reference apply across these categories. Understanding the place of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬within this continuum (and thus its semantic function) will sharpen my analyses of “name texts” in Exodus. 75. It would be more accurate to replace the phrase “common nouns” with “common referring expressions.” Referring expressions may transcend the category of the noun. See ibid., 359. Because this study is restricted to the Hebrew Bible where the referring expressions under scrutiny are nouns (‫אֱל ִֹהים‬, ‫אֲדֹנָי‬, etc.), I will continue to use the phrase “common nouns.” 76. See ibid., 363, for a list of those who hold this view. However, some scholars dissent. Willy van Langendonck argues that names offer the maximum chance of correctly identifying its referent in context. See “Name Theory and Set Theory,” Onoma 41 (2006): 45–61. Cf. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic, 126, who applies these categories to biblical studies. 77. Coates, “Properhood,” 363. 78. Coates notes that most have defined proper names as lexical items with a unique reference. However, this definition cannot accommodate instances in which the same proper name is used in a different context (e.g., the naming of a race horse as Popocatapetl, or theophoric naming in the ancient Near East). See ibid., 361–62, 371. 79. John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 172.

Chapter 1

16

Proper Names

Personal Names with an Opaque Etymology

Personal Names with a Transparent Etymology

Common Nouns

Toponyms and Gentilics

Epithets and Titles

(Direct) Reference

Sense

Figure 1.  Continuum of sense and reference across onomastic categories.

The Hebrew Bible employs a host of epithets and titles to describe the God of Israel. The epithets that make reference to Yhwh do so according to their conventionally defined sense. The introduction of Isa 42:5 (‫ּכֹה־ ָאמַר‬ ‫ ) ָהאֵל יהוה‬contains the personal name ‫ יהוה‬and the epithet ‫ ָהאֵל‬. These words refer to the same person, though ‫ ָהאֵל‬adds to its reference the sense of ‫יהוה‬ as a deity. The verse continues with a string of titular predications (‫ּבֹורֵא‬ ‫ְׁשמָה‬ ָ ‫ נֹתֵ ן נ‬,‫ רֹקַ ע ָה ָארֶץ‬,‫ַּׁש ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ )ה‬that refer to Yhwh and offer a terse theological statement about him in the process of reference. 80 Unlike the personal name ‫יהוה‬, these titles and epithets could refer to beings other than Yhwh. The interpretation of a word’s sense and reference becomes complicated when common nouns function like proper names. 81 Richard Hess has clearly shown the various semantic functions of the word ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ )הָ)א‬in Gen 1–5. Foundational to his analysis is the correct assumption that personal names cannot take the definite article, while gentilics, toponyms, titles, and epithets can. 82 He argues that ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬functions as a personal name (“Adam”) in 5 of its 34 appearances in these chapters. In the remaining 29, ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫)הָ)א‬ functions as a title with a reference to humankind in general, or the male in particular (“the Man” or “humankind”). ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬only functions as a personal name later in the narrative (Gen 4:25ff.), which suggests that certain common nouns could develop into proper nouns and even personal names once their generic sense is established. 83 80. For the purposes of this study, I do not distinguish between epithets and titles. Whereas epithets and titles both refer to Yhwh (e.g., ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫קדֹוׁש י‬, ְ ‫אֲדֹנָי‬, etc.), common nouns do not (e.g., ‫מ ְד ַבּר‬, ִ ‫ ֶלחֶם‬, etc.). Metaphorical language about God may sometimes blur this distinction (e.g., ‫צּורי‬ ִ ‫א ְַך־הּוא‬, “only he is my rock,” Ps 62:3[2]). 81. Conversely, Lyons notes that some personal names take on a high degree of symbolism from which common nouns can be created (e.g., “quixotic” or “cicerone”). See Semantics, 219. 82. See my discussion of ‫ ָהעַי‬and ‫ְבּוסי‬ ִ ‫ ַהי‬below, p. 18. However, the converse is not true: nouns without the definite article are not necessarily personal names. 83. Richard S. Hess, “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ʾādām in Genesis i–v,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 1–5. See also Lyons, Semantics, 181, for English examples such as “the President,” the Queen,” or “the Pope.”

Introduction

17

The title ‫ )הָ(אֱל ִֹהים‬appears throughout the Hebrew Bible and warrants several different translations (e.g., “a god,” 1 Sam 28:13; “the [true] God,” 1 Kgs 18:39; or “[the] gods,” Gen 39:9; Jer 7:6; Ps 82:6). The denotation of this word is complicated because it may refer to the false gods of the nations or the true God of Israel. The anarthrous form ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬often functions as a personal name in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exod 6:2; 1 Kgs 13:1; Ps 108:6[5] and, significantly, Gen 1:1). 84 Interestingly, the Hebrew Bible uses singular modifiers when this plural noun refers to Yhwh (e.g., Gen 1:1; Exod 6:2; 20:2; Deut 5:24; Ps 7:10; 2 Chr 20:6), but plural modifiers when it refers to other divine/angelic beings (e.g., Deut 4:7; 1 Sam 4:8; Jer 7:6; Ps 82:6). 85 The words ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬and ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬illustrate how sense, reference, and denotation may vary within the same lexical unit, depending on context. Coates describes the conferring of properhood to a common noun as “onymization” (‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬as “God” and ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬as “Adam.”). 86 One could say that the biblical author “onymized” the title ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬with the intention that it refer directly to Yhwh (“God”) rather than to a class of beings (“god[s]”). When the interpreter is faced with a vague or ambiguous word such as ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬or ‫אֱל ִֹהים‬, it is preferable to use the neutral term designator to describe the word before he or she makes a judgment about its semantic function. 87 In his study of Gen 1–5, Hess also used contextual clues in order to determine whether the designator ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ )הָ)א‬functioned as a proper name or a common noun. 88 Similarly, instances where anarthrous designators seem to function as personal names requires a study of the context (e.g., ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬in Gen 1:26; 2:5, etc.; and ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬in Gen 1:1; 1 Kgs 13:1; Ps 108:6[5], etc.). Only by knowing the author’s intention (via contextual clues) can one determine 84. In a helpful discussion of ‫)הָ(אֱל ִֹהים‬, Erhard Blum asserts that this word should not be seen as a divine name. Accordingly, sources critics’ practice of separating this word from the divine name ‫ יהוה‬in pentateuchal texts is misguided. See “Der vermeintliche Gottesname ‘Elohim,’” in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 97–119. Part of this debate depends on the terms one uses: ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬could be seen as a uniquely referring title (“the [only] God”) or a personal name that developed from a common noun (“God”). 85. For a fuller discussion of the grammatical and syntactical variance of ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Albert de Pury, “Wie und wann wurde ‘der Gott’ zu ‘Gott’?” in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 127–32. 86. The “Elohistic Psalter” presents an illuminating instance of onymization. In Psalms 42–83, the word ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬likely replaced ‫ יהוה‬in an early stage of transmission, since this title functions like the divine personal name in every respect. 87. My use of the term designator is borrowed from Saul Kripke. See “Naming and Necessity,” in Semantics of Natural Language, ed. D. Davidson and G. Harman (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972), 254. For a further discussion of vagueness and ambiguity, see Hess, “Splitting the Adam,” 9–10. 88. Ibid., 1–5.

18

Chapter 1

whether or not a biblical author has onymized a common noun. 89 The importance of discerning onymization becomes particularly important in this study concerning the designators ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫( א‬Exod 3:14), ‫ש ָדּי‬ ַ ׁ ‫( אֵל‬Exod 6:3), and ‫אֵל‬ (Exod 34:6), because they carry significant exegetical weight. Toponyms make reference to a place but may or may not carry a conventionally defined sense. The place name ‫ ָהעַי‬resembles the word ‫עי‬, ִ “ruin” ( Josh 7:2; cf. Job 30:24), and ‫ ה ִַמ ְּצ ָפּה‬means “the lookout post,” (Gen 31:49; cf. Lam 4:17 and 2 Chr 20:24), but the toponyms ‫ּשׂק‬ ֶ ‫ דַ ֶמ‬and ‫ ִסינַי‬do not resemble other common nouns and so cannot carry their sense. Gentilics are often tied to toponyms. The gentilic ‫ַכנַעֲנִי‬ ּ ְ ‫ ה‬is built from ‫כנָעַן‬, ּ ְ and ‫ְבּוסי‬ ִ ‫ ַהי‬from ‫יְבּוס‬ (cf. Exod 3:8), but the ability of these words to refer through their sense depends on the toponym to which they are tied. Both gentilics and toponyms may rightly be classified as proper nouns because of their (potentially) sense-less reference but they may sometimes retain the sense of a common noun. Both proper names and common nouns can be described as etymologically transparent or opaque. Transparent designators have a linguistic composition that is easily discerned. 90 The words ‫שׁמָר‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬,‫מ ְַלכוּת‬, and leader show root forms (‫מלך‬, ‫שׁמר‬, and lead) with recognizable suffixes and prefixes (‫וּת‬, ‫מ‬, and -er). On the other hand, interpreters cannot easily discern the derivation of etymologically opaque words (e.g., ‫[ ׁשַ ע ְַטנֵז‬Lev 19:19], ‫[ פּ ְַתּבַג‬Dan 1:8], and Chicago). The transparency and opacity of personal names present a special challenge to literary interpretation. A speaker or writer may emphasize the etymological sense of a transparent personal name that otherwise refers senselessly. It is difficult to know if the name ‫ְש ְעיָהּו‬ ַ ׁ ‫“( י‬Isaiah” or “Yhwh saves,” Isa 1:1ff.) was written only to refer to the prophet, or whether the reader should also understand the word to refer to Yhwh’s salvation. 91 In certain cases, transparent personal names were likely intended to carry the sense of the word(s) they resemble etymologically, especially when that etymology is alluded to in the text. For example, the confession of the Israelites after Elijah’s victory on Mount Carmel (‫יהוה הּוא ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬, 1 Kgs 18:39) encourages the reader to read the prophet’s name etymologically (‫א ִֵליָּהּו‬, “Yhwh is [my] God”). Words of this sort reflect instances of double determination. 92 89. Richard Coates, “Singular Definite Expressions with a Unique Denotatum and the Limits of Properhood,” Linguistics 38 (2000): 1166. 90. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 48–49. 91. Etymologically transparent personal names in the Hebrew Bible are abundant, especially outside of the Torah. Examples include: ‫“( ְדּבֹורָה‬Deborah” or “bee,” Judg 5:1); ְ ‫ ֶעבֶד־ ֶמל‬, (“Ebed-Melech” or ‫ְהֹושפָט‬ ָׁ ‫“( י‬Jehosaphat” or “Yhwh has judged,” 1 Kgs 22:2); ‫ֶך‬ “servant of the king,” Jer 38:7), and ‫“( עֲז ְַריָה‬Azariah” or “Yhwh has helped,” Ezra 7:1). See below, pp. 27–28, for further discussion on literary allusions to transparent personal names. 92. This study assumes that properhood is a pragmatic category (that is, based on the author’s intention), rather than a structural category (the presence or absence of the

Introduction

19

The interpreter must determine whether a transparent proper name was intended to bear a sense or not. Because personal names do not take the definite article in the Hebrew Bible, this “objective” criterion cannot be applied. Along with contextual clues, the criterion of translatability can aid interpreters in discerning the author’s intention with transparent personal names. 93 The translation or transliteration of a transparent proper name offers a very different sense for that name, though the interpreter’s choice will always be subject to debate (e.g., “God” or “Elohim” for ‫אֱל ִֹהים‬, “God Almighty” or “El Shaddai” for ‫ש ָדּי‬ ַ ׁ ‫אֵל‬, “God” or “Allah” for ‫هللا‬‎, etc.). Etymologically opaque personal names are not subject to the same ambiguity as other designators. Such names make direct reference to the namebearer without adding any descriptive meaning to that reference. I will argue that the personal name ‫ יהוה‬does not contain an identifiable etymology. Furthermore, it is the only word that functions as God’s personal name in every instance. 94 I will explain below how a literary onomastic reading “makes sense” of the otherwise sense-less divine name ‫יהוה‬. Application to the Bible: The Semantic Range of  ‫ׁשֵם‬ Interpreters can further relate onomastic theories to the biblical text by discerning the semantic range of the word ‫ׁשֵם‬. 95 The name ‫ יהוה‬is described­ article). That is, the interpreter cannot simply point to “objective” grammatical clues to determine whether or not a designator functions as a proper name. See Coates, “Properhood,” 369, and John Algeo, On Defining the Proper Name, UFHM 41 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1973), 86. 93. Coates suggests that names should not be translated because they have no inherent sense to translate. See “Properhood,” 374. However, Hartwig Kalverkämper rightly notes that the translation of personal names is only possible when the name in question has a transparent etymology. See “Namen in Sprachaustausch: Namenübersetzung,” in Namenforschung: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik, ed. Ernst Eichler, 2 vols., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), 1:1018–25. Coates admits that place names are often translated (e.g., “New York” becomes “Nueva York” in Spanish). But he asserts that even though the transparent/etymological meaning of the name is translated, this word still functions as a proper name because it does not make reference through that meaning. See “Properhood,” 375. 94. J. W. Powis Smith mistakenly claims that ‫ יהוה‬can function as a superlative, citing examples such as ‫רּוח יהוה‬ ַ (“a mighty wind,”) in 2 Kgs 2:16 and Hos 13:14. See “The Use of Divine Names as Superlatives,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 45 (1929): 212–13. Waltke and O’Connor claim that ‫ גַן־יהוה‬in Isa 51:3 can mean “a splendid garden” (IBHS 268). However, the proper name Yhwh forms part of the phrase’s literal sense and should be retained in translation. The anomalous word ‫ֶתיָה‬ ְ ‫ ׁשַ ְל ֶהב‬in Song 8:6 is also often rendered in a way that ignores the allusion to Yhwh (that is, “a mighty flame”). However, this sort of allusion suggests that the passion arising from love is like a flame from Yah. For a thorough defense of this “literal” understanding, see Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 624–32. 95. The biblical authors did not observe the Stoic distinction between personal names and titles/epithets. The first chapters of Genesis best illustrate the reference

20

Chapter 1

as the ‫ ׁשֵם‬of Israel’s God in many places (Exod 15:3; Isa 42:8; Jer 33:2; Amos 5:8; 9:6). An inductive study of the 864 appearances of ‫ ׁשֵם‬in the Hebrew Bible confirms a distinction that Otto Procksch has recognized. He pointed out that ‫ ׁשֵם‬contains a “dianoetic” or “dynamic” aspect. The dianoetic aspect refers to the significance of a name according to its meaning. 96 In this aspect, a written or spoken linguistic element serves as the referent of ‫ׁשֵם‬. The dynamic aspect refers to a name according to the effect of that linguistic element on others. 97 Procksch’s two aspects of ‫ ׁשֵם‬can be better defined as literal/metaphorical and denotative/connotative. 98 Genesis 2:13 illustrates the literal/denotative aspect of ‫ ׁשֵם‬when it declares that ‫ ִּגיחֹון‬was the ‫ ׁשֵם‬of a river. According to Josh 19:47, the Danites named Leshem “Dan,” ‫ֲביהֶם‬ ִ ‫“( ְּכׁשֵם ָּדן א‬according to the name of Dan their forefather”). Here ‫ ׁשֵם‬refers to the linguistic element ‫ּדן‬, ָ which they applied to the city they conquered. Hosea 1:4 categorizes ‫ ִיז ְְרעֶאל‬as a ‫ׁשֵם‬, even though this word is a compound (‫ זרע‬and ‫)אֵל‬. In both instances, ‫ ׁשֵם‬denotes the lexical units ‫ּגיחֹון‬, ִ ‫ּדן‬, ָ and ‫ִיז ְְרעֶאל‬. A modern onomastic translation of this aspect of ‫ ׁשֵם‬would be “proper name.” Other biblical texts demonstrate that ‫ ׁשֵם‬does not always denote a linguistic element. It can refer to a goal after which people strive (Gen 11:4) or even to an entity that moves with terrifying force (Isa 30:27). Furthermore, the Nephilim of Gen 6 were ‫ ַא ְנׁשֵי ַהּׁשֵם‬, which probably refers to their ancient origin and repute. A ‫ ׁשֵם‬can be great ( Jer 10:6), can be taken away (Num 27:4), and can be declared to others in praise (Ps 22:23). The metaphorical/connotative aspect of ‫ ׁשֵם‬warrants a variety of translations, depending on context: “reputation,” “character,” “a basis for repute,” “stigma,” or “status.” It appears most frequently in nonnarrative genres. In Song 1:3, the enigmatic metaphor ָ‫ׁשמֶך‬ ְ ‫ׁשמֶן ּתּורַ ק‬ ֶ (“Your name is oil poured out”) compares effect of oil on the senses to the effect of the lover’s hearing about the name of her beloved. Proverbs 18:10 states tersely, ‫ִמ ְגּדַ ל־עֹז‬ ‫ִׂשּגָב‬ ְ ‫“( ׁשֵם יהוה ּבֹו־יָרּוץ צ ִַּדיק ְונ‬Yhwh’s name is a strong tower, the righteous one runs up into it and is safe”). It is absurd to think this refers to a perpotential of ‫ׁשֵם‬. Within these chapters, the words ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫( ִא‬Gen 2:23), ‫( ַחּוָה‬Gen 3:20), and ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫( א‬Gen 5:2) are applied to the female protagonist as her ‫ׁשֵם‬. In addition, ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬is the ‫ׁשֵם‬ of two people in Gen 5:2. Thus, ‫ ׁשֵם‬can sometimes indicate a personal name or a title. However, a person’s ‫ ׁשֵם‬can never be classified as a common noun in the Hebrew Bible. 96. Procksch’s term dianoetic is unhelpful. The dianoetic/dynamic distinction suggests that Hebrew thought was dynamic and Greek/Western thought static. Since Barr and others have disproved this conception, I have chosen to employ other terms. See Semantics, 10–11. 97. Otto Procksch, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1950), 251. See also idem, “λέγω C,” TWNT, 4:90, and A. M. Besnard, Le mystère du Nom: Quiconque invoquera le nom du Seigneur sera sauve, Lectio Divina 35 (Paris: du Cerf, 1962), 18–31. 98. For a helpful discussion on how the interpretation of metaphorical language (and words) involves a “gradient judgment,” see David H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics, and Divine Imagery, BRLAJ 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 111–18.

Introduction

21

son running up into Yhwh’s name in a literal, linguistic sense. 99 Rather, it refers to a person who takes refuge in what he or she associates with the name Yhwh. Israel’s knowledge of Yhwh was limited by the character he chose to reveal, which set boundaries to what was and was not true worship of him. Psalm 48:11 summarizes this idea well: ‫ָתךָ עַל־‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְמךָ אֱל ִֹהים ּכֵן ְּת ִהּל‬ ִ ‫ְּכ‬ ‫“( קַ ְצוֵי־ ֶארֶץ‬As your name, God, so your praise [reaches] to the ends of the earth”). 100 The above texts and many others make clear that the divine name ‫יהוה‬ carried an obvious force and sense for Israel. In the majority of its appearances, the common noun ‫ ׁשֵם‬refers to the divine name ‫ יהוה‬according to its metaphorical/connotative aspect. I have argued that the designator ‫יהוה‬ refers to Yhwh in its every instance in the Hebrew Bible, but the Hebrew Bible also presents this name as bearing a sense and connotation that Israel understood, revered, and feared. A literary onomastic method allows the interpreter to discern how the Hebrew Bible ascribes sense to the etymologically opaque (and thus sense-less) divine name ‫יהוה‬. Literary Onomastics I have argued that scholars should not assert the supposed etymology of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬as though it were a description of God’s essence or character. I will show that Exod 3:13–15 does not warrant the claim that the name ‫( יהוה‬commonly understood as “Yahweh,” that is, “He causes to be”) was intended to describe Yhwh’s eternality, aseity, or presence with his people. Rather, the name is etymologically opaque. However, if ‫ יהוה‬contains no obvious etymology, then it follows that the divine character must be made known by other means. Literary onomastics studies the function of a proper name in a literary work inductively, discerning the name-bearer’s character from how the text paints his or her “onomastic portrait.” 101 A form of literary onomastics has been practiced by those advocating a literary approach to the Bible, as 99. See below, p. 62 n. 84, p. 119 n. 13, and p. 188 n. 15, for instances in which scholars reify the metaphorical aspect of this word. This sort of approach overlooks the literal and metaphorical aspects that define the possible functions of ‫ׁשֵם‬. 100. ‫ יהוה‬may have been original in this verse, given its location in the so-called “Elohistic Psalter.” 101. Representative literary onomastic works include: Grace Alvarez-Altman and Frederick M. Burelbach, eds., Names in Literature: Essays from Literary Onomastics Studies (New York: University Press of America, 1987); Benedicta Windt, “An Overview of Literary Onomastics in the Context of Literary Theory,” Onoma 40 (2005): 43–63; and W. F. H. Nicolaisen, “Schliesslich . . . Beschäftigung mit Namen in der Literatur,” Onoma 40 (2005): 29–41. In Grace Alvarez-Altman’s comprehensive study of literary onomastics, she assembled 121 possible approaches, showing that the use of names in literature is a vast and ever-growing field of study. See “A Methodology for Literary Onomastics: An Analytical Guide for Studying Names in Literature,” in Names in Literature: Essays from Literary Onomastics Studies, ed. Grace Alvarez-Altman and Frederick M. Burelbach (New

22

Chapter 1

shown by discussions of “naming” in the standard introductions. 102 The direct, sense-less referring of the opaque personal name ‫ יהוה‬invests it with a unique semantic role in the Hebrew Bible: one must “make sense” of the divine name by attending to statements that Yhwh makes about it. 103 A literary onomastic reading of the book of Exodus clarifies how the divine name is tied to the divine character: ‫ יהוה‬can be referred to linguistically (‫ ׁשֵם‬in its literal/denotative aspect, e.g., Exod 3:13; 15:3; 33:19; 34:5), or as a symbol of Yhwh’s character (‫ ׁשֵם‬in its metaphorical/connotative aspect, e.g., Exod 9:16; 20:24; 23:21; 34:14). Whenever Yhwh makes statements about his character and ascribes them to his name, he freights his name with an enduring sense. 104 Such “onomastic ascription” allows the divine name ‫( יהוה‬which carries no sense etymologically), to develop a sense and connotation. I assert that the book of Exodus artfully characterizes the divine name ‫יהוה‬, allowing the reader to hang character descriptions on this onomastic peg. A literary onomastic method takes the canonical form of the Hebrew text as the basis of interpretation. 105 Robert Moberly has convincingly argued that the biblical text’s final form deserves methodological priority: only after a thorough study of the complete literary unit might the scholar consider material lying behind it. 106 My literary onomastic reading is anchored in colometric analyses of Exod 3:13–15, 6:2–8, 33:12–23, and 34:5–9, with an exegetical focus on ascriptions made to the divine name ‫יהוה‬. 107 This study will consider whether these texts develop an important literary York: University Press of America, 1987), 1–9. The categories “Biblical-Hebrew” and “Biblical-Pentateuch” are most applicable to this study. 102. See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 126–27; and Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985), 328–41. These works focus exclusively on the use of epithets for the purpose of characterization. 103. God uses many words to identify himself. However, a distinction must be made between the Bible’s host of divine epithets and the exclusive divine proper name ‫יהוה‬. Both are necessary: it is possible to conceive of God entirely through the meaning of his epithets and lose the senseless, unambiguous reference bound up in the Tetragrammaton. On the other hand, the proper name ‫ יהוה‬makes direct reference to the God of Israel, while other designators provide descriptions that must be coupled with that proper name in order to speak of him accurately. ‫ יהוה‬is the peg on which hang all the epithets, common nouns, and theological descriptions of Israel’s God in the Hebrew Bible. Without descriptive statements, Yhwh is unknown, without the proper name, the descriptions could be misapplied. 104. This dynamic can be seen clearly in Yhwh’s use of the recognition formula in the book of Exodus. See my discussion below, pp. 107–111. 105. This study is based on the Masoretic Text of BHS. I will list biblical references according to the order of their appearances in the Hebrew Bible. 106. See R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34, JSOTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 23–24. 107. “Colometric” refers to the division of a literary unit into cola. See below, p. 45 n. 14, for an explanation of how exactly I diagram and analyze these texts.

Introduction

23

theme within the canonical book of Exodus that is overlooked when the book is broken up into the J, E, and P narratives. 108 Historical and Literary Approaches This study offers a literary solution to a supposed literary problem. But even a literary onomastic reading involves making historical judgments. Meir Sternberg rightly notes that students of the Hebrew Bible practice historical reconstruction whenever they argue for the precise meaning of words or the idiomatic character of phrases––this assumes a certain chronological development of Biblical Hebrew. 109 Thus, assigning dates to texts via linguistic arguments is legitimate but must remain general. The interpreter often cannot pinpoint the date of a text beyond the broad eras represented by its language: archaic Biblical Hebrew (ca. 1200–700 BCE), classical Biblical Hebrew (ca. 700–550 BCE), or late Biblical Hebrew (ca. 550–200 BCE). 110 A canonical approach is similarly historical. The canon is itself a historical phenomenon that existed by the Hellenistic period at least (332–63 BCE). 111 A preference for the final form of the text remains historically 108. Moshe Greenberg rightly warns the biblical critic against imposing modern ideas of coherence onto an ancient text. His words deserve consideration: “Only intense, patient observation of ancient habits of thought and writing equip the critic with standards that give him a chance of success in his efforts to understand the texts.” “What are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 123–35. The results of this sort of patient observation may or may not conform to modern notions of literary coherence. 109. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 11–12. Some scholars have challenged the validity of dating texts on the basis of language. See Ian Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, FAT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993); and Robert Rezetko, “Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel-Kings and Chronicles,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, ed. Ian Young (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 215–50. However, this objection has been addressed by scholars who rightly argue for a discernable chronology of Biblical Hebrew. See Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language, ed. Raphael Kutscher ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982); Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. John Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and A. Hurwitz, “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments,” Hebrew Studies 47 (2006): 191–210. 110. These dates remain approximate, because scholars continue to debate them. See Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, 52; and A. Hurwitz, “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments,” Hebrew Studies 47 (2006): 207–8. 111. See Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 16–22, 127–38, 149–52; Stephen Dempster, “Canons on the Right and Canons on the Left: Finding a Resolution in the Canon Debate,” JETS 52 (2009): 59–62; and David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 153–79. See also the use of ‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ ַב ְ ּּספ‬in Dan 9:2.

24

Chapter 1

sensitive­when it studies the biblical material from the earliest period in which evidence for a collection of books can be verified. 112 This canonical collection likely contain forms of individual books that are much earlier, but any historical claims about the composition of these books (especially the Pentateuch) before the Hellenistic period remain provisional. These claims address scholarly debates that do not contribute to the purpose of this study. Beyond these general contours, my project need not be tied to any particular position on the historicity of stories being narrated. While Hebrew Bible scholars endlessly debate the historical referentiality of biblical texts, no consensus has yet been reached. 113 Furthermore, the historical reference of the biblical texts does not indicate when they were written. Biblical scholarship is similarly preoccupied with discerning the compositional history of the Hebrew Bible. 114 My study may have implications for the historical referentiality of the biblical text or its composition, 115 but its purpose remains literary: to make sense of the divine name in the (canonical) book of Exodus. 112. I am indebted to Michael Graves for this information and its formulation (private correspondence). 113. For those who argue that the biblical text accurately reports a reliable history of Israel as presented (given the constraints of genre), see Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003); and James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, eds., Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012). For those who argue that most of the biblical material is fictional, see Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998); and Philip R. Davies, The Origins of Biblical Israel, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 485 (London: T&T Clark, 2007). The majority of scholars adhere to a position between these two extremes. 114. For those who argue that the narratives of the Pentateuch (including Genesis) were written soon after the events described, see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 147–63, 209; and Duane Garrett, Re-thinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 185–98. For those who argue that most or all of the Hebrew Bible was written in the Hellenistic (or Persian) period, see Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 235–42; and T. L. Thompson, “How Yahweh Became God: Exodus 3 and 6 and the Heart of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 68 (1995): 58–61. The majority of scholars adhere to a position between these two extremes. 115. I do not intend to refute the Documentary Hypothesis in this project. Richard Friedman points out that anyone who intends to criticize centuries of pentateuchal scholarship must address the many arguments in their favor, along with their cumulative persuasive power. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 28. Nevertheless, the scholar must distinguish the literary from the chronological aspects of the Documentary Hypothesis. The latter can easily be questioned, though most scholars see the former as reliable. Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 46–59, 141–42. However, a canonical reading that shows the literary unity of Exod 3:13–15, 6:2–8, 33:12–23, and 34:6–7 would demonstrate that, at least, the final redactor of the book of Exodus gave literary coherence to earlier materials.

Chapter 2

Explicit Naming Wordplays I have proposed that a literary onomastic reading allows the reader to make sense of the divine name ‫יהוה‬, while etymological analyses derive this sense from the wrong source. Exodus 3:13–15 is a pivotal text for understanding the sense of the divine proper name in the book of Exodus, because here Yhwh is making a statement about his own name. 1 I will approach this text within the broader framework of naming in the Hebrew Bible and a narrower framework of “explicit naming wordplays” (often called “folk etymologies” or “etiologies”). I have focused my study on explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch because they offer interpretive categories and narrative context for Exod 3:14–15, which I will analyze in the following chapter.

The Canonical Context: Naming in the Hebrew Bible Proper names are abundant in the Hebrew Bible as are instances of naming. 2 The most basic kind of naming involves the introduction of a character or place. 3 Interestingly, the biblical narrative also names rocky crags (1 Sam 14:4), the pillars in the temple (1 Kgs 7:21), and a serpent made of bronze (2 Kgs 18:4). Sometimes cities or special locations were named after human beings to memorialize those persons for good or ill. 4 The Hebrew Bible also tells of name changes. 5 A parenthetical note in 1 Sam 9:9 reports a name change in the most general sense: the epithet 1. For a discussion of the two biblical instances where God refused to make his name known, see below, pp. 49 n. 28 and p. 113 n. 116. 2. For examples of thorough and careful etymological analyses of biblical names, see Scott C. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), esp. pp. 1–25; and Richard S. Hess, “Issues in the Study of Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible,” Currents in Biblical Research 6 (1998): 169–92. ְ ‫ֱלי ֶמל‬ 3. For example, an entire family is introduced in Ruth 1:2 (‫ֶך‬ ִ ‫נָע‬, ‫מ ְַחלֹון‬, ‫)כ ְליֹון‬, ִ ִ ‫א‬, ‫ֳמי‬ the mother of King Asa is named in 1 Kgs 15:10 (‫) ַמעֲכָה‬, and Job’s daughters are named ְ ‫ ֶקרֶן ה‬, Job 42:14), while his sons are not. at the end of the narrative (‫ְמימָה‬ ִ ‫י‬, ‫ק ִציעָה‬, ְ and ‫ַּפּוך‬ Some toponyms introduced are completely descriptive (e.g., ‫ ַה ֶהרֶס ִעיר‬in Isa 19:18), while other places had two names (‫ַת ֹפֶת‬ ּ ‫ ה‬was also known as ‫ֶן־הנֹּם‬ ִ ‫גֵיא ב‬, Jer 7:32). 4. ‫ צּור־עֹורֵב‬was so named because the Midian prince Oreb was killed there ( Judg 7:25). Jerusalem became ‫ ִעיר ָדִּויד‬once David conquered it (1 Chr 11:7). The Danites named their recently conquered northern city ‫ ָדּן‬according to the name of their tribal head ( Judg 18:29). King Omri named his new capital ‫ ׁש ֹ ְמרֹון‬after ‫שמֶר‬, ֶׁ the previous owner of the hill (1 Kgs 16:24). Furthermore, the men who married the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite were called by his (family) name instead of their own (Ezra 2:61). 5. In the first chapter of the book of Judges, the narrator reports that ‫ ְד ִּביר‬was once called ‫ ( ִק ְרי ַת־ ֵספֶר‬Judg 1:11), while ‫ בֵּית־אֵל‬was once called ‫ ( לּוז‬Judg 1:23). Sometimes the

25

26

Chapter 2

“prophet” had replaced the older epithet “seer.” Yhwh sometimes changed the names of persons or places to a more transparent form that indicated his assessment of them. 6 Conversely, Dan 1:7 states that the chief eunuch changed the theophoric names of Daniel and his friends so that they reflected Babylonian faith rather than Yahwistic faith. 7 Yhwh sometimes named a person or place as a powerful example of prophetic rhetoric. The prophet Ezekiel ended his vision of the idealized sanctuary by affirming that the name of the temple’s city would be ‫ש ָמּה‬ ָׁ ‫יהוה‬ (“Yhwh is there,” Ezek 48:35). In the book of Zechariah, Yhwh gave the names “Favor” (‫ )נֹעַם‬and “Union” (‫ )ח ְֹב ִלים‬to two staves which he later broke as a symbol of his actions against his people (Zech 11:7–14). Sometimes the prophets expanded on the divine name, reminding their hearers of the God who would intervene for or against them (‫יהוה ִצ ְדקֵנּו‬, Jer 23:6; ‫יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬ ‫שמֹו‬, ְׁ Jer 50:34; and ‫ִכרֹו‬ ְ ‫יהוה ז‬, Hos 12:6[5]). The naming report in Isa 7:14 has attracted much attention from Christian scholars because of its use in Matt 1:23. But John Walton rightly notes that the sign offered in Isa 7:14 is not the young woman (‫ ) ָהע ְַלמָה‬giving birth, but her naming the child “Immanuel” (‫)ע ָמּנּו אֵל‬. ִ This name assured Judah and its hesitant king, Ahaz, that Yhwh would be with them despite the threatening attack by the Northern Kingdom and the Arameans. 8 Isaiah’s son Shear-Jashub (‫)שאָר יָׁשּוב‬ ְׁ is mentioned incidentally in Isa 7:3, but this phrase appears later (though not functioning as a proper name) in Isa 10:21– 22. Here, the phrase serves as part of Isaiah’s message that some among Israel would be spared. Finally, the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (‫שלָל‬ ָׁ ‫ַמהֵר‬ ‫ )חָׁש ַבּז‬appears in Isa 8:1, the prophet names his son accordingly in Isa 8:3, narrator mentions a toponym to explain the origin of a city known to his audience (e.g., the Hittite city ‫לּוז‬, Judg 1:26). 6. Yhwh re-named the antagonistic priest ‫ּשחּור‬ ְׁ ‫ ַפ‬as ‫“( מָגֹור ִמ ָס ִּביב‬Terror All Around”) to indicate that he would be made afraid by his enemies ( Jer 20:3). Similarly, Yhwh predicted that the placed called ‫ֶן־הנֹּם‬ ִ ‫“( גֵיא ב‬Valley of Hinnom’s Sons”) would be called ‫ה ֵרגָה‬ ֲ ‫“( ֵגּיא ַה‬Valley of Slaughter”) to indicate the destruction that would come on Jerusalem ( Jer 19:6). Conversely, Yhwh changed the epithets of his people from ‫עֲזּובָה‬ (“Abandoned”) and ‫“( ְׁש ָממָה‬Devastated”) to ‫ֶפ ִצי־בָּה‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬My Delight is in Her”), ‫ְבּעּולָה‬ (“Married”), ‫“( עַם־הַקֹּדֶׁש ְגּאּולֵי יהוה‬A Holy People, Yhwh’s Redeemed Ones), and ‫רּושה‬ ָׁ ‫ְד‬ ‫“( ִעיר לֹא נֶעֱזָבָה‬Sought Out, A City Not Abandoned,” Isa 62:4, 12). 7. Daniel (“God is [my] judge”) became Belteshazzar (“Bel [protect] His Life,” as vocalized in MT––its original Akkadian form was likely more generic: Balaṭ-šaruṣur, “protect the life of the prince”); Hananiah (“Yah is gracious”) became Shadrach (“Shining”?); Mishael (“Who is [like?] God?”) became Meshach (a reference to the god Mithras?); and Azariah (“Yah is [my] help”) became Abed-Nego (a corruption of “Servant of Nabu”). John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 141. See below, pp. 208–209, for further examples of such corruption. 8. John H. Walton, “Isa 7:14: What’s in a Name?,” JETS 30 (1987): 295. Walton also relates this text to the naming of Ichabod in 1 Sam 4:19–22: in both instances, a child is named as a response to a political event. See also Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 312.

Explicit Naming Wordplays

27

and Yhwh explains the name as further assurance that Israel and Aram’s alliance against Judah would fail in Isa 8:4. 9 The naming of Isaiah’s sons reflects an important literary technique in the Hebrew Bible. Yair Zakovitch has employed the term implicit name derivations to describe subtle wordplays on proper names. In these texts, no formulas are attached to the name in question (e.g., ‫ ִּכי‬or ‫)עַל־ּכֵן‬, and the reader can only recognize the wordplay by attending closely to the text. 10 For example, the personal names ‫ מֹואָב‬and ‫ ּבֶן־ע ִַּמי‬are not given explicit explanations because their transparent meaning is made obvious from the context of Lot’s incestuous relationship with his daughters (that is, “from father” and “son of my male relative,” Gen 19:30–38). The narrative hints at this meaning only implicitly with the words ‫ָבינּו‬ ִ ‫ ֵמא‬and ‫ֲביהֶן‬ ִ ‫ ֵמא‬in Gen 19:32, 34, and 36, as well as ‫ ִעּמֹו‬in Gen 19:30, 32, 34, and 35. 11 Another implicit name derivation concerns the names ‫ ּבֶן־אֹונִי‬and ‫ָמין‬ ִ ‫ ִבּ ְני‬in the context of Gen 35:18 (“son of my anguish,” and “son of my right hand”), along with the renaming of ‫ׂשרַ י‬ ָ to ‫ׂשרָה‬ ָ (“princess,” Gen 17:15). In both cases, the name-giver (or narrator) simply mentioned these names and did not explain them further, because their etymology was transparent. Moshe Garsiel’s study of biblical naming reports is more comprehensive than Zakovich’s. He titled these reports “midrashic name derivations,” which employ several methods in a variety of contexts to create naming wordplays (e.g., alliteration, concealed meanings, key motifs, punning, and innovation). An example of a midrashic name derivation that uses assonance is in Ezek 25:16: ‫רֵתים‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ּכ‬ ְ ‫ׁש ִּתים ְו ִה ְכרַ ִּתי א‬ ְ ‫ַל־ּפ ִל‬ ְ ‫ָדי ע‬ ִ ‫“( ִה ְננִי נֹוטֶה י‬Look, I will stretch out my hand against the Philistines and so I will cut off the Kerethites”). 12 Another example is the (nonphonological) connection made ְ ‫ ָב‬in Deut 33:24, and the obscure between the name ‫ָשר‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ א‬and the synonym ‫ּרּוך‬ animal name ‫ׂעיר‬ ִ‫ש‬ ָ in Isa 34:14 that likely alludes to the toponym ‫ׂעיר‬ ִ ‫ש‬. ֵ  13 Garsiel often points out subtleties in the Hebrew text. His study entitled “Midrashic Name Derivations for Absent Names” illustrates this. He 9. H. Wildberger rightly connects the sign of Immanuel and the sign of MaherShalal-Hash-Baz (the latter of which involved writing down the name before witnesses). Both oracles contain the phrase ‫ב ֶטרֶם י ֵדַ ע ַה ּנַעַר‬ ּ ְ ‫“( ִכּי‬for before the boy knows”) and both proclaim that Judah would not be overcome by their enemies. The difference between Isa 7:14 and Isa 8:1–4 is that “since the prophet did not accomplish his purpose during his discussion with the king, he now turns to a wider public.” Isaiah 1–12, 334. 10. Yair Zakovitch, “Explicit and Implicit Name Derivations,” Hebrew Annual Review 4 (1980): 167. 11. Ibid., 168–69. In his article, Zakovitch labors to show that most implicit name derivations contain an explicit naming wordplay that was added by a later editor who thought his contemporaries would not perceive the more subtle implicit name derivation. I have selected some texts from Zakovitch’s article without entering into the historical-critical discussion about them. 12. Throughout this study, all translations of the biblical text are my own. 13. See M. Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Name Derivations and Puns, trans. P. Hackett, rev. ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992), 19–24, 66, 103.

28

Chapter 2

argues­that the “absent” (not explicitly mentioned) names of David’s brothers, ‫ֱליאָב‬ ִ ‫ א‬and ‫ָדב‬ ָ ‫ֲבינ‬ ִ ‫א‬, are nevertheless alluded to by the words ‫ָביו‬ ִ ‫ א‬and ‫ֵאלָיו‬ in 1 Sam 22:1. Micah 1:10–15 concerns the conflict between the Philistines and the Israelites without mentioning their names explicitly. But Garsiel sees subtle references to these nations in the verbals forms  14‫( ִה ְת ַ ּפ ָל ְּׁש ִתּי‬Mic 1:10) and ‫( ִע ְבִרי‬Mic 1:11). Finally, it is possible that the conjunction ‫ ע ֵֶקב‬in Amos 4:12 was meant to signal the name ‫ יַעֲק ֹב‬to the astute reader. 15 The preceding discussion shows that names and naming are important in the Hebrew Bible. The feature common to all the naming texts I have surveyed is the absence of an explanation in the immediate context. In some instances, they were not intended to serve any other literary purpose than referring to a person or place in the story (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:10, Ruth 2:19). In other instances, the name contained a transparent meaning that needed no further explanation (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:4; Jer 19:6; Ezek 48:35; 1 Chr 11:7). Finally, some names were given without explanation but were alluded to later in the text (e.g., Gen 19:37–38; Isa 7:3, 14; 8:3; 34:14). The naming reports noted above must be distinguished from “explicit naming wordplays.” I define an explicit naming wordplay as the utterance of a character (or a comment by the narrator) who names a person or place and explains immediately and explicitly why he or she chose such a name. 16 The name and its explanation are often joined by a word such as ‫ּכֵן‬-‫ עַל‬,‫ּכי‬, ִ or a form of ‫אמר‬. The Hebrew Bible contains 82 texts that could be classified as explicit naming wordplays. 17 Scholars often classify these texts as “(folk) etymologies” or “etiologies,” though I have opted for a more neutral term. 18 Furthermore, every explicit naming wordplay in the Hebrew Bible involves a phonological connection between a proper name and one or two words within the explanation. The word that creates assonance with the proper name should be called its “phonetic complement.” The phonetic complement may be a singular or plural noun or a verb in the jussive, yiq14. The qere is ‫ה ְת ַ ּפ ַל ִּׁשי‬. ִ 15. Garsiel, Biblical Names, 128, 131, 133. One possible criticism of Garsiel’s study is that his efforts to find very subtle literary cues may indicate that these wordplays were not even recognized or appreciated by the Bible’s earliest readers. 16. In a modern Hebrew discussion of explicit naming wordplays, Bezalel Fortan describes the explanatory component as a ‫“( מדרש השם‬name midrash”). This is a more helpful classification than “folk etymology” because it reflects fewer historical assumptions about this literary feature. See below, n. 18. However, it is important to maintain that the “midrashic” element of explicit naming wordplays was based on sound rather than grammar. See “Name, Proper Names in Israel (Hebrew),” EB 7:35. 17. However, Garsiel counts “about one hundred.” Biblical Names, 14. 18. The terms etymology and etiology suggest that these biblical instances of naming were added by later authors to explain an ancient person or place whose name had become etymologically opaque. I have tried to describe these instances with a descriptive, literary term in keeping with the method of this study. Throughout this chapter, I describe pentateuchal texts according to the text’s narrative world. This method of presentation does not require one to accept the historicity of the events narrated.

Explicit Naming Wordplays

29

tol, or participle conjugation. This assonance is lost in translation, so a look at the Hebrew text is necessary. Some examples are: ‫ִיתי—קַ יִן‬ ִ ‫( ָקנ‬Gen 4:1), ‫חמֵנּו‬ ֲ ַ‫( נֹחַ— ְינ‬Gen 5:29), ‫ֵׂשו—ׂשֵ עָר‬ ָ ‫( ע‬Gen 25:25), ‫( ִי ָּלוֶה—לִֵוי‬Gen 29:34),—‫ְמנַּשֶׁה‬ ‫( נַּשַׁנִי‬Gen 41:51), ‫( ּג ְֵרׁשֹם—ּגֵר‬Exod 2:22), ‫ּּלֹותי‬ ִ ‫ ( ִג ְּלָגּל— ַג‬Josh 5:9), ‫ֲרימּו‬ ִ‫ָרמָה— ַו ּי ַח‬ ְ‫ח‬ ( Judg 1:17), ‫רֹון—שמֶר‬ ֶׁ ‫( ׁש ֹ ְמ‬1 Kgs 16:24), ‫ִצמָח‬ ְ ‫( ֶצמַח—י‬Zech 6:12[14]), ‫מָרָא— ֵהמַר‬ (Ruth 1:20), ‫ּץ—בּעֹצֶב‬ ְ ‫( י ְַע ֵב‬1 Chr 4:9), and ‫( ְב ָרעָה – ְבִּריעָה‬1 Chr 7:23). This connection between a proper name and its phonetic complement offers the only “objective” criterion for identifying explicit naming wordplays and distinguishing them from other instances of wordplay in the biblical text. 19 Johannes Fichtner has classified the “etymological etiologies” in the Hebrew Bible’s historical books according to two Hauptformen: “Form 1” includes the preterite ‫ִקרָא‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬followed by ‫( ִּכי ָאמַר‬or related terms), and “Form 2” concludes with ‫עַל־ּכֵן ָקרָא‬. He argues that Form 1 emphasized the act of name-giving and Form 2 emphasized the event and was often used of place names, sometimes concluding with the significant phrase ‫עַד הַּיֹום ַהּזֶה‬. 20 He admits that these forms and their original meaning were confused in the final shaping of the Pentateuch. 21 George Ramsey’s four categories provide an alternate classification of the data, but he asserts that the narrator freely mixed these forms. 22 Ramsey’s conclusions are preferable because he rightly concludes that there is no significant semantic difference between the forms as they stand. While explicit naming wordplays constitute a distinct biblical form, attempts to break them into formal subcategories remain unhelpful.

Explicit Naming Wordplays in the Pentateuch Of the 82 explicit naming wordplays I have identified in the Hebrew Bible, 52 appear in the Pentateuch. I will examine these 52 wordplays in varying detail, because they best illuminate the literary form contained in 19. For example, I classify the naming of Isaiah’s sons as a general naming wordplay since these personal names are not immediately explained and are only mentioned later in the narrative (‫שאָר יָׁשּוב‬, ְׁ Isa 10:21–22; ‫ע ָמּנּו אֵל‬, ִ Isa 8:8, 10; and perhaps ‫שלָל ְולָבֹז ַבּז‬ ָׁ ‫שלֹל‬ ְׁ ‫ִל‬ [Isa 10:6] or ‫[ ְׁשלַל ׁש ֹ ְמרֹון‬Isa 8:4]). In contrast, I classify the naming of Hosea’s children as explicit naming wordplays because they are followed immediately by phonetic complements that somehow explain or justify these names (‫ִיז ְְרעֶאל‬, Hos 1:4–5; ‫אֹוסיף עֹוד אֲרַ חֵם‬ ִ ‫לֹא‬, Hos 1:6; and ‫ַתּם לֹא ע ִַמּי‬ ֶ ‫א‬, Hos 1:9). Furthermore, 1 Sam 23:28; 2 Sam 2:16, 18:18; and Jer 19:6 contain instances of naming but are not considered explicit naming wordplays because the names were not explained due to their etymological transparency. 20. Fichtner, “Die etymologische Ätiologie,” 378–81. 21. Ibid., 382. Burke O. Long employed Fichtner’s categories in a more thorough study of this biblical form. He concluded that Form 1 etymologies were not linked to the narrative, while Form 2 etymologies “show[ed] a basic narrative structure.” The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1968), 56. 22. Ramsey’s categories include: 1. ‫קרא שֵׁם‬, proper name, explanation; 2. explanation, naming clause; 3. event or saying, ‫עַל‬-‫ּכֵן‬, naming clause with ‫קרא שֵׁם‬, proper name; 4. narrative report of name-giving without any explanation. See George W. Ramsey, “Is NameGiving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?,” CBQ 50 (1988): 26–28.

30

Chapter 2

Exod 3:13–15. 23 My inductive study has yielded four possible functions of a pentateuchal naming wordplay: commemoration, anticipation, description, and renaming. These categories will be illustrated throughout and summarized below. Commemoration Personal Names One of the Bible’s first explicit naming wordplays concerns humankind’s first baby. Eve named her son Cain (‫ )קַ יִן‬and said, ‫ִיתי ִאיׁש אֶת־יהוה‬ ִ ‫“( ָקנ‬I have created a man with 24 Yhwh,” Gen 4:1). An evident wordplay arises here between ‫ קַ יִן‬and ‫ִיתי‬ ִ ‫קנ‬, ָ lending to the name the connotation of creation. Eve chose a proper name that described the circumstances of his birth: the name “Cain” commemorated this first act of creation involving Yhwh and humankind. At the birth of their third son Seth (‫)ׁשֵת‬, Eve gave the following explanation: ‫ת־לי אֱל ִֹהים זֶרַ ע ַאחֵר ּתַ חַת ֶהבֶל ִּכי הֲרָגֹו ָקיִן‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ָ (“God has set up another offspring for me instead of Abel, since Cain killed him,” Gen 4:25). The “setting up” (‫ֵת—ׁשת‬ ָ ‫ )ׁש‬idea memorialized God’s gracious act toward the first human family. The report of Eber naming his first son Peleg (‫ ) ֶּפלֶג‬falls within a genealogy otherwise devoid of naming explanations. He gave this name because ‫ִפ ְלגָה ָה ָארֶץ‬ ְ ‫“( ְבּיָמָיו נ‬in his days the earth was divided,” Gen 10:25). As this wordplay suggests, the basic idea of division (‫ִפ ְלגָה‬ ְ ‫ ) ֶּפלֶג—נ‬recalled the significant event that occurred in the child’s days. 25 This naming wordplay highlights an important feature of the Pentateuch’s narrative. Hundreds of names appear in the Pentateuch, but only 52 are explained. It is tempting to claim that only important characters merited naming wordplays, 26 but this text seems to contradict this suggestion. The apppearance of explicit nam23. While some commentators have recognized that Exod 3:13–15 resembles other explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch, none have thoroughly investigated the former in light of the latter. William Henry Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 226; and Fichtner, “Die etymologische Ätiologie,” 386. 24. The Hebrew text is difficult. The two main options for translation are, “I have acquired a man, namely, Yhwh,” or “I have created a man with Yhwh.” The use of the particle ‫ אֶת‬to mark apposition is rare and argues against the first translation. The consistent use of the verb qny in the Ugaritic texts with the meaning “make” or “give birth to” argues for the second translation. See Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Adam to Noah Genesis I–VI 8, trans. Israel Abrahams, 2 vols. ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989), 1:200. 25. This raises the question how the narrator/editor could present a child being given a name based on an occurrence “in his days.” It is possible that “his days” refer to his time in the womb. Most likely, however, the child was given a different name originally. The narrator likely commemorated Yhwh’s intervention at Babel that divided the earth into language groups by calling the child “Peleg.” 26. So argues Hermann Gunkel: “Solche Namenserklärungen werden in der Genesis bei allen wichtigeren Personen gegeben.” Genesis: übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1917), 41.

Explicit Naming Wordplays

31

ing wordplays does not conform to obvious criteria of selection. At most, they form the “backbone” of the larger narrative. 27 The explicit naming wordplays of Isaac (‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫ )י‬covers significant narrative territory. God first revealed the name to Abraham in response to his laughter over the divine promise of a son (Gen 17:17, 19). Sarah based her name-giving on the result of her son’s birth: ‫ָׂשה ִלי אֱל ִֹהים ּכָל־הַּׁש ֹ ֵמ ַע‬ ָ ‫ְצחֹק ע‬ ‫ַק־לי‬ ִ ‫ִצח‬ ְ ‫“( י‬God has made laughter for me. Everyone who hears will laugh about me,” Gen 21:6). The laughter idea behind the name “Isaac” (—‫ִצחָק‬ ְ‫י‬ ‫)צחֹק‬ ְ commemorated the effect of the child’s birth. A high concentration of explicit naming wordplays appears in Gen 29 and 30, wherein Jacob’s 4 wives named their 11 sons. Each son bore a name that recalled the mother’s reaction to his birth. The names of Leah’s first 4 sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah) memorialized her sentiments about Yhwh’s intervention on her behalf, or her wish that her fruitfulness would draw Jacob closer to her (Gen 29:31–35). After giving Bilhah to Jacob, Rachel commemorated the vindication of her barrenness in the names “Dan” and “Naphtali” (Gen 30:4–8). Similarly, the names of Zilpah’s two children (Gad and Asher) expressed Leah’s pleasure in gaining two more sons (Gen 30:9–13). The name “Issachar” (‫ִּׂששכָר‬ ָ ‫ )י‬recalled the mandrakes given as wages (‫ָרי‬ ִ‫)ׂשכ‬ ְ so that Leah could lie with Jacob (Gen 30:14–18). The name “Zebulun” (‫ ) ְזבֻלּון‬commemorated Leah’s wish that Jacob would honor her (‫ְּב ֵלנִי‬ ְ ‫ִיז‬, Gen 30:20). Despite its size, the Joseph narrative contains only three explicit naming wordplays. Tamar’s delivery of twins was extraordinary in that one child temporarily stretched a hand out of his mother’s womb, yet was preceded by his brother in birth. Tamar named the firstborn Perez (‫ ) ָּפרֶץ‬on account of the breach he created )‫מַה־ּפָרַ ְצ ָּת ָעלֶיךָ ָּפרֶץ‬, “[Look] how you have created a breach for yourself!” Gen 38:29). 28 The name “Perez” commemorated this most unusual event. Joseph gave his two sons names that concretized the major changes in his life. The name “Manasseh” (‫ַּׁשה‬ ֶ ‫)מנ‬ ְ reminded Joseph that ‫ָבי‬ ִ ‫ָלי ְואֵת ּכָל־ּבֵית א‬ ִ ‫“( נַּׁשַ נִי אֱל ִֹהים אֶת־ּכָל־עֲמ‬God has made me forget all my trouble and all of my father’s household,” Gen 41:51), while the name “Ephraim” (‫ֶפ ָריִם‬ ְ ‫ )א‬commemorated God’s blessings to Joseph in a distant land: ‫“( ִה ְפרַ נִי אֱל ִֹהים ְּב ֶארֶץ ָע ְניִי‬God has made me fruitful in the land of my misery,” Gen 41:52). Two explicit naming wordplays in Exod 2 demonstrate that this biblical form was used outside the book of Genesis. Moses’s mother received permission to nurse her own son whom Pharaoh’s daughter found in a basket on the Nile. The boy’s childhood is then summarized in one verse: ‫ִגּדַ ל‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ 27. For example, the “dividing” in Peleg’s days foreshadows the Babel story in Genesis 11. P. J. van Dyk argues that “etiologies” provided entertainment and affirmation, thus legitimizing the biblical narrative. See “The Function of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives,” ZAW 102 (1990): 27. 28. The two pausal forms of the name obscure the regular form Perez (‫) ֶּפרֶץ‬, which appears in the genealogies of Gen 46:12.

32

Chapter 2

‫יתהּו‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫  וַּתֹאמֶר ִּכי ִמן־ ַה ַּמיִם ְמ‬2 ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ׁשמֹו מ‬ ְ ‫ְהי־לָּה ְלבֵן ו ִַּת ְקרָא‬ ִ ‫ַהּיֶלֶד ו ְַּת ִבאֵהּו ְלבַת־ּפ ְַרעֹה ַוי‬ (“So the child grew and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses and said, ‘Because I drew him out of the water­,’” Exod 2:10). Pharaoh’s daughter gave this name to commemorate her act of rescue (‫יתהּו‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫ה—מ‬ ְ ‫ׁש‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)מ‬. 30 Upon growing up, fleeing Egypt, and marrying, Moses named his firstborn Gershom (‫)ּג ְֵרׁשֹם‬, remarking, ‫ּגֵר‬ ‫ָכִרּיָה‬ ְ ‫ִיתי ְּב ֶארֶץ נ‬ ִ ‫“( ָהי‬I have become a sojourner in a foreign land,” Exod 2:22). The name “Gershom” reminded Moses of his situation in Midian, thus reflecting the opposite sentiment that Joseph felt at the birth of his sons. Toponyms Among the 52 explicit naming wordplays, 21 report the names given to wells, cities, and even a heap of stones. The primeval history of Genesis tells of certain persons who gathered in the plain of Shinar and worked together to build a lofty tower. Yhwh opposed their intention to make a name for themselves and descended from heaven to confuse their language. His intervention halted construction and scattered the people. The narrator then explained that the place had been named Babel (‫ ) ָּבבֶל‬because ‫ׁשם ָּבלַל יהוה‬ ָ ‫“( ְׂשפַת ּכָל־ ָה ָארֶץ‬there Yhwh mixed up the language of the entire earth,” Gen 11:9). The function of the naming is clear: the name “Babel” stood as a perpetual reminder of Yhwh’s judgment. 31 29. Some have noted that the Hebrew name ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ מ‬closely resembles the common Egyptian word ms (“child, descendant”), a derivative of the verb ms͗ı (“bear,” “give birth”). Leonard H. Lesko and Barbara S. Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian, 5 vols. (Berkeley, CA: Scribe, 1982–), 1:239–40. However, the letter s in Egyptian proper names is usually transliterated into Semitic languages by the letter ‫ס‬. Therefore, this child’s name should have been ‫ מֺסֶה‬rather than ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫מ‬. J. Gwyn Griffiths, “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,” JNES 12 (1953): 229. Furthermore, the narrator would not likely have had Pharaoh’s daughter call her child ms, because this name would not distinguish him from any other children. Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, trans. Walter Jacob (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992), 33. Finally, the supposed prehistory of ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ מ‬should not determine its use in a Hebrew wordplay that commemorates the Egyptian’s discovery of the child through the ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫מ‬-‫יתהּו‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫ ְמ‬connection. This personal name may have been explained in multiple ways. 30. It is also possible that the three words containing mem further expanded the wordplay (‫יתהּו‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫)מן־ ַה ַּמיִם ְמ‬. ִ Given the strangeness of an Egyptian naming a Hebrew child, some have proposed that Moses’s mother performed the naming. See Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 575; cf. Abarbanel and Hizquni apud Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible, 32. This interpretation removes the supposed trans-linguistic difficulty, but it ignores the clear verbal-sequential indications that Pharaoh’s daughter spoke the word ‫יתהּו‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫מ‬. ְ Furthermore, if Moses’s mother were the subject of the verb, then she would be ascribing the act of drawing out to herself, which contradicts the narrative. The biblical authors often reported the speech of foreigners in their stories, and in almost every case they speak Hebrew. This is the case with Adam and Eve, Pharaoh, Balaam, Naaman, the Queen of Sheba, and others. 31. I. J. Gelb has explored the original form of the toponym “Babylon” (written as KÁ.DINGIR.RAKI, and likely read as Bāb-ilim). He discovered attestations of the form Bābil as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (ca. 2100 BCE), concluding that Bāb-ilim (“the

Explicit Naming Wordplays

33

Isaac’s shepherds confronted the Philistines of Gerar over the rights to wells in Gen 26. The chapter’s first explicit naming wordplay explains that the shepherds of Gerar claimed for themselves the well that Isaac’s servants had dug. Isaac named this well Esek (‫ֵׂשק‬ ֶ ‫ )ע‬because ‫ַּׂשקּו ִעּמֹו‬ ְ ‫“( ִה ְתע‬they quarreled with him,” Gen 26:20). This name reminded those who heard it of this fierce dispute in a land with little water. Isaac and his men later discovered a well that was uncontested. Isaac named it Rehobot (‫)רחֹבֹות‬ ְ because ‫ע ַָּתה‬ ‫ָרינּו ָב ָארֶץ‬ ִ‫“( ִה ְר ִחיב יהוה לָנּו ּופ‬Now Yhwh has made space for us so that we ֹ ‫)רח‬ may be fruitful in the land,” Gen 26:22). This wordplay (‫בֹות—ה ְר ִחיב‬ ִ ְ reminded the users of the well that Yhwh had graciously given Isaac the space he needed to survive. After Jacob’s death, the Egyptians chose to return his body to Canaan for burial. The Egyptian caravan and Jacob’s family arrived at the threshing floor of Atad and mourned there for seven days. This unusual event prompted the locals to proclaim: ‫“( ֵאבֶל־ ָּכבֵד זֶה ְל ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬This is a heavy [time of] mourning for Egypt,” Gen 50:11). Their mourning was so impressive that the locals named the area Abel-Mizraim (‫ ָאבֵל ִמ ְצרַ יִם‬, “Mourning of Egypt”) to remind them of this unusual scene. Shortly after Yhwh’s miraculous deliverance at the Red Sea, the Israelites began to complain. Water was in short supply and the people were ready to stone Moses out of anger (Exod 17:1–4). Moses miraculously provided water to the people, but then named the place Massah and Meribah (‫ַמּסָה‬ ‫)ּומִריבָה‬ ְ on account of their quarrelling (‫ַל־ריב‬ ִ ‫ )ע‬and their testing Yhwh (‫ְועַל‬ ‫נַּס ָֹתם‬, Exod 17:7). The names commemorated these happenings. A Food Name The explicit naming wordplay in Exod 16 does not fit the categories discussed above. Yhwh responded to Israel’s grumbling about the lack of food in the wilderness. Quail began to cover the camp, and then a layer of dew appeared and quickly evaporated, leaving a frost-like substance on the desert floor. When Israelites observed this, they said ‫“( מָן הּוא‬What is it?”), which was followed by the narrator’s explanation: ‫ָדעּו מַה־הּוא‬ ְ ‫“( ִּכי לֹא י‬Because they did not know what it was,” Exod 16:15). 32 The sons of Israel later named the food ‫ מָן‬to memorialize their initial bewilderment (Exod 16:31). This unusual name recalled Yhwh’s provision in the desert. gate of the gods”) was a secondary development or interpretation of the toponym. “The Name of Babylon,” JIAS 1 (1955): 1–4. Interestingly, the Hebrew form ‫ ָּבבֶל‬accurately transliterates Bābil. If Gelb’s linguistic conclusion is correct, we see how two different cultures interpreted the word Bābil: the Babylonians believed the city granted access to the high gods, while the Hebrew author commemorated Yhwh’s devastating judgment against that ancient city through the ‫ ָּבלַל‬-‫ ָּבבֶל‬wordplay. 32. The change between the interrogatives ‫ מָן‬and ‫ מַה‬is intriguing. One could speculate that the form ‫ מָן‬is more archaic, on analogy with the Akkadian interrogative mannu(m). The Israelites’ direct speech (tied to the food name in Exod 16:15a) may preserve an archaic form while the indirect speech in Exod 16:15b did not.

34

Chapter 2

Anticipation The birth of Noah (ַ‫ )נֹח‬prompted his father, Lamech, to say: ‫חמֵנּו‬ ֲ ַ‫זֶה ְינ‬ ‫ֲׁשר א ְֵררָּה יהוה‬ ֶ ‫ֲדמָה א‬ ָ ‫“( ִמ ַּמעֲׂשֵ נּו ּומ ִֵע ְּצבֹון יָדֵ ינּו ִמן־ ָהא‬This one will 33 bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands because of the ground that Yhwh cursed,” Gen 5:29). The name “Noah” did not memorialize an action that happened in connection with his birth. Rather, it expressed Lamech’s longing for a future event. Leah concretized the following wish through the name of her third son, Levi (‫)לִֵוי‬: ‫ׁשה ָבנִים‬ ָ ֹ ‫ׁשל‬ ְ ‫יׁשי ֵאלַי ִּכי־יָל ְַד ִּתי לֹו‬ ִ ‫“( ע ַָּתה ַה ַּפעַם ִי ָּלוֶה ִא‬Now, finally, my husband will be attached to me because I gave birth to three sons for him,” Gen 29:34). She chose a name that phonologically resembled her wish that Jacob be devoted to her through her children. The birth of Zebulun (‫) ְזבֻלּון‬ prompted her to proclaim that ‫יׁשי ִּכי־‬ ִ ‫ְּב ֵלנִי ִא‬ ְ ‫ְזבָדַ נִי אֱל ִֹהים א ִֹתי זֵבֶד טֹוב ַה ַּפעַם ִיז‬ ‫ּׁשה ָבנִים‬ ָ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫“( יָל ְַד ִּתי לֹו‬God has bestowed me, even me, with a good gift. Finally my husband will exalt 34 me because I have given birth to six sons for him,” Gen 30:20). Leah gave permanence to this hope through her son’s name. The naming of places could also be anticipatory. The name Mizpah (‫ )ה ִַּמ ְצּפָה‬concretized this veiled threat: ‫ִיצֶף יהוה ּבֵינִי ּובֵינֶךָ ִּכי ִנּסָתֵ ר ִאיׁש מֵרֵ עֵהּו‬ (“May Yhwh keep watch between me and you when we are hidden from each other,” Gen 31:49). Whenever “Mizpah” was uttered, this phonological connection (‫ )ה ִַּמ ְצּפָה–ִיצֶף‬reminded the hearers of Yhwh’s continual attention. Description The Hebrew Bible’s first two explicit naming wordplays pertain to the original human female, called both ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬and ‫ ַחּוָה‬. Adam bestowed the title ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬on her because ‫ֻקחָה־ּזֹאת‬ ֳ‫“( מ ִֵאיׁש ל‬This one was taken from a man,” Gen 2:23). One could argue that the name explanation ‫ֻקחָה־ּזֹאת‬ ֳ‫ מ ִֵאיׁש ל‬commemorated God’s action of taking the woman from the man’s side. However, the title would likely have resembled the verb ‫ֻקחָה‬ ֳ‫ ל‬rather than ‫איׁש‬. ִ The word ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬can be seen as the word ‫ ִאיׁש‬with a feminine suffix. The development of the word is more complex than this (as indicated by the daghesh), but this does not detract from the relationship between these two words. The title ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬and its (nominal) phonetic complement ‫ ִאיׁש‬together indicate that ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ִא‬ described its bearer as a “female human.” After God’s command was disobeyed and his curses were uttered, Adam named his wife Eve (‫) ַחּוָה‬, because ‫ְתה אֵם ּכָל־חָי‬ ָ ‫“( ִהוא ָהי‬she became the mother of all life,” Gen 3:20). It is initially uncertain whether ‫ ַחּוָה‬memorialized Eve’s act of becoming the mother of all life or whether it described 33. The modality of ‫חמֵנּו‬ ֲ ַ‫ ְינ‬is difficult to determine. It may be jussive, thus expressing a wish rather than a confident prediction. 34. This hapax legomenon verb has been variously understood. My translation agrees with the conclusions of Moshe Held, “The Root zbl/sbl in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Biblical Hebrew,” in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, ed. William W. Hallo, AOS 53 (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1968), 90–92.

Explicit Naming Wordplays

35

her (new) status. 35 The phonetic complement ‫ חָי‬suggests that the name is descriptive. The suffix on ‫ ַחּוָה‬likely mirrors a grammatical feminine ending, giving the meaning, “female living one” or “female life-giver.” 36 Isaac and Rebekah named their twins according to the circumstances of their birth. Esau (‫ֵׂשו‬ ָ ‫ )ע‬emerged first, ‫“( א ְַדמֹונִי ּכֻּלֹו ְּכאֶַּדרֶת ׂשֵ עָר‬reddish, all of him, like a hairy robe,” Gen 25:25). The name “Esau” described the boy as his parents first saw him. His brother Jacob (‫ )יַעֲק ֹב‬emerged ‫ְויָדֹו א ֶֹחזֶת ַּבעֲקֵב‬ ‫ֵׂשו‬ ָ ‫“( ע‬and his hand was grasping Esau’s heel,” Gen 25:25). The name “Jacob” indicated an observation from the moment of birth, which did not seem to describe an enduring characteristic as Esau’s name did. It is unclear whether Jacob’s name commemorated his remarkable in utero clutch on his brother’s heel or whether it was intended to describe the boy’s character. 37 While some names in the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays described their bearers, this is rare for personal names. Peleg was not an essentially divisive man, and Manasseh was not characterized by forgetfulness. The name Reuben did not entail that the boy had particularly acute vision, nor did the name Simeon indicate that the boy heard well. Those who analyze proper names etymologically and then assert that basic meaning onto the name-bearer have missed the point of most explicit naming wordplays. 38 Certain toponyms in Genesis were indeed given to describe a location. While messengers from Yhwh were rescuing Lot’s family from Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:20–22), Lot hurriedly stated ‫ָעיר הַּזֹאת ְקרֹבָה לָנּוס‬ ִ ‫ִהּנֵה־נָא ה‬ ‫ׁשי‬ ִ ‫ּות ִחי נ ְַפ‬ ְ ‫ׁשּמָה הֲלֹא ִמ ְצעָר ִהוא‬ ָ ‫ָלטָה ּנָא‬ ְ ‫ׁשּמָה ְו ִהיא ִמ ְצעָר ִאּמ‬ ָ (“Look now, this city is close [enough] to flee there and it is small. Please let me escape there, is it not small? Then my life will be preserved!” Gen 19:20). The city was called Zoar (‫ )צֹועַר‬as a description of its size. Later, Jacob named two places on 35. The presence of the past-tense verb ‫ְתה‬ ָ ‫ ָהי‬is unusual, but it is not part of the wordplay. Rather, it notes that Eve became the mother of all life at a point in time, rather than being so inherently. 36. Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 22–23. 37. Some scholars have noted that the name ‫ יַעֲק ֹב‬corresponds almost exactly to Yaqub-ilu, an Akkadian proper name (and toponym) with the transparent meaning “may God protect.” S. Yeivin, “Yaʿqobʾel,” JEA 45 (1959): 16–18; and Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 17. D. N. Freedman claims to have found the original form ‫ יַעֲקֹב אֶל‬in Deut 33:28. See “The Original Name of Jacob,” IEJ 13 (1963): 125–26. However, such a discovery involves breaking up the poetic rhythm and indulging in questionable emendations to make the evidence fit the conclusion. Furthermore, the prehistory of ‫ יַעֲק ֹב‬does not determine its meaning in its Hebrew form. The name commemorates the moment of the child’s birth through the ‫יַעֲקֹב‬-‫ ַּבעֲקֵב‬connection, which does not speak of God’s protection at all. This personal name may have been explained in multiple ways. 38. James Barr concurs: “In many cases the relation between the name and specific features of the person named may have been a somewhat casual, partial and accidental one, and the name in many cases failed to specify the essentials of the person’s life and existence.” “The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament,” BJRL 52 (1969): 21.

36

Chapter 2

his return trip from Aram-Naharaim. Genesis 31:47 relates that Jacob and Laban constructed a heap of stones as a reminder of their agreement. Laban gave it the Aramaic name ‫ֲדּותא‬ ָ ‫ׂשה‬ ָ ‫ ְיגַר‬, Jacob used the Hebrew equivalent Galeed (‫)ּג ְַלעֵד‬, and they together stated that ‫“( ַהּגַל ַהּזֶה עֵד ּבֵינִי ּובֵינְךָ הַּיֹום‬This heap is witness today between me and you,” Gen 31:48). The Hebrew and Aramaic toponyms described the location’s prominent feature. Soon after Laban’s departure, Jacob encountered angels and proclaimed, ‫חנֵה אֱל ִֹהים זֶה‬ ֲ ‫“( ַמ‬This is God’s camp,” Gen 32:3), naming that place Mahanaim (‫חנָיִם‬ ֲ ‫) ַמ‬. The name appears to have a dual suffix, but a dual meaning does not accord well with the immediate context. Later in the chapter, Jacob stated that he and his household had become two camps (‫ׁשנֵי ַמחֲנֹות‬ ְ ‫ִיתי ִל‬ ִ ‫ ָהי‬, Gen 32:11). Nevertheless, he had originally given the name to describe the special nature of the place as God’s camp, with no connection to his own two camps. The dual suffix on ‫חנָיִם‬ ֲ ‫ ַמ‬is probably a linguistic coincidence. 39 The Israelites’ initial complaints for water and food in Exod 15–17 were matched by similar complaints in Num 11. This latter chapter reports that Yhwh provided an abundance of quail, which the people quickly devoured. God then struck down those who were feeding, such that many shallow graves were needed to bury them. Numbers 11:34b summarizes the reason for the choice of the transparent name ‫אוָה‬ ֲ ַ‫“( ִק ְברֹות הַּת‬Graves of Desire”): ‫י־ׁשם ָק ְברּו אֶת־ ָהעָם ה ִַּמ ְתאִַּוים‬ ָ ‫“( ִּכ‬Because there they buried the people who were filled with desire”). 40 This toponym can be categorized as an “etymologically transparent compound,” which warrants an explicit naming wordplay even though its etymology is transparent (see table 1). This and other compound toponyms may have raised questions about an event’s happening, but they primarily described the location. Renaming The Pentateuch’s accounts of renaming represent another fruitful approach for discovering the function of explicit naming wordplays. Abram was 99 years old when Yhwh appeared to him as ‫שדַ ּי‬ ַ ׁ ‫אֵל‬, promising to multiply him greatly. Yhwh affirmed this promise by renaming the childless patriarch: Abram (‫ )א ְַברָם‬would now bear the name Abraham (‫ )א ְַב ָרהָם‬on the basis of the following promise: ָ‫“( ִּכי אַב־הֲמֹון ּגֹויִם נְתַ ִּתיך‬because I have made you the father of a multitude of nations,” Gen 17:5). The noun ‫ הֲמֹון‬provided the phonological basis for adding the letter he to Abram’s name, even though the connection seems remote to modern readers. 41 This name either described Abraham’s promised status as the father of many nations or it recalled Yhwh’s promise. Because the phonetic complement of ‫ א ְַב ָרהָם‬is 39. Waltke and O’Connor note that certain other toponymns (e.g., ‫ָתיִם‬ ָ ‫ ִק ְרי‬,‫ֶפרַ יִם‬ ְ ‫א‬, and ‫ְרּוׁשל ִַם‬ ָ ‫ )י‬have dual forms with no obvious significance. IBHS 118. 40. The noun ‫אוָה‬ ֲ ַ‫ הַּת‬appears in Gen 3:6; Ps 10:3; Prov 13:12, 29; etc.; the irregular construct form ‫ ִק ְברֹות‬appears in Neh 2:3. 41. Barr, “The Symbolism of Names,” 16.

Explicit Naming Wordplays

37

nominal rather than the verbal, it appears that God renamed the patriarch to describe his (new) promised status. Upon returning from the field famished, Esau said to his brother, ‫טנִי‬ ֵ ‫ה ְַל ִעי‬ ‫“( נָא ִמן־ ָהאָדֹם ָהאָדֹם ַהּזֶה ִּכי ָעי ֵף אָנ ִֹכי‬Please let me [take a] swallow from the red thing, from this red thing, for I am exhausted,” Gen 25:30). He was given the name Edom (‫ )אֱדֹום‬as a result. Though the narrator had described the newborn Esau as reddish (‫)א ְַדמֹונִי‬, this description did not become the basis of the earlier naming wordplay. The name “Edom” was linked with this later event. It reminded others how he traded his birthright for red soup. The life of Jacob takes up a substantial portion of the patriarchal narratives. Most scholars agree that Jacob’s character was transformed over time, though they debate when this occurred or how effective it remained. 42 The renaming of Jacob occurs when Jacob wrestled with and overpowered a man the night before his meeting with Esau. The mysterious opponent declared that Jacob would now be named Israel (‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ )י‬because ‫ית ִעם־אֱל ִֹהים ְו ִעם־‬ ָ ‫ׂשִר‬ ָ ‫ָׁשים וַּתּוכָל‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ (“you have contended with God and with people and you have prevailed!” Gen 32:29). The name ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ י‬connects to a verb (‫ית‬ ָ ‫)ׂשִר‬, ָ rather than a noun as was the case with the names “Abraham” and “Edom.” Therefore, this name likely served a commemorative purpose: “Israel” recalled how Jacob outwitted Laban and overcame his (divine) opponent. 43 Earlier, Esau had offered another interpretation of his brother’s name. This wordplay was not a renaming as much as a reaffirmation of an existing name. In Gen 27:36 Esau says, ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ּבכֹר‬ ְ ‫ׁשמֹו יַעֲקֹב ַוּי ְַע ְק ֵבנִי זֶה ַפעֲ ַמיִם א‬ ְ ‫ֲכי ָקרָא‬ ִ‫ה‬ ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫ָקח ְו ִהּנֵה ע ַָּתה לָקַ ח ִּב ְרכ‬ ָ ‫“( ל‬Is it [not true] that he is named Jacob since he has exploited me these two times? He has taken my birthright and now he has taken my blessing!”). This pun shows that a name may have potential for multiple phonological associations. While Jacob’s name was given at birth in connection to the noun ‫“( עֲקֵב‬heel”), his later actions against Esau showed how the verb ‫“( עקב‬betray,” “deceive,” “exploit”) made an appropriate phonetic complement. 44 Esau’s angry comment betrayed his understanding of the word ‫––יַעֲק ֹב‬Jacob was acting in accordance with his name (technically speaking, with its phonetic complement). 45 42. Victor H. Matthews and Frances Mims, “Jacob the Trickster and Heir of the Covenant: A Literary Interpretation,” PRSt 12 (1985): 186–87. 43. John Anderson refutes the traditional view that this name change reflected a change in Jacob’s character. He points out that Jacob deceived Esau several times in the following chapter and was still called “Jacob” later, probably to recall the name’s previous negative connotations. Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and Yhwh’s Fidelity to the Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle, Siphrut 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 131. Anderson agrees with James Barr’s statement that “the biblical narratives do not give much evidence for the adoption of new names in Israel on the basis of developed character.” “The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament,” BJRL 52 (1969), 24. 44. For a helpful summary of this verb’s range of meaning, see A. E. Miglio, “The Verb i-KU-PU-šum in the Shamash-Temple Brick Inscription,” Antiguo Oriente 10 (2012): 119–20. 45. Technically, the proper name within an explicit naming wordplay does not describe the name-bearer’s character, but its phonetic complement may. Even the aphoristic­

38

Chapter 2

Summary The proper names within the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays often memorialized past events or anticipated future events. The association of a proper name with a word that sounded similar allowed hearers and readers of the biblical text to associate the name(-bearer) with the events described. Name-givers memorialized events as significant as the division of the earth at Babel, or as petty as renting a husband for the night. These names did not reflect on the name-bearer but on the name-giver(s). 46 Other proper names in the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays described the name-bearers. However, many biblical scholars, especially those with a theological bent, have assumed this function to be primary, in accordance with their claim that proper names in ancient societies indicated a person’s essence or character. 47 As mentioned earlier, proper names could describe a name-bearer, but an etymological analysis of the name itself does not yield this description. Rather, the name’s phonetic complement was intended as a character description of the name-bearer (e.g., ‫ׂשֵ עָר‬, “hair” for ‫ֵׂשו‬ ָ ‫עֲקֵב ;ע‬, “heel” for ‫)יַעֲק ֹב‬. Contrary to popular opinion, instances of renaming did not always involve giving a new descriptive name. 48 Furthermore, toponyms were often descriptive, but personal names were rarely so.

Conclusion Among the diverse naming reports in the Hebrew Bible, the Pentateuch contains 52 explicit naming wordplays. Here proper names were connected to an explanatory phonetic complement. In few or no cases were the wordplays intended to be grammatical or morphological. This study has shown that the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays can be classified in two broad categories. Many made an outward reference: they either commemorated past events or anticipated future events. A few had an inward reference: they described the name-bearer. Descriptive names tended to belong to places rather than people, though occasionally, an explicit naming wordplay reflected both motivations (cf. the [first] naming of Jacob [Gen 25:26], Israel, and Eve). In general, a nominal phonetic statement ‫ׁשמֹו ּכֶן־הּוא‬ ְ ‫“( ִּכי ִכ‬for he is like his name”) in 1 Sam 25:25 is said in the context of a wordplay: ‫ׁשמֹו ּו ְנ ָבלָה ִעּמֹו‬ ְ ‫“( נָבָל‬Nabal is his name, and gross sin is with him”). Abigail’s wordplay described her husband’s character, but the name ‫ נָבָל‬was neither sufficient nor obvious for making this characterization. She utilized a word that sounded similar to ‫ נָבָל‬to make this point. Her aphorism could be understood as “he is like [the sound of] his name.” If the link between name and name-bearer were identical, then Abigail would have said ‫ִכּי‬ ‫שׁמֹו כֵּן הוּא‬ ְ or ‫שׁמֹו הוּא‬ ְ ‫כּי‬: ִ “he is his name”; cf. Barr, “The Symbolism of Names,” 27–28. 46. Bezalel Fortan also notes that the explicit naming wordplays often concerned the lives of the name-giver. See “Name, Proper Names in Israel (Hebrew),” 35–36. 47. See above, p. 1 n. 1. 48. For example, ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ י‬is commemorative, as is ‫( יַעֲק ֹב‬in Gen 27:36), while ‫ אֱדֹום‬is ambiguous.

Explicit Naming Wordplays

39

complement related to a name that described the name-bearer, while a verbal phonetic complement related to a name that commemorated or anticipated historical action. Verbal phonetic complements in the past tense are usually tied to commemorative names while verbal phonetic complements in the future tense are usually tied to anticipatory names (see table 1). These insights must be applied to the explicit naming wordplay in Exod 3:14–15 to understand it accurately. Table 1.  Analysis of Explicit Naming Wordplays in the Pentateuch Reference

Name

Gen 2:23

‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ִא‬

Gen 3:20 Gen 4:1 Gen 4:25 Gen 5:29 Gen 10:25 Gen 11:9 Gen 16:11

Gen 16:13–14

Phonetic Complement

Place or Person

Underlying Motivation

‫ מ ִֵאיׁש‬person

description

‫ַחּוָה‬

‫ חָי‬person

description

‫קַ יִן‬

‫ִיתי‬ ִ ‫ ָקנ‬person

commemoration

‫ׁשֵת‬

‫ׁשת‬ ָ person

commemoration

‫נ ֹ ַח‬

‫חמֵנּו‬ ֲ ַ‫ ְינ‬person

anticipation

‫ֶּפלֶג‬

‫ִפ ְלגָה‬ ְ ‫ נ‬person

commemoration

‫ ָּבלַל‬place

commemoration

‫ָּבבֶל‬

Further Comments generic title

‫ִׁש ָמעֵאל‬ ְ‫י‬

‫ׁשמַע יהוה אֶל‬ ָ person

‫ֳאי‬ ִ ‫אֵל ר‬

‫יתי ַאחֲרֵ י ר ִֹאי‬ ִ ‫ ָר ִא‬person (god)

description

etymologically transparent compound

‫יתי ַאחֲרֵ י ר ִֹאי‬ ִ ‫ ָר ִא‬place

description

etymologically transparent compound

description

renaming

Gen 16:14

‫ְּבאֵר ַלחַי‬ ‫ר ִֹאי‬

Gen 17:5

‫א ְַב ָרהָם‬

Gen 19:20–22

‫צֹועַר‬

Gen 21:3b–6 (cf. 17:17, 19)

‫ִצחָק‬ ְ‫י‬

‫ הֲמֹון‬person (2×) ‫ ִמ ְצעָר‬place ‫ ְצחֹק‬and ‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬person

Gen 21:30–31

‫ׁשבַע‬ ָ ‫ְּבאֵר‬

‫ִׁש ְּבעּו‬ ְ ‫ נ‬and ‫ׁשבַע‬ ֶ place

Gen 22:8, 14

‫יהוה י ְִראֶה‬

‫ אֱל ִֹהים י ְִראֶה‬place

commemoration etymologically transparent compound

description commemoration commemoration etymologically transparent compound anticipation

Gen 25:25

‫ֵׂשו‬ ָ‫ע‬

‫ ׂשֵ עָר‬person

Gen 25:26

‫יַעֲק ֹב‬

‫ ַּבעֲקֵב‬person

commemoration

Gen 25:30

‫אֱדֹום‬

‫ ָהאָדֹם‬person

commemoration

description

etymologically transparent compound; explicitly etiological

Chapter 2

40

Table 1.  Analysis of Explicit Naming Wordplays in the Pentateuch Reference

Phonetic Complement

Name

Place or Person

Underlying Motivation

Gen 26:20

‫ֵׂשק‬ ֶ‫ע‬

‫ַּׂשקּו‬ ְ ‫ ִה ְתע‬place

Gen 26:22

‫ְרחֹבֹות‬

‫ ִה ְר ִחיב‬place

Gen 26:31–33

‫ׁשבַע‬ ֶ ‫ְּבאֵר‬ and ‫ׁש ְבעָה‬ ִ

‫ִּׁש ְבעּו‬ ָ ‫ ַוּי‬place

Gen 28:17–19

‫ּבֵית־אֵל‬

‫ ּבֵית אֱל ִֹהים‬place

description

commemoration commemoration etymologically transparent commemoration

Gen 29:32

‫ְראּובֵן‬

‫ ָראָה יהוה ְּב‬person

commemoration

Gen 29:33

‫ׁש ְמעֹון‬ ִ

‫ׁשמַע יהוה‬ ָ person

commemoration

Gen 29:34

‫לִֵוי‬

‫ ִי ָּלוֶה‬person

Gen 29:35

‫ְהּודה‬ ָ ‫י‬

‫אֹודה אֶת־יהוה‬ ֶ person

commemoration

Gen 30:6

‫ָּדן‬

‫ ָּדנַּנִי‬person

commemoration

‫ נ ְַפּתּולֵי נ ְַפ ָּת ִלי‬and ‫ִפּתַ ְל ִּתי‬ ְ ‫ נ‬person

commemoration

Gen 30:8 Gen 30:11

‫ּגָד‬

Further Comments

etymologically transparent compound

anticipation

‫בגד‬a person commemoration?

Gen 30:13 Gen 30:18

‫ָׁשִרי ָאׁשֵר‬ ְ ‫ ְּבא‬and ‫ּׁשרּונִי‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬person ‫ִּׂששכָר‬ ָ ‫ָרי י‬ ִ‫ ְׂשכ‬and ָ‫ ְׂשכ ְַר ִּתיך‬person ‫ׂשכֹר‬ ָ

commemoration commemoration

‫ְזבֻלּון‬

‫ְּב ֵלנִי‬ ְ ‫ִיז‬b person

anticipation

Gen 30:24

‫יֹוסֵף‬

‫ יֹסֵף‬and ‫ ָאסַף‬person

anticipation

Gen 31:48

‫ּג ְַלעֵד‬

‫ ַהּגַל ַהּזֶה עֵד‬place

description

etymologically transparent compound

Gen 31:49

‫ה ִַּמ ְצּפָה‬

‫ ִיצֶף‬place

anticipation

generic title

Gen 32:3 (cf. 32:11)

‫חנָיִם‬ ֲ ‫ַמ‬

‫חנֵה אֱל ִֹהים זֶה‬ ֲ ‫ ַמ‬place

description

etymologically transparent

Gen 32:29 (cf. 35:10

‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ‫י‬

‫ית ִעם־אֱל ִֹהים‬ ָ ‫ׂשִר‬ ָ person

Gen 32:31

‫ְּפנִיאֵל‬

‫יתי אֱל ִֹהים ָּפנִים‬ ִ ‫ ָר ִא‬place ‫אֶל־ ָּפנִים‬

Gen 33:17

‫סֻּכֹות‬

‫ סֻּכֹת‬place

Gen 38:29

c

Gen 30:20

renaming commemoration?

‫ָּפרֶץ‬

commemoration etymologically transparent compound description

‫ ּפָרַ ְצ ָּת‬and ‫ ָּפרֶץ‬person

commemoration

Gen 41:51

‫ַּׁשה‬ ֶ ‫ְמנ‬

‫ נַּׁשַ נִי‬person

commemoration

Gen 41:52

‫ֶפ ָריִם‬ ְ‫א‬

‫ ִה ְפרַ נִי‬person

commemoration

Explicit Naming Wordplays

41

Table 1.  Analysis of Explicit Naming Wordplays in the Pentateuch Reference Gen 50:11

Name ‫ָאבֵל‬ ‫ִמ ְצרַ יִם‬

Phonetic Complement

Place or Person

‫ ֵאבֶל ְל ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬place

Underlying Motivation

commemoration etymologically transparent compound

Exod 2:11

‫מ ֶֹׁשה‬

‫יתהּו‬ ִ ‫ׁש‬ ִ ‫ ְמ‬person

commemoration

Exod 2:22

‫ּג ְֵרׁשֹם‬

‫ ּגֵר‬person

commemoration

Exod 3:14–15

‫יהוה‬

‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬person (God)

Exod 15:23

‫ָרה‬ ָ‫מ‬

Exod 16:15, 31

‫מָן‬

‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ מ‬place ‫ מָן הּוא‬object (food)

see chapter 3

commemoration

‫ַמּסָה‬ ‫ּומִריבָה‬ ְ

‫ ִריב‬and ‫ נַּס ָֹתם‬place

commemoration

Num 11:3

‫ּתַ ְבע ֵָרה‬

‫ֲרה בָם‬ ָ ‫ ָבע‬place

commemoration

Num 11:34

‫ ה ִַּמ ְתאִַּוים ִק ְברֹות‬and ‫ ָק ְברּו‬place ‫אוָה‬ ֲ ַ‫הַּת‬ ‫ֶׁשּכֹול‬ ְ ‫ ָהא‬place

‫ָרמָה‬ ְ‫ח‬

‫ח ֵרם‬ ֲ ַ‫ ַוּי‬place

Num 21:3

see chapter 3

description

Exod 17:7

ְ ‫נַחַל א‬ Num 13:23–24 ‫ֶׁשּכֹל‬

Further Comments

description

etymologically transparent compound

description? commemoration?

a. The ketiv form is ‫בגד‬, and the qere is ‫בָּא גָד‬. b. Some would also include ‫ ְזבָדַ נִי‬and ‫זֵבֶד‬. c. As mentioned above, p. 31 n. 28, the pausal form of the name obscures the regular form ‫ֶרץ‬ ֶּ‫פ‬, which occurs in the genealogies of Gen 46:12.

Chapter 3

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15 Theologians and biblical scholars alike have worked hard to understand Exod 3:13–15. These verses are notorious both for their complexity and their aura of mystery. The enigmatic phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬offers both an interpretive attraction and a profound riddle. The LXX translation (ἐγώ ἐιμι ὁ ὤν) began a long tradition of metaphysical reflections that still influence works of Old Testament theology. 1 Many modern scholars claim to have recovered the original form of the divine name through an in-depth analysis of the relationship between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫יהוה‬. 2 The first half of this chapter will apply the conclusions of the previous chapter to the explicit naming wordplay in Exod 3:13–15. The second half of this chapter will explore scholarly claims about the original form of the divine name. This chapter will determine whether the sense of the divine name can be derived from etymology or from the biblical narrative.

The “Macrocontext” Because biblical scholars have made many interpretive oversights through atomistic exegesis, it is important to consider the larger storyline into which these verses fit. Tryggve Mettinger notes that a careful reading of Exod 3 reveals the call of Moses as the main theme, as well as the “macrocontext” within which the revelation of the name Yhwh is only ancillary. 3 Exodus 1–2 establish the context into which Moses was born and from which he fled, leaving him far away from his people when Yhwh appeared to him. Exodus 3–4 describes his call, his resistance to it, and Yhwh’s persistence. The climax of this subnarrative comes in Exod 14:31: ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ַוּי ְַרא י‬ ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ּובמ‬ ְ ‫ֲמינּו ּבַיהוה‬ ִ ‫ִיראּו ָהעָם אֶת־יהוה ַוּיַא‬ ְ ‫ָׂשה יהוה ְּב ִמ ְצרַ יִם ַוּי‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ע‬ ֶ ‫אֶת־ ַהּיָד ַהּגְדֹלָה א‬ 1. For a survey of metaphysical interpretations of this text, see J. W. Gericke, “Philosophical Interpretations of Exodus 3:14: A Brief Historical Oveview,” Journal of Semitics 21 (2012): 125–36. 2. G. J. Thierry claims that “the reading Yahwê is corroborated chiefly by Ex. iii 14, 15.” “The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton,” in Oudtestamentische Studiën, ed. P. A. H. de Boer, OS 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 36. For a helpful bibliography on this topic, see Barry J. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5–20. 3. Tryggve Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 22.

42

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

43

‫“( ע ְַבּדֹו‬Then Israel saw the great hand that Yhwh used against Egypt and the people feared Yhwh and believed in Yhwh and in Moses his servant”). Not only does Exod 1–14 present an extended account of Moses’s call and vindication, they also present Moses’s experiences as a microcosm of Israel’s in the second half of the book. Moses fled from Egypt to Midian (ch. 2), as did Israel (chs. 15–18); Moses came to a mountain where God spoke (chs. 3– 4), as did Israel (chs. 19–20); God singled Moses out for a special purpose (chs. 3–4) and affirmed that purpose (ch. 6) after opposition (ch. 5), just as God called Israel into a covenant (chs. 19–24) and reaffirmed it (ch. 34) after Israel’s blatant disobedience (ch. 32). 4 This literary macrostructure signals that Moses’s dialogue with Yhwh on Mount Horeb should be read together with Israel’s reception of Yhwh’s word at the same location.

The Boundaries of the Textual Unit Exodus 3:1–4:17 reports God’s call to Moses and Moses’s resistance of God’s call. A quick reading of these verses shows that their conversation is divisible into five smaller units. Martin Buber has employed the helpful term “duologue” to describe the subunits within the larger dialogue. 5 Each duologue begins with an objection from Moses about why he was unqualified to answer Yhwh’s call, and each unit ends with Yhwh’s response. 6 In these chapters, ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬is a helpful discourse marker that defines the boundaries of the five duologues. Exodus 3 mentions two startling, tangible reminders of God’s holiness. First, Yhwh appeared in a flame that did not consume the bush it enveloped. 7 This compares to Yhwh’s second manifestation at Horeb, where he appeared in an intense flame that covered the top of Mount Sinai, without consuming the mountaintop. 8 In Deut 4:15, Moses reminded the Israelites that because they saw no form atop Mount Sinai, they must not make an image to represent Yhwh. The intrinsically formless nature of fire displayed to Moses and Israel that Yhwh had no physical shape. His appearance in the burning bush foreshadowed a larger and more awe-inspiring theophany that hid him from his people. Second, Yhwh instructed Moses to remove his sandals because 4. Mark S. Smith, “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation,” CBQ 58 (1996): 25–50. 5. Buber, Moses, 46. 6. Victor Hamilton summarizes Moses’s objections with this alliteration: Inadequacy, Ignorance, Incredibility, Inarticulateness, and Insubordination. Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 143. 7. The narrative begins by describing Moses’s interlocutor as “Yhwh’s messenger.” However, the ensuing narrative follows biblical precedent by equating Yhwh’s messenger with Yhwh himself (e.g., Gen 22:15; Judg 6:11–24). 8. This fact is all the more significant because Yhwh described himself as ‫אֵׁש א ְֹכלָה‬ in connection with his zeal for Israel’s undivided loyalty to him (Deut 4:24; 9:3).

44

Chapter 3

the ground on which he stood was holy. This is the first occurrence of the noun ‫ ק ֹדֶׁש‬in the Bible and the first time the concept of holiness is applied to physical space. Similarly, this act foreshadowed Levitical holiness regulations and Yhwh’s ritual prescriptions. 9 The God of Moses’s forefathers required an external acknowledgment of his sanctifying presence. Restating the narrative comment of Exod 2:23–25, the voice from the burning bush declared that he had heard the cries of the Israelites and remembered his covenant with the patriarchs. This divine “recollection” stirred Yhwh to rescue Israel from her oppressors. However, he would execute this plan through human agency, calling on Moses to be his spokesperson. The first duologue begins with Moses’s self-deprecating reply to God’s call (Exod 3:10–12). Faced with this commission, Moses objected ‫ִמי אָנ ִֹכי ִּכי‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ִמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִם‬ ְ ‫ֶת־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫אֹוציא א‬ ִ ‫“( ֵאל ְֵך אֶל־ּפ ְַרעֹה ְו ִכי‬Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should bring Israel’s sons out of Egypt?” Exod 3:11). God’s reply actually deflected attention away from Moses by the promְ ‫ֶהיֶה ִעּמ‬ ise of his presence: ‫ָך‬ ְ ‫“( ִּכי־א‬Indeed, I will be with you”). 10 He then offered a sign to confirm his promise: the people of Israel would worship God on the same mountain. Moses had to accept this sign on faith because God would only fulfill it after Israel left Egypt. Cornelis den Hertog creatively connects this unusual sign with the recognition formula, “that you may know that I am Yhwh.” Both have in common the announcement of an event and special knowledge that will arise when that event is fulfilled. When Israel came to worship God on the mountain, this event could be attributed with certainty to Yhwh. 11 However, such precise attribution could not yet take place, especially because only the generic epithet ‫ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬was used in Yhwh’s direct speech. The second duologue contains an explicit naming wordplay that res­ embles the 52 pentateuchal naming wordplays analyzed in the previous chapter (Exod 3:13–15). The divine name connects phonologically with a complement in the name explanation (‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫)יהוה—א‬. This explicit naming wordplay stands out from others because here God gives his own name, yet he employs this common form to do so. 12 Though Yhwh had 9. The reference to holiness and the removal of sandals is echoed in Josh 5:13–15. This text legitimates Joshua as Moses’s successor and illustrated God’s promise that as Yhwh was with Moses, so he would be with Joshua (cf. Josh 1:5). See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 359. 10. Carl Follingstad concludes that ‫ ִּכי‬belongs to the category “discourse deixis,” with the following three subtypes: a complementizer, a focus particle, and a modal particle. The use of ‫ ִּכי‬in Exod 3:12 most likely belongs to the focus particle subtype, because it shifts the cognitive viewpoint of the utterance. See Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle ‫( כי‬Dallas: SIL, 2001), 162. 11. Cornelis den Hertog, The Other Face of God: “I Am That I Am” Reconsidered (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 11­–14, 25. 12. Self-naming is not unique to this text. In a phonological wordplay, Naomi requested that others call her Mara in light of tragic changes in her life (Ruth 1:20). See below, p. 100 n. 71.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

45

been active from the beginning of the biblical narrative, he deferred the explanation of his name until this mountaintop conversation. William Arnold has recognized Exod 3:13–15 as the one biblical passage in which the central theological question as to the proper name of Israel’s God is formally answered. 13 Exodus 3:13–15 should be considered the Hebrew Bible’s most significant naming report, yet scholars are confused about its meaning. Though Exod 3:13–22 comprises the second duologue, Exod 3:13–15 forms a subunit within it. These verses are set off by their onomastic content: Moses asked for the name of Israel’s God, Yhwh gave his name, and he concluded by saying, “This is my name forever.” In the speech that follows (vv. 16–22, introduced by the transition word ‫)ל ְֵך‬, Yhwh commanded Moses to gather the leaders of Israel and proclaim the name that was given to him. Yhwh then predicted the plagues and Israel’s plundering of the Egyptians. The content of Exod 3:16–22 compares to other texts about Yhwh’s promised intervention for his people, but Exod 3:13–15 stands apart for its emphasis on Yhwh’s onomastic revelation (see table 2, p. 46). 14

Genre Exodus 3:1–4:17 clearly constitutes a call narrative. 15 Norman Habel argues that five literary features are common to biblical call narratives, among which he lists Exod 3:1–12 [sic]; Judg 6:11–17; Isa 6:1–13; and Jer 1:4–10. 16 Exodus 3:1–4:17 contains all these features and more: the divine confrontation (3:1–3), the introductory word (3:4–6), the commission (3:7–10, 16–22), the objection (3:11, 13; 4:1, 10, 13), the reassurance (3:12, 14–15; 4:11–12), and the sign (3:12; 4:2–9). 17 This textual unit stands apart from other call narratives­ 13. William R. Arnold, “The Divine Name in Exodus iii 14,” JBL 24 (1905): 141. 14. Tables 2 (p. 46), 7 (p. 87), and 9–10 (pp. 124 and 124, respectively) contain colometric diagrams of Exod 3:13–15; 6:2–8; 33:12–23; and 34:5–9, respectively. The English and Hebrew texts are arranged according to cola, with modifiers remaining on the same line. Independent clauses form the “backbone” of the texts and thus are not indented. because all these texts report dialogues (or monologues), the nonhighlighted cola carry the narrative forward through discourse markers (e.g., “and Yhwh said to Moses”). Dependent clauses or direct speech are placed on the line below and indented. A string of dots indicates that the text has been displaced to illustrate the logic of the sentence. A double line indicates that two clauses have parallel syntactic functions. Direct speech is highlighted in light gray, while embedded speech is highlighted in dark gray and indented. My versification (e.g., 13a, 15e, 15f ) reflects this colometric analysis and is utilized in the commentary. Endnotes within the Hebrew text refer to text-critical discussions, while endnotes within the English text refer to justifications for my translation. 15. George Coats characterizes this text as a “Vocation Account.” He further divides the unit into an introduction (3:1–5), a “vocation dialogue” (3:7–8, 16–22; 4:1–17), and a conclusion (4:18). See Exodus 1–18, FOTL 2A (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 38–39. 16. N. Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. His claim that Isa 40:1–11 and Ezek 1:1–3:15 contain these features seems forced. 17. Habel limits Moses’s call to Exod 3:1–12, because these verses supposedly constitute the E version. While most also assign Exod 3:13–15 to E, they consider these verses a secondary addition. Habel claims they belong to the following scene. Ibid., 304.

Chapter 3

46

Table 2.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 3:13–15 ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר מ ֶֹׁשה אֶל־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬13a

Then Moses said to God,

‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ִהּנֵה אָנ ִֹכי בָא א‬

13b

“Supposed I go to the Israelites

‫ְו ָאמ ְַר ִּתי ָלהֶם‬

13c

and say to them,

‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹותֵ יכֶם‬ ‫רּו־לי‬ ִ ‫ָמ‬ ְ ‫ְוא‬

13d 13e

‫ַה־ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫מ‬

13f

‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫מָה אֹמַר‬

13g

‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you’ and they say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What should I say to them?”

‫ וַּיֹאמֶר אֱל ִֹהים אֶל־מ ֶֹׁשה‬14a God said to Moses, ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ א‬a‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬

14b

“I will be whoever I will be.”e

‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬14c And he said, ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ּכֹה תֹאמַר ִל ְבנֵי י‬ b

‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬

14d

“You must say this to the Israelites:

14e

‘I Will Bef has sent me to you.’”

‫ וַּיֹאמֶר עֹוד אֱל ִֹהים אֶל־מ ֶֹׁשה‬15a

And God again said to Moses,

‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ּכֹה־תֹאמַר א‬

15b

“You must say this to the Israelites:

‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ . . . . . . ‫יהוה‬

15c

‘Yhwh . . . . . . has sent me to you.’

‫אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵ יכֶם‬

15d

the God of your forefathers,

‫אֱלֹהֵי א ְַב ָרהָם‬

15e

the God of Abraham,

‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫ י‬c‫אֱלֹהֵי‬

15f

the God of Isaac,

‫וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב‬

15g

and the God of Jacob,

‫ֶה־ּׁש ִמי ְלעֹלָם‬ ְ ‫ז‬

15h

This is my name forever

‫ִכִרי ְלדֹר ּדֹר‬ ְ ‫ְוזֶה ז‬

15i

and this is my memorialg for all generations.’”

a.  Gk. ἐγω εἰμι ὁ ὤν. This interpretive translation reflects Greek metaphysical emphases. This Greek phrase does not accurately render the phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. See below, pp. 51–53. b.  Gk. ὁ ὤν. See below, p. 53. c.  The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX add a copula. This is likely a secondary addition that reflects a tendency to smooth out the grammar of “rough” texts. This is especially common in the Samaritan Pentateuch. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 82–87. d.  This translation assumes ‫ ִהּנֵה‬introduces doubt upon which the following utterance is based (cf. Exod 4:1). See IBHS, 676–77. e.  See below, pp. 49–54. f.  See below, p. 56. g.  See below, p. 58.

because it contains five “duologues” that report Moses’s objections and Yhwh’s responses. The call of Moses forms part of the larger theme of Exod 1–14, in which Moses’s legitimacy as Israel’s leader is introduced, resisted, challenged, and eventually proven.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

47

Table 3.  The Literary Unity of Exodus 3:13–15 ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ

‫אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹותֵ יכֶם‬ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬ . . . . . . ‫יהוה‬ ‫אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵ יכֶם‬ ‫אֱלֹהֵי א ְַב ָרהָם‬ ‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫אֱלֹהֵי י‬ ‫וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲק ֹב‬

The God of your forefathers I Will Be Yhwh . . . . . . the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob

has sent me to you (13d) has sent me to you (14e) has sent me to you (15c)

Literary Structure While the five duologues lend a literary unity to Exod 3:1–4:17, even Exod 3:13–15 contains an observable unifying structure. Verse 14d–e presents the greatest challenge to the logical and literary coherence of the unit: ‫וַּיֹאמֶר‬ ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל א‬ ְ ‫“( ּכֹה תֹאמַר ִל ְבנֵי י‬And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I Will Be has sent me to you.’”). This statement is a major stumbling block for all interpreters, who often view it as a secondary addition, since Exod 3:14–15 makes more sense without it. 18 However, the phrase ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ appears three times in this unit, with three different subjects. 19 The identity of Israel’s God is specified gradually within this short duologue. It begins with Moses (hypothetically) telling the Israelites that the unspecified “God of your forefathers” sent him to them (v. 13d). In v. 14e, Yhwh added that “I Will Be” sent him to them, and v. 15c contains the proclamation of the divine proper name: Yhwh sent Moses to them. The occurrence of the Leitwort ‫ שׁלח‬after these designators demonstrates that Yhwh was concerned to affirm Moses as his representative even as he made himself known. While this repetition may appear awkward, it emphasizes an important literary theme contained in Exod 1–14. Exodus 3:13

Commentary

Moses expressed hesitation about his own status and then questioned God’s credentials. His oblique question is puzzling: though he spoke as if his audience would want to know God’s name, it seems that Moses was 18. Sean McEvenue says that Exod 3:14 “appears to be an explanatory gloss on the answer given in 3:15” because the proper name ‫ יהוה‬does not follow directly after the question ‫ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫מַה‬. According to this hypothesis, the glossator added ‫ עֹוד‬in 3:15 to smooth over his insertion. See “The Speaker(s) in Ex 1–15,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Festschrift N. Lohfink, ed. Sean McEvenue, Georg Braulik, and Walter Gross (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993), 227–28. I will discuss the flow of these verses below. 19. This observation was arrived at independently from Robert Moberly. See The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 23.

48

Chapter 3

equally concerned to know the answer for himself. 20 Hertog notes that Moses’s commission is at the heart of this oblique question, thus betraying the larger thrust of this passage. 21 Israel would not receive Moses without knowing God’s proper name, because God sent him as his spokesman. Also, God’s previous self-identification with the common nouns ‫ָביךָ אֱלֹהֵי‬ ִ ‫אֱלֹהֵי א‬ ‫ִצחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲק ֹב‬ ְ ‫“( א ְַב ָרהָם אֱלֹהֵי י‬God of your father, 22 God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, 3:6) and ‫( ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬3:12) merited Moses’s inquiry into the personal name that distinguished this God from other gods. Interpreters often make much of the phrase ‫ַה־ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫מ‬. Martin Buber remarks that the question is not a superficial request––it seeks to know “what finds expression in or lies concealed behind the name.” 23 J. A. Motyer tested Buber’s claim through a detailed study of the particles ‫ מַה‬and ‫מי‬. ִ While noting exceptions, he affirmed that questions with ‫ מַה‬involve personal association and seek the quality or character of the person, while ‫ ִמי‬usually gives an answer about an individual’s identity or seeks an external feature. 24 According to these two scholars, ‫ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫ ִמי‬should be translated, “What is his name,” and ‫ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫מַה‬, “What is his character?” The (only) two occurrences of ‫ מַה‬with ‫ ׁשֵם‬outside Exod 3 challenge Buber and Motyer’s thesis. In Prov 30:4, the sage Agur asks about the identity of the one who can ascend the heavens, descend to earth, gather the wind in the palms of his hands, wrap the waters in his robe, and establish the ends of the earth. He challenges the reader: ‫ם־ּבנֹו ִּכי תֵ ָדע‬ ְ ‫ַה־ּׁש‬ ֶ ‫ַה־ּׁשמֹו ּומ‬ ְ ‫“( מ‬What is his name, and what is his son’s name. Surely you know!”). The sage was not inquiring into this person’s character, since these mighty actions clearly displayed his character. He wanted to know a word, the personal name of the one to whom he could ascribe these actions. The dialogue between Jacob and his mysterious opponent at the fords of the Jabbok supports this interpretation: ‫ַה־ּׁשמֶךָ וַּיֹאמֶר יַעֲק ֹב‬ ְ ‫“( וַּיֹאמֶר ֵאלָיו מ‬And he said, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Jacob.’” Gen 32:28). God asked for Jacob’s name so as to change it, but the name did not describe Jacob’s character. The patriarch answered the question ָ‫ַה־ּׁשמֶך‬ ְ ‫ מ‬in the most direct way possible. These texts show that the one who asks ‫ַה־ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫ מ‬wants to know a proper name rather than a character description. 20. According to William Propp, “Moses’s desire to learn the Deity’s name seems to be born, not of idle curiosity, but of a persistent aspiration to know God. In 33:18, he will request an even more direct experience.” Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 223. 21. Hertog, The Other Face of God, 69. See also Segal, “The Revelation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew),” 97–108. See the above reference to Mettinger, p. 42 n. 3. 22. The appearance of ָ‫ָביך‬ ִ ‫ א‬instead of ָ‫ אֲב ֶֹתיך‬is unusual, but defensible. Also, without support from Qumran scrolls, the scant LXX evidence for a plural reading is insufficient to argue for altering the MT in this case. 23. Buber, Moses, 48. 24. J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name (London: Tyndale, 1959), 18–19.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

49

However, Buber’s distinction is partially supported by Mesopotamian linguistic parallels. The Akkadian particle mannu(m) can be interrogative (“who?”) or indefinite (“anyone”). 25 The particle mīnu(m) has an indefinite meaning (“what”), or an interrogative meaning (“why?”). 26 The Akkadian version of the Sumerian story, Enlil and Namzitarra, supports this. In a brief dialogue, Enlil asked, “What is your name?” (Sum., A-BA; Akk., mannu, “Who is your name?”), and Namzitarra replied, “My name is Namzitarra.” 27 This Akkadianism resembles Manoah’s question to Yhwh’s messenger: ָ‫ׁשמֶך‬ ְ ‫( ִמי‬literally, “who is your name?”). He was rebuffed with the intriguing reply, ‫ֶלאי‬ ִ ‫ׁש ִמי ְוהּוא־פ‬ ְ ‫ׁשאַל ִל‬ ְ ‫“( ָלּמָה ּזֶה ִּת‬Why do you ask about my name, since it is wonderful?” Judg 13:18). 28 Manoah sought a proper name because he wanted to honor the messenger explicitly. He refused to give a name and described God’s character instead. ָ‫ׁשמֶך‬ ְ ‫ ִמי‬in Judg 13:17 may reflect the distinction found in Sumerian and Akkadian. However, this isolated case should not overrule the meaning of the two clear instances of ‫ מַה‬and ‫ ׁשֵם‬in the Hebrew Bible. 29 Moses imagined the people of Israel asking for a name in its literal, denotative, and linguistic aspect. Scholars who claim otherwise may be allured by the extended or metaphorical aspect of ‫ׁשֵם‬. This word may refer to the name-bearer’s character or essence, but the literal aspect of a name is necessary for attaching character descriptions to that name. The people of Israel would want to know if Moses could identify the God of Israel, so they asked for the linguistic element that made direct reference to him. 30 Many scholars rightly wonder why the question ‫ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫ מַה‬is not immediately followed by the direct answer, ‫יהוה‬. The name explanation ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ‫א‬ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬precedes the giving of the proper name ‫יהוה‬. However, this phenomenon­ 25. CAD M/1 213–18. 26. CAD M/2 89–97. 27. Miguel Civil, “Enlil and Namzitarra,” AfO 25 (1974): 65–71, esp. p. 71 n. 23. 28. In this context, ‫ ׁשֵם‬should be interpreted according to its metaphorical and connotative aspect. The messenger was describing the reputation or effect of Yhwh’s name as “wonderful.” Thus, a translation such as “Why do you ask about my name, since it is Wonderful?” confuses the denotative aspect of ‫ ׁשֵם‬with the connotative. 29. Buber appeals to Gen 21:29, Exod 12:26, and Zech 1:9; 5:6 to show that ‫ מַה‬can mean “what is the meaning/purpose of?” Though his final two examples are debatable, his thesis is essentially correct. However, the context of Exod 3 and the appearances of ‫ מַה ׁשֵם‬elsewhere make it likely that the Israelites and Moses were asking about a proper name. 30. Christopher Seitz rightly notes that the Israelites’ question assumes they already knew the name “Yhwh.” They would not likely accept a completely new name for the god of their forefathers. They would not have been constrained to listen to God’s spokesman if that God had not made his name known to him. See “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name: Source-Critical Logic and Its Legacy,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. Christopher Seitz and Kathryn GreeneMcCreight (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 152.

50

Chapter 3

happens elsewhere among the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays. 31 Biblical authors had the rhetorical freedom to vary the order of a name and its explanation. While most of the “explanation first” explicit naming wordplays are preceded by ‫עַל־ּכֵן‬, there appears to be no formal or semantic reason for the interchange between name and explanation. Perhaps by putting the explanation first, Yhwh generated suspense by delaying utterance of his personal name. In summary, the name ‫ יהוה‬answered the question ‫ַה־ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫מ‬, while the phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬only led into the giving of the divine name. Exodus 3:14a God’s response to Moses’s question is difficult. Many claim that it is couched in an idem per idem construction, which is formed by a verb that is repeated in the same person, number, and gender in a subsequent relative clause. The pronoun ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬need not be present in every case. 32 Scholars customarily quote S. R. Driver’s description of this form: authors employed idem per idem constructions “where either the means, or the desire, to be more explicit does not exist.” 33 This vague construction imparts an aura of mystery to ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. 34 G. S. Ogden interprets idem per idem constructions more positively, claiming that they could indicate “the widest extent of any activity.” 35 T. C. Vriezen associates idem per idem constructions (“paronomastichen Relativsätzen”) with the “paronomastic” genitive construction (e.g., ‫ׁשים‬ ִ ‫)ק ֹדֶׁש הֳַּק ָד‬, the infinitive absolute with finite verb of the same root (e.g., ‫)יָד ֹ ַע ּתֵ דַ ע‬, and the repetition of a word for emphasis (e.g., ‫דֹר‬ ‫)ּדֹר‬. He claims that these expressions commonly expressed indefiniteness because Semitic languages lack indefinite pronouns. 36 Other biblical idem per idem constructions specify these scholars’s general claims. Jacob spoke thus when expressing his plans to appease the Egyptian vizier who kept Simeon in custody: ‫ָל ִּתי‬ ְ ‫ׁשכ‬ ָ ‫ׁשכ ְֹל ִּתי‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫אנִי ַּכא‬ ֲ ‫“( ַו‬As for me, if I am bereaved, [then] I am bereaved,” Gen 43:14). The context suggests a ְ ‫ּובכֵן אָבֹוא אֶל־ ַה ֶּמל‬ tone of resignation, as is also conveyed in Esth 4:16: ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֶך א‬ ְ ‫ָד ִּתי‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ָאב ְַד ִּתי ָאב‬ ֶ ‫“( לֹא־כַָּדת ְו ַכא‬And thus I will go to the king, though it is not according to the law, and if I perish, [then] I perish”). These examples show 31. For example, Gen 19:20–22; 25:30; 29:33–35; 35:8; 38:29; 50:11, and so on. We need not assume that “a scribe was led astray by the repeated wayyomers, and transposed 14a and 14b in part.” W. F. Albright, “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” JBL 43 (1924): 377. 32. G. S. Ogden, “Idem per Idem: Its Use and Meaning,” JSOT 53 (1992): 107. 33. S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), 185–86. 34. Albrecht Alt claimed to have found a parallel in an Egyptian text that translates, “aber so wahr ich lebe, ich bin, indem ich bin.” This is intriguing, though Alt’s failure to cite the original invites critique of his claims. See “Ein ägyptisches Gegenstück zu Ex 3 14,” ZAW 58 (1940): 159–60. 35. Ogden, “Idem per Idem, ” 114. 36. Vriezen, “ʾEhje ʾašer ʾEhje,” 500–501.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

51

that the syntactic arrangement ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫א‬-verb-verb in idem per idem constructions communicates uncertainty and resignation. The perfect verbal forms within these texts may also contribute to this meaning. This sort of uncertainty may be understood better by looking at examples more closely related to ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. Ezekiel 12:25 contains two first-person yiqtol forms: ‫ָׂשה לֹא ִת ָּמׁש ְֵך‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר אֲדַ ּבֵר ָּדבָר ְויֵע‬ ֶ ‫אנִי יהוה אֲדַ ּבֵר אֵת א‬ ֲ ‫ִּכי‬ ‫“( עֹוד‬For I am Yhwh, I will speak whatever message I will speak, and it will be done and it will no longer delay”). 2 Kings 8:1 makes a similarly openended statement: ‫ׁשבַע‬ ֶ ‫ָרעָב ְוגַם־ּבָא אֶל־ ָה ָארֶץ‬ ָ ‫י־קרָא יהוה ל‬ ָ ‫גּורי ִּכ‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ָּת‬ ֶ ‫גּורי ַּבא‬ ִ ‫ְו‬ ‫ׁשנִים‬ ָ (“So dwell wherever you will dwell, for Yhwh has proclaimed a famine and it will surely come to the land for seven years”). The arrangement verb-‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫א‬-verb signals a more indeterminate and open-ended action than the ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫א‬-verb-verb arrangement. Scholars have debated the syntactical relationship between the repeated verbs in Exod 3:14. E. Schild has argued that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ א‬is the predicate of the first ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫א‬. A long-established rule of syntax states that the preceding pronoun to which ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬is linked determines the person of the verb within the relative clause. 37 This is not intuitive for most English-speaking interpreters because English does not follow this rule, which Gen 15:7 exemplifies: ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ַׂש ִּדים‬ ְ ‫ֵאתיךָ מֵאּור ּכ‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר הֹוצ‬ ֶ ‫( יהוה א‬literally, “I am Yhwh who I brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans”). This rule only applies if the pronoun preceding ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ‫א‬ is the subject of the relative clause. Thus, the first-person pronoun before ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬does not determine the person of the verb in Gen 45:4 :‫ֲחיכֶם‬ ִ ‫אנִי יֹוסֵף א‬ ֲ ‫ר־מכ ְַר ֶּתם א ִֹתי‬ ְ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫( א‬literally, “I am Joseph your brother who you sold me”). In either instance, an accurate English translation must render the verbs in the relative clause in the third person or attach the resumptive pronoun to the relative pronoun (“I am Yhwh who brought you out,” and “I am Joseph whom you sold”). 1 Chronicles 21:7 most closely resembles Schild’s understanding of Exod 3:14: ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר־ ָחט‬ ֶ ‫אנִי־הּוא א‬ ֲ ‫“( ַו‬And I am the one who sinned,” literally, “And I am he who I sinned”). In light of this, Schild claims that “I am the one who is” most accurately translates ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. Accordingly, the LXX translators understood this syntactical rule and correctly rendered it as ἐγώ ἐιμι ὁ ὤν. This rendering supports the “existential” (metaphysical) interpretation, that Schild claims is “the only natural and syntactically correct exegesis.” 38 Others have challenged Schild’s argument. Bertil Albrektson noted that Schild’s examples all contain ‫אנִי‬ ֲ and a predicate that is then followed by the relative clause. Even Schild’s parade example from 1 Chr 21:7 could be translated­, “It is I who sinned” rather than, “I am the one who sinned.” 39 37. E. Schild, “On Exodus 3:14–‘I Am That I Am,’” VT 4 (1954): 300–301. This is my paraphrase of Schild’s definition, which he modified from Gesenius’ grammar. 38. Ibid., 302. 39. B. Albrektson, “On the Syntax of ‫ אהיה אשר אהיה‬in Exodus 3:14,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 21.

52

Chapter 3

Albrektson notes that Schild would have been correct if the phrase were ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫אנִי הּוא א‬ ֲ . Often, Biblical Hebrew communicates “I am the one who . . .” by means of a participle. 40 According to Albrektson, the phrases ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ֲׁשר הֹוֶה‬ ֶ ‫ הּוא א‬or ‫אנִי הַהֹוֶה‬ ֲ would have been the most appropriate way of saying, “I am the one who is.” T. C. Vriezen has argued that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬does not have double or multiple meanings. He took issue with German interpreters and theologians who claimed that the name and its explanation communicated that God is both a deus absconditus and “actual” (Wirkliche). 41 He proposed that the specific aspect of indetermination is made clear in the context of the utterance. Thus, ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬highlights the verbal action and not the subject of the verb. Yhwh presented himself only as the actual (Wirkliche) God. His being is an active-being (Aktuell-sein), meriting the translation “I am there.” According to Vriezen, the statement, “I am has sent me to you,” assured Moses and his people that God would help them through all difficulties. 42 ְ ‫ֶהיֶה ִעּמ‬ R. Abba argued similarly by connecting ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬to ‫ָך‬ ְ ‫“( ִּכי־א‬Indeed, I will be with you”) in Exod 3:12. God’s answer was an axiomatic claim that he possessed fullness of being and was therefore continually present with his people. This leads Abba to the theological conclusion that the name Yhwh embodied the assurance of God’s presence with his covenant people as their savior. 43 Vriezen and Abba have drawn conclusions about what kind of being ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ א‬may represent. This issue must be explored further. The LXX translation ἐγώ ἐιμι ὁ ὤν reflects a static or durative understanding of being, since ἐιμί was used instead of γίνομαι. Philo of Alexandria’s comment on this verse reflected his Platonic influences: “First tell them that I am He Who IS (ἐγώ ἐιμι ὁ ὤν), that they may learn the difference between what IS and what is not, and . . . that no name at all can properly be used of Me, to Whom alone existence belongs (ὡς οὐδὲν ὂνομα τὸ παράπαν ἐπ̓ ἐμοῦ κυριολογεῖται, ᾣ μόνῳ πρόσεστι τὸ εἶναι)” (Vita Moses 1.75). 44 Many have rightly accused the LXX reading of reflecting abstract, ontological concerns that did not represent the Hebrew way of thinking. However, Vriezen and Abba are among many who specify Exod 3:14 as advocating God’s active being, expressed in a promise of divine presence (cf. Exod 3:12; Josh 1:5, 9). 45 However, Exod 40. For example, ‫אָנ ִֹכי ַהּבָא ִמן־ ַה ַּמעֲָרכָה‬, “I am the one who has come from the battle” (1 Sam 4:16), or ָ‫ׁשעֶיך‬ ָ ‫אָנ ִֹכי אָנ ִֹכי הּוא מֹחֶה ְפ‬, “I, I am the one who blots out your transgressions” (Isa 43:25). 41. Vriezen, “ʾEhje ʾašer ʾEhje,” 498. 42. Ibid., 511. 43. Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh,” 325. 44. F. H. Colson, trans., Philo, vol. 6, LCL 289 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 314–15. 45. In a helpful and thorough article, Joel Bin-Nun demonstrates that the verb ‫הוה‬/ ‫ היה‬indicates active being (that is, becoming, helping, creating, etc.). He even claims that the copulatives ‫ הוא‬and ‫ היא‬derive from the Aramaicized form of this root (‫)הוא‬. “Ac-

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

53

3:14 does not reiterate that promise’s precise language. If it had, we would expect ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה ִעם־א‬ ְ ‫“( א‬I will be with whomever I will be”). 46 Interpreters must also determine the aspect and tense of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫א‬. Rüdiger Bartelmus has discussed the temporal and aspectual elements of ‫היה‬. He claims that the yiqtol form is too narrowly described by the term “future.” He describes its aspect as imperfective, and its temporal reference as Nachzeitig (NZ), indicating a punctiliar action in future time. 47 He believes that this model can more satisfactorily explain the instances in which yiqtol forms have a present or preterite meaning in context (often due to the preceding particles ‫ אָז‬or ‫)ּב ֶטרֶם‬. ְ  48 Bartelmus devoted his final chapter to the meaning of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. He is convinced that the 40 other occurrences of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬in the Hebrew Bible express a future tense, concluding that “erschient es unmöglich, den Satz anders als futurisch zu verstehen.” 49 The burden of proof falls on those who assert a present tense meaning for ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫א‬, since the Hebrew language could arguably communicate “I am who I am,” by ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫אנִי א‬ ֲ or by some form of the particle ‫י ֵׁש‬. 50 Bartelmus’s research must be verified. He claims that the form ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬occurs 40 times outside Exod 3:14, but he overlooked the 2 instances of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫וא‬.ְ  51 Of these 42 attestations, 28 are spoken by Yhwh and 14 by humans, showing that this verbal form does not carry an exclusively theological meaning. The verb is best rendered in the future in almost every example (e.g., Josh 1:5; Judg 11:9; Jer 30:25; Job 10:19, etc.). In a few instances a modal (1 Sam 18:18; Ruth 2:13) or past (perfect) translation may be appropriate (2 Sam 15:34; Ps 50:21; Job 12:4). However, there is no clear instance in which ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬could be translated “I am.” This feature of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬supports Bartelmus’s thesis that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬should be translated in the future tense. The rhetorical function of this phrase remains to be examined. Jack Lund­ bom claims that biblical characters employed idem per idem constructions to tive Being and Existence in the Bible: Linguistic Interpretation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew),” Megadim 5 (1987): 7–23. Even though Bin-Nun’s linguistic analysis is unhelpful for discovering the sense of the divine name, it is helpful for considering the precise meaning of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. 46. Hertog is correct on this point: “The indefinite effect of the construction has the result that the solidarity of God with Moses and his people is not put at the forefront by the statement.” The Other Face of God, 96–97. 47. Rüdiger Bartelmus, HYH: Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen “Allerwelts­ wortes” (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1982), 47, 57. 48. Ibid., 58. 49. Ibid., 228. 50. Albrektson, whose analysis is otherwise brilliant, stumbles on this point. He defended the translation “I am who I am,” while recognizing that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬was not the best form to communicate this. He concluded that the biblical writer was “considerably restricted” in his use of forms because of the function of “folk etymologies.” Albrektson did not explain this comment further. See “Syntax of ‫אהיה אשר אהיה‬,” 27. 51. I excluded from analysis the related forms ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ ָוא‬and ‫ֱהי‬ ִ ‫ָוא‬, which cannot contribute to my argument because the waw-consecutive modifies the basic aspect of the yiqtol form.

54

Chapter 3

terminate debate. This is true for some occurrences of the phrase (e.g., Gen 43:14; Esth 4:16; John 19:22), though it is difficult to prove whether the construction itself prevented the listener from replying, or whether the meaning of the words accomplished this. Furthermore, Lundbom’s assertion that the phrase terminates a “debate” assumes a certain rhetorical context that is absent from Exod 3:13–15. 52 Despite the ambiguity of Yhwh’s reply, we may indeed limit its meaning. The utterance ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬is the explanation component of an explicit naming wordplay. The name itself comes later, which is a common feature in these texts. Also, Yhwh’s reply is couched in an idem per idem construction, which expresses indefiniteness, perhaps in place of indefinite pronouns. The verb ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬refers to a future action, as is customary for yiqtol forms of ‫ היה‬in the Bible. This warrants the translation “I will be whoever I will be” for ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. I will further discuss this phrase in context below. 53 Exodus 3:14b Yhwh’s second response to Moses’s question seems repetitive and out of place. Yet Shimon Bar-Efrat explains why multiple occurrences of the word ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬may appear in the speech of one character. He first points out that this “neutral” word offers a way for the narrator to make himself known in the story without offering his own interpretations. The narrator may also break up a character’s speech to signal a pause in the action. For example, in Gen 15:2, Abraham asked God what he would get from him since he was childless. When God was silent, Abraham continued (‫ )וַּיֹאמֶר‬by saying that one of his servants would be his heir. Breaks sometimes suggest the interlocutor’s nonverbal response. This explains why Yhwh told Moses to take off his shoes, waited for him to do so, and then continued (‫ )וַּיֹאמֶר‬his proclamation as the God of Moses’s forefathers (Exod 3:5–6). Furthermore, the presence and absence of prepositions following ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬may signal a subtle shift within the conversation. For example, Absalom spoke to an Israelite in the first part of his speech (‫ׁשלֹום‬ ָ ‫וַּיֹאמֶר ֵאלָיו א ְַב‬, 2 Sam 15:3), but his second utterance was addressed to no one in particular (‫ׁשלֹום‬ ָ ‫וַּיֹאמֶר א ְַב‬, 2 Sam 15:4). 54 Exodus 3:14 forms part of a coherent literary unit despite the two appearances of ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬in Yhwh’s one speech. Many claim that this word interrupts or “overcrowds” the flow of the conversation and shows evidence of 52. Furthermore, Lundbom asserts that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬terminated the debate precisely because v. 15 is an incongruous later addition. Jack R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 197. 53. Bartelmus agrees with my translation of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬, although with different theological conclusions. See HYH: Bedeutung und Funktion, 232. According to Bin-Nun’s linguistic analysis (see above, p. 52 n. 45), we may conclude that the active being inherent in ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬could be periphrastically rendered “I will show myself to be whoever I show myself to be” or “I will become whoever I will become.” 54. Shimon Bar-Efrat, The Art of the Biblical Story (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: ha-Mador lesifre limud, 1979), 70–71.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

55

different literary sources. 55 However, each element of this verse can be justified. The introductory clause ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר אֱל ִֹהים אֶל־מ‬v. 14a) avoids using ‫יהוה‬ to describe the deity who spoke to Moses. 56 The second clause contains an unmodified ‫וַּיֹאמֶר‬, suggesting that a solemn pause followed Yhwh’s utterance of the mysterious phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. The final intervening clause ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר עֹוד אֱל ִֹהים אֶל־מ‬indicates another pause, probably because further commentary on the phrase ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬was needed. It is possible that a redactor or later editor added ‫ עֹוד‬to note his awareness of Yhwh’s “crowded” monologue, but this would still not account for the strangeness of Exod 3:14b (including its seemingly superfluous ‫)וַּיֹאמֶר‬. No editor concerned with smoothing out the text would let these words remain. As mentioned above, the triple attestation of ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ binds together Exod 3:13–15 as a literary unit. However, a specification of ‫ אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹותֵ יכֶם‬as ‫ יהוה‬is quite logical, and God’s reply to Moses would be much clearer and simpler without the awkward intervening phrase ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬in v. 14e. The syntax of this statement remains unique in the Bible for its incongruity––a first-person verbal form functions as a transparent personal name, and is followed by a past tense main verb. Any argument for a coherent reading must resolve this glaring incongruity. Moses heard the name explanation ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬, but the Israelites did not. Yhwh may have wanted to reproduce his duologue with Moses (partially) by having him utter the jarring commissioning statement ‫ׁש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬ ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ to the Israelites. Similarly, Benno Jacob states that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬held the same function for the Israelites as ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬had for Moses. 57 The statement begs for an explanation: clearly ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬was not the divine name itself, though it did approximate it phonetically. Exodus 3:14b created suspense because the identity of the God of the forefathers was delayed through gradual specification. “I will be whoever I will be” raised anticipation within Moses, just as “I Will Be has sent me to you” would raise anticipation within the sons of Israel. Proper names in the Hebrew Bible rarely correspond to precise nominal and verbal forms. ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬could not function as the divine name because its morphology as a first-person verbal form is immediately transparent. Listeners would easily confuse the referent of the name with the person who spoke the name, by interpreting ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬as a verbal form referring to the speaker (“I will be”), rather than to the true name-bearer (“I Will Be”). Also, the word ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬is arguably never used as the personal name of Israel’s God 55. Noth, Exodus, 43; and Propp, Exodus 1–18, 193. 56. Hertog insightfully notes that “the use of the name Yhwh does not play a part on the level of communication between Moses and God, but only on that between narrator and reader. It gives therefore the reader a certain advantage in knowledge over Moses until v. 15.” The Other Face of God, 44. 57. Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, trans. Walter Jacob (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992), 76.

56

Chapter 3

outside this text. 58 By giving the divine name ‫יהוה‬, Yhwh resolved this confusion and created suspense. Yhwh told Moses to report this name because it referred unambiguously and directly to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Relationship of  ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬to ‫יהוה‬ Exodus 3:14–15 follows the form and meaning of other explicit naming wordplays. 59 Even though the vocalization of ‫ יהוה‬is uncertain, it would certainly have sounded similar to its phonetic complement ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫א‬. The phonological similarity between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬coheres to the form of explicit naming wordplays (assonance), but its function can only be discerned in context. M. Z. Segal has rightly connected these forms in his simple statement: “I am called Yhwh because ‘I will be whoever I will be.’” 60 However, it is difficult to demonstrate how the expression “I will be whoever I will be” explains the function of Yhwh’s self-naming wordplay. In the previous chapter, I argued that biblical characters gave names to commemorate, anticipate, or describe. While some of the 52 explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch described the name-bearer, the majority commemorated a past event or anticipated a future event. As a general rule, a proper name with a nominal phonetic complement described the namebearer, while a proper name with a verbal phonetic complement was tied to events. 58. Some note that Hos 1:9 may allude to this verb-name: ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ַּתם לֹא ע ִַּמי ְואָנ ִֹכי לֹא־א‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫“( ָלכֶם‬You are not my people, and I will not be for you”). See Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (Peabody, MA: Prince, 2005), 1:181; and William R. Arnold, “The Divine Name in Exodus iii 14,” JBL 24 (1905): 162. However, the Hebrew Bible does not use the language of “being” a proper name “for” anyone, and it seems alien to the context. Rather, Yhwh asserted that he would not be with them. ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬undoes God’s previous promises of his presence that used this same verbal form (e.g., Jer 32:38; ְ ‫ֶהיֶה ִעּמ‬ Ezek 11:20; Zech 8:8). Thus, the allusion is not to ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬but to ‫ָך‬ ְ ‫ּכי־א‬. ִ More likely is the use of the verb in Ps 50:21: ָ‫ֶהיֶה כָמֹוך‬ ְ ‫ית הֱיֹות־א‬ ָ ‫“( ִּד ִּמ‬You imagined that I Will Be was like you”). However, even this interpretation is difficult. It is possible that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ הֱיֹות־א‬functions in place of the infinitive absolute construction ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫הָיֹו־א‬, which gives this phrase the meaning “you imagined that I was altogether like you.” Also, Ps 50 falls within the “Elohistic Psalter,” a cluster of psalms that reflect a partial editing-out of the proper name ‫ יהוה‬in favor of the epithet ‫אל ִֺהים‬ ֱ . Thus, it is also possible that a later editor substituted an original Tetragrammaton with a word he considered to be a perlocution of this name (‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫)א‬. 59. Hertog’s recent and very thorough analysis of Exod 3:13–15 does not consider the relationship of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬in light of previous explicit naming wordplays. When evaluating the discourse function of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬, he considers this phrase as a response, as a posterior idem per idem type, and as part of the larger dialogue between Moses and Yhwh in Exodus 3–4. The Other Face of God, 105–16. 60. Segal, “The Revelation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew),” 108. The Hebrew original is: "‫אני נקרא הויה מפני ש"אהיה אשר אהיה‬. Segal employs the nonsense word ‫ הויה‬to obscure the divine name in accordance with Jewish tradition and piety.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

57

The name ‫ יהוה‬connects to ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫א‬, a yiqtol verbal phonetic complement with a future reference. The Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays reveal that these verbal phonetic complements often anticipated future events, as shown in the names Noah (ַ‫חמֵנּו—נֹח‬ ֲ ַ‫ ְינ‬, “he will bring us relief ”), Levi (—‫לִֵוי‬ ‫ִי ָּלוֶה‬, “he [my husband] will be attached”), Zebulun (‫ְּב ֵלנִי‬ ְ ‫ ְזבֻלּון—ִיז‬, “he [my husband] will exalt”), and Mizpah (‫ה ִַּמ ְצּפָה—ִיצֶף‬, “may he [Yhwh] keep watch”). Thus, the relationship between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬anticipates that Yhwh would make sense of his name in the future. Jean-Pierre Sonnet has correctly suggested that the utterance ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬raised suspense and invited further narrative about the one named Yhwh. 61 Far from being an axiomatic statement of God’s essence, the phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ‫א‬ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ א‬deferred such a character description for a later time. By couching the revelation of his personal name in the form of an explicit naming wordplay, Yhwh gave Moses the name he requested while allowing his future acts to reveal its true sense. Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, the plagues, the creation of the covenant between Yhwh and his people, Israel’s immediate idolatry, and God’s gracious response would determine what sense belonged to the name Yhwh. Exodus 3:15 The giving of the divine name concluded with an important but rarely analyzed statement, which signals that ‫( יהוה‬not ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ )א‬was the name Moses was to report: ‫ִכִרי ְלדֹר דֹּר‬ ְ ‫ֶה־ש ִׁמי ְלעֹלָם ְוזֶה ז‬ ּ ְ ‫“( ז‬This is my name forever, and this is my memorial for all generations”). Certain prophetic and hymnic texts may allude to this verse when they describe ‫ יהוה‬as God’s ‫“( זֵכֶר‬memorial name”). 62 Exodus 3:15 is the only narrative text that pairs ‫ זֵכֶר‬with ‫ׁשֵם‬. Thus, this verse may aptly be described as elevated prose or perhaps embedded poetry. The use of ‫ זֵכֶר‬may indicate that the name ‫ יהוה‬would be the word that stimulated Israel’s remembrance of its God. Meshullam Margaliot argues that Yhwh’s poetic refrain about his name refers also to the past and the present. He appeals to the preposition l in Ugaritic, which often functioned like the preposition ‫ ִמן‬that Ugaritic lacks. Furthermore, Margaliot identified several instances where a lamed could function as ‫ ִמן‬in Biblical Hebrew, 63 and where the expressions ‫ ְלעֹלָם‬and ‫ ְלדֹר דֹּר‬could refer to the present and past. 64 Margaliot’s arguments are 61. See above, p. 6 n. 34. 62. See Isa 26:8, Hos 12:5, and Ps 135:13. 63. For example, ָ‫ַתּה ִל ְמקֹומֶך‬ ָ ‫“( ְוגַם־גּ ֹלֶה א‬and you are also exiled from your place,” 2 Sam 15:19) and ‫ָר־לי ִל ְרכֹּב‬ ִ ‫“( אַל־תַ ּעֲצ‬do not stop me from riding,” 2 Kgs 4:24, cf. Gen 16:2). Other examples include Num 30:3; Ps 15:4; 40:11; 84:12, and Job 12:20. 64. For example, ‫ּשּׁ ָמיִם‬ ָ ‫ָרךָ ִנ ָצּב ַב‬ ְ ‫דב‬ ּ ְ ‫“( ְלעֹולָם יהוה‬Yhwh, your word [is] eternal, it reׂ ְ ‫הבַת יהוה אֶת־י‬ mains in the heavens,” Ps 119:89) and ‫ִש ָראֵל ְלעֹלָם‬ ֲ ‫ב ַא‬ ּ ְ (“as Yhwh loved Israel from ages past,” 1 Kgs 10:9, cf. Ps 45:3; 78:69; 119:152). Also, ‫שבֹות‬ ְׁ ‫עֲצַת יהוה ְלעֹולָם תַ ּעֲמֹד מ ְַח‬ ‫“( ִלּבֹו ְלדֹר וָדֹר‬Yhwh’s counsel remains forever, the thoughts of his heart from generation

58

Chapter 3

convincing­, demonstrating that Yhwh intended his name to be an enduring theological reality before, during, and after the days of Moses. 65

Excursus: Rabbinic Interpretation of the Divine Name The earliest interpreters of the Hebrew Bible have offered valuable insights into Exod 3:13–15 and texts related to the divine name. However, a survey of their surviving works shows that their interpretive aims and methods often differed from those of today’s interpreters. The Jewish sages rarely commented on the form or “meaning” of the name ‫יהוה‬. For example, many understood Exod 3:1–4:17 as a test of Moses’s character rather than a revelation of Yhwh’s character. From the second-century CE work Seder Olam and onward, the Rabbis claimed that God had spoken with Moses for seven days at Sinai, urging Moses to become his prophet to Pharaoh. However, Moses refused (Exod 4:13) and was punished such that he could not enter the promised land. 66 The lack of direct rabbinic commentary on the word ‫ יהוה‬reflected a prevailing sentiment that one was not to pronounce the Tetragrammaton as written. 67 Early Jewish sources indicate that this reticence developed gradually during the Second Temple period. The Jewish people began using euphemisms and substitutes at times when it would have been necessary to pronounce the word ‫יהוה‬. 68 This custom expressed a profound reverence for the divine name and a recognition that, when pronounced explicitly, it contained great power. 69 to generation,” Ps 33:11), and ‫דבָר ִצָוּה ְל ֶאלֶף ּדֹור‬ ּ ָ ‫“( זָכַר ְלעֹולָם ְבִּריתֹו‬He has remembered his covenant from long ago, he commanded [this] word from a thousand generations,” Ps 105:8, cf. Ps 102:13). 65. Meshullam Margaliot, “The Interpretation of Exodus 3:15b (Hebrew),” in Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages: Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, ed. Gad B. Sarfati et al. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1980), 26–39. Cf. Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 106. 66. Some rabbinic sources claim that Aaron became high priest instead of Moses because of his refusal to obey Yhwh’s call. See Ronit Nikolsky, “‘God Tempted Moses for Seven Days’: The Bush Revelation in Rabbinic Literature,” in The Revelation of the Name Yhwh to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity, ed. Geurt Hendrik van Kooten, Themes in Biblical Narrative 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 89–104, esp. pp. 98–102. 67. See m. Sanhedrin 7:5; 10:1; b. Sanhedrin 55a; 91a; b. Nedarim 8b. See also Lev 24:16 (LXX). 68. See m. Tamid 7:2; m. Sotah 7:6; b. Sotah 38b; j. Megillah 71d. 69. See Robert J. Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 179 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 185. Wilkinson bases this claim on rabbinic (or later midrashic) texts in which the divine name seals the abyss (b. Makkot 11a), subdues a demon (b. Gittin 68b), allows Solomon to fly (b. Sanhedrin 95a), gives life to Jeroboam’s golden calf when the name was placed in its mouth (b. Sotah 47a), and is spoken by Moses in order to kill the Egyptian (Exodus Rabbah 2:14).

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

59

When the sages do comment on ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬or ‫יהוה‬, their conclusions rarely agree with modern exegesis. Both Rabbi Isaac (as reported in Exod. Rab. 3:6) and Rashi highlighted the significance of the root ‫ היה‬in Exod 3:14–15. Rabbi Isaac claimed that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬could indicate any tense, so the triple appearance of this verb in Exod 3:14 suggests that Yhwh was referring to all times: he exists in past, present, and future. Similarly, Rashi claims that Moses reported ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬to the people (rather than ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ )א‬because only Moses was to know Yhwh’s revelation of Israel’s future suffering: the people only needed to hear that God was with them in the present. 70 Exodus Rabbah 3:6 (and b. Ber. 9b 71) shed some light on an early Jewish understanding of the Tetragrammaton’s “meaning.” Here God states that “I am named according to my actions” (‫)לפי מעשי אני נקרא‬. The Hebrew Bible’s divine designators were thought to contain a basic sense and were used in appropriate contexts. The designator ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬pertains to God’s judgment of the world, ‫ ְצבָאֹות‬is employed when God makes war on the wicked, ‫אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬ relates to God’s dealing with the sins of humankind, and ‫ יהוה‬is used when God shows mercy on the world. 72 The Rabbis connected the name ‫יהוה‬ with mercy on account of Exod 34:6. This lucid Jewish observation will be explored in depth in chs. 5 and 6 below. While this rabbinic source makes a provisional statement about the sense of the name ‫יהוה‬, most tend to avoid discussions on this topic. Both b. Pes. 50a and b. Qid. 71a provide an alternative (midrashic) interpretation of Exod 3:15. These Talmudic sources claim that the Masoretic ‫“( ְלעֹלָם‬forever”) could be pointed as ‫“( ְל ַעלֵם‬to conceal”), with the corrolary that ‫ִכִרי‬ ְ‫ז‬ could mean “my mention,” not “my memorial” (cf. Hiphil forms of ‫)זכר‬. The resulting translation reflects a radically different understanding of the divine proper name: “this [‫ ]יהוה‬is my name to conceal, and this [‫ ]אֲדֹנָי‬is my mention from generation to generation.” 73 These rabbinic claims are weighty and deserve a studied response. Max Reisel builds on the sages’ work, asserting that ‫ֶה־ּׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ ז‬and ‫ִכִרי‬ ְ ‫ זֶה ז‬refer to different words, though he rightly adds that ‫ִכִרי‬ ְ ‫ זֶה ז‬refers to ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫א‬, not ‫אֲדֹנָי‬. 74 70. Wout J. van Bekkum, “What’s in the Divine Name? Exodus 3 in Biblical and Rabbinic Tradition,” in The Revelation of the Name Yhwh to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity, ed. Geurt Hendrik van Kooten, Themes in Biblical Narrative 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 7–8. 71. See Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton, 181. 72. Nisan Ararat, “The Name of God ( Justice) and the Name of Yhwh (Mercy) in the Book of Exodus,” BM 34 (1988): 153. 73. Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11 follows this interpretation by associating ‫ הָעֹלָם‬in Eccl 3:11 with ‫ל ַעלֵם‬. ְ The author of the Midrash proceeded to describe why the name of God was concealed from humanity. B. Qiddushin 71a claims that the “name of four letters” was transmitted by the Rabbis to their students once or twice every seven years and offers the ‫ ְל ַעלֵם‬interpretation to support this practice. 74. M. Reisel, The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H.: The Tetragrammaton in Connection with the Names of EHYEH ašer EHYEH, Hūhā, and Šem Hammephôraš (Assen: van Gorcum, 1957), 5.

60

Chapter 3

He notes that the eight biblical instances of ‫ ְוזֶה‬. . . ‫( זֶה‬or ‫ ְוזֹאת‬. . . ‫ )זֹאת‬indicate different referents. 75 Nevertheless, the context of Exod 3:15 does not warrant applying this “rule” here. First, the concluding cola of the verse are clearly parallel (‫ִכִרי‬ ְ ‫ ז‬// ‫ּׁש ִמי‬ ְ and ‫ ְלדֹר ּדֹר‬// ‫)לעֹלָם‬, ְ and it is unlikely that God was offering both ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬as his perpetual personal names. Second, the rabbinic modification of ‫ ְלעֹלָם‬to ‫ ְל ַעלֵם‬was probably intended not to replace the traditional reading but to demonstrate how a vocalic modification supported a homiletical point. The ancient textual witnesses and the Masoretic marginal notes show that ‫ ְלעֹלָם‬was probably original. 76 Third, understanding ‫ִכִרי‬ ְ ‫ ז‬as “my mention” runs counter to the meaning of the word in most all occurrences elsewhere. Finally, the rest of Exodus and the bulk of the Hebrew Bible proclaim ‫ יהוה‬as the name of Israel’s God. 77 Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos explicitly declare ‫ׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫יהוה‬. 78 Hosea even says ‫ִכרֹו‬ ְ ‫יהוה ז‬ (Hos 12:6). Therefore, we must consider the use of ‫ ְוזֶה‬. . . ‫ זֶה‬in Exod 3:15 to be an exception: these pronouns both refer to the divine name ‫יהוה‬.

The Remaining Duologues Exodus 3:13–15 must be interpreted within the context of Moses’s resistance to his call. The second duologue concludes with Yhwh’s instructions to Moses: he was to go to Israel in the name that Yhwh gave him, performing the signs that Yhwh commanded. This should have been sufficient affirmation for Moses, but he responded with a further objection: the people would not believe that Yhwh had appeared to him (Exod 4:1). The third and fourth duologues are noteworthy because they utilized the newly given divine name. Yhwh offered signs to Moses so that the people would believe him, declaring their purpose in this name-centered statement: ‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫ֲמינּו ִּכי־נ ְִראָה ֵאלֶיךָ יהוה אֱלֹהֵי אֲב ָֹתם אֱלֹהֵי א ְַב ָרהָם אֱלֹהֵי י‬ ִ ‫ְל ַמעַן יַא‬ ‫“( וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲק ֹב‬so that they may believe that Yhwh, God of their forefathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, appeared to you,” Exod 4:5). To this Moses retorted that he was unable to speak well. Yhwh did not deny this objection, but replied by again proclaiming his name: ‫ׂשם ּפֶה‬ ָ ‫ִמי‬ ‫ָדם אֹו ִמי־יָׂשּום ִאּלֵם אֹו חֵרֵ ׁש אֹו ִפּק ֵַח אֹו ִעּוֵר הֲלֹא אָנ ִֹכי יהוה‬ ָ ‫“( ָלא‬Who put a mouth into a person, or who makes one mute or deaf or seeing or blind? Is it not I, Yhwh?” Exod 4:11). Yhwh’s two responses illustrate “onomastic ascription,” the act of ascribing certain actions to a proper name in a way that ascribed sense to it. 75. Genesis 29:27; 1 Kgs 3:23; 22:20; Isa 44:5; Ps 75:8; Job 1:16; 21:23­–25; and Qoh 3:19. Isaiah 44:5 and Job 21:23–25 may refer to different persons, but each text is ambiguous enough that they do not contradict Reisel’s claim. 76. The Masoretic note on ‫ ְלעֹלָם‬says that this defective form appears 18 times in the Hebrew Bible, 10 of which are in the Torah. 77. Possible exceptions include the Elohistic Psalter, the dialogues in Job, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. 78. Exodus 15:3; Isa 42:8; 45:4; 48:2; 51:15; Jer 10:16; 31:35; 32:18; 33:2; 46:18; 48:15; 50:34; 51:19; Amos 4:13; 5:8, 27, and 9:6. This includes references to the name ‫יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

61

Moses’s final reply  ‫ׁשלָח‬ ְ ‫ַד־ּת‬ ִ ‫ׁשלַח־נָא ְּבי‬ ְ (“please, send by the hand of whomever you will send,” Exod 4:13) is not easily understood by a literal reading because Yhwh was angered by this seemingly submissive reply. These words were also couched in an idem per idem construction, although the relative pronoun is not explicit. According to the above conclusions, this construction must be indeterminate. Moses’s response should be seen as a plea for God to send his message by means of whomever he would choose. The interpreter must imagine the emotion behind Moses’s words. While it appears deferential to ask God to do whatever he wants, it is clear that Moses did not want to do Yhwh’s will. He was saying, in effect, that Yhwh should send anyone other than himself. 79 The “particle of entreaty” supports this argument. God was expecting Moses to agree readily to the task (as Isaiah did when called), but he found his servant less than willing. Yhwh finally lost his patience and commanded Moses and Aaron to go and speak to Pharaoh.

Conclusion It was God’s desire that Israel would know, cherish, and use his name ‫יהוה‬. This name became the peg on which they could hang all his visible actions and mighty proclamations. In this name Moses came to the sons of Israel, and in this name he spoke to Pharaoh. This was the name that Yhwh would proclaim to the world through his terrifying plagues (Exod 9:16). The giving of the divine proper name to Moses on Mount Sinai is significant, not because the name was initially freighted with an obvious sense or theological meaning, but because Yhwh was making a statement that this name would soon be revealed: “I will be whoever I will be.” 80 The name ‫ יהוה‬did not describe God’s character––it was given to anticipate later revelation. Israel had yet to discover who Yhwh would show himself to be.

Excursus: Reconstructing the Original Form of the Divine Name Knowing the etymology of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬would be helpful for considering whether this word could be interpreted as a description of Yhwh’s character. 81 However, the vocalization (and thus the exact pronunciation) of the name ‫ יהוה‬has been forgotten, because the Jewish people avoided 79. Ogden, “Idem per Idem,” 110. 80. Otto Eissfeldt states this theological truth eloquently: “so wird damit die über den Wechsel der Generationen erhabene Dauer dieses Gottes noch nachdrücklich hervorgehoben.” “Äheyäh ’ašär ’aheyäh ’Ēl ôlam,” FF 39 (1965): 300. 81. In this section, I make historical arguments in a way that breaks somewhat with my method in the rest of the monograph. Nevertheless, I attempt to make precise historical claims only when I have evidence to do so. This historical discussion will limit what can and cannot be said about the possible etymology of ‫יהוה‬, which informs my literary presentation of the divine name’s sense in the book of Exodus.

62

Chapter 3

pronouncing it beginning in the Exilic period. 82 This reticence eventually became so pervasive that the name’s original form was lost entirely. This astonishing reality has provided scholars with the exciting and challenging possibility of recovering the personal name of Israel’s God from extant textual sources. Though scholars have proposed forms such as “Yaho(h),” “Jehovah,” “Yahwa,” and “Yahwoh,” 83 the majority agree the form “Yahweh” is as close to the original as can be reconstructed. Furthermore, many interpreters argue that the form “Yahweh” represents a third-person form of the (Aramaic) root ‫הוה‬, the Biblical Hebrew form (often) being ‫היה‬. 84 They debate whether ‫ יהוה‬reflects a Qal yiqtol third-masculine-singular verb (according to a proto-Semitic vocalization) or a Hiphil yiqtol third-masculine-singular verb, as argued by Albright and his students. 85 According to either interpretation, Exod 3:14–15 contains firstand third-person forms of the same verb: God’s “true” name ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬means “I am,” but the revealed name ‫( יהוה‬sometimes rendered ‫ י ְַהוֶה‬in scholarly discussions) means “he is,” or “he causes to be.” This relationship has led some to describe ‫אלֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ש ָל ַחנִי‬ ְׁ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬in Exod 3:14b as a grammatical link between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and the later mention of the name ‫יהוה‬. Scholars have used the terms shift, transition, or link 86 to explain this function. According 82. Frank Shaw is one of several scholars who have analyzed literary sources from the Second Temple period and beyond to chart a chronology of the gradual disuse of the Tetragrammaton (as well as the use of it by a certain segment of Jewish society). He notes that most scholarly discussions of this topic require further nuance, because they mistakenly assume too much uniformity among the Jewish society of the Second Temple period that was otherwise very diverse. See The Earliest Non-mystical Jewish Use of ΙΑΩ, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 70 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 185–89. 83. Yaho(h): A. Lukyn Williams, “Yahoh,” JTS 28 (1927): 276–83. Jehovah: Bern Alfrink, “La Prononciation ‘Jehovah’ du Tétragramme,” in Oudtestamentische Studiën, ed. P. A. H. de Boer, OS 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 43–62. Yahwa: Josef Tropper, “Der Gottesname *Yahwa,” VT 51 (2001): 81–106. Tropper actually argues that the original form of the name was “yahw/yahu,” but that a nominal form of the name developed later with an –a case ending. Yahwoh: André Lemaire, The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2007), 138. 84. S. D. Goitein argues that ‫ יהוה‬was originally built from the root ‫הוה‬, which often overlaps in its meaning with the root ‫“( קנא‬love” or “desire,” often negative; cf. Mic 7:3; Job 6:2; Prov 10:3). The divine name thus indicates Yhwh’s desire for the exclusive worship of his people. Therefore, Goitein sees Exod 34:14 (‫שמֹו‬ ְׁ ‫ )יהוה קַ ּנָא‬as the (linguistic) definition of the divine name. See “The Meaning of the Name ‘Yhwh’ (Hebrew),” in Sefer Biram: Articles in Biblical Research, ed. Hayyim Gevaryahu, PSBRL 2 ( Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1956), 9–12. 85. Vaux, “The Revelation of the Divine Name Yhwh,” 62–63. Albright notes that a Hiphil understanding of the divine name can be traced back to 1700 CE. See “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology,” JBL 43 (1924): 375. 86. Shift: Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 69. Transition: Segal, “The Revelation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew),” 101. “Transition” is my translation of the word ‫מעבר‬. See also Noth, Exodus, 43. Link: Vaux, “The Revelation of the Divine Name Yhwh,” 65.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

63

to Hertog, Exod 3:13–15 follows grammatical logic in that the (third-person) name ‫ יהוה‬in Exod 3:15b is the name people should use, though this name is but a human appropriation of the (first-person) divine name ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫א‬. 87 Frank Moore Cross and the Form “Yahweh” Frank Moore Cross has defended the form “Yahweh” with rigorous linguistic research. Cross adduced Amorite forms found in proper names in the Mari texts as further support that “Yahweh” was originally a verb. 88 He also suggests the divine name was culled from a longer cultic formula. He offers a few Ugaritic examples to demonstrate how a longer theological statement sometimes shortened to a divine name (e.g., the name “Rakub” from rakub ʿarapāti [“Rider on the clouds”]). 89 Cross concludes that the form “yahwê” was a third-person causative verb meaning “he creates.” He also claims that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬was originally expressed in the third person: yahwê ʾašer yahwê, which indicates that the name matched its explanation in its original form. 90 This etymology explains an otherwise inexplicable grammatical feature of the name ‫יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬. Rather than seeing this as a proper name in construct (which arguably never occurs in the Hebrew Bible), Cross interprets it as, “he creates the armies,” a phrase that derived from the longer cultic formula about the ark, “He who created the armies is enthroned on the cherubim.” 91 Cross’s arguments seem to represent the scholarly consensus, or at least the majority opinion. The vocalized form “Yahweh” accords well with Hebrew grammar and makes for a clear wordplay with ehyeh in Exod 3:14–15. However, Cross’s claims can be challenged on linguistic and literary grounds. Linguistic and Literary Objections Cross’s ancient Near Eastern linguistic evidence for the form “yahwê” deserves further scrutiny. He supports his morphological analysis by citing proper names found at Mari that contain Amorite verbal prefixes (e.g., “ya-wi-DINGIR,” “yahwī-ʾIl,” “Yahū-ʾIla”). 92 As shown mostly by the first 87. Hertog, The Other Face of God, 58. 88. Examples include ya -wi-DINGIR, yahwī-ʾIl, Ya h ū -ʾ I la, etc. 89. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 62­– 63. 90. Cross has gone a step further, reconstructing the original form of the statement as *yahwī ḏū yahwī. This curious argument is based on the article by Paul Haupt. See “Der Name Jahwe,” OLZ 12 (1909): 211–14. 91. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 69–70. A. Lukyn Williams has argued that the relationship between ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ ְצבָאֹות‬is appositional and that ‫ ְצבָאֹות‬refers to the hosts of natural and supernatural powers. Therefore, the compound name became a statement that Yhwh represented all the powers of nature, thus excluding polytheism. See “The Lord of Hosts,” JTS 38 (1937): 54. 92. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 62. It should be noted that Cross does not locate original reverence for Yhwh among the Amorites. His use of Amorite evidence is purely linguistic.

64

Chapter 3

syllable ya, Amorite appears to have been a West Semitic language, and the Amorite onomasticon predates Biblical Hebrew by many centuries, making it a helpful, comparative Semitic source. However, Cross’s use of this evidence is problematic. First, his transliterations of these names (e.g., “yahwī-ʾIl”) may not be accurate, given their diverse syllabic attestations (e.g., ya/la-wi or ya/la-aḫ-wi). 93 This is so because the cuneiform writing system could not clearly indicate the West Semitic consonant he. 94 Thus, it is possible that all these Amorite verbal prefixes derive from the root ḫyy/ḥyy (“live”), rather than hyy/hwy (“be”). 95 Second, Ernst Knauf has shown that no (other) West Semitic personal names were built from hyy/hwy, while many were built from ḥyy. 96 Cross’s proposal also falters on account of matres lectiones. If “Yahweh” was actually understood as a verbal form, or was originally a verbal element in a longer divine name, then the oldest attestations of the word should reflect this. The Mesha Stele (ca. 850 BCE) contains the oldest inscriptional evidence for the full (consonantal) form of the divine name. Line 18 contains the full four-letter form ‫יהוה‬, written in paleo-Hebrew script. However, D. Luckenbill notes that ‫ ה‬had not likely functioned as a vowel-letter for e by the ninth century BCE. 97 For example, line 2 of the inscription contains the form ‫יבני‬, a third person Qal yiqtol form of the verb ‫בנה‬. The letter ‫ ה‬is only used as a vowel letter for ō (cf. lines 6, 8, 11–14, 16, 20, 31). According to this archaic feature, we would expect the verbal form ‫ יהוי‬on the Mesha Stele. On the other hand, if the ‫ ה‬is an archaic example of matres lectiones, then the original form would be “Yahwoh.” Cross’s quest to find analogues for the name of Israel’s God in ancient Near Eastern divine verb-names seems misguided. I have argued that certain dangers can arise when scholars etymologize divine names. This danger is most apparent when scholars surmise the verbal form yahweh from Exod 93. These names are clustered in three different places in Herbert Huffmon’s exhaustive list of Amorite names in the Mari texts: Ya-wi-dIM, Ya-wi-AN, Ya-wi-i-la, [Y]a-wi-ú-um, Ya-wi-dD[a-gan], Ya-wi-ya; Ya8-aḫ-wi-AN, Ya-aḫ-wi-na-si; La-wi-AN; Lawi-la-dIM, La-wi-la-AN, [La]-wi-la-dDa-[gan], La-[aḫ-]wi-AN, La-aḫ-wi-ma-li-ku. See Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965), 39–40, 50. 94. Wolfram von Soden, “Jahwe ‘Er ist, Er erweist sich,’” Die Welt des Orients 3 (1966): 181. 95. This point is disputed. I. J. Gelb distinguishes between personal names containing a prefixed form of hyy and those with ḥyy. See Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite, Assyriological Studies 21 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980), 242–43, 248. However, Michael P. Streck has convincingly argued that onomastic parallels within Amorite and within other Semitic languages show ḥyy to be the root behind the element yaHwī. See “Der Gottesname ‘Jahwe’ und das amurritische Onomastikon,” WO 30 (1999): 41–45. 96. Ernst Axel Knauf, “Yahwe,” VT 34 (1984): 467. 97. D. Luckenbill, “The Pronunciation of the Name of the God of Israel,” AJSLL 40 (1924): 277–83. While Luckenbill’s knowledge of the ancient Near East has been enhanced since the time of his writing, his insights about vowel letters remain accurate.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

65

3:14–15 and then seek any ancient linguistic evidence that may corroborate it. While many divine proper names in Semitic languages were semantically transparent, this is not true of all. Burkhart Kienast’s typology of Mesopotamian divine names includes a category of names that were semantically opaque (Eštar, Utu, Uraš, etc.). While such names were not common, their existence indicates that the ancient name of Israel’s God may have been opaque from the beginning. 98 The name ‫ יהוה‬may not have yielded easily to any Hebrew phonetic paradigm because it may not have originally derived from this language. 99 Scholars have claimed that the god Yhwh was first known and worshiped south of Israel, in the region of Edom or Midian. 100 They cite hints from the Bible (Deut 33:2, Judg 5:4, Hab 3:3), as well as an Egyptian toponym known from the 14th century BCE to corroborate this thesis (“land of the Shasu Yhw”). 101 However, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen rejects the transliteration of the Egyptian toponym as “Yahweh.” 102 Furthermore, the description of Yhwh’s movement from the southern desert to the promised land simply indicates the significance of the region in Israel’s tradition. Jacob’s descendants effectively came to know Yhwh at Sinai, and these poetic descriptions indicate that their intimate religious experience would continue in the land of Canaan. This scant evidence must remain inconclusive for the origin of the divine name, and unhelpful for recovering its vocalized form. 98. Burkhart Kienast, “Überlegungen zum ‘Pantheon Babylonicum,’” Orientalia 54 (1985): 109–111. See above, p.  10, for the complete list of Kienast’s typological categories. 99. I am making the assumtion that the divine name ‫ יהוה‬was not created by an Israelite. The evidence suggests that the name originated outside of Israel, though its previse origin will remain unknown. Thus, the criticisms of Barr and others against etymologizing divine names as character descriptions are especially applicable for the name ‫יהוה‬. 100. See the helpful discussion in Toorn, “Yahweh ‫יהוה‬,” 910–19. J. C. de Moor has offered four pieces of evidence from the Late Bronze Age that may attest to the form “Yahweh” (two from Egypt, one from Ugarit, and one from Alalakh and Amarna). Richard Hess has studied them and concluded that none of these are relevant to this discussion, except perhaps for the Egyptian toponymn yh(w). See “The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources,” UF 23 (1992): 181–88. For a more recent discussion, see Daniel I. Block, The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 260–62. 101. Lars Eric Axelsson, The Lord Rose Up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah, CBOTS 25 (Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987), 60. 102. Kitchen has translated this inscription as found on the Amarah West Temple. The inscription lists the lands that submitted to the king of Egypt. Kitchen translates the phrase “Shasu-Land: Yahiwa.” This reading is preferable because it interprets the phrase within its literary context as a list of conquered regions. Also, Kitchen notes that the generic term “Shasu-land” (the place where nomads ranged) was always specified with a further place name in this list. Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions, Series A: Translations, vol. 2 of Ramesside Inscriptions: Translated and Annotated, ed. Kenneth Kitchen (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 75.

66

Chapter 3

Nevertheless, the word ‫ יהוה‬contains four consonants that are “weak” in Hebrew, which suggests that it is etymologically opaque. It is unlikely that a divine name native to the Hebrew language would have been constructed from such consonants. Luckenbill rightfully wonders how a name like ‫יהוה‬ could be rendered intelligently in the Hebrew script. 103 The Jebusite whose threshing floor became the stopping point of God’s plague against Israel bore a name that illustrates the difficulty of putting foreign personal names into Hebrew. In 2 Sam 24, the form ‫ אֲרַ ְונָה‬is most common (vv. 18, 20–24), though its first instance is problematically written ‫או ְַרנָה‬ ֲ ‫( ָה‬v. 16). 104 The parallel account in Chronicles simplifies the name to ‫ָרנָן‬ ְ ‫א‬, dropping the waw entirely (1 Chr 21:15ff.; 2 Chr 3:1). In its native language (probably Hurrian or Hittite), the word meant “lord” or perhaps “aristocrat,” and may have functioned among the Jerusalemites of David’s day as an epithet rather than a personal name. 105 It is clear that the letter waw could represent a broad range of sounds from foreign languages that could not be expressed by other Hebrew letters. The presence of a waw in the divine name raises several phonetic possibilities. It is unlikely that this letter holds an o vowel, because this is common only in later Hebrew. Furthermore, although current in Israeli (Sephardic) Hebrew, it is unlikely that the waw was pronounced v. From transliterations of proper names in the Septuagint, and from the likely contraction of aw to ō, scholars claim that this letter was originally a consonant pronounced like the bilabial w. 106 However, this phonetic evidence offers little help in reconstructing the original form of the divine name, especially if it had a foreign provenance like ‫אֲרַ ְונָה‬. It should also be noted that the divine name may have contained a final vowel, though this would never have been written. 107 Many vowel combinations are possible for the form ‫ יהוה‬once the interpreter concedes that it may not be a verbal form. Most scholars accept the form Yahweh because they understand Exod 3:13–15 to make a morphological wordplay between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫יהוה‬. Though seeming to support this wordplay, Hertog later explains that scholarly consideration of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬as a transitional form is problematic: such a technical approach would only have been likely after the medieval development of Hebrew grammar. 108 ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬seem to be related phonologically, but 103. Luckenbill, “The Pronunciation of the Name,” 282. 104. Here, it is advisable to follow the Qere reading, which transposes the resh and waw in conformity with the form of the name elsewhere. In this instance the article may have been attached to conform to the following word ‫ֻסי‬ ִ ‫ ַה ְיב‬. Or, if the scribes knew the native etymology of the name, they may have pointed the words to mean “the Jebusite lord.” 105. Richard D. Nelson, “Araunah,” ABD 1:353. 106. Alexander Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 174–75. 107. IBHS 17. 108. Hertog, The Other Face of God, 55.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

67

there is no biblical warrant to claim that ‫ יהוה‬is a parse-able third person form of ‫ היה‬or ‫הוה‬. 109 I have shown that the chief aspect of Hebrew onomastic wordplay is phonology, not morphology. Furthermore, proper names in the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays rarely, if ever, corresponded precisely to a verbal form. 110 Table 1 (pp. 39–41) shows that several proper names resembled verbal forms (that is, ‫ִׁש ָמעֵאל‬ ְ ‫י‬, ‫ֳאי‬ ִ ‫אֵל ר‬, ‫ּבאֵר ַלחַי ר ִֹאי‬, ְ ‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫י‬, ‫יהוה י ְִראֶה‬, ‫יַעֲק ֹב‬, ‫ראּובֵן‬,ְ ‫ּדן‬, ָ ‫ִּׂששכָר‬ ָ ‫י‬, ‫יֹוסֵף‬, ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫י‬, ‫ַּׁשה‬ ֶ ‫מנ‬, ְ and ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)מ‬. However, some of these names do not reflect actual verbal forms (‫ִּׂששכָר‬ ָ ‫י‬,‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫ י‬, ‫ יַעֲק ֹב‬111), as is also true of compound names (‫ִׁש ָמעֵאל‬ ְ ‫ י‬and ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ י‬instead of ‫ִשׁ ַמעֲאֵל‬ ְ ‫ י‬and ‫ִשׂ ְראֵל‬ ֶ ‫)י‬. In other instances, biblical authors and tradents may have deliberately avoided identifying names with verbs. For example, the name ‫ יֹוסֵף‬may have been written with a full spelling to differentiate it from the common spelling of the participle ‫יֹסֵף‬. 112 Still others contain a verb as part of etymologically transparent toponyms (‫ֳאי‬ ִ ‫אֵל ר‬, ‫ּבאֵר ַלחַי ר ִֹאי‬, ְ and ‫)יהוה י ְִראֶה‬. This suggests that the remaining names that corresponded exactly to verbal forms (‫ּדן‬, ָ ‫ראּובֵן‬,ְ ‫ַּׁשה‬ ֶ ‫ ְמנ‬and ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ )מ‬may do so by coincidence. 113 Greek Evidence for the Form “Yahweh” As a proponent of the consensus view, G. J. Thierry says that the form “Yahweh” is evidenced chiefly by Exod 3:14–15 and citations of the divine name in the works of Greek-speaking Church Fathers. 114 While I have shown that Exod 3:14–15 is a weak basis from which to argue for the verbal name-form “Yahweh,” this Greek evidence merits closer scrutiny. 115 109. See also R. Laird Harris, “The Pronunciation of the Tetragram,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 222. 110. The explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch may support John Algeo’s contention that proper names are not “isomorphic.” That is, the semantics of proper names transcend grammatical (common vs. proper), orthographic (upper vs. lower case), and phonological categories. See On Defining the Proper Name, 86. Most personal names in the Hebrew Bible are not written exactly like nouns or verbs. 111. While  ‫ יַעֲקֹב‬would seem to be the regular Qal yiqtol vocalization of this root’s verbal form, the only biblical attestation is ‫ ( י ְַעק ֹב‬Jer 9:3). Admittedly, the Masoretic vocalization may be too late to prove this point conclusively. 112. The Hebrew Bible often distinguishes between the participial form ‫ יֹסֵף‬and the proper name ‫יֹוסֵף‬. The three exceptions are Lev 5:16, Ps 80:2, and 1 Chr 21:3. 113. The form ‫ ְראּובֵן‬is instructive. The transparent etymology of this personal name yields the meaning, “Look, a son!” However, this is not how Leah explained the name in Gen 29. If the meaning apparent in the elements ‫ ְראּו‬and ‫ בֵן‬was obvious to the original hearers, then there would have been no reason to offer an explanatory wordplay, and the text would more easily fall under “midrashic” or “implicit” derivations. 114. Thierry, “The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton,” 36. See also Jenni, THAT 1:702. 115. The evidence cited in this section is not exhaustive, because this discussion falls outside the scope of this project. However, I have tried to be representative in my selection and presentation.

68

Chapter 3

Figure 2. Computer Scan of the Text and Apparatus of Clement’s Stromateis 5.6.34. See Otto Stählin, ed., Clemens Alexandrinus, Zweiter Band: Stromata Buch I–VI (GCS 15; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1906), 348.

The earliest possible reference to a Greek form resembling “Yahweh” is found in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis (ca. 200 CE). This work is often presented as early Patristic evidence for the consensus view. 116 Clement discusses the symbolism of the Jewish temple and the recurrence of objects in “fours” around the sanctuary. He notes that the mysterious four-lettered name (τὸ τετράγραμμον ὂνομα τὸ μυστικόν) was placed around those who could enter the adytum (the holy of holies). Clement then reports somewhat parenthetically what the divine name is said to mean: “who is and shall be” (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος, Stromateis 5.6.34). The editor of the standard Greek text of the Stromateis, Otto Stählin, has reported the form Ἰαουε as this Tetragrammaton. 117 This form appears without accent marks and with a line over the word: Stählin did not indicate whether this line designates a nomina sacra or is a modern editorial mark. This citation contains a significant textual problem––the form Ἰαουε does not appear in any primary Greek witnesses. In the textual apparatus, Stählin notes that the form Ἰαοὺ appears in manuscript Laurentianus V 3. This is the only complete Greek witness to the text of Clement’s Stromateis, and Stählin follows it often. 118 However, the apparatus cites three 19thcentury scholars who have argued that Ἰαουε was original. 119 These scholars 116. Henry O. Thompson, “Yahweh,” 6:1011–12; Abba, “The Divine Name Yahweh,” 320–28; and Thierry, “The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton,” 33. 117. I am using Stählin’s 1906 critical edition. This edition was updated in 1960 and became the basis of the 1981 Sources Chrétiennes edition (No 278). See below, p.  82 note f, for the full bibliographic information of the sources. 118. Laurentianus V 3 dates from the 11th century CE. The other complete manuscript of the Stromateis is from the 16th century and depends on Laurentainus V 3. Carl P. Cosaert, The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria, NTGF 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 14. 119. See table 6 below, pp. 81–82, for bibliographic information.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

69

claims’ were likely based on several later Catenae that contained readings similar to Ἰαουε. The Catenae contain excerpts from ancient authors strung together almost entirely by quotations from their commentaries and homilies on the Bible. Later Christian writers began to make such collections in the sixth century when original patristic works were no longer being written. They arranged the biblical text and commentary in many different ways. 120 Stählin’s apparatus lists seven Catenae that contain various forms of the divine name, such as ἰὰ οὐαἰ (meaning “Yah, woe!”), ἰὰ οὐὲ, and ἰαοῦε. 121 The oldest and most important of these Catenae comes from the ninth century CE and appears to be giving the interpretation of Theodoret (ca. 450 CE), not Clement. 122 Natalio Fernández Marcos notes that restricted access to the scattered manuscripts of the Catenae and the lack of systematic scholarly analysis on them renders some printed material on the Catenae untrustworthy. 123 Stählin’s preference for later secondary texts over the only complete manuscript of the Stromateis is problematic.  124 On the other hand, Wilhelm Dindorf ’s 1869 critical edition of the Stromateis contains Ἰαοὺ in the body of the text with the Catena variants in the apparatus. 125 One of the scholars whom Stählin cited as support, Ernst Hengstenberg, claims that the fiveletter Greek form Ἰαουε was the more difficult reading that would have been simplified at a later time to Ἰαοὺ, because this form contains the same number of letters as the Tetragrammaton. 126 However, Clement’s reference to a Hebrew name of four letters could have been represented originally by four Greek letters, as Clement himself notes of the Greek word θεὸς. It may be correct that Ἰαουε is the harder reading because it has five letters, but this reading is unsupported by primary witnesses of the Stromateis and was probably first introduced in the Catenae. Ganschinietz notes that scribes often interchanged ω with ου when copying Greek words. 127 He warns against emending Ἰαοὺ in the Stromateis, as 120. Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 287–89. 121. For explanation of Stählin’s textual apparatus, see figure 2 above and table 6 below, pp. 81–82. 122. Françoise Petit, Catena Graeca in Genesim et in Exodum II. Collectio Coisliniana in Genesim, CCSG 15 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1986), xxi–xxii. 123. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 287. 124. While it has been shown that Laurentianus V 3 contains many corruptions, especially of names and numbers, this does not mean that the reading Ἰαοὺ must be faulty. See Cosaert, The Text of the Gospels, 13. 125. Wilhelm Dindorf, ed., Clementis Alexandrini Opera, Vol III. Stromatum V–VIII. Scripta Minora. Fragmenta (London: Macmillan, 1869), 27. 126. Ernst W. Hengstenberg, Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament: Zweiter Band, enthaltend Untersuchungen über die Authentie des Pentateuches (Berlin: Oehmigke, 1836), 226–27. 127. This common scribal practice may have arisen because the sound of ου and ω merged in Classical Greek. See W. Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 72.

70

Chapter 3

Clement may have preserved the tradition of Jews who used the name Ιαω. Ganschinietz argues that scholars should appeal to other instances where Ἰαοὺ and Ἰαουε have been confused before changing the reading Ἰαοὺ. 128 In summary, the earliest attestation of the form “Yahweh” has been placed there by scholars against direct textual evidence. Those who argue for this form cannot claim Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis as firm evidence. Unfortunately, this source is often quoted as such. 129 Origen’s Hexapla (ca. 240 CE) contains a textually certain attestation of the name Ἰαβέ. In a comment on the name ‫ יהוה‬in Exod 6:3, Origen notes that this four-lettered name (τετράγραμμον) was too wonderful to be named among the Hebrews (ἄφραστον ὀνομάζεται). Nevertheless, he says that the Samaritans pronounced the Tetragrammaton Ἰαβέ, while the Jews call it Ἀïὰ (probably a Hellenized form of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫)א‬. 130 Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 375 CE) wrote against the “Archontics” in the third section of his work Panarion. He offered several “translations” of divine designators that this group used in worship. Two names may represent the Tetragrammaton: “Jah,” meaning “Lord,” and “‘Jahveh’ (Ἰαβέ) meaning, ‘He who was and is, the Ever-existent’” (Panarion 3.40.5.9–10). 131 Theodoret of Cyrrhus in northern Syria (ca. 450 CE) also commented on the statement that God did not make known his name “Lord” to the patriarchs (Exod 6:3). He described this name as having four letters (τετράγραμμον) and said that Jews were forbidden to speak it. Yet he concluded with a curious note: “The Samaritans call it ‘Iabe,’ (Ἰαβέ) the Jews ‘Ia’” (Questions on the Octateuch, question 15 in Exodus). 132 Theodoret seems to be drawing on the same tradition as Origen. Elsewhere, Theodoret lists divine names within a discussion of the Holy Spirit, stating that the Jews use the name Ἀïὰ, while the Samaritans say Ἰαβαὶ (“Jave” in Latin, Haereticarum Fabularum 5.3, par. 393). 133 128. Richard Ganschinietz, “Iao,” PW 9/1:700. Brill’s New Pauly does not contain an article on “Iao,” and the entry on “Yahweh” only briefly mentions this shorter form. See Ernst Axel Knauf, “Yahweh,” BNP 15: 847. 129. In my review of journal articles and encyclopedia entries on the divine name, only in the TDOT entry on ‫ יהוה‬do the authors cite Clement of Alexandria as using the form Ἰαοὺ. See Freedman, Ringgren, and O’Connor, TDOT 5:509. Cassuto’s entry casts doubt on the reading Ἰαουε without necessarily rejecting it. M. D. Cassuto, “God (Hebrew),” EB 1:308–9. However, the commentary on Stromateis Book V continues to defend the reading Ἰαουε. See Alain le Boulluec, ed., Clément D’Alexandrie: Les Stromates, Stromate V, Tome II, Commentaire, Bibliographie et Index, SC 279 (Paris: du Cerf, 1981), 141. 130. F. Fields, ed., Origenis Hexapla: vol. 1: Prolegomena, Genesis–Esther (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 90. 131. See Frank Williams, ed., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1–46), NHS 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 266. 132. See John F. Petruccione, ed., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, On Genesis and Exodus, trans. Robert C. Hill, LEC 1 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 250. 133. Jacob Sirmondi and J. Schulze, eds., Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia, PG 83 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979), 460.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

71

Both of Thierry’s primary sources of evidence for the form “Yahweh” have been weighed and found wanting. An overly grammatical approach to Exod 3:14–15 overlooks the function of pentateuchal explicit naming wordplays as based in phonology, not morphology. Furthermore, the Patristic renderings of the name that are brought forward as evidence are late and do not agree on a single form (e.g., Ἰαβέ, Ἰαβαὶ, Ἀïὰ, and Ἰά). Indeed, the Fathers claim that these words were only used by heretics or Samaritans. There is no conclusive (early) Patristic evidence that the name Ἰαβέ (or Ἰαβαὶ, or Ἰαουε if original) was ever spoken by the Jews. If Origen is correct about the Samaritan provenance of this pronunciation, then this group may have innovated it, or perhaps Ἰαβέ and its related forms represents a byform of the original. 134 Semitic Evidence for the Form “Yahu” The evidence cited above has challenged the consensus opinion that “Yahweh” was the original form of the divine name. Now I will offer evidence for the form “Yahu,” because it is better attested than “Yahweh.” Though a minority of Old Testament scholars have argued that the form “Yahu/Yaho” is original, 135 it was likely an early derivation of the name’s original form. Israelite theophoric names may witness indirectly to an early form of the divine name. These theophoric names consisted of a prefixed or suffixed form of the divine name and a nominal or verbal form that expressed a statement of faith (e.g., ‫ְש ְעיָהּו‬ ַ ׁ ‫“ י‬Yhwh saves”). The theophoric element was often written ‫יהו‬, though the form ‫ יו‬appears (almost exclusively) among northern Israelites. The nontheophoric element of the name did not often conform exactly to any known Hebrew word, as was the case with the names ‫ִׁש ָמעֵאל‬ ְ ‫ י‬and ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫י‬. ‫ׁש ַע‬ ֻ ‫ יְהֹו‬is one of the first theophoric Hebrew names mentioned in the Pentateuch (Num 13:16). Moses gave this new name to his servant ‫ׁש ַע‬ ֵ ‫הֹו‬. The theological implication of this name change is seen in its transparent etymology. The name ‫ׁש ַע‬ ֻ ‫ יְהֹו‬specifies Yhwh as the subject of the unspecified action of ‫ׁש ַע‬ ֵ ‫הֹו‬. The “meaning” of the man’s name changed from “he has saved” to “Yaho has saved.” Like most proper names in the Pentateuch’s 134. E. Kautsch noted long ago that a Samaritan poetic work found in Codex Harley 5514, number 14 (ca. 1587 CE) contains a rhyme between ‫ רֹאֶה‬and ‫ יהוה‬in the first few lines. This may attest to the continued Samaritan pronunciation “Yahweh” or “Yahveh.” “Bibliotheca Samaritana II. Die Samaritanische Liturgie,” TLZ 11 (1886): cols. 220–24. 135. See B. D. Eerdmans, “The Name Jahu,” in Oudtestamentiche Studiën, ed. P. A. H. de Boer, OS 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 1–29; and Martin Rose, Jahwe: Zum Streit um den alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen, Theologische Studien 122 (Zürich: Theologischer, 1978), 23ff. Eerdman’s article is not very convincing. Interestingly, classicists have often recognized the importance of the form “Yahu,” even though they do not often consider it original. See Shaw, The Earliest Non-mystical, xiii, 3–4; and Ganschinietz, “Iao.”

72

Chapter 3

explicit­naming wordplays, the name says nothing about the character or role of Joshua. Moses hereby declared his theological conviction that the one called Yhwh had performed the mighty acts of deliverance that brought Israel out of Egypt. This is a major emphasis of the plagues narrative. The theophoric affixes appear in many forms, likely shortening over time. They gradually developed from ‫יְהֹו‬/(‫ יָה(וּ‬to ‫ יֹו‬to ֵ ‫י‬. 136 The triradical form seems to be original since it is the oldest, but its vocalization has been assimilated to the larger word of which it is a part, which complicates the reconstruction of a free-standing nominal form. Theophoric names are a helpful source for discovering the ebbs and flows of Yahwistic faith in ancient Israel, but they are of limited value in reconstructing the original form of the name of Israel’s God. 137 Significantly, no Israelite name contains the four-lettered form in its compounds, even though all other ancient Near Eastern theophoric names included the full form of their deity’s name. 138 The cuneiform name-lists of Jews who lived in Mesopotamia in the exilic and postexilic eras provide nonbiblical corroboration for the form of Israelite theophoric names. Such names include: mdia-ú-bi-iʾ-di (Iaū-biʾdi, “Yahu is behind me”), mia-u-ga-a (Iaū–gâ, “Yahu is exalted”), 139 and fia-a-ḫu-di-im-ri (Iaū-dimri, “Yahu is my help”). 140 Given the phonetic differences between the Neo-Assyrian dialect of Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew (as well as the flexibility and polyvalence of the cuneiform writing system), the Akkadian prefixes ia-ú, ia-u, and ia-a-ḫu likely represent transliterations of the Hebrew prefix ‫יְהֹו‬. This external confirmation lends credence to the Masoretic vocalization of these names. Hebrew inscriptions from the first Temple Period are an excellent resource for attestations of the divine name. The majority of these contain the full four-letter form, in Paleo-Hebrew script. They were written between 850 BCE and 586 BCE, originating from the plains of Moab, the southern Negev (Kuntillet ʿAjrud), Jerusalem, as well as Lachish, Arad, Makkedah (in the Shephelah), and En-Gedi. 141 Unfortunately, these exciting archaeolog136. This statement simplifies the diversity of these names’ word-formation and regional idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, this gradual (though inconsistent) shortening is present in the name ‫ׁש ַע‬ ֻ ‫( יְהֹו‬Exod 17:9–14), which later became ‫( י ֵׁשּו ַע‬Neh 8:17). The postexilic high priest is called both ‫ׁש ַע‬ ֻ ‫( יְהֹו‬Hag 1:1, 12) and ‫( י ֵׁשּו ַע‬Ezra 2:2, 3:2). See Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names, 150. 137. Richard Hess concludes that the spread of Yahwism was pre-Davidic since these theophoric names appear at the time of the United Monarchy. Israelite Religions, 270–71. See also Jeffrey H. Tigay, “Israelite Religion : The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” in Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 157–94. 138. Rose, Jahwe, 23. This point is difficult to prove definitively because many of these ancient languages were written without vowels. 139. Heather D. Baker, ed., The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 2/1: Ḫ–K, NATCP (Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2000), 497. 140. Ran Zadok, “Some Jews in Babylonian Documents,” JQR 74 (1984): 295. 141. These inscriptions are detailed in table 4. I have used Shmuel Ahituv’s book for the First Temple period Hebrew inscriptions that I discuss. See Echoes from the Past: He-

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

73

Table 4.  Hebrew Inscriptional Evidence for the Divine Name Name Mesha Stele

Provenance Transjordan

Form

Date

‫ יהוה‬ca. 850 BCE

Notes/Reference line 18

‫ יהוה‬Seventh Khirbet el-Qom Makkedah, Judean ‫ יהוה צבאות‬century BCE Burial Cave Shephelah Ketef Hinnom Silver Amulets

Near Jerusalem

‫ יהוה‬ca. 650 BCE

contains a version of the Priestly Blessing

Arad Ostraca

Negev

‫ יהוה‬ca. 600 BCE

multiple attestations

the “Second Letter”

Makkedah, Judean Shephelah (?)

‫ יהוה‬ca. 600 BCE

Palimpsest

Graffiti in a Cave

Khirbet Beit Lei, Judean Shephelah

‫ יהוה‬and ‫ יה‬ca. 586 BCE

Lachish Ostraca Judean Shephelah

‫ יהוה‬ca. 586 BCE ‫חיהוה‬

these soft rock inscriptions yield many contested readings. multiple attestations

ical finds do not contribute to recovering the pronunciation of the divine name, because in no case is the name shortened or vocalized. 142 However, the merged form ‫ חיהוה‬in Lachish letter no. 3 is noteworthy. These words were probably pronounced together, because the second yod is elided and the usual word dividers do not occur here. Letters 6 and 12 in the Lachish corpus contain the “standard” form, ‫חי יהוה‬. 143 The form ‫ חיהוה‬at least demonstrates that the constant Qere tradition that read ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬over ‫ יהוה‬likely had not appeared at this point in Jewish history. The few early attestations of the shortened form ‫ יהו‬are also noteworthy. It appears alongside the full form in the Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions (ca. 800 BCE). Interestingly, ‫ יהו‬was written when the name stood by itself, while ‫ יהוה‬was written when it was a nomen rectum (that is, ‫יהוה‬, ‫יהוה שמרון‬ ‫)[ה]תימן‬. 144 This consistent, syntax-based orthography argues against those who might claim that the author was sloppy or illiterate. In the fifth century BCE, a substantial Jewish community resided on Elephantine Island in the Nile River. The Aramaic documents from this brew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period ( Jerusalem: Carta, 2008). Admittedly, Ahituv’s book is not exhaustive in scope. 142. The Ketef Hinnom amulets have shown how the divine name functioned for some Judeans during the late preexilic era. Unfortunately, the divine name is written in its full form in every instance, so it also cannot be used as evidence in this discussion. See Gabriel Barkay et al., “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation,” BASOR 334 (2004): 41–71. 143. Ahituv, Echoes from the Past, 80. 144. Ibid., 314.

74

Chapter 3

site offer a glimpse into their way of life. The Jews on Elephantine Island continued to worship and name the national God, though they consistently spelled his name ‫יהו‬. 145 Because this word was used similarly to the full form ‫יהוה‬, there is no reason to doubt its function as a divine name. 146 A. E. Cowley asserts that ‫“( יו‬Yāw”) was the Urform of the divine name, that ‫ יהו‬was a later version of this, and that the ‫ ה‬was a vowel letter for ā. 147 However, this conjecture ascribes too much significance to the sparse Samarian evidence for ‫יו‬. Since the form ‫ יהוה‬is attested earlier than ‫יהו‬, the form ‫ יו‬in the Samaria ostraca and the Israelite theophoric names likely derived from ‫יהו‬ or ‫יהוה‬. 148 The Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscription offers the most likely point of origin for the form ‫ יהו‬at Elephantine. The short form ‫ יָהּ‬may contribute to this discussion. This word appears early (Exod 15:2) and late (Ps 135:1) in the Hebrew Bible, but is not common. 149 Many wonder what motivated biblical authors to use this form instead of ‫יהוה‬. Most scholars surmise that ‫ יָהּ‬accurately preserves the first syllable of the name’s full form, though they disagree about whether ‫ יָהּ‬or ‫ יהוה‬is original. 150 This point is difficult to prove since we have no analogous forms of longer names that can be shown to follow this vocalic pattern. One could also claim that ‫ יָהּ‬originally contained a final short vowel after the he that is lengthened in the form ‫יהו‬. The shortened name ‫ יָהּ‬must remain an inconclusive piece of evidence for reconstructing the original form of ‫יהוה‬. Non-Semitic Evidence for the Form “Yahu” Two manuscripts from Cave 4 near Qumran contain Greek translations of Leviticus that antedate other witnesses by three or four centuries. 151 The second of these manuscripts, 4QLXXLevb, renders the divine name uniquely. The usual Greek equivalent κύριος is lacking entirely, and in the two places where it would be expected the form ΙΑΩ occurs. 152 Paleographers have concluded that the scroll was written in the first century BCE. 153 145. The papyri contain one certain instance of ‫( יהה‬13:14) and one disputed appearance (‫יההאור‬, 1:2). A. E. Cowley attributes the former to a scribal slip in accordance with the many errors in papyrus no. 13. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), 40. 146. E.g., ‫( )ל(יהה אלה‬13:14 and 22:13), ‫( יהו מרא שמיא‬32:3). References derive from Cowley’s edition. 147. A. E. Cowley, “A Passage in the Mesha Inscription and the Early Form of the Israelitish Divine Name,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2 (1920): 175–84. 148. See Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names, 37. 149. See below, p.188 n. 16. 150. Freedman, “‫ יהוה‬Yhwh,” 502; and G. R. Driver, “The Original Form of the Name ‘Yahweh’: Evidence and Conclusions,” ZAW 46 (1928): 7–25. 151. Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, eds., Qumran Cave 4: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD 9 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 4. 152. See fragments 20:4 and 6:12 (partial). 153. Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4, 4.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

75

This scroll contains the earliest nonmystical use of the form ΙΑΩ, which raises a debate over the possibility that the original LXX translation of the divine name was ΙΑΩ, which was later changed to κύριος. 154 While these debates are significant, they are outside the scope of this project. Another early source for the form Ἰάω comes from Poseidonios of Rhodes (ca. 75 BCE), a Roman polymath whose writings touched on history, astronomy, physics, philosophy and geography. The relevant citation occurs within his history of Egypt. He told of lawgivers who arose in Egypt and “instituted customs unusual and strange” (fragment 134, lines 1–2). 155 After mentioning Mneves among the Egyptians, Lycurgus among the Lacedaemonians, and Zathraustes among the Arians, Poseidonios noted that “among the Jews Moyses referred his laws to the god who is invoked as Iao” (παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Μωυσῆν τὸν Ἰαὼ ἐπικαλούμενον θεόν, fragment 134, line 16). 156 The later historian Diodorus of Silicy (ca. 49 BCE) also transmitted this tradition (History 1.94.2). 157 A statement by Marcus Terentius Varro (ca. 70 BCE) also confirms that the divine name Ἰάω was known by non-Jews at an early time. The fragment contains a reference to the mystics among the Chaldeans (παρὰ Χαλδαίοις ἐν τοῖς μυστικοῖς) who said that the god of the Hebrews was called Ἰάω (Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum, fragment 17). 158 Johannes Laurentius Lydus ( John the Lydian) was a Byzantine administrator who wrote “antiquarian” works, the first of which was produced around 550 CE. He relates the view of Varro in the fourth book of his De Mensibus (“On the Months”). 159 In a protracted discussion of the third month (Martius), Lydus notes that the Chaldeans called the god of the Hebrews “Iao” (Ἰάω), which he defined as φῶς νοητὸν, “noetic light” (De Mensibus 4.53). 160 Pedanius Dioscorides also referred to a divine name, although his primary interests were pharmacological. His famous work De Materia Medica (ca. 50–70 CE) contains a discussion of the peony plant. Dioscorides reported what one was to say to the Sun(-god) while using the peony for medicinal purposes. The prayer contains a request that this god would draw near to the supplicant, ending with the vocative phrase, “Lord God, Iao, 154. See Shaw, The Earliest Non-mystical, 1, 149–54. See below, p. 197 n. 63, for further bibliography. 155. See Willy Theiler, ed., Poseidonios, 3 vols., TKEAR 10 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982), 1:114. 156. Ibid., 115. 157. See C. H. Oldfather, ed., Diodorus of Sicily: Volume 1, Books I and II, 1–34, LCL 279 (New York: Putnam, 1933), 321. 158. See Burkhart Cardauns, ed., M. Terentius Varro: Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum, vol. 1: Die Fragmente, AWL (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976), 22. 159. See Johannes Laurentius Lydus, On the Months (De Mensibus), trans. Anastasius C. Bandy (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2013), xxii. 160. Ibid., 241. Page 182 of this source contains the Greek text.

76

Chapter 3

Iao” (κύριε Θεὲ Ἰάω Ἰάω). 161 In Dioscorides’ text, it is uncertain whether the god of the Hebrews or a pagan god is intended by the word Ἰάω. 162 Origen (ca. 240 CE) used the form Ἰαὼ in at least two places. In Contra Celsum, he quoted the pagan “sorcerers” who borrowed the name Ἰαὼ from the Hebrew Scriptures. 163 Furthermore, these sorcerers used the name as the second of seven divine names in a ritual appeal (Contra Celsum, 6.31–32). 164 In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen reflected on the prophets’ experiences with the Word of God. He noted that “the word comes also to Jeremias, lifted up with divine exultation, for his name means, ‘the lifting up of Iao (Ἰαὼ)’” (Commentary on John 2.7). 165 Origen’s definition of “Jeremiah” as “the lifting up of Iao” follows the Christian onomastic tradition. Early Christian writers inherited Jewish lists of Hebrew names analyzed etymologically, but written in Greek. These lists were probably made for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews who encountered Hebrew personal names in Greek and wanted to learn about their etymology. Ἰαὼ is regularly employed in these lists from the earliest (ca. 300 CE) to the latest (ca. 15th century CE) manuscripts, appearing in three modes: as a transliteration of a theophoric affix, within lists of divine names, and as an entry itself (e.g., Ἰαὼ = ἀόρατος). 166 Even an LXX codex of 161. See C. O. Zuretti, ed., Codices Hispanienses: Pars Altera, Codices Scorialenses, Matritenses, Caesaraugustani, CCAG 11 (Brussels: Lamertin, 1934), 166. 162. Shaw explores six further classical references to this form. In each case, these pagan authors may have identified the Jewish god by Ἰάω, but this is not certain. These sources are: Herennius Philo of Byblus (125 CE), Valerius Maximus (first century CE), the Emperor Gaius apud Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 CE), a pre-mystical equation of the god “Aion” with Ἰάω (third or fourth century CE), the equation of Ἰάω with the Coptic word for “ass” (ειω, as early as 200 BCE), and the Dionysian cry Ιω (ca. the second century CE). See The Earliest Non-mystical, 73–107. I have excluded these attestations from the appendixes below because of their uncertainty. For a further discussion of the influence of the name Ἰάω in pagan religion, see Gideon Bohak, “The Impact of Jewish Monotheism on the Greco-Roman World,” JSQ 7 (2000): 4–11. 163. Many of the Church Fathers transmitted a form of the divine name as it was used by those in mystical (that is, Gnostic) circles. I have not considered any occurrence of Ἰαὼ or Ἰαβέ from these sources (amulets, magical papyri, mystical works). Most likely, these circles learned the form Ἰαὼ in Egypt and integrated it into their litany of incantations and chants. See Shaw, The Earliest Non-mystical, 191, 235. 164. See Henry Chadwick, trans., Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 347–49. The Greek forms can be found in Paul Koetschau, ed., Origenes Werke, Zweiter Band: Buch V–VIII Gegen Celsus. Die Schrift vom Gebet, GCS 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899), 101–2. 165. See Ronald E. Hiene, ed., Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1–10, FC 80 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 96. 166. Franz Wutz has produced the most thorough edition of the onomastica. Many of the insances of Ἰαὼ that appear before the time of Jerome belong to what Wutz calls the “Origen group.” See Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus, 2 vols., TUGAL (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915). Shaw notes that the poor citations in Wutz’s edition, coupled with the lack of good critical editions

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

77

the Prophets contains two marginal onomastic notes concerning Ezek 1:2 and 11:1 that employ the name Ἰαὼ. 167 Two earlier onomastica of probable Jewish origin freely used Ἰαὼ in their name explanations. This shows that at least some Jews in the pre-Christian era were comfortable with uttering an explicit form of the divine name. 168 At another point in the Panarion, Epiphanius (ca. 375 CE) related the teaching of a certain Ptolemy and his followers. He twice mentioned the legend of this school that when Wisdom was created and formed, she was unconscious (devoid of the Word) until an Aeon said “Iao!” (Ἰαώ) to her, and she was “made firm” (Panarion 2.31.16.4; 2.31.35.4). 169 Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 200 CE) had reported this legend twice, though ascribing it to the Valentians and Orphites (Against Heresies 1.4.1; 1.30.5). 170 Similarly, in his Praeparatio Evangelica, Eusebius reports the testimony of Porphyry that Sanchuniathon of Berytus received historical records from a Jew named Hierombalus, “the priest of the god Ieuo (Ἰευώ)” (Praeparatio Evangelica 1.9.21). 171 Jerome (ca. 400 CE) is a helpful source for the possible pronunciations of the divine name because he learned to read Hebrew from Jews and understood Jewish traditions of the fourth century CE. In his brief commentary on Ps 8, he paused to reflect on the phrase “Lord, our Lord” (Domine, Dominus noster). Jerome rightly recognized that a proper name stood behind the Latin vocative, which he described as follows: The previous name of the Lord among the Hebrews is four letters: yod, he, waw, he, which is the term for God, properly speaking. It can be read Yaho, and it is thought to be ἄῤῥητον (that is, ineffable) among the Hebrews. But at present, Adonai (which is also used of people) is common among all. 172 available to Wutz, made it impossible to discover all possible instances of Ἰαὼ in the onomastica. The Earliest Non-mystical, 21–22. 167. Codex Marchalianus (Vatican Manuscript 2125). See ibid., 18. 168. See ibid., 245–57 for Shaw’s helpful suggestions concerning the segment within Second Temple Jewish society that spoke the divine name explicitly. 169. See Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1–46), 169, 190. 170. See Dominic J. Unger, ed., St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies, ACW 55 (New York: Paulist, 1992), 30 and 97. The Greek forms can be found in Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, eds., Irénée de Lyon: Texte et Traduction, vol. 2 of Irénée de Lyon:Contre les Hérésies, Livre I, SC 264 (Paris: du Cerf, 2008), 64 and 368. 171. Edwin Hamilton Gifford, Preparation for the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 35. The Greek forms can be found in Karl Mras, ed., Eusebius Werke: Achter Band, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, GCS 43/1 (Berlin: Akademie, 1954), 39. 172. Translated from Commentarioli on Ps 8:7–12: Prius nomen Domini apud Hebraeos quattuor litterarum est, iod, he uau, he: quod proprie Dei uocabulum sonat, et legi potest Iaho, et Hebraei ἄῤῥητον, id est ineffabile opinantur. Secundum uero Adonai omnium commune est, quod saepe et in hominibus ponitur (cf. Ad Marcellam Letter 25, lines 13–17). See P. Antin, ed., S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I, 1, CCSL 72 (Rome: Brepols, 1959), 191. I thank Michael Graves for help with this translation. For the Ad Marcellam source, see I. Hilberg, ed., Sancti Eusebii Heironymi Epistulae. Pars I: Epistulae I–LXX, CSEL 54 (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 219. In this letter, Jerome

Chapter 3

78 Poseidonios 4QLXXLevb Varro 100 BCE

70 BCE 75 BCE

Origen Clement(?) 200 CE 240 CE

Jerome Eusebius(?) 315 CE

400 CE

Figure 3.  Non-Semitic attestations of Yahu.  This timeline only includes attestations that clearly refer to the God of the Hebrews. Thus, certain texts discussed above are not included here. Furthermore, I have only charted representative evidence up to 450 CE. Origen

Epiphanius

Theodoret

240 CE

375 CE

450 CE

Figure 4.  Non-Semitic attestations of Yahweh/Yahveh.

Another Latin citation comes from Macrobius, a Roman born outside of Italy, whose best-known works were written around 400 CE. The Saturnalia is his most famous book, a story of prominent Roman aristocrats discussing trivia and the matters of the day. In the aristocrats’ discussion of the names of foreign gods, they made a connection between Zeus of the Greeks, Liber of the Romans, and the sun. They mentioned an oracle of Apollos of Claros in which Apollo was given the name ΙΑΩ (a Greek word embedded in Microbius’s Latin composition). When Apollos inquired of this name, he learned that it referred to “the greatest god of all” (Saturnalia 1.18.19–21). 173

Summary and Conclusions The preceding discussion provides negative and positive conclusions. Though the form “Yahweh” has taken hold as the consensus view in scholarly circles, it is based on very little hard evidence. Most agree that an etymological-­grammatical connection between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬suggests that ‫ יהוה‬should be vocalized as a third-person yiqtol form of ‫היה‬. Scholars have substantiated this by rightly appealing to the form Ἰαβέ in Origen, Theodoret and Epiphanius, but wrongly to the form Ἰαουέ in Clement of Alexandria. However, the etymological-grammatical connection is not sensitive to the form of explicit naming wordplays and misunderstands the function of proper names used in them. Furthermore, the Greek evidence is far too mentions­the ineffable name of the Hebrews, and he spells it in Hebrew (‫ )יהוה‬and Greek (ΠΙΠΙ) (!), but he does not vocalize it. 173. See Robert A. Kaster, ed., Macrobius: Saturnalia, Volume 1, Books 1–2, LCL 510 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 254–57. From this conversation, we also learn that Cornelius Labeo had already expounded this interpretation in his work On the Oracle of Apollos of Claros.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

79

late to make substantive claims about the original Hebrew form of this ancient name. The form Ἰαβέ is never ascribed to Jewish practice in the extant sources, but only to Samaritans and pagans. Though always a minority view, the claim that “Yahu” was the original form has much to commend it. The presence of a consistent three-lettered affix on theophoric names constitutes its earliest witness. It is remarkable that the written form ‫ יהו‬occurs on a jar in the southern Negev (ca. 800 BCE) while ‫ יהו‬also occurs on Elephantine Island about 400 years later. Furthermore, the vast quantity, early date, and wide geographic distribution of the Greek form Ἰάω predominates over the consensus form (see table 5 on p. 80 and figures 3 and 4, above). Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this form is original, because even the earliest evidence for the form “Yahu” is not early enough to verify this claim. This form cannot account for the final he of the Tetragrammaton, and the waw probably did not function as a vowel letter originally. The original form probably had a consonantal waw, a final he that was consonantal, and was perhaps followed by a short vowel that was never written down. The vocalization of ‫ יהוה‬would probably have been longer than “Yahu,” but phonetically similar––perhaps it was simplified when appended to theophoric names. The antiquity of the name and the weak consonants on which it is built makes it unlikely that we will discover its original form or vocalization. The following are possible: “Yahwahu,” “Yahawhu,” “Yahuwah,” or “Yehwahu.” If this hypothesis is correct, then the divine name resembles the majority of proper names in the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays in that most do not correspond to a precise verbal or nominal form. Furthermore, the name ‫ יהוה‬appears to be etymologically opaque. Such a personal name makes direct reference to the name bearer without adding any sense (descriptive meaning) to its reference. Such a name must gather its sense from the biblical narrative rather than from a supposed etymology. The divine name ‫ יהוה‬is explained in Exod 3:13–15 (via assonance) in order to anticipate Yhwh’s powerful intervention and subsequent acts of salvation on behalf of his people. The phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬does not describe Yhwh’s essence or character, but defers such a statement for a later time. The divine “self-naming” does nothing more than answer Moses’s question, while letting the future reveal what sense Israel should ascribe to the name. Yhwh offered his name as a peg on which to hang descriptions of all that he was about to do, be, and say.

Chapter 3

80

Table 5.  Evidence for Pronunciation(s) of the Divine Name Name

Provenance

Form

Date

Notes/Reference

Kuntillet ʿAjrud Southern Negev Inscriptions

(‫ יהוה )התמן‬ca. 800 BCE (‫יהוה )שמרן‬ ‫ יהו‬and

Elephantine Papyri

Southern Egypt

‫ יהה‬and ‫ יהו‬ca. 400 BCE

4QLXXLevb

Judean Desert, Cave 4

ΙΑΩ

ca. 100 BCE

κύριος never occurs

Poseidonios

Rhodes

Ἰαὼ

ca. 75 BCE

Fragment 134, line 16

Marcus Terentius Varro

Rome

Ἰάω

ca. 70 BCE

Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum, fragment 17

Dioscorides

Rome

Ἰάω

ca. 60 CE

On the Peony, p. 166

Irenaeus

Lyons, France

Ἰαώ Iao

ca. 200 CE

Against Heresies 1.4.1; 1.30.5

Clement of Alexandria

Alexandria, Egypt Ἰαοὺa

ca. 200 CE

Stromateis 5.6.34

Origen

Alexandria, Egypt Ἰαβέ ca. 240 CE (Samaritan) Ἀïὰ ( Jewish)

Hexapla, comment on ‫ יהוה‬in Exod 6:3

Origen

Alexandria, Egypt Ἰαὼ

ca. 240 CE

Contra Celsum, 6.31–32; Commentary on John 2:7

Eusebius

Caesarea Maritima

Ἰευώ

ca. 315 CE

Praeparatio Evangelica 1.9.21

Epiphanius of Salamis

Salamis, Cyprus

Ἰαβέ

ca. 375 CE

Panarion 3.40.5.9–10

Epiphanius of Salamis

Salamis, Cyprus

Ἰαώ

ca. 375 CE

Panarion 2.31.16.4, 2.31.35.4

Macrobius

Uncertain

ΙΑΩ

ca. 395 CE

Saturnalia 1. 18.19–21

Jerome

Bethlehem

Iaho

ca. 400 CE

Commentarioli on Psalm 8.7–12

Theodoret

Cyrrhus, Northern Syria

Ἰαβέ (Samaritan) Ἰά ( Jewish)

ca. 450 CE

Questions on the Octateuch, Question 15 in Exodus

Theodoret

Cyrrhus, Northern Syria

Ἰαβαὶ

ca. 450 CE

Haereticarum Fabularum 5.3, par. 393

Johannes Laurentius Lydus

Philadelphia, Lydia

Ἰάω

ca. 550 CE

De Mensibus 4.53

written by different hands, found on pithoi, stone basins, and plaster fragments

a.  As I argued above, I conclude that this reading is original to Clement, contra Otto Stählin, the editor of this text.

The Divine Name Given: Exodus 3:13–15

81

Table 6.  Explanation of the Textual Apparatus of Stromateis 5.6.34 Abbreviation

Full Form

Date

Notes

Witnesses to the form ἰαοῦέ Didymus Taurinensis de pronunc. Divini nominis quator literarum (Parmae 1799) p. 32ff

Didymus Taurinensis. De pronunciatione divini nominis quatuor literarum, cum auctario observationum ad Hebraicam et cognatas linguas pertinentium. (n.p.: Parma, 1799), 32ff.

1799

only available in two libraries in England, non-circulating, no digital copies available

Hengstenberg, Beiträge z. Einl. Ins Alte Test. II [1836] S. 226 f

Ernst W. Hengsten1836 berg, Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament: Zweiter Band, enthaltend Untersuchungen über die Authentie des Pentateuches (Berlin: Ludwig Oehmigke, 1836), 226–27.

discussion found within the section “Ableitung und Bedeutung des Names Jehovah.” Hengstenberg challenges the reading Ἰαοὺ.

Von Baudissin, Studien z. semit. Religionsgeschichte I [1876] S. 181ff

W. W. Graf von Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (Leipzig: Wilhelm Grunow, 1876), 181ff.

1876

Baudissin does not discuss Clement of Alexandria in this section, which is titled, “Der Ursprung des Gottesnamen Ἰάω: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Tetragrammaton ‫יהוה‬.”

11th century CE

the earliest and most complete manuscript of the Stromateis

11th century CE

also known as the Catena Lipsiensis.a A Catena on the Octateuch

11th century CE

a Catena on Genesis and Exodus.b The manuscripts of this tradition may date back to Procopius of Gaza (6th century CE)

Witnesses to the form ἰαοὺ L

Laurentianus V 3

Witnesses to the form ἰὰ οὐαἰ Nic.

Nicephorus

Witnesses to the form ἰὰ οὐὲ Mon. 9

Monacens. 9

Chapter 3

82

Table 6.  Explanation of the Textual Apparatus of Stromateis 5.6.34 [Mon.] 82

Monacens. 82

16th century CE

a Catena on the Octateuchc

Reg. 1888

Reg. 1888

13th century CE

also known as Paris Graec. 129. A Catena on Genesis– Judges.d

Taurin. III 50

Taurin. III 50

16th century CE

a Catena on the Octateuche

Witnesses to the form ἰαοῦε Coisl. Seg. 308

Coisliniana Segeur 308 9th century CE

also known as Coisl. 113. See folio 368v for the form.f A Catena of Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 450 CE) on Genesis–Kingsg

Reg. 1825

Reg. 1825

also known as Paris Graec. 128. A Catena on the Octateuchh

12th century CE

a. Françoise Petit, Catena Graeca in Genesim et in Exodum I. Catena Sinaitica (CCSG 2; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1977), xxx. b. G. Karo and Johannes Lietzman, “Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus,” NGWGött (1902), 15. c.  Ibid., 13. d.  Petit, Catena Graeca in Genesim et in Exodum II, XC. e.  Karo and Lietzman, “Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus,” 13. f.  The revised edition of Stählin’s eclectic text revises the notation, “Coisl. Seg. 308,” to “Coisl. 113 fol. 368v.” This revised edition is the basis of the Greek text in the 1981 French edition. See Otto Stählin, Ludwig Früchtel, and Ursula Treu, eds., Clemens Alexandrinus, Zweiter Band: Stromata Buch I–VI, GCS 52 (Berlin: Akademie, 1960) and Alain le Boulluec, ed., Clément D’Alexandrie: Les Stromates, Stromate V, Tome I, Introduction, Texte Critique et Index, trans. Pierre Voulet, SC 278 (Paris: du Cerf, 1981), 21, 80. g.  Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 297. h.  Petit, Catena Graeca in Genesim et in Exodum I, xxvii.

Chapter 4

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8 Within the Exodus narrative, the phonological connection between ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫ יהוה‬generates an expectation that the moment of Yhwh’s greatest self-disclosure was imminent. The next major statement about the divine name appears in Exod 6:2–8. This text builds on ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ‫א‬ ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫“( א‬I will be whoever I will be”) by introducing a means through which one can “make sense” of Yhwh’s name. I will analyze Exod 6:2–8 closely, undertaking a literary onomastic reading of Genesis and Exodus to explain the meaning of Exod 6:3 in particular. Through this study, I will offer conclusions about the coherence of the canonical text and the unfolding of Yhwh’s onomastic revelation.

Boundaries of the Textual Unit According to the narrative, Moses approached Pharaoh after receiving the name ‫ יהוה‬at Sinai and declared the words Yhwh had commanded. Pharaoh’s reply to Moses’s request to worship Yhwh was defiant and arrogant: ‫ִׂש ָראֵל לֹא‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל לֹא יָדַ ְע ִּתי אֶת־יהוה ְוגַם אֶת־י‬ ְ ‫ֶׁשמַע ְּבק ֹלֹו ְלׁשַ ּלַח אֶת־י‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ִמי יהוה א‬ ‫“( אֲׁשַ ֵּל ַח‬Who is Yhwh, whose voice I should heed in order to let Israel go? I do not know Yhwh, and, furthermore, I will not let Israel go,” Exod 5:2). The interrogative ‫ ִמי‬should not be taken literally in this instance. Pharaoh was not asking for the identity of Moses and Aaron’s god––he was emphasizing his insignificance. 1 Furthermore, the phrase ‫ לֹא יָדַ ְע ִּתי‬introduces the theme of knowing Yhwh that will become prominent in the narrative. 2 The king of Egypt then forced the Israelites to gather their own straw for the daily brick-making, but he did not reduce their quota (Exod 5:4–11). The 1. In Jer 49:19, Edom’s boasting uses the same rhetoric: ‫ֲׁשר יַעֲמֹד ְל ָפנָי‬ ֶ ‫ּומי־זֶה רֹעֶה א‬ ִ (“And who is the shepherd who could stand before me?” This is said also of Babylon in Jer 50:44). See William A. Ford, God, Pharaoh, and Moses: Explaining the Lord’s Actions in the Exodus Plagues Narrative, PBM (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 46. 2. We cannot know with certainty what Pharaoh meant by declaring that he did not know Yhwh. If he had already learned of the name from the Hebrews, then his meaning was, “I do not recognize Yhwh.” This seems likely given the use of the verb ‫ ידע‬in Exod 1:8. For the claim that Moses, the Israelites, and Pharaoh knew the name Yhwh before the “revelations” of Exod 3 and 6, see Seitz, “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name,” 150–52.

83

84

Chapter 4

oppressed Israelites scolded Moses for speaking to Pharaoh and expressed fear that the Egyptian oppression would lead to their deaths (Exod 5:21). Moses vented his frustration to God in Exod 5:22–23. Yhwh had failed to deliver his people even when he came to Pharaoh in Yhwh’s name (ָ‫ׁשמֶך‬ ְ ‫)ּב‬. ִ This led to doubting his commission (‫ׁשל ְַח ָּתנִי‬ ְ ‫ ָלּמָה ּזֶה‬, “Why have you sent me?” Exod 5:22), and accusing Yhwh of acting wrongly against the people (‫רעע‬, Hiphil). In Yhwh’s first response to Moses’s complaints (Exod 6:1), he repeated the phrase ‫ָקה‬ ָ ‫חז‬ ֲ ‫ ְבּיָד‬as an allusion to Exod 3:19: ‫אנִי יָדַ ְע ִּתי ִּכי לֹא־יִּתֵ ן‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬ ְ ‫ֶתכֶם ֶמל‬ ‫ָקה‬ ָ ‫חז‬ ֲ ‫ֶך ִמ ְצרַ יִם ַלהֲל ְֹך ְולֹא ְּביָד‬ ְ ‫“( א‬But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go, that is, not without a strong hand”). Exodus 6:1 states generally and allusively that Yhwh would act, while Exod 6:2–8 explains why and how he would act. 3 Exodus 6:2–8 connects lexically and thematically to several earlier texts. The narrator notes in Exod 2:23–25 that God heard the Israelites’ cries (‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ ׁשַ ְוע‬and ‫ֲק ָתם‬ ָ ‫)נַא‬, causing him to remember his covenant with the patriarchs. 4 In Exod 3:7, God told Moses that he had heard the Israelites’ cries (‫ֲק ָתם‬ ָ ‫ ) ַצע‬and he would take Israel out of Egypt. In the context of making a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15, Yhwh had predicted the Egyptian oppression and the exodus. Israel’s cries of pain indicated that Yhwh’s prediction had been fulfilled, which signaled the time for him to act. Exodus 6:5 alludes to Gen 15, Exod 2:23–25, and Exod 3:7 when reporting that Yhwh heard )‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ׁשמ ְַע ִּתי אֶת־נַאֲקַ ת ְּבנֵי י‬ ָ ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ) and remembered (‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ּבִר‬ ְ ‫)ָו ֶאזְּכֹר א‬. Israel’s cries of pain impelled Yhwh to execute his promised deliverance. In Exod 3:16–17, Yhwh told Moses that he would rescue his covenant people, using two important verbs: ‫“( ּפָק ֹד ּפָקַ ְד ִּתי‬I will certainly intervene”) 3. Relying on the observation of Ibn Ezra, M. Z. Segal claims that Yhwh’s response to Moses’s complaints was chiastic. The response in Exod 6:1 answered Moses’s second complaint (5:23), and the speech of 6:2–8 addressed Moses’s concerns about his commission (5:22). “The Revelation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew),” 107. Cf. Elmer A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, 3rd ed. (Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1998), 7. However, Moses’s two (!) questions in Exod 5:22 and his accusation in v. 23 reflect overlapping concerns. Yhwh responded superficially to all of Moses’s complaints in Exod 6:1 and replied expansively to all in Exod 6:2–8. 4. Exodus 2:25 involves a significant textual variant. The unspecified phrase ‫ַוּיֵדַ ע‬ ‫“( אֱל ִֹהים‬And God knew”) occurs in the Septuagint as καὶ ἐγνώσθη αὐτοῖς (“and he was made known to them”). While this variant helpfully contributes to the theme of Yhwh becoming known through the events of the exodus, the Septuagint evidence remains suspect. The LXX often deviates from the MT with regard to divine designators, and here the Greek translator may have read ‫ אלהים‬as ‫אליהם‬, as did the Latin translator (i.e., ‫ אליהם‬as eos). The MT should be considered original because it is unlikely that the consonantal waw of a niphal yiqtol form would have dropped out. Rather, the Greek and Latin translators made an interpretive, smooth rendering of a difficult and ambiguous text. See John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, SBLSCS 30 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 24. It is possible that ‫ ַוּיֵדַ ע אֱל ִֹהים‬is elliptical or intentionally vague, only to be filled out by the later statement, ‫( יָדַ ְע ִּתי אֶת־מ ְַכאֹבָיו‬Exod 3:7). Given the connection between this verse and Gen 15:13–16, one could supply the following words: “God remembered his covenant . . . and God knew (that it was time to act).”

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

85

and ‫“( ַאעֲלֶה‬I will bring up,” cf. Exod 6:6). These two actions summarize the major movements of Yhwh’s coming action: intervening against Egypt through the plagues and bringing Israel up into the promised land. Joseph had predicted these events using the same terms (‫ִפק ֹד‬ ְ ‫ּפָקֹד י‬, ‫ו ֶהעֱלָה‬,ְ Gen 50:24–25; cf. Exod 13:19). Finally, Exod 4:31 reports that the Israelites recognized Yhwh’s promised intervention for them (‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ֶת־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫)ּכי־פָקַ ד יהוה א‬. ִ These earlier texts anticipated Yhwh’s coming intervention. His prediction to Abraham in Gen 15:13–16 made the sequence of his intervention clear: Abraham’s descendants would serve “the” nation (‫הַּגֹוי‬, Gen 15:14) for many years before Yhwh’s judgment would fall on their enemies (‫ּדן אָנ ִֹכי‬, ָ Gen 15:14). Exodus 3:7–10 links to Exod 2:23–25 by the mention of Israel’s “crying out” and Yhwh’s intention to deliver them: in Exod 2:24 he remembers his covenant (‫ֶת־ּבִריתֹו‬ ְ ‫ ) ַו ִּיזְּכֹר אֱל ִֹהים א‬and in Exod 3:8 he descends to rescue them (‫)ָואֵרֵד ְלה ִַּצילֹו‬. These words allude to Gen 15 in the early chapters of Exodus and show the organic unity between Yhwh’s predictions to the patriarchs and to Moses. 5 Foreshadowing in Genesis leads to fulfillment in Exodus. Yhwh’s speech in Exod 6:2–8 announces the dawn of a new redemptive-historical era that had been predicted from the time of Abraham. 6 Exodus 6:2–8 forms a distinct subunit with a larger literary unit (Exod 5:22–7:7), which contains Moses’s complaints about Yhwh’s supposed inaction and Yhwh’s responses. This unit also clarifies Aaron’s role in the exodus events. Exodus 6:1 is introduced by ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַּיֹאמֶר יהוה אֶל־מ‬, and Exod 6:2 by ‫ׁשה וַּיֹאמֶר ֵאלָיו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְדַ ּבֵר אֱל ִֹהים אֶל־מ‬, but this “duplication” is a common literary feature in Yhwh’s speeches and should not be marshalled against a holistic reading (cf. Exod 3:13–15 and 33:19–23). Exodus 6:2–8 expands on Yhwh’s initial response to Moses’s doubts and complaints, providing God’s definitive statement, which Moses reported in Exod 6:9. 7 The genealogy and summaries in Exod 6:10–7:7 also mark off Exod 6:2–8 as a literary (sub)unit. 8 The genealogy affirmed the credentials and commission­ 5. Although these texts may appear to be doublets, they have different rhetorical purposes: the narrator speaks in Exod 2:23–25, God speaks in Exod 3:7–10, and then Moses was to speak to the Israelites in Exod 3:16–17. 6. For further arguments that Exod 3 and 6 were composed in conscious relationship to each other, see Jonathan Magonet, “The Bush that Never Burnt: Narrative Techniques in Exodus 3 and 6,” The Heythrop Journal 16 (1975): 311. 7. Though the MT has a pĕtuḥa division after Exod 6:9, this should not conclusively determine the boundaries of the unit. Exodus 6:2–8 contains a coherent speech of God, and 6:1 and 6:9 introduce and conclude it in a narrative frame. Nevertheless, Yhwh seems to indicate that Moses is only to repeat the second half of the divine speech to the Israelites. 8. Some view the lengthy genealogy as a secondary insertion within the P text of Exod 6:2–7:7. Noth, Exodus, 58; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 153; and Propp, Exodus 1–18, 269. Regardless of the text’s prehistory, the inclusion of Moses and Aaron’s line of descent fits the narrative context well, as shown above. Phinehas is mentioned last in the genealogy, suggesting that the biblical author also wanted to explain or justify this hero’s descent from Aaron.

86

Chapter 4

of these two men who would represent Israel’s God. 9 The words ‫הּוא ַאהֲרֹן‬ ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫( ּומ‬inverted as ‫ׁשה ְו ַאהֲרֹן‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ הּוא מ‬in the following verse) show that the genealogy was given to identify and locate these two men within Israel’s family tree (Exod 6:26–27). 10 Many features of Exod 6:12 are repeated in Exod 6:28–30 to allow for a smooth transition between the genealogy of Moses and Aaron and Yhwh’s statement that Aaron would be Moses’s spokesman (Exod 7:1– 2). Moses’s repeated claim that he was “uncircumcised of lips” (Exod 6:12, 30) reminds the reader why Aaron was given to help Moses.

Genre J. Wimmer has categorized this passage as an “announcement of salvation” (Heilsankündigung or Heilsorakel). Through this form, the speaker (often a prophet) proclaimed a future event in the perfect tense, offering assurance to hearers who were in distress. 11 Wimmer argues that Yhwh’s response to Israel’s plight in Exod 6:5–8 contains the most distinguishing elements of this form: communal lament (though reported by Yhwh in 5a), God’s favorable awareness (vv. 5c, 6b), God’s promise of action (vv. 6c–7b), and a purpose clause (vv. 7c–d). Wimmer asserts that inclusion of the “covenant formula” (vv.  7a–b) within this oracle of salvation softened Yhwh’s emphasis on the obligations of the covenant. 12 According to Claus Westermann, the oracle of salvation can sometimes be combined with a “disputation” (‫ריב‬,ִ Gerichtswort). 13 The prophets employed this form to quote and refute the people’s words, then to give Yhwh’s judgment on the matter at hand. 14 Manuel Oliva sees some of these features in Exod 6:2–8. He interprets Exod 6:2–5 as the basis ( fundamentación) of Yhwh’s action, v. 6a as the “messenger formula” (‫) ָלכֵן אֱמֹר‬, and Exod 6:6–8 as Yhwh’s decision (sentencia, Urteil  ) on the matter. 15 9. I will argue below that Exod 6:2–7:7 should not be classified as a “call narrative.” However, because Moses accepted his call in Exod 3:1–4:17, it is possible for us to describe Exod 6:2–7:7 as a reaffirmation of Moses’s call through the help of Aaron. See Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 88–90. 10. The “pleonastic” pronoun ‫ הּוא‬is often used in clauses of identification. Francis I. Andersen classifies Exod 6:27 as an “independent declarative verbless clause.” See The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, JBLMS 14 (New York: Abingdon, 1970), 52. 11. Isaiah 44:23 exemplifies this clearly: ‫“( ִּכי־ָגאַל יהוה יַעֲק ֹב‬for Yhwh has redeemed Jacob”). 12. Joseph F. Wimmer, “Tradition Reinterpreted in Ex 6,2–7,7,” Augustinianum 7 (1967): 410–16, esp. p. 412. It seems that Wimmer interprets the wĕqatal forms of Exod 6:6–8 as “prophetic perfects,” though his article does not state this directly. 13. Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, OTL (London: SCM, 1969), 11–14. 14. Adrian Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets, Analecta Biblica 104 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1984), 105–9. 15. Manuel Oliva, “Revelación del nombre de Yahweh en la ‘Historia sacerdotal’: Ex 6,2–8,” Biblica 52 (1971): 1–19.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

87

Table 7.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 6:2–8 ‫ אֶל־מ ֶֹׁשה‬a‫ ַויְדַ ּבֵר אֱל ִֹהים‬2a ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר ֵאלָיו‬2b ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ 2c b

‫ ְּבאֵל ׁשַ ָּדי‬. . . . . . . . . . ‫ ָואֵרָא‬3a

‫ִצחָק ְואֶל־יַעֲקֹב‬ ְ ‫ אֶל־א ְַב ָרהָם אֶל־י‬3b c

Then God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am Yhwh. I appeared . . . . . . . . . . as the God of fertilityd, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob

‫ּוׁש ִמי יהוה לֹא נֹודַ ְע ִּתי ָלהֶם‬ ְ 3c

but with respect toemy name Yhwh I did not become knownf to them.

‫יתי ִא ָּתם‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ּבִר‬ ְ ‫ֲקמ ִֹתי א‬ ִ ‫ ְוגַם ה‬4a

And, furthermore, I established my covenant with them,

‫לָתֵ ת ָלהֶם אֶת־ ֶארֶץ ְּכנָעַן‬ ‫אֵת ֶארֶץ ְמגֻרֵיהֶם‬ ‫ֲׁשר־ּגָרּו בָּה‬ ֶ‫א‬

4b 4c

the land of their sojournings

4d

in which they sojourned.

‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ׁשמ ְַע ִּתי אֶת־נַאֲקַ ת ְּבנֵי י‬ ָ ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ ְוגַם‬5a ‫ֲב ִדים א ָֹתם‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ִמ ְצרַ יִם ַמע‬ ֶ ‫ א‬5b ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ּבִר‬ ְ ‫ ָו ֶאזְּכֹר א‬5c ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ ָלכֵן אֱמֹר ִל ְבנֵי־י‬6a ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ 6b ‫ֶתכֶם ִמּתַ חַת ִס ְבלֹת ִמ ְצרַ יִם‬ ְ ‫ֵאתי א‬ ִ ‫ ְוהֹוצ‬6c ‫ֶתכֶם ֵמעֲב ָֹד ָתם‬ ְ ‫ ְו ִהּצ ְַל ִּתי א‬6d ‫ְרֹוע נְטּויָה‬ ַ ‫ֶתכֶם ִּבז‬ ְ ‫ ְוָגא ְַל ִּתי א‬6e ‫ָטים ּגְד ִֹלים‬ ִ ‫ׁשפ‬ ְ ‫ּוב‬ ִ ‫ֶתכֶם ִלי ְלעָם‬ ְ ‫ ְולָקַ ְח ִּתי א‬7a ‫ִיתי ָלכֶם לֵאל ִֹהים‬ ִ ‫ ְו ָהי‬7b ‫אנִי יהוה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִוידַ ְע ֶּתם ִּכי‬

7c

‫ֶתכֶם ִמּתַ חַת‬ ְ ‫ַּמֹוציא א‬ ִ ‫ה‬ ‫ִס ְבלֹות ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬

7d

‫ֶתכֶם אֶל־ ָה ָארֶץ‬ ְ ‫ֵאתי א‬ ִ ‫ ְו ֵהב‬8a ‫ָדי‬ ִ ‫אתי אֶת־י‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר נ‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ּוליַעֲקֹב‬ ְ ‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫לָתֵ ת א ָֹתּה ְלא ְַב ָרהָם ְלי‬

to give them the land of Canaan,

8b 8c

‫ׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ְונָתַ ִּתי א ָֹתּה ָלכֶם מֹו ָר‬8d ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ 8e

And, furthermore, I have heard the groanings of the Israelites whom the Egyptians are making to work, and I have remembered my covenant. Therefore, say to the Israelites: I am Yhwh, I will bring you out from beneath the Egyptians’ forced labor And I will deliver you from serving them And I will redeem you with an extended arm and great acts of judgment And I will take you to myself as a people And I will become God for you. Theng you will come to knowh that I am Yhwh your God who brings you out from beneath the Egyptians’ forced labor And I will bring you to the land that I lifted up my hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob And I will give it to you as an acquisition. I am Yhwh.

a.  The Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‫ יהוה‬in place of ‫אֱל ִֹהים‬. This is supported by some LXX manuscripts, the Old Latin, Justin Martyr, as well as the Syriac and Vulgate versions. Nevertheless, the MT is preferable on internal evidence. The reading ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬can be defended on onomastic grounds: because the Deity contrasted the epithet ‫ אֵל ׁשַ ָּדי‬with the proper name ‫יהוה‬, a third designator was needed to refer to him.

88

Chapter 4

b.  The LXX reads θεὸς ὢν αὐτῶν (“being their God”), while the Syriac version has bʾylšdy ʾlhʾ (“as the God El Shaddai”). Given the lack of further support in the other versions, both readings should be seen as interpretations of a difficult text rather than evidence for a variant Hebrew reading. c.  The LXX reads ἐδήλωσα (“I showed”), which is followed by the Syriac version, three Targums (Onqelos, Neofiti, and the Fragmentary Targum), and the Vulgate. This reading attempts to smooth out the syntactic difficulty of the statement. It is unlikely that the LXX represents an original Hebrew text, because the (earlier) Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the MT. ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬is a lectio dificilior that was smoothed out by some later translators. They may have interpreted ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬as a Hiphil and ‫ּוׁש ִמי‬ ְ as its object. The sole Qumran manuscript that contains Exod 6:3, 4QExodh, only preserves the ending ‫תי‬. See Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Qumran Biblical Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 38. d.  I have chosen to translate the transparent designator ‫“( אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬the God of fertility”) rather than transliterate it (“El Shaddai”). For my defense of this decision, see below, p. 98–100. e.  ‫ּוׁש ִמי יהוה‬ ְ can be interpreted as a “double-subject” construction or an “accusative of limitation.” In either case, this phrase specifies the means by which the subject of ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬performs his action. See below, p. 93–94. f. See below, pp.  94–95, for a defense of this dynamic translation of the Niphal verb. g. The wĕqatal form ‫ ִוידַ ְע ֶּתם‬is subordinated to the verb ‫ִיתי‬ ִ ‫ו ָהי‬,ְ though it likely expresses the next action in the temporal and logical sequence. h.  See below, p. 108 n. 97, for a justification of this translation.

However, the majority of scholars identify Exod 6:2–8 as a “call narrative,” analogous to Exod 3:1–4:17. 16 This generic classification goes handin-hand with a Documentary approach: Exod 3:1–4:17 reports JE’s (or the “non-Priestly”) call of Moses, 17 while Exod 6:2–7:7 reports P’s call of Moses. The Priestly call narrative emphasizes the role of Aaron, while the nonPriestly text does not. 18 Furthermore, both texts contain Yhwh’s command to Moses (Exod 3:10 and 6:6, 10) and Moses’s objections to that command (Exod 3:11; 4:10 and 5:22–23; 6:12, 30). 16. See Noth, Exodus, 58; Cornelis Houtman, Exodus, trans. Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra, 2 vols., HCOT (Kampen: Kok, 1993), 1:495; Jaeyoung Jeon, The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13, FAT 2/60 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 188–89. Based on its place in the narrative, Propp remarks that P’s “call theophany” has been turned into a scene of reassurance. See Exodus 1–18, 268. George Coats sees these parallel “vocation accounts” as structural cores around which the “saga” of Exod 1–13 [sic] unfolds. See Exodus 1–18, 9–10. 17. Interpreters disagree about the extent of J and E within Exod 3–4. For a summary of scholarly views, see Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. James D. Nogalski, Siphrut 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 173–75. 18. Coats, Exodus 1–18, 59. Critical scholars rightly draw attention to Aaron’s role in Exod 6, but they go too far in categorizing this a “call narrative.”

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

89

Whereas Exod 3:1–4:18 clearly constitutes a call narrative, Exod 6:2–7:7 (and the subunit Exod 6:2–8) does not reflect such features. 19 In Exod 6:1– 8, Yhwh responded to Moses’s complaints about a calling he had already accepted, as is made clear by Moses’s phrase ‫ׁשל ְַח ָּתנִי‬ ְ ‫“( ָלּמָה ּזֶה‬Why have you sent me?” Exod 5:22). Many critical scholars assume that this text implies a call, and they label it as such so that JE and P contain a call narrative. However, Exod 6:2–8 clearly presents itself as a “divine speech” 20 that explains why Yhwh was about to act (Exod 6:2–5) and what precisely he would do (Exod 6:6–8). Those who offer a different generic category are forced to speculate about the original social setting of the text or to foist an interpretive grid onto a text that resists it. The broadest categorization, “divine speech,” is the most appropriate in this case.

Literary Structure The articles and rejoinders written by Pierre Auffret and Jonathan Magonet orbit around the structure of Yhwh’s speech. Auffret used capital letters to summarize the major statements in Exod 6:2–8. 21 He argued that the structure of the divine speech was inverted to reflect Israel’s situation: the fathers’ sojourn in Canaan (v. 4) and Israel’s enslavement in Egypt (v. 5) impeded Yhwh’s execution of the covenant promise and the revelation of his name (v. 3). However, Yhwh promised to overcome both to fulfill his promise (vv. 6–8). 22 Jonathan Magonet built on the work of Nehama Leibowitz, who observed that the phrase ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ (vv. 2c, 8e) begins a ring structure that includes the patriarchs (vv. 3b, 8c), the land of Canaan (vv. 4b, 8a), and Israel’s laborious work in Egypt (vv. 5b, 7d). Magonet extended this ring structure. He argued that the second and third occurrences of ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ (vv. 6b, 7c) are symmetrical and that the reference to Yhwh’s deliverance from slavery (v. 6c) and his becoming their God (v. 7a–b) make up the innermost pair of the ring structure. 23 Auffret and Magonet have demonstrated the coherence of Exod 6:2–8. The self-introductory formula ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ brackets Yhwh’s speech, while references to the land, the patriarchs, and the Egyptian oppression bind its 19. Exodus 6:2–8 does not contain the five literary features of biblical call narratives as noticed by Norman Habel. See “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” 297–323. See also my discussion of this biblical form above, pp. 45–47. 20. I have adopted this category from the Forms of Old Testament Literature series. A “divine speech” is defined as “a reference to or quotation of a speech of the deity.” Coats, Exodus 1–18, 160. 21. Auffret uses the following in his translation and diagrams: Y (Yhwh), O (oath), C (Canaan), and E (Egyptians). See “The Literary Structure of Exodus 6.2–8,” JSOT 27 (1983): 46–54. 22. Thus, OCEY becomes YECO. Ibid., 51. 23. Jonathan Magonet, “The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6.2–8,” JSOT 27 (1983): 62.

90

Chapter 4

two subunits. 24 Furthermore, Yhwh is the subject of Exod 6:2–8, giving these verses a rhetorical unity. However, his speech should be divided into two subunits only: Exod 6:2–5 reports Yhwh’s personal message to Moses, and Exod 6:6–8 reports what Moses was to say to the Israelites. Auffret and Magonet have failed to find a satisfactory ring structure that applies to the whole. 25 Their approach unhelpfully divides the seven consecutive wĕqatal verbs in Exod 6:6–8 into a forced chiasm. Four examples of the self-identification formula ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ punctuate Yhwh’s speech to indicate shifts in emphasis. In Exod 6:2–5, Yhwh stated the basis for his coming intervention by referring to the past (‫ָואֵרָא‬, ‫ֲקמ ִֹתי‬ ִ ‫;ה‬ vv. 3a, 4a) and the present 26 (‫ָו ֶאזְּכֹר‬, ‫;ׁשמ ְַע ִּתי‬ ָ vv. 5a, 5c). In Exod 6:6–8, Yhwh promised to act for his covenant people, making his predictions with seven future-tense wĕqatal verbs. Thus, the identity and action of Yhwh is the central structuring feature of Exod 6:2–8. 27 The first instance of ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ introduces Yhwh’s covenant to the patriarchs as the basis of his present action (Exod 6:2–5). These words were meant solely for Moses. The inclusio created by the word ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ְּבִר‬in vv. 4a and 5c shows that the Israel of Moses’s day was included in the ancient covenant made with Abraham. By stating that he had “established” a covenant with the patriarchs (‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ּבִר‬ ְ ‫ֲקמ ִֹתי א‬ ִ ‫)ה‬, rather than that he “made” it (‫)כרת‬, Yhwh indicated his affirmation or fulfillment of an existing covenant. 28 By stating that he “remembered” the covenant, Yhwh spoke not merely of mental 24. See John Frederick Evans, “An Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Intertextual Reading of Ezekiel’s Recognition Formulae with the Book of Exodus,” Ph.D. diss. (University of Stellenbosch, 2006), 304. 25. See Pierre Auffret, “Remarks on J. Magonet’s Interpretation of Exodus 6.2–8,” JSOT 27 (1983): 69–71; and Jonathan Magonet, “A Response to P. Auffret’s ‘Literary Structure of Exodus 6.2–8,’” JSOT 27 (1983): 73–74. 26. Though both of these verbs can indicate an action in the past, the context requires them to be read as present perfects (i.e., “I have heard” and “I have remembered”). 27. Richard Medina comes to the same conclusions in his recent final-form analysis of the divine speech. Medina considers verbal sequences rather than thematic correspondence as determinative for interpretation. He helpfully refers to Exod 6:2–5 as “narrative discourse” (Discurso Narrativo) and Exod 6:6–8 as “predictive discourse” (Discurso Predictivo). See “La estructura sintáctica y la interpretación de Éxodo 6:2–9,” DavarLogos 4 (2005): 101–115, esp. p.  108. Manuel Oliva rightly notes that the subunits of Yhwh’s speech refer to the past and the future respectively. “Revelación del nombre de Yahweh en la ‘Historia sacerdotal’: Ex 6,2–8,” 19. 28. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 79. According to this interpretation, Yhwh’s covenant with Abraham was new (Gen 15:18, ‫)כרת‬, while his covenants with Noah (Gen 6:18; 9:9ff.), Abraham (Gen 17:7ff.), and Isaac (Gen 26:3) were mere affirmations of previous ones. The use of two different verbs with ‫ ְבִּרית‬need not indicate separate literary sources. William J. Dumbrell has further explored this distinction and given biblical theologians an impetus for further study on biblical covenants. See Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 16–20.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

91

recollection, but of his intention to act upon the oath he swore to Abraham. 29 Though the promise of many offspring had been fulfilled, Pharaoh had enslaved the descendants of Israel and had imprisoned them in the land of Egypt. The covenant promise of land remained unfulfilled in the days of Moses, but God’s great act of deliverance from Egypt’s oppression would soon fulfill it. The two instances of ‫ ְוגַם‬in vv. 4a and 5a summarize Yhwh’s relationship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: Yhwh had appeared to them as the God of fertility, 30 but he had also (‫ ְ)וגַם‬established a covenant with them, and (‫ְ)וגַם‬ had heard the cries of their descendants. 31 Exodus 6:2–5 (esp. the allusions to earlier texts in v. 5) bridges the large gap between the patriarchs and the Israelites of Moses’s day. Though Yhwh was known to the patriarchs by a different title (v. 3a), his identity was unchanged and his unbroken covenant with Israel’s ancestors guaranteed divine intervention for them (v. 5c). The second occurrence of ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ introduces the words Moses was to proclaim to Israel (Exod 6:6–8). The seven first-person wĕqatal verbs that follow in vv. 6–8 emphasize the certainty and completeness of Yhwh’s promises. Cassuto places these verbs under three categories: liberation (v. 6c–e), mutual relationship (v. 7a–b), and acquisition of land (vv. 8a, 8d). 32 The covenant formula (“And I will take you to myself as a people, and I will become God for you,” v. 7a–b) fills out Yhwh’s prediction in Gen 17:7 “to be God to you and your offspring after you.” 33 Yhwh concluded the speech by developing the land promise: the patriarchs were merely sojourners in the promised land (‫)גִֵּרים‬, but their descendants would receive it as a permanent acquisition (‫ָׁשה‬ ָ ‫)מֹור‬. 29. This reflects stereotyped language (Gen 9:15, 16; Exod 2:24). God’s remembering a covenant entailed his action for the covenant partners. Later texts make clear that Yhwh remembered for the benefit (blessing) or detriment (curses) of his covenant partners based on their obedience to the covenant stipulations. 30. For a justification of this translation, see below, pp. 98–100. 31. On the additive force of the particle ‫גַּם‬, see T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 143–46. Muraoka concludes that ‫ גַּם‬usually indicates the addition of an assertion to an existing assertion, though in a few instances it has an asseverative-emphatic force (“surely” or “certainly”). Structural clues ultimately indicate that this particle here expresses its “normal” additive force. 32. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 80. Elmer Martens applies the structure of Exod 5:22–6:8 to the entire Old Testament as an organizing theological framework. He discusses the categories “salvation,” “the covenant community,” “knowledge of god,” and “land” as they pertain to the major eras of Israel’s history. He thus makes a case for a truly biblical theology. See God’s Design, 16. Martens’s aim is sound and his method robustly exegetical, but his application of the seven wĕqatal verbs as a fourfold framework is problematic. Though Martens can appeal to the Jewish tradition that condenses Exod 6:6–8 into a fourfold scheme, Cassuto has shown that the seven verbs in this text are best distilled into three categories. The verb ‫ ִוידַ ְע ֶּתם‬comprises his fourth category, but this verb is best seen as the climax of Exod 6:6–8 rather than an ancillary theme. 33. Ibid., 72.

92

Chapter 4

The third instance of ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ appears among these verbs, providing the focal point of Yhwh’s speech. 34 It declares the goal of Yhwh’s promised actions: that Israel would know that the one about to intervene was named “Yhwh.” This statement inserts a second-person plural wĕqatal verb into the stream of first-person singular wĕqatal verbs, thus breaking its flow. This statement, ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ ‫וידַ ְע ֶּתם ִּכי‬,ִ known as the “recognition formula,” is bracketed by the words ‫ִיתי ָלכֶם לֵאל ִֹהים‬ ִ ‫ ְו ָהי‬and ‫אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬. The recognition formula and the words surrounding it emphasize that Yhwh was Israel’s God, and that Israel would come to know their God as their savior through the events of the exodus––he would bring them out of Egypt (vv. 6d, 7d). This experience contrasts sharply with that of the patriarchs, because Yhwh apparently did not become known to them by that name. 35 The final ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ concludes the speech with divine solemnity, ascribing these promised actions to the one named Yhwh.

Linguistic Features of Exodus 6:3 This literary framework aids interpretation of the particulars. It remains to scrutinize the meaning of Exod 6:3 and its implications for understanding the divine name ‫ יהוה‬in the Exodus narrative. 36 Many recognize the unusual syntax of Exod 6:3. Randall Garr notes that ‫ ָואֵרָא‬and ‫ ְּבאֵל ׁשַ ָּדי‬refer to the same subject, though the latter uses the prep34. Furthermore, the phrase ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ falls in the center of the speech, with 25 words before and 25 after. 35. Auffret, “The Literary Structure of Exodus 6.2–8,” 48. 36. Many studies of Exod 6:3 use this text to address source critical approaches to the Pentateuch. Those who read Genesis and Exodus harmonistically (and reject the Documentary Hypothesis) include R. D. Wilson, “Critical Note on Exodus VI. 3,” PTR 22 (1924): 108–19; Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name; and L. M. Eslinger, “Knowing Yahweh: Exodus 6:3 in the Context of Genesis 1–Exodus 15,” in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman (Assen: van Gorcum, 1996), 188–99. Those who adhere to some form of the Documentary Hypothesis and explain Exod 6:3 within the P narrative include Norbert Lohfink, “Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der Offenbarung des Jahwenames an Mose,” Biblica 49 (1968): 1–8; and W. Randall Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111 (1992): 385–408. For a harmonistic reading of a scholar who dates the composition of the Pentateuch very late, see T. L. Thompson, “How Yahweh Became God: Exodus 3 and 6 and the Heart of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 68 (1995): 57–73. Most recent studies tend to modify classic source-critical approaches while not abandoning the method. See Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis,” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, SBLSymS 34 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 107–29; and John Van Seters, “The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between the Two Origin Traditions,” in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, ed. C. Houtman and Riemer Roukema, CBET 44 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 1–15. Graham Davies acknowledges but avoids most source-critical approaches to this text (as well as Exod 3:13–15 and 34:5–8), focusing instead on intratextual exegesis. See “The Exegesis of the Divine Name in Exodus,” 139–56.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

93

osition ‫ ְּב‬in a rare but significant way. Waltke and O’Connor categorize this as a beth essentiae, which “marks the capacity in which an actor behaves.” 37 Accordingly, ‫ ְּבאֵל ׁשַ ָּדי‬offers a partial view of the subject of ‫ָואֵרָא‬. 38 This special use of the preposition limits the subject (the God of Moses) to a certain role in which he served (‫)אֵל ׁשַ ּדַ י‬. God did not appear to the patriarchs with full disclosure, but with a partial disclosure, represented by the designator ‫אֵל ׁשַ ּדַ י‬. 39 In light of this, Garr can tackle the clause ‫ּוׁש ִמי יהוה לֹא נֹודַ ְע ִּתי ָלהֶם‬. ְ He notes that the verb ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬agrees with the first-person pronominal suffix of ‫ּוׁש ִמי‬ ְ rather than with the noun ‫ׁשֵם‬, or else the verb would have been ‫נֹודַ ע‬. This “double subject” construction sets the noun in the background and the subject (represented by the pronominal suffix) in the foreground, though both participate in the verbal action. Thus, “the part [here the noun ‫]ׁשֵם‬ acts as the vehicle through which the whole [here the suffix on ‫ׁש ִמי‬, ְ referring to Yhwh] is involved in a situation.” 40 This double subject construction requires further explanation. Instances in which a noun with a first- (or second)-person pronominal suffix is followed by a first- (or second)-person verb occur mainly in poetic texts. For example, ‫ֶקרָא‬ ְ ‫קֹולי אֶל־יהוה א‬ ִ (“by my voice I call out to Yhwh,” Ps 3:5; see also Ps 27:7; 142:2 [2×]), ‫ת‬ ּ ָ ‫ָדךָ ּגֹויִם הֹורַ ְׁש‬ ְ ‫ַתּה י‬ ָ ‫“( א‬You dispossessed nations by your hand,” Ps 44:3), ‫בֹודי‬ ִ ‫ַף־ּכ‬ ְ ‫אז ְַּמרָה א‬ ֲ ‫ָׁשירָה ַו‬ ִ ‫“( נָכֹון ִל ִּבי אֱל ִֹהים א‬God, my heart is steadfast. I will sing and play music, even by my glory,” Ps 108:2), and ָ‫ח ֶרּך‬ ֲ ַ‫ַף־רּוחי ְב ִק ְר ִּבי אֲׁש‬ ִ ‫יתיךָ ַּב ַּל ְילָה א‬ ִ ‫ׁשי ִאִּו‬ ִ ‫“( נ ְַפ‬by my life I have desired you in the night, even by my spirit within me do I search for you,” Isa 26:9). It is also possible to view ‫ּוׁש ִמי‬ ְ as an “accusative of limitation.” 41 The difference between the two grammatical options is minor, and the meaning is not affected significantly by either option. Both classifications emphasize that the pronominal suffix of the noun is the agent of the verb, while the noun itself indicates the means through which the action is performed. Both the beth essentiae and the double subject construction demonstrate that God’s name “Yhwh” was a vehicle for a more complete revelation of himself. The appearance of the Deity in the role of the God of fertility (‫ )אֵל ׁשַ ּדַ י‬afforded a partial view of him, whereas the name ‫ יהוה‬would be the focal point of a fuller revelation. 37. IBHS 198. Other examples of this phenomenon occur in Gen 1:26; Exod 3:2; 18:4; Isa 40:10; Ps 118:7, and so on. 38. W. Randall Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111 (1992): 388. 39. For similar claims, see Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name, 14; Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 78–79; and Medina, “La estructura sintáctica y la interpretación de Éxodo 6,” 114–15. Medina’s article concludes with charts that clearly depict the different roles of ‫ אֵל ׁשַ ּדַ י‬and ‫יהוה‬. 40. Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” 394. 41. See Joüon, 455. Examples include Gen 3:15; 17:11; 37:21; 41:40; and Ps 3:8, most of which lack the object marker ‫אֶת‬. “With respect to” is a good translation in most instances.

94

Chapter 4

Yet the meaning of ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬further complicates this verse. The verb ‫ידע‬ occurs frequently in the Hebrew Bible and exhibits a wide semantic range. It can be translated “know by experience” ( Josh 23:14), “recognize” ( Jer 14:20), “have sexual intercourse with” (Gen 4:1, 17), or “choose” (single out for a special relationship; Gen 18:19 and perhaps Amos 3:2). Broadly classified, ‫ ידע‬refers to acts of perception and may overlap in meaning with ‫ראה‬ (1 Sam 23:22–23; 24:12). Sometimes the act of knowing refers to obvious first-time perceptions (Gen 9:24; 2 Kgs 5:15; Ezek 43:11), but on other occasions it implies a deeper understanding of facts or persons already known ( Judg 15:11; Isa 63:16; Ps 76:2). The Niphal stem further affects the meaning of ‫ ידע‬in this verse. The 40 Niphal forms of ‫ ידע‬appear in diverse contexts, with diverse subjects. In some cases, the Niphal indicates a process whereby an existing state of affairs becomes known (Lev 4:14; Ruth 3:3). However, this process is not expressed inherently in the verb or the stem. 42 Thus, the aspect of ‫ ידע‬in the Niphal stem must be determined from its immediate context, rather than from deductive “rules.” The voice of the Niphal is determined by the action of the verb in context. Steven Boyd’s synchronic study of the Niphal in Biblical Hebrew has demonstrated that this stem rarely, if ever, communicates a reflexive idea. 43 Boyd considers the nature of each verb before assigning it a semantic value according to a “valence theory” of linguistics in which the verb is understood as the central feature of the sentence that controls the semantics of the verbal arguments. 44 He has argued that the verb ‫( ידע‬along with ‫ ראה‬and ‫ )שׁמר‬has a “stative-transitive” base. When this base is transformed by the Niphal stem, the result is a figurative movement from one state to another. 45 Boyd understands ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬in Exod 6:3 as a “self-move” middle whereby the subject controls the movement of the action. 46 Boyd also brings forward as evidence the preposition ‫ ל‬that follows the verb. This understanding, along with the function of the double subject construction in Exod 6:3, allows one to translate ‫ּוׁש ִמי יְהוָה לֹא נֹודַ ְע ִּתי ָלהֶם‬ ְ as “and with respect to my name Yhwh I did not become known to them.” 47 42. See Gen 41:31, Ezek 36:32; and Ruth 3:14. 43. Steven W. Boyd, “A Synchronic Analysis of the Medio-Passive-Reflexive in Biblical Hebrew,” Ph.D. diss. (Hebrew Union College, 1993), 274. It should be noted that the two examples of ‫ ידע‬in the Hithpael stem clearly express a reflexive idea. 44. Ibid., 76. 45. Ibid., 229–32. 46. The other examples of first-person Niphal forms of ‫ ידע‬appear in Ezekiel (20:5, 9; 35:11; and 38:23). In each case, one can argue that no reflexivity is involved in the verbal action, since the subject of the verb (Yhwh) controls the movement of the action away from himself. While one may debate the reflexivity of these actions in the Niphal, we can point with certainty to the Hithpael stem of ‫ ידע‬as having a reflexive meaning (Num 12:6, cf. Gen 45:1). Also, the Niphal of ‫ ידע‬was preferred over the Hithpael in Ezek 38:23, despite the verbal parallels. This is perhaps due to the recognition formula that follows. 47. See Isa 19:21 and Ruth 3:3 for similar Niphal forms followed by ‫ל‬.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

95

Some argue that a special theological meaning of ‫ ידע‬clarifies this difficult verse. Garr notes that this verb can connote a covenant relationship (Ezek 20:5; Amos 3:2). 48 Thus, he reinterprets Exod 6:3 in such a context: El Shaddai made covenantal promises, but Yhwh became the object of full covenantal knowledge on fulfilling those promises. Garr’s scheme is helpful but requires further support. It remains to explain if the canonical narrative affirms this distinction and why the designators ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫ יהוה‬would be assigned to distinct aspects of Yhwh’s progressive (covenantal) revelation. The medieval commentator Rashi noted that if Exod 6:3 was stating that God did not reveal a name to the patriarchs, then a different stem of ‫ידע‬ would have been used. The Hiphil stem would indicate that Yhwh did not make known his name, but Rashi tersely notes that “‘I did not make known’ is not written here (‫)לא הודעתי אין כתיב כאן‬.” 49 Rashi recognized that the Niphal form communicates that the patriarchs knew God’s name Yhwh but did not recognize him in his “attribute of truth” (‫)במדת אמתות‬. 50 Given the broad semantic range of ‫ׁשֵם‬, it is difficult to specify its precise meaning when used with the verb ‫ידע‬. But my earlier discussion of the metaphorical/connotative aspect of ‫ ׁשֵם‬may explain this collocation. 51 This noun serves as the direct object of ‫ ידע‬only 10 times in the Hebrew Bible. 52 The instances in which Yhwh’s name becomes known deserve closer attention. In 1 Kgs 8:43 (and its parallel in 2 Chr 6:33), Solomon urged Yhwh to respond to the prayers of non-Israelites. An answer to their prayers would result in all the nations knowing Yhwh’s name (‫ְל ַמעַן י ְֵדעּון ָכּל־ ַע ֵמּי ָה ָארֶץ אֶת־‬ ָ‫)שמֶך‬ ְ ‫)לי ְִראָה א ְֹתךָ ְּכע ְַּמךָ י‬. ְ Israel’s neighְׁ and fearing him as Israel does (‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ bors could recognize that the God named “Yhwh” answered their prayers. 48. Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” 406–8. Furthermore, Isa 19:21 and 61:9 can be put alongside Garr’s examples, both of which appear in covenant contexts: ‫ָדרּו־נֵדֶר לַיהוה‬ ְ ‫ּומ ְנחָה ְונ‬ ִ ‫ָבדּו זֶבַח‬ ְ ‫ָדעּו ִמ ְצרַ יִם אֶת־יהוה ּבַּיֹום הַהּוא ְוע‬ ְ ‫ְונֹודַ ע יהוה ְל ִמ ְצרַ יִם ְוי‬ ‫ׁשּלֵמּו‬ ִ ‫“( ְו‬Then Yhwh will become known to Egypt and the Egyptians will know Yhwh on that day. They will perform sacrifices and gifts, and they will vow vows to Yhwh and fulfill ְ ‫א ָצאֵיהֶם ְּב‬ them,” Isa 19:21) and ‫תֹוך ָהע ִַּמים ּכָל־רֹאֵיהֶם י ִַּכירּום ִּכי הֵם זֶרַ ע ּבֵרַ ְך‬ ֱ ‫ְונֹודַ ע ּבַּגֹויִם ז ְַרעָם ְו ֶצ‬ ‫“( יהוה‬then their seed will become known among the nations, and their offspring in the midst of the peoples. All who see them will recognize that they are the seed blessed by Yhwh,” Isa 61:9). Garr also offers Jer 24:7 as evidence, but his interpretation is suspect. 49. Mordechai Leib Katzenellenbogen, ed., Torat Hayyim: Exodus 1–19 (Hebrew), vol. 3 of Torat Hayyim, ( Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1993), 66 (Heb., ‫)סו‬. See above, p. 88 note c, concerning the textual history of this word. 50. Ibid., 66. I interpret this as referring to Yhwh’s true character that had not been made known to the patriarchs. 51. See above, pp. 19–21. 52. Exodus 6:3; 1 Kgs 8:43; Isa 52:6; 64:1; Jer 48:17; Ezek 20:9; 39:7; Ps 9:11; 91:14; and 2 Chr 6:33. I do not include ‫ תֵּ ָדע‬in Prov 30:4 here, because it is intransitive. I also exclude the constructions ‫ ידע ְּבׁשֵם‬or ‫ידע ִּכי ׁשֵם‬. Only once does the collocation refer to the name of a human ( Jer 48:11). While Exod 6:3 and Ezek 20:9 are included in this list, these verses employ ‫ ׁשֵם‬as accusatives of limitation or as part of a double subject construction, rather than as direct objects.

96

Chapter 4

Once these people perceived this, Yhwh’s reputation would be enhanced and his name esteemed. In Isa 64:1, the prophet urged Yhwh to make his name known among his adversaries (ָ‫ׁש ְמך‬ ִ ‫יע‬ ַ ‫הֹוד‬ ִ ‫)ל‬, ְ because this name had not been named over them (‫ׁש ְמךָ עֲלֵיהֶם‬ ִ ‫ִקרָא‬ ְ ‫לֹא־נ‬, Isa 63:19). 53 This onomastic revelation would cause the nations to tremble before Yhwh, because they recognized that this power belonged to the God named “Yhwh” (Isa 64:1). In Ezek 39:7, Yhwh reported ְ ‫יע ְּב‬ how he made his holy name known among Israel (‫תֹוך‬ ַ ‫אֹוד‬ ִ ‫ֶת־שם ָק ְד ִׁשי‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ְוא‬ ׂ ְ ‫)ע ִַּמי י‬. In this case, Yhwh needed to create new associations for his ‫ִש ָראֵל‬ name among his people who had profaned it. In these instances, the divine name ‫ יהוה‬is referred to by the word ‫ ׁשֵם‬according to its metaphorical aspect, indicating that the name ‫ יהוה‬became the basis of Yhwh’s reputation. The subtle grammatical features of Exod 6:3 communicate a precise meaning. If the construction were ‫ולֺא נֹודַ ְע ִתּי ָלהֶם‬,ְ then the name Yhwh would have been eclipsed entirely. Furthermore, the wording ‫וּשׁ ִמי יהוה לֹא‬ ְ ‫ נֹודַ ע ָלהֶם‬would use a verb that eclipsed Yhwh’s agency. The unusual double subject construction distinguishes the name Yhwh from the subject of the verb ‫נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬. 54 Furthermore, the verse emphasizes Yhwh’s reputation by linking ‫ ידע‬with ‫ׁשֵם‬, suggesting that the name Yhwh would develop new connotations among Israel and humankind. In Exod 6:2–8 (esp. v. 7), the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob suggested that he would reveal himself in a way that surpassed the patriarchs’ knowledge of him. With new action would come new associations for the name Yhwh. In the divine speech in Exod 6:2–8, Yhwh suggested that this would happen in Moses’s days. The contrast between God’s acts for the patriarchs and his promised acts for Moses’s generation seems to justify his claim that he was not known to the patriarchs with respect to this name. 55 As with Exod 3:13–15, so Exod 6:3 anticipated future divine action. Both texts communicate that the future would reveal the “whoever” that Yhwh would be. However, this tentative conclusion appears to contradict a straightforward reading of Genesis. The patriarchs knew and used the name Yhwh regularly. R. W. L Moberly rightly declares that if Exod 6:3b means what it appears to say, the harmonizing approach is doomed. 56 Unless there is strong biblical evidence for this distinction in the knowledge of Yhwh be53. Isaiah 64:1 is notoriously difficult. It is possible that Israel (rather than the adversaries) is the subject of Isa 63:19. 54. This interpretation undermines the claim of Helmer Ringgren that “Yahweh and his name are interchangeable.” Helmer Ringgren, F. V. Reiterer, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, “‫ ׁשֵם‬šēm,” TDOT 15:136. 55. The Jewish medieval commentators Ibn Ezra and Ramban read this statement elliptically: “With respect to my name Yhwh I did not become known to them as I have become known to you.” Katzenellenbogen, Torat Hayyim: Exodus 1–19 (Hebrew), 3:67 (Heb., ‫)סז‬. See below, p. 108. 56. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 55; and recently, idem, The Theology of the Book of Genesis, OTT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 133–35.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

97

fore and after Moses, those who argue for literary coherence have simply strained their interpretations of Exod 6:3. One must consider how the two divine designators ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫ יהוה‬are used in Genesis. First, I will explore the book of Genesis to determine whether knowledge of Yhwh differed qualitatively from knowledge of ‫אֵל‬ ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬in the patriarchal era. Second, I will examine the use of these designators in the book of Exodus and beyond. Only by looking at the onomastic portraits of the designators ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬from both eras can one discern if the two can be distinguished. This analysis will also establish whether or not the divine name ‫ יהוה‬was understood differently in different eras.

The Use of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬in the Book of Genesis The first half of Exod 6:3 is straightforward: “I appeared (‫ )ָואֵרָא‬to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as the God of fertility (‫)ּבאֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬.” ְ The designator ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬appears six times in the book of Genesis, three of which involve a Niphal form of ‫ראה‬. 57 A quick look at these six examples shows why this designator aptly described God’s relationship to the patriarchs. However, we must also examine the use of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬beyond the Genesis and Exodus narrative to see if the meaning of the epithet had changed. Most scholars analyze ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬through the same etymologizing approach used with the word ‫יהוה‬. However, there is debate about the etymology of ‫אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬. 58 The component ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬has received the most scrutiny because of its unusual form and because of the various Hebrew roots from which it may derive. The archaeological finds of the last century concerning ancient Near Eastern and Canaanite religion have motivated scholars in this pursuit. Most prefer the explanation of W. F. Albright and Frank Moore Cross. Albright established an exact linguistic connection between ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬and the Akkadian noun of habitual action, šaddâyû, “mountaineer.” 59 Supposedly, šaddâyû was a form of the noun šadû that originally meant “breast,” and by extension came to mean “mountain,” because of their similar shape. Cross built on his mentor’s research by connecting this word to the epithet bêl šadê, “lord of the mountain,” a title given to the Amorite god El-Amurrū in his role as divine warrior. 60 The instance of the root šdy in an Aramaic text in the Transjordan region may inform the meaning of ‫אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬. This so-called Balaam Text (ca. 800 BCE) reports a discussion among the gods in the heavenly council. The word šdyn appears twice in this fragmentary text. The section pertinent to our study reads as follows: “The g[o]ds gathered together; the Šaddayyin took their places as the assembly. And they said to Š[ ]: ‘Sew up, bolt up the 57. See Gen 28:3; 43:14; and 49:25. The three instances that include a Niphal form of ‫ ראה‬are Gen 17:1; 35:11; and 48:3. 58. M. Weippert, “‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬Šaddaj (Gottesname),” THAT 2:875. 59. W. F. Albright, “The Names Shaddai and Abram,” JBL 54 (1935): 184. 60. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 57­– 60.

98

Chapter 4

heavens in your cloud, ordaining darkness instead of eternal light! And put the dark [se]al on your bolt, and do not remove it forever!” (lines 5b–7b). 61 Here the beings called šdyn are equated with the gods (ʾlhyn) who ordered a fellow god to wreak havoc on the earth. Though the šdyn were different beings than ‫אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬, the appearances of this word in the Balaam Text are remarkable: they confirm that a word related to ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬was used in the Transjordan hundreds of years after the events reported in Genesis. Jo Ann Hackett conjectures that that the epithet Šadday was applied to El, the head of the council of divine beings known in that region as šdyn. 62 Hackett and Cross’s research may explain the historical background (and extrabiblical uses) of this unusual word, but it cannot determine the meaning of the designator in Genesis and Exodus. To understand ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬in Exod 6:3, the interpreter must first study inductively how the name functions within Genesis. An inner-biblical inductive reading must be given more weight than etymology or extrabiblical usage. In two of the six instances of ‫אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬, God identified himself explicitly: ‫אנִי אֵל ׁשַ ּדַ י‬ ֲ . 63 In the remaining four, the patriarchs reported to others that ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬appeared to them and blessed them. In all six, either the narrator reports or the characters utter this designator in close connection with God’s promises of fertility and increased offspring. In Gen 28:3, 35:11, and 48:3, ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬is followed immediately by the verbs “to be fruitful” (‫)ּפרּו‬ ְ and “to multiply” (‫)ּורבּו‬. ְ Though the broader covenantal indicators of blessing and land appear in these contexts as well, fertility and increased offspring are mentioned first. Yhwh appeared as ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬to Abraham in Gen 17:1 and mentioned his covenant in a general fashion before promising that Abraham would be the father of nations (Gen 17:4–5), and that he would multiply Abraham greatly (Gen 17:6). Only afterward is the promise of land mentioned (Gen 17:8). ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬then gave the rite of circumcision as a physical reminder to Abraham’s offspring that he would oversee their sexual reproduction. In Gen 49:25, Jacob blessed Joseph by stating that he would be helped by “[the God of] 64 fertility who blesses you” with “blessings of the breast (‫)ׁשדַ יִם‬ ָ and womb.” The poetic pairing of ‫ׁשדַ יִם‬ ָ and ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬was intentional. The 61. As reproduced and translated by Jo Ann Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʾAllā, HSM 31 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 29. For studies on this text from various perspectives, see J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, eds., The Balaam Text from Deir ʾAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989 (Leiden: Brill, 1991). 62. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʾAllā, 87. 63. Genesis 17:1 and 35:11. This clause is considered definite according to Francis I. Andersen’s criteria for clauses of identification. See The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 32. 64. Genesis 49:25 is textually problematic. The MT does not combine ‫ אֵל‬and ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬directly. Nevertheless, the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Syriac texts combine the two.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

99

sixth instance of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬contains a less direct connection to fertility that could be classified as a “midrashic name derivation.” 65 In Gen 43:14, Jacob blessed his sons by saying: ‫ָאיׁש‬ ִ ‫ֲמים ִל ְפנֵי ה‬ ִ ‫“( ְואֵל ׁשַ ּדַ י יִּתֵ ן ָלכֶם רַ ח‬Now may the God of fertility give you mercies before the man”). Here, the wordplay involves ‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫( רַ ח‬which resembles the noun ‫ ֶרחֶם‬, “womb”) and ‫( שַׁ דַּ י‬which has ‫ׁשדַ יִם‬, ָ “breasts,” as a phonetic complement). Furthermore, Jacob desired such mercies from ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬so that his offspring, Simeon and Benjamin, would be kept alive. A survey of the examples of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬in Genesis demonstrates that this designator always appears in covenantal contexts. Interestingly, this designator is most closely followed by the covenantal blessing of fertility and increased offspring––the promise of land only comes afterward. 66 One could justify this order on the grounds that the establishment of Abraham’s offspring was the necessary condition for their inheriting the land. Thus, the designator ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬highlights the primary covental blessing of God in the patriarchal era. 67 The phonetic similarity between ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫“( שַׁ ד‬breast”) makes this connection even more obvious. For this reason, I have chosen to translate the designator as “the God of fertility,” rather than transliterate it as “El Shaddai” and lose this important allusion.

The Use of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬beyond Genesis and Exodus Three theophoric names involving ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬reinforce the pre-Mosaic significance of this designator. These personal names appear within the registration of troops in the book of Numbers (often called “censuses”). These theophoric names were borne by fathers of a tribal leader, indicating that reverence for ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬preceded Moses by at least two generations. The name ‫ׁשדֵ יאּור‬ ְ (Num 1:5; 2:10; 10:18) approximates the statement “Shaddai is light”; ‫צּוריׁשַ ָּדי‬ ִ (Num 1:6; 2:12; 10:19) means “Shaddai is my rock”; and ‫ע ִַּמיׁשַ ָּדי‬ The Hebrew text ‫ ְואֵת ׁשַ ּדַ י‬may be a corruption, but even if not, the ‫ אֵל‬of the first colon can be assumed in the translation of the second colon. 65. See above, pp. 27–28. 66. Many scholars have noted this. See Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” 406; Houtman, Exodus, 1:102; and Propp, Exodus 1–18, 272. Jo Ann Hackett’s conclusions about the šdyn of the Deir Alla text confirm the literary connection in Genesis between ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬and fertility. She concludes that these gods were concerned with the affairs on earth and that their desire to shut up the heavens “mean[t] not only darkness, of course, but absence of rain, and, therefore, fertility as well.” The Balaam Text from Deir ʾAllā, 86. 67. Nevertheless, ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬only appears six times in a book that contains numerous references and allusions to fertility and increased offspring. (See discussion below, p. 101 n. 74.) In fact, the designator ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬appears in contexts of fertility more often than ‫אֵל‬ ‫שַׁ דַּ י‬. However, as I will argue below, the designator ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬contains a transparent etymology and special connotation that ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬lacks. It is uncertain why the biblical author(s) did not employ ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬more often, but it is certain that one can discern its function from its few appearances in Genesis.

100

Chapter 4

(Num 1:12; 2:25; 10:25) indicates “Shaddai is my [male] kinsman.” 68 In contrast, no theophoric names with the element ‫( יהוה‬or ‫ )יהו‬appear before the time of Moses. 69 These personal names may allude to the different functions of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫ יהוה‬in early Israelite faith. The designator ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬appears 44 times outside of Genesis and Exodus, usually without the element ‫אֵל‬. 70 Balaam the Seer employs the title in Num 24:4 and 16, while the book of Job contains the most examples. ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬appears occasionally in the prophets (Isa 13:6; Ezek 1:24; 10:5; Joel 1:15), and Naomi uses it twice in Ruth 1:20–21. Psalmists use the term on two occasions (Ps 68:15; 91:1). With the exception of Ruth 1:20–21, the designator ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬is not at all connected to fertility. 71 The epithet appears most frequently in poetry (Ezek 1:24; 10:5) and is often set in parallel with ‫אֵל‬, ַ‫( אֱלֹוּה‬in Job), or ‫יהוה‬. It is possible that ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬began to be associated with ‫“( שׁדד‬to devastate”), thus emphasizing the mode of Yhwh’s appearance as the almighty God. 72 This would explain the import of the euphonic prophetic phrase ‫“( ְּכׁשֹד ִמּׁשַ ּדַ י יָבֹוא‬As devastation from the Almighty it comes”; Isa 13:6; Joel 1:15) and its translation παντοκράτωρ (“Almighty”) in certain parts of the Greek Bible. 68. The meaning of ‫ עַם‬as “kinsman” is ancient, because forms of the root ‫ עמם‬refer to “uncle” or “male relative” in cognate Semitic languages. The place names ‫ָקנֳעָם‬ ְ ‫ ( י‬Josh 12:22; 19:11; 21:34) and ‫ִב ְלעָם‬ ְ ‫ ( י‬Josh 17:11; Judg 1:27) may express this ancient meaning. See the helpful discussion of Daniel Block, “The Foundations of National Identity: A Study in Ancient Northwest Semitic Perceptions,” Ph.D. diss. (University of Liverpool, 1981), 21–24, esp. p. 23. 69. Some have proposed ‫“( יֹו ֶכבֶד‬Yhwh is [my] glory,” Exod 6:20; Num 26:59) as the first Yahwistic theophoric name in the Bible. See Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names, 78. However, one should question whether the prefix -‫( יֹו‬used exclusively in the Northern Kingdom) would also appear here as an early theophoric prefix. The first explicit Yahwistic name, ‫ׁש ַע‬ ֻ ‫( יְהֹו‬Num 13:16), is triconsonantal, thus making scholars’ analyses of ‫יֹו ֶכבֶד‬ more uncertain. 70. Ezekiel 10:5 mentions ‫קֹול אֵל־ׁשַ ּדַ י‬, which expands on the terse statement ‫קֹול־ׁשַ ּדַ י‬ in Ezek 1:24. 71. In Ruth 1:20–21, Naomi renamed herself Mara (‫ )מָרָא‬to memorialize the loss of her husband and two sons. She noted poetically that “Shaddai has greatly embittered me” (‫) ֵהמַר ׁשַ ּדַ י ִלי ְמאֹד‬. Job used the same verb (‫ ) ֵהמַר‬of Shaddai in Job 27:2. Naomi employs the patriarchal understanding of this epithet negatively: her use of ‫ ׁשַ ּדַ י‬emphasized God’s failure to preserve her offspring. Naomi preferred the designator ‫ ׁשַ ּדַ י‬as a parallel element for ‫יהוה‬, rather than the generic epithet ‫( אֱל ִֹהים‬Ruth 1:21). Interestingly, there is no mention of ‫ ׁשַ ּדַ י‬in Ruth 4:14 when Yhwh provided offspring for Naomi through Ruth and Boaz. The strong allusions to the patriarchal narratives in the book of Ruth explain Naomi’s use of ‫ ׁשַ ּדַ י‬as the “God of fertility.” See Yair Zakovitch, Das Buch Rut: Ein jüdischer Kommentar, SB 177 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999), 49–57; and Daniel I. Block, Ruth: The King Is Coming, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 45, 48, 54–55, 64, 101–3, and 146–51 for further a discussion on the obvious links between the book of Genesis and the book of Ruth. 72. This connection is even more likely if the doubling of the dalet in ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬preserves an ancient pronunciation of the designator.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

101

The Hebrew Bible reflects two different interpretations of this designator. For the patriarchs and Naomi, the compound term ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬referred to Yhwh and described his role as a personal God who, among other blessings, promised fertility and sustained offspring. For Job and the others who used the term, ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬referred to Yhwh and described his role as the almighty judge of humankind. The meaning of ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬thus varied according to genre: in prose texts (Genesis and Ruth), the designator spoke of Yhwh in his role of giving fertility; in poetic texts, the designator spoke of Yhwh in his role as judge and transcendent deity (Ezek 10:5; Job 8:3; 27:11; 37:23; etc.). It is difficult to know if these different interpretations of ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬arose from temporal or geographical distance. 73 In any case, this distinction justifies the translation, “God of fertility,” for ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬in the patriarchal narratives, and “Almighty” for ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬elsewhere. When Yhwh said that he had appeared to the patriarchs ‫ ְּבאֵל ׁשַ ָּדי‬in Exod 6:3, he was describing himself according to the designator’s patriarchal meaning. However, Genesis also associates the name ‫ יהוה‬with promises of or allusions to fertility and childbearing (Gen 13:14–16; 15:4–6; 26:2–4, 22; etc.). 74 The frequent use of ‫ יהוה‬in the direct speeches and narrative backbone of Genesis blurs the sharp distinction between ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫יהוה‬. Whereas God said in Exod 6:3 that he appeared (‫ )ָואֵרָא‬to the patriarchs as the God of fertility, the Genesis narrator reported several times that “Yhwh appeared” to the patriarchs as well (‫ ; ַוּיֵרָא יהוה‬Gen 12:7, 8; 18:1; 26:2, 24). The complexity of the canonical text heightens the appeal of sourcecritical explanations. Documentarians assert that Exod 6:3 is entirely coherent within P. When one isolates the major P texts, one can see a clear contrast between a God named ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬who made provisional promises and Yhwh, who revealed his name to Moses for the first time. Therefore, the appearance and function of the name ‫ יהוה‬in the canonical book of Genesis merits closer scrutiny.

Knowledge of Yhwh in the Pre-Mosaic Era The Use of  ‫ יהוה‬in the Book of Genesis: The Narrative Appearances Exodus 6:3 declares that God did not become known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with respect to his name Yhwh. This is a difficult statement, because the Tetragrammaton appears 165 times in the book of Genesis. Of 73. The Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible may reflect yet different interpretations. They consistently rendered ‫ )אֵל( שַׁ דַּ י‬in the Pentateuch as θέος (sometimes accompanied by a possessive pronoun μοῦ or σοῦ). In Job, the title is often translated παντοκρατώρ (“Almighty”) or κύριος (“Lord”). Finally, ἵκανος (“The Sufficient”) occasionally appears, which accords with the ancient Hebrew etymology ‫שׁ־דַּ י‬, ֶ “he who is sufficient.” See Ruth 1:20, 21 (LXX). 74. The designator ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬also occurs in contexts of fertility and childbearing (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:15–16, 19–20; 21:2; 30:2, 6, 17–18, 20–23, etc.). See Appendix 1 (pp. 204–207) for further reflections on the use of divine designators in Genesis.

102

Chapter 4

these appearances, 113 are reported by the narrator, but the remainder are reported by the characters in the narrative. Documentarians generally posit that Gen 4:26 begins J’s coherent narrative about humankind’s knowledge of the divine name. 75 Preceding this verse is the explicit naming wordplay for Seth, which contrasts Cain’s godless family with Seth’s righteous family. 76 The envelope structure within the narrative shows that God gave Seth to Adam and Eve in place of Abel. Seth then fathered a son and named him Enosh. Immediately following this report comes the enigmatic statement: ‫“( אָז הּוחַל ִל ְקרֹא ְּבׁשֵם יהוה‬at that time calling on the name Yhwh was begun,” Gen 4:26). The passive stem of ‫ חלל‬and its unspecified agent frustrate interpretation. However, Seth’s righteous family is the most likely candidate for the subject of this verb. The logic of the narrative may flow as follows: Eve had called upon Yhwh’s name at the birth of her first child (4:1), but Cain’s murderous act and his departure from the presence of Yhwh (4:16) kept Eve from calling on that name again. Eve’s children continued this reticence. 77 However, the birth of a grandchild to Adam and Eve assured the family of Yhwh’s kindness and grace. At the birth of Enosh, Seth and his family began to call on the name of Yhwh as his mother once had. 78 According to the Genesis narrative, speaking the divine name Yhwh began in primeval times and continued into the patriarchal era. Like Seth, Abraham (12:8; 13:4; 21:33) and Isaac (26:25) called on the name Yhwh (‫ִקרָא‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫)ּבׁשֵם יהוה‬. ְ This phrase indicates that they invoked the name, though the interpreter must still discern the precise function of the invocation from context. 79 In Gen 16:13, Hagar commemorated Yhwh’s gracious act of provision on her behalf by naming him (‫ַתּה אֵל‬ ָ ‫ַד ֹבֵר ֵאלֶי ָה א‬ ּ ‫שם־יהוה ה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ו ִַת ְּקרָא‬ ‫ֳאי‬ ִ ‫ר‬, “So she named Yhwh who spoke to her: ‘You are the God of seeing’”). ְ ‫ )וַּתֵ ל‬on behalf of his barren Isaac “went to seek Yhwh” (‫ֶך ִל ְדרֹׁש אֶת־יהוה‬ wife (25:22). Finally, several texts mention the building of altars “to Yhwh” (‫ ;לַיהוה‬8:20; 12:7, 8; 13:18). These narrative comments seem to indicate that the characters spoke the name “Yhwh” in worship. 75. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 10; and Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012), 21. 76. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11, 133–34. Hess notes that an unusual passive construction in Lamech’s song obscures any reference to a divine name (Gen 4:24). 77. This may explain why the narrator reports Eve using the generic epithet ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬in naming of Seth (4:25). 78. For a similar interpretation, see Cassuto, Genesis: From Adam to Noah Genesis I–VI 8, 247–48. This reading does not refute source-critical explanations, but it shows that J material can be read harmonistically with non-J material. 79. Daniel Premaselan Niles sees two contexts in which the phrase was used: petition (invoking Yhwh for help) and thanksgiving (proclaiming the greatness of Yhwh’s name). “The Name of God in Israel’s Worship: The Theological Importance of the Name Yahweh,” Ph.D. diss. (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1975), 95.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

103

Conservative interpreters often argue that the character of Yhwh was known partially in Genesis but was fully revealed in the book of Exodus. 80 However, the narrative appearances of ‫ יהוה‬in Genesis do not seem to represent Yhwh as partially known. The Genesis narrative makes known Yhwh’s presence, his omnipresence, his blessing, and his power. 81 The compound form ‫ יהוה אֱל ִֹהים‬in Gen 2:4 identifies Yhwh with the God who created the world. Yhwh created Adam from the dust (2:7), gave him a command (2:16), and created a wife for his benefit (2:22). Yhwh walked with his creatures (3:8), was with Isaac (26:3, 24) and Jacob (31:3), and gave Joseph success in a foreign land (39:3, 23; cf. 24:21). Yhwh cursed the ground (3:14) and became heartbroken over humankind’s corruption (6:6). Yhwh favored Noah (6:8) and promised never to flood the earth again on smelling Noah’s offering (8:21). Similarly, Yhwh showed compassion on Lot (‫ֶמלַת יהוה‬ ְ ‫ְּבח‬ ‫ ָעלָיו‬, 19:16). Yhwh was called the Everlasting God (‫אֵל עֹולָם‬, 21:33), and he made a covenant with Abram (15:18). Yhwh extended mercy (‫ ) ָחסֶד‬and grace (‫)חּנֹו‬ ִ to Joseph (39:21), traits that later became indelibly attached to his personal name. The Use of ‫ יהוה‬in the Book of Genesis: Direct Speech One could rightly claim that any statement made by a Yahwistic narrator in Genesis would reflect his understanding of Yhwh. A later author who was convinced that ‫ יהוה‬was the only true God could easily have written the name ‫ יהוה‬in place of ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬or ‫ אֵל‬at any point in the story. Robert Moberly asserts that the Yahwistic author of Genesis used the name ‫ יהוה‬in direct speech as a means of updating or innovating the text. 82 Moberly’s thesis is intriguing, though it involves making speculations about the composition- and tradition-history of the text that cannot be verified. 83 Given the apparently random and inconsistent distribution of ‫ יהוה‬vis-à-vis other designators, it is often difficult to explain why ‫ יהוה‬is used in one case and ‫אֱל ִֹהים‬ in the other. Among the 165 attestations of the Tetragrammaton in Genesis, 52 are in direct speech. Yhwh is proclaimed as the personal God of Shem (9:26), Abraham (24:12, 27, 42, 48), and Isaac (27:20). Jacob perceived Yhwh’s presence at Bethel (28:16) and vowed to make Yhwh his god if he would protect him (28:21). Even the outsider Abimelech claimed that Yhwh was with 80. Seitz, “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name,” 158; and Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 79. 81. The Joseph story makes fewer and less specific references to Yhwh. This omission may be deliberate, indicating the centuries of God’s silence that reigned even as Yhwh’s people multiplied in Egypt. It may also reflect Joseph’s context within a foreign land. 82. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 36. Moberly objects to the use of the term anachronism to describe this feature, especially in light of its negative connotation among historical-critical scholars. 83. Ibid., 70–78.

104

Chapter 4

Isaac (26:28). The divine name was attached to the title ‫ֶליֹון‬ ְ ‫ אֵל ע‬in Gen 14:22. 84 Sarai blamed Yhwh for afflicting her body with barrenness (16:2), she called on him to judge her dispute with Abram (16:5), and Abraham later recognized that Yhwh would provide for him (22:14). Lot identified Yhwh as the one who would destroy Sodom (19:14). Abraham identified Yhwh as the God of heaven and earth (24:3), and recounted how Yhwh took him from his homeland and promised him descendants (24:7). Abraham was said to have walked before Yhwh (17:1; 24:40). Laban and his family recognized Yhwh’s sovereignty in the coming of Abraham’s servant (24:50), and the servant confessed that Yhwh prospered his way (24:56). Leah acknowledged that Yhwh saw (29:32) and heard (29:33) her affliction, and she praised him as a result (29:35). Rachel wished for a second son from Yhwh (30:24). Jacob and Laban desired that Yhwh watch them closely so that neither would do wrong (31:49). Jacob later confessed that Yhwh was the God of his father and grandfather, crediting Yhwh with showing great mercy (‫ָדים‬ ִ ‫חס‬ ֲ ‫ ) ַה‬by fulfilling promises for many children (32:10–13). The use of the Tetragrammaton in Genesis concludes with Jacob’s vocative: ‫יתי יהוה‬ ִ ‫ָתךָ ִקִּו‬ ְ ‫“( ִליׁשּוע‬I have waited for your salvation, O Yhwh,” 49:18). In nine instances, Yhwh or his messenger utters the divine name. These utterances seem to make the name known in some sense. A messenger reassured Hagar that Yhwh heard her cries (16:11). Yhwh reminded Abraham (via a rhetorical question) that nothing was too difficult or wonderful for God (‫הִי ָּפלֵא‬ ֲ , 18:14). Messengers also announced the destruction of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as Yhwh’s act (19:13, 2×). Yhwh himself used the “signatory formula” (‫ ) ְנאֻם־יהוה‬in the context of his oath to Abraham (22:16). 85 In an unusual soliloquy, Yhwh mused about his relationship with Abraham (‫ )יְדַ ְע ִּתיו‬and how Abraham would preserve the “way of ְ ‫)ּדר‬ Yhwh” (‫ֶך יהוה‬ ֶ among his family, fulfilling Yhwh’s promises to him as a result (18:17–19). The two examples of Yhwh’s self-introductory formula in Genesis challenge any claim that Yhwh did not become known by name to the patriarchs. In Gen 15:7, the God of Abraham introduced himself with a theologically significant predicate: ‫ַׂש ִּדים‬ ְ ‫ֵאתיךָ מֵאּור ּכ‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר הֹוצ‬ ֶ ‫אנִי יהוה א‬ ֲ (“I am Yhwh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans”). Any Israelite 84. The collocation ‫ֶליֹון‬ ְ ‫ יהוה אֵל ע‬is noteworthy because it was spoken by Abram when he encountered a foreign priest over a foreign cult. Whether or not ‫ֶליֹון‬ ְ ‫ אֵל ע‬in other contexts should be transliterated as a divine name (El Elyon) or translated as a title (God Most High), Abram’s placement of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬before it shows that he intended it as a title. Furthermore, no Canaanite deity has been found to date with the name El Elyon. See Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 410. 85. The phrase “signatory formula” was coined by Daniel Block in favor of the older phrase “prophetic utterance formula.” See The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 33–34.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

105

would recognize that Yhwh was here using exodus language, thus identifying the God who called Abraham from Ur with the God who delivered Israel from Egypt. Yhwh presented himself to Jacob as he was leaving the land of promise: ‫ִצחָק‬ ְ ‫ָביךָ וֵאלֹהֵי י‬ ִ ‫אנִי יהוה אֱלֹהֵי א ְַב ָרהָם א‬ ֲ (“I am Yhwh, God of Abraham your [fore]father and God of Isaac,” Gen 28:13). Both speeches follow up Yhwh’s self-introductions with the promise of land for Abraham and Jacob’s offspring. The direct speeches in Genesis present a substantial onomastic portrait of Yhwh. The words of humans, angels, and Yhwh himself make clear that “Yhwh” was the personal name of the God who singled out Abraham and his family for a special purpose. Earlier I demonstrated that the designator ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬was associated primarily with promises of fertility and rites of circumcision in Genesis. However, the name ‫ יהוה‬is also used in connection with fertility and offspring. Any casual reader of Genesis would assume that God had become known to the patriarchs by the name Yhwh. 86 Conclusion An onomastic distinction may suggest why God contrasted the designators ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫ יהוה‬when referring to his relationship with the patriarchs in Exod 6:3. ‫ יהוה‬should be seen as a personal name and ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬as an epithet. As mentioned earlier, (opaque) personal names refer directly to the name-bearer because they have no descriptive meaning, while epithets refer indirectly, through their meaning. 87 These two designators make different claims about Yhwh due to their different semantic roles. I have interpreted ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬as an epithet (“the God of fertility”) based on the criterion of translatability. If a designator makes most sense transliterated, then the author probably intended it as a proper name. If it makes the most sense when translated, then the author probably intended it as an epithet. 88 Designators with a transparent etymology (that is, those that contain a word or words that may be interpreted according to their inherent sense) are more likely to function as epithets than designators that are semantically opaque. The title ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬betrays its transparent etymology through the connection between ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫ׁשדַ יִם‬ ָ (“breasts”) in Genesis and Exodus. The designator is consistently employed in connection to fertility in Genesis. The possible etymologies of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬explain its meaning in the Hebrew Bible. In poetic contexts, the epithet ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬was related to the root ‫“( שׁדד‬devastate”), indicating Yhwh as the Almighty. However, the meaning of ‫אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬ in Genesis reflects the specific mode of Yhwh’s revelation to the patriarchs. God appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with promises of fertility using the designators ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫יהוה‬, but only ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬carried this idea in both its 86. See Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 66–67. 87. See above, pp. 14–19. 88. See above, pp. 18–19.

106

Chapter 4

etymology and its consistent usage in the Genesis narrative. 89 God’s statement in Exod 6:3 that he appeared to the patriarchs as ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬admittedly reduces the complexity of the patriarchs’ understanding of God in Genesis. Nevertheless, this verse accurately summarizes God’s revelation to them while giving room for the proper name ‫ יהוה‬to develop a sense of its own. Knowledge of Yhwh in the Mosaic Era and Beyond The Recognition Formula Exodus 6:3 suggests that Yhwh revealed himself by name in a distinct way during the time of Moses, but the use of ‫ יהוה‬in Genesis challenges this distinction. Reading backwards from Exod 6:3 does not resolve the tension created by this verse. William Propp notes that those who read only in this direction are either forced to ignore the contradiction or forced to develop a circumlocutious interpretation (for example, that the patriarchs knew Yahweh’s name, but not his essence). 90 It remains to discern the onomastic portrait of ‫ יהוה‬in the book of Exodus to see if the name had a distinct function from the era of Moses onward. The combination of ‫ ידע‬and ‫ יהוה‬in the book of Exodus suggests that special knowledge of God as Yhwh arose in the Mosaic era. These words are often joined in the recognition formula (hereafter, RF). 91 This formula appears with different subjects and extended predicates but can be reduced to a core: “and/that you may know that I am Yhwh” (‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ ‫)וידַ ְע ֶּתם ִּכי‬. ִ The RF occurs primarily in Exodus and Ezekiel, two books that describe axial moments in Israel’s history. 92 It is important to consider first their form and broad theological meaning. Walther Zimmerli’s Ezekiel commentary and his monograph I am Yahweh has influenced scholarly understanding of RFs. 93 He analyzed the RF 89. Jared Hood argues that Gen 17:1 and 35:9–11 should be seen as the “highpoint of patriarchal revelation.” He defends this by showing that an appearance of God (using the Niphal of ‫ )ראה‬seems to “involve a higher method of communication” in the book of Genesis. These texts employ both ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and the Niphal of ‫ראה‬, effectively summarizing the meaning of Exod 6:3. See “I Appeared as El Shaddai: Intertextual Interplay in Exodus 6:3,” Westminster Theological Journal 76 (2014): 179 and 182. 90. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 268. 91. I define an RF as any form of the verb ‫ ידע‬followed by the predicate ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ ‫ּכי‬. ִ The subject may or may not be specified and the predicate may or may not be expanded. This strict definition excludes phrases such as ‫( ְויָדַ ע ְַּת אֶת־יהוה‬Hos 2:22), ‫ְוי ְֵדעּו ּכָל־ ָה ָארֶץ ִּכי‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫( י ֵׁש אֱל ִֹהים ְלי‬1 Sam 17:46), ‫י־ׁש ִמי יהוה‬ ְ ‫ָדעּו ִּכ‬ ְ ‫ ( ְוי‬Jer 16:21), or the “self-identification formula,” ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ (Exod 15:26). I define RFs and the phrases similar to them as “recognition language.” For a list of phrases related to the RF in books outside Ezekiel, see Evans, “An Inner-Biblical Interpretation,” 167–74. 92. Eslinger, “Knowing Yahweh, 188. The RF is found elsewhere only in Deut 29:5; 1 Kgs 20:13, 28; Isa 45:3; 49:23, 26; 60:16; and Joel 4:17. 93. Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1–24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); Ezechiel 25–48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); I am Yahweh, ed. Walter Brueggemann, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982). The four ar-

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

107

from a strongly form-critical approach, which explains his use of the term formula. Zimmerli was sensitive to the context of each oracle and especially to grammatical variations within the formula itself (the declension of the verb ‫ידע‬, the addition of explanatory phrases, and the location of the formula within a specific oracle). Zimmerli drew two significant conclusions about the theological meaning of this phrase. First, Yhwh always initiated the events that led people to acknowledge him. Israel’s God was not known through detached human speculation or intellectual striving, but only through revelation by means of Yhwh’s activity in historical events. Zimmerli asserted that the RF did not make known the “essence” of God or his attributes, but rather his “beneficial deed on Israel’s behalf.” 94 The RFs were rarely concerned with proclaiming what Yhwh was like (for example, a list of attributes or a description of his nature), but rather focused on his actions. Second, Zimmerli noted that recognition of Yhwh was the intended goal of specific reported events. Events themselves were not as important as humans’ knowledge of Yhwh arising from them. John Evans has expanded on Zimmerli’s work. Evans’ intertextual study links the exile of Ezekiel’s day to Israel’s theological interpretation of the Exodus. This leads him to conclude that Ezekiel had connected the rebellion of Israel and her idolatry with the nation’s sojourn in Egypt. Because Israel had never put away Egypt’s idols, Ezekiel proclaimed that Yhwh would respond as the God of the exodus. 95 To define the character of this God of the exodus, it is necessary to explore how recognition language relates to the knowledge of Yhwh in the Exodus narrative. Recognition Language within Exodus The RF is central to understanding how the knowledge of Yhwh develops in Exodus. Lyle Eslinger has noted that Pharaoh’s defiant challenge contains the Hebrew Bible’s first instance of the verb ‫ ידע‬with ‫ יהוה‬as its direct object (Exod 5:2), and that the latter half of Yhwh’s speech to Moses in Exod 6:2–8 contains the first appearance of the RF (Exod 6:7). 96 These ticles in the book are derived from German essays, the most important being Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buch Ezechiel: Eine theologische Studie, ATANT 27, (Zürich: Zwingli, 1954). 94. Zimmerli, I am Yahweh, 44. 95. Evans, “An Inner-Biblical Interpretation, 321. For a study the RF applied to oracles against the nations, see John Strong, “Ezekiel’s Use of the Recognition Formula in his Oracles against the Nations,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995): 115–34. Strong argues that Ezekiel’s RFs do not betray a universalistic strain. Rather than indicating the inclusion of foreigners into the Israelite community, these RFs indicate that most of Israel’s neighbors would have to acknowledge Yhwh’s power as the Divine Warrior who fights against them. For a comprehensive study on this topic, see Volkmar M. Premstaller, “Die Völkersprüche des Ezechielbuches,” Habilitationsschrift (Leopold-Franzens Universität, 2004), esp. pp. 326–48. 96. ‫ִׂש ָראֵל לֹא אֲׁשַ ֵּל ַח‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל לֹא יָדַ ְע ִּתי אֶת־יהוה ְוגַם אֶת־י‬ ְ ‫ֶׁשמַע ְּבקֹלֹו ְלׁשַ ּלַח אֶת־י‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ִמי יהוה א‬ (“Who is Yhwh whom I should heed in order to let Israel go? I do not know Yhwh, and,

108

Chapter 4

first two instances of ‫ ידע‬and ‫ יהוה‬also outline the importance of this theme: Pharaoh claimed not to know (or recognize) Yhwh, and Yhwh determined to address his ignorance. After Yhwh stated that he would become Israel’s God, he indicated that his salvation would lead to an onomastic revelation: ‫אנִי יהוה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִוידַ ְע ֶּתם ִּכי‬ ‫ֶתכֶם ִמּתַ חַת ִס ְבלֹות ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬ ְ ‫ַּמֹוציא א‬ ִ ‫“( ה‬then you will come to know 97 that I am Yhwh your God who brings you out from beneath the Egyptians’ compulsory labor,” Exod 6:7). This may be shown to support the view of some medieval Jewish commentators who read Exod 6:3 as elliptical: “I did not become known to them as I have become known to you.” Accordingly, one may interpret Exod 6:3 as an implied promise. The rest of Yhwh’s speech (Exod 6:6–8) contains seven explicit promises that flesh out the general implied promise: I will become known to you as Yhwh in a way the patriarchs did not know me. Yhwh’s words to Pharaoh clearly showed that he was concerned that not only Israel, but all of Egypt would come to know him through his name. Before Moses’s announcement of the first plague, Yhwh rehearsed his plan to Moses in a form similar to Exod 2:23–25, 3:7–10, 3:16–22, and 6:2–8. Yhwh declared that he would bring Israel out “by great acts of judgment” (‫ָטים‬ ִ ‫ׁשפ‬ ְ ‫ִּב‬ ‫ּגְד ִֹלים‬, Exod 7:4), 98 which would lead the Egyptians to recognize Yhwh as the source of their affliction (‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ ‫ָדעּו ִמ ְצרַ יִם ִּכי־‬ ְ ‫וי‬,ְ “then the Egyptians will come to know that I am Yhwh,” Exod 7:5). The recognition formula was applied to Pharaoh specifically when Moses announced that he would know that Yhwh was the one who changed the water into blood (Exod 7:17). As the plagues continued, so did the visibility of Yhwh’s intervention on Israel’s behalf. Yhwh promised to set apart the land of Goshen during the plague of flies. The RF that appears at this point demonstrates that Yhwh was revealing himself by protecting his people. This may explain its predicate: ‫אנִי יהוה ְּב ֶקרֶב ָה ָארֶץ‬ ֲ ‫“( ְל ַמעַן ּתֵ דַ ע ִּכי‬in order that you might come to know that I am Yhwh in the midst of the land,” Exod 8:18[22]). The RF in Exod 10:2 is noteworthy because Israel is the subject. Yhwh hardened Pharaoh’s heart and multiplied his wonders to give Israel a story they would never forget to pass on to their children. By telling the coming generation of Yhwh’s severe dealings with Egypt, the Israelites would come to know that Yhwh was their God. While Exod 6:3 notes that God did not become furthermore, I will not let Israel go”). Exodus 6:7 is discussed below. Eslinger’s charts of ‫ ידע‬and ‫ יהוה‬are helpful and illustrative. See “Knowing Yahweh,” 197–98. 97. I have chosen this translation of the wĕqatal form to indicate the process involved in recognizing Yhwh. The translation “learn” is similar in effect, but should be reserved for the ‫ למד‬word group. 98. Carol Meyers notes that the term plagues is not used of God’s acts against Pharaoh and Egypt. The terms signs and wonders are used instead, which classify Yhwh’s interventions as manifestation of divine power for the benefit of Israel. Yhwh’s actions were not just death-dealing attacks against an enemy. See Exodus, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 77. Nevertheless, I will continue to use the traditional term plagues because it dominates scholarly discussions.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

109

known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as Yhwh, the rest of the Exodus narrative shows that Yhwh was becoming known by name to Israel and to the nations of the world. The predicates that follow the RF indicate the kind of knowledge that humanity was to gain from observing the plagues. After an abundance of frogs had overcome the land of Egypt, Pharaoh begged Moses to remove them. Moses granted his request, adding this purpose statement: “in order that you will come to know that there is none like Yhwh our God” (‫ְל ַמעַן‬ ‫ּתֵ דַ ע ִּכי־אֵין ּכַיהוה אֱלֹהֵינּו‬, Exod 8:6[10]). Moses spoke similarly after Pharaoh requested the hail to stop: “in order that you will come to know that the land belongs to Yhwh” (‫ל ַמעַן ּתֵ דַ ע ִּכי לַיהוה ָה ָארֶץ‬, ְ Exod 9:29). Moses’s announcement concerning the death of the firstborn resembled his earlier statement that Egypt would know Yhwh as the one who set Goshen apart. Yhwh protected Israel’s firstborn sons “in order that you [plural] will come to know that Yhwh distinguishes between Egypt and between Israel” (‫ְל ַמעַן‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י ְַפלֶה יהוה ּבֵין ִמ ְצרַ יִם ּובֵין י‬ ֶ ‫ּתֵ ְדעּון א‬, Exod 11:7). Yhwh issued the most explicit statement concerning his name when Moses announced the plague of hail. 99 He declared his goal for the later plagues that would hit Pharaoh and Egypt directly (ָ‫ֶל־ל ְּבך‬ ִ ‫)א‬: “so that you will come to know that there is none like me in all the earth” (‫ַּבעֲבּור ּתֵ דַ ע ִּכי אֵין‬ ‫ּכָמֹנִי ְּבכָל־ ָה ָארֶץ‬, Exod 9:14). Yhwh hardened Pharaoh’s heart and raised him to a prominent position to let Pharaoh see his incomparable power (ָ‫ה ְַרא ְֹתך‬ ‫)אֶת־ּכ ִֹחי‬. The plagues and the exodus would affect all in the land: ‫ּול ַמעַן ַסּפֵר‬ ְ ‫ׁש ִמי ְּבכָל־ ָה ָארֶץ‬ ְ (“and [this is happening] in order to tell of my name in all the land,” Exod 9:16). The escalating conflict between Yhwh and Pharaoh would spread knowledge of Yhwh’s personal name near and far. The name “Yhwh” became the linguistic reference point for humanity’s knowledge of the one true God, and for the development of his reputation. Yhwh would associate this name with the powerful, terrifying, wide-reaching, salvific acts of the exodus. 100 The report of Israel’s exodus reaches a climax in Exod 14, when Israel arrived at the banks of the Red Sea. The RFs in Exod 14:4 and 18 make clear that the Egyptians would soon come to know that Yhwh was fighting for Israel. Though a new literary unit begins at Exod 15, recognition language continues into Israel’s travels to and sojourn at Sinai. Exodus 16 reports that Israel complained almost immediately after Yhwh’s miraculous deliverance. God graciously acceded to their request for food, so that they would know that Yhwh, their God, would provide for their needs (Exod 16:6, 12). The giving of manna displayed Yhwh’s generous character, though it is also clear that their grumbling displeased him. 99. For a thorough grammatical and thematic exploration of this verse and its context, see Ford, God, Pharaoh, and Moses, 30–82. 100. Lyle Eslinger rightly notes that liberation is a subordinate theme to making known the divine name through miraculous interventions. See “Knowing Yahweh,” 189.

110

Chapter 4

Israel’s cultic practices could also lead to a better knowledge of Yhwh. The tabernacle gave Yhwh a dwelling place among his people, and his presence would demonstrate that he was their God. By this, “they will come to know that I am Yhwh their God who brought them out from the land of Egypt so that I might dwell among them” (‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫אנִי יהוה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם א‬ ֲ ‫ָדעּו ִּכי‬ ְ ‫ְוי‬ ‫ׁש ְכנִי ְבתֹוכָם‬ ָ ‫ֵאתי א ָֹתם ֵמ ֶארֶץ ִמ ְצרַ יִם ְל‬ ִ ‫הֹוצ‬, Exod 29:46). This formula closely resembles the RF in Exod 6:7 and may be seen as its fulfillment. Yhwh’s “becoming God” for Israel was evidenced by his presence among them. 101 Finally, the Sabbath provided another means of making Yhwh known. This weekly observance reminded the Israelites throughout their generations that it was Yhwh who set them apart (‫ׁשכֶם‬ ְ ‫אנִי יהוה ְמקַ ִּד‬ ֲ ‫לָדַ עַת ִּכי‬, Exod 31:13). 102 The RF’s precise wording points to a difference between the divine name and the divine name-bearer. In the RF, the acting subject (that is, “I”) deliberately ascribed (new) historical actions to the person identified by the (sense-less) name (that is, “Yhwh”). Just as Exod 6:3 distinguishes between the speaking subject of ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬and the nominal phrase ‫ׁש ִמי יהוה‬, ְ so the RF distinguishes between the speaking subject (‫אנִי‬ ֲ ) and the opaque personal name ‫יהוה‬. Nevertheless, the RF also closes this gap through onomastic ascription. 103 Yhwh judged Egypt and protected Israel so that his people would deliberately ascribe these actions to his name and no other. 104 Onomastic ascription makes sense of the divine name, thus building up Yhwh’s reputation. 105 The recognition language within the book of Exodus is both varied and abundant. Many subjects (Pharaoh, Egypt, Israel, all the earth) would come to know Yhwh, and many predicates specify in what way he would become known (“there is none like Yhwh our God,” “Yhwh makes a distinction,” 101. Elmer Martens helpfully adds, “In these worship prescriptions and practices Yahweh was known in a way different from a physical display of power, but no less forceful.” God’s Design, 104. 102. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 492. 103. This fine distinction makes untenable Garr’s claim that “God’s name is identified with God himself. Neither was known to the patriarchs according to Exod 6:3b, though the ‘name’ qualifies (restricts) the extent to which God was not known. To the extent that his name was not known, neither was God known.” See “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” 394. In fact, God’s name Yhwh was known to the patriarchs, but “God himself ” was about to ascribe new and powerful acts to this name. The extent to which God can be known depends on onomastic ascription. 104. Martens provides the following helpful explanation: “This combination of word with the event made it possible for the event to carry meaning . . . the events recorded in the Bible, while impressive, require interpretation in order to bear their message.” God’s Design, 103. 105. My explanation is preferable to that of Zimmerli, who notes that, “Precisely when human knowledge thinks it is performing its own action, it finds that Yahweh introduces himself and can never be ‘taken’ by human recognition.” See I am Yahweh, 85. Zimmerli rightly highlights that Yhwh is the subject of the RF, but he fails to see that the name Yhwh was supposed to be “taken” by human recognition.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

111

etc.). Yhwh ascribed the acts to his personal name, thus making a powerful statement that humankind had come to know his character in a new way. 106 Reading forward from Exod 6:3, one can discern a legitimate distinction between Yhwh’s revelation to Moses’s generation over against the patriarchs. 107 In Exodus, Yhwh is particularly concerned with presenting a robust onomastic portrait of himself. Given their social setting, the patriarchs learned what they could of Yhwh. 108 But only after reading the Exodus narrative does the reader realize how limited Yhwh’s revelation to the patriarchs had been. 109 Other Biblical References to Exodus 6:3 Other texts suggest that Moses’s generation witnessed a new revelation of Yhwh. 110 Ezekiel 20 rehearses the history of Israel’s unfaithfulness through the image of an unfaithful wife. Within this judgment speech against Judah, Yhwh spoke of better days: “On the day when I chose Israel and I swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob and I became known to them (‫ָאּוָדַ ע ָלהֶם‬ ִ ‫ )ו‬in the land of Egypt, I swore to them saying, ‘I am Yhwh your God’” (Ezek 20:5). 111 Later in the speech, Yhwh picked up the language of Exod 6:3 more closely when justifying his anger against Israel in Egypt (Ezek 20:9). The syntax of this verse is difficult, but it seems that the second ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬refers back to ‫ׁש ִמי‬, ְ repeating the claim of Exod 6:3 that Yhwh’s name became known to Israel during the exodus. This complicated verse is represented in table 8. 106. After demonstrating that Exod 6:2–8 emphasizes the identity of Yhwh, Richard Medina concludes: “Por lo expuesto, la revelación de Yhwh en actos en este momento particular de la historia de Israel es sumamente significativa.” “La estructura sintáctica y la interpretación de Éxodo 6,” 114 (emphasis mine). 107. Richard Hess helpfully lists 10 significant differences between patriarchal and Mosaic religion. For example, moral obedience, animosity toward the Canaanites, the city of Jerusalem, prophecy, and priesthood do not play a major role in patriarchal religion as they do in its Mosaic counterpart. On the other hand, patriarchal religion was significantly more open and inclusive, and maintenance of the family unit was a central emphasis. Israelite Religions, 149–50. See also Moberly, The Theology of the Book of Genesis, 135–36. 108. See Peter Enns, Exodus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 175. 109. Moberly’s claim that the divine name “is used in Genesis with[out] any difference of meaning from that which it customarily has elsewhere in the Old Testament” fails to recognize the recognition language that begins in Exodus. See The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 66. Genesis 15:7 may be an exception because it foreshadows exodus language. See my above discussion of this text, pp. 51 and 104–106. 110. In this section, I do not intend to make diachronic claims about the relationship of these texts. Rather, these texts are studied to support my literary interpretation of Exod 6:3, regardless of their compositional history. 111. The connection between Exod 6:3 and Ezek 20:5 is also noted by Moshe Greenberg. See Understanding Exodus: A Holistic Commentary on Exodus 1–11, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 106.

112

Chapter 4 Table 8.  The Syntax of Ezekiel 20:9 ‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ ָו ַאעַׂש ְל ַמעַן‬So I acted for the sake of my name ‫ְל ִב ְל ִּתי ֵהחֵל‬ so that it would not be profaned ‫ְלעֵינֵי הַּגֹויִם‬ in the eyes of the nations ‫ֲׁשר־ ֵהּמָה ְבתֹוכָם‬ ֶ‫א‬ in whose midst they were [living], ‫ֲׁשר נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬ ֶ‫א‬ [the name by] which I became known ‫אלֵיהֶם‬ ֲ to them ‫ְלעֵינֵיהֶם‬ in their sight ‫הֹוציאָם ֵמ ֶארֶץ ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ to bring them out from the land of [Egypt.

Since recent major commentators do not agree with my interpretation, some justification is necessary. 112 The common translation of these words is “before whose eyes I became known to them.” However, this translation does not explain why Yhwh would deliver his people out of Egypt in the sight of the nations. It is difficult to determine which of the two prepositions (‫אלֵיהֶם‬ ֲ or ‫)לעֵינֵיהֶם‬ ְ resumes the relative pronoun, since both refer to the same group of people. In fact, the relative pronoun does not relate to either. The verse makes most sense if ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬refers back to ‫ׁש ִמי‬, ְ leaving ‫אלֵיהֶם‬ ֲ to specify the indirect object (as does ‫ ָלהֶם‬with ‫ נֹודַ ְע ִּתי‬in Exod 6:3) and giving ‫ ְלעֵינֵיהֶם‬an adverbial function that explains the visible manner by which Yhwh became known. 113 Admittedly, the relative pronoun and its referent are separated by two clauses (‫ ְל ִב ְל ִּתי ֵהחֵל ְלעֵינֵי הַּגֹויִם‬and ‫ֲׁשר־ ֵהּמָה ְבתֹוכָם‬ ֶ ‫)א‬, but this phenomenon is not uncommon in Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek 5:16; 6:11; 8:3; 17:3; 20:11, 21; 23:19; and 38:8). The noun ‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ is the nearest antecedent that is not already tied to a relative pronoun. Michael Fishbane has noted that Isa 19:19–25 borrows and inverts language from the exodus tradition. In Exod 3, God reported that he heard the cries of Israel’s descendants (‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ ) ַצעֲקַ ת ְּבנֵי־י‬because of Egypt’s oppression (‫ֲצים א ָֹתם‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ִמ ְצרַ יִם לֹח‬ ֶ ‫ ַה ַּלחַץ א‬, Exod 3:9). Isaiah predicted that the Egyptians would build altars to Yhwh as they cried out (‫ִצעֲקּו‬ ְ ‫ )י‬because of oppression (‫ֲצים‬ ִ ‫)מ ְּפנֵי לֹח‬, ִ and that Yhwh would send a great deliverer to rescue them (‫יע וָרָב ְו ִה ִּצילָם‬ ַ ‫מֹוׁש‬ ִ ‫ִׁשלַח ָלהֶם‬ ְ ‫וי‬,ְ Isa 19:20). Through these acts, Yhwh 112. See Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 400; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 360; and Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 625. 113. It is difficult to discern how Leslie Allen interprets Ezek 20:9. He makes no reference to the unusual syntax in his commentary, and his translation of this verse is idiosyncratic: “But I acted in the interests of my name, not wanting the nations they lived among to take a debased view of it, after they had witnessed my making myself known to Israel with the promise of an exodus from Egypt.” See Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 2.

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

113

would become known to Egypt and they would come to know him: ‫ְונֹודַ ע‬ ‫ָדעּו ִמ ְצרַ יִם אֶת־יהוה ּבַּיֹום הַהּוא‬ ְ ‫“( יהוה ְל ִמ ְצרַ יִם ְוי‬So Yhwh will become known to Egypt and Egyptians will come to know Yhwh on that day,” Isa 19:21). This prophetic oracle uses language from the early chapters of Exodus and surprisingly inverts its participants by applying Yhwh’s salvific intervention to Egypt, the very nation from which Israel was rescued. Fishbane notes that Israel’s redemption became the prototype from which one can discern a broader, multinational reconciliation. 114 Just as Yhwh became known to Israel when he rescued them, so Yhwh would become known to Egypt. Psalm 76:2[1] emphasizes a theological truth that Exod 6:2–8 suggests. This verse links the Niphal of ‫ ידע‬and the metaphorical/connotative aspect of ‫שֵׁם‬: ‫ׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ּגָדֹול‬ ְ ‫יהּודה אֱל ִֹהים ְּבי‬ ָ ‫נֹודע ִּב‬ ָ (“God 115 has become known in Judah, his name is great in Israel”). This psalm extols Yhwh as king of Zion, the one who defended his city from mighty enemies. It opens with the proclamation that Yhwh had become known through these acts of salvation. That is, people perceived these actions and regarded his name highly. This psalm reflects poetically on Yhwh’s acts of salvation and the ascription of greatness to his name. Besides thematic links, these two passages are connected by Niphal of ‫ידע‬. These literary parallels to Exod 6:3 also support the view that the knowledge of God as Yhwh changed from the patriarchal era to the Mosaic era.

Conclusion A harmonistic reading of Exod 6:3 can be defended by a close study of its precise wording and an exploration of recognition language in the Exodus narrative. While Yhwh appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the God of fertility (‫)אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬, he also used the name Yhwh when relating to them. However, the double subject construction of Exod 6:3 and the RF suggest that the patriarchs’ knowledge of the divine name “Yhwh” vis-à-vis Moses’s generation was qualitatively different. 116 God did not become known 114. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 367–68. Fishbane mentions Exod 3:7–9 and 8:16– 24 as key allusions in Isa 19, but he overlooks Exod 6:2–8. 115. This verse appears within the “Elohistic Psalter,” which explains why the proper name ‫ יהוה‬is omitted. It is likely that an original ‫ יהוה‬was replaced by ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬in this section of the Psalter, because ‫ׁשמֹו‬ ְ never refers to ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬elsewhere. This unusual phenomenon may be better understood if archaeologists find early manuscripts of the Psalms, but the current textual evidence has not yielded satisfactory explanations. Emanuel Tov claims that a scroll of psalms with an Elohistic revision was coincidentally joined with other scrolls to form the master (canonical) copy of the Psalter. See “The Coincidental Nature of the Collections of Ancient Scriptures,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 133 (Boston: Brill, 2010), 153–69. 116. The patriarchs’ social context may have made any wide-ranging ascriptions to the name “Yhwh” impossible. Yhwh staged events so that the descendants of Abraham became numerous and were dwelling among a mighty nation before he intervened for

114

Chapter 4

to the patriarchs with respect to his name Yhwh because he neither anticipated the revelation of the name (as did the explicit naming wordplay in Exod 3:14–15) nor made wide-ranging ascriptions to it (as did the RFs in Exodus) in the Genesis narrative. 117 Yhwh took the initiative in revealing his char­acter through powerful interventions for Israel in the days of Moses. 118 Ezekiel 20:5, 9; Isa 19:19–25; and Ps 76:2 also reinforce the claim that Yhwh became known through these powerful acts of salvation. Segal has summarized the meaning of Exod 6:3 by adapting familiar biblical language: “My name [sic] will no longer be called El Shaddai, rather Yhwh will be my name.” 119 An etymologizing approach that views the divine name ‫ יהוה‬as a parseable form of ‫ היה‬can obscure the meaning not only of Exod 3:13–15, but also of Exod 6:3. Many interpreters agree with Jewish medieval commentator Rashbam (that is, Samuel ben Meir, ca. 1150 CE) that Yhwh was not known to the patriarchs with respect to his essence (‫)עיקר‬. 120 This is a valid claim, provided one does not seek a description of Yhwh’s essence via etymology (the original form of ‫ יהוה‬is “Yahweh,” which means “he causes to be” or “he is”). The consensus view holds that the “description” ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and Yhwh’s ְ ‫ֶהיֶה ִעּמ‬ promise ‫ָך‬ (“I will be with you,” Exod 3:12) define the “essence” of ְ‫א‬ Yhwh as his presence with his people through the shared root ‫היה‬. If this were true, these interpreters must explain how it was that the patriarchs did not know about this aspect of Yhwh’s character. The Genesis narrative contains several direct statements and indirect narrations of Yhwh’s presence with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 26:3, 24; 31:3; 39:3, 23). If Yhwh’s essence is made known by his presence, then this aspect of Yhwh’s character­would already have been known by the patriarchs. 121 them by name (Exod 2:23–25). Genesis 17:7 was ready to be fulfilled only then. This may explain why God refused to divulge his name to Jacob in Gen 32:30. His evasive reply ‫ָלּמָה‬ ‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ׁשאַל ִל‬ ְ ‫“( ּזֶה ִּת‬Why is it that you ask my name?”) showed that the sense of the divine name would not be revealed in Jacob’s days. 117. Another possible evidence for the contrast between ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬and ‫ יהוה‬is the nonoccurrence of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬outside the narrative of Genesis and Exodus. ‫ שַׁ דַּ י‬alone appears in Job, Ezekiel, and the Psalms, with two narrative appearances (Ruth 1:20–21). The disappearance of this patriarchal divine designator in common speech (Ruth 1:20–21 being an important exception) may show that the era of ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬had effectively come to an end after the time of Moses. 118. Seitz, “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name,” 158–59. 119. Segal, “The Revelation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew),” 105. 120. Katzenellenbogen, Torat Hayyim: Exodus 1–19 (Hebrew), 3:66 (Heb., ‫)סו‬. Most scholars claim that the character of Yhwh was unknown to the patriarchs. Certain commentators note this traditional view without holding to it personally. Wilson, “Critical Note on Exodus VI. 3,” 119; Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 79; Childs, The Book of Exodus, 112; and W. Ross Blackburn, The God Who Makes Himself Known: The Missionary Heart of the Book of Exodus, NSBT 28 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012), 27. 121. Gordon J. Wenham claims that “the Jewish suggestion” encounters problems when defining exactly what aspect of God’s character should be expressed in the name

The Divine Name Recognized: Exodus 6:2–8

115

The divine name ‫ יהוה‬is etymologically opaque, which allowed Yhwh to ascribe sense to a word that was an empty cell, an onomastic peg on which he could hang his salvific actions. In Exod 6:2–8, Yhwh suggested that not even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew Yhwh to the extent that Moses’s generation would. The recognition language in Exodus began to fill out the “whoever” that Yhwh would become. The Israelites and the Egyptians could now ascribe terrifying power, sovereignty, faithfulness to promises, and salvific concern for his covenant people to the name “Yhwh.” Yhwh. The patriarchs did see a partial fulfillment of promises (the birth of a son to a barren and old mother) and witnessed great miracles in the land, but Moses died outside of the promised land due to Yhwh’s anger. A more precise definition of Yhwh’s newly revealed character is needed to make sense of Exod 6:3. See “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980), 179.

Chapter 5

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9 Yhwh predicted his imminent revelation to Israel and to the world in Exod 6:2–8. 1 Despite the importance of Yhwh’s onomastic revelation in the events of the exodus, it remains ancillary to a greater revelation of the divine name. Christopher Seitz has said that “God was not known in his name Yhwh fully until the events at the sea. All levels of tradition are in essential agreement here.” 2 The importance of the Red Sea deliverance cannot be denied, but it was not exhaustive in its revelatory content or intent. As noted earlier, recognition language continues after this event (Exod 16:6, 12; 29:46; 31:13; cf. 18:11), showing that Israel had not yet fully recognized Yhwh as they ought. Furthermore, Israel’s gross violation of Yhwh’s demands for exclusive worship required a further revelation of his character (Exod 34:6–7). 3 Yhwh became known by name in part through his actions in Egypt, but more fully through his self-proclamation at Sinai. In this chapter­, I will develop this important theme that comes to a climax in Moses’s passionate intercession (Exod 33:12–23) that provoked Yhwh to make the Hebrew Bible’s most significant ascriptions to the Tetragrammaton (Exod 34:5–9).

The Knowledge of the Name Yhwh beyond Exodus 1–15 The narrative leading up to this climactic revelation reflects the increasing importance of the divine name. Moses’s father-in-law, Jethro, visited the Israelite camp after the battle against Amalek. When Moses told him of Yhwh’s wonders in Egypt, the Midianite priest confessed that Yhwh was greater than all gods (‫ּכי־גָדֹול יהוה ִמּכָל־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬, ִ Exod 18:11). Jethro typi1. Many interpreters have noticed that the knowledge of Yhwh is an important theme in Exodus. See Eslinger, “Knowing Yahweh”; and Donald E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 148. 2. Seitz, “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name,” 161. 3. In a later essay, Seitz mentions the three focuses of Yhwh’s progressive onomastic revelation, which includes Exodus 34:6–7. “Handing Over the Name: Christian Reflection on the Divine Name Yhwh,” in Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 139–40. However, he does not develop this point.

116

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

117

fied the non-Israelite who “fulfilled” the recognition formula: he recognized that Yhwh was greater than any other named god. This non-Israelite priest became the first in a chain of Gentiles who recognized the supremacy of Yhwh, the God of Israel. 4 The divine name ‫ יהוה‬took on new significance in the “name command” of the Decalogue: ‫ַּׁש ְוא‬ ָ ‫ּׂשא אֶת־ׁשֵם־יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ ל‬ ָ ‫“( לֹא ִת‬you must not bear the name of Yhwh your God in vain,” Exod 20:7//Deut 5:11). However, translators conceal the difficulty involved in interpreting the phrase ‫ּׂשא שֵׁם‬ ָ ‫‍ת‬ ִ ‭ when they render it “take the name.” Furthermore, most scholars consider the name command to be a prohibition against speaking the name in a way that dishonors Yhwh. André Lemaire expresses the scholarly consensus in that this command originally prohibited false oaths but was subsequently interpreted as prohibiting any mention of the name Yhwh in daily life. 5 Three problems arise for those who apply this phrase to false oaths. First, the verb ‫ שׁבע‬does not occur here, even though it is used throughout the legal literature to address oath-taking. 6 Second, the traditional interpretation requires adding a phrase such as “on your lips” or “in your mouth” to denote oath-taking. Since such specifications occur elsewhere (e.g., Ps 16:4), the burden of proof falls on those who claim that the name command contains an ellipsis. Finally, the verb ‫ נשׂא‬never refers to the act of taking; Classical Hebrew usually associates the verb ‫ לקח‬with this action. The most accurate translation of ‫ נשׂא‬is its common meaning: “lift,” “bear,” or “carry.” The name command thus has a general application: Yhwh exhorted his covenant people to live in such a manner that his name and reputation would be sanctified (regarded as holy) rather than profaned. 7 The Hebrew Bible teaches that Yhwh put his name on the covenant people when he became their God. 8 Yhwh forbade his people from bearing his name in a way that made light of him or brought disrepute on him. 9 The name command likely comes directly after the prohibitions against 4. Other examples include Rahab ( Josh 2:11), Naaman (2 Kgs 5:15–17), Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:34–37), and Cyrus (Ezra 1:1–2). 5. See Lemaire, The Birth of Monotheism, 128. 6. Lemaire may be equating the original meaning of the text with later rabbinic interpretations of it. Cf. Targums Onqelos, Neophyti, and Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod 20:7 and Sifra Qiddushin 2:6. 7. For an in-depth study of the name command, see Carmen Joy Imes, “Bearing Yhwh’s Name at Sinai: A Re-examination of the Name Command of the Decalogue,” Ph.D. diss. (Wheaton College, 2016). 8. The most important idiom that expresses this idea is ‫ִקרָא שֵׁם עַל‬ ְ ‫“( נ‬a name is called over,” e.g., Deut 28:10; Jer 15:16; 2 Chron 7:14). For a helpful discussion of this phrase within the context of other “name idioms,” see Sandra Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 318 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 83–85. 9. In Exod 23:21, Yhwh commanded Israel to respect their heavenly messenger because “my name is in him” (‫ׁש ִמי ְּב ִק ְרּבֹו‬ ְ ‫)ּכי‬. ִ This elevated, prosaic phrase parallels the terse “legal” phrase ‫נשׂא שֵׁם‬.

118

Chapter 5

idolatry to indicate the primary means by which Israel could avoid bearing the name Yhwh in vain. It is also the obverse of the first command: the Decalogue begins with the proclamation that Yhwh (alone) was Israel’s God, and the name command proclaimed that Israel was Yhwh’s particular possession. 10 Exodus 20:24 connects Israelite worship to Yhwh’s name, presence, and blessing. The verb ‫ְּכיר‬ ִ ‫ ַאז‬presents an obstacle to understanding the following statement: ָ‫ֶת־ׁש ִמי אָבֹוא ֵאלֶיךָ ּובֵרַ ְכ ִּתיך‬ ְ ‫ְּכיר א‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ַאז‬ ֶ ‫“( ְּבכָל־ ַהּמָקֹום א‬in any place where I mention/memorialize my name, I will come to you and will bless you”). Scholars debate whether to translate the Hiphil form of ‫ זכר‬as “mention,” which seems to be the case in some passages (1 Sam 4:18; Isa 49:1; Jer 4:16; Amos 6:10), or “cause to remember/memorialize,” in accordance with the usual causative function of the Hiphil stem (Exod 20:24; 1 Kgs 17:18). The difference may not actually be substantial because these two ideas indicate the execution and effect of one action. 11 Yhwh here suggests that his blessing would now be tied to the proclamation and remembrance of his name. In Exod 23:13, Yhwh exhorted his people generally before giving a specific prohibition: ‫ְּכירּו לֹא‬ ִ ‫אחִֵרים לֹא תַ ז‬ ֲ ‫ּׁשמֵרּו ְוׁשֵם אֱל ִֹהים‬ ָ ‫אלֵיכֶם ִּת‬ ֲ ‫ֲׁשר־ ָאמ ְַר ִּתי‬ ֶ ‫ּובכֹל א‬ ְ ָ‫ַל־ּפיך‬ ִ ‫ִּׁשמַע ע‬ ָ ‫“( י‬Now you must keep watch over all I have said to you, and you must not mention the name of other gods––it must not be heard on your mouth”). Yhwh demanded exclusive devotion to his name such that other divine names were not even to be spoken. The conflict between Yhwh and idols was defined absolutely: Israel would either honor the name of Yhwh or the name(s) of other gods. Other biblical authors reflected on this prohibition in different genres, thus showing its importance. 12 The divine name Yhwh gained a prominence among Israel that the patriarchs could never have experienced. While the name “Yhwh” had become associated with the events of the exodus (Exod 1–15), it gained greater recognition in Exod 16–31 through Jethro’s confession, through the name command in the Decalogue, and through laws that safeguarded Yhwh’s reputation. These texts point to a God who was zealous for his name (‫ִכּי יהוה‬ 10. For a thorough discussion of this verse that arrives at different conclusions, see Thomas R. Elssner, Das Namensmissbrauch-Verbot (Ex 20,7/Dtn 5,11): Bedeutung, Entstehung und frühe Wirkungsgeschichte, ETS 75 (Leipzig: Benno, 1999). 11. Brevard S. Childs confidently claims that the four occurrences of the Niphal of ‫ זכר‬are passives of the Hiphil rather than the Qal ( Jer 11:19; Hos 2:19; Zech 13:2; Ps 83:5). Memory and Tradition in Israel (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1962), 16. However, each case is ambiguous and it is difficult to choose between “remember” and “mention” as the most appropriate translation. 12. See Josh 23:7; Hos 2:19; Zech 13:2; and Ps 16:4. It is unusual that the singular noun ‫ ׁשֵם‬occurs here with plural genitives. ‫ ׁשֵם‬represents an instance where a noun that often occurs in the plural can sometimes be used in the singular, collective sense (cf. ‫אישׁ‬, ִ ‫שּׁה‬ ָ ‫א‬, ִ and ‫)עֵץ‬. See BHRG 184. It is possible that ‫ ׁשֵם‬was understood verbally to mean “the naming of other gods must not be heard [coming] from your mouth.”

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

119

‫שמֹו אֵל קַ ּנָא הּוא‬ ְׁ ‫קַ ּנָא‬, Exod 34:14). 13 Yhwh chose not to link historical actions to his name in the patriarchal era, but the growth of his people into a nation in the Mosaic era and Pharaoh’s flagrant opposition provided a perfect context for divine revelation.

Boundaries of the Textual Units The climactic text that makes sense of the divine name is part of a larger, tightly woven narrative unit, which can be easily summarized (Exod 32–34). The Israelites became impatient with Moses’s long stay on Mount Horeb and required Aaron to make a calf as a god to “go before them” (32:1–6). Yhwh was ready to destroy Israel for their disobedience, but Moses interceded immediately and pacified Yhwh’s anger (32:7–14). Moses became furious with Aaron and the people when he descended the mountain. He smashed the tablets of the covenant, castigated the Israelites, and returned to intercede before Yhwh (32:15–30). God conceded to send an emissary ְ ‫ )מ ְַלא‬to lead Israel out of Sinai (32:31–33:6), but Moses requested that (‫ָך‬ Yhwh himself travel with Israel and make himself known (33:7–23). Yhwh eventually granted this wish by proclaiming his own name in Moses’s presence (34:1–9). Yhwh proclaimed his gracious character, which guaranteed that Israel would remain his covenant people. The narrative concludes with further covenant stipulations and a report of Moses’s continued mediation for the people (34:10–35). Israel had forfeited Yhwh’s guiding presence but Moses saved them through three daring intercessions. In the first, Moses appealed to Yhwh’s reputation as the basis for restraint: if the Egyptians heard that Yhwh had destroyed his people in the desert, they would assume that the Yhwh of the exodus either was not powerful enough to lead his people to their inheritance or had changed his mind about them (Exod 32:11–14). Yhwh relented as a result of Moses’s words (‫ ַו ִּיּנָחֶם‬, 32:14), though subsequent events made clear that Yhwh was still angry with the Israelites. In his second intercession, Moses reascended Sinai and demanded that Yhwh erase him from his “book” if Yhwh would not bear away the people’s sin (Exod 32:31–35). 14 He denied Moses’s shocking request and struck down some of the people for 13. Some translate ‫ׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫יהוה קַ ּנָא‬, “as for Yhwh, his name is Jealous.” See Propp, Exodus 19–40, 614–15; Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 444; and Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 95. However, this interpretation overemphasizes the linguistic aspect of ‫ ׁשֵם‬and confuses a character description with a personal name. ‫ קַ ּנָא‬is built with a noun pattern that indicates profession, which could be rendered periphrastically as “Yhwh acts as one impassioned for his name/reputation.” Thus, ‫ קַ ּנָא‬is an indefinite predicate of the subject ‫ יהוה‬and is part of a clause of classification. Ibid., 32. For more information on this noun pattern, see Joüon, 231–32. For further reflections on Yhwh’s passion for his name, see Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 132. See above, p. 62 n. 84. 14. See below, p. 154 n. 162, for an explanation of Yhwh’s “book.”

120

Chapter 5

their actions. Nevertheless, Yhwh promised that an angel would accompany Moses in his task of leading Israel to the land of Canaan (Exod 32:34). Exodus 33:1–6 reports Yhwh’s weighty claim that he could not accompany the people without destroying them. This situation grieved the Israelites, who removed their ornaments as a sign of mourning. 15 Moses was able to check Yhwh’s wrath through his first intercession, but Yhwh made clear during Moses’s second intercession that he was too angry to dwell among his people. The mediation of a messenger was necessary (Exod 32:34; 33:2). Moses objected to this situation and pressed Yhwh to make known his ways so he could know how Yhwh would act toward the rebellious people. His third intercession (Exod 33:12–23) moved Yhwh to give the most comprehensive definition of his name in the Hebrew Bible (Exod 34:5–9). Exodus 33:12–23 continues in the intercessory vein of Exod 32:11–14 and 32:31– 33:6. The textual unit that concerns the Tent of Meeting (‫)אֹהֶל מֹועֵד‬ comes between the second and third intercessions (Exod 33:7–11). The parenthetical nature of this paragraph is shown by the opening word (‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)ּומ‬, but this parenthesis is intentionally placed and should be read as a part of a literary whole. These verses state that Moses would customarily pitch a tent outside the camp to meet Yhwh. 16 Thus, Exod 33:7–11 explains where Moses and Yhwh had the conversation of Exod 33:12–23 and how Yhwh became available to Moses while refusing to dwell among the people. The redundant statement that the tent was “outside the camp, far from the camp” supports this interpretation (‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫חנֶה ה ְַרחֵק ִמן־ ַה ַּמ‬ ֲ ‫מחּוץ ַל ַּמ‬, ִ Exod 33:7). Finally, the conclusion of the unit leads smoothly into and helpfully explains the passionate tone of the conversation between Moses and Yhwh: “And Yhwh would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Exod 33:11). The ‫ אֹהֶל מֹועֵד‬of Exod 33:7–11 appears to be distinct from the ‫אֹהֶל מֹועֵד‬ elsewhere in the Pentateuch. This difficulty can be reconciled by noting that the people’s sin had effectively abrogated the role of the Tent of Meeting as a shrine (see Exod 25–31). According to Moberly, the tent of Exod 33:7–11 had a distinct function as a substitute tent in place of the tent in the middle of the camp, the former remaining in place until Yhwh would 15. Martin Mark notes that the people had expressed their desire for the visible presence of a god just days earlier (Exod 32:1, 23). While their idolatry was abominable to Yhwh, it expressed Israel’s desire for a deity to lead them. See “Mein Angesicht geht” (Ex 33:14): Gottes Zusage personaler Führung, HBS 66 (Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 451. 16. The opening words of this unit signal its narratival role: ‫ׁשה יִּקַ ח אֶת־הָאֹהֶל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“( ּומ‬Now Moses would take the tent”). The leading action of this yiqtol verb is carried along by several wĕqatal verbs that indicate recurring actions. Childs remarks that the Israelites’ response to Yhwh’s descent into the tent “witnesses to the[ir] obedient and worshipful behavior over an extended period of time, thereby providing Moses with a warrant to intercede in vv. 12ff.” The Book of Exodus, 592.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

121

restore his favor and renew the covenant. 17 The placement of Exod 33:7–11 between Moses’s second and third intercessions highlights the need for a third intercession (because Yhwh could not dwell among Israel) and suggests that this final intercession would be unparalleled in its intimacy. 18 Moses’s final intercession prompted Yhwh to make theologically significant ascriptions to his name (Exod 34:5–9). In Exod 34:1–4, Yhwh commanded that Moses carve two new tablets to bring up the mountain the next morning. Yhwh would graciously restore the covenant, which had been symbolized as broken when Moses smashed the tablets (Exod 32:19). These verses develop the covenant theme, but I exclude them from analysis because they are not directly related to the intercession-revelation complex in Exod 33:12–23 and 34:5–9. The relationship between these units is clear: Exod 34:5 describes Yhwh’s descent before Moses, and the following two verses describe the divine character, thus fulfilling the theophany report in Exod 33:19–23. The unit concludes with Moses’s humble response to the revelation and a repetition of his earlier requests (Exod 34:8–9). Furthermore, Exod 34:10–27 forms a distinct unit that resumes Exod 34:1–4 by specifying the content of the renewed covenant. 19 In summary, Exod 33:12– 23 and 34:5–9 pertain to the revelation of Yhwh’s character (as ascribed to his name), while Exod 34:1–4 and 34:10–27 pertain to Yhwh’s renewing the covenant.

Text-Critical Issues The LXX text of Exod 33:12–23 deviates uncharacteristically from MT. A survey of its textual variants shows that the Greek translator deliberately smoothed out many difficulties. For example, by rendering ‫ ָּפנִים‬with different nouns in Exod 33:11 and 20 (ἐνώπιος, πρόσωπον), he avoided the seeming contradiction that Moses spoke to Yhwh face-to-face when seeing Yhwh should have been lethal (Exod 33:20). The Greek additions to vv. 14a and 14b helped to clarify that Yhwh was speaking. 20 17. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 64. 18. Mark claims that a ring structure surrounds the Tent of Meeting text. He divides the second intercession into two halves (32:34a–33:3a and 33:3b–6) as he does with the first part of the third intercession (33:12–14 and 33:15–17). See Mein Angesicht geht, 451. Mark’s structure elucidates the importance of Exod 33:7–11 in its own right, but his literary divisions are arbitrary and his chiasm forced. 19. For a helpful history of interpretation on the “Ritual Decalogue” of Exod 34:10–28, see Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte, BZAW 315 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 157–71. 20. Benjamin D. Sommer, “Translation as Commentary: The Case of the Septuagint to Exodus 32–33,” Textus 20 (2000): 43–60.

Chapter 5

122

Table 9.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 33:12–23 ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר מ ֶֹׁשה אֶל־יהוה‬12a Moses said to Yhwh, ‫ַּתה אֹמֵר ֵאלַי‬ ָ ‫ְראֵה א‬

12b

“Look, you are saying to me,

‫ַהעַל אֶת־ ָהעָם ַהּזֶה‬

12c

‘Bring this people up,’

‫ַּתה לֹא הֹודַ ְעּתַ נִי‬ ָ ‫ְוא‬

12d

but you have not let me know

‫ׁשלַח ִע ִּמי‬ ְ ‫ר־ּת‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫אֵת א‬

12e

whom you will send with me.

‫ַּתה ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ָ ‫ְוא‬ ָ ‫יְדַ ְע ִּתיך ְבׁשֵם‬a

12f

Yet you have said,

12g

‘I know you by name,

‫ָאת חֵן ְּבעֵינָי‬ ָ ‫ְוגַם־ ָמצ‬

12h

and, furthermore, you have found favor in my eyes.’

ָ‫ָאתי חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיך‬ ִ ‫ְוע ַָּתה ִאם־נָא ָמצ‬ ָ‫ֶת־ּד ָרכֶך‬ ְ ‫הֹוד ֵענִי נָא א‬ ִ b ָ‫ְוא ֵָדעֲך‬

ָ‫ֶמצָא־חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיך‬ ְ ‫ְל ַמעַן א‬ ָ ‫ּוראֵה ִּכי ע ְַּמך הַּגֹוי ַהּזֶה‬ ְ

13a 13b

So now, if I have found favor in your eyes, then please let me know your ways

13c

so thatj I may know you,

13d

with the result that I find favor in your eyes.

13e

And look: this nation is your people.”

‫וַּיֹאמַר‬c 14a And he said, ‫ ָּפנַי יֵלֵכּו‬d ְ‫הנִח ִֹתי לָך‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬

14b

“I myself k will go,

14c

and I will give you rest.”

‫ וַּיֹאמֶר ֵאלָיו‬15a And he said to him,

‫ ִאם־אֵין ָּפנֶיךָ ה ְֹל ִכים‬e

‫אַל־ּתַ עֲלֵנּו ִמּזֶה‬

15b

“If you yourself are not going,

15c

then do not bring us up from here.

‫ ּו ַבּמֶה ִיּוָדַ ע אֵפֹוא‬16a For how else can it be known ָ‫אנִי ְו ַעּמֶך‬ ֲ ָ‫ָאתי חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיך‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי־ ָמצ‬16b that I and your people have found favor in your eyes? ָ ‫ֶכ ְּתך ִעּמָנּו‬ ְ ‫ הֲלֹוא ְּבל‬16c Is it not in your going with us, ‫אנִי ְוע ְַּמךָ ִמּכָל־ ָהעָם‬ ֲ ‫ִפלֵינּו‬ ְ ‫ְונ‬ 16d so thatl I and your people are distinct of all the people ‫ֲדמָה‬ ָ ‫ַל־ּפנֵי ָהא‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ע‬ ֶ‫א‬

16e

on the face of the earth?”

‫ וַּיֹאמֶר יהוה אֶל־מ ֶֹׁשה‬17a Then Yhwh said to Moses, ‫ֱׂשה‬ ֶ ‫ ֶאע‬. . . . . . ‫ּגַם אֶת־הַָּדבָר ַהּזֶה‬

17b

“Even this thing . . . . . . I will do,

‫ֲׁשר ִּדּב ְַר ָּת‬ ֶ‫א‬

17c

that you have spoken

‫ָאת חֵן ְּבעֵינַי‬ ָ ‫ִּכי־ ָמצ‬ ‫ָוא ֵָדעֲךָ ְּבׁשֵם‬f

17d

because you have found favor in my eyes

17e

and I know you by name.”

‫ וַּיֹאמַר‬18a Then he said, ָ‫ֶת־ּכבֹדֶך‬ ְ ‫ה ְַר ֵאנִי נָא א‬g 18b “Please let me see your glory!” ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬19a And he said, ָ‫ָל־טּובי עַל־ ָּפנֶיך‬ ִ ‫ֲביר ּכ‬ ִ ‫אנִי ַאע‬ ֲ h 19b “I will cause all my goodness to pass over you, ָ‫ ְל ָפנֶיך‬i‫אתי ְבׁשֵם יהוה‬ ִ ‫ ְו ָק ָר‬19c then I will invokem the name ‘Yhwh’ before you ‫ֲׁשר ָאחֺן‬ ֶ ‫ְוחַּנ ִֹתי אֶת־א‬

19d

and I will favor whomever I favor

‫ֲׁשר אֲרַ חֵם‬ ֶ ‫ְוִרח ְַמ ִּתי אֶת־א‬

19e

and have compassion on whomever I have compassion.”

‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬20a And he said, ‫לֹא תּוכַל ִל ְראֹת אֶת־ ָּפנָי‬

20b

“You cannot see my face,

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

123

Table 9.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 33:12–23 ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ִּכי לֹא־י ְִר ַאנִי ָהא‬

20c

because no human can see me

‫ָוחָי‬

20d

and live.”

‫ וַּיֹאמֶר יהוה‬21a And Yhwh said, ‫ִהּנֵה מָקֹום ִא ִּתי‬

21b

“See, there is a place with me,

‫ְו ִנּצ ְַב ָּת עַל־הַּצּור‬

21c

so stand firm upon the rock.

‫ְו ָהיָה ַּבעֲבֹר ְּכב ִֹדי‬ ‫ִקרַ ת הַּצּור‬ ְ ‫ְוׂשַ ְמ ִּתיךָ ְּבנ‬

22a

And when my glory passes over,

22b

I will set you in the cleft of thatn rock,

‫ָבִרי‬ ְ ‫ְוׂשַ ּכ ִֹתי כ ִַּפי ָעלֶיךָ עַד־ע‬

22c

and I will place my hand over you until I pass over.

‫ֲסר ִֹתי אֶת־ּכ ִַּפי‬ ִ ‫ַוה‬

23a

Then I will take my hand away

‫ית אֶת־אֲחֹרָי‬ ָ ‫ְו ָר ִא‬

23b

and you will see my back parts,o

‫ּו ָפנַי לֹא יֵרָאּו‬

23c

but my face must not be seen.”

a. Gk. παρὰ πάντας (“more than all”). I will begin my commentary with a discussion of text-critical issues because of the unusual deviations of the LXX from MT. b. Gk. ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν (“make yourself visible to me”), Lat, ostende mihi faciem tuam (“Show your face to me”). The plural form ָ‫ ְּד ָרכֶך‬is unusual, though the same form appears in Josh 1:8 and Ps 119:37. A singular form (which would have to be repointed) could indicate that Moses was simply asking Yhwh for the road from Sinai to Canaan. See H. C. Brichto, “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry,” HUCA 54 (1983): 26. However, the course of this dialogue indicates that Moses was not looking for a route––he sought a revelation that would guarantee the people’s safety no matter which route they took. Finally, it is unlikely that by learning the route, Moses would have come to know Yhwh (Exod 33:13). c. Gk. (Corrected Codex Ambrosianus and minuscule manuscripts) and Syriac add a subject (+ αὐτῷ κύριος [“the Lord to him”]; + mryʾ lmwšʾ [“the Lord to Moses”]). d. Gk. αὐτὸς προπορεύσομαί σου (“it will go before you”) and Syr. qdmy zl (“go before me”). e. The BHS apparatus notes the LXX rendering (αὐτὸς σὺ πορεύῃ [“You yourself are going”], other manuscripts add μεθ’ ἡμῶν [“with us”]). However, this reading is not textually significant. The Greek translator accurately interpreted the Hebrew phrase. f. Gk. παρὰ πάντας, see above, note a. g. Gk. ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν, see above, note b. h. Gk. ἐγὼ παρελεύσομαι πρότερός σου τῇ δόξῃ μου (“I will pass my glory before you”). i. Gk. ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου (“by my name”). j. The waw of ָ‫ ְוא ֵָדעֲך‬is likely hypotactic with a consequential force. The “simple” waw with a yiqtol verb that follows a volitional form often has this meaning (e.g., Judg 9:7; 2 Sam 19:38; Jer 40:15). See IBHS 562–63, 650. k. This use of ‫ ָּפנִים‬indicates a person’s unmediated presence (see also v. 15b). l. I interpret the waw of ‫ִפלֵינּו‬ ְ ‫ ְונ‬as hypotactic with a consequential force. The “consecutive” waw with a qatal form may have this meaning (e.g., 1 Sam 10:8 and 1 Kgs 2:37). See IBHS 536–37. m. See above, p. 102 n. 79. n. This translation highlights the anaphoric use of the article (e.g., Gen 18:7–8; Ruth 1:1–2, etc.). See BHRG 190. o. See below, p. 139 n. 89.

Chapter 5

124

Table 10.  Colometric Analysis of Exodus 34:5–9 ‫ ַוּיֵרֶד יהוה ֶּב ָענָן‬5a Then Yhwh descended in the cloud, ‫ׁשם‬ ָ ‫ִתיַּצֵב ִעּמֹו‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬5b he stood with him there, ‫ִק ָרא ְבׁשֵם יהוה‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬5c and he invokedc the name “Yhwh.” ‫ ַוּיַעֲבֹר יהוה עַל־ ָּפנָיו‬6a Then Yhwh passed by him ‫ִקרָא‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬6b and called out, ‫יהוה יהוה‬a

6c

‫אֵל רַ חּום‬

6d

“Yhwh, Yhwh, a God compassionate

‫ְוחַּנּון‬ ְ ‫ֶאר‬ ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬

6e

and gracious,

6f

slow to anger

‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬

6g

and abounding in loving faithfulness,

‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬

7a

[a God]d who maintains kindness to thousands,

‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון ָופֶׁשַ ע ְוח‬

7b

who bears away iniquity and transgression and sin,

‫ְונַּקֵה לֹא ְינ ֶַּקה‬

7c

‫ּפֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות‬

7d

but he will certainly not leave unpunished, [a God] who brings the iniquity of fathers to bear

‫ַל־ּבנֵי ָבנִים‬ ְ ‫עַל־ ָּבנִים ְוע‬

7e

against sons and grandsons,

‫ַל־רּב ִֵעים‬ ִ ‫ֵׁשים ְוע‬ ִ ‫ַל־ׁשּל‬ ִ ‫ע‬

7f

against those of the third and fourth generation.”

‫ ַו ְי ַמהֵר מ ֶֹׁשה‬8a Moses quickly ‫ ַוּיִּק ֹד א ְַרצָה‬8b bent his knees toward the ground, ‫ִׁש ָּתחּו‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬8c lay prostrate, ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬9a and said, b ֹ‫ָאתי חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיךָ אֲדנָי‬ ִ ‫ִאם־נָא ָמצ‬ 9b “If now I have found favor in your eyes, O Lord, ְ ‫ יֵל‬9c ‫ֶך־נָא אֲדֹנָי ְּב ִק ְרּבֵנּו‬ may the Lord please go among us, ‫ַם־קׁשֵה־עֹרֶף הּוא‬ ְ ‫ִּכי ע‬

9d

‫ַּטאתֵ נּו‬ ָ ‫ּולח‬ ְ ‫ְו ָסל ְַח ָּת ַלעֲֹונֵנּו‬

9e

[Please]f forgive our iniquities and our sins,

‫ּו ְנח ְַל ָּתנּו‬

9f

and sog take us as an inheritance.”

even thoughe they are a stiff-necked people.

a.  This word is lacking in the LXX. The MT should be considered original since the Greek text is likely simplifying an anomalous use of the divine name. b.  This word is lacking in the LXX. This textual variant is not significant for determining the original text because the Greek text often deviates from the Hebrew with respect to divine designators. c.  See above, p. 102 n. 79. d.  I have supplied this word to make clear that the participial phrases are predicates of the noun ‫אֵל‬. e.  See below, p. 159. f.  I have supplied this word to make clear that the verb ‫ ְו ָסל ְַח ָּת‬takes the aspect of the preְ ‫יֵל‬. ceding jussive ‫ֶך־נָא‬ g.  I interpret the waw of ‫ ּו ְנח ְַל ָּתנּו‬as hypotactic with a consequential force. The “relative” (that is, “consecutive” or “conversive”) waw with a qatal form often has this meaning when folְ ‫)יֵל‬. See IBHS 529–30. Examples of this use of the wĕqatal include: Gen lowing a volitive (here ‫ֶך‬ 12:3, Num 13:17–18, Ruth 2:7, etc.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

125

The Greek version also softened its statements about the special relationship between Moses and Yhwh. Both attestations of Yhwh knowing Moses ‫“( ְבּׁשֵם‬by name,” vv. 12g, 17e) are replaced by παρὰ πάντας (“more than all”). Also, the LXX translator greatly reduced the dense constellation of concepts concerning God’s self-manifestation in Exod 33:12–23. He eclipsed ‫ָכים‬ ִ ‫( ְדּר‬v. 13b) and ‫( כָּבֹוד‬v. 18b) through the generic phrase ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν (“show yourself to me”), and he assimilated the ‫ טוּב‬of Yhwh to his glory (δόξῃ, v. 19b) so that it cohered with v. 22a. Finally, the translator avoided explicit mention of God’s personal name (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, “by my name,” v. 19c). Through these consistent divergences, the translator made a difficult text coherent and theologically safe––it maintained a certain view of God that was popular at the time of translation. These textual differences do not indicate a different Hebrew Vorlage. 21 In one instance, the Old Latin repeats the wording of the LXX (v. 13b), but it should not be seen as an independent witness to a variant text. The nature of the Old Latin as a “daughter translation” of the LXX has been clearly shown. 22 The Targums and the Syriac sometimes parallel the Greek translation as well. These versions do not depend textually on the LXX, but they have followed it by smoothing and “taming” this difficult text. 23

Genre Exodus 33:12–23 does not easily fit into one generic category. The unit may be classified as a “petition,” because the eight appearances of ‫וַּיֹאמֶר‬ indicate that a conversation took place, and the first half of the unit emphasizes Moses’s words to Yhwh. 24 However, the second half emphasizes Yhwh’s words to Moses, and divine responses are not usually considered part of a “petition.” 25 Patrick Miller rightly notes that the Hebrew Bible does not make sharp distinctions between types of prayer: intercession, petition, complaint, and confession may all be described by the same term. 26 21. Daniel Gurtner notes that “most scholars recognize that Exod follows the Heb. of MT with a great deal of care, and there is no need to posit a Vorlage that differs substantially from the consonantal MT.” Exodus: A Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex Vaticanus, SCS (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 13. 22. See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 133. 23. For further discussion on the Aramaic translations of Exod 33:12–23, see Sommer, “Translation as Commentary,” 56–57. 24. A “petition” is defined as “a request or plea from one person to another asking for some definite response.” According to George Coats, only Exod 32:12b–13 should be classified as a “petition.” See Exodus 1–18, 168. 25. Moshe Greenberg notes that biblical prayers fall on a continuum between spontaneity (as often found in prose accounts) and formulaic speech (as often found in Psalms). This explains why scholars have difficulty defining the precise features of biblical prayers. See Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 38–47. 26. Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 47.

126

Chapter 5

The literary placement and contents of Exod 33:12–23 suggest that the more specific title “intercession” best classifies this unit. 27 Earlier, Yhwh had told Moses to leave him alone so that he could destroy the people (‫ַהּנִיחָה‬ ‫ּלי‬, ִ Exod 32:10). Moses resisted this “command,” imploring Yhwh instead to restrain his anger. Similarly, Moses initiated his third intercession in response to Yhwh’s open-ended command that Israel wait and see what he ְ ‫ֱׂשה־ּל‬ would do with them (‫ָך‬ ֶ ‫וא ְֵדעָה מָה ֶאע‬,ְ Exod 33:5). Yhwh had effectively opened himself to human intercession in these instances. 28 Moses took immediate advantage of this and brought Israel before Yhwh with pleas for forgiveness and acceptance. Intercessory prayers do not follow a fixed form, though most contain an address, a complaint, and a petition. 29 Most of Moses’s intercessions contain a motivation that encouraged Yhwh to act (e.g., Exod 32:12–13 and Num 14:14–19). The intercession in Exod 33:12–23 uniquely presents Moses’s complaint as his motivation for Yhwh to act. Furthermore, Yhwh answered his petition gradually. In vv. 12–13, Moses complained that Yhwh was not treating him according to their unique relationship, though a revelation of the ways of Yhwh would indicate his favor. In vv. 15–16, Moses made a subtle petition that Yhwh go with him and the people. He stated this wish indirectly because of Yhwh’s anger against Israel. If Moses would see Yhwh’s glory (Exod 33:18), he would know whether Yhwh would again be gracious to Israel. The rest of this textual unit contains Yhwh’s response to Moses’s intercession (Exod 33:19–23). While the revelation in Exod 34:5–9 fulfills the intercession of Exod 33:12–23 and stands in thematic continuity with it, the generic features of these units differ. Josef Scharbert has classified Exod 34:6­– 7 as a “Confession Formula” (Bekenntnisformel ), arguing that its original sitz im leben occurred in liturgical invocation or personal intercession. 30 Ruth Scoralick has employed the term “Predications about God” (Gottesprädikationen) because of the way this divine proclamation is applied in later contexts. 31 27. The rhetorical complexity of this unit frustrates precise classification. The label “entreaty” would emphasize Moses’s personal requests to know the ways of Yhwh and his glory, while “intercession” emphasizes his inclusion of the people within these requests. I have chosen the latter since Moses was primarily motivated to see Yhwh favor his rebellious people. 28. See further Ruth Scoralick, “‘Jhwh, Jhwh, ein gnädiger und barmherziger Gott . . .’ (Ex 34, 6): Die Gottesprädikationen aus Ex 34, 6f. in ihrem Kontext in Kapitel 32–34,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum, VWGT 18 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 141–56. 29. Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 267. See Miller’s appendixes (pp. 337–57) for structural outlines of several biblical prayers. 30. J. Scharbert, “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex. 34, 6f und seiner Parallelen,” Biblica 38 (1957): 132. 31. Ruth Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch, HTS 33 (Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 63–68.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

127

Neither term makes clear whether God was revealing himself or whether humans were making confession about God. Scharbert and Scoralick’s terms should be nuanced because the form-critical disposition to find an original life setting (that often differs from that of the text) is rarely based on firm evidence. A term is needed that does not assume Exod 34:6–7 arose from human invention. Hermann Spieckermann has coined the term Gnadenformel (“Grace Formula”) to describe the divine speech. This compound word helpfully describes the content of Exod 34:6–7 without reconstructing its supposed life setting. 32 However, this term does not encompass the proclamation of Yhwh’s punishment against sinners. Scoralick helpfully notes that Namensformel (“Name formula”) is a more neutral and appropriate categorization that is based on content (inhaltlich). 33 To avoid the questionable assumptions of form criticism, this unit should be categorized according to its content. However, Exodus 34:5–9 contains elements from various genres that complicate classification. The unit begins with a “theophany report,” is followed by Yhwh’s proclamation (the Namensformel proper), and concludes with a report of Moses’s response. The wayyiqtol verbs in v. 5 and vv. 8–9 are clearly ancillary to Yhwh’s proclamation in Exod 34:6–7, so any generic classification should emphasize this proclamation while avoiding judgments about how Israel may have employed it in its religious life. 34 Exodus 34:5–9 is most appropriately classified as a “Divine Name-Proclamation” (hereafter, DNP), since Yhwh chose to reveal himself at this moment and through this revelation he made sense of his own name.

Literary Structure Two recent source-critical studies have sought for literary coherence in Exod 33:12–23. 35 Horst Seebass concludes that this unit was formed from two sources: the intercessory scene (Fürbittszene, 31:12–17, 19) and the scene highlighting recognition of God (ein Erkennen de Deo, 31:18, 20–23). 36 Rachel 32. Hermann Spieckermann, “Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr . . .” ZAW 102 (1990): 1–18. 33. Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 64. 34. As will be argued below, this further demonstrates that the revelation of the name was more important than the theophany itself. 35. Horst Seebass, “Mose in einem seiner Ausnahmegespräche mit Gott: Zu Ex 33,12–23,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Markus Witte, 2 vols., BZAW 345 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 1:301–31; and Rachel M. Billings, “The Problem of the Divine Presence: Source-critical Suggestions for the Analysis of Exodus xxxiii 12–23,” VT 54 (2004): 427–44. 36. Seebass’s work seems to build on the earlier work of Erik Aurelius who divided this text into two parts: the “intercessory scene” (Fürbittszene) of 33:12–17 and the commentaries of the “theophany report” (Kommentaren zum Theophaniebericht) in 33:18–23. See Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament, CBOTS 27 (Stockholm:

128

Chapter 5

Billings asserts that two logical units make up the passage (33:12–17 and 18–23). She further divides the former unit into vv. 12–13, 17 and vv. 14–16, based on the repeated terminology and their logical coherence when separated. She divides the latter into vv. 18, 20–23 and vv. 19–20, which report the theophany and then give exegetical commentary on its theological content. These studies reflect scholars’ tendency to find coherence in texts that seem to lack it by positing separate literary sources. Central to the interpretive challenges of this unit is the dense constellation of concepts that indicates God’s manifestations: his messenger, his ways, his face, his glory, his goodness, and his name. Moses and Yhwh seem to be talking past each other even as they add theological concepts to their discussion. 37 While rearranging and dividing Moses and Yhwh’s conversation removes some logical difficulties, it does not resolve them all. Even if the interpreter divides the conversation into two original sources, the disjunction within each source remains. For example, Seebass must explain why, when Moses asked to know the ways of Yhwh (v. 12), Yhwh promised his presence (v. 14). Billings must explain why Yhwh spoke of the impossibility of seeing his face (v. 20) when Moses had asked to see his glory (v. 18). The coherence of Exod 33:12–23 as a single literary unit can be justified on two grounds. First, Yhwh’s terse reply in v.  14 and Moses’s “random” interruption in v.  18 indicate the special relationship between Moses and Yhwh (Exod 33:11). 38 Second, this conversation may reflect the biblical author’s predilection for mimesis. According to Jacob Licht, this literary term describes how an author reproduces ordinary human realities in an interesting form. 39 The biblical author preserved the account of the event as he understood it, rather than smoothing out the conversation by rearranging Moses’s requests with Yhwh’s immediate answers or by standardizing its vocabulary. The rhetoric of this intercession must be understood according to its place in the larger narrative, rather than its conformity to a hypothetical source that better coheres with modern, linear logic. 40 Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988), 102–3. See also Coats, Exodus 1–18, 173 for a further description of the “theophany report” form. 37. W. H. Irwin notes that the responses of Moses and Yhwh are “at cross-­ purposes.” “The Course of the Dialogue between Moses and Yhwh in Exodus 33:12–17,” CBQ 59 (1997): 630. 38. Brevard Childs affirms this: “There is an emotional tone of the highest intensity throughout the conversation as Moses seeks unswervingly to wrest from God a further concession.” The Book of Exodus, 594. See also Irwin, “The Course of the Dialogue,” 633, and Cassuto, Exodus, 432. 39. Jacob Licht, Storytelling in the Bible ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), 10. 40. R. N. Whybray clearly shows how scholars may use source criticism to force the narrative of the Pentateuch into conformity with modern views of literary coherence. See The Making of the Pentateuch, 50–51. These narratives do not follow the same patterns of logic, as Exod 3:1–4:17 and 5:22–6:8 also demonstrate. Moses’s five objections to Yhwh’s call framed their first conversation on Mount Sinai (Exod 3:1–4:17), and three successive

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

129

Moses’s conversation with Yhwh moves forward with choppy, tentative steps, only resolving itself in the end. The best evidence for the literary coherence of this conversation is lexical––certain terms appear throughout the unit and bind it together. The phrase ‫ ָמצָא חֵן ַבּעֵינַיִם‬appears five times (vv. 12h, 13a, 13d, 16b, and 17d; cf. Exod 34:9), twice with the parallel element ‫יָדַ ע ְּבׁשֵם‬. 41 The noun ‫ ָפּנִים‬appears throughout with different meanings and in many forms (vv. 14b, 15b, 16e, 19b, 20b, and 23c). Two Hiphil imperatives followed by the particle ‫ נָא‬appear at crucial points in the conversation and build on each other (ָ‫ֶת־ּד ָרכֶך‬ ְ ‫הֹוד ֵענִי נָא א‬ ִ in v. 13b, and ָ‫ֶת־ּכבֹדֶך‬ ְ ‫ה ְַר ֵאנִי נָא א‬ in v. 18b). Finally the Leitwort ‫ ראה‬appears throughout the conversation (vv. 12b, 13e, 18b, 20b, 20c, 23b). The imperative forms ‫ ְראֵה‬in vv. 12b and 13e were intentionally chosen: they could easily have been replaced with the more explicitly deictic particle ‫הנֵּה‬. ִ This verbal root is used intentionally in Moses’s initial plea to link with the important “seeing” theme at the conclusion of the intercession. Similarly, Exod 34:5–9 articulates Yhwh’s character through a clear literary structure. The repeated Tetragrammaton is followed appositionally by the noun ‫אֵל‬, which is itself followed by seven appositive modifiers that consist of four adjectives and three participial phrases (“Yhwh, Yhwh, a God merciful and gracious”). 42 A waw groups the four adjectives into two pairs ְ ‫) ֶאר‬, 43 while an (adversative) waw sepa(‫ רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬and ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬ rates the only infinitive absolute clause in this proclamation as the counterpoint to the participial phrases (‫)ונַּקֵה לֹא ְינ ֶַּקה‬. ְ Furthermore, two of the three participial phrases take a previously mentioned noun as their object (‫ נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד‬in v. 7a, and ‫ ּפֹקֵד עֲֹון‬in v. 7d). 44 The switch from adjectives to participles moves the DNP from descriptions of Yhwh’s settled character traits to descriptions of his actions. 45

Commentary: Exodus 33:12–23 Exodus 33:12–13 Moses initiated his intercession by repeating Yhwh’s burdensome command that he was to lead the people out of Sinai without Yhwh’s presence instances of ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬report Yhwh’s reply to Moses’s question ‫ַה־ּׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫ מ‬in Exod 3:13–15. Also, Yhwh responded generally to Moses’s complaints in Exod 6:1 and expansively in 6:2­– 8 in response to two questions and one accusation from Moses (Exod 5:22–23). These two “disjointed” conversations are a precedent for interpreting Exod 33:12–23 as a literary whole. 41. Furthermore, the phrases ‫ ָמצָא חֵן ַבּעֵינַיִם‬and ‫ יָדַ ע ְּבׁשֵם‬are arranged chiastically in 12g–h and 17d–e. 42. Andreas Michel, “Ist mit der ‘Gnadenformel’ von Ex 34,6(+7?) der Schlüssel zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments gefunden?” BN 118 (2003): 110–23. ְ ‫ ֶאר‬and ‫אמֶת‬ 43. I interpret the construct phrases ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬as single adjectives that modify the word ‫אֵל‬. The waw joining the nouns ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ֶחסֶד ו‬is not relevant to this discussion of the DNP’s literary structure. 44. Michel, “Gnadenformel,” 114. 45. Scoralick, “‘Jhwh, Jhwh, ein gnädiger und barmherziger Gott . . .,’” 146.

130

Chapter 5

(Exod 33:1). Of the 10 instances of ‫ׁשה אֶל־יהוה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר מ‬in the Pentateuch, only Exod 33:12 and Num 11:11 indicate that Moses initiated the conversation. In both cases, he was complaining to Yhwh about the burden of leading the people. 46 Moses’s claim that Yhwh had not made known whom he would send with him raises the first challenge to understanding this conversation in context (‫ׁשלַח ִע ִּמי‬ ְ ‫ר־ּת‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫ַּתה לֹא הֹודַ ְעּתַ נִי אֵת א‬ ָ ‫)וא‬. ְ  47 Moses clearly did know whom Yhwh had sent, because Yhwh promised to send his emissary/messenger to go beְ ‫ׁשל ְַח ִּתי ְל ָפנֶיךָ מ ְַלא‬ fore the people (ָ‫ָכי יֵל ְֵך ְל ָפנֶיך‬ ִ ‫ מ ְַלא‬in Exod 32:34; ‫ָך‬ ָ ‫ ְו‬in Exod 33:2). Furthermore, Yhwh had said earlier that he would send (‫ )שׁלח‬his emissary to guard the people and lead them to Canaan (Exod 23:20, 23). This same figure mediated Yhwh’s presence in the pillar of cloud and fire (Exod 14:19; cf. 13:21). Moses’s statement should not be interpreted as expressing ignorance about the one Yhwh would send, but as an indirect wish that Yhwh himself would go with them. 48 The preposition used by Moses reveals his rhetorical aim: ‫ׁשלַח ִע ִּמי‬ ְ ‫ר־ּת‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫“( אֵת א‬whom you will send with me”). This “going with” contrasts with the emissary’s going before Israel (ָ‫יֵל ְֵך ְל ָפנֶיך‬, Exod 23:23). 49 Yet it is surprising that Moses would express discontent over a messenger whom God himself had promised, especially since Yhwh’s direct presence among Israel would have led to their destruction (Exod 33:3, 5). The significant events of Exod 25–31 explain Moses’s discontent. These chapters report Yhwh’s detailed plans for the shrine in which he could dwell, the legitimate place where Israel could bring their offerings. Exodus 25:8 reports that the purpose of the shrine was to provide for Yhwh’s presence among the people (‫ְּתי ְּבתֹוכָם‬ ִ ‫ׁש ַכנ‬ ָ ‫ו‬,ְ “that I may dwell among them”). Furthermore, Exod 29:45 indicates that Yhwh’s presence among Israel would be ְ ‫ְּתי ְּב‬ tangible proof that he was their God: ‫ִיתי ָלהֶם לֵאל ִֹהים‬ ִ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָהי‬ ְ ‫תֹוך ְּבנֵי י‬ ִ ‫ׁש ַכנ‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ (“Then I will dwell among the Israelites and I will become their God.”). This verse also reports the goal of the exodus: ‫ֵאתי‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר הֹוצ‬ ֶ ‫אנִי יהוה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם א‬ ֲ ‫ָדעּו ִּכי‬ ְ ‫ְוי‬ ‫אנִי יהוה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ְכנִי ְבתֹוכָם‬ ָ ‫“( א ָֹתם ֵמ ֶארֶץ ִמ ְצרַ יִם ְל‬Then they will come to know 46. See Eep Talstra, “‘I and Your People’: Syntax and Dialogue in Exod 33,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 33 (2007): 89–97. The 10 examples of ‫ׁשה אֶל־יהוה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַּיֹאמֶר מ‬ (some with minor variations) are: Exod 3:11, 13; 4:10; 6:12, 30; 19:23; Num 11:11; 14:13; 27:15. 47. It is also possible that Moses’s use of the verb ‫ שׁלח‬alluded to his earlier statement ‫ׁשלָח‬ ְ ‫ַד־ּת‬ ִ ‫ׁשלַח־נָא ְּבי‬ ְ (“Send whomever you will send,” Exod 4:13, cf. Exod 3:10, 12; 5:22). 48. Admittedly, this interpretation goes against the surface meaning of Moses’s words, but it is bolstered by his reply in Exod 33:15–16 that the presence of Yhwh with his people was necessary for their survival. 49. See John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 322–23, 337–41, and Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 69. Moberly claims that the phrase ‫ׁשלַח ִע ִּמי‬ ְ ‫ר־ּת‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫ אֵת א‬refers to the shrine of Exod 25–31 and should be rendered “what you will send with me.” This interpretation goes against the personal emphasis of Moses’s plea. Furthermore, Moses’s interjection in Exod 33:18 signaled a desire to see Yhwh’s glory apart from the shrine, as I will discuss below.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

131

that I am Yhwh their God who brought them out from the land of Egypt in order to dwell among them. I am Yhwh their God,” Exod 29:46). 50 Moses recognized that the people had lost the privilege of covenant relationship. Mediating messengers should not have been necessary, because the plan for the tabernacle was revealed. Yhwh had earlier promised that he himself would lead Israel into Canaan (Exod 3:17; 13:5, 11; 15:17), but Israel had forfeited the promise of God’s dwelling in the shrine when they broke his clear command. 51 The mediating messenger that Yhwh conceded in Exod 32:34 and 33:2 symbolized a major loss for Israel: God would neither dwell in the tabernacle nor personally lead Israel on their way. The guidance of a messenger placed Israel under a now-inferior dispensation of God’s presence. 52 Also, the smashing of the tablets suggested that Yhwh’s covenant with Israel had been effectively annulled (Exod 32:19). Israel stood in limbo; although Moses had convinced Yhwh not to destroy his people (Exod 32:14), they were still under his wrath (Exod 33:5). Moses desperately appealed for Yhwh’s direct presence on the basis of Israel’s special relationship to him. Presumably, Yhwh had already told Moses that he found favor in his eyes, but throughout the conversation Moses urged Yhwh to favor the people as well. The phrase ‫“( ָמצָא חֵן ַבּעֵינַיִם‬find favor in the eyes”) appears five times in Exod 33:12–23 and again in Exod 34:9. The phrase vividly communicates an image taken from the royal court: supplicants looked for a favorable response on the face of the social superior they addressed. 53 The granting of favor always moved from a superior to an inferior, and the inferior could never take it for granted. 54 Although Yhwh had affirmed that Moses found favor in his eyes, Moses feared that Yhwh would not look favorably upon the people. 55 Both characters acknowledged that Yhwh knew Moses by name (ָ‫יְדַ ְע ִּתיך‬ ‫בׁשֵם‬, ְ vv. 12g and 17e). 56 This knowledge indicated a close relationship, as did 50. The “bread of the presence” (‫ ֶלחֶם ָּפנִים‬, Exod 25:30) further symbolized that the shrine would be the dwelling place of Yhwh himself. 51. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 63. 52. Nisat Ararat recognizes this when noting that “there is still not absolute forgiveness––which was meant to come only after Yhwh’s leading [Israel] by means of mercy.” “The Name of God ( Justice),” 171. 53. Friedhelm Hartenstein argues that Exod 33:12–23 has a courtly character. Moses was seeking an audience with Yhwh on analogy with a subject’s request for an audience with the king. Only after Yhwh’s frequent assertions that he favored Moses did Moses feel emboldened to seek a more intimate revelation. See “Das ‘Angesicht Gottes’ in Exodus 32–34,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum, VWGT 18 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 157–83, esp. p. 168. 54. D. N. Freedman and Jack R. Lundbom, “‫ ָחנַן‬ḥānan,” TDOT 5:25. 55. Interestingly, Yhwh had earlier granted the people favor (‫ )חֵן‬in the eyes of the Egyptians so that Israel could “plunder” their jewelry (Exod 11:3; 12:36). 56. The related phrase, “call by name,” is used in Neo-Babylonian texts to speak of the way Marduk designated a specific man for kingship. See Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The

132

Chapter 5

the phrases ‫ ָמצָא חֵן ַבּעֵינַיִם‬and ‫ד ֵבּר ָּפנִים אֶל־ ָּפנִים‬. ּ ִ The phrase ‫ יְדַ ְע ִּתיךָ ְבׁשֵם‬also foreshadowed Yhwh’s coming revelation. The appearance of the noun ‫ׁשֵם‬ suggests that, though Yhwh knew Moses fully and by name (Exod 3:4), Moses had more to learn of Yhwh’s name. 57 A peculiar rhetorical feature points to the climactic role of Moses’s shocking request within his first speech (ָ‫ֶת־ּד ָרכֶך‬ ְ ‫הֹוד ֵענִי נָא א‬, ִ “Please let me know your ways”). The second-person pronoun occurs three times within Moses’s appeals (‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫א‬, vv. 12b, 12d, and 12f ). Though grammatically unnecessary, this pronoun emphasized Moses’s concluding request through assonance with the particle ‫( ְוע ַָּתה‬v. 13a). 58 Moses followed the request with a conditional statement: if he was truly favored by Yhwh, then Yhwh would make his ways known. ְ ‫ ֶּדר‬refers literally to a road or path (Gen 3:24; Deut In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ֶך‬ 2:8; Isa 49:9; Ruth 1:7), but it can also have an extended, metaphorical meanְ ‫ ֶּדר‬certainly underlies this sense: just as a road ing. The literal meaning of ‫ֶך‬ moves travelers on their way, so the habits and actions of people move them in a (moral) direction. The “ways of Yhwh” refer to his behavior and the motivations for it. 59 A single word summarizes Moses’s purpose for learning about Yhwh’s character: ָ‫“( ְוא ֵָדעֲך‬so that I may know you”). Here, the theme of knowing Yhwh resurfaces. While the events of the exodus, the recognition language tied to them, and the covenant made at Sinai had made Yhwh known, Moses was not satisfied. He learned from these events that Yhwh was powerful, but he knew little of the underlying character that motivated his response to Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon: 556 – 539 B.C., YNER 10 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 113. For a short discussion of this phrase as used in Isa 43:1, 45:4, and 49:1, see Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 205, 255, and 324. 57. Propp rightly sees the imbalance in the relationship between Yhwh and Moses: “Yahweh knows the name of his servant Moses, yet Moses does not know the name of the servant whom Yahweh will send, nor does he fully know Yahweh himself.” Exodus 19–40, 602–3. 58. See J. Muilenberg, “The Intercession of the Covenant Mediator (Exodus 33:1a, 12–17),” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 171. ְ ‫ ֶּדר‬that illustrate this metaphorical use include: Gen 6:12; 18:19; 59. Examples of ‫ֶך‬ Deut 8:6; 32:4; Josh 1:8; 2 Kgs 17:13; Isa 55:8–9; Jer 32:19; Ezek 18:25–30; Ps 25:4; 119:37, etc. Mark S. Smith claims that Moses wanted to know Yhwh’s power. He argues that ְ ‫ ֶּדר‬relates to the Ugaritic noun drkt, “dominion.” See The Early History Moses’s use of ‫ֶך‬ of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 142–43. Smith’s assertion does not suit the context well: Moses needed to know God’s character as the basis of divine favor for himself and the people. Knowing Yhwh’s power alone would not secure his favor, because Israel already saw that power on display in Egypt, yet remained under his wrath in Exod 32–33. Seeing Yhwh’s raw power without knowing his grace was a frightening prospect for Israel.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

133

sin. The transgression of the newly constituted covenant people made clear that an important aspect of Yhwh’s character remained unknown. Yhwh told Moses that he favored him, but Moses asserted that only a revelation of Yhwh’s ways would prove this favor (ָ‫ֶמצָא־חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיך‬ ְ ‫)ל ַמעַן א‬. ְ Moses emphasized his relationship with Yhwh, connecting his final plea with his initial statement through the use of the imperative ‫ּוראֵה‬. ְ Moses reminded Yhwh of his covenant: “this nation” (‫ )הַּגֹוי ַהּזֶה‬remained his people, and he was obligated to act on their behalf. 60 The choice of words was intentional: Moses used the cold and formal term ‫ גּוֺי‬to indicate that Israel was acting like all other nations. However, this nation was still the people of Yhwh (ָ‫)ע ְַּמך‬. 61 Exodus 33:14 It is unclear what Yhwh meant by his response ‫ ָּפנַי יֵלֵכּו‬. In its primary meaning, ‫ ָפּנִים‬refers to a person’s face, but in an extended sense the noun could also refer to a person’s presence or to the person himself. 62 Persons are known by their faces, which allows them to relate to others. 63 Yhwh probably intended ‫ ָּפנַי‬in this extended sense––he promised that his unmediated presence would travel with Israel. 64 Yhwh’s terse response showed his willingness to listen to Moses’s pleas, though it also signaled his reluctance to grant everything that Moses requested. Significantly, Yhwh omitted a 60. Mark notes that the phrase ‫ הַּגֹוי ַהּזֶה‬has a disparaging connotation, as was the case with ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ זֶה מ‬in Exod 32:1. The emphatic placement of the predicate ָ‫ ע ְַּמך‬makes the strong rhetorical point that the sinful people were Yhwh’s people nonetheless. See Mein Angesicht geht, 492. 61. See Block, “The Foundations of National Identity,” 95. Both Block and Aelred Cody note that Moses was constrained to use the term ‫ הַּגֹוי‬of Israel because he has already described them as ָ‫ע ְַּמך‬. Even so, the negative connotation of the word further emphasized that the (mere) nation that committed idolatry was nevertheless the covenant people of Yhwh. See Aelred Cody, “When is the Chosen People Called a Gôy?” VT 14 (1964): 2. 62. ‫ ָפּנִים‬in this extended sense can be called a synecdoche (that is, pars pro toto, a part for the whole). The prepositions ‫ ִל ְפנֵי‬and ‫ ִמ ְפּנֵי‬further demonstrate how ‫ ָפּנִים‬can lose its primary meaning. In most instances, interpreters err when translating these prepositions, “to the face of ” and “from the face of.” See A. R. Johnson, “Aspects of the use of the term pānîm in the Old Testament,” in Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstage, ed. Johann Fück (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1947), 155–60. 63. Shmuel Ahituv, “The Face of Yhwh (Hebrew),” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 6. 64. The Hebrew Bible contains several examples of this secondary force of ‫ ָפּנִים‬: as object (Deut 7:10; Ps 89:15; 95:2; Prov 7:15; 27:17), within a construct chain (Exod 25:30; Num 4:7; 1 Sam 21:7; Ps 42:6, 12; 43:5), and with a preposition (Deut 4:37). These occurrences of ‫ ָפּנִים‬have lost the primary meaning, “face.” Second Samuel 17:11 most closely resembles Exod 33:14 in its use of ‫ ָפּנִים‬: ‫“( ּו ָפנֶיךָ ה ְֹל ִכים ּב ְַקרָב‬and you yourself should be going into the battle”).

134

Chapter 5

preposition (e.g., ‫ ִל ְפנֵיכֶם‬or ‫)ע ָמּכֶם‬ ִ after the verb ‫יֵלֵכּו‬. Moses asked for Yhwh to go with them, but Yhwh only promised that he would “go.” 65 Moses’s mediation had prompted a gracious response. However, Yhwh ְ ‫ל‬, v. 14c), suggesting that was still distant promised rest to Moses alone (‫ָך‬ from the Israelites. Yhwh’s presence would be with Moses, but it is unclear if he would go before or with the sinful people. Furthermore, Yhwh’s brief reply only touched on Moses’s initial request: he implied that the messenger conceded in Exod 32:34 and 33:2 would not be needed, but he revealed nothing of his “ways.” Exodus 33:15–16 Moses expanded on Yhwh’s terse reply with an explicit request for his unmediated presence among the people. Such presence (in the shrine) would distinguish Israel from all other nations (‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫אנִי ְוע ְַּמךָ ִמּכָל־ ָהעָם א‬ ֲ ‫ִפלֵינּו‬ ְ ‫ְונ‬  66 ‫ֲדמָה‬ ָ ‫ַל־ּפנֵי ָהא‬ ְ ‫)ע‬. Moses again hinted that God could not ignore his covenant people––they would only be distinguished from all humanity (‫)ּכָל־ ָהעָם‬ by Yhwh’s going with them (‫ֶכ ְּתךָ ִעּמָנּו‬ ְ ‫)ּבל‬. ְ On the surface, Moses’s reply simply affirmed what Yhwh had already said. However, a closer reading reveals that Moses subtly included Israel four times in this reply to Yhwh’s vague promise. While Yhwh had said ְ ‫הנִח ִֹתי ל‬ that he would only give rest to Moses (‫ָך‬ ֲ ‫) ַו‬, Moses responded to this promise with a plural suffix (‫אַל־ּתַ עֲלֵנּו ִמּזֶה‬, “do not bring us up from here”). 67 The Israelites are mentioned in two later statements, the first in defiance of normal grammar: ָ‫אנִי ְו ַעּמֶך‬ ֲ ָ‫ָאתי חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיך‬ ִ ‫( ָמצ‬literally, “I have found favor in your eyes, I and your people,” v. 16b). The second mention was less subtle because it involved a plural verb: ָ‫אנִי ְוע ְַּמך‬ ֲ ‫ִפלֵינּו‬ ְ ‫“( ְונ‬so that we are distinguished, I and your people,” v. 16d). Finally, Moses couched his real request in the putative “question” about whether or not Yhwh would go with them (‫ֶכ ְתּךָ ִע ָמּנּו‬ ְ ‫הֲלֹוא ְבּל‬, “Is it not in your going with us?” cf. Exod 17:7). Moses’s four subtle cues urged Yhwh to determine the fate of his covenant people. 65. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 74. 66. The Hiphil form of ‫ פלה‬is employed twice during the plagues narrative to indicate that Yhwh protected his people in Goshen (Exod 8:18; 11:7). Moses likely appealed for the same divine presence to lead Israel into Canaan to demonstrate their distinctive status again. 67. Joseph Reindl says that Moses’s “eager affirmation” (eifrigen Versicherung) in vv. 14–15 does not cohere with Yhwh’s terse reply. He claims that an extra source or tradition lies behind vv. 14–17, which explains why these two speeches are uneven and why the reply in v. 17 appears to be redundant. See Das Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1970), 64. However, Reindl underestimates the rhetorical force of Yhwh’s reply, ‫ ָּפנַי יֵלֵכּו‬. Yhwh hinted at a gracious response in these words, and Moses built on Yhwh’s statement so as to include the people in the promise. Furthermore, v. 17 is not redundant since it was spoken in response to Moses’s artful inclusion of the people in vv. 15–16.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

135

Exodus 33:17 Yhwh assured Moses that he would act “concerning this matter” based on his favorable disposition toward Moses (‫ֲׁשר ִּדּב ְַר ָּת‬ ֶ ‫ּגַם אֶת־הַָּדבָר ַהּזֶה א‬ ‫ֱׂשה‬ ֶ ‫) ֶאע‬. But the referent of ‫ הַָּדבָר‬is not immediately clear. This word could refer to Moses’s plea in Exod 33:15–16, suggesting that Yhwh was conceding to go with the people and was specifying his vague reply, ‫( ָּפנַי יֵלֵכּו‬v. 14b). 68 However, ‫ הַָּדבָר‬may refer anaphorically to Moses’s unanswered request to know the ways of Yhwh in v. 13, since Yhwh’s reply in v. 14 only answered Moses’s initial request to know the identity of Yhwh’s messenger. 69 The first interpretation is preferable for the following reasons. The particle ‫ ּגַם‬here is emphatic: Yhwh would act according to Moses’s extravagant request. 70 Moses had mentioned the people on four separate occasions, pleading with Yhwh to include them in the favor that he alone enjoyed. Yhwh picked up on Moses’s cues, adding to his initial, terse reply by specifying that he would go with his people and so set them apart from all others. Moses’s desire to know Yhwh’s ways remained unanswered as they negotiated what kind of presence Yhwh would manifest. However, Moses had not forgotten about this important request which he recalled in his next statement. 71 Exodus 33:18 Yhwh had not answered Moses’s request that Yhwh reveal his ways/ character on the basis of their special relationship. Therefore, Moses boldly interrupted Yhwh when he heard for a second time that he found favor in his eyes and was known by name (vv. 17d–e). Moses changed his request from knowing (‫)הֹוד ֵענִי‬ ִ Yhwh’s ways to seeing (‫ )ה ְַר ֵאנִי‬his glory. The verb ‫ ה ְַר ֵאנִי‬indicates that Moses expected to apprehend 68. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 69, and Billings, “The Problem of the Divine Presence,” 437. 69. Irwin, “The Course of the Dialogue,” 632. 70. In an earlier context (see above, p. 91 n. 31), I cited the work of T. Muraoka to argue that the primary force of the particle ‫ ּגַם‬is additive. This is disputed by C. J. Labu­ schagne who argues that its primary force is emphatic. “The Emphasizing Particle gam and Its Connotations,” in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodoro Christiano Vriezen Dedicata (Wagningen: Veenman & Zonen, 1966), 193–203. This debate does not necessarily affect interpretation of particular biblical texts like Exod 33:17, since both scholars claim that ‫ ּגַם‬contains both an additive and emphatic force. Furthermore, in instances such as Exod 33:17, the difference between the two may not be very significant. 71. Irwin claims that the inclusio created by the phrases that surround ‫ הַָּדבָר‬constitute one of two “currents” in the dialogue (“find favor in your eyes” [12g–h] and “know by name” [17d–e]). “The Course of the Dialogue,” 632. However, Irwin’s insights do not determine the referent of ‫הַָּדבָר‬. He has helpfully noted repeated terms in the conversation, but his inclusio is forced because it breaks up the characters’ speeches (i.e., vv. 12a, 14–15, and vv. 12b–13, 16–17).

136

Chapter 5

Yhwh’s glory visually, as he had earlier experienced it (Exod 16:7, 10). This glory had appeared on Mount Sinai (Exod 19:10, 16–20; 24:16) and would eventually fill the tabernacle and temple (Exod 40:3–5; 1 Kgs 8:11). Moses wanted to see this visual representation of Yhwh’s presence again, for such a theophany would give him an indication of Yhwh’s ways/character. Moses’s deeply personal request appears audacious in light of Yhwh’s declaration that he could not go among the people without killing them. Moses may have reasoned that if Yhwh could show his glory to Moses without a shrine to safeguard it, then Yhwh could also dwell among his sinful people within protected sacred space. 72 Yhwh had to choose whether or not to grant this intimate theophany: if his “ways” included grace and forgiveness, then he would listen to Moses and make good his assurance of divine favor. 73 Exodus 33:19–23 Moses asked to see Yhwh’s glory, but Yhwh declared that he would instead cause his ‫ טוּב‬to pass over Moses (ָ‫עַל־ ָּפנֶיך‬, literally “over your face”). Moberly notes that the use of ‫ עבר‬pictures a king passing before his subjects who can only look and follow from behind. 74 This verbal image avoids the misleading implication that Yhwh had a physical body. Furthermore, it avoids the claim that Yhwh turned his face away from Moses, a phrase that always indicates disapproval. 75 This dialogue has referred to Yhwh’s messenger, his ways, his direct presence, and his glory. To this dense constellation of concepts Yhwh added two more: goodness (‫)טּובי‬ ִ and name (‫)ׁשֵם יהוה‬. Given the diverse meanings of ‫ טוּב‬in the Hebrew Bible, some have proposed “beauty” or “splendor” as a better translation than the generic word “goodness.” 76 However, only 3 of the 32 appearances of ‫ טוּב‬could be rendered “beauty” (Ps 27:13; 128:5; Zech 9:17). Furthermore, Biblical Hebrew usually expresses beauty with the words ‫( ִתּ ְפ ֶארֶת‬e.g., Ezek 16:17), ‫ֳפי‬ ִ ‫( י‬e.g., Prov 6:25), and ‫ָדר‬ ָ ‫( ה‬e.g., Lam 1:6). Yhwh introduced the word ‫טּובי‬ ִ to specify the aspect of his glory that he would reveal, which is best expressed by the word “goodness.” This word is used of Yhwh in the Psalter (31:20; 145:7), and in one case the worshiper 72. Hartenstein argues that Hos 11:1 reports an encounter with God apart from a shrine. If so, this text and Exod 33–34 address the same literary motif. See “Das ‘Angesicht Gottes’ in Exodus 32–34,” 167. 73. Enns, Exodus, 582. 74. This verbal image is used negatively in Exod 12:12: Yhwh passed through (‫)עבר‬ the land and struck down the firstborn of Egypt. In so doing, he executed judgments on the gods of Egypt (‫ָטים‬ ִ ‫ׁשפ‬ ְ ‫ֱׂשה‬ ֶ ‫)בכָל־אֱלֹהֵי ִמ ְצרַ יִם ֶאע‬. ְ 75. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 82. 76. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 607. See also HALOT 1:372 and BDB, 375. The noun ‫טוּב‬ must be differentiated from the (substantivized) adjective ‫טֹוב‬. Although the meanings of the latter may resemble ‫( טוּב‬e.g., 2 Sam 7:28; Ps 23:6), its meaning will not be explored here.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

137

spoke of seeing Yhwh’s goodness (‫ל ְראֹות ְּבטּוב־יהוה ְּב ֶארֶץ ַחּיִים‬, ִ “to look upon the goodness of Yhwh in the land of the living,” Ps 27:13). 77 This term established the mode of Yhwh’s appearance, while indicating the blessings that attended Moses’s covenant relationship with him. The theophany would also involve Yhwh proclaiming his own name. 78 Here, ‫ּשם יהוה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ קרא ְב‬refers to invoking the divine name ‫ יהוה‬in petitions for help or proclamations of thanksgiving. 79 Yet only in Exod 33:19 and 34:6–7 does the Hebrew Bible speak of Yhwh invoking his own name. It is clear that this proclamation does not simply refer to speaking the word ‫ יהוה‬as a linguistic element. Rather, Yhwh’s proclamation in Exod 34:6–7 would reveal the character of Yhwh that Moses could ascribe to this onomastic peg. Yhwh’s reply to Moses’s bold request suggested that the transcendent glory that Moses desired would be eclipsed by a more personal and immanent revelation of his goodness and name. Yhwh followed this solemn announcement with a highly allusive statement. The double idem per idem construction connects back to Exod 3:14 )‫ֲׁשר אֲרַ חֵם‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר אָחֹן ְוִרח ְַמ ִּתי אֶת־א‬ ֶ ‫ ְוחַּנ ִֹתי אֶת־א‬vis-à-vis ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬, “I will be whoever I will be”), 80 and should be translated, “I will favor 81 whomever I will favor and have compassion on whomever I have compassion.” Whereas the initial “meaning” of Yhwh’s name in Exod 3:14 was deferred by the anticipatory statement, “I will be whoever I will be,” Yhwh’s declaration in Exod 33:19b filled in the semantic void created by ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. The theophany and proclamation recorded in Exod 34:5–9 would further clarify the open-ended utterance in Exod 33:19b, revealing Yhwh’s true attitude toward Israel. 82 As in Exod 3:14–15, Yhwh’s reply to Moses’s bold request is punctuated by three occurrences of ‫וַּיֹאמֶר‬. The first ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר‬v. 19a) introduces Yhwh’s speech, while the second (v. 20a) breaks the silence that lingered after Yhwh uttered the idem per idem constructions (cf. Exod 3:14b). The third ‫( וַּיֹאמֶר‬v. 21a) suggests that Moses had reflected on the idea that gazing on the face of Yhwh would be lethal. Each ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬served a rhetorical purpose: 77. This verse may not speak of seeing Yhwh’s attribute of goodness as much as experiencing the goodness that attends covenant blessing. The explicit mention of the “land of the living” in Ps 27:13 ties this idea to the deuteronomic blessings and curses outlined in Deut 28:1–68. 78. Here the wĕqatal form ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ ְו ָקר‬takes the sense of the leading yiqtol form ‫ֲביר‬ ִ ‫ ַאע‬, indicating temporal succession (e.g., Gen 27:12; Judg 6:16; Isa 2:2–3). See Joüon, 398. 79. See above, p. 102 n. 79. 80. See above, pp. 49–51. 81. Though often translated “have mercy,” “be gracious,” or even “show favor,” the translation I have chosen preserves the terseness of the idem per idem construction. 82. Cf. the comment by T. C. Vriezen: “Haben diese Worte doch wohl die Absicht, die Grösse der göttlichen Gnade zu zeigen; sie haben ungefähr denselben Inhalt wie 34 6f., wo gesprochen wird von der überaus grossen Liebe Gottes.” “ʾEhje ʾašer ʾEhje,” 505 (emphasis mine).

138

Chapter 5

the first introduced the coming revelation of the divine name, the second described the impossibility of seeing God’s glory directly, and the third presented Yhwh’s means of preserving Moses’s life during the theophany. 83 Exodus 33:20 seems to introduce a paradox. The narrator had reported that Yhwh spoke with Moses face to face (‫ׁשה ָּפנִים אֶל־ ָּפנִים‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ו ִדּבֶר יהוה אֶל־מ‬,ְ Exod 33:11), and Yhwh further promised that his presence/face would go (‫ָּפנַי‬ ‫יֵלֵכּו‬, Exod 33:15). But here, Yhwh declared that no person could see his face and live (‫ָדם ָוחָי‬ ָ ‫ ;לֹא תּוכַל ִל ְראֹת אֶת־ ָּפנָי ִּכי לֹא־י ְִר ַאנִי ָהא‬cf. Exod 19:21). 84 These juxtapositions may reflect one way the Hebrew Bible handled the tension between divine immanence and transcendence.  85 However, it seems more likely that the phrases ‫ ָּפנִים אֶל־ ָּפנִים‬and ‫ ָּפנַי יֵלֵכּו‬refer to God’s “face” idiomatically (with a secondary force), while Exod 33:20 uses the noun in its primary force (Yhwh’s face, as opposed to his backside). 86 The original listeners may not have considered these statements contradictory. 87 The theophany report in Exod 33:21–22 contains some of the Hebrew Bible’s most daring figures of speech. Yhwh interpreted Moses’s request to see his glory as a request to see his face. Though God would grant Moses’s wish, he would have to apply protective measures. Yhwh commanded Moses to stand on “the rock” (‫הַּצּור‬, possibly the summit of Sinai; cf. Exod 17:6) where Yhwh could then place him within a cleft and cover him with his “hand” as he passed over. 88 Once Yhwh removed this protection, Moses would see his “back,” that is, a fleeting and indirect afterglow of his glory. The mention of Yhwh’s “back” is particularly interesting. Diana Lipton argues that ‫ אֲחֹרָי‬should not be understood as “my back parts,” but “behind 83. According to Childs, the three instances of ‫ וַּיֹאמֶר‬indicate that later authors or editors condensed an original, longer story. See The Book of Exodus, 595. Similarly, Reindl says, “Im formalen Aufbau schliesst er sich an den vorausgehenden Disput Moses mit Jahwe an, es ist allerdings nicht ganz logisch . . . da drei Verse nacheinander mit ‫)י´( ויאמר‬ eine Gottesrede einführen, ohne dass zwischendurch Mose ein Wort gesprochen hätte.” Das Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments, 65. It is possible that the biblical account omitted Moses’s words, but it is also likely that Moses remained silent in response to God’s weighty statements (cf. Exod 3:13–15). 84. The phrase ‫ ְראֹות ָּפנַי‬was used in an earlier interaction between Moses and Pharaoh. The king of Egypt promised that if Moses saw his face again, he would die (Exod 10:28–29). 85. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 34. 86. The careful wording in Exod 23:15 and 34:20 indicates that the biblical authors were aware of this theological problem: ‫ֵיקם‬ ָ ‫“( ְולֹא־יֵרָאּו ָפנַי ר‬And they shall not appear [before] my face emptily”). The niphal forms of ‫ ראה‬avoid saying that worshippers saw Yhwh’s face, while indicating that they were in his presence (cf. the similar wording ‫י ֵָראֶה‬ ‫ֶל־ּפנֵי ָהאָדֹן יהוה‬ ְ ‫ְכּורךָ א‬ ְ ‫ ּכָל־ז‬in Exod 23:17; 34:23; and Deut 16:16). 87. Reindl also notes this, though he remarks that the primary meaning of ‫ ָּפנִים‬in v. 20 leads to a “crude, literal understanding” (ein gröberes, wörtliches Verständnis) of God in the descriptions of vv. 22–23. See Das Angesicht Gottes, 68–69. 88. Hartenstein connects this theophany to the Psalmists’ frequent requests to see God and take refuge in him (e.g., Pss 27:5; 31:21; 63:3–4; 91:1). See “Das ‘Angesicht Gottes’ in Exodus 32–34,” 181.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

139

me,” in the sense of “future things” (cf. ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ֲרית ַהּי‬ ִ‫ ; ַאח‬Gen 49:1; Isa 2:2; Dan 10:14; etc.). 89 Lipton has helpfully shown the difference between modern and ancient depictions of time, but her exegesis is faulty. ‫ אֲחֹרָי‬is clearly a noun and not a preposition with a nominal meaning, since it is the object of the verb ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫( ְור‬cf. the direct object marker ‫)אֶת‬. Furthermore, a temporal interpretation does not explain the meaning of the parallel anthropomorphic terms ‫ ָּפנָי‬and ‫כּ ִַּפי‬. The noun ‫ אֲחֹרָי‬is used here in place of the normal anatomical word for “back” (‫ ;גֵּו‬cf. Isa 50:6). Its meaning is intentionally vague, referring perhaps to the traces left behind when Yhwh passed by. 90 Exodus 24:10–11 reports a similar (sheltered) vision of God. In these verses, the generic designator ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬is used in place of the proper name ‫יהוה‬: ‫ַוּי ְִראּו אֵת‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ אֱלֹהֵי י‬and ‫ ַוּיֶחֱזּו אֶת־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬. Thus, while the theophany report indicates that Moses saw God, it also notes that Yhwh sheltered him in his indirect “beatific vision.”

Summary Moses began his third intercession by asking (indirectly) for Yhwh’s unmediated presence. He also asked to know Yhwh’s ways, so that he could know him and find favor in his eyes. Yhwh responded to Moses’s first request (“you have not made known whom you will send with me”) by promising his own presence, thus denying the need for a mediator. Moses carefully pressed Yhwh to show the same favor to the people by dwelling among them. Once Yhwh guaranteed this, Moses built on his earlier request (“show me your ways”) with a bold exclamation (“please let me see your glory!”). Yhwh both denied and affirmed Moses’s petition. He told Moses that no one could see his face/glory and live, so Yhwh covered him with his hand when his glory passed by. Yhwh revealed as much of his glory as Moses could apprehend and still survive. Although Yhwh did not directly fulfill Moses’s desire, he offered something better in the proclamation of his name and his goodness. The fleeting theophany would be followed by the more enduring proclamation of the divine name. 91 The divine response was ironic: Moses asked for a transcendent demonstration of Yhwh’s glory (‫)כָּבֹוד‬, and Yhwh instead promised to show immanent aspects of his character (‫ טוּב‬and ‫)שֵׁם‬. 89. Diana Lipton, “God’s Back! What Did Moses See on Sinai?” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 287–311, esp. pp. 288–92. See also Lou H. Silberman, “‘You Cannot See My Face’: Seeking to Understand Divine Justice,” in Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, ed. David Penchansky and Paul L. Redditt (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 89–95. 90. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 82. 91. The theophany itself was an expression of Yhwh’s goodness, as T. C. Vriezen has recognized: “Gott gleichsam die Rolle verwechselt hat, da Er selber Seinen Namen vor dem Antlitz des Mose ausruft: dieses kann doch nur möglich warden, weil Gott sich in seiner Güte Mose zeigen will.” “ʾEhje ʾašer ʾEhje,” 506.

140

Chapter 5

Yhwh would respond to Moses’s requests with a two-stage revelation: the first would provide Moses with a visual glimpse of Yhwh’s glory. The appearance of divine glory indicated that Yhwh himself would go with Israel (in the tabernacle), in place of a messenger. In the second, Yhwh would proclaim the divine name’s descriptive meaning. This would eclipse the theophany because the divine proper name became the reference point for all that Moses could learn about Yhwh, including his ways and his goodness. Yhwh’s revealed character would offer a clearer and deeper understanding of himself than the fleeting appearance of his glory. 92 The possibility of Yhwh’s presence and favor depended on what character traits Yhwh would ascribe to his name. Moses requested these character descriptions, and Yhwh revealed them in Exod 34:5–9.

Commentary: Exodus 34:5–9 The revelation of Yhwh’s name did not immediately follow Moses’s successful intercession. Yhwh first commanded Moses to carve out two new tablets, stay the night in the camp, and reascend. Exodus 34:3 highlights Moses’s privileged access to this revelation: no person or beast was allowed to approach the mountain. The next verse reports that Moses did as he was commanded, ascending Mount Sinai with tablets in hand. Exodus 34:5 Exodus 34:5 prepares the reader for the DNP. Yhwh’s descent in “the” cloud recalls Yhwh’s earlier theophany on Sinai (‫ ; ַוּיֵרֶד יהוה ֶּב ָענָן‬cf. Exod 19:9, 16). This cloud both concealed and revealed Yhwh’s glory (Exod 16:10; 24:16), as the Tent of Meeting passage also suggests (Exod 33:9). Through bold anthropomorphisms, this verse describes Yhwh “standing with him” (‫ִתיַּצֵב ִעּמֹו‬ ְ ‫ ) ַוּי‬before proclaiming his name. Exodus 34:6–7 The words ‫ ַוּיַעֲבֹר יהוה עַל־ ָּפנָיו‬condense the theophany report of Exod 33:19–23 by repeating the construction ‫( עבר עַל־ ָּפנָיו‬v. 19b). 93 Its details (placing Moses in the cleft of the rock, Yhwh protecting him with his hand, and Moses’s view of Yhwh’s back) are skipped over to report the content of the DNP, which is clearly more important. 92. It is important to distinguish the concepts of “glory” and “name.” ‫ כָּבֹוד‬retains a visual, theophanic meaning in later texts (cf. Isa 40:5; 60:1; Ezek 1:28; 8:4; 44:4; Hag 2:7), while ‫ שֵׁם‬becomes a means of understanding Yhwh’s character. Childs also notices this: “The revelation of God is in terms of his attributes rather than his appearance.” The Book of Exodus, 596. 93. This construction is not unique (see Gen 18:5; 32:22), but it is rare enough in Exodus to suggest that Exod 33:19 and 34:6 are literarily interdependent (cf. Exod 30:13–14; 38:26).

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

141

The proclamation begins with the repetition of the Tetragrammaton (‫)יהוה יהוה‬. The syntax of these two words is disputed: some say that the first ‫ יהוה‬indicates the subject of the verb ‫ִקרָא‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬, while the second begins the content of the proclamation. 94 However, this interpretation is implausible, because the subject had already been specified: ‫ִקרָא‬ ְ ‫ַוּיַעֲבֹר יהוה עַל־ ָּפנָיו ַוּי‬ (“And Yhwh passed by him and he called out”). 95 Ruth Scoralick argues that the duplicated Tetragrammaton is part of Yhwh’s proclamation, but should be understood as a nominal sentence: “Yhwh [is] Yhwh.” 96 This interpretation disregards how two personal names in apposition function elsewhere. Furthermore, Scoralick’s tautological translation does not fit the context. Exodus 34:6 offers the only biblical example of Yhwh speaking his own name twice. 97 The repetition of personal names is rhetorically emphatic. Yhwh repeated the names of his servants to make unambiguous reference to them while indicating their special status (Gen 22:11; 46:2; Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:10). Thus, the repetition of the name Yhwh not only made unambiguous reference, it also indicated that the descriptions to follow would be predicated to this name alone. Yhwh made his proclamation in the third person. This unique feature contrasts with the first-person proclamations in Exod 3:14–15, 6:2–8, and 20:1. An ancient Jewish tradition claimed Yhwh spoke this way to teach Moses about prayer, thus offering a formula for his people to repeat. 98 According to Rashi, Yhwh’s promise to proclaim his name (Exod 33:19) was given “to teach you the formula for requesting mercy” (‫ללמדך סדר בקשת‬ ‫)רחמים‬. 99 This rhetorical feature further highlights the unique and climactic character of the proclamation. Whereas Yhwh’s previous proclamations were anticipatory, Exod 34:6–7 was cast in a form that would deeply influence Israel’s theology and worship. 100 By repeating and appropriating the DNP, Israel could again and again ascribe these traits to Yhwh and recall his weighty onomastic ascriptions. The designator ‫ אֵל‬carries particular interpretive weight because it directly follows the repeated Tetragrammaton and somehow explains it. But the precise role of ‫ אֵל‬in this and other texts is uncertain because it can 94. See Childs, The Book of Exodus, 604; and Propp, Exodus 19–40, 609–10. 95. A Masoretic conjunctive accent comes between the repeated words. This accent probably reflects an ancient interpretive tradition. 96. See Scoralick, “Jhwh, Jhwh, ein gnädiger und barmherziger Gott,” 142. 97. Joshua 22:22, 1 Kgs 18:39, and Ps 22:2 contain repeated divine epithets, but not the divine name ‫יהוה‬. The anomalous ‫ יָּה יָּה‬in Isa 38:11 is not spoken by Yhwh and is textually uncertain. The Tetragrammaton probably stood behind this reading, as the LXX, two manuscripts of Symmachus, and the Syraic versions suggest. 98. Michael Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14, FAT 2/8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 174–75. 99. Mordechai Leib Katzenellenbogen, Torat Hayyim: Exodus 21–40 (Hebrew), vol. 4 of Torat Hayyim ( Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1993), 213 (Heb., ‫)ריג‬. 100. In ch. 6, I will discuss the Hebrew Bible’s verbal parallels to the DNP.

142

Chapter 5

function as a divine name or a title. Furthermore, the interpreter must decide how to render this polyvalent word into languages that cannot express its polyvalence. By transliterating ‫ אֵל‬as “El,” the interpreter is indicating that the word is a divine name that unambiguously refers to the deity who was perceived as the head of the Ugaritic pantheon. 101 By translating ‫ אֵל‬as “god,” the interpreter is indicating that the word is a title that can apply to many beings (as it does in Exod 15:11; Deut 3:24; and Ps 44:21). Syntactical and theological arguments suggest that the word ‫ אֵל‬should not be understood as a divine name when describing Yhwh. In Exod 34:6, the syntactical relationship between ‫ אֵל‬and ‫ יהוה‬is appositional, that is, “the simple juxtaposition of a noun to a preceding noun.” 102 Contextual factors must determine the specific reference of any appositional relationship: in Exod 34:6 the two nouns either completely identify each other (“Yhwh, [that is,] El gracious and compassionate”) or one noun classifies the other (“Yhwh, [that is,] a god gracious and compassionate”). 103 A survey of appositional phrases in the Hebrew Bible demonstrates that two personal names are never placed in an identifying appositional relationship. 104 Finally, the apposition of ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ אֵל‬reflects a classifying rather than identifying relationship elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. 105 101. For those who translate ‫ אֵל‬as “El” in Exod 34:6, see Smith, The Early History of God, 39; and Alphonso Groenewald, “Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews: A God Abounding in Steadfast Love (Ex 34:6),” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 64 (2008): 1367. 102. Joüon, 448; cf. 449–52. Examples include Gen 4:2 (‫ָחיו אֶת־ ָהבֶל‬ ִ ‫אֶת־א‬, “his brother, Abel”); Exod 3:1 (‫ִתרֹו ח ְֹתנֹו ּכֹהֵן ִמ ְדיָן‬ ְ ‫י‬, “Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of Midian); Judg 19:1 (‫איׁש לִֵוי‬, ִ “a man, a Levite,”), etc. 103. In his study of verbless clauses in the Pentateuch, Francis Andersen employs the terms “clause of identification” and “clause of classification” to analyze the semantic overlap of related nouns. In the former, there is a complete semantic overlap between the subject and the predicate, and pronouns are usually involved (e.g., ‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ , Exod 6:2). In the latter, one noun is part of the whole indicated by the other (e.g., ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ּבנִי ְבכִֹרי י‬, ְ “Israel is my son, my firstborn,” Exod 4:22). While Andersen’s rules would seem to shed light on Exod 34:6, they apply almost exclusively to verbless clauses with pronouns and common nouns, not to proper names juxtaposed asyndetically to common nouns or other proper names. See The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 32. Furthermore, syntactical rules cannot resolve the fundamental lexical debate about the function of ‫ אֵל‬as a divine name or common noun. Newer linguistic studies on this topic have not addressed this lexical issue. See, for example, Kirk E. Lowery, “Relative Definiteness and the Verbless Clause,” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. Cynthia L. Miller, LSAWS (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 251–72, esp. his charts on 262, 265, and 271–72. 104. The one example where this identification appears involves the use of ‫ הּוא‬as a copulative, and thus is not appositional (‫ֵׂשו הּוא אֱדֹום‬ ָ ‫[ ע‬Gen 36:8], “Esau is Edom”). See Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, 42. I exclude lists of personal names within a genealogy from discussion since these names are not meant to overlap semantically. Furthermore, collocations of the Tetragrammaton with ‫( אֱל ִֹהים‬see the following note) do not apply since here ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬functions as a title. 105. Abraham juxtaposed these words on two occasions: ‫ֶליֹון‬ ְ ‫“( יהוה אֵל ע‬Yhwh, the highest God,” Gen 14:22) and ‫“( יהוה אֵל עֹולָם‬Yhwh, God of eternity,” Gen 21:33). Joshua

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

143

It is unlikely that the biblical authors and editors would explicitly identify Yhwh with any other named deity. The personal name of a deity was the identifying linguistic sign to which that deity’s character must be attached (by means of many epithets, titles, and descriptions). The righteous and gracious character of the God called “Yhwh” set him apart from the gods of the nations whose names connoted different character traits (Exod 15:11; Isa 57:15). Identifying Yhwh with these gods’ names would problematically identify their immoral traits with Yhwh’s. This is especially problematic in the case of El, who is presented in the Ugaritic myths as aloof, lecherous, and given to drunkenness. 106 Connecting the divine name “Yhwh” with the divine name “El” ascribes a second personal name to Yhwh and conflates the characters of two separate deities. However, this assertion does not do justice to the complexities of interpreting the Hebrew text. In English, the distinction between the name “El” and the epithet “god” is clear, but this distinction collapses in the Hebrew word ‫אֵל‬. The Israelites would have recognized that the word ‫ אֵל‬could serve as a title or a divine name, and they surely knew about the Ugaritic deity. In light of this, the biblical authors likely engaged in several polemics that asserted Yhwh’s supremacy, but the question remains whether they intended their audience to re-define El’s character in terms of Yhwh’s or to eclipse El completely. It seems to me that there was an indissoluble link binding the divine name “El” to the immoral character of that god, and any attempt to define Yhwh in terms of El would have led to dangerous syncretism that compromised Yhwh’s character at best. The biblical authors would have intended the polyvalent word ‫ אֵל‬in its generic sense from which Yhwh could be depicted on his own terms. 107 This does not mean that Yhwh did not resemble the foreign gods at all. In fact, the biblical authors often attributed to Yhwh their epithets and spheres of influence. 108 Nevertheless, this ascription occurred only on the level of epithets and title, not on the level of personal names. The most accurate way to depict this polemic in translation involves rendering ‫ אֵל‬as “god” when speaking of Yhwh and as “El” when speaking only of the Ugaritic deity. The instance of ‫ אֵל‬in Exod 34:6 is unusual, because the word ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬was the preferred generic term that referred to a deity. Yhwh’s intentional use of ‫ אֵל‬instead of ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬alludes to the titles given to him by the characters 22:22 and Ps 50:1 (‫ )אֵל אֱל ִֹהים יהוה‬should be translated “God, Deity, Yhwh.” These phrases classify Yhwh as a deity, they do not identity two different name-bearers. 106. See Simon B. Parker, ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, SBLWAW 9 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 117 (CAT 1.3.V.23–25), 128 (CAT 1.4.IV.38–39), 195 (CAT 1.114), and 210–12 (CAT 1.23). 107. For an explanation of specific ways that biblical authors avoided the mention of foreign divine names, see Appendix 2 below, pp. 208–209. 108. See Daniel I. Block, “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology,” in The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 218.

144

Chapter 5

in Genesis. 109 Most importantly, the word ‫ אֵל‬in the DNP alludes to the important epithet ‫ש ָדּי‬ ַ ׁ ‫ אֵל‬used throughout Genesis and in Exod 6:3. Yhwh claimed that the God (‫ אֵל‬in a generic sense) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the God of Moses’s day, though with a newly revealed character. The word ‫ אֵל‬classifies Yhwh as a divine being, which allows the rest of the DNP to define his character. The adjectives ‫ רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬had already been introduced in the idem per idem construction in Exod 33:19 (‫ֲׁשר אֲרַ חֵם‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר אָחֹן ְוִרח ְַמ ִּתי אֶת־א‬ ֶ ‫וחַּנ ִֹתי אֶת־א‬,ְ “I will favor whomever I will favor and have compassion on whomever I have compassion”). 110 The open-ended and indeterminate nature of this construction links directly with Exod 3:14 (‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬, “I will be whoever I will be”). These phrases occur at the beginning and end of Exodus to indicate the gradual unfolding of the divine character. In response to the question ‫ַה־שּׁמֹו‬ ְ ‫“( מ‬what is his name?”), Yhwh announced that the future would reveal the divine character that he would ascribe to this name (Exod 3:14). After Israel’s sin with the calf, Moses pressed Yhwh to make known his ways and his glory. Yhwh responded by specifying Exod 3:14 in Exod 33:19, thus ascribing favor and compassion to the name “Yhwh.” 111 The DNP begins with the adjectives ‫ רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬to expand upon Exod 33:19: the proclamation of Yhwh’s character to a sinful people finally revealed the “whoever” that he had become for them. 112 The adjective ‫ רַ חּום‬appears 13 times in the Hebrew Bible, 12 of which refer to Yhwh. Its relationship to the ‫ רחם‬word group helps to define its range of meaning. The verb ‫ רחם‬likely derives from the noun ‫ ֶרחֶם‬, “womb.” 113 This verb usually takes as its direct object one who is vulnerable or penitent, indicating that the action of ‫ רחם‬moves from a greater person to a lesser person. 114 Psalm 18:2[1] is the exception, for the Psalmist says ָ‫ָמך‬ ְ ‫ֶרח‬ ְ ‫“( א‬I love 109. ‫ֶליֹון‬ ְ ‫( יהוה אֵל ע‬Gen 14:22), ‫ֳאי‬ ִ ‫( אֵל ר‬Gen 16:13), ‫( יהוה אֵל עֹולָם‬Gen 21:33), ‫אֵל אֱלֹהֵי‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫( י‬Gen 33:20), and ‫( אֵל ּבֵית־אֵל‬Gen 35:7). 110. Shmuel Ahituv also makes this connection. See “The Face of Yhwh (Hebrew),” 7. See also Renaud, Proche est ton Nom, 33; and R. Kendall Soulen, The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity: Distinguishing the Voices (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 146. 111. Michael P. Knowles, The Unfolding Mystery of the Divine Name: The God of Sinai in our Midst (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 37–38. 112. Theologian Kevin Vanhoozer observes this development when he notes that “God’s name is not merely ‘he who is’ but ‘merciful and gracious.’” Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, CSCD 18 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 271. 113. BDB 933; and HALOT 2:1217. This denominative development may explain why the Qal and Piel forms have different meanings. 114. For example, 2 Kgs 13:23; Isa 13:18; Ps 102:14; 116:5, etc. The parallelism in Isa 9:16 ׂ ְ ‫ )לֹא־י‬with illustrates this well. The prophet states that Yhwh would not be pleased (‫ִשמַח‬ Israel’s able-bodied young men (‫) ַבּחּורָיו‬, and would not have compassion (‫ )יְרַ חֵם‬on Israel’s orphans and widows (‫)ואֶת־יְתֹמָיו ְואֶת־א ְַל ְמנ ָֹתיו‬. ְ This verse suggests that persons in an abject or vulnerable situation merit God’s compassion, while those who are self-sufficient and strong do not.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

145

you”) to Yhwh. However, this unusual meaning is due to ָ‫ָמך‬ ְ ‫ֶרח‬ ְ ‫ א‬being the only instance of ‫ רחם‬in the Qal rather than the Piel stem. 115 Similarly, the singular noun ‫ ֶרחֶם‬differs in its meaning from the plural form ‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫( רַ ח‬sometimes translated “acts of compassion”). A humble or weak person requests ‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫ רַ ח‬when needing help from a stronger person. 116 The humble person may appeal to the emotions of the stronger one (e.g., Isa 63:15), and it was expected that such an emotional response would lead to action ( Jer 42:12; Ps 51:3). The ‫ רחם‬word group denotes a positive, emotional, and active response to a person in a weak or penitent state. This suggests that the adjective ‫ רַ חּום‬should be translated “compassionate.” ‫ חַּנּון‬also appears 13 times, 12 of which refer to Yhwh. 117 The ‫ חנן‬word group contains more forms than the ‫ רחם‬word group, but has fewer variations in their meanings. As with ‫רחם‬, the action of ‫ חנן‬moves from greater to lesser. 118 Context often suggests that this verb emphasizes the active response of the stronger rather than the emotional response. 119 ‫ חנן‬relates broadly to the concept of “grace,” which many define simply as “undeserved favor.” This popular definition must be nuanced because the supplicants often saw themselves as undeserving because of their poor status or vulnerable social situation, rather than because of sin. 120 ְ ‫ֶרח‬ ְ ‫ א‬based on 115. Georg Schmuttermayr defends the translation “I love you” for ָ‫ָמך‬ the use of cognate terms in Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, the Amarna letters, and the Moabite Stone. These languages confirm that the Grundstamm of rhm often indicates ְ ‫ֶרח‬ ְ ‫ א‬in Ps 18:2 influenced a movement from a lesser to a greater. He also argues that ָ‫ָמך‬ Ps 116:2 in its use of ‫ ָאה ְַב ִתּי‬. See “RHM—Eine lexikalische Studie,” Biblica 51 (1970): 499– 525, esp. p. 523. However, the psalmist may have been unaware of this broader meaning of the term. He may have used an unusual form of ‫ רחם‬on purpose, to avoid any clear verbal expression of his love (‫ )אהב‬for Yhwh. The Hebrew Bible contains few (or no) references to human worshipers explicitly speaking of their love for Yhwh. See Daniel I. Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 238. 116. For example, Gen 43:14; Jer 42:12; Ps 40:12, etc. 117. ‫ חַּנּון‬and ‫ רַ חּום‬appear together in Exod 34:6; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Ps 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; 112:4; 145:8; Neh 9:17, 31, and 2 Chr 30:9, though only in two cases do these texts follow the order ‫( רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬Ps 86:15 and 103:8). In two instances, ‫ חַּנּון‬occurs separately from ‫רַ חּום‬: Exod 22:26 and Ps 116:5 (although ‫ ְמרַ חֵם‬occurs in parallel). ‫ רַ חּום‬appears alone in Deut 4:31 and Ps 78:38. In Ps 112:4 both adjectives refer, seemingly, to a righteous person. This exception must stand even though many LXX manuscripts specify God as the subject by inserting ὁ κύριος. 118. Psalm 123:2–3 shows this especially clearly. The psalmist compares the expectant look of slaves toward their masters to Israel’s gaze toward Yhwh. In this posture, Israel was expecting that Yhwh would extend grace to them (‫ש ְיּ ָחנֵּנּו‬ ֶׁ ‫)עַד‬. See also Amos 5:15; Ps 4:2, and Prov 14:31. 119. For example, Isa 26:10; Amos 5:15, etc. 120. Many of the Psalmists’ appeals for Yhwh’s grace come from one who is oppressed, weak, vulnerable, or discouraged (e.g., Ps 4:2[1]; 30:9[8]; 31:10[9]; 123:2–3, etc.), rather than from one who has sinned against God (e.g., Ps 51:3[1]).

146

Chapter 5

Nominal forms of ‫חֵן( חנן‬, ‫חנִינָה‬ ֲ [ Jer 16:13]) rarely refer to a momentary, favorable action, but to the creation and preservation of a settled state. 121 When used of human-to-human relationships, these words did not necessarily denote a movement from lesser to greater, but that a person was liked or favored. 122 Other nominal forms (‫ת ִּחּנָה‬, ְ ‫ )תַּ חֲנוּנִים‬denote a petition for favor. 123 The adjective ‫ חַּנּון‬characterizes one who protects or acts for the lowly­. 124 While an awkward English adjective such as favoring best expresses this idea, the related term gracious is smoother. The semantic ranges of ‫ רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬overlap greatly and make a fuller statement about Yhwh when paired. 125 This important phrase highlights both the emotional and the dynamic aspects of Yhwh’s response to the lowly and vulnerable. Moses sought to discover Yhwh’s attitude toward the Israelites who were left weeping (and penitent?) at the bottom of the mountain (Exod 33:4–6). 126 Yhwh first proclaimed that grace and compassion were his prerogative, to give to whom he wills (Exod 33:19). However, by beginning the DNP with the words ‫רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬, Yhwh announced that his response to Israel’s sin would be positive and whole-hearted. ְ ‫ ֶאר‬comes next in the chain of descriptions. The construct phrase ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ These words appear together 12 times, 9 of which refer to Yhwh. 127 This idiomatic phrase is part of other idioms that employ the word ‫אָף‬. 128 These indicate that the nose (and, by extension, the face) reflected a person’s emotional state. The length of a person’s nose or face symbolized the degree of his or her anger. A person with a short nose (‫קצַר־ ַא ַ ּפיִם‬, ְ Prov 14:17) had little self-control and quickly burst forth in anger. Conversely, a person with a ְ ‫ ) ֶאר‬restrained or delayed his or her anger. 129 long nose (‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ 121. This is especially common with the idiom ‫ ָמצָא חֵן ַבּעֵינַיִם‬. See Gen 6:9; Deut 24:1; 1 Kgs 11:19; etc. 122. In Prov 28:23, the man who rebukes his neighbor is said to find favor with him in the end. This indicates an equal, reciprocal relationship. Furthermore, Prov 22:1 puts the phrases ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ִבחָר‬ ְ ‫“( נ‬a choice reputation”) and ‫“( חֵן טֹוב‬good favor”) in parallel. 123. For example, Jer 3:21; Ps 6:10[9]; 143:1; Dan 9:20; 2 Chr 33:13; etc. 124. See Exod 22:26 (the only instance where ‫ חַּנּון‬is not paired with a form of ‫ )רחם‬and Ps 111:4. 125. These adjectives follow the qātûl/qātūl pattern, which is related to the Qal passive participle. See Joüon, 227–33. This particular pattern may further emphasize the settled and consistent nature of the adjectival ideas. 126. As mentioned above, Exod 33:10 may show that the Israelites had repented. 127. See Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Prov ְ ‫ ְל ֶאר‬in Jer 14:29; 15:18; 16:32; and Neh 9:17. This does not include the related forms ָ‫ֶך א ְַפּך‬ ְ ‫ אֹר‬in Prov 25:15. 15:15 and ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ 128. For example ‫( שׁוב אָף‬Num 25:4; 2 Kgs 23:26; Job 9:13), ‫( גֺּבַהּ אָף‬Ps 10:4), ‫חֲרוֺן אָף‬ (Exod 32:12; Num 32:14; Nah 1:6), ‫ֳרי־אָף‬ ִ‫( ח‬Exod 11:8; 1 Sam 20:34; Isa 7:4; 2 Chr 25:16), and ‫בעַל אָף‬ ּ ַ (Prov 22:24). ְ ‫ ֶאר‬in the Proverbs urge humans to adopt this characteristic of 129. The uses of ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ Yhwh.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

147

Other idioms apply the image of shortness to different parts of the human person. Besides the nose/face (‫)אָף‬, the spirit (ַ‫)רוּח‬, and “soul” (‫)נֶפֶשׁ‬, could become short and easily perturbed. ‫ קצר נֶפֶשׁ‬does not relate to anger, but to morale or zeal: those with “short souls” had become embittered, worn out, or demoralized. 130 Similarly, one with a “short spirit” (ַ‫ )קצר רוּח‬had become embittered, angry, or impatient (Exod 6:9; Mic 2:7). The only other use of these idioms to express a positive trait occurs in Qohelet’s aphorism: ‫טֹוב‬ ְ ‫“( ֶאר‬A long spirit is better than a proud spirit,” Eccl 7:8). ‫־רּוח ִמ ְגּבַּה־רּו ַח‬ ַ ‫ֶך‬ ְ ‫ ֶאר‬indicate that this idiom was The nominal and verbal forms of ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ not frozen in Biblical Hebrew. Proverbs 25:15 commends “length of nose” ְ ‫אֹר‬, here meaning “patience” in a general sense) as the means of per(‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ ְ ‫ֱר‬ suading leaders and powerful people. The combination ‫יך אָף‬ ִ‫ ֶהא‬, used once of Yhwh (Isa 48:9) and once of humans (Prov 19:11), refers to one who willingly forestalls anger and remains patient in the face of provocation. Such patience is not unlimited––even a long face can be affected by repeated offenses, as demonstrated by the host of biblical idioms about the venting of anger. Because the ancient Near Eastern understanding of the nose as an indicator of emotion is lost on modern readers, the interpretive translation ְ ‫ ֶאר‬. 131 “slow to anger” helpfully captures the phrase ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ When Yhwh proclaimed his patience, he also alluded to his anger over Israel’s idolatry. If Yhwh had not checked his burning anger, then Israel would have been completely destroyed (Exod 32:10). Moses recognized that Yhwh had opened himself up for intercession in their first conversation, and he pleaded with Yhwh to turn back his anger (ָ‫ׁשּוב ֵמחֲרֹון ַא ֶפּך‬, Exod 32:12). Although Yhwh had listened and relented from his threat to destroy Israel, Exod 32:35–33:5 showed he was still angry. Israel remained uncertain whether or not his anger would flare up again. Yhwh’s proclamation that he ְ ‫ ֶאר‬made clear that he would restrain and delay the expression of was ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ his righteous anger instead of unleashing it impulsively. 132 The noun pair ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ֶחסֶד ו‬functions similarly to the adjectives ‫רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬. Both pairs appear commonly in the Hebrew Bible, often describing Yhwh. The words that make up the pair also overlap in their range of meaning. ‫ֶחסֶד‬ is well-known for its broad semantic range. In a general sense, this word indicates a person’s positive disposition toward another. The context may indicate general kindness, grace, or loyalty. 133 The plural form ‫ָדים‬ ִ ‫חס‬ ֲ refers 130. See Num 21:4; Judg 16:16; and Zech 11:8. 131. The archaic term “longsuffering” also communicates this idea well. 132. This statement introduces the larger issue of how Yhwh’s patience correlates with the repeated descriptions in the Hebrew Bible of his anger (e.g., Nah 1:6; Ps 85:6). I will discuss this tension within the divine character below, pp. 155–157. 133. Kindness: see 2 Sam 10:2; Prov 20:28; Job 10:12; etc. Grace: see Ps 5:8; 25:7; 86:13; Ezra 7:28; etc. Loyalty: see Deut 7:9; Jer 2:2; etc. For a further study on this aspect of the word, see K. D. Sakenfeld, Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective, OBT 16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 2–5.

148

Chapter 5

to acts of kindness (Gen 32:11; Isa 63:7 [2×]). When used of Yhwh, the word ‫ָסיד‬ ִ ‫ ח‬functions as the adjectival counterpart of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬: he is kind to those who turn to him ( Jer 3:12), and gracious/loyal in all of his works (Ps 145:7). When used of people in the Psalms, ‫ָסיד‬ ִ ‫ ח‬refers almost exclusively to “the pious one,” the person loyal to Yhwh alone. 134 It remains to discover if ‫ ֶחסֶד‬has a more specific meaning when speaking of divine-human relationships. The translation “kindness” is too weak for certain contexts where Yhwh’s ‫ ֶחסֶד‬is said to deliver the lowly (Ps 86:13), pass over sin (Ps 25:7), or endure forever ( Jer 33:11; Ps 100:5). Sometimes, divine ‫ ֶחסֶד‬is not given to those who are in a lowly or penitent state (Exod 15:13; 2 Chr 32:32). The two appearances of the verb ‫ חסד‬suggest that Yhwh shows his kindness to those loyal to him (‫ָסיד ִת ְּת ַח ָסּד‬ ִ ‫עם־ח‬, ִ “with the pious you will act kindly,” 2 Sam 22:26 // Ps 18:26). Thus, the semantic range of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬describes Yhwh’s goodness to humanity with varying levels of intensity: it may indicate a general kindness shown to his worshippers, or it may indicate his grace that delivers from peril and lavishes favor on sinners. The context of Exod 32–34 suggests that “grace” is an appropriate translation, because Israel was in danger of dying because of their sin. 135 However, the phrase ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ רַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬cannot yet be understood without further lexical and syntactic study. The likely derivation of ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ from ‫“( אמן‬certain,” “firm,” “reliable”) elucidates the noun’s range of meaning. The verb appears almost exclusively in the Niphal and Hiphil stems. The Niphal forms refer to one who is reliable or faithful, 136 or to a matter that is established or certain. 137 The nominal forms ‫ אֲמוּנָה‬and ‫ אֵמוּן‬indicate faithfulness or faithful people. 138 Though the meaning of ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ overlaps with these root forms, a brief survey of its uses will indicate its particular semantic contribution. Unlike other forms derived from the same root, the noun ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ sometimes denotes a correspondence to reality (the physical world) or testimony (human speech). Speaking verbs or legal issues in the context make clear when ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ refers specifically to testimony rather than to uninterpreted “reality.” 139 134. See Pss 12:2; 30:5; 43:1; etc. 135. Gordon Clark summarizes the meaning of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬in the context of Exod 32–34 as “Yahweh’s tenacious commitment to Israel even in the face of their blatant and persistent rebellion[, which] demonstrates that ‫ ֶחסֶד‬is an enduring quality of God.” The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 157 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 267. This theological connotation likely became dominant in Israel’s later history, hence the regular LXX translation of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬as ἔλεος (“mercy”). See K. D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry, HSM 17 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 119–22. 136. See Deut 7:9; Isa 49:7; etc. 137. See 1 Sam 25:28; Ps 89:29; 1 Chr 17:23; etc. 138. See Deut 32:4; Isa 26:2; Ps 12:2[1]; 40:11. Cf. R. W. L. Moberly, “‫אמן‬,” NIDOTTE 1:427–33. 139. See Gen 42:16; Deut 13:15; Isa 42:3; Ps 43:3; and Prov 8:7.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

149

In some instances, ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ is used with the same meaning and function as ‫אמן‬ (“certainty” or “stability”; Josh 2:12; 2 Kgs 20:19). ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ may contain another nuance when speaking of divine traits. The preceding uses of ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ demonstrate that “truth” is not a static concept to which God and humanity must conform. Yhwh could send forth his ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ to guide the righteous (Ps 43:3), and his refusal to abandon ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ symbolized his favor (Gen 24:27). Yhwh’s reliable acts and speech became the basis of his praise (Isa 38:18; Ps 30:10), and the standard by which the righteous should live (Ps 25:5; 86:11). Because Yhwh is the creator of the world who determines right and wrong, his ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ consists of faithful, consistent actions to his creatures, and his words define his moral demands. The translations “truth” and “faithfulness” both express this idea appropriately. The pairing of ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ֶחסֶד ו‬helps to specify the broad meanings of these words. When paired with ‫עשׂה‬, they function adverbially. 140 The Israelite scouts warned Rahab not to tell anyone about their true identity. They ְ ‫ָׂשינּו ִעּמ‬ promised that if she would keep the secret, ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ָך ֶחסֶד ו‬ ִ ‫“( ְוע‬then we will deal kindly and faithfully with you,” Josh 2:14). Often ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ֶחסֶד ו‬function as the subject of a verb and indicate personal traits. 141 In Exod 34:6, Yhwh proclaimed himself as ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫רַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬, meaning that abundant expressions of kindness and truth are inherent to his character. Given the mutually interpreting character of this word pair, a literal translation misses the point (e.g., “grace and truth” or “kindness and faithfulness”). A dynamic translation best captures this theologically loaded phrase (e.g., “reliable grace,” “steadfast love,” or “loving faithfulness”). ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ רַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬offers a rare example of an adjective in construct. 142 The adjective ‫ רַ ב‬differs from ‫ גָּדֹּול‬in that the latter often emphasizes size or quality while the former emphasizes extent or amount. 143 Thus, most nouns modified by ‫ רַ ב‬can be quantified, even if they appear in the singular. This adjective emphasizes that Yhwh’s acts of steadfast love are plentiful and consistent. The phrase as a whole assured Israel that Yhwh’s grace would persist beyond their moment of need. This adjectival phrase concludes the 140. See Gen 24:49; 47:29; 2 Sam 2:6, and perhaps 2 Sam 15:20. 141. See Ps 25:10; 61:8[7]; 85:11[10]; 86:15; 89:15[14]; Prov 3:3; 20:28. In Ps 25:10, ‫ֶחסֶד‬ ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ו‬function as predicates of the subject ‫ָרחֹות יהוה‬ ְ ‫א‬, not subjects themselves. These two traits are often associated with God, but many aphorisms in the Proverbs urge people to imitate these divine characteristics. Gordon Clark claims that ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ is an “essential component” of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, 259. 142. For example, ‫קטֹן ָּבנָיו‬, ְ “the small[est] of his sons” (2 Chr 21:17). It is also possible that the adjective precedes its noun. This is unusual for most Hebrew adjectives, but is a unique feature of ‫( רַ ב‬cf. Prov 31:29). See BHRG 233. 143. Two texts illustrate the different meanings of these adjectives. Ezekiel 17:7 describes a bird as ‫“( ְגּדֹול ְ ּכנָ ַפיִם ְורַ ב־נֹוצָה‬with two great wings and abundant in feathers”). In Jer 32:19 the prophet praises Yhwh who is ‫יליָּה‬ ִ ‫ֲל‬ ִ ‫“( ְגּדֹל ָה ֵעצָה ְורַ ב ָהע‬great in counsel and abundant in deeds”). In both cases, ‫ רַ ב‬modifies a singular noun that indicates several identifiable objects of its kind.

150

Chapter 5

list of nominal forms in Exod 34:6 that describe Yhwh’s positive disposition to a sinful people. The phrase ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬marks a shift in the structure of the DNP. Yhwh’s proclamation moved subtly from nominal predications of the word ‫ אֵל‬to participial modifiers. The following three substantival participles emphasize Yhwh’s actions over his traits. The verb ‫ נצר‬appears mainly in the prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs––it is the poetic equivalent of ‫“( שׁמר‬keep,” “observe,” “guard”). 144 Therefore, it is unusual that ‫ נצר‬appears in the DNP instead of ‫שׁמר‬, though this may simply reflect the higher register of Exod 34:6. However, the use of ‫ נצר‬in poetic imagery expands its reference and meaning. A few texts picture divine traits as though they keep watch over the righteous. In Ps 61:8, ‫ֶחסֶד‬ ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ו‬watch over the king. 145 Furthermore, the sage/father in Prov 2:11 says that ‫“( ְמ ִז ָמּה‬discretion”) and ‫“( ְתּבּונָה‬understanding”) would guard his obedient son. These images depict metaphorically how Yhwh takes care of those faithful to him. In Exod 34:7, ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬describes Yhwh as the source of beneficent traits, thus modifying the common image: it is not as though Yhwh’s kindness watches over the thousands, rather, he maintains his kindness for their benefit. The word ‫ ֶחסֶד‬refers back to the entire chain of descriptions in Exod 34:6. This is the first indication that ‫ ֶחסֶד‬could be considered shorthand for all the beneficent divine traits. 146 What Yhwh maintained was nothing less than his compassion, grace, patience, and abundant loving faithfulness. There is no one-word equivalent for this loaded anaphoric function of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬, so the general term “kindness” must suffice. Yhwh maintains his kindness for the benefit of “the thousands” (‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫) ָל‬. This elliptical phrase likely refers to a thousand generations. In Deut 7:9, Moses proclaimed Yhwh as the faithful God who “keeps covenant and kindness for those who love him and who keep his commands, for a thousand ׁ The participgenerations” (‫ֹותו ְל ֶאלֶף ּדֹור‬ ָ ‫ּול ׁש ֹ ְמרֵי ִמ ְצ‬ ְ ‫הבָיו‬ ֲֹ ‫)ש ֹמֵר ה ְַבִּרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד ְלא‬. 144. For example, Deut 33:9; Pss 12:8; 105:45; 119:2, 22, 100, 115; 140:5; Prov 2:11; etc. The exception to this is the participle ‫נֹוצִרים‬, ְ which refers to “watchmen” (2 Kgs 17:9; 18:8; Jer 31:6; etc.). 145. Between the subject ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ֶחסֶד ו‬and the verb ‫ְצרֻהּו‬ ְ ‫ ִינ‬comes the baffling word ‫מַן‬. Michael Fishbane has recognized this as a shorthand (marginal) scribal note, ‫“( מלא נון‬full spelling of the nun”), that draws attention to the unusual form ‫ְצרֻהּו‬ ְ ‫ִינ‬. This marginal note was later incorporated into the body of the text, likely by accident. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 64. 146. This can be seen in the refrain ‫“( הֹודּו לַיהוה ִכּי־טֹוב ִכּי ְלעֹולָם ח ְַסּדֹו‬Give thanks to Yhwh because he is good, for his kindness endures forever,” Ps 136:1). This refrain appears 5 times in the Hebrew Bible, while the shorter form ‫ ִכּי ְלעֹולָם ח ְַסּדֹו‬appears 40 times, mostly in Ps 136. D. A. Baer and R. P. Gordon claim that, within the list of God’s traits, “ḥesed rises as a sort of first among equals by virtue of its superior quantity and permanence.” “‫חסד‬,” NIDOTTE 2:217. Daniel Block says that it encompasses all the positive, beneficent attributes of God. See Deuteronomy, 163.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

151

ial phrase ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬refers backwards and forwards: it condenses the earlier descriptions of the DNP in the word ‫ ֶחסֶד‬while setting up a contrast between the magnanimous kindness of Yhwh to the thousandth generation and his anger against the third and fourth generation. 147 Up to this point, Yhwh had proclaimed his positive disposition to the lowly and penitent, but he had not mentioned their sin. A more explicit statement on this matter was needed since Israel’s sin weighed heavily on them and their fate was uncertain. According to many translations, the following participial phrase (‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ )נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון ָופֶׁשַ ע ְוח‬concerns Yhwh’s forgiveness. However, Baruch Schwartz has convincingly argued that the verb ‫ נשׂא‬in the Hebrew Bible does not by itself refer to forgiveness: its various shades of meaning (“carry,” “bear,” “lift up”) never transcend the literal level. 148 Even in poetic contexts that employ metaphors, the literal meanings of ‫ נשׂא‬remain the same. ‫ נשׂא‬means “lift up,” even if a voice (Ps 93:3), a heart (Lam 3:41), or the light of Yhwh’s face (Ps 4:7) is lifted up. ‫ נשׂא‬means “carry” even if one carries a blessing (Ps 24:5) or a sickness (Isa 53:4). Schwartz argues that the phrase ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון ָופֶׁשַ ע ְוח‬refers to forgiveness through the image of carrying sin away. Forgiveness in the Hebrew Bible was understood as carrying and removing burdens: sin was a weight that people painfully carried, though another could intervene and put the burden on himself. Schwartz further notes that one’s bearing the yoke for another results in “having erased the deed, having pardoned the insult, and having conceded to the other.” 149 Therefore, the phrase as a whole proclaims Yhwh’s forgiveness through this living linguistic picture, but one should not appeal to a nonliteral sense for ‫ נשׂא‬to achieve this meaning. 150 The verb ‫ סלח‬is the only term that by itself refers to the act of forgiving, but it first appears after the DNP (Exod 34:9). Yhwh drew on the image of bearing sin away even though using ‫ סלח‬would have been more direct. One could argue that the verb ‫ נשׂא‬was employed to preserve the assonance in the middle part of the DNP (‫ ְונַ ֵקּה לֹא ְינַקֶּה‬. . . ‫שׂא‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ נ‬. . . ‫)נֹצֵר‬. However, it is more likely that Yhwh utilized the phrase ‫שׂא עָֹון‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ נ‬to depict one side of the 147. Ibid. 148. Baruch J. Schwartz, “What is the Difference between Term and Metaphor? Bearing Iniquity/Transgression/Sin in the Bible (Hebrew),” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 149–71. A slightly modified English version of this article was published one year after the Hebrew article. See “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 3–21. 149. Schwartz, “What is the Difference between Term and Metaphor? (Hebrew),” 166. 150. In a recent study on sin metaphors, Gary Anderson relies heavily on Schwartz’s observations when discussing sin as a burden. He notes that the “thing-like” quality of sin required that it be carried or carried away to be effectively resolved. Anderson notes that sin as a burden is one of the most productive metaphors in the Hebrew Bible. Sin: A History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 15–26.

152

Chapter 5

“burden” image that would be balanced by the phrase ‫פּ ֹקֵד עֲֹון‬. I will explain this latter usage below. The triplet ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ עָֹון ָופֶׁשַ ע ְוח‬in Exod 34:7 describes the moral, physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of wrongdoing, though each word has separate nuances of meaning. ‫ עָֹון‬refers to actions that are perverted (‫)עוה‬ from the straight path, often occurring in the (collective) singular. 151 ‫ּפֶׁשַ ע‬ refers to cultic and covenantal transgression, especially the violation of a superior’s will (crossing the line). 152 ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ ח‬refers to a moral offense against another, and metaphors used with this word imply that its basic meaning is to divert from one’s way. 153 Ronald Youngblood argues that all three terms contribute to the metaphor of deliberate veering away from the road symbolizing God’s will for his people. 154 These terms’ combined meaning is more significant than the individual nuance of each. According to Michael Widmer, the combination of these three synonyms in this text is meant to denote all conceivable sins against Yhwh. 155 Israel could be certain that even their gross idolatry fell within the reach of Yhwh’s forgiveness. The phrase ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון ָופֶׁשַ ע ְוח‬marks a climactic moment in the revelation of God’s character. Its importance in the narrative becomes apparent when Israel’s knowledge of sin and punishment is set against their knowledge of Yhwh’s means of forgiveness. Israel was guided by Yhwh’s commands and instructions in Egypt and beyond. When Israel stood in the liminal state between the Red Sea and Sinai, Yhwh said that they would be free of the sicknesses he had put on Egypt if they kept his decrees (‫ֻקּיו‬ ָ ‫) ָכּל־ח‬ and obeyed his voice (Exod 15:25–26; cf. Exod 19:5). These were the kinds of decrees that Moses proclaimed in his daily work of judging the people (Exod 18:16). But Israel’s greatest instruction in righteousness and sin came through the covenant stipulations revealed at Sinai and condensed in the Decalogue. 156 These stipulations made clear how Israel could do right in Yhwh’s eyes, while also making clear how they could sin against him. Iniquity, transgression, and sin could now be clearly identified as violations of the covenant stipulations. 157 Each term in the triplet ‫עָֹון ָופֶׁשַ ע‬ 151. See Gen 15:16; Lev 10:17; 1 Sam 3:14; Ezek 18:30; etc. 152. See Exod 22:8; 1 Kgs 8:50; Ezek 18:22; etc. 153. See Gen 20:9; Lev 4:3; 1 Sam 2:17; etc. 154. See Ronald Youngblood, “A New Look at Three Old Testament Roots for ‘Sin,’” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. Gary A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 201–5. 155. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 189. 156. This may be what Paul meant when saying that “through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20b; cf. Rom 7:7–12). It is not as though sin against God was unknown before Sinai (see Gen 13:13), but the covenant stipulations clearly defined what counted as sin. 157. Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and its Remedy in the Old Testament; Siphrut 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 47.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

153

‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ ְוח‬occurs in the Book of the Covenant: Israel was first told of the “iniquity of fathers” in the Decalogue (‫עֲֹון אָבֹות‬, Exod 20:5), Yhwh himself spoke the words of the Decalogue to keep Israel from sinning (‫ל ִב ְל ִתּי ֶתחֱטָאּו‬, ְ Exod 20:20), and matters of legal transgression were to be brought before him (‫ָל־ּדבַר־ּפֶׁשַ ע‬ ְ ‫ּכ‬, Exod 22:8). However, Yhwh had not yet clarified how Israel could rectify these offenses. He followed up the Book of the Covenant with a statement about the messenger he would send to guide Israel. He declared that the messenger would not carry away the transgression of the people because he bore his name: ‫ׁש ִמי ְּב ִק ְרּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ׁשעֲכֶם ִּכי‬ ְ ‫ִּׂשא ְל ִפ‬ ָ ‫ּכי לֹא י‬, ִ (“indeed he will not bear away your sins because my name is in him,” Exod 23:21). Israel now knew what counted as sin, but had no indication that Yhwh would forgive them if they sinned. The tabernacle and the priestly sacrificial system of Exod 25–31 provide the first indications of how Yhwh would address breaches of covenant. This system provided means of forgiveness: an “atonement cover” (‫) ַהּכַּפֹרֶת‬ on which Yhwh descended and met with the people, 158 and the priestly ministry of Aaron and his sons who bore away the iniquity of the holy things by their prescribed duties (‫ׁשים‬ ִ ‫ָׂשא ַאהֲרֹן אֶת־עֲֹון הֳַּק ָד‬ ָ ‫ונ‬,ְ Exod 28:38). 159 The atonement achieved through animal sacrifices restored fellowship between Yhwh and Israel (Exod 25:20–22; 29:14, 36; 30:10). 160 Furthermore, Lev 4–6 demonstrates that the priestly administration of sacrifices truly brought about forgiveness for the worshiper’s sins. Yhwh would ordain the sacrifices and the priests as his means of mediating forgiveness to his sinful covenant people. Israel had violated Yhwh’s clear prohibition against idolatry, and they knew it qualified as a great sin. Moses knew this too, yet he pleaded for Yhwh’s forgiveness in his second intercession (Exod 32:31–35), ascending the mountain to make atonement for them (‫אתכֶם‬ ְ ַ‫אכ ְַּפרָה ְּבעַד חַּט‬ ֲ ‫אּולַי‬, Exod 32:30). He appealed to Yhwh with a stark ultimatum: ‫אתם ְו ִאם־‬ ָ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫ּׂשא ח‬ ָ ‫ם־ּת‬ ִ ‫ִא‬ ‫ָת ְב ָּת‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ּכ‬ ֶ ‫“( ַאיִן ְמ ֵחנִי נָא ִמ ִּס ְפ ְרךָ א‬If you will bear away their sins, [then do so,] 161 158. Richard Averbeck notes that the various proposed translations for ‫“( ּכַּפֹרֶת‬mercy seat,” “cover,” etc.) should take into account the foundational meaning of the root ‫כפר‬. Leviticus 17:11 is central to determining one’s view on the matter. See “‫כפר‬,” NIDOTTE 2:689–710, esp. p. 699. Whatever its precise meaning (“cover,” “ransom,” or “wipe clean”), the act of atonement results in consecration, purification, and forgiveness. 159. Cf. Exod 29:33, 36–37, and 30:10 with respect to the altar specifically. 160. The references to the “bull of the sin offering” (‫ַּטאת‬ ָ ‫ )פַּר ח‬in Exod 29–30 anticipate the sin offering described in Lev 4, both of which provided forgiveness to Israel. 161. Moses’s statement may have been cast in the form of an oath, since oath clauses with ‫ ִאם‬usually do not contain an apodosis (cf. 1 Sam 19:6; Isa 14:24; Jer 44:26; etc.). It is also possible that Moses expressed a wish elliptically. Psalm 81:9 illustrates this use of ‫אם‬: ִ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ַע־לי י‬ ִ ‫ׁשמ‬ ְ ‫ם־ּת‬ ִ ‫“( ִא‬O Israel, would that you would listen to me!”). See IBHS 679–80. According to the latter interpretation, Moses was saying, “Would that you bear away their sin! But if not, wipe me out from the book you have written.” I have taken the particle literally and have supplied an apodosis for the sake of clarity.

154

Chapter 5

but if not, then wipe me out from the book that you have written,” Exod 32:32). Moses staked his own fate on Yhwh’s willingness to forgive, but Yhwh did not accept his terms. Yhwh’s response resembled his statement in Exod 23:31 that he would not forgive: ‫ֶמחֶּנּו ִמ ִּס ְפִרי‬ ְ ‫ָא־לי א‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ָחט‬ ֶ ‫“( ִמי א‬Whoever has sinned against me, I will wipe him out from my book,” Exod 32:33). 162 This statement suggested Israel had no hope. Moses’s final, passionate intercession in Exod 33:12–23 became the impetus for God’s surprising revelation that forgiveness was inherent to his character. Yhwh’s self-proclamation as one who bears away iniquity, transgression, and sin stands in sharp relief against his previous claims not to forgive sin (Exod 23:21) and to wipe out sinners from his book (Exod 32:33). Therefore, this aspect of the DNP must be considered the most significant. One possible explanation for this shift in the knowledge of God is found in the sacrificial and priestly systems introduced just before Israel’s offense that provided the physical means of Yhwh’s forgiveness. But Exod 34:6–7 concludes by qualifying Yhwh’s forgiveness (‫ְונַּקֵה לֹא‬ ‫) ְינ ֶַּקה‬. This waw of the only infinitive absolute phrase in the DNP bears an adversative sense (“but”). This emphatic, negative counterpoint to an otherwise-­positive proclamation deserves a closer look. The verb ‫ נקה‬occurs almost exclusively in the Niphal and Piel stems. The Niphal forms are stative and describe one who is free from judicial or moral condemnation. In legal contexts, the verb may emphasize that one has been declared free of condemnation (Num 5:31), or it may emphasize that one is free from punishment (Exod 21:19). 163 This distinction is also maintained in nonlegal contexts: some uses of the verb may be entirely declarative ( Jer 2:35; Ps 19:14), while others clearly indicate that the subject will not be punished ( Jer 25:29, [3×]). In other cases, the context is too general to determine the precise meaning of the verb (1 Sam 26:9). The Piel forms of ‫ נקה‬are factitive: the subject of the verb makes or declares a person free of condemnation. With one exception (Ps 19:13), these 162. Carol Meyers notes that the mention of Yhwh’s book (“scroll”) accords with broader ancient Near Eastern thinking. For example, the Babylonians held that Nabu owned the “tablets of destiny” on which he wrote the names of those pleasing to him. A few other references in the Hebrew Bible demonstrate that the Israelites understood Yhwh as determining the fates of the righteous and wicked, and that these records were written in his book (e.g., Mal 3:16; Ps 69:28; 139:16). Exodus, 259–60. 163. These legal texts are instructive. Numbers 5:31 concludes the report of a man who rightly suspected his wife of adultery. The text says: ‫ּשׂא‬ ּ ָ ‫שׁה ה ִַהוא ִת‬ ּ ָ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫ָאיׁש ֵמעָֹון ְוה‬ ִ ‫ִקּה ה‬ ָ ‫ְונ‬ ‫“( אֶת־עֲֹונָּה‬Then the man will be [declared] innocent of iniquity, but that woman will bear her iniquity”). This verse appears to summarize the priests’ legal decision. Exodus 21:19 tells of a man who struck a neighbor that recovered after a few days. The verdict for the man who struck was: ‫מ ֶכּה רַ ק ִׁש ְבּתֹו יִתֵ ּן ְורַ פֹּא יְרַ ֵפּא‬ ּ ַ ‫ִקּה ַה‬ ָ ‫“( ְונ‬So the striker will be left unpunished, except that he will give [money for the time of his] laying down until he is fully healed”). Here, ‫ נקה‬indicates the punishment that the man avoided except that he had to pay compensation for the neighbor’s time lost in recovery.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

155

forms are negated by ‫ לֹא‬or ‫אַל‬, and Yhwh is often the subject. Yhwh’s refusal to acquit was to be feared ( Job 9:28), but it did not necessarily lead to annihilation ( Jer 30:11; 46:28). The translation “but will certainly not leave unpunished” rightly shows that, as much as Yhwh had emphasized his kindness, it could not be taken for granted. As would be expected, these Piel forms often take direct objects. However, the absence of an object for ‫ ְונַּקֵה לֹא ְינ ֶַּקה‬frustrates interpretation. The DNP is unclear whether Yhwh would condemn all of humankind, blatant sinners, inadvertent sinners, or even the repentant covenant people. The participial phrase ‫בנִים‬ ּ ָ ‫ ּפ ֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות עַל־‬follows ‫ ְונַּקֵה לֹא ְינ ֶַּקה‬without precisely identifying the “fathers.” The phrase ‫בנִים‬ ּ ָ ‫ פּ ֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות עַל־‬demonstrates that Yhwh’s justice balances his kindness, yet its meaning is not immediately apparent. Scholars disagree about the basic meaning of ‫ פקד‬because of its broad semantic range and its attestations in several Semitic languages. 164 It is possible that it has two basic meanings, perhaps due to the conflation of two homonymous roots. ‫ פקד‬can indicate attentiveness along a broad continuum of action. This continuum ranges from concerned observation, to visitation, to punishing, to punishing by means of something (using the preposition ‫)עַל‬. 165 ‫ פקד‬can also refer to certain military actions such as mustering troops or appointing officers. 166 The use of ‫ פקד‬in the DNP conforms to the first root meaning. Here ‫ פקד‬and its direct object are paired with the preposition ‫עַל‬, which locates it on the most active end of the “attentiveness continuum.” This phrase also ֵׂ ֹ ‫נ‬. Schwartz notes that as utilizes the picture created by ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ֶשע ְוח‬ ַ ׁ ‫שא עָֹון ָופ‬ ‫שׂא עָֹון‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ נ‬pictures Yhwh taking away the burden of sin, so ‫ פקד עָֹון עַל‬pictures his placing it upon the sinner. 167 A precise translation that retains this image is “bring to bear.” 168 Just as Yhwh brought iniquity to bear against the inhabitants of a defiled land (Lev 18:25), and will bring it to bear against the 164. See the discussion in HALOT 2:955–56. 165. Observation: see Exod 3:6; 1 Sam 15:2; 20:6; Ps 8:5; etc. Visitation: see Gen 21:1; Exod 13:19; Isa 26:14; etc. Punishing: see Jer 6:15; Ps 59:6; Job 35:15; etc. One can punish with iniquity (Lev 18:25; 2 Sam 3:8; Isa 16:21; Amos 3:2), sin (Exod 32:34), disasters (Isa 13:11; Jer 27:8), or bloodshed (Hos 1:4). 166. Mustering troops: see Num 3:40, 42; Judg 20:15, 17 [Hithpael]; 1 Sam 11:8; Isa 13:4 [Piel].Appointing officers: see 2 Kgs 11:15 [Qal passive participle]; 12:12 [Hophal]; 25:23 [Hiphil]. This meaning may derive from the same root as Ugaritic (pqd, “to command”) and Phoenecian (pqd, “to appoint”). Most nominal forms of ‫ פקד‬share this sense (‫ָקיד‬ ִ ‫פּ‬, “deputy”; ‫מ ְפ ָקד‬, ִ “muster,” “appointment”; ‫ֻדּה‬ ָ ‫פק‬, ּ ְ “oversight,” “mustering”; and ‫קּוּים‬ ִ ‫פּ‬, ִ “precepts,” “things appointed”). 167. Schwartz, “What Is the Difference between Term and Metaphor? (Hebrew),” 167. See Lev 18:25; Isa 26:21; and Amos 3:2 for similar instances. 168. As mentioned above, Yhwh could bring various offenses to bear against the offender (iniquity, disasters, bloodshed, and so on). Hosea 2:15 helpfully illustrates this picture: ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫ּופָקַ ְד ִתּי ָעלֶי ָה אֶת־ ְימֵי ה ְַבּע‬, (“so I will bring the days of the Baals to bear against

156

Chapter 5

earth’s inhabitants (Isa 13:11; 26:21), so also he would bring the iniquity of fathers to bear against their children and grandchildren. Yhwh’s inherent justice does not leave sinners unpunished. He punishes by discharging the adverse effects of a man’s iniquity onto his children and grandchildren (‫ַל־בנֵי ָבנִים‬ ּ ְ ‫בנִים ְוע‬ ּ ָ ‫)עַל־‬. God’s punishment extends ִׁ ‫ ע‬indicates. This rare even farther, as the parallel phrase ‫ַל־ר ֵב ִּעים‬ ִ ‫ַל־ש ֵל ִּׁשים ְוע‬ expression tersely summarizes (as does ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ ) ָל‬that descendants within the third and fourth generation (the father’s household) are implicated in one man’s iniquity. Victor P. Hamilton has creatively translated these terms “thirdlings” and “fourthlings.” 169 It is difficult to reconcile how Yhwh could proclaim himself as abundantly kind and forgiving while declaring simultaneously that he does not leave (sinners) unpunished. 170 This tension cannot be resolved completely. Nevertheless, one can at least argue that Exod 34:6–7 does not contradict the rest of the Bible. It is important to note that the DNP lacks an object for ‫ונַּקֵה לֹא ְינ ֶַּקה‬.ְ This omission leaves Exod 34:6–7 deliberately vague, only to be filled out elsewhereby a robust theology of repentance. The latter part of the DNP can be compared to Yhwh’s threats of destruction against sinful nations ( Jer 18:7–10). 171 Yhwh proclaimed himself as a God who brings iniquity to bear against entire households, but his proclamation also contained an implicit call for repentance. Those who turned from their sinful ways could expect Yhwh to lavish his kindness and forgiveness upon them. 172 These opposing aspects do not portray Yhwh as inherently con­flicted. 173 The DNP emphasizes Yhwh’s traits of goodness: he shows kindness to them”). In an act of punishment, Yhwh would make Israel live out many days in exile as a recompense for the many days they spent worshipping false gods. 169. Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 322. See also Block, Deuteronomy, 162–63. 170. Some posit two different sources for Exod 34:6–7 to resolve this difficulty. Nevertheless, most scholars have argued that these verses were originally unified. For a summary of scholarship on this text, see Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 10–28. 171. Yhwh’s actions toward Nineveh exemplify his freedom to judge and to forgive. In the book of Jonah, Yhwh relented from the calamity he had threatened against the Assyrian capital. However, the oracle of Nahum predicts the downfall and utter destruction of Nineveh, even though this oracle was supposedly spoken a few decades after Jonah’s lifetime. Widmer helpfully adds that Yhwh judged the next generation of Israelites on its own merits: he gave opportunity for the wilderness generation to change their ways and experience his goodness (Num 14:20ff.). Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 327–28. 172. The tension within the proclamation of the divine character may also serve a rhetorical purpose. Widmer notes that “the underlying problem in context is how to communicate the idea of grace to a stubborn people without skewing the moral demand of Yhwh,” ibid., 183. Exodus 34:6–7 beautifully navigates between the picture of an avenging, deterministic deity and a deity who makes no moral demands on his people. 173. Richard Friedman thinks otherwise, perhaps because he sees the book of Exodus as a composite text. He claims that “J (and E and D) emphasized the merciful side

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

157

thousands of generations, but only punishes to the fourth generation. 174 Furthermore, the revelation of Yhwh as a God who bears away every kind of sin stands at an emphatic point in the narrative of Exod 32–34. Even though his kindness outweighs his justice, kindness could not be taken for granted. Yhwh maintained the freedom to respond to the repentance, defiance, or indifference of sinners. 175 Also, the timing and extent of his punishment was not always predictable. 176 Finally, Yhwh sometimes responded with grace not due to the initiative of the sinner, but because of a righteous intercessor. 177 The drama of Exod 32–34 powerfully exemplifies this theological principle.

Excursus: The Nature and Extent of Yhwh’s Punishment The final words of the DNP raise questions about the nature and extent of Yhwh’s justice, especially concerning individual versus corporate responsibility. Yhwh’s self-description as a God who brings the iniquity of fathers to bear against later generations may suggest that children can do nothing to turn aside the divine punishment first incurred by their parents. Such was the complaint of the exiled Israelites in Ezekiel’s day. In Ezek 18:2, Yhwh informed Ezekiel of a proverb (‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ ) ַהּמ‬that was circulating among the people: ‫ׁשּנֵי ַה ָּבנִים ִּת ְקהֶינָה‬ ִ ‫אכלּו בֹסֶר ְו‬ ְ ֹ ‫“( אָבֹות י‬the fathers eat sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge”; cf. Jer 31:29). These Israelites reacted strongly to their understanding of divine punishment. The exiles claimed that their suffering was unjust, because they were bearing the punishment ְ ‫ִּתכֵן דֶּר‬ of their sinful parents. The Lord’s way with them was not right (‫ֶך‬ ָ ‫לֹא י‬ ‫אֲדֹנָי‬, Ezek 18:29). Michael Widmer offers three major interpretive categories for dealing with this issue. The first position (collective punishment) argues that the four generations mentioned in Exod 34:7 symbolized the maximum household size in the ancient Near East (cf. Job 42:16). Yhwh’s reaction to the sin of a family patriarch was so fierce that he would punish him thoroughly by of God; P emphasized the just side. The final version of the united Torah now brings the two sides together in a new balance, conveying a picture of God who is torn between His justice and mercy––which has been a central element of the conception of God in Judaism and Christianity ever since.” The Bible with Sources Revealed, 177. 174. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 197. 175. Ruth Scoralick offers three ways interpreters have tried to resolve the tension in Exod 34:6–7, as well as three ways that others have embraced the tension. The best approach seeks to resolve the tension while emphasizing God’s freedom (Der Widerspruch verweist auf die Freiheit Gottes). Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 68–72, esp. p. 71. 176. In Exod 33:34, Yhwh said that he would determine when to bring Israel’s sin to bear (‫אתם‬ ָ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫)ּוביֹום ָפ ְּק ִדי ּופָקַ ְד ִתּי עֲלֵיהֶם ח‬. ְ Although this declaration seems to point to the future, Yhwh’s striking of the people in the following verse likely indicates the fulfillment of the threat. The timing of punishment was Yhwh’s prerogative. 177. Boda, A Severe Mercy, 48.

158

Chapter 5

eradicating his entire household. The participation of a household in the fate of its head accords with the strong familial ties and corporate identity of the ancient Near East. 178 The second position (transgenerational punishment) takes the reference to “third and fourth generations” as analogous to the “thousands (of generations)” to whom Yhwh shows kindness. Thus, Yhwh’s punishment continues unabated from generation to generation, as does his kindness––the third and fourth generation should not be understood literally. Advocates of the final position (deferred punishment) assert that Yhwh’s “bringing to bear” could be deferred because its execution depended on the response of the coming generations. This view is illustrated by Yhwh’s choice to delay punishment against Ahab’s house when Ahab repented (1 Kgs 21:27–29). 179 A modified version of the deferred punishment position best explains the nature and extent of Yhwh’s punishment against sinners. Yhwh indeed brings the iniquity of one man to bear against the members of his household as an expression of his inherent anger against sin. Divine punishment often takes the form of a comprehensive judgment against a household, as with the story of Achan ( Josh 7:22–26). But this punishment can also be meted out indirectly as children inherit the sinful propensities and harmful habits of their father. 180 However, this reality need not be determinative for the younger generations, and they did not need to resign themselves to an unchangeable fate. 181 The Bible consistently emphasizes that repentance could defer or remove Yhwh’s punishment. The bearing of iniquity was only extended to the children if they continued in their father’s sinful ways. 182 Yhwh set forth this idea in a prophetic oracle: repentance could avert the disaster that he had already proclaimed against a nation ( Jer 18:7–10). Ezekiel refuted the proverb of his contemporaries with the claim that “the person who sins will die” (‫ ַהּנֶפֶׁש הַחֹטֵאת ִהיא ָתמּות‬, Ezek 18:4, 20), and that Yhwh would judge each person according to his or her ways (‫ִאיׁש ִכ ְּד ָרכָיו‬ ‫ֶשפֹּט‬ ְׁ ‫א‬, Ezek 18:30). The children suffered because of their parents’ sin, but they were not controlled by a deterministic fate: they could repent and live. 178. For a helpful discussion on the responsibilities of husbands and fathers in ancient Israel, see Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 40–61. 179. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 194–201. 180. Mark J. Boda refers to a “mitigated punishment” by which people are given less than their sins deserve but are still punished (cf. Exod 32:35). See A Severe Mercy, 42. 181. This was the attitude of the exiles in Ezekiel’s day. See Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 561. 182. Widmer cites the work of Josef Scharbert, who claims that the verb ‫ פקד‬refers to God’s assessment of a person, which informed his actions. Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 200–201. Scharbert’s claims seem to reflect theological concerns rather than rigorous lexical work. The reality of human repentance mitigates God’s exacting justice whether or not ‫ פקד‬has this particular meaning.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

159

The real possibility of human repentance allowed coming generations to avoid the direct and indirect consequences of iniquity within their family. 183 Exodus 34:8–9 Moses responded to Yhwh’s proclamation by quickly (‫ ) ַו ְי ַמהֵר‬bending his knees and prostrating himself (‫ִׁש ָּתחּו‬ ְ ‫) ַוּי‬. The people of Israel adopted the same posture when they first heard of Yhwh’s promise to intervene for them (Exod 4:31) and when they learned of his Passover plague against Egypt (Exod 12:27). These actions physically expressed a person’s humility before God’s revealed grandeur. 184 Moses prostrated himself as a response to the proclamation of the divine name. From this posture of humility, Moses made his final intercessory request. Even though Yhwh had clearly proclaimed his traits of forgiveness and grace, Moses’s words suggest that he was uncertain about divine favor: ‫ִאם־‬ ָ‫ָאתי חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיך‬ ִ ‫“( נָא ָמצ‬If, then, I have found favor in your eyes,” Exod 34:9). However, one need not interpret this phrase literally. It is possible for biblical characters to say ָ‫ָאתי חֵן ְּבעֵינֶיך‬ ִ ‫ ִאם־נָא ָמצ‬to a person who already favors them. 185 Moses probably employed this formula as the conventional means of addressing a social superior. ְ ‫)יֵל‬, a request Moses asked the Lord to go among them (‫ֶך־נָא אֲדֹנָי ְּב ִק ְרּבֵנּו‬ ָ synonymous with his earlier words in Exod 33:16 (‫ֶכ ְּתך ִעּמָנּו‬ ְ ‫)ּבל‬. ְ In Moses’s following words (‫ַם־קׁשֵה־עֹרֶף הּוא‬ ְ ‫)ּכי ע‬ ִ it is debated whether the particle ‫ִּכי‬ functions concessively (“although they are a stiff-necked people”) or causally (“because they are a stiff-necked people”). 186 While the causal function should not be ruled out simply because it strains the logic of Moses’s request, the concessive function is most likely for other reasons. Carl Follingstad has shown that the causal function of ‫ ִּכי‬comprises only 40 percent of its instances in direct speech. While the concessive function is a “side effect” of the particle’s core function as “focusing” particle, this meaning of ‫ ִּכי‬seems to indicate that a a proposition has been granted, but the interlocutor has not yet expressed his or her attitude toward it. 187 This is certainly true of Moses’s request that Yhwh go with Israel. Yhwh conceded to go 183. It is also important to consider the addressees of Yhwh’s message. Exodus 20:5 was addressed to parents to indicate that the actions of the father implicated the rest of his family. See Block, Deuteronomy, 162–63. Ezekiel’s hearers misunderstood this and made the false inference that Yhwh’s warning was issued to children. Ezekiel 18 makes clear that each person was judged on his or her own merits. 184. For a discussion of worship as physical gesture, see Block, For the Glory of God, 12–17. 185. For example, the dying Jacob asked for Joseph’s favor before asking his son to bury him in Canaan (Gen 47:29). Laban spoke this way before mentioning that Yhwh had blessed him on account of Jacob (Gen 30:27). Finally, it is also possible that David already had the favor of Achish when he asked him for a place for his family and his army (1 Sam 27:5). 186. Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 89–90. 187. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint, 264.

160

Chapter 5

(Exod 33:14), but his true attitude toward the people had not been revealed until the proclamation of the name. Moses’s statement that Israel was stiffnecked agreed with Yhwh’s pronouncement in Exod 32:9 and 33:5. He acknowledged God’s assessment of the people and reaffirmed his original request for Yhwh’s presence in spite of the people’s sinfulness. Surprisingly, Moses responded to the clearly articulated proper name ‫ יהוה‬with the title ‫אֲדֹנָי‬. He had used this title of Yhwh earlier (Exod 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17), as had Abraham (Gen 18:27, 31) and the Philistine king Abimelech (Gen 20:4). Yhwh had just defined his name, implicitly offering it to his people for their use. Moses employed the title ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬as a convention rather than as a refusal to speak the name. This respectful epithet was often spoken by social inferiors who prostrated themselves before their masters. 188 Nevertheless, this appropriate verbal expression of reverence may have contributed to the full-fledged refusal to pronounce the divine name in the Second Temple period and to replace it with the epithet ‫אֲדֹנָי‬. 189 The verb ‫“( סלח‬forgive”) appears here for the first time in the Hebrew Bible: ‫ַּטאתֵ נּו ּו ְנח ְַל ָּתנּו‬ ָ ‫ּולח‬ ְ ‫“( ְו ָסל ְַח ָּת ַלעֲֹונֵנּו‬forgive our iniquities and our sins, and so take us as an inheritance”). This verb makes explicit the import of the idiom ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון ָופֶׁשַ ע ְוח‬. Yhwh’s forgiveness would restore Israel to their privileged status as his covenant people. The following verb ‫ּו ְנח ְַל ָּתנּו‬ indicates that the people would become Yhwh’s special possession as a result of Yhwh forgiving them (cf. Exod 19:5). 190 Yhwh responded to Moses’s plea completely and unreservedly. He (re-)created a covenant (‫ִהנֵּה אָנ ִֹכי כֹּרֵת‬ ‫בִּרית‬, ְ Exod 34:10) and then told of its stipulations, which demonstrated the complete success of Moses’s intercession (Exod 34:10–28). Israel’s shocking disobedience had prevented Moses from executing God’s instructions to build the tabernacle. However, Moses’s intercession encouraged Yhwh to maintain his covenant relationship with Israel, allowing the tabernacle project to continue. Exodus 35–40 resumes the narrative of Exod 25–31, showing how Moses and the craftsmen followed Yhwh’s instructions. The narrative concludes by reporting that Yhwh’s glory inhab188. It is possible that an original ‫“( אֲדֹנִי‬my lord”) was modified by early readers and scribes of the text, thus reserving a special form of the word for God alone. W. W. Graf von Baudissin and Gustav Dalman carefully studied the origin of the word ‫אֲדֹנָי‬. Otto Eissfeldt has summarized their research, concluding that Israel employed the title ‫אֲדֹנָי‬ early in its history––this epithet probably did not develop from the “secular” vocative ‫אֲדֹנִי‬. Rather, the unusual afformative suffix on ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬indicated that Yhwh was “Lord of all.” See “‫ אָדֹון‬ʾādhôn,” TDOT 1:59–72, esp. p. 70; and Martin Rösel, Adonaj–warum Gott “Herr” genannt wird, FAT 29 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 189. The epithet ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬appears often in the Hebrew Bible where one might expect the proper name ‫( יהוה‬e.g., 1 Kgs 3:15; Isa 3:17; 6:1; Ezek 18:25, 29; Amos 9:1; Mal 1:12; Ps 2:4; 39:8; 86:15; 130:2; Job 28:28; Dan 9:15–19, etc.). In these instances, ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬may have been replaced by ‫ יהוה‬accidentally (in texts that were copied by dictation?) after the constant Qere had taken effect. 190. See above, p. 123, note g, for a defense of this syntactical interpretation.

The Divine Name Defined: Exodus 33:12–23 and 34:5–9

161

ited the tabernacle (Exod 40:34–35). 191 This act secured Yhwh’s presence and symbolized his acceptance of the covenant people. The “superfluous” details about Yhwh’s cloud and fire rising and descending to lead the people refer back to Moses’s desperate pleas for Yhwh’s guiding presence (Exod 40:36–38).

Conclusion The DNP fulfilled Moses’s request to know the ways of Yhwh and see his glory. 192 The proclamation in Exod 34:6–7 provides Yhwh’s definitive statement about his character. The repetition of the divine name ‫יהוה‬, followed by third-person descriptions, indicates that Yhwh intentionally created a formulaic definition of his character for Israel’s continued use. The adjectives that follow the generic word ‫( אֵל‬along with the phrase ‫נֹצֵר‬ ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ ) ֶחסֶד ָל‬proclaim Yhwh’s kindness, while the participial phrase ‫נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון‬ ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ ָופֶׁשַ ע ְוח‬marked a new revelation of Yhwh’s character. Divine forgiveness was made tangible through the sacrificial system, but was only effected after Moses’s successful intercession. The surprising mention of Yhwh’s forgiveness is a central element of the DNP. While Yhwh’s abundant kindness, patience, and favor front-load Exod 34:6–7, the adversative waw of ‫( ְונַּקֵה לֹא ְינ ֶַּקה‬and the specifying phrase ‫ּפ ֹקֵד‬ ‫בנִים‬ ּ ָ ‫ )עֲֹון אָבֹות עַל־‬introduced a counterpoint. Yhwh proclaimed himself as a God who both bears away sin and brings it to bear against the sinner’s entire household. This tension can be approached by emphasizing the possibility of repentance as other biblical authors develop it. Moses responded by prostrating and making his final plea for forgiveness and acceptance. Yhwh replied in character by (re)cutting a covenant and promising to dwell in the tabernacle. The book of Exodus closes with the climactic report that Yhwh’s cloud entered the tent with a glory so intense that not even Moses could enter. In order to make sense of the divine name, the interpreter must move beyond etymology and engage in literary onomastics. The DNP fills in the meaning of the allusive phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫א‬. The climactic revelation of the divine name did not occur at the burning bush or even in the events of the exodus, but within the cleft of the rock. The rest of the Bible attests to the fact that Exod 34:6–7 is central to biblical reflection on Yhwh’s character. 191. Moberly agrees that Yhwh’s accompanying presence is one of the central themes of Exod 32–34. He also notes that the narrative artfully closes with the report of Yhwh’s presence in the portable shrine: “the restoration of Israel is then complete when the covenant is renewed and the empirical symbol of the covenant becomes a reality.” At the Mountain of God, 110. 192. In contrast to most divine revelations, the reported event that precedes (and provokes) the revelation is longer than the revelation itself.

Chapter 6

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7 The Divine Name-Proclamation (DNP) comes at a climactic point in the book of Exodus. Furthermore, its textual reverberations throughout the Hebrew Bible highlight its theological significance far beyond this book. 1 These resemblences occur in various genres, which indicate the powerful literary influence of Yhwh’s self-proclamation. The divine name develops a more profound sense from these resemblences. This chapter will explore the quotations of and allusions to the DNP, concluding that Exod 34:6–7 offers the most theologically significant character description of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Method Texts in the Hebrew Bible that resemble Exod 34:6–7 are not difficult to discover. I will categorize these resemblences according to genre. A generic classification avoids some of the difficulties that beset a strictly diachronic approach, especially the impossibility of dating most biblical texts with precision. 2 I will show how this text extends theologically into the various literary forms of the Hebrew Bible. Yet I will employ terminology that suggests how the ideas of Exod 34:6–7 were applied by the ancient Israelites. This manner of argumentation is only meant to describe history as presented in the canonical Hebrew Bible. 3 More importantly, each biblical genre provides a 1. Exodus 6:2–8 and the recognition formula that is attached to it also reverberate through parts of the Hebrew Bible. Through this biblical form, Yhwh associated historical acts with his name, thus adding to its sense. However, the recognition formula was only spoken by Yhwh and was not meant to be appropriated by Israel. The DNP is significant precisely because Yhwh uttered it in the third person so that Israel could repeat it in and apply it in many settings. Whereas the recognition formula is mostly limited to prophetic genres, the DNP affected all the major forms of Israel’s religious literature. 2. See above, pp.  23–24. The literary connection between the DNP and other biblical texts may be complicated by theories of their composition, but in this chapter I remain interested in literary arguments that need not be tied to any particular position on historicity of the events narrated or composition of the texts studied. Thus, when I speak of the influence of Exod 34:6–7, one may understand this to refer to the oral or written traditions that preceded the DNP’s placement within the canonical book of Exodus. 3. By using terms such as echoes, quotations, allusions, and appropriations to describe verbal parallels to Exod 34:6–7, I intend to note that the texts under discussion follow the DNP canonically. Since, for example, Joel follows Exodus canonically (and historically, according to the canonical presentation), I speak of Joel “appropriating” the DNP in his pro-

162

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

163

distinct representation of God, humanity, and the world. Therefore, their combined witness paints a robust literary onomastic picture of Yhwh’s character that is at least as illustrative as diachronic presentations. 4 However, these textual “echoes” should be classified according to identifiable criteria. I will employ the terms quotation and allusion to describe the verbal resemblences of the DNP. 5 I consider a text to be a quotation if it closely parallels the wording of Exod 34:6–7, whether it contains quotation formula (Num 14:17) or not ( Joel 2:13). 6 I consider a text to be an allusion if it shares one or two elements with Exod 34:6–7. In some instances lexical correspondence is minimal, but syntactical correspondence suggests an inter-textual relationship. 7

The Relationship between the Decalogue and the DNP Interpreters must address a fundamental intertextual issue before considering the literary influence of the DNP. The Decalogue (esp. Exod 20:5– 6) exhibits many verbal parallels to Exod 34:6–7. However, scholars debate the direction of textual influence: some assert that the DNP (though later in the narrative) is older and exerted influence on the Decalogue. 8 Others phetic ministry. Such event-centered rhetoric need not entail that such actually was the case historically––the historical, diachronic relationship between texts and events may not be so simple. Nevertheless, a purely text-centered focus denies the potentially significant historical effects of the DNP, though only the broadest conclusions can be made with certainty. See above, pp. 23–24. 4. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “From Canon to Concept: ‘Same’ and ‘Other’ in the Relation between Biblical and Systematic Theology,” SBET 12 (1994): 111–12. 5. In a study of quotations in the prophetic literature according to clearly defined methodological principles, Richard Schultz employed the terms “verbal parallel,” “verbal dependence,” and “quotation” to define the continuum of related texts within the prophetic literature. See The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets ( JSOTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 217–21. Since my study pertains to literary parallels of one base text, I have chosen different terms that indicate their varying levels of correspondence to the DNP. Echoes is the umbrella term, quotations reflects closest resemblence to the DNP, and allusions reflects the least. 6. I consider a quotation to “closely follow” Exod 34:6–7 when it parallels at least three words (e.g., ‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬or word pairs (e.g., ‫ )רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬of this text exactly (e.g., Jonah 4:2, but not Ps 111:4). 7. The placement of the Tetragrammaton as the first word in the sentence is a central feature of the DNP’s syntax. Many texts reflected this structure, thus making the divine name the basis of further predications. Schultz notes that syntactic correspondence offers extra methodological rigor for classifying verbal parallels that lexical correspondence alone cannot offer. See The Search for Quotation, 223. 8. Thus Scharbert, “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex. 34, 6f und seiner Parallelen,” 133–34; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 335 n. 52; and David H. Aaron, Etched in Stone: The Emergence of the Decalogue (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 287, 320. Aaron does not make an explicit claim that Exod 34:6–7 was chronologically primary. He assumes that the Decalogue texts (including Exod 34) and the golden calf texts (Exod 32–34 and Deut

Chapter 6

164

Table 11.  Translation of Exodus 20:5–6 ‫ׁשּתַ ְחוֶה ָלהֶם‬ ְ ‫א־ת‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫ָבדֵ ם‬ ְ ‫ְולֹא ָתע‬ ָ‫ִּכי אָנ ִֹכי יהוה אֱלֹהֶיך‬ ‫אֵל קַ ּנָא‬ ‫ּפֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹת‬ ‫ֵׁשים‬ ִ ‫ַל־ׁשּל‬ ִ ‫עַל־ ָּבנִים ע‬ ‫ַל־רּב ִֵעים‬ ִ ‫ְוע‬ ‫ְלׂש ְֹנאָי‬ ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ׂשה ֶחסֶד ַל‬ ֶֹ ‫ְוע‬ ‫ֹותי‬ ָ ‫ּולׁש ֹ ְמרֵי ִמ ְצ‬ ְ ‫הבַי‬ ֲֹ ‫ְלא‬

You must not prostrate yourselves to them and you must not serve them because I am Yhwh your God, an impassioned God who discharges the iniquity of fathers against sons, against the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but who practices kindness to the thousands who love me and keep my commands.

claim that the Decalogue is older and influenced the DNP. 9 However, it is impossible to prove which text was written (or known) first in Israel’s history. Regardless of their diachronic relationship, a canonical reading of these texts shows how they may be interpreted. A concern with the final form of the text necessitates reading Exod 34:6–7 in light of the Decalogue rather than vice versa. While the golden calf apostasy was a violation of the command revealed in Exod 20:2–4, the DNP only links verbally to vv. 5–6. Yhwh’s passion/ jealousy compelled him to bring iniquity to bear (‫ )ּפֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹת‬against the idolater­as well as his family. In contrast, Yhwh’s kindness inclined him toward thousands (‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ׂשה ֶחסֶד ַל‬ ֶֹ ‫)וע‬. ְ In this “legal” text, the objects of Yhwh’s punishment and his kindness are specified (‫לׂש ְֹנאָי‬, ְ “those who hate me” and ‫ֹותי‬ ָ ‫ּולׁש ְֹמרֵי ִמ ְצ‬ ְ ‫הבַי‬ ֲֹ ‫לא‬, ְ “those who love me and keep my commands”), whereas in the DNP they remain unspecified. In Exod 20:5–6, Yhwh charged Israel not to worship other gods and to reject idolatry. Yhwh demanded Israel’s exclusive worship, and he passionately guarded this exclusivity among his people. His jealousy would be aroused if Israel’s worship was be compromised or threatened: he would bring the iniquity of idolaters to bear against their families, while those obedient to Yhwh’s commands would experience his kindness. Yhwh reacted with jealous anger after the covenant people had blatantly disobeyed the fundamental prohibitions of the Decalogue by worshiping the golden calf. Although this response was consistent with Yhwh’s revealed character up to that point (Exod 20:6; 23:21), Moses pressed him to make known his true attitude toward Israel. Yhwh’s proclamation in Exod 34:6–7 is presented as reformulating the previous revelation of his character 9–10) were composed in the Persian period. However, he argues for the primacy of the Decalogue in Exod 34:10–26 vis-à-vis those of Deut 5 and Exod 20. 9. Thus, Meir Weiss, “Studies in the Biblical Doctrine of Retribution (Hebrew),” Tarbiz 32 (1962): 4; Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 87–88; Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 184–85; and Groenewald, “Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews,” 1372. Some of these authors adopt a canonical approach, arguing that Exod 34:6–7 can be read as reformulating Exod 20:5–6.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

165

by front-loading the “positive” character traits and leaving the objects of his punishing justice unspecified. This reformulation moved the emphasis from Yhwh’s punishing passion to his abundant grace. 10 Other possible verbal parallels to the Decalogue exhibit these same reformulations, as I will show below. The following section discusses narratival, homiletical, petitionary, prophetic, hymnic, and sapiential echoes of Exod 34:6–7. I will present the verbal echoes in descending order of exactness, beginning with quotations (if they exist), and concluding with allusions.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7 Narratival Echoes: Quotations Numbers 14:11–25 contains an intercessory conversation between Moses and Yhwh. Divine anger was ignited against Israel when they despaired over the negative report of ten scouts. They considered appointing a new leader to bring them back to Egypt. Despite Joshua and Caleb’s protestations, the Israelites persisted and even spoke of stoning Moses and Aaron. This rebellion resembled the rebellion at Sinai, leading Yhwh to threaten Israel’s total annihilation. Moses’s speech to Yhwh exhibits several rhetorical parallels to his intercession in Exod 33:12–23. Echoing the three occurrences of ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫ א‬in Exod 33:12, this word appears three times in Num 14:14, wherein Moses celebrates the presence of Yhwh that he had asked for earlier (‫ַּתה יהוה ְב ֶּקרֶב ָהעָם ַהזֶּה‬ ָ ‫א‬, “You, Yhwh, are among this people”). Just as Moses had prefaced his request with the phonetic complement ‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬in Exod 33:13, so also he introduced his request in Num 14:17 with ‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬and a clear quotation formula: ‫ֲׁשר ִּדּב ְַר ָּת לֵאמֹר‬ ֶ ‫ִגּדַ ל־נָא ּכ ֹ ַח אֲדֹנָי ַּכא‬ ְ ‫“( י‬let the forbearance 11 of the Lord 12 be as great as you have said, saying ”). Moses cited Yhwh’s own words as the basis of his appeal for forgiveness. Moses urged Yhwh to preserve the reputation associated with the name he proclaimed in Exod 34:6–7. I argued earlier that ‫ שֵׁם‬contains a metaphorical aspect, often indicating the character or reputation that hung on a personal name. Moses recognized that other nations would hear of his actions against the people and conclude that Yhwh was an impotent god if he responded in anger and destroyed his people. Furthermore, to do so would be acting out of character. To this end, Moses imagined what the nations would think: ‫ִׁשּבַע‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר־נ‬ ֶ ‫ָביא אֶת־ ָהעָם ַהּזֶה אֶל־ ָה ָארֶץ א‬ ִ ‫ִמ ִּב ְל ִּתי יְכֹלֶת יהוה ְלה‬ 10. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 184–85. 11. Relying on the earlier observation of George Buchanan Gray, Baruch Levine translates ‫ ּכ ֹ ַח‬as “forbearance.” This translation rightly signals Yhwh’s power to hold back his furious anger. Nahum 1:3 contains a similar use of the word. See Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 366. 12. The use of ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬recalls Moses’s use of the word in Exod 34:9.

Chapter 6

166

Table 12.  Translation of Numbers 14:13–19 ‫שה אֶל־יהוה‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫וַיֹּאמֶר מ‬ ‫ש ְמעּו ִמ ְצרַ יִם‬ ָׁ ‫ְו‬ ‫ית ְבכֹחֲךָ אֶת־ ָהעָם‬ ָ ‫ֱל‬ ִ ‫ִכּי־ ֶהע‬ ‫ַהזֶּה ִמ ִק ְּרּבֹו‬ ‫ֶל־יֹושב ָה ָארֶץ הַזֹּאת‬ ֵׁ ‫ָמרּו א‬ ְ ‫ְוא‬ ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫ש ְמעּו ִכּי־א‬ ָׁ ‫יהוה ְב ֶּקרֶב ָהעָם ַהזֶּה‬ ‫ב ַעיִן נ ְִראָה‬ ּ ְ ‫ֲשר־ ַעיִן‬ ֶׁ ‫א‬ ‫ַּתה יהוה‬ ָ‫א‬ ‫ַועֲנָנְךָ עֹמֵד עֲ ֵלהֶם‬ ‫ַּתה הֹל ְֵך ִל ְפנֵיהֶם יֹומָם‬ ָ ‫מּד ָענָן א‬ ֻ ‫ּוב ַע‬ ְ ‫ּובעַּמּוד אֵׁש ָל ְילָה‬ ְ ‫ַּתה אֶת־ ָהעָם ַהזֶּה ְכ ִּאיׁש ֶאחָד‬ ָ ‫ְו ֵהמ‬ ‫ָמרּו הַּגֹויִם‬ ְ ‫ְוא‬ ִׁ ‫ר־ש ְמעּו א‬ ‫ֶת־ש ְמעֲךָ לֵאמֹר‬ ָׁ ‫ֲש‬ ֶׁ ‫א‬ ‫ָביא אֶת־ ָהעָם‬ ִ ‫ִמ ִב ְּל ִתּי יְכֹלֶת יהוה ְלה‬ ‫ִש ַבּע ָלהֶם‬ ְׁ ‫ֲשר־נ‬ ֶׁ ‫ַהזֶּה אֶל־ ָה ָארֶץ א‬ ‫ַוִי ְּׁש ָחטֵם ַב ִּמ ְּד ָבּר‬ ‫ִגדַ ּל־נָא כ ֹ ַּח אֲדֹנָי‬ ְ ‫ְוע ַָּתה י‬ ‫ד ַב ְּר ָּת לֵאמֹר‬ ּ ִ ‫ֲשר‬ ֶׁ ‫ַ ּכא‬ ְ ‫יהוה ֶאר‬ ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ ‫ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד‬ ‫ָשע‬ ַ ׁ ‫שׂא עָֹון ָופ‬ ֵ ֹ‫נ‬ ‫ְונַ ֵקּה לֹא ְינַ ֶקּה‬ ‫ּפ ֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות‬ ‫עַל־ ָבּנִים‬ ִׁ ‫ע‬ ‫ַל־ר ֵב ִּעים‬ ִ ‫ַל־ש ֵל ִּׁשים ְוע‬ ‫ְסלַח־נָא ַלעֲֹון ָהעָם ַהזֶּה‬ ָ‫ְכּגֹדֶל ח ְַס ֶדּך‬ ָׂ ‫ֲשר נ‬ ‫אתה ָלעָם ַהזֶּה ִמ ִמ ְּצרַ יִם‬ ָ ‫ָש‬ ֶׁ ‫ְו ַכא‬ ‫ְועַד־ ֵהּנָה‬

And Moses said to Yhwh, “Then the Egyptians will hear that you brought this people up by your power from their midst, and they will say to the inhabitants of this land [what] they had heard, that you, Yhwh, are among this people, [you] who are seen eye to eye. You are Yhwh, and your cloud remains over them: by the pillar of cloud you go before them by day by the pillar of fire at night, so [if] you kill this people at once, then the nations . . . will say, (who heard the report about you) ‘Because Yhwh was unable to bring this people to the land that he swore to them, he slaughtered them in the desert.’ So now, let the forbearance of the Lord be as great as you have said, saying, ‘Yhwh is slow to anger and abounding in kindness, who bears away iniquity and transgression but he will certainly not leave unpunished, who brings the iniquity of fathers to bear against sons, against those of the third and fourth generation.’ Please forgive the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of your kindness, and as you have carried this people from Egypt to this point.”

‫ִׁש ָחטֵם ּב ִַּמ ְדּבָר‬ ְ ‫“( ָלהֶם ַוּי‬Because Yhwh was unable to bring this people to the land he swore to them, he slaughtered them in the desert,” Num 14:16). By front-loading the Tetragrammaton, Moses emphasized that Yhwh’s previous onomastic ascription could unravel. The nations that had heard of Yhwh’s power in the plagues and the Red Sea deliverance would now ascribe impotency, if not treachery, to the name ‫ יהוה‬if he chose to annihilate Israel in his wrath. Moses urged Yhwh to preserve his reputation, using the DNP to remind him that forgiveness was fundamental to his character. Numbers 14:18 lacks some words that occur in Exod 34:6–7. These omissions do not indicate that the DNP originally followed the wording of Num 14:18. 13 Rather, the text distills the DNP (or traditions related to it) to bring 13. Nevertheless, Fishbane interprets the repeated Tetragrammaton in the DNP in light of Num 14:18, and not vice versa. He claims that Yhwh may have said his name once in Exod 34:6, because this is the wording in Num 14:18. However, he notes that Moses

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

167

Table 13.  Synoptic Presentation of Numbers 14:18 and Exodus 34:6–7 a Numbers 14:18 ‫יהוה‬ ְ ‫ֶאר‬ ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד‬ ‫ָשע‬ ַ ׁ ‫שׂא עָֹון ָופ‬ ֵ ֹ‫נ‬ ‫ְונַ ֵקּה לֹא ְינ ֶַקּה‬ ‫ּפ ֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות‬ ‫עַל־ ָבּנִים‬ ִׁ ‫ע‬ ‫ַל־ר ֵב ִּעים‬ ִ ‫ַל־ש ֵל ִּׁשים ְוע‬

Exodus 34:6–7 ‫יהוה יהוה אֵל רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬ ְ ‫ֶאר‬ ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬ ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ֶשע ְוח‬ ַ ׁ ‫שׂא עָֹון ָופ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ָפים נ‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬ ‫ְונַ ֵקּה לֹא ְינַ ֶקּה‬ ‫פּ ֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות‬ ‫ַל־בּנֵי ָבנִים‬ ְ ‫בנִים ְוע‬ ּ ָ ‫עַל־‬ ִׁ ‫ע‬ ‫ַל־ר ֵב ִּעים‬ ִ ‫ַל־ש ֵל ִּׁשים ְוע‬

Yhwh [is]

Yhwh, Yhwh, a God compassionate and gracious slow to anger and abounding in kindness, slow to anger and abounding in loving faithfulness, who maintains kindness to thousands, who bears away iniquity and transgression, who bears away iniquity and transgression and sin, but he will certainly not leave unpunished, but he will certainly not leave unpunished, who brings the iniquity of fathers to bear who brings the iniquity of fathers to bear against sons, against sons and grandsons, against those of the third and fourth against those of the third and fourth generation. generation.

a.  The underlined portions indicate elements of the DNP that are lacking in Moses’s quotation.

attention to Yhwh’s climactic revelation of his forgiveness. 14 On the basis of his great kindness (ָ‫)ּכגֹדֶל ח ְַסֶּדך‬, ְ Moses asked Yhwh to forgive (‫סלַח־נָא‬, ְ Num 14:19). Narratival Echoes: Allusions An echo of the DNP can be heard in an address by Hezekiah. This righteous king sent messengers from Beersheba to Dan, 15 inviting all Israel to celebrate the Passover, and summoning the wayward tribes to repent and turn to Yhwh alone. Hezekiah grounded his summons on Yhwh’s character­: ‫ם־ּתׁשּובּו ֵאלָיו‬ ָ ‫ָסיר ָּפנִים ִמּכֶם ִא‬ ִ ‫“( ִּכי־חַּנּון ְורַ חּום יהוה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ְולֹא־י‬for Yhwh your God is gracious and compassionate, and he will not turn [his] face away from you if you turn to him,” 2 Chr 30:9). As in Exod 34:6–7, the nearly inseparable pair of adjectives  16‫ חַּנּון ְורַ חּום‬are predicated of the may not have followed the original sense of the DNP, but rather interpreted it in a different context. See Biblical Interpretation, 335. 14. Interestingly, Moses almost quoted Yhwh’s proclamation of his punishment against generations of sinners verbatim. Perhaps he saw the “positive” and “negative” aspects of the DNP as interdependent, or perhaps the latter half showcased the power/ forbearance that Moses appealed to in Num 14:17. 15. Even though the Northern Kingdom had been decimated by Assyria, the text notes that a remnant was left within the northern territory (2 Chr 30:6). 16. It is insignificant here that these adjectives follow a different order than Exod 34:6.

168

Chapter 6

Tetragrammaton along with the noun ‫אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬. These adjectives were most appropriate for the king’s call to repentance, because they often indicated Yhwh’s response to those who were penitent. Homiletical Echoes: Allusions The first 11 chapters of Deuteronomy contain an interesting mixture of narrative and prophetic features. They can be classified as “homiletical” (i.e., paranaetic or sermonic), since they are cast as Moses’s exhortations to his people in light of Yhwh’s past actions and in expectation of Yhwh’s promises. 17 In at least two cases, these sermons reflect the ideas of Exod 34:6–7. Deuteronomy 4 encapsulates the theology of the entire book of Deuteronomy. Near the end of his first address (Deut 1:6–4:40), Moses spoke of a time when apostate Israel would seek Yhwh in a foreign land. Then he would respond to their repentance, “because Yhwh your God is a compassionate God. He will not drop you, and he will not ruin you. He will not forget the covenant with your forefathers that he swore to them” (‫ִּכי אֵל רַ חּום‬ ‫ִׁשּבַע ָלהֶם‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר נ‬ ֶ ‫ֶת־ּבִרית אֲב ֶֹתיךָ א‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּכַח א‬ ְ ‫יתךָ ְולֹא י‬ ֶ ‫יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא י ְַר ְּפךָ ְולֹא י ְַׁש ִח‬, Deut 4:31). The DNP is echoed both in vocabulary (ָ‫ אֵל רַ חּום יהוה אֱלֹהֶיך‬compares to ‫ )יהוה יהוה אֵל רַ חּום‬and syntax. God’s far-flung people could expect a warm response from Yhwh if they repented. Moses also noted that the covenant was the basis of Yhwh’s refusal to abandon them. In his second sermon, Moses reminded Israel that Yhwh had not chosen them because of their greatness among the nations, but because of his love and faithfulness to their forefathers. Yhwh’s covenant commitment impelled him to deliver his people from Pharaoh’s power, an intervention that should have led Israel to recognize Yhwh’s supremacy. Moses proclaimed this goal in a verbless clause that became a central confession of orthodox Yahwism: ‫“( ְויָדַ ְע ָּת ִּכי־יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הּוא ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬so you must 18 know that Yhwh your God is the [only] God,” Deut 7:9a, cf. Deut 4:35, 39). The articular form of ‫ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬indicates that Yhwh was the only god deserving of this title. In contrast to the so-called gods of the nations, only Yhwh kept his covenant promises and only Yhwh delivered his people from mighty foes (cf. Deut 4:32–40). Moses continued his exhortation with Decalogue emphases that described both “positive” and “negative” aspects of the Yhwh’s character. Although the influence of the Decalogue is evident in Moses’s speech, other clues indicate that it also resembles the DNP. First, Deut 7:9 begins with 17. Daniel Block agrees: “contrary to popular opinion Deuteronomy does not present itself as legislation, that is, a book of laws. This is prophetic preaching at its finest.” See The Gospel according to Moses, 8. 18. This wĕqaṭal form likely carries an imperatival force because of its relationship to the verb ‫הֹוציא‬ ִ in the preceding verse. See IBHS 532–33 for further examples of such syntactical constructions in Deuteronomy.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

169

Table 14.  Translation of Deuteronomy 7:9b–10 ‫אמָן‬ ֱ ֶ‫ָהאֵל ַהּנ‬ ‫ׁשֹמֵר ה ְַּבִרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד‬ ‫ֹותו‬ ָ ‫ּולׁש ֹ ְמרֵי ִמ ְצ‬ ְ ‫הבָיו‬ ֲֹ ‫ְלא‬ ‫ְל ֶאלֶף ּדֹור‬ ‫ּומׁשַ ּלֵם ְלׂש ְֹנאָיו אֶל־ ָּפנָיו‬ ְ ‫ֲבידֹו‬ ִ ‫ְל ַהא‬ ‫לֹא ְי ַאחֵר ְלׂשֹנְאֹו‬ ‫אֶל־ ָּפנָיו יְׁשַ ּלֶם־לֹו‬

“ . . . the faithful God who keeps the covenant and kindness to those who love him and who keep his commands, to a thousand generations, yet who repays those who hate him to their face, to destroy him. He will not delay against the one who hates him–– to his face he will repay him.”

clear onomastic ascription: ‫ יהוה‬was the one true God. Second, Moses began by referring to Yhwh as ‫ ָהאֵל‬, as Yhwh had done in Exod 34:6. Third, whereas the Decalogue spoke of Yhwh’s justice and then his kindness, Moses inverted their order as Yhwh did in Exod 34:6–7. This deuteronomic interpretation and proclamation of Yhwh’s character emphasized his kindness, though not without warning of his judgment against those who rejected him. Petitionary Echoes: Quotations and Allusions 19 The literary features of prayers embedded in prose differ from their surrounding narratives. I distinguish these prayers from the more “institutionalized” prayers found in the Psalter. Moshe Greenberg affirms this distinction also, noting that prayers within prose texts were not reusable because they flowed from a specific context. 20 Since these specific contexts reveal parallels to the DNP, it is instructive to consider how Yhwh is described in these reports of Israel’s heartfelt cries to him. 21 King Solomon dedicated Yhwh’s temple with a lengthy public prayer, standing in front of the altar before the people, with hands raised. He began with the invocation, ‫ַּׁש ַמיִם ִמ ַּמעַל ְועַל־ ָה ָארֶץ‬ ָ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל אֵין־ּכָמֹוךָ אֱל ִֹהים ּב‬ ְ ‫יהוה אֱלֹהֵי י‬ ָ ָ ‫ָל־לּבָם‬ ִ ‫“( ִמ ָּתחַת ׁשֹמֵר ה ְַּבִרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד ַלעֲ ָבדֶיך הַה ְֹל ִכים ְל ָפנֶיך ְּבכ‬Yhwh, God of Israel, there is no God like you in the heavens above and on the earth below who keeps covenant and kindness to your servants who walk before you with their entire heart,” 1 Kgs 8:23; cf. 2 Chr 6:14). The clause most relevant to this discussion is ָ‫ׁשֹמֵר ה ְַּבִרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד ַלעֲבָדֶיך‬, since it resembles ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬ in Exod 34:7. This prayer resembles both the DNP and Deut 7:9. Solomon frontloaded his prayer with the Tetragrammaton and then made predications of it (that is, ‫ִש ָׂראֵל‬ ְ ‫ אֱלֹהֵי י‬and ‫)אֵין־ ָכּמֹוךָ אֱל ִֹהים‬. As noted earlier, the participle 19. Nehemiah 9:17 quotes a segment of the DNP. However, since this verse is embedded within a larger prayer that contains several allusions to Exod 34:6–7, I will discuss petitionary echoes together. 20. Greenberg is certainly right in claiming that such embedded prayers offer a window into the popular piety of ancient Israel. Biblical Prose Prayer, 17. 21. Ibid., 46–51.

170

Chapter 6

‫ ׁשֹמֵר‬is semantically equivalent to ‫נֹצֵר‬, both of which indicate that Yhwh creates and maintains kindness for his people. The addition of ‫ ה ְַּבִרית‬as the first object of ‫ ׁשֹמֵר‬introduces an important (Deuteronomistic) idea that is not included in the DNP. Solomon proclaimed Yhwh’s consistent kindness, but he emphasized that such kindness flowed from his covenant commitment to Israel. Three late 22 prayers borrow the language of Solomon’s invocation. In Dan 9:4–19, the aged statesman’s confession (‫ֶתוֶַּדה‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬to Yhwh was inspired by Jeremiah’s prophecy about the restoration of Jerusalem. 23 The confession opened with praise: ‫הבָיו‬ ֲֹ ‫ָאּנָא אֲדֹנָי ָהאֵל ַהּגָדֹול ְוהַּנֹורָא ׁשֹמֵר ה ְַּבִרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד ְלא‬ ‫ֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ּולׁש ְֹמרֵי ִמ ְצ‬ ְ (“Alas Lord, the great and awesome God who keeps the covenant and kindness to those who love him and who keep his commands,” Dan 9:4). Daniel’s ascriptions to the divine name resemble Exod 34:6 (‫אֲדֹנָי‬ ‫ ָהאֵל ַהּגָדֹול‬vis-à-vis ‫)יהוה יהוה אֵל רַ חּום‬, though he “filled in” the DNP by specifying that Yhwh lavishes his kindness on those who love him and keep his commands. Daniel alluded to Yhwh’s self-description to emphasize that there was hope for the repentant covenant people in exile. Three similarities between Daniel’s prayer and Exod 34:5–9 deserve mention. First, as Moses responded to Yhwh’s revelation by calling him ‫אֲדֹנָי‬, so Daniel used this title in place of the Tetragrammaton, though at the beginning of his prayer. This accords with other late Biblical Hebrew texts, which tend to avoid the name ‫יהוה‬. 24 As mentioned earlier, Abraham and Moses’s occasional substitution of ‫ יהוה‬with ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬began a trajectory that dominated Jewish religious life by the middle of the Second Temple period. Second, ‫ ִּכי‬in Dan 9:9 functions similarly to the ‫ ִּכי‬in Exod 34:9: “to the Lord our God belongs compassion and forgiveness even though we have rebelled against him” (‫ֲמים ְוה ְַּס ִלחֹות ִּכי מָרַ ְדנּו ּבֹו‬ ִ ‫)לַאדֹנָי אֱלֹהֵינּו הָרַ ח‬. During both the wilderness wanderings and the exile, Yhwh forgave Israel in spite of their stubbornness and rebellion. Finally, Daniel remarked that Jerusalem had been disgraced because of Israel’s sins and the iniquity of their fathers (‫ּו ַבעֲֹונֹות אֲבֹתֵ ינּו‬, Dan 9:16). 22. These texts are likely later than 1 Kgs 8 because the latter are written in late Biblical Hebrew (as shown by the frequent use of ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬in place of ‫ יהוה‬and the preposition attached to the infinitive ‫ ִל ְׁשמ ֹ ַע‬in Neh 1:6 and 9:17) and the former in classical Biblical Hebrew. 23. Many define the book of Daniel as apocalyptic. This is at least partially true, although Dan 9 stands apart from the rest of the book by certain literary features. The introduction to Daniel’s prayer is clearly prose. The prayer itself reflects the structure and vocabulary of prayers rather than apocalyptic visions. See John J. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, FOTL 20 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 89–92. In discussing the genre of this book, Daniel Block notes that Dan 8–12 is cast as an autobiographical narrative. He classifies the entire book as narrative with embedded apocalyptic. “Preaching Old Testament Apocalyptic to a New Testament Church,” CTJ 41 (2006): 22–24. 24. E.g., Ezek 18:25, 29; Mal 1:12; Lam 2:19; Dan 9:19 [3×], Ezra 10:3; Neh 1:11; etc.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

171

Two prayers in the book of Nehemiah resemble the language of Solomon’s prayer and the DNP. Upon hearing of Jerusalem’s desolate state from a fellow Jew, Nehemiah began his supplication as Daniel had: ‫ָאּנָא יהוה אֱלֹהֵי‬ ‫ֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ּולׁש ֹ ְמרֵי ִמ ְצ‬ ְ ‫הבָיו‬ ֲֹ ‫ַּׁש ַמיִם ָהאֵל ַהּגָדֹול ְוהַּנֹורָא ׁשֹמֵר ה ְַּבִרית ָו ֶחסֶד ְלא‬ ָ ‫“( ה‬Alas Yhwh, God of heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps the covenant and kindness to those who love him and keep his commands,” Neh 1:5). The divine name appears first and the words ‫ַּׁש ַמיִם ָהאֵל ַהּגָדֹול ְוהַּנֹורָא‬ ָ ‫ אֱלֹהֵי ה‬offer commentary on the name. Nehemiah’s peculiar use of ‫ַּׁש ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ אֱלֹהֵי ה‬accords with common references to the gods in the Persian era. 25 Nehemiah began his confession (‫ּומ ְתוֶַּדה‬, ִ Neh 1:6) with a proclamation of Yhwh’s character, urging Yhwh to be faithful to his promises and build up Jerusalem. Specifically, Nehemiah asked for a compassionate response from the king (‫ּותנֵהּו‬ ְ ‫ָאיׁש ַהזֶּה‬ ִ ‫ֲמים ִל ְפנֵי ה‬ ִ ‫לרַ ח‬, ְ Neh 1:11). Nehemiah 9 reports the penitential prayer of the Jewish community in Jerusalem. 26 The Levites urged the people to rise and bless Yhwh (Neh 9:5) after a gathering that included hearing the Torah, confession, and prostration. In their prayer, they recited the history of Israel (Neh 9:5–37), the first part of which utilized the pronoun ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫ א‬to make obvious onomastic ascriptions (vv. 9–17). 27 The most clear predications occur at the beginning of v. 6 (ָ‫ַּתה־הּוא יהוה ְלבֶַּדך‬ ָ ‫א‬, ָ ‫א‬, “you alone are Yhwh”) and v. 7 (‫ַּתה־הּוא יהוה ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ “you are Yhwh, the [only] God”). This description is followed by reports of actions that showed Yhwh to be the only true God: he confirmed his promise to Abram, he rescued Israel from Egypt, he led them by fire and cloud in the desert while providing them with manna and water, and he gave them instructions, rules, and the Sabbath at Sinai (Neh 9:7–15). The emphasis shifts in the next verse, recalling Israel’s stubbornness, disobedience, and rebellion. But before the community could present the golden calf apostasy as the prime example of their rebellion, they appealed to the DNP with the structure-defining opening word ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫( ְוא‬v. 17b). As was the case in Num 14:18, this quotation of Exod 34:6 is not verְ ‫ה ְס ִליחֹות חַּנּון ְורַ חּום ֶאר‬ batim: ‫ב־ו ֶחסֶד ְולֹא עֲז ְַב ָּתם‬ ְ ַ‫ֶך־ ַא ַ ּפיִם ְור‬ ּ ַ ‫ַּתה אֱלֹו‬ ָ ‫“( ְוא‬But you are a God of forgiveness, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in kindness. You did not forsake them,” Neh 9:17). Three features­ 25. Lemaire, The Birth of Monotheism, 113, 127. 26. Interestingly, the Judean community confessed their sins and “the iniquities of their fathers” (‫ ַועֲֹונֹות אֲבֹתֵ יהֶם‬, Neh 9:2). This phrase resembles both the Decalogue and DNP. The Jews’ confession was intended to stop Yhwh’s punishment against Israel, so that they might receive his kindness again. 27. I divide the prayer in Neh 9 into three parts: vv. 9–18, 19–31, and 32–37. The intentional use of ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫ א‬for onomastic ascription defines the first part. ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫ א‬also appears throughout the second part of the prayer (vv. 19, 27, 28, 31 and 33), but it does not have the same structuring function as in the first part. The inclusio of ‫חמֶיךָ הָרַ ִבּים‬ ֲ ַ‫ ְבּר‬defines the second part, and the word ‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬introduces the third part. For a tradition-critical analysis of Neh 9, see Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9, BZAW 277 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 75–87.

172

Chapter 6

indicate that this text should be classified as a quotation of the DNP rather than an allusion: it appears within Israel’s recollection of the golden calf apostasy; it contains three nominal descriptions from Exod 34:6; and it begins with an epithet that describes Yhwh. The predicate ‫ֱלֹוּה ְס ִליחֹות‬ ַ ‫ א‬that stands in place of the Tetragrammaton signals the most noteworthy deviation from the DNP in the prayer. 28 Because this prayer already clearly referred to Yhwh in vv. 6 and 7, this substitution probably did not arise from the postexilic tendency to avoid speaking the name. Rather, the community expressed their understanding of the divine name’s sense: Yhwh (‫ )יהוה‬is a God of forgiveness (‫ה ְס ִליחֹות‬ ּ ַ ‫)אֱלֹו‬. 29 This quotation provides the background for Yhwh’s kindness and forgiveness in response to the blatant rebellion of the covenant people. The mention of Yhwh’s great compassion, which brackets the second part of the prayer (‫חמֶיךָ הָרַ ִבּים‬ ֲ ַ‫בּר‬, ְ Neh 9:19–31), may also betray the influence of the opening description in Exod 34:6–7, ‫אֵל רַ חּום‬. Israel recalled how Yhwh was faithful to them in the wilderness wanderings, the conquest, the rule of the judges, and the prophets’ calls for repentance. They concluded their historical recital by noting that Yhwh did not make an end of them, ‫ָּתה‬ ָ ‫“( ִּכי אֵל־חַּנּון ְורַ חּום א‬for you are a gracious and compassionate God,” Neh 9:31). This brief allusion to the DNP suggests that Israel remembered its history from the golden calf onward as a dispensation of grace, made possible by Yhwh’s compassion and forgiveness. These character traits provided the basis of Israel’s request for favorable divine attention and intervention. 30 These three late prayers, along with Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kgs 8, allude to Moses’s exhortation in Deut 7:9–10. 31 While they vary in the details, all contain the phrase ‫ׁשֹמֵר ה ְַּבִרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד‬, which adapts ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬from Exod 34:7. This adaptation is rightly called Deuteronomistic because it emphasizes Yhwh’s covenant with Israel as the basis of his extravagant kindness. 32 Solomon, Daniel, Nehemiah, and the postexilic Jewish community all emphasized this covenant relationship in their prayers of confession. 28. The unusual form ‫ה‬ ּ ַ ‫ אֱלֹו‬may have been preferred over the then-archaic form ‫אֵל‬. 29. Interestingly, the community left out the descriptions of Yhwh’s exacting justice in Exod 34:7. Whereas Moses quoted both aspects of the DNP (cf. Num 14:18), the Jewish community recognized the tension between them and chose to emphasize Yhwh’s kindness only. 30. The final section of the prayer (Neh 9:32–37) begins with an appeal that resembles Moses’s in Deut 7:9: ‫“( ְוע ַָּתה אֱלֹהֵינּו ָהאֵל ַהּגָדֹול ה ִַּגּבֹור ְוהַּנֹורָא ׁשֹומֵר ה ְַּבִרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד‬So now, our God, the great, mighty, and awesome God who keeps the covenant and kindness,” Neh 9:32). Here it introduces the only request of the community: that God would not take their distress lightly (‫ר־מ ָצא ְַתנּו‬ ְ ‫ֲש‬ ֶׁ ‫ַת ָלאָה א‬ ּ ְ ‫ִמעַט ְל ָפנֶיךָ אֵת ָכּל־ה‬ ְ ‫)אַל־י‬. 31. These prayers may reflect the thirdhand literary influence of the DNP: they allude primarily to Deut 7:9–10, which interpreted the Decalogue according to Exod 34:6–7. 32. Martin Noth clearly articulated the covenant relationship between Yhwh and Israel as central to the Deuteronomistic writings. The substance of his insights has not been successfully challenged. See The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981), 89–91.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

173

Prophetic Echoes: Quotations A key motif in the book of Joel is the day of Yhwh. An inclusio marks off Joel 2:1–11 as a distinct literary unit that vividly describes this eschatological reality (cf. ‫ יֹום־יהוה‬in Joel 2:1 and 11). 33 The transitional phrase ‫ְוגַם־ע ַָּתה ְנאֻם־‬ ‫“( יהוה‬So now, declares Yhwh”) introduces Yhwh’s words in the next unit, as the first-person suffix on the preposition ‫ עָדַ י‬demonstrates ( Joel 2:12). Nevertheless, the rest of this unit is cast in the third person, suggesting that the prophet imitated the third-person literary form of the DNP ( Joel 2:13–14). Yhwh called for the complete repentance of his people as the only way to avoid his coming day of judgment. While this repentance was to be expressed visibly in fasting, weeping, and mourning (‫ּוב ִמ ְסּפֵד‬ ְ ‫ּוב ְב ִכי‬ ִ ‫)ּובצֹום‬, ְ Joel also made clear that true repentance was not merely a tearing of garments, but a tearing of the heart (‫ַל־ּב ְגדֵ יכֶם‬ ִ ‫)ו ִק ְרעּו ְלב ְַבכֶם ְוא‬. ְ He concluded his apְ ‫ִכּי־חַּנּון ְורַ חּום הּוא ֶאר‬ peal by proclaiming Yhwh’s character: ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד‬ ‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫“( ְו ִנחָם עַל־ה‬because he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, and abundant in kindness, and he relents concerning calamity,” Joel 2:13). This quotation deviates from the precise wording of Exod 34:6–7. 34 The addition of ‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫ ְו ִנחָם עַל־ה‬is especially noteworthy. The verb ‫ נחם‬has a broad range of meaning, but indicates a particular nuance when Yhwh is the subject. This verb sometimes refers to human repentance, a concept that at least some Israelite prophets would not ascribe to Yhwh (1 Sam 15:29). Rather, the phrase ‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫ ְו ִנחָם עַל־ה‬indicates Yhwh’s freedom to change his mind about the disaster he threatens (cf. Jer 18:7–10). 35 As mentioned earlier, the timing and extent of Yhwh’s punishment, as well as his acts of kindness, remained his prerogative. The following statement offered hope for those who repent: ‫“( ִמי יֹודֵ ַע יָׁשּוב ְו ִנחָם ְו ִה ְׁש ִאיר ַאחֲרָיו ְב ָּרכָה‬Who knows? He may turn, relent, and leave a blessing after him,” Joel 2:14). The phrase ‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫ ְו ִנחָם עַל־ה‬may be the theological equivalent of the participial phrases ֵׂ ֹ ‫ נ‬in the DNP. As in 2 Chr 30:9, the ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬and ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ֶשע ְוח‬ ַ ׁ ‫שא עָֹון ָופ‬ sense of the divine name formed the basis of a call for repentance: Yhwh would turn from his punishing anger if Israel turned from their sins. A surprising use of the DNP occurs at the end of the book of Jonah. 36 The Ninevites had repented at the preaching of the prophet, using language­ 33. Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 166. 34. The pronoun ‫ הּוא‬in Joel 2:13 refers back to the Tetragrammaton that occurs immediately before the quotation (‫)וׁשּובּו אֶל־יהוה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬. ְ As with the prayer in Neh 9, the second part of the DNP was omitted to emphasize Yhwh’s kindness alone. 35. Hermann Spieckermann rightly observes the frequent connection between human intercession and Yhwh’s turning away from his wrath. See “Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr,” 14–15. This “turning away” helpfully illustrates the meaning of ‫ נחם‬when applied to Yhwh. 36. The book of Jonah is cast in a narrative form. Nevertheless, its place within the Twelve determines its generic classification. For a thoughtful discussion of this literary phenomenon, see Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 182–85.

174

Chapter 6

that resembled Joel 2:14: ‫ׁשב ֵמחֲרֹון אַּפֹו ְולֹא נֹאבֵד‬ ָ ‫ִמי־יֹודֵ ַע יָׁשּוב ְו ִנחַם ָהאֱל ִֹהים ְו‬ (“Who knows? God may turn, relent, and turn away from his anger so that we do not perish,” Jonah 3:9). God responded to this act of repentance with compassion and grace: ‫ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫ר־ּדּבֶר ַלעֲׂשֹות־ ָלהֶם ְולֹא ע‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫ָרעָה א‬ ָ ‫ַו ִּיּנָחֶם ָהאֱל ִֹהים עַל־ה‬ (“And God relented concerning the calamity that he had said he would execute against them. He did not do it,” Jonah 3:10). Jonah then voiced a shocking complaint as he prayed to Yhwh (‫ִת ַּפּלֵל אֶל־יהוה‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬, Jonah 4:2). He admitted that he had fled to Tarshish because he knew that Yhwh was a forgiving God. 37 Jonah’s prayer closely parallels Joel’s proclamation: ‫ַּתה אֵל־חַּנּון ְורַ חּום‬ ָ ‫ִכּי א‬ ְ ‫“( ֶאר‬because you are a gracious and compas‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ְו ִנחָם עַל־ה‬ sionate God, slow to anger, abundant in kindness, and relenting concerning calamity,” Jonah 4:2). The front-loading of ‫ אֵל‬necessitates that the following predicates be hung on this epithet, since the name ‫ יהוה‬had not been recently mentioned. Both Jonah 4:2 and Joel 2:13 add to Yhwh’s onomastic portrait the particularly prophetic idea that Yhwh could relent concerning calamity that he threatened. 38 The oracle of Nahum the Elkoshite begins with a close verbal parallel to the DNP, though it is utilized in an unusual way. The superscription of the book indicates that the Ninevites would bear Yhwh’s fury. The first line of his prophecy describes Yhwh as an impassioned (‫ אֵל קַ ּנֹוא‬39) and avenging (‫ ְ)ונֹקֵם‬God, which sets the tone for the entire speech. The book of Nahum resembles the DNP in a succinct form to summarize Yhwh’s ְ ‫“( יהוה ֶאר‬Yhwh attitude toward Nineveh: ‫ּוגדֹול־ּכ ֹ ַח ְונַּקֵה לֹא ְינ ֶַּקה יהוה‬ ְ ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ is slow to anger and great in power, yet Yhwh will not leave unpunished,” Nah 1:3). Unlike other quotations of or allusions to the DNP, Nah 1:3 emphasizes Yhwh’s “negative” traits. While Nahum spoke of Yhwh’s patience ְ ‫) ֶאר‬, the context demonstrates that Yhwh’s patience had run out, (‫ֶך ַא ַפּיִם‬ and Nineveh would see his power in action (ַ‫)ּוגדֹול־ּכֹח‬. ְ  40 The placement 37. Jonah objected to Yhwh acting in accordance with his revealed character. Though the Israelites had been instructed about Yhwh’s character through the DNP, some refused to imitate it or accept that Yhwh could show it to non-Israelites. 38. Richard Schultz takes this intertextual connection a step further. He notes that the Ninevites in Jonah 3:9 carried out the call to repentance in Joel 2:12–15. They became the recipient of Yhwh’s compassion, despite Jonah’s wish to the contrary. See “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 39. 39. The use of ‫ אֵל‬alludes to ‫ אֵל רַ חּום‬in the DNP. The form ‫( קַ ּנֹוא‬also in Josh 24:19) is less common than the form ‫( קַ ּנָא‬Exod 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15), although the affinity between ō and ā is obvious in northwest Semitic. It is difficult to know which form is earlier. See Kevin J. Cathcart, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic, BibOr 26 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973), 38–39. 40. Whereas Num 14:11–25 suggests that Yhwh’s power was shown through forgiveness, Nah 1:3 explicitly states that his power was also shown through venting anger against his enemies. See Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 195.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

175

of the Tetragrammaton at the beginning and end of the verse shows that both patience and exacting justice could be ascribed to this name without contradiction. The canonical proximity of Jonah and Nahum illustrates how the polarity in Yhwh’s character could be experienced by the same people. Yhwh showed compassion to the Ninevites when they repented in Jonah 3–4, but he later vented his anger against them because of their iniquity (Nah 3:1). Yhwh’s dealings with Nineveh demonstrate that his response to humans was contingent on their repentance or disobedience. Yhwh exercised his patience when the Ninevites first returned to their wicked ways, but Nahum announced that they would soon know the power of divine anger unmitigated by mercy. 41 Prophetic Echoes: Allusions The final chapter of the book of Micah proclaims Yhwh’s power over his enemies (Mic 7:1–17) and concludes with a doxology (Mic 7:18–20). The opening words of the doxology indicate its theme: ָ‫“( ִמי־אֵל ָכּמֹוך‬who is a God like you?” Mic 7:18). 42 Whereas many other prophetic texts resemble Exod 34:6–7 within calls for repentance, Mic 7:18–20 does not mention repentance at all. The prophet’s doxology contains many lexical links to Exod 34:6–7 (‫אֵל‬, ‫נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון‬, ‫ּפֶׁשַ ע‬, ‫חמֵנּו‬ ֲ ַ‫יְר‬, ‫עֲֹונֹתֵ ינּו‬, ‫אותם‬ ָ ֹ ‫חַּט‬, ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ , ‫[ ֶחסֶד‬2×]), but it follows a different syntactical pattern. Other than placing ‫ אֵל‬at the front, the rest of Mic 7:18–20 follows a free form of onomastic ascription. The important phrase ‫ נֹׂשֵ א עָֹון‬and the prophet’s poetic expansions of it show the importance of forgiveness to the doxology. Yhwh not only bears away iniquity, he also passes over transgression (‫ועֹבֵר עַל־ּפֶׁשַ ע‬,ְ Mic 7:18), subjugates our iniquities (‫ִכּבֹׁש עֲֹונֹתֵ ינּו‬ ְ ‫י‬, Mic 7:19) and casts all the sin of his people into the depths of ְ ‫ׁש ִל‬ the sea (‫אותם‬ ָ ֹ ‫יך ִּב ְמצֻלֹות יָם ּכָל־חַּט‬ ְ ַ‫ות‬,ְ Mic 7:19). This prophetic appropriation expresses a robust doctrine of forgiveness that is paralleled only in the book of Psalms. 43 The prophet Jeremiah warned the wise, strong, and rich to avoid boasting in their gifts. Rather, boasting was to be grounded in knowing Yhwh ׂ ְ ‫ִת ַה ֵלּל ה ִַמ ְּת ַה ֵלּל ה‬ according to his revealed character: ‫אֹותי ִכּי‬ ִ ‫ַש ֵכּל ְויָד ֹ ַע‬ ְ ‫ְבּזֹאת י‬ ‫ּי־ב ֵא ֶלּה ָחפ ְַצ ִתּי ְנאֻם־יהוה‬ ְ ‫ב ָארֶץ ִכ‬ ּ ָ ‫ּוצ ָד ָקה‬ ְ ‫שׂה ֶחסֶד ִמ ְׁש ָפּט‬ ֶ ֹ ‫אנִי יהוה ע‬ ֲ (“‘In this the one 41. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 347. 42. This opening statement may play on the prophet’s name (‫מיכָה‬, ִ “Who is like Yah?”). This is a shortened form of ‫( ִמי ָכיָה‬cf. the use of ‫ ִמיכָה‬and ‫ ִמי ָכיָה‬of the same person in 2 Chr 34:20 and 2 Kgs 22:12). Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names, 152. 43. According to Matthias Franz, Mic 7:18–20 was composed during the late post­ exilic or Hellenistic period. Thus, it summarized all previous Old Testament tradition. See Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34,6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt, BWANT 160 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 262–63, esp. n. 210. Franz is right to highlight the importance of forgiveness in this prophetic text, yet his diachronic conclusions are impossible to prove.

176

Chapter 6

who boasts must boast: understanding and knowing me, that I am Yhwh who practices kindness, justice, and righteousness in the land. Indeed, I take delight in these things,’ declares Yhwh,” Jer 9:23[24]). The unusually explicit statement about knowing Yhwh (‫אֹותי‬ ִ ‫ ְ)ויָד ֹ ַע‬resembles Moses’s plea at Sinai to know Yhwh by learning of his ways (ָ‫ֶת־ד ָּרכֶךָ ְוא ֵָדעֲך‬ ְ ‫הֹוד ֵענִי נָא א‬, ִ Exod 33:13). Accordingly, Yhwh desired to be known as one who practiced kindness (‫) ֶחסֶד‬, a trait given particular emphasis in the DNP. In a customarily prophetic way, Jeremiah emphasized Yhwh’s justice (‫)מ ְׁש ָפּט‬ ִ and righteousness (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ alongside his kindness. Yhwh delighted in all these things because they were inherent to his character, which the DNP had revealed. Jeremiah appealed specifically to Yhwh’s mercy after purchasing the deed to his uncle’s land in Anathoth. The inevitability of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory was weighing on the prophet, so he expressed his concerns by a direct address (‫אהָּה אֲדֹנָי יהוה‬ ֲ ), reminding himself of Yhwh’s character: ‫ׂשה‬ ֶֹ ‫ע‬ ‫ּומׁשַ ּלֵם עֲֹון אָבֹות אֶל־חֵיק ְּבנֵיהֶם ַאחֲרֵיהֶם ָהאֵל ַהּגָדֹול ה ִַּגּבֹור יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬ ְ ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ֶחסֶד ַל‬ ‫ׁשמֹו‬ ְ (“Alas, lord Yhwh . . . who performs kindness for thousands, but who repays the iniquity of fathers into the lap of their sons after them, the great and mighty God––Yhwh Sebaoth is his name,” Jer 32:17a, 18). Jeremiah then noted that Yhwh observes the ways of humans, rendering to all according to their deeds. After briefly reciting Israel’s “salvation history,” the prophet admitted that he did not understand why Yhwh would ask him to buy land when Jerusalem was about to be captured. Jeremiah’s words parallel both the Decalogue and the DNP, though sometimes differing from the vocabulary of each (‫ּומׁשַ ּלֵם‬ ְ instead of ‫ּפֹקֵד‬, and ‫ ְּבנֵיהֶם ַאחֲרֵיהֶם‬instead of ‫ַל־רּב ִֵעים‬ ִ ‫ֵׁשים ְוע‬ ִ ‫ַל־ׁשּל‬ ִ ‫)ע‬. Jeremiah referred to Yhwh’s kindness before his justice, thus reflecting the influence of the DNP. The prophet preferred the wording of the Decalogue in one instance (‫ׂשה ֶחסֶד‬ ֶֹ ‫ע‬ ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ ַל‬instead of ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫)נֹצֵר ֶחסֶד ָל‬, though the clear onomastic ascription within the confession mostly reflects the emphases of Exod 34:6–7. 44 Hymnic Echoes: Quotations In Ps 86, the psalmist calls out to Yhwh for help against his enemies, the presumptuous (‫ )ז ִֵדים‬and violent (‫יצים‬ ִ ‫ָר‬ ִ‫ )ע‬ones who do not set God before them (‫ֶג ָדּם‬ ְ ‫שׂמּוךָ ְלנ‬ ָ ‫ולֹא‬,ְ Ps 86:14). The following verse contrasts the enemies’ character with Yhwh’s: they seek the psalmist’s life, but Yhwh is compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving faithfulness. 45 Psalm 86:15 contains one of the most exact quotations of the DNP in the ְ ‫ַּתה אֲדֹנָי אֵל־רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון ֶאר‬ Hebrew Bible: ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬ ָ ‫וא‬,ְ though the 44. Jeremiah’s onomastic ascription contains a uniquely prophetic feature: ‫ָהאֵל ַהּגָדֹול‬ ‫ׁשמֹו‬ ְ ‫“( ה ִַּגּבֹור יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬the great and mighty God, Yhwh Sebaoth is his name,” Jer 32:18b). The prophets often used the compound name ‫יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬, though its precise sense and origin remains unclear. 45. Groenewald claims that Ps 86 artfully reuses several earlier texts, of which Exod 32–34 is primary. See “Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews,” 1368.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

177

statement deviates from Exod 34:6 by substituting ‫ יהוה‬with ‫אֲדֹנָי‬, a common feature in the “Elohistic” psalms. 46 The psalm omits the forgiving and punishing aspects of Yhwh’s character because these did not apply to the context. Because Yhwh had emphasized his kindness to the underserving in the DNP, the psalmist could employ this formula as the basis of his plea for deliverance (‫פנֵה ֵאלַי ְו ָח ּנֵנִי‬, ּ ְ Ps 86:16a). Psalm 103 calls on those who fear Yhwh to remember his benefits (‫)גּמּולָיו‬. ְ At first, Yhwh’s character is described generally, but this leads to a reflection on a specific revelatory moment: ‫ילֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ֲל‬ ִ ‫ִש ָׂראֵל ע‬ ְ ‫שה ִל ְבנֵי י‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫יע ְד ָּרכָיו ְלמ‬ ַ ‫יֹוד‬ ִ (“he made his ways known to Moses, his deeds to the sons of Israel,” Ps 103:7; cf. Exod 33:13). These “ways of Yhwh” are reported in the following ְ ‫“( רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון יהוה ֶאר‬Yhwh is compassionate and graverse: ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ָחסֶד‬ cious, slow to anger and abounding in kindness,” Ps 103:8). The quotation is followed by an extended poetic reflection on God’s bearing sin away. Yhwh does not deal with sinners according to their sin (v. 10) but removes it as far as east is from west (v. 12) and shows compassion as a father does to his child (v. 13). One could say that Yhwh’s “benefits” are encapsulated in this quotation of the DNP. From the DNP, the psalmist could confidently praise Yhwh for the forgiveness and grace he revealed. A similar doxology appears in the acrostically arranged Ps 145. This quotation concludes the verbal resemblences of the DNP in the Psalter, and highlights Yhwh’s universal reign. 47 The psalmist begins by blessing (‫א ָברֲכָה‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬ ָ‫)ש ְמך‬ ִׁ and praising (ָ‫אה ְַללָה ִׁש ְמך‬ ֲ ‫ ) ַו‬Yhwh’s name (vv. 1–2). This theme is picked up again in v. 7 with a reference to those who speak of ָ‫ב־טּובך‬ ְ ַ‫זֵכֶר ר‬, “the memory of your abundant goodness.” The noun ‫ זֵכֶר‬is the closest nominal synonym to the noun ‫שֵׁם‬, and the following abbreviated quotation of Exod ְ ‫חַּנּון ְורַ חּום יהוה ֶאר‬ 34:6 gives the content of this “memorial name”: ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ ‫ּוג ָדל־ ָחסֶד‬ ְ (“gracious and compassionate is Yhwh, slow to anger and great in kindness,” Ps 145:8). The only noticeable change from the DNP appears in the phrase ‫––ּוג ָדל־ ָחסֶד‬the ְ use of this adjective highlights the quality of divine kindness. 48 Through this quotation, the psalmist returned Yhwh’s own words to him in praise. Hymnic Echoes: Allusions The remaining hymnic echoes resemble the DNP less directly. Psalm 78 belongs to the Asaph corpus, a group of psalms with theological concerns and poetic expressions that differ from the Davidic psalms studied above. It rehearses Israel’s history while offering occasional theological reflections. For example, Israel’s request for meat in the desert is said to have come from 46. The title ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬appears 31 times in Pss 42­– 89, but only 19 times outside these psalms. ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬appears 7 times in Ps 86 alone. 47. Nathan C. Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God: A Canonical Analysis of Exodus 34:6–7 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 129–39. 48. See above, p. 149 n. 143.

178

Chapter 6

their rebellious disposition, a refusal to trust the God of their covenant (‫ְולֹא‬ ‫ֶמנּו ִב ְּבִריתֹו‬ ְ ‫נֶא‬, Ps 78:37). In contrast to Israel’s disposition, Yhwh showed compassion (‫)והּוא רַ חּום‬, ְ atoned for their sin (‫) ְי ַכ ֵפּר עָֹון‬, and greatly restrained ִׁ ‫ו ִה ְר ָבּה ְלה‬,ְ Ps 78:38). These links with Exod 34:6–7 are lexihis anger (‫ָשיב אַּפֹו‬ cal rather than syntactical, and their variance from Exod 34:6–7 may be due to the poetic form. 49 An allusion to the DNP appears in Ps 85, before the quotation of it in Ps 86:15. Psalm 86:5 identifies the object of the psalmist’s prayer: ‫ַּתה אֲדֹנָי‬ ָ ‫ִכּי־א‬ ָ‫“( טֹוב ְו ַס ָלּח ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ְלכָל־ק ְֹראֶיך‬For you, Lord, are good and forgiving, and abounding in kindness to all who call on you”). This proclamation does not follow the structure of Exod 34:6–7, but it does rehearse some of its content. The adjective ‫ ַס ָלּח‬is a hapax legomenon, perhaps created to summarize the important phrase ‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ֶשע ְוח‬ ַ ׁ ‫שׂא עָֹון ָופ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ נ‬in one word. 50 Finally, this verse expands the DNP by specifying the recipients of Yhwh’s goodness: he will show kindness to those who call out to him. The het colon of the acrostic Ps 111 begins ‫“( חַּנּון ְורַ חּום יהוה‬Yhwh is gracious and compassionate,” Ps 111:4b). As in Ps 145:7–8, the word ‫ זֵכֶר‬precedes this allusion. Both psalms utilize these adjectives within their acrostic framework to praise Yhwh for his revealed character. Similarly, Ps 116:5 contains a possible allusion that is also preceded by the divine name (‫שם־‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ּוב‬ ְ ‫ֶקרָא‬ ְ ‫יהוה א‬, “and I will call upon the name of Yhwh,” Ps 116:4). The descriptions of the divine name in this psalm differ slightly from other echoes in the Psalter: ‫“( חַּנּון יהוה ְוצ ִַדּיק וֵאלֹהֵינּו ְמרַ חֵם‬Yhwh is gracious and righteous, and our God shows compassion,” Ps 116:5). The almost-inseparable word pair ‫ חַּנּון ְורַ חּום‬is here replaced by ‫חַּנּון ְוצ ִַדּיק‬, while a form of ‫ רחם‬appears at the end of the verse (‫)מרַ חֵם‬. ְ  51 Though the wording is unusual, their function is clear: the distressed psalmist was reminding himself that the name of Yhwh, and all it represented, was the basis of the divine intervention he expected. Sapiential Echoes: Allusions The wisdom literature often holds a tenuous place in theological schemes that purport to describe the message of the entire Hebrew Bible. This is no less true for demonstrating the theological influence of the DNP, because the name ‫ יהוה‬does not appear in Ecclesiastes and is attested in the speeches in Job only in 12:9. Only Proverbs consistently uses the name ‫יהוה‬, making this book the most likely context for wisdom appropriations of Exod 34:6–7. 49. Franz claims that Ps 78:37–38 is structured according to the covenant makingcovenant breach-divine compassion complex in Exod 32–34. See Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott, 245. 50. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger note that this uncommon form expresses Yhwh’s characteristic disposition to forgive in a way that the participle ‫סֺלֵח‬could not. See Psalmen 51–100, 2nd ed., HTKAT, (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000), 541. 51. Franz suggests that the verbal forms of ‫ רחם‬in Isa 49:10 and 54:8 may have inspired the psalmist’s word choice. See Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott, 251.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

179

The clearest echoes of the DNP in Proverbs are lexical. Proverbs 16:5–6 falls within a cluster of aphorisms that speak to Yhwh’s sovereignty. 52 Verses 4 and 5 note that Yhwh punishes evildoers: the arrogant one (‫ָכּל־‬ ‫)גּבַּה־לֵב‬ ְ will certainly not go unpunished (‫)יָד ְליָד לֹא ִיּנָקֶה‬. 53 The occurrence of the intransitive phrase ‫ לֹא ִיּנָקֶה‬may allude to the similar use of the verb in the DNP. 54 The following verse strengthens the connection between these proverbs and the DNP: ‫ּובי ְִראַת יהוה סּור מֵרָע‬ ְ ‫אמֶת ְיכֻ ַפּר עָֹון‬ ֱ ֶ‫“( ְבּ ֶחסֶד ו‬By loving faithfulness [literally, “kindness and truth”] iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of Yhwh one turns from evil,” Prov 16:6). The first colon clearly recalls the Israelite doctrine that Yhwh’s forgiveness stems from the abundance of his loving faithfulness. The passive verb ‫ ְיכֻ ַפּר‬suggests that God’s people were to emulate these divine traits in their relationships. Other proverbs elaborate on the individual words or phrases of the DNP. The word pair ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ֶחסֶד ו‬appears in a father’s admonition to his son: ‫ֶחסֶד‬ ָ‫ַל־לּוח ִל ֶבּך‬ ַ ‫ּרֹותיךָ ָכ ְּתבֵם ע‬ ֶ ‫אמֶת אַל־י ַ ַע ְזבֻךָ ָק ְׁשרֵם עַל־ ַג ְּר ְג‬ ֱ ֶ‫“( ו‬Loving faithfulness must not leave you––bind them upon your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart,” Prov 3:3). Remarkably, this instruction calls on the son to walk in the ways of Yhwh as revealed in Exod 34:6–7. A similar impulse drives Prov ְ ‫ֱר‬ ֵׂ (“A person’s success [comes 19:11: ‫ּשע‬ ַ ׁ ‫יך אַּפֹו ְו ִת ְפא ְַרּתֹו עֲבֹר עַל־ ָפ‬ ִ‫ָדם ֶהא‬ ָ ‫שכֶל א‬ by] slowing his anger, and his glory [comes by] passing over transgression”). Proverbs and Ecclesiastes contain several related exhortations toward slowְ ‫ֶאר‬ ness of anger. 55 These proverbs present Yhwh’s characteristic patience (‫ֶך‬ ‫ ) ַא ַ ּפיִם‬and forgiveness (‫ַּטאָה‬ ָ ‫ֶשע ְוח‬ ַ ׁ ‫שׂא עָֹון ָופ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ )נ‬as the means to human success in daily life. While it is impossible to demonstrate conclusively that Exod 34:6–7 influenced these wisdom texts, their application of Yhwh’s traits to the sphere of human conduct at least suggests this possibility. Imitatio Dei may well be the most fitting means for wisdom literature to appropriate the DNP. 56 If the fear of Yhwh was the beginning of wisdom, then the imitation of Yhwh was a major means of fearing him. 52. See Tremper Longman III, Proverbs, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 331. 53. The construction ‫ יָד ְליָד‬is difficult, and the ancient translations (LXX, Syriac, and the Targums) did not render it uniformly. It probably refers to clapping hands to guarantee a matter. The dynamic translation “be sure of this” is preferable. See Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapter 1–15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 498, 503. 54. A related construction appears in Prov 19:9: ‫ש ָקִרים לֹא ִיּנָקֶה‬ ְׁ ‫עֵד‬, “a lying witness will not go unpunished.” 55. The sages used several rhetorical means to champion the virtue of patience. In some cases, they emphasized the folly of those given to anger (Prov 14:17; 22:24). Elseְ ‫ ) ֶאר‬to “short-spiritedness” (ַ‫קצַר־רּוח‬, where they showed the superiority of patience (‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ ְ Prov 14:29), to a wrathful person (‫איׁש ֵחמָה‬, ִ Prov 15:18), and to one with a “high spirit” (‫ְגּבַּה־‬ ְ ‫ ֶאר‬was better than a warrior who ‫רּו ַח‬, Eccl 7:8). In other cases, they claimed that ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ captures a city (Prov 16:32), and that by it one could persuade mighty leaders (Prov 25:15). 56. Many note that the wisdom literature does not speak of Israel, the covenant, or the Torah. However, in making this point, scholars may overlook the role that Yhwh’s revealed character plays in the human achievement of wisdom. Peter Gosnell’s comments

180

Chapter 6

Theological Synthesis The multiple resemblences of the DNP across the Hebrew Bible’s various genres highlight its literary-theological significance. The canonical text presents Israel appropriating Yhwh’s third-person utterance, often repeating these words back to him or exhorting their neighbors by them. The DNP expanded its theological horizon through the diverse contexts, linguistic expressions, and genres of these verbal echoes. 57 The two narratival appropriations show that the DNP provided an objective basis for holding God accountable and for exhorting humans. Moses urged Yhwh to respond to his covenant people according to his revealed character. For Yhwh, this meant extending forgiveness so that his reputation would be upheld (Num 14:11–25). King Hezekiah alluded to the DNP as his basis for calling the Northern Kingdom to repentance. If they turned to him, Israel could expect a gracious response from their God (2 Chr 30:9). In Deuteronomy, Moses presented the covenant as the basis of Yhwh’s continued grace to Israel. In one of his sermons, he inverted the wording of Exod 20:5–6 in light of the DNP (Deut 7:9). He also followed its pattern by specifying the objects of Yhwh’s kindness and wrath. By “filling in” the DNP, Moses articulated the (prophetic) doctrine that humans’ response to their sin affected Yhwh’s response to them. Like Hezekiah, Moses declared that Israel could expect Yhwh’s grace if they repented (Deut 4:31). The four (nonprophetic) prayer appropriations in the Hebrew Bible betray deuteronomic influence even as they echo the DNP. They all speak of Yhwh’s covenant as the basis for his grace, compassion, and loving faithfulness. Furthermore, they specify the objects of Yhwh’s kindness (“those who keep his commands,” 1 Kgs 8:23). Daniel began his prayer by alluding to the DNP with the hope that Yhwh would be gracious to exiled Israel (Dan 9:4). Nehemiah implied that Yhwh must look on the ruined city of Jerusalem and remember his promises (Neh 1:5). The extended doxology of the Jewish community likely represents one of the latest theological developments of the DNP in the Hebrew Bible. This community clearly understood the message of the DNP as they described Yhwh as a God of forgiveness (Neh 9:17, 31). reflect this tendency: “Wisdom is in touch with God, the Designer of life. When one knows the Designer, and commits to learning the design, then one is in the best shape to live.” Peter W. Gosnell, The Ethical Vision of the Bible: Learning Good from Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 128. This is correct, but Yhwh’s character as revealed in the DNP was meant to be part of the “design of life.” This may explain in part why the fear of Yhwh is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. 57. Michael Fishbane rightly notes this dynamic quality of intertextuality: “For it makes a great difference whether, for example, Yhwh reveals his attributes to Moses (and Israel) after the apostasy of the calf (Exod. 34:6–7), or whether Moses recites them to him in a prayer (Num. 14:17–19) or to the people in a sermon (Deut. 7:9–10); or whether prophets and laymen recite them to Yhwh after national or private crises (cf. Mic. 7:18– 20; Psa. 103, 109).” Biblical Interpretation, 417.

Verbal Echoes of Exodus 34:6–7

181

The prophetic echoes emphasize different aspects of the divine character. The sense of Yhwh’s name provided the basis for Joel’s preaching of repentance ( Joel 2:13). Jonah, on the other hand, chose not to preach repentance because he did not want Yhwh to prove his character as described in the DNP by forgiving his enemies ( Jonah 4:2). Yhwh would eventually punish them, as Nahum threatened (Nah 1:3). The people of Nineveh illustrated historically that those who received Yhwh’s grace could also bear his punishment. Micah concluded his prophecy by proclaiming Yhwh’s forgiveness, without any call for repentance (Mic 7:18–20). Jeremiah proclaimed that knowing Yhwh as one who shows kindness is the only grounds for boasting ( Jer 9:23[24]). This prophet’s exemplary deuteronomic prayer reminded him of Yhwh’s character and allowed him to express his growing fears and uncertainties ( Jer 32:17–18). The psalmists often quoted and alluded to the DNP for purposes of praise. Psalm 103:8 exults in Yhwh’s forgiveness as one of his many “benefits.” Other psalmists returned Yhwh’s own words to him as praise (Ps 111:4; 145:8). Those in great distress based requests for deliverance on Yhwh’s character (Ps 86:15; 116:5). Some psalmists identified themselves as deserving of Yhwh’s kindness (Ps 86:5), while others contrasted the rebellion of their people with Yhwh’s compassion (Ps 78:38). The wisdom literature alludes to Exod 34:6–7, suggesting that the imitation of God is wisdom. Yhwh’s loving faithfulness (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬was the goal of ְ ‫ ) ֶאר‬as a desirhuman relationships, and the sages presented patience (‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ able human characteristic. Exodus 34:6–7 climaxes the revelation of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬in the book of Exodus. The sense that Yhwh ascribed to this name became an objective standard according to which he would act. However, his action often depended on human response. Verbal echoes of the DNP outside Exodus put conditions on who qualified for Yhwh’s forgiveness or justice: those who were righteous could appeal to Yhwh for deliverance, while those who recognized their unrighteousness could repent and appeal to Yhwh for forgiveness. Any who persisted in sin would bear the brunt of Yhwh’s exacting justice. Israel was certain that Yhwh would respond to those who repented, knowing his covenant commitment to them would not fail. On the principle of imitatio Dei, Yhwh’s revealed character also became the standard for his people’s behavior. Finally, the revelation of Yhwh’s character in the DNP often became a catechetical refrain that his people repeated in celebration of his grace. Exodus 34:6–7 provided a clear standard that informed God’s people about how Yhwh would relate to them.

Chapter 7

Conclusion Summary of the Argument The book of Exodus gradually reveals the divine character, as tied to the divine name ‫יהוה‬. Exodus 34:6–7 climaxes this revelation. In the first chapter­, I explained that scholars often overlook this development in the book of Exodus by a misguided etymologizing approach to proper names and by atomistic exegesis. James Barr rightly pointed out that the linguistic history of a word may not have any bearing on its meaning in context. Nevertheless, many continue to etymologize the name ‫ יהוה‬and assert this speculative “root meaning” as a description of Yhwh’s character. A survey of literature on the name ‫ יהוה‬reveal that few scholars have heeded Barr’s criticisms. Fueled by source critical theories regarding the pre-history of the Bible, many scholars have been inhibited from reading Exodus as a compositional and literary whole. However, it is preferable to read this book on its own terms, as a coherent story with a coherent presentation of its central character, Yhwh. Onomasticians have shown that opaque personal names refer directly to name-bearers because they have no descriptive meaning (sense), while common nouns make reference through their meaning. The sense of a name should not be derived from etymology, but should be discovered from its use within a text. A literary onomastic approach encourages a holistic reading of Exodus to capture the developing onomastic portrait created by the use of the divine name ‫יהוה‬. The second chapter provided the interpretive categories needed for my study of Exod 3:13–15. Yhwh’s name is reported in these verses according to a common pentateuchal form that scholars usually call “folk etymology.” I adopted the phrase “explicit naming wordplays” because of its neutral posture toward the meaning of the form. These wordplays are characterized by assonance involving a proper name and an explanation that justifies the name given. Only a few of the proper names within the 52 explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch correspond to known nominal or verbal forms, which may indicate why they required explanations. Contrary to common perceptions, names reported in this form rarely described the name bearer’s character. Rather, they often memorialized a past event or anticipated a future event. The third chapter offered a detailed exegesis of Exod 3:13–15. These verses are part of Yhwh’s call and Moses’s repeated attempts to avoid the 182

Conclusion

183

call. Moses’s request to know the name of his father’s god prompted Yhwh to utter an explicit naming wordplay for himself. As shown by the idem per idem construction and first-person yiqtol forms of ‫ היה‬used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the phrase ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬should be translated, “I will be whoever I will be.” As with certain other explicit naming wordplays, this explanation of the name ‫ יהוה‬was anticipatory: hereby Yhwh declared that the future reveals the sense of his name. The second half of the chapter considered the original pronunciation of the divine name by analyzing ancient witnesses. Though scholars have proposed forms such as “Yaho(h),” “Jehovah,” “Yahwa,” and “Yahwoh,” many agree that the pronunciation “Yahweh” is original. However, this consensus view can be challenged on literary and linguistic grounds. The etymology of ‫ יהוה‬is probably opaque––it does not correspond to regular Hebrew verbal or nominal patterns. The later form “Yahu,” attested in theophoric names, at Kuntillet ʿAjrud, among the Elephantine community, and in (Alexandrian) Greek sources, may have developed from the longer, original form. Unfortunately, we can only conjecture its precise pronunciation (“Yahwahu,” “Yahawhu,” “Yahuwah,” or “Yehwahu”?). The opaque etymology of the divine name allows the Exodus narrative to define it more clearly, without a transparent meaning to obscure it. The fourth chapter discussed Exod 6:2–8. Within this speech, Yhwh puzzlingly remarked that he did not become known to the patriarchs by his name Yhwh. I focused on the narratival presentation of Yhwh before and after Exod 6:3 by a literary onomastic reading of Genesis and Exodus. While the patriarchs made some associations with the name “Yhwh,” the designator ‫ אֵל שַׁ דַּ י‬best represented Yhwh’s relationship to them as the “God of fertility.” The Exodus narrative shows how Moses’s generation saw Yhwh take the initiative in revealing his name. He accomplished this by using the recognition formula during the execution of the 10 plagues. Through this literary form, Yhwh urged Egyptians and Israelites to ascribe these mighty acts to the name ‫יהוה‬. Thus, the statement in Exod 6:3 should be seen as elliptical: Yhwh did not become known to the patriarchs as he would become known to the Israelites of Moses’s day. The fifth chapter championed Exod 34:6–7 as the climax of Yhwh’s onomastic revelation. I set this important passage in the context of Israel’s breaking the newly created covenant through idolatry. Their sin prompted three acts of intercession from Moses, in the third of which he urged Yhwh to make known his ways and his glory, to which Yhwh responded by proclaiming his name (Exod 33:12–23). This self-proclamation is noteworthy because of the repetition of the Tetragrammaton and its third-person modifiers. Exodus 34:6–7 clearly reveals Yhwh’s character, including the important tension between his kindness and his justice. Central to this proclamation was the remarkable announcement of Yhwh’s disposition to forgive his rebellious covenant people.

184

Chapter 7

The sixth chapter showed how the sense of the divine name is echoed throughout the Hebrew Bible. These quotations and allusions demonstrate that Exod 34:6–7 became a fundamental definition of the divine character in the Hebrew Bible. I classified these verbal echoes according to genre, to understand how each literary form contributed to the biblical-theological portrait of the name ‫יהוה‬. The Israelites were confident that they could relate to Yhwh personally, not only because he had revealed his name to them, but especially because that name entailed his kindness for those who repented. It also warned of his punishment against those who persisted in sin. Knowledge of Yhwh’s name provided Israel with an objective basis by which to serve and seek God. Exodus 3:13–15, 6:2­– 8, 33:12–23, and 34:5–9 contain important lexical links that argue for their literary and thematic unity. Most importantly, the openended idem per idem construction ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬in Exod 3:14 is specified in the idem per idem construction ‫ֲׁשר אֲרַ חֵם‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר אָחֹן ְוִרח ְַמ ִּתי אֶת־א‬ ֶ ‫ ְוחַּנ ִֹתי אֶת־א‬in Exod 33:19, which is expanded in Exod 34:6–7 by the introductory modifiers ‫רַ חּום ְוחַּנּון‬. Furthermore, the vocabulary related to knowing Yhwh connects Exod 6:2–8 with Exod 33–34. Central to the crux interpretum in Exod 6:3 is Yhwh’s declaration that he was not known to the patriarchs (‫ּוש ִמי יהוה לֹא‬ ְׁ ‫נֹודַ ְע ִתּי ָלהֶם‬, Exod 6:3), but that Moses’s generation would come to know not only that he is Yhwh, but also what that name signified (‫אנִי יהוה‬ ֲ ‫ִוידַ ְע ֶתּם ִכּי‬ ‫אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬, Exod 6:7). The recognition language occurring after Yhwh’s speech in Exod 6 was inadequate for Moses, who asked Yhwh to make his ways known to him (ָ‫ֶת־ד ָּרכֶך‬ ְ ‫הֹוד ֵענִי נָא א‬, ִ Exod 33:13) so that Moses would know him more fully (ָ‫וא ֵָדעֲך‬,ְ Exod 33:13). The narrative shows that Yhwh’s name proclamation in Exod 34:6–7 finally provided the knowledge that Moses desired. The claims made above have implications for related disciplines of study. A reorientation away from Exod 3:13–15 and onto Exod 34:6–7 as the climax of the divine name’s revelation affects Old Testament theological interpretation, 1 as well as the exegesis of some New Testament texts. The sense of the name ‫ יהוה‬was not merely a historical issue that pertained only to ancient Israel––it also speaks to the sense of Jesus’ name and the Christian practice of naming, addressing, and describing God. Finally, my conclusions suggest a different basis for certain systematic-theological reflections.

Implications for Old Testament Theology Unconscious Allusions to Exodus 34:6–7? The preceding chapter only considered texts that echoed the wording and syntax of Exod 34:6–7. However, this text may have exerted a more profound influence on the Hebrew Bible. The Divine Name- Proclamation in1. In this concluding chapter, I use the phrase Old Testament in place of Hebrew Bible when referring to Christian concerns.

Conclusion

185

troduces central theological concepts that became so thoroughly integrated into Israel’s religious discourse that their source may not have been recalled. Consequently, many other allusions in the Hebrew Bible to the DNP may have been unconscious. An investigation of this level of influence is necessarily speculative and its conclusions merely suggestive. Nevertheless, one may argue that Exod 34:6–7 can be read as informing all texts that follow it canonically that attest to its theologically loaded words. 2 In particular, this proclamation may be claimed as the source of biblical references to divine forgiveness that come after Exod 34:6–7. 3 These texts may reflect theological adaptations that expanded the DNP well beyond its syntactical and even lexical bounds. The theological horizon of the DNP may also extend to Yhwh’s proclamation of his judgment and punishment. 4 Israel’s prophets are notorious for their repeated oracles of judgment against the nations and even against the people of God. These oracles are a stumbling block to many: some describe the deity of the prophets as vengeful and angry, even one who can adopt the role of an abusive husband. 5 However, one need not read the prophets with such cynicism. If, as Brueggemann asserts, Old Testament theology is supposed to develop a robust, coherent portrayal of Yhwh, 6 then his disposition to threaten punishment and execute it must be part of this portrayal. I showed earlier that 2. For example, Isa 55:7 (ַ‫ י ְַר ֶבּה ִל ְסלֹוח‬,‫חמֵהּו‬ ֲ ַ‫;)ויר‬ ִ 63:7 (‫ח ְַסדֵ י יהוה‬, ‫ורַ ב־טּוב‬,ְ ‫ּוכרֹב‬ ְ ‫חמָיו‬ ֲ ַ‫ְכּר‬ ׁ ‫עֲֹונֹת ִר‬, ָ‫חמֶיך‬ ִ ‫[ ח ְַס ְדּךָ ַוא‬2×], ָ‫חמֶיך‬ ֲ ַ‫ר‬, ‫ ;)עֲֹונֹתַ י‬79:8–9 (‫אש ֹנִים‬ ֲ ַ‫ר‬, ‫;)חַטֹּאתֵ ינּו‬ ‫ָדיו‬ ָ ‫חס‬ ֲ ); Ps 40:11–13 (ָ‫ֲמ ְתּך‬ ָׂ ‫)עֲֹון נ‬. See also the discussion of Hos 1:1–11 and 85:3, 8, 11 (ָ‫ה ְַראֵנּו יהוה ח ְַס ֶדּך‬, ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ֶחסֶד־ו‬, ‫את‬ ָ ‫ָש‬ in Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 156–57. ִ ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫ח‬, “I made known to 3. For example, Ps 32:5 (‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫ׂאת עֲֹון ח‬ ָ ‫ָש‬ ָ ‫ַּתה נ‬ ָ ‫ ְוא‬. . . ָ‫אֹודיעֲך‬ you my sin . . . and you bore away the iniquity of my sin”); 51:3[1] (‫ָח ּנֵנִי אֱל ִֹהים ְכּח ְַס ֶדּךָ ְכּרֹב‬ ‫שעָי‬ ָׁ ‫חמֶיךָ ְמחֵה ְפ‬ ֲ ַ‫ר‬, “Be gracious to me, O God, according to your kindness, according to the abundance of your compassion wipe away my transgressions”); 99:8 (the phrase ‫שׂא‬ ֵ ֹ ‫אֵל נ‬ refers to Yhwh’s forgiveness). 4. For example, Jer 30:11 // 46:28 (ָּ‫אנַ ֶקּך‬ ֲ ‫ונַ ֵקּה לֹא‬,ְ “and I will certainly not leave you unpunished”); Hos 1:6 (esp. the connection between the name ‫ לֹא רֻ ָחמָה‬and the verdict ׂ ְ ‫אֹוסיף עֹוד אֲרַ חֵם אֶת־ ֵבּית י‬ ‫ֶשׂא ָלהֶם‬ ּ ָ ‫ִש ָראֵל ִכּי־נָשֹׂא א‬ ִ ‫לֹא‬, “No longer will I show compassion on the house of Israel––I have borne them long enough”); Ps 109:14, ‫( ִיזָּכֵר עֲֹון אֲב ָֹתיו‬used as an imprecation against enemies). The interpretation of Hos 1:6 is difficult. For a helpful discussion, see Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 189–90. 5. See Renita J. Weems, Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 12–15. For a response, see Daniel I. Block, “The God Ezekiel Wants us to Meet,” in By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 44–72. 6. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, and Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 267. Elsewhere Brueggemann states that he cannot reconcile the deep tension inherent in Exod 34:6–7. He thinks that Yhwh inclined himself toward Israel with “a set of seemingly irreconcilable options.” See ibid., 227, as quoted on 271.

186

Chapter 7

the prophets championed a doctrine of repentance that filled in the unspecified gaps in Exod 34:6–7 (e.g., Jer 18:7–10). Their harsh words often became warnings from a God who brought iniquities to bear, while offering opportunities for repentance and a display of his kindness and forgiveness. Other problematic accounts of Yhwh’s judgment (Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest, the destruction of Jerusalem, and so on) depict the full venting of Yhwh’s anger against accumulated iniquities that demanded a righteous response (cf. Gen 15:16; 19:14; Jer 5:9). The Meaning of ‫שם‬ ֵׁ The proclamation of Yhwh’s name at Sinai sheds light on certain uses of the word ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ and the phrase ‫שם יהוה‬. ֵ ׁ Earlier, I argued that ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ does not always function in a literal sense. 7 For example, several psalms speak of worshipers praising, thanking, and fearing the name of Yhwh as though they were praising, thanking, and fearing Yhwh himself. In such instances, the psalmist was not advocating the worship of a four-letter Hebrew word––he was praising Yhwh as known through his name. The translation “character” sometimes encapsulates the nonliteral reference of ‫שם‬, ֵ ׁ but it often remains too vague unless one can specify the content of the name-bearer’s character. The word ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ and the phrase ‫שם יהוה‬ ֵ ׁ may sometimes refer to Yhwh’s character as revealed in Exod 34:6–7. 8 A few examples will illustrate this. 9 ְ ‫ֲר‬ In Isa 48:9, the prophet reports an oracle of Yhwh: ‫יך א ִַפּי‬ ִ‫ְל ַמעַן ְׁש ִמי ַאא‬ (“For the sake of my revealed character I will restrain my anger”). In this verse, ‫ ְׁש ִמי‬refers neither to the divine name ‫ יהוה‬alone nor to Yhwh’s reputation or character in a general sense but to his character as revealed in Exod 34:6–7. Israel deserved punishment for their idolatry, but Yhwh forestalled his anger, thereby upholding the trait he revealed at Sinai (that is, ְ ‫) ֶאר‬. The book of Ezekiel also uses ‫שם‬ ‫ֶך ַא ַ ּפיִם‬ ֵ ׁ in this sense. The most promi7. See above, pp. 19–21. 8. The following arguably represent this specific meaning of ‫שם‬: ֵ ׁ Exod 6:3; 9:16; 20:24?; 23:21; Deut 28:58; 1 Sam 12:22; 2 Sam 7:26; 1 Kgs 8:33, 35, 41, 42, 43; Isa 12:4; 24:15; 25:1; 26:8; 29:23; 48:9; 50:10; 52:5, 6; 56:6; 57:15; 59:19 (negative); 64:1; 66:5; Jer 10:6; 14:7, 21; 23:27 (2×); Ezek 20:9, 14, 22; 36:20, 21, 22, 23; 39:7 (2×), 25; 43:7, 8; Joel 2:26; Amos 2:7; Mic 4:5; 5:3; Zeph 3:12; Zech 10:12; 14:9?; Hag 1:6 (2×), 11 (2×), 14; 2:2; 3:16, 20; Ps 5:12[11]; 7:18[17]; 8:2[1], 10[9]; 9:3[2], 11[10]; 18:50[49]; 20:2[1], 6[5], 8[7]; 22:23[22]; 23:3; 25:11; 29:2[1]; 31:4[3]; 33:21; 34:4[3]; 44:6 (negative), 9[8], 21[20]; 45:18[17]; 48:11[10]; 52:11[9]; 54:3[1], 8[6]; 61:6[5], 9[8]; 66:2, 4; 68:5[4]; 69:31[30], 37[36]; 74:10, 18, 21; 75:2[1]; 76:2[1]; 79:9 (2×); 86:9; 91:14; 92:2[1]; 96:2, 8; 100:4; 102:16[15], 22[21]; 103:1; 105:3; 106:8, 47; 109:21; 111:9; 113:1, 2, 3; 115:1; 118:26?; 119:55, 132; 122:4; 124:8; 129:8; 135:1, 3, 13; 138:2 (2×); 140:14[13]; 142:8[7]; 143:11; 145:1, 2, 21; 148:5, 13 (2×); 149:3; Job 1:21; Prov 18:10; Dan 2:20 (Aramaic); Neh 1:11; 9:5; 1 Chr 16:10?, 29, 35; 17:24; 29:13; 2 Chr 6:24, 26, 32, 33; 14:10?. This does not include uses of ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ that indicate Yhwh’s character in a very general sense (e.g., Isa 63:16; Ezek 16:15). This also does not include the use of ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ to designate a human reputation or Yhwh’s reputation untied to the DNP (e.g., Jer 32:20; 34:16; Ezek 16:14; 22:5; Dan 9:15; Nah 9:10). 9. As above, this section follows a canonical presentation rather than a diachronic presentation.

Conclusion

187

nent example appears in Ezek 36:22: ‫ִש ָׂראֵל ִכּי ִאם־‬ ְ ‫שׂה ֵבּית י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫אנִי ע‬ ֲ ‫לֹא ְל ַמ ַע ְנכֶם‬ ‫שם‬ ָׁ ‫ּאתם‬ ֶ ‫ֲשר־ ָב‬ ֶׁ ‫ֲשר ִח ַל ְּל ֶתּם ַבּּגֹויִם א‬ ֶׁ ‫ם־ק ְד ִׁשי א‬ ָ ‫ש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫[“( ְל‬It is] not for your sakes that I am acting, O house of Israel, but [I am acting] for my holy name that you profaned among the nations where you had gone,” Ezek 36:22). Yhwh’s action would show the nations that he had the power to preserve his covenant people, as well as the compassion, grace, and forgiveness to restore them to their land. Yhwh’s revealed character was holy (that is, distinct from the character of other deities), and he was preeminently concerned to restore the true sense of his name among the people who had misrepresented it by their idolatrous syncretism. 10 This semantic peculiarity of ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ is most prominent in the Psalter. When the psalmist refers to those who love Yhwh’s name (ָ‫הבֵי ְׁשמֶך‬ ֲֹ ‫א‬, Ps 5:12), he is speaking of those who delight in Yhwh’s compassion, grace, patience, and forgiveness. When the psalmist says ‫אס ְַפ ָּרה ִׁש ְמךָ ְל ֶאחָי‬ ֲ (“I will tell of your name to my brothers,” Ps 22:23), he is making known the character of Yhwh as revealed at Sinai. Psalm 113 speaks of praising and blessing Yhwh’s name ְ ‫שם יהוה ְמבֹר‬ (‫ֶת־שם יהוה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ה ְַללּו א‬, v. 1; ‫ָך‬ ֵ ׁ ‫מ ֻה ָלּל‬, ְ v. 3), meanֵ ׁ ‫ְהי‬ ִ ‫י‬, v. 2; and ‫שם הוה‬ ing that those who heard the psalm should remember Yhwh’s revelation by repeating it with delight and exulting in its significance for them. 11 Fiׂ ְ ‫שם יהוה ּבֹו־יָרּוץ צ ִַדּיק ְונ‬ nally, Prov 18:10 tersely states: ‫ִשָגּב‬ ֵ ׁ ‫“( ִמ ְגדַ ּל־עֹז‬Yhwh’s name is a strong tower, the righteous one runs up into it and is safe”). This metaphor depicts the righteous person taking refuge in the revealed sense of the name ‫יהוה‬, knowing that Yhwh extended kindness, protection, and forgiveness to those who repent and walk in his ways. A theologically significant use of ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ appears in Exod 6:3. It appears that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew the word ‫יהוה‬, but Yhwh had not made himself known to them by his name (‫)ּוש ִמי יהוה לֹא נֹודַ ְע ִתּי ָלהֶם‬. ְׁ This seems contradictory, unless the phrase ‫ּוש ִמי יהוה‬ ְׁ bears an extralinguistic sense. Since Yhwh suggested to Moses that his generation would come to know him in a way the patriarchs had not, Yhwh could be read as saying that he had not become known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob according to the character that would be ascribed to his name. The patriarchs knew Yhwh’s name in a literal sense, but Yhwh had not yet ascribed the traits and actions demonstrated in Israel’s exodus from Egypt and contained in Exod 34:6–7 to that name. Despite the significance of the exodus, the events of Exod 32–34 10. Jacob Milgrom helpfully notes that the phrase ‫“( חלל אֶת ׁשֵם יהוה‬desecrate the name of Yhwh”) does not refer to ritual offenses, but to moral offenses. “The Desecration of Yhwh’s Name: Its Parameters and Significance,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 78–79. 11. Hans-Joachim Kraus remarks that the name ‫ יהוה‬in the Psalter specifies the means by which the God of heaven was known: “It is impossible to conceive of worship without knowledge of the name of God.” See The Theology of the Psalms, trans. Keith Crim (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 20. Kraus recognizes that ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ in the psalms often refers to Yhwh’s character, but he never defines its content.

188

Chapter 7

created a watershed in the revelation of God’s character. 12 The patriarchs did not know Yhwh as “a God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving faithfulness, who maintains kindness to thousands, who bears away iniquity, transgression, and sin, but he will certainly not leave unpunished, who brings the iniquity of fathers to bear against sons and grandsons, against those of the third and fourth generation.” Moses’s generation was privileged to receive this revelation after (or because?) they violated Yhwh’s clear command and stood in need of forgiveness. 13 Israel’s Central Religious Expressions The best-known texts in the Hebrew Bible that involve the Tetragrammaton express Israel’s grateful response to Yhwh’s onomastic revelation. The Shema puts the divine name at the forefront with the claim that Yhwh alone was God over Israel (Deut 6:4). 14 The Priestly Blessing makes the Tetragrammaton a central structuring feature, and the priests’ proclamation somehow “put” Yhwh’s name on Israel (Num 6:24–27). 15 Theophoric names of individual Israelites also symbolized their delight in knowing the revealed character of Yhwh as they stamped their confessions of faith onto the next generation. Finally, the Hebrew Bible contains other forms of the name ‫יהוה‬, most notably the shortened form ‫ יָּה‬and the compound name ‫ יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬common among the prophets. 16 These by-forms reflect the 12. A comparison between Exod 15:11 and Mic 7:18 highlights this distinction. After the Red Sea deliverance, Moses asked ‫“( ִמי־כָמֹכָה ָבּא ִֵלם יהוה‬Who is like you among the gods, O Yhwh?”). He then referred to Yhwh’s holiness and his fearful, praiseworthy wonders. Moses’s doxology emphasized Yhwh’s power without any reference to his kindִ ness or forgiveness. Micah asked a similar question in his closing doxology (ָ‫מי־אֵל ָכּמֹוך‬, “Who is a god like you?”). Here, the prophet emphasized Yhwh’s forgiveness without reference to his power (Mic 7:18–20). One can conclude that Yhwh’s revelation in Egypt consisted primarily of his power (cf. Exod 9:16), while the revelation after the golden calf apostasy consisted primarily of his grace and forgiveness. 13. This interpretation builds on the work of earlier scholars who argued that the phrase ‫ּוש ִמי יהוה‬ ְׁ in Exod 6:3 refers to Yhwh’s character. See above, p. 103 n. 80 and p. 114 nn. 120–21. However, they have not adequately explained what aspect of Yhwh’s character was unknown to the patriarchs. This problem can be overcome by appealing to Exod 34:6–7 as the aspects of Yhwh’s character that were unknown to the patriarchs but revealed to Moses’s generation. 14. For a detailed defense of this understanding of the Shema, see Daniel I. Block, “How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4–5,” in How I Love your Torah, O Lord! Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 73–97. 15. Meir Bar-Ilan likely reifies the metaphorical aspect of ‫שם‬ ֵ ׁ when he offers his “concrete interpretation.” He argues that the Israelites literally wrote the Priestly Blessing on amulets. “They Shall Put my Name upon the People of Israel (Hebrew),” HUCA 60 (1989): 20. 16. A. Barur notes that ‫ יָּה‬appears in the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible and was likely a part of common Israelite piety as shown by theophoric names. He even conjectures that the suffix ‫ יהו‬on early theophoric names derives from ‫יָּה‬. (For example,

Conclusion

189

Israelites’ freedom to adapt Yhwh’s name in different rhetorical or poetic contexts. Yhwh gave his name to be spoken, known, loved, blessed, and sung as an affirmation of his previous utterance: ‫ִכִרי ְלדֹר‬ ְ ‫ֶה־ש ִׁמי ְלעֹלָם ְוזֶה ז‬ ְּ ‫ז‬ ‫“( דֹּר‬this is my name forever, and this is my memorial for all generations,” Exod 3:15), and with this revelation he invited them to address him by name, rather than by titles alone. 17 The Theological Center of the Old Testament: A Brief Note Theologians of a previous era often identified what they considered to be the central theme or idea of the Old Testament. They argued that their “center” could explain and categorize the diverse materials of the Hebrew Scriptures. Some included the New Testament in this scheme as well. 18 For our purposes, the most significant claim is Walther Zimmerli’s assertion that the name of Yahweh constitutes this center. 19 He interpreted the divine name in terms of the cryptic statement “I am who I am.” According to Zimmerli, this statement expressed Yhwh’s fundamental freedom to act and speak. 20 James Barr insightfully notes that Zimmerli’s view almost requires that Yhwh himself become the theological center of the Old Testament––just as Jesus Christ is the center of the New Testament. 21 If Barr is correct, then Zimmerli’s theological center is admittedly broad, yet it may offer the most comprehensive way of explaining the unity of the Old Testament. ‫ הוּא = א ִֵליָּהּו‬+ ‫ יָּה‬+ ‫א ִֵלי‬, [“My God is Yah”]). “The Name Yah in the Bible and the Earliest Translations (Hebrew),” Beth Mikra 18 (1973): 192–94. 17. This aspect of Israel’s faith contrasted sharply with the uncertainty that defined the polytheistic worship of their neighbors. The Sumerian prayer, “To Any God,” exemplifies the fear that plagued a worshiper who recognized his offense, but could not identify the god or goddess that he offended. See Benjamin R. Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1995), 269–71. 18. The standard discussion of this issue occurs in Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 139–71. The best-known theologian in this regard is Walther Eichrodt, who argued for covenant as the center. T. C. Vriezen spoke of the communion between God and humanity, while Samuel Terrien offered God’s elusive presence as the center. On the other hand, Eichrodt’s near contemporary Gerhard von Rad argued that the Old Testament has no center––the interpreter must trace Israel’s history of confessions without such an organizing principle. See the discussion of this issue in James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 337–44. 19. See Walther Zimmerli, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie, 2 vols., TB 51 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974), 2:30. 20. See Walther Zimmerli, “Zum Problem der Mitte des Alten Testaments,” EvT 35 (1975): 104, 109, 115, 118. 21. Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 340. Gisela Kittel has woven these two cords together in her two-volume biblical theology. She asserts that the two testaments can be brought together when one studies the revelation and gradual definition of the name above all names. See Der Name über alle Namen, 2 vols., BTSch 2–3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).

190

Chapter 7

The actions­, words, and revealed character of Yhwh embrace the full diversity of perspective, genre, and belief within the Old Testament. Central to this perspective is the proclamation that “Yhwh is [the only] God” (‫יהוה‬ ‫ ;הּוא ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬1 Kgs 18:39, Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9). However, Zimmerli’s construal should be modified: the name of Yhwh as defined in Exod 34:6–7 explains and offers interpretive theological categories for much of the Old Testament. 22

Implications for New Testament Studies The powerful influence of Yhwh’s revelation did not remain contained in the Old Testament. The unfolding of the divine name’s sense affected various texts and words in the New Testament as well. The Naming Wordplay about Jesus: Matthew 1:21 Suprisingly, Matthew’s Infancy Narrative contains a naming wordplay. Joseph of Nazareth had intended to divorce his betrothed, Mary, but a messenger from the Lord (ἄγγελος κυρίου) appeared to him, proclaiming that she had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit. The messenger added that God had already determined the name of this special child: τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν (“Now she will bear a son, and you will name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins”). This announcement betrays several Hebraic influences, 23 and an underlying Hebrew form is discernable: ‫והיא‬ ‫ילדת בן וקראת את שמו ישוע כי הוא יושיע את עמו מחטאתיהם‬. 24 22. Andreas Michel also argues that Exod 34:6–7 is a central text for Old Testament Theology. He describes it as a key (Schlüssel) that, though it will not open every door, serves as a Kristallisationsmoment from which literary and historical lines run into the Pentateuch and the rest of the Old Testament. See “Gnadenformel,” 121. 23. Many have noted the Hebraic influences on this verse and the book as a whole. See Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 29; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); and Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 4 vols., 5th ed., EKKNT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger, Neukirchener Verlag, 2002), 1:52–53. 24. The angel may have spoken in Aramaic or Greek originally, since the environment of Palestine during the first century CE was multilingual. See Michael Graves, “Languages of Palestine,” DJG 485, 488. However, an original Hebrew naming wordplay (with possible Aramaisms) is likely for three reasons. First, assonance was an indisputable feature of explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch, and only a Hebrew naming wordplay makes this phonological connection clear. In Aramaic, the name ‫ י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬would be connected to one of three verb forms: ‫שׁיזיב‬, ‫יציל‬, or ‫יפצי‬, none of which resemble the sound of the Hebrew verb ‫יֹושׁי ַע‬. ִ Second, the angel likely imitated biblical language, since the form of explicit naming wordplays is predominant in the Torah. Third, Joseph was a descendent of David who may have preferred Hebrew for nationalistic reasons. The naming wordplay in Matt 1:21 may have formed part of a preliminary, Semitic version of his gospel that was rendered easily into colloquial Koine Greek. See ibid., 490–91. For a different views on the original language of the Gospels and the character of its

Conclusion

191

Reconstruction of the Hebrew naming wordplay must remain approximate. However, the phonological similarity between the name ‫ י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬and the verb ‫יֹושׁי ַע‬ ִ is likely original. 25 The heavenly messenger followed the form of the explicit naming wordplays in the Pentateuch by connecting a proper name to a word within the explanation that sounded like it. Matthew may have placed this report at the beginning of his Gospel to parallel the giving of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬at the beginning of the Exodus narrative. As with the explicit naming wordplay in Exod 3:14–15, Matt 1:21 links a personal name to a verb in the future tense (‫ֶהיֶה–יהוה‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫)יֹושׁיעַ–י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬. ִ Just as the name “Yhwh” anticipated a revelation yet to come, so the name “Jesus” anticipated his climactic and final act of salvation for his people. The personal names and ‫ י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬and ‫ יהוה‬differ in their level of semantic transparency. I have argued that ‫ יהוה‬does not have a transparent etymology and that the Exodus narrative fills out its “meaning.” On the other hand, the name ‫ י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬represents a later form of the personal name ‫יְהֹו ֻׁש ַע‬, which has a clear etymology (“Yahu saves” or “Yahu is salvation”). 26 The transparent “meaning” of the name ‫י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬/Ἰησοῦς indicates that God had a mission for the child even before his birth. The rest of the New Testament explains how Jesus accomplished Yhwh’s salvation from a slavery much more serious than Israel’s slavery in Egypt. Surprisingly, the messenger proclaimed that Jesus would save “his people” from their sins. This phrase likely referred to Israel. 27 However, as Matthew’s Gospel proceeds, it becomes clear that Jesus was reconfiguring and redefining “Israel.” 28 Elsewhere Matthew noted that Jews and Gentiles would participate equally as the people of Jesus Christ (Matt 21:43). Fellowship between these two groups would be possible because Jesus would Greek, see Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998); James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); and S. E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 199–235. 25. According to Jewish tradition, the name of Mary’s son was ‫י ֵשׁוּ‬. In a Hebrew monograph that bears this shortened form as its title, David Flusser claims “almost certainly that it reflects the Galilean pronunciation of the first century CE” (‫כמעט בוודאות‬ ‫נ‬′′‫ )שהיא משקפת את ההגייה הגלילית של המאה הראשונה לסה‬Jesus (Hebrew) ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 36. However, Flusser bases his claim completely on the Talmud and other polemic sources that intentionally “deteriorated” the name. See Robert E. van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, SHJ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 124 n. 98. For a list of allusions to and stories about Jesus in early rabbinic sources, see R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, LRPT (Clifton, NJ: Reference, 1966), 35–96; and, more recently, Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). 26. Soulen, The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, 13. 27. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1:149; and Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 97. 28. See the use of ἐκκλησία in Matt 16:18 and βασιλεία in Matt 13:41, 16:28, and 20:21. Gundry, Matthew, 23.

192

Chapter 7

save them from their sins. Salvation from sin was an underdeveloped idea in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature in the intertestamental period­. 29 The Jewish people commonly believed that the Messiah would judge and convict sinners or that a “new priest” from God would make sin cease. 30 A Qumran fragment, 11Q Melch 2:6–8, even applied this salvific work to Melchizedek. 31 Therefore, the name ‫י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬/Ἰησοῦς anticipated God’s surprising act of salvation from sin through the agency of his only Son. Matthew also understood the giving of Jesus’ name to fulfill the Immanuel naming report in Isa 7:14. The reader may become confused at this point, since Matthew seems to suggest that Mary’s child would bear two personal names. This second naming report was given to justify how the child in Mary’s womb could save people from sin, since the Jews rightly recognized that this was God’s prerogative alone. The name “Immanuel” indicated that God worked salvation personally through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. God was able to save humans from their sins (Ἰησοῦς, “Yahu saves”) by Jesus’ unmediated presence with his people (Ἐμμανουήλ, “God with us”). 32 The inclusio created by this name in Matt 1:23 and Jesus’ promise “I will be with you always” (ἐγὼ μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας) in Matt 28:20 signals the importance of the divine presence theme within the Gospel as a whole. 33 Exodus 3:14 in the Gospel of John? Earlier, I argued that the Hebrew Bible contains no clear verbal parallels to the idem per idem construction ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬in Exod 3:14. One should expect this, given the ancillary role of the phrase in the Exodus narrative. However, many New Testament scholars have argued that Jesus’ use of the absolute phrase ἐγὼ εἰμί in the Gospel of John refers explicitly to Exod 3:14. 34 29. The Hebrew Bible never presents ‫חֵאט‬/‫ַטּאת‬ ָ ‫ ח‬as the object of ‫ ישׁע‬or other “exodus” verbs such as ‫( יצא‬Hiphil) and ‫( נצל‬Hiphil). Related expressions include saving from uncleanness (‫ ישׁע‬with ‫ֻמאוֹת‬ ְ ‫ט‬, Ezek 36:29), saving from “turnings” by which Israel sinned (‫ ישׁע‬with ‫ָטאּו ָבהֶם‬ ְ ‫ֲשר ח‬ ֶׁ ‫מֹושבֹתֵ יהֶם א‬, ְׁ Ezek 37:23), redeeming from transgressions (‫ פּדא‬with ‫עֲוֹנֺת‬, Ps 130:8), and delivering from transgressions (‫ נצל‬with ‫שׁ ִעים‬ ָ ‫פּ‬, ְ Ps 39:9[8]). Most often, Yhwh saved his people from enemies (Ps 31:16[15]; 59:2–3[1–2]; 71:4, etc.), from his own wrath ( Job 14:13; 2 Chr 32:25–26; 36:16; etc.) or from death (2 Sam 4:9; Ps 103:4; Prov 11:4, etc.) Some claim that the explanation component of Jesus’ naming wordplay was taken from Ps 130:8 [129:8 LXX] (καὶ αὐτὸς λυτρώσεται τὸν Ισραηλ ἐκ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ, “and he will redeem Israel from all their lawless deeds”). Gundry, Matthew, 23; and Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 30. However, there are few exact lexical links between these Greek texts. It is possible that they are conceptually related. However, this Psalm was likely a source for Titus 2:14. 30. Judge and convict sinners: see Pss Sol 17:26–27; 1 En. 62:2; 69:27–29. Make sin cease: see T. Levi 18:9. 31. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1:149 n. 53. 32. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 31. 33. In the words of Ulrich Luz, “Die Gegenwart des erhöhten Herrn bei seiner Gemeinde erweist ihn als Immanuel, als Gott mit uns.” Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1:150. 34. The six syntactically absolute occurrences of ἐγὼ εἰμί in John all lack a predicate ( John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; and 18:5). I exclude from discussion the seven non-absolute

Conclusion

193

These scholars usually assert that ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬should be translated, “I am who I am,” and ἐγὼ εἰμί as “I am.” 35 Raymond Brown even claims that ἐγὼ εἰμί may have been a divine name that Jesus applied to himself in John 8:58. 36 I will show that Jesus’ theologically significant utterances did not stem from this text, but from the Hebrew phrase ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ that appears in Deut 32:39 and five times in Isa 40–52. 37 However, the phrase ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ is difficult to interpret because it lacks a verb, and the immediate referent of the pronoun ‫ הּוא‬is not always clear. A close analysis shows that the word ‫ הּוא‬functions as the predicate (“he”), while the copulative verb is contained in the pronoun ‫אנִי‬ ֲ (“I am”). 38 Thus, one should translate the absolute instances of ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ as “I am he.” The Greek text of Deut 32:39, Isa 41:4, 43:10; and 46:4 accurately renders ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ as ἐγὼ εἰμί. 39 A comparison of these phrases reveals their different syntactical features. Whereas the Hebrew phrase lacks a copulative verb (or more exactly, the verb is understood from the syntax) and includes the predicate, the Greek phrase includes the copulative but leaves the predicate unexpressed. However, this does not mean the LXX translators misunderstood the Hebrew phrase. Classical and Koine Greek customarily expressed the statement “I am he” or “It is I” by ἐγὼ εἰμί, and not by the “literal” rendering ἐγὼ εἰμί αὐτός. 40 occurrences of ἐγὼ εἰμί in which Jesus made assertions about himself (e.g., “I am the good shepherd,” John 10:11). Adolf Deissmann’s study of contemporary Greek papyri showed that pagan gods used ἐγὼ εἰμί with a predicate in solemn, cultic utterances. See Light from the Ancient Near East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the GraecoRoman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachman; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 136–42. 35. E. Stauffer, “ἐγὼ,” TDNT 2:352; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 473; Marianne Meye Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 89­– 92; and Daniel Rathnakara Sadananda, The Johannine Exegesis of God: An Exploration into the Johannine Understanding of God (BZNW 121; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 113–15. With the exception of Thompson, these scholars assert that both ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ lie in the background of ἐγὼ εἰμί in John. 36. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii): A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966), 533–37. 37. Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13; 46:4; and 48:12. For a helpful discussion of Deut 32 as Israel’s “national anthem,” see Block, Deuteronomy, 742–76. 38. Waltke and O’Connor identify ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ as a verbless clause in which the word ‫ הּוא‬functions as “a so-called copulative or pleonastic pronoun.” IBHS, 297. Babylon’s arrogant words that parodied Yhwh’s self-identification illustrate that the copulative is contained in the pronoun: ‫אנִי ְוא ְַפ ִסי עֹוד‬ ֲ (“I am, and there is no other,” Isa 47:8, 10). 39. The phrase οὐκ ἐστὶν translates Isa 43:13, which may be an approximation of the Hebrew (‫)מיִָּדי מ ִַצּיל‬ ִ ‫אנִי הּוא ְואֵין‬ ֲ . The Hebrew text of Isa 48:12 does not contain a predicate, but is translated as such in the Greek text (i.e., ἐγὼ εἰμί πρώτος translates ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ ‫)ראׁשֹון‬. ִ The Göttingen textual apparatus of these Isaianic ἐγὼ εἰμί texts lists no significant variant readings. See Joseph Ziegler, Isaias (3rd ed.; Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 272, 282–83, 296, 302. 40. A search within the corpus in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae for ἐγὼ εἰμί αὐτός yields two results, both from the Septuagint. A search for the related phrase ἐγὼ εἰμί οὗτος

194

Chapter 7

Unaware both of the narrative function of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬and the precise semantics of ἐγὼ εἰμί and ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ , many interpret John 8:58 in light of Exod 3:14. However, this connection falters under two further criticisms. First, since the LXX translates ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬as ἐγώ ἐιμι ὁ ὤν, 41 it is unlikely that Jesus would only have utilized the first half of this unique formula in his response to his Jewish opponents. 42 Second, Jesus mentioned Abraham in John 8:58, not Moses, as would be expected if he was alluding to Exod 3:14 and the burning bush story. Even though Jesus’ opponents had mentioned Abraham earlier (cf. John 8:33, 39, 52, 53, 56, 57), the connection between Moses and the supposed divine name “I am” should have prompted Jesus to make that connection explicit. Here ἐγώ ἐιμι can be accurately translated, “I am he.”  43 Jesus claimed to be greater than Abraham because he was identified with the God of Israel before Abraham was born. Although Jesus did not quote or allude to Exod 3:14 in the Gospel of John, his use of ἐγὼ εἰμί reflects an extremely high Christology nonetheless. 44 Exodus 34:6–7 in the New Testament Exodus 34:6–7 influenced the Hebrew Bible profoundly, and resemblences are found in many postbiblical Jewish texts. 45 It would not be suryields one result from a fourth century BCE text. On the other hand, a search for ἐγὼ εἰμί in the TLG yields many texts. This suggests that the standard way to say, “I am he” or “It is I” was ἐγὼ εἰμί. For this latter use, see Vita Adam et Evae, section 17, line 6, and Vitae Aesopi, section 29, line 20. Both of these works come from the first century CE or earlier. 41. For a discussion of this translation’s influence on interpreations of Exod 3:14, see above, p. 52. 42. Scholars could rightly argue for a connection between John 8:58 with Exod 3:14 if Jesus had said, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ ὢν (“before Abraham was born, I am the one who is”). 43. Catrin Williams has thoroughly studied ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ and ἐγὼ εἰμί in primary and secondary ancient texts. She also concludes that Jesus’ absolute uses of ἐγὼ εἰμί refer to Deut 32:39 and Isa 40–52. Furthermore, she notes that Jewish tradition did not explicitly connect ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ with ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬until the Middle Ages: “The clear distinction between comments on Exod. 3:14 and Deut. 32:39 is consequently blurred in these later traditions.” See I am He: The Interpretation of ʾAnî Hûʾ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT 2/113 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 96–100, 306, 308, as quoted on 146. 44. Jesus likely did allude to the LXX text of Exod 3:14 in Rev 1:8 when he said Ἐγώ εἰμι . . . ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (“I am . . . the one who is and who was and who is coming,” cf. Rev 1:4). Yet even this statement was not a direct quotation, since Jesus expanded the basic assertion of Yhwh’s being (ὁ ὢν) to include his “everlasting existence.” This expansion is already evident in Jewish literature of the time. Robert Wilkinson notes that the Jerusalem and Pseudo-Jonathan Targums interpret the meaning of ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫ א‬as “I was, I am, and I will be.” Tetragrammaton, 183. Sean McDonough claims that Jesus alluded to three divine titles in Rev 1:4: Iao, Yhwh Elohim, and Yhwh Sabaoth. See Yhwh at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting, WUNT 2/107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 187, 217–20. 45. This argument assumes a Protestant canon. See Wis Sol 15:1; Sir 2:10–11; 5:5; 50:19; 1 Bar 2:27; 2 Bar 77:7; Pr Man 5–8; 2 Ezra 7:132–140; 1Q Hodayot 29, col. 17:12–13;

Conclusion

195

prising, then, if the New Testament follows this trajectory. While many words (and their synonyms) from Yhwh’s revelation appear throughout the New Testament, it contains no extended quotations. Nevertheless, the texts with these lexical links may unconsciously allude to theologically loaded words in Exod 34:6–7. The New Testament describes God as the source of mercy (οἰκτιρμός, which often translates ‫)רַ חּום‬. In light of these mercies, Christians should offer themselves as a living sacrifice. 46 Paul and Peter reminded their ְ ‫ֶאר‬ listeners­that God’s forbearance (μακροθυμία, which often translates ‫ֶך‬  47 ‫ ) ַא ַ ּפיִם‬toward sinners continues so that they may repent. Two Hebraized hymns in Luke 1 speak of God’s mercy (ἔλεος, which often translates ‫) ֶחסֶד‬ extending to generation after generation. 48 The Greek term ἀληθεία often reflects the nuances of ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ , indicating God’s faithfulness or trustworthiness. 49 Jesus’ death on the cross effected God’s forgiveness, and the image of bearing or taking sin away was sometimes used to describe this reality. 50 Finally, as in the Old Testament wisdom literature, these divine attributes were set before the Christian community so that they could imitate God’s character. 51 John 1:14–18 contains the clearest New Testament echo of Exod 34:6–7 (and Exod 33:12–23). Here the apostle states that the λόγος was with God in the beginning, became flesh, and “tabernacled” (ἐσκήνωσεν) among humanity. 52 This verb alludes to the presence Moses sought in his third intercession, which was granted when Yhwh’s glory filled the Tent of Meeting (Gk. τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου, Exod 40:34). Because of the presence of the λόγος on earth, humanity saw his glory (ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, v. 14). In him, God at last revealed what Moses sought but was ultimately 4Q511 Songs of a Sageb; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 19:8; T. Zeb 9:7. Among these texts, 2 Ezra 7:132–140 is noteworthy for its expanded descriptions of the divine traits mentioned in Exod 34:6–7. 46. See Rom 12:1; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 2:4. Romans 9:15–16 quotes Exod 33:19 to emphasize that showing compassion is God’s prerogative (cf. Jas 5:11). 47. See Rom 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9, 15. 48. See Luke 1:50, 72, 78; cf. v. 58. 49. See 1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor 1:18; 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 2:13; Heb 2:17; Rev 19:11–12. 50. See Heb 7:27; 9:28; 1 Pet 2:24; etc. The Pharisees’ reaction to Jesus’ words to the paralytic displays their proper understanding that forgiveness of sins belonged only to God: τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός (“Who is able to forgive sins except the one God?” Mark 2:7). 51. Concerning God’s compassion and grace: Matt 5:7; Luke 6:36; Phil 2:1; Col 3:12; etc. Concerning God’s patience/forbearance: 2 Cor 6:6; 2 Tim 3:10; Heb 6:12–15; Jas 5:7–8, 11; etc. Concerning God’s mercy: Luke 10:37. 52. Alexander Tsutserov suggests that this verb also contrasts the eyewitnesses who saw Jesus’ glory with Moses, who could not enter the tabernacle because of Yhwh’s overwhelming glory (Exod 40:35). Glory, Grace, and Truth: Ratification of the Sinaitic Covenant according to the Gospel of John (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009), 177 n. 61.

196

Chapter 7

denied (Exod 33:18, 22–23). This was made possible because the divine glory belonged to God’s only Son (μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, v. 14). The following statement clearly alludes to Exod 34:6. John describes the λόγος as “full of grace and truth” (πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας, v. 14). Though the LXX renders ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ רַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ו‬as πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς, the links between these expressions need not be denied, since John rarely followed the LXX. 53 James A. Montgomery has shown that χάρις is an appropriate translation of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬, provided that one understands the Greek term in its Hebraic meaning (i.e., that which we do not have) instead of its secular Greek meaning (“piety,” “fine demeanor”). 54 Likewise, Lester Kuyper has argued that ἀληθεία corresponds to ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ , indicating God’s faithfulness to his people, rather corresponding to its Greek philosophical meaning (the real vis-à-vis the unreal). 55 John proclaimed the consistency of God’s character when he declared that humanity received grace upon grace from Christ’s fullness (χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, v. 16). Interestingly, although χάρις occurs in John’s gospel only in John 1:14–18, these verses make far-reaching claims. In John 1:17, the apostle compares the grace represented by the Torah that Moses mediated (διὰ Μωϋσέως) with the grace that Jesus embodied. 56 The difference between these two dispensations of grace is shown by the verbs: the Torah was given through Moses (ἐδόθη, passive), while grace and truth came or “happened” through Jesus Christ (ἐγένετο, the active counterpart of εἰμί). 57 John con53. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), 14. 54. The Syriac translations of the New Testament are helpful (though not determinative), since they render Greek into a Semitic language. James A. Montgomery notes that the Syriac word ḥasdā most commonly translated χάρις in the extant fragments. See “Hebrew Hesed and Greek Charis,” HTR 32 (1939): 97–102, esp. p. 100. Lester Kuyper argues that changes in the Greek language between the time of the LXX translation and John’s gospel indicate that χάρις began to be preferred over ἔλεος as a translation of ‫ ֶחסֶד‬. See “Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God and its Use in the Johannine Gospel,” Interpretation 18 (1964): 3. 55. Kuyper, “Grace and Truth,” 15–16. For a recent and comprehensive argument that John translated Exod 34:6 independently of the LXX, see Tsutserov, Glory, Grace, and Truth, 55–89. 56. Anthony Hanson rightly notes that John 1:17 does not contrast Moses and Jesus: “he does not mean to say that the Sinai event was inferior or obsolete contrasted with the incarnation of the Word. On the contrary he distinguishes two elements in the Sinai event, the giving of the law and the revelation on the rock.” “John I. 14–18 and Exodus XXXIV,” NTS 23 (1976): 96. Hanson seems to be saying that Jesus embodied the revelation “on the rock” by appropriating Yhwh’s character as proclaimed in Exod 34:6–7. Raymond Brown notes that χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος may literally mean “grace instead of grace,” indicating that the gift of the law through Moses was also an instance of God’s grace. He concludes, “vs. 17 contrasts the enduring love shown in the Law with the supreme example of enduring love shown in Jesus.” The Gospel according to John (i-xii), 16. 57. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 133–34.

Conclusion

197

cluded his prologue with an allusion to Exod 33:20, noting that no one has ever seen God, yet the incarnation of the λόγος made God known (ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο, v. 18). 58 Whereas Moses’s view of Yhwh was sheltered, John announces that the λόγος was the ultimate disclosure of God himself, even surpassing Yhwh’s intimate (onomastic) revelation in the Old Testament. 59

Excursus: Jesus as κύριος Ancient Israelites cherished the divine name and did not hesitate to pronounce or use it. However, various factors in the Postexilic Period led to its suppression. 60 These forces became so dominant by the middle of the Second Temple period that the vast majority of Jews would not pronounce the name ‫יהוה‬. 61 Later Jewish authors even developed interpretations of the biblical text that supported this custom. 62 As a result, the divine name ‫יהוה‬ was preserved in biblical texts even though its vocalization had been lost, and the word ‫ אֲדֹנָי‬was read over the written form. The Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible opted to translate the qere rather than the ketiv, giving rise to the following shifts: ‫ → אֲדֹנָי → יהוה‬κύριος. 63 While κύριος is a common noun with the meaning “lord” or “master,” readers can often discern its function as the surrogate of the Tetragrammaton when it lacks the article. 64 Many have recognized that the application 58. This rare verb is used once to refer to setting forth a narrative (Luke 24:35). In John, it signifies that Jesus gave a full account of the Father, a trustworthy revelation. See Morris, The Gospel according to John, 114–15. 59. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 135. 60. Martin Rose claims that cosmopolitan thinking led many in Israel to view particularism as antiquated. On the other hand, certain scrupulous Jews “over-protected” the divine name by not speaking it at all, so that they did not “take” the name in vain. See “Names of God in the OT,” ABD 4:1010. For further discussion on these issues, see Shaw, The Earliest Non-mystical, 189–90. 61. Ibid., 199. 62. For example, the authors of b. Pesahim 50a and b. Qiddushin 71a observed that ‫לעלם‬ in Exod 3:15 (usually understood as ‫לעֹלָם‬, ְ “forever”) could be understood as ‫“( ְל ַעלֵם‬to conceal”). See also Eccl. Rab. 3:11; Lev 24:16 (LXX), and the discussion above, pp. 59– 60. 63. This point is disputed. LXX scholars debate whether the original LXX rendered ‫ יהוה‬as κύριος, transliterated it as Ιαω, or retained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton as was practiced by some scribes at Qumran. George Howard has even argued that Luke originally wrote ‫ יהוה‬in his quotations of the Septuagint in Luke 1 and 2. See “The Tetragram and the New Testament,” JBL 96 (1977): 63–83; Shaw, The Earliest Non-mystical, 133–65; and Albert Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for The Original Septuagint,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His 65th Birthday, ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude E. Cox (Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1984), 85–101. For a recent and thorough discussion on these ancient sources, see Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton, 45–88. 64. This is shown especially in instances where grammatical rules dictate that the common noun κύριος should be articular. For example, τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου (“The way of [the] Lord”) violates the canon of Apollonius that nouns in a head noun-genitive relationship

198

Chapter 7

of κύριος to Jesus of Nazareth constitutes a bold theological statement. 65 Specifically, the New Testament authors sometimes quoted Old Testament texts where κύριος originally referred to Yhwh, and applied them to Jesus. 66 In other instances, these authors applied anarthrous instances of κύριος as a personal name to Jesus in New Testament contexts. 67 By applying this designator to Jesus, the apostles and New Testament authors perceived theological and ontological continuity between the “Lord” of the Old Testament and the “Lord” of the New Testament. 68 The people of God have symbolized this continuity in their related confessions of faith: “Jesus Christ is Lord” among the Israelites (‫)יהוה הּוא ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬, and “Jesus is Lord” (κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς) among the early Christians. The proclamation of Jesus as Lord did not threaten the strict monotheism of the earliest believers, because they recognized that Jesus fulfilled their eschatological should both have the article. See Carl Judson Davis, The Name and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology, JSNTSup 129; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 90–94. The LXX translators’ treatment of κύριος as if it were a proper name is an example of onymization. See above, pp.  17–18. Nevertheless, scholars continue to debate the significance of Paul’s use of κύριος and the grammatical significance of anarthrous forms of this word. See Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An ExegeticalTheological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 35. 65. See Shirley Jackson Case, “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ as a Title for Christ,” JBL 26 (1907): 151–61; Joseph Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979), 115–32; Rösel, Adonaj, 222–26; Christopher Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke, BZNWKAK 139 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006); and Daniel Johansson, “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark,” JSNT 33 (2010): 101–24. 66. Matthew 3:3 // Mark 1:3 // Luke 3:4 // John 1:23 (quoting Isa 40:3); Matt 4:7 // Luke 4:12 (quoting Deut 6:16); Matt 4:10 // Luke 4:8 (quoting Deut 6:13 and 10:20); Acts 2:21 // Rom 10:13 (quoting Joel 3:5 in different contexts); 1 Cor 1:30? // 2 Cor 10:17? (quoting Jer 9:22–23); 2 Cor 3:16? (quoting Exod 34:34); and Heb 13:6, 8 (quoting Ps 117:6 [LXX]). For a study of Paul’s use of Joel 3:5 in Rom 10:13, see Daniel I. Block, “Who Do Commentators Say ‘the Lord’ Is? The Scandalous Rock of Romans 10:13,” in On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant R. Osborne on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday; ed. S. E. Porter and E. J. Schnabel, TENTS 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 173–92. 67. Representative examples include: Acts 2:36; Rom 10:9; 16:22 (one of many instances of ἐν κυρίῳ); 1 Cor 8:6; 10:21; 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:11; 1 Thess 4:17; 5:2; 1 Pet 3:15; Rev 1:8; etc. Also noteworthy are instances in Acts where the early Christians baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16; 19:5; cf. Acts 19:13, 17, and Col 3:17). 68. Samuel Vollenweider, “‘Der Name, der über jedem anderen ist.’ Jesus als Träger des Gottesnamen im Neuen Testament,” in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 184. Vollenweider also observes this theological continuity in the statement that Jesus inherited a name superior to the angels (Heb 1:4). Early Christians understood the profound meaning of the word “Lord,” and thus appropriated Old Testament texts like Jer 23:6 and 33:16. These assert God’s name as ‫“( יְהוָה ִצ ְדקֵנּו‬The Lord [is] our righteousness”), which speaks to Jesus’ role in justifying sinners. This name was more easily applied to Jesus because in b. Baba Bathra 75b it is said that such would be the name of the Messiah. See Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton, 197.

Conclusion

199

hope that the one true God would be universally acknowledged in his universal rule. 69 Philippians 2:11 presents the central Christian confession of faith as the climax of a hymn proclaiming Christ’s humility. Interestingly, the glories given to Jesus Christ after his death are attached to his name. Samuel Vollenweider rightly notes that the second half of the hymn echoes Isa 45, which contains Yhwh’s repeated claims to be the only God (Isa 45:5, 14, 18, 21, 22). 70 Yhwh’s declaration in Isa 45:23 that all would bow before him and make confession was interpreted by Paul in terms of the one who was given the name above all names: Jesus. Every knee will bow at this name (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ, Phil 2:10), and every tongue will make this theologically loaded claim: κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (“Jesus Christ is [the] Lord”). This universal human ascription would seem to honor Jesus as the bearer of the divine name, yet Paul concludes that humanity’s praise of Jesus as (the) Lord results in glory for God the Father. 71 While the names ‫י ֵשׁוּ ַע‬/Ἰησοῦς and ‫ יהוה‬are not linguistically identical, their bearers were identified through the sense of these names. Jesus acted and spoke as Yhwh had, which correlated their names in their metaphorical and connotational aspect (their characters) rather than their literal aspect (since the names “Jesus” and “Yhwh” cannot be linguistically identified). Unfortunately, the common noun κύριος had eclipsed the divine name ‫ יהוה‬among non-Hebrew speakers by the time of Christ. 72 Fortunately, the personal name “Jesus” effectively took its place. This “new” name has come to have the same significance for Christians as did ‫ יהוה‬for the ancient Israelites, which extends the possibility of personal relationship with the one true God. 73 69. Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 27. 70. Vollenweider, “Der Name, der über jedem anderen ist,” 180–84. 71. Christopher Seitz recognizes the paradox: “The identification is two-way, of Jesus with Yhwh and of Yhwh with Jesus. The hymn concludes, however, that this identification of Jesus with Yhwh is ‘to the glory of God the Father.’” “Handing Over the Name,” 143. 72. Kendall Soulen rightly notes that the Tetragrammaton does not occur explicitly in the New Testament, yet there are many subtle allusions to the diving name in it. See The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, 8–14. The four instances of ἁλληλουϊά in Rev 19:1–6 contain one such subtle reference. The final two letters ϊά, marked by a dieresis and an accent mark, indicate that the shortened form ‫ יָּה‬has been transliterated in this doxology. After the devastating judgment of Babylon, a great crowd in heaven praises God for his actions, structuring their proclamation around the word ἁλληλουϊά. The object of their praise is God the Father––the Lamb is mentioned distinct from the Father later in the song (v. 7). While this text does not apply this shortened divine name to Jesus, it does suggest that the Tetragrammaton has a certain role for the church in its use of the phrase “Hallelu-Yah.” 73. Walther Eichrodt has expressed this well: “Because the name of Jesus always confronts men’s consciousness with a sharply delineated historical person, it is in the

Chapter 7

200

Implications for Systematic Theology Same Reflections, Different Texts Biblical scholars and theologians often study Exod 3:14 apart from the form of explicit naming wordplays and the broader narrative context, thus imposing on it a foreign theological significance. Specifically, the biblicaltheological tradition has engaged in a profound discussion about God’s nature from Exod 3:14, even though the original Hebrew text does not warrant this. 74 This situation illustrates the impasse that may arise between biblical scholars who argue for an original, historical meaning and theologians who may adopt a different meaning in their discussions. Ideally, theologians will adjust their conversations by attending to the observations of biblical scholars as a way to circumscribe what they can and cannot say about God. Similarly, biblical scholars should listen to theologians about how best to read Scripture and how to structure their conclusions coherently in ways that address modern concerns. 75 This study offers theologians significant aid because of its sensitivity to the genre of the book of Exodus and to the claims the narrative makes about the sense of the divine name. 76 Theologians should not base their assertions about God’s aseity, eternality, freedom, and ontology on Exod 3:13–15. 77 While the Greek translation of Exod 3:14 encourages such reflections, it has sacrificed attention to the form and genre of the text in the interest of an abstract, ontological statement. 78 Instead of appealing to Exod 3:13–15 as grounds for their assertions, theologians may find that the phrase ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ (ἐγὼ εἰμί) in Deut 32:29 and Isa 40–52 serves this purpose better. These texts are more appropriate for applying theology proper to today’s pluralistic world than Exod 3:13–15, because in them Yhwh’s asserts his supremacy over other so-called gods. person of Jesus that the function of the Name of Yahweh as a form of the divine selfmanifestation finds its fulfillment.” See Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 2:45. 74. For an overview of such interpretations, see Gericke, “Philosophical Interpretations of Exodus 3:14,” 125–36. 75. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology: A Proposal, Facets (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 74. 76. Kevin Vanhoozer asserts that biblical and systematic theologians are more likely to influence one another if they both attend to the literary forms of the Bible. See “From Canon to Concept,” 120. 77. Nevertheless, theologians commonly appeal to this text in such discussions. See, for example, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 1:359–70; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, rev ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 41–46; and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 161–62. 78. Revelation 1:4 does apply this nascent philosophical idea to Jesus Christ, offering theologians a more satisfying statement of God’s eternality and transcendence over time than Exod 3:14 alone can afford. Nevertheless, these two texts can be read together to make a progressively powerful statement of God’s character within the OT and NT.

Conclusion

201

Furthermore, Exod 34:6–7 merits further theological study and application to today’s context. Some have recognized the importance of this proclamation for Christian theology and practice, 79 but many have proclaimed central theological truths about God’s character without grounding their claims on this significant source text. When Yhwh made sense of his name at Sinai, he laid a deep and wide foundation from which magnificent theological structures may be built. The Divine Names Tradition Earlier, I noted that the philosopher Chrysippus was the first to distinguish a proper name (ὂνομα) from a common noun (προσηγορία). While later grammarians accepted his distinction, many of his contemporaries did not, and the word ὂνομα often retained its reference to language in general. Platonic philosophers adopted this latter definition, and the Christian theological tradition followed suit. 80 Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite exemplifies this broad understanding of the word in his famous treatise, The Divine Names. 81 For example, Dionysius asserted that the name [read “epithet”] “Good” describes God’s goodness that separates him from all of creation. 82 An important, but ironic, tenet of this theological approach is that, though believers use many words, phrases, and sentences to describe God, he is truly described by none of them. Dionysius assumed the traditional understanding of the word “name,” which has firmly established itself in theological discourse. Many today claim that “divine names” refer to any language about God (for example, metaphors, images, and confessions). 83 Alongside this tradition arose a Jewish (Kabbalistic) tradition that asserted the unique place of the Tetragrammaton above all divine designators. The Kabbalist Joseph Gikatila argued that the entire Torah was an explication of the name “Yhwh.” He argued that the Torah is a fabric woven from appellatives (‫כּנּוּיִים‬, ִ that is, “compassionate,” “great,” merciful,” and so on), which in turn are woven from various names (‫שֵׁמות‬, that is, ʾel, ʾelohim, shaddai, and so on). But these designators are all dependent on the only true name, ‫יהוה‬. 84 79. For example, Knowles, Unfolding Mystery. 80. Soulen, The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, 16. 81. C. E. Rolt, trans., Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Name and the Mystical Theology, TCLGT 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1920), 3. Soulen calls this work “the most influential Christian treatise on the subject ever written.” See The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, 16. 82. Rolt, Dionysius the Areopagite, 86. Dionysius’ favorite pronoun for God is “It,” which likely refers to the “Super-Essence” of God, a neuter noun in Greek. 83. For example, see Janet Martin Soskice, “Naming God: A Study in Faith and Reason,” in Reason and the Reasons of Faith, ed. Paul J. Griffiths and Reinhard Hütter (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 241–54. 84. Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, trans. Ralph Manheim (New York: Schocken, 1965), 42–43.

202

Chapter 7

Christian theology may benefit from this Jewish emphasis on the divine personal name, because it grounds all language about God on a word that refers to him consistently and exclusively. 85 In arguing this, the Kabbalists were following the trajectory of the Hebrew Bible––‫ יהוה‬became the peg on which hung all the epithets, common nouns, and theological statements predicated of Israel’s God. Without these descriptive statements (‫ִכּנּוּיִים‬ in the Jewish sense), Yhwh would remain unknown; 86 without the divine name, the descriptions could be misapplied. Divine epithets and the exclusive divine name are necessary for a true representation of God’s character. God’s exclusive personal name affirms the fundamental fact of revelation. Even though this name does not communicate “meaning” the first time it appears (Gen 2:4), readers of the biblical narrative are invited to apprehend God’s onomastic portrait as they read. The book of Exodus makes clear that God took the initiative to reveal a name to which his people could attach their understanding of his character. 87 God’s exclusive personal name also highlights his exclusivity. Opaque personal names are untranslatable in every language. But the loss of the vocalization of the Tetragrammaton and its rendering as a common noun tragically prevented many from understanding this important religious reality. 88 The New Testament, however, brought about a remarkable theological 85. Soulen notes that Thomas Aquinas learned of the Tetragrammaton in his lifetime, recognizing its special status as the one name that referred exclusively to God. Thomas referred to this divine personal name very briefly, but later authors did not recognize its importance at all. The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, 79. See ST 1.13.9 and 1.13.11. Soulen points out that Thomas may have learned of the Tetragrammaton from Moses Maimonides. See The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 1.61–64, pp. 147–57. 86. The modern Jewish interpreter Samuel Cohon agrees, noting that divine epithets are “indispensable [sic] designations of the personality of the Divine and . . . compact attributes of His nature.” “The Name of God: A Study in Rabbinic Theology,” HUCA 23 (1950): 582. 87. Socrates did not even venture to speak of the gods’ true nature, but only of the people who first gave them their names. He assumed that the gods used true names of themselves, but did not or could not reveal such names to mankind. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, eds., The Collected Dialogues of Plato (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), 438, 460. 88. Wout Jac. van Bekkum notes that while the Jewish people substituted “Yhwh” with “Lord” out of reverence, their later works (especially the Midrashim) reflect “a conspicuous shift to the concept of God’s lordship or sovereignty as the most important aspect of his being.” See “What’s in the Divine Name?” 12. This shift carries with it the religious danger that God could be viewed as excessively domineering or transcendent because the meaning of the epithet “lord” restricts its reference, while the proper name “Yhwh” contains all the ascriptions made to it throughout the Bible. Perhaps this danger is seen in Midrash Tehillim 91:8 which suggests that Israel’s prayers are not answered in this age because they do not know the ineffable name (‫)שם המפרש‬. See Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton, 186.

Conclusion

203

revolution: during a time when the divine name ‫ יהוה‬was being avoided, the personal name “Jesus” began to take over its functions. 89 This name was intentionally given to the incarnate deity to recover the function of the original Hebrew name (Phil 2:11). The beauty of this “new” divine personal name is its particularity: it refers to the same person in every instance. Knowing this name safeguards the true God’s exclusivity in a world filled with “many gods” and “many lords.” 89. The advantage of the ‫יהוה‬-to-κύριος shift is that the title “Lord” is applied to Yhwh in the Old Testament, and to Jesus in the New Testament. Christians benefit from the theological continuity that is seen, for example, when they read of the psalmists who cried out to “the Lord” for salvation. However, Christian readers of the Old Testament are also at a disadvantage because they often overlook the personal name of the God of Israel, which may increase their perception that the “God of the Old Testament” was impersonal and aloof.

Appendix 1

Divine Designators in the Book of Genesis Proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis have a clear explanation for the mixture of divine designators in the Pentateuch. 1 However, some have failed to consider the approach of those who argue seriously for the narrative coherence of the whole despite the variety of terms for God. 2 The conservative Israeli scholars Moshe David (Umberto) Cassuto and Moshe Zvi (Moshe Hirsch) Segal have made significant progress in thinking through this issue, though their work is often marginalized. As mentioned in the introduction, the intent of this discussion is not to refute the Documentary Hypothesis, but to offer warrant for reading the books of Genesis and Exodus holistically. Cassuto’s study of divine designators rose out of his debate with European scholars of the Pentateuch. In The Book of Genesis and its Structure (‫)ספר בראשית ומבנהו‬, he focused solely on interpretive problems in Genesis, championing its authorial unity. Writing in the 1930s, Cassuto opposed the Documentary Hypothesis in its classic form. His discussion of divine names challenged Jean Astruc’s classic study that viewed different divine designators as signals of different literary sources. 3 Cassuto strongly disagreed with any interpretive scheme that did not read the Genesis narrative holistically. His book begins with a 75-page discussion of divine designators, in which he concludes that he was able to explain the appearance of two dif1. As mentioned above, p.  17 n. 87, I use the term “designators” to avoid making preemptive decisions as to whether a word describing God is a personal name or not. 2. Those who have challenged the Documentary Hypothesis on the basis of divine designators, such as Cassuto and Segal, must recognize that the criterion of differing divine “names” was only a central tenet of the Documentary Hypothesis in its earliest forms. Such challenges do not affect the more sophisticated, refined, and comprehensive claims of its modern proponents. See above, p. 24 n. 115. I include discussion of these two scholars not because they have effectively refuted the Documentary Hypothesis, but because their insights are helpful for modern Pentateuchal studies. 3. This book was written in Italian in the 1930s and only translated into Hebrew in 1990. The Hebrew version incorporates marginal notes Cassuto made later into an appendix. For a summary of Cassuto’s views, see The Documentary Hypothesis (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Central, 1961). For a distilled discussion, see “God (Hebrew),” EB 1:313–20.

204

Divine Designators in the Book of Genesis

205

ferent proper names in the Torah (‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬and ‫ )יהוה‬as the conscious choice of a single author. Cassuto argued that the biblical authors’ use of divine designators was determined by genre. Thus, Israelite wisdom literature used ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬only as a proper name. These books (Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes) reflected international concerns, as did the larger stream of ancient Near Eastern wisdom writings. Offering Egyptian, Akkadian, and Aramaic parallels, he explained the reticence of Israelite wisdom literature to mention the personal names of any gods. 4 Cassuto argued that the wisdom literature influenced other poems in the Hebrew Bible, such as the prophecy of Balaam and the “Elohistic Psalter,” because they use ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬similarly. 5 However, the prophetic, legal, and poetic literature employ only ‫ יהוה‬as a proper name. 6 Cassuto recognized that narrative literature comprises a unique category because it contains a curious mixture of ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬and ‫ יהוה‬as proper names. Cassuto developed specific criteria that determined a biblical author’s choice of ‫ יהוה‬or ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬when writing the Genesis narrative. The author used the name ‫ יהוה‬when he wanted to emphasize the national, Israelite conception of the Deity, which included the special ethical nature of God. The name ‫ יהוה‬also emphasized the immediate and intuitive presence of God, and as such was preferred by the prophets. This proper name referred to the Deity most precisely, emphasized his glory and honor, highlighted his personal and direct relationship with human beings, and related him to any Israelite national-ethical matter. On the other hand, biblical authors chose the designator ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬to express the international “wisdom” understanding of the Deity as a power who created the world, guided its history, and was the source of all life. It referred broadly to the concept of God and was preferred by the philosophically inclined. It also drew attention to the obscure and blurry elements of the Deity and highlighted his transcendence over all creatures and his universal lordship over all peoples. Thus, an author might use this designator when speaking of mundane matters that pertained to all people everywhere. 7 M. Z. Segal conducted a similar study of divine designators outside the Torah. Unlike Cassuto, Segal claimed that scholars cannot discern objective factors that explain the biblical author’s choice of one designator over another. He emphasized that biblical authors chose one word over another 4. Cassuto thought that the original form of Proverbs was also devoid of the divine personal name, but that later Yahwists added the name to make it more prominent. He points to the diversity of titles in the “foreign” poems at the end of the book as proof of its original form. The Book of Genesis and its Structure (Hebrew) (trans. M. E. Artom; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 20, 23–24. 5. Cassuto set forth the minority view that the Elohistic psalms were influenced by wisdom thinking, and that they contained ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬originally. 6. Ibid., 21–23, 30–31. 7. Ibid., 32.

206

Appendix 1

according to unconscious, psychological reasons, and any effort to discover and circumscribe these reasons would be futile. 8 Segal noted that many designators for human beings in the narrative accounts outside the Torah switch between name and titles (or a combination of both) for no apparent reason. For example, in 2 Sam 16–20, the leader of Israel is variously designated as “David,” “the king,” and “King David.” In 1 Kgs 3:16–28, David’s son is called “the king” exclusively, but in the Queen of Sheba passage (1 Kgs 10:1–13), he is called “Solomon,” “the king,” and “King Solomon.” 9 After offering further examples from books outside the Torah, Segal concluded: There is before us a fixed and regular phenomenon of the Bible’s narrative style from all generations and eras to use variations. In one instance, [it is] the proper name of a person, and [then] the common noun of the same person, and [then] with a compound of the proper name and the common [noun] together. 10

Segal also defended the unusual onomastic situation in Genesis. He noted that the first book of the Bible uses ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬more frequently than ‫יהוה‬, and that ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬appears exclusively in some of its stories. The opposite is true in the rest of the biblical books. Rather than argue for a literary source made up of Elohistic narratives, Segal shows that the narrative use of ‫אֱל ִֹהים‬ in the Torah is not anomalous. He points to the story of Gideon’s fleece in Judg 6:36–40 and the Abimelech story in Judg 9 as two narratives outside the Pentateuch that also contain the name ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬exclusively. 11 Segal argued that only those entirely devoted to Yhwh would have spoken his name regularly. Others would have preferred the generic term ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬because they were influenced by their polytheistic neighbors or their own syncretistic worship. In Segal’s view, the book of Genesis reports the earliest moments of Israel’s history, and its narratives accurately preserve the actions, speech, and faith of its characters. 12 Exclusive devotion to Yhwh was rare in this era, which was reflected by the restrained use of the divine name. However, as the biblical story unfolded, the use of ‫ יהוה‬increased and the use of ‫אֱל ִֹהים‬ decreased. This may indicate the gradual triumph of Yahwism, or at least of stories that pertain to those who feared and spoke the name of Yhwh. 13 These scholars’ works are creative and well researched but are generally rejected and dismissed. Cassuto’s emphasis on genre was ahead of his 8. M. Z. Segal, “The Names Yhwh and Elohim in the Books of the Bible (Hebrew),” Tarbiz 9 (1937): 127. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., 128. 11. Ibid., 160. 12. Ibid., 162. 13. Segal acknowledges that certain “Elohistic” (‫ )אלהיים‬literary sources within the Bible represent exceptions to this general trend (the “Elohistic Psalter,” Ecclesiastes, the dialogues of Job, and certain adaptions of earlier sources in Chronicles).

Divine Designators in the Book of Genesis

207

time. 14 It is significant for Old Testament theology that God is referred to differently in narrative, prophetic, and wisdom literature. To read the Bible without making this generic distinction flattens one’s understanding of the one called Yhwh who is described by various terms. However, Cassuto’s list of reasons one designator was chosen over another often seems strained. The use of ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬in Genesis defy categorization and cannot be analyzed as Cassuto’s model suggests. 15 Therefore, though both scholars agreed that a single author could employ different divine designators for different reasons, Segal’s reasons remain the most helpful and convincing. 16 Though writing decades after Cassuto and Segal, Nisan Ararat addresses similar concerns in the book of Exodus. Taking Exod. Rab. 3:6 as his base, he argues that the “name” ‫ אֱל ִֹהים‬describes God in his character trait of justice, while ‫ יהוה‬describes God in his character trait of mercy (as Exod 34:6 shows). Ararat labors to show that every main narrative section of Exodus consistently employs these designators according to these criteria. As with Cassuto, Ararat is very thorough and grounded on ancient sources, but a dichotomy of this sort cannot hold in every instance, and some of Ararat’s examples appear quite forced. 17 14. Kevin J. Vanhoozer has noted that “biblical theology . . . seeks to interpret the canonical forms on their own generic terms.” Divine designators are one of the neglected “canonical forms” that should be considered according to their genre and not in isolation from it. “From Canon to Concept,” 111–12. 15. R. N. Whybray claims that the biblical authors likely made unconscious variations in their use of divine designators. He quotes Segal’s work approvingly. The Making of the Pentateuch, 71–72. 16. Hannah Michaelowitz has also summarized the views of these two scholars. She believes that the name “Yhwh” was known to the patriarchs, but that “it did not fill the same role in their lives for which it was appointed in the period after Moses.” Michaelo­ witz also concludes that Segal’s approach is more helpful for understanding the different divine designators in the Torah. “The Divine Names Yhwh and Elohim (Hebrew),” BM 13 (1967): 73–101, esp. pp. 88–97, as quoted on p. 101. 17. See “The Name of God ( Justice),” 153–75.

Appendix 2

Avoiding the Names of Foreign Gods in Israel The tenacious monotheism of the biblical authors/editors is shown by the Hebrew Bible’s tendency to obscure the personal names of other “gods.” This surprising editorial/compositional practice may have arisen from a literal adherence to the prohibition against mentioning the name(s) of other gods (Exod 23:13). 1 Certain texts introduce words that do not resemble the form of any known ancient Near Eastern divine names (e.g., ‫ִסר ְֹך‬ ְ‫נ‬ in 2 Kgs 19:37 // Isa 37:38, 2 ‫ ִסּכּות‬and ‫ ִכּּיּון‬in Amos 5:25–27, 3 ‫ סֻּכֹות ְבּנֹות‬and ִׁ ‫ א‬in 2 Kgs 17:30, 4 etc.). In these instances, the biblical author may have ‫ֲשימָא‬ intentionally corrupted an existing divine name to obscure its reference. 5 Similarly, certain theophoric names with a Baal element (‫ֶש ָבּעַל‬ ְׁ ‫א‬, 1 Chr 9:39) were replaced with bošet, “shame,” in other contexts (‫ּשת‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫איׁש־ב‬, ִ 2 Sam 2:12). 6 This deliberate removal of foreign divine names is not comprehensive in the Hebrew Bible, 7 but the instances noted above do show that such sentiment existed among some Israelites. Biblical authors also obscured the identity of foreign gods when they used their personal names as common nouns (‫אֵל‬, ‫ ַבּעַל‬, ‫ֶשׁף‬ ֶ ‫ר‬, ‫דּגָן‬, ָ and so on). 8 1. See above, p. 118, for my comments on this verse. 2. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor admit that no divinity in Mesopotamia bore the name ‫ִסר ְֹך‬ ְ ‫נ‬. They claim that this form may have been an “intentional alteration” of “Marduk” or “Nusku.” See II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988), 239. Second Chronicles 32:31 removes the corrupted proper name entirely, claiming that Sennacherib was struck in ‫ ֵבּית אֱלֹהָיו‬. 3. Shalom Paul has found names of astral deities that partially resemble these Hebrew terms, but he claims that Amos made a “parody” of these gods by vocalizing their names on the pattern of ‫שׁקּוּץ‬ ִ (“detestable thing”). See Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 196. 4. See Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 211–12. 5. Admittedly, our evidence of ancient Near Eastern divine names is too scant to make firm conclusions on this point. ְ ‫ מֺל‬used to identify the 6. This re-vocalization phenomenon may explain the form ‫ֶך‬ Ammonite god in 2 Kgs 23:10. 7. Isaiah 46:1 (‫ ֵבּל‬, ‫)נְבֹו‬, 2 Kgs 5:18 (‫)רּמֹון‬, ִ 17:30 (‫)נ ְֵרגַל‬, 17:31 (‫ִבחַז‬ ְ ‫נ‬, ‫ )תַ ְּר ָּתק‬and 23:13 (‫ֲש ָרה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ )א‬use divine names in forms that can readily be identified with ancient Near Eastern gods. 8. This “de-mythologizing” rhetoric is seen clearly in Deut 7:13–14 and 32:23–25. Here Moses speaks of the blessing and curses that follow Israel based on their obedience

208

Avoiding the Names of Foreign Gods in Israel

209

They accomplished this by adding an article to these words, because personal names in Biblical Hebrew do not take the definite article. 9 In 1 Kgs 18 (the contest with the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel), an article always accompanies the “name” of the pagan god (‫בעַל‬ ּ ַ ‫ ַה‬, 18:19, 21, 22, 25, 26 [2×], 40; see also the plural form ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫ַבע‬ ּ ְ ‫ ה‬in v. 18 and the circumlocution ‫אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬ in v. 24). 10 David’s use of ‫ ָהאֵל‬in 2 Sam 22:31, 33, and 48 may reflect this same tendency. 11 Thus, ironically, by adding the article to a word the author depersonalized the gods (e.g., “Baal,” “El”) by placing them in a generic category (“the master,” “god”). ְׁ ‫( ע‬7:13), ָ‫דָגנְך‬ ּ ְ (7:13), and ‫ֶשף‬ or disobedience. The use of words such as ָ‫ַש ְתּרֹת צֹאנֶך‬ ֶׁ ‫( ר‬32:24) allude to the gods that bore these names while suggesting that Yhwh was the sovereign king over all these elements. This language subtly polemicizes against what the Israelites knew of these gods. See Block, “Other Religions,” 208–13. 9. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11, 5–8. 10. The Hebrew Bible almost always designates Baal using the definite article. See Judg 2:13; 6:28; 1 Kgs 16:32; 2 Kgs 3:2; 11:18; Jer 7:9; Hos 2:10; 2 Chr 23:17, etc. See also the use of ‫ֲשרָה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ָהא‬in Judg 6:25; 1 Kgs 15:13, and 2 Kgs 13:6. 11. Contra Daniel I. Block, “God,” DOTHB, 340.

Bibliography Aaron, David H. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics, and Divine Imagery. BRLAJ 4. Leiden: Brill, 2001.    .  Etched in Stone: The Emergence of the Decalogue. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Abba, R. “Name.” Pages 500–8 in vol. 3 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon, 1962.    .  “The Divine Name Yahweh.” JBL 80 (1961): 320–28. Achenbach, Reinhard. “‘Ich bin, der ich bin!’ (Exodus 3,14): Zum Wandel der Gottesvorstellungen in der Geschichte Israels und zur theologischen Bedeutung seiner Kanonisierung im Pentateuch.” Pages 73–95 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Rainer Albertz, Ingo Kottsieper, Rüdiger Schmitt, and Jacob Wöhrle. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 350. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008. Ackroyd, P., and A. Wouters. “On the Origins of the Participle as a Part of Speech.” ASTHLSS 112 (2007): 50–66. Ahituv, Shmuel. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta, 2008.    .  “The Face of Yhwh (Hebrew).” Pages 1–11 in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Albrektson, B. “On the Syntax of ‫ אהיה אשר אהיה‬in Exodus 3:14.” Pages 15–28 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Albright, W. F. “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology.” JBL 43 (1924): 363–93.    .  “The Names Shaddai and Abram.” JBL 54 (1935): 173–93. Alfrink, Bern. “La Prononciation ‘Jehovah’ du Tétragramme.” Pages 43–62 in Oudtestamentische Studiën. Edited by P. A. H. de Boer. OS 5. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Algeo, John. On Defining the Proper Name. UFHM 41. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1973. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20–48. WBC 29. Dallas, TX: Word, 1990. Allen, W. Sidney. Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Alt, Albrecht. “Ein ägyptisches Gegenstück zu Ex 3 14.” ZAW 58 (1940): 159–60. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Alvarez-Altman, Grace. “A Methodology for Literary Onomastics: An Analytical Guide for Studying Names in Literature.” Pages 1–9 in Names in Literature: Essays from Literary Onomastics Studies. Edited by Grace Alvarez-Altman and Frederick M. Burelbach. New York: University Press of America, 1987. Alvarez-Altman, Grace, and Frederick M. Burelbach, eds. Names in Literature: Essays from Literary Onomastics Studies. New York: University Press of America, 1987. Andersen, Francis I. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. JBLMS 14. New York: Abingdon, 1970.

210

Bibliography

211

Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. New York: Doubleday, 1980. Anderson, Gary A. Sin: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Anderson, John Edward. Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and Yhwh’s Fidelity to the Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle. Siphrut 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Antin, P., ed. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I, 1. CCSL 72. Rome: Brepols, 1959. Ararat, Nisan. “The Name of God ( Justice) and the Name of Yhwh (Mercy) in the Book of Exodus (Hebrew).” BM 34 (1988): 153–75. Arnold, William R. “The Divine Name in Exodus iii 14.” JBL 24 (1905): 107–65. Astruc, Jean. Conjectures sur les memoires originaux Dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genese: avec des Remarques qui appuient ou qui éclaircissent ces Conjectures. chez Friex: Bruxelles, 1753. Repr., Edited by Pierre Gibert. CHR. Paris: Noêsis, 1999. Auffret, Pierre. “Remarks on J. Magonet’s Interpretation of Exodus 6.2–8.” JSOT 27 (1983): 69–71.    .  “The Literary Structure of Exodus 6.2–8.” JSOT 27 (1983): 46–54. Aurelius, Erik. Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. CB 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Axelsson, Lars Eric. The Lord Rose up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and Southern Judah. CB 25. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987. Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Baker, Heather D., ed. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Volume 2, Part I, Ḫ–K. NATCP. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2000. Bar-Efrat, Shimeon. The Art of the Biblical Story (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: ha-Mador le-sifre limud, 1979. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “They Shall Put My Name upon the People of Israel (Hebrew).” HUCA 60 (1989): 19–41. Barkay, Gabriel, Andrew G. Vaughn, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and Bruce Zuckerman. “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation.” BASOR 334 (2004): 41–71. Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.    .  The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.    .  “The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament.” BJRL 52 (1969): 11–29. Bartelmus, Rüdiger. HYH: Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen “Allerweltswortes.” St. Ottilien: EOS, 1982. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996.    .  The Nature of Biblical Criticism. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Barur, A. Y. “The Name Yah in the Bible and the Earliest Translations (Hebrew).” Beth Mikra 18 (1973): 192–7. Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Baudissin, W. W. Graf von. Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte. Leipzig: Wilhelm Grunow, 1876.

212

Bibliography

Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon: 556 – 539 B.C. YNER 10. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. Beckman, Gary. “A Contribution to Hittite Onomastic Studies.” JAOS 103 (1983): 623–7. Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Beitzel, Barry J. “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia.” TJ 1 (1980): 5–20. Bekkum, Wout Jac van. “What’s in the Divine Name? Exodus 3 in Biblical and Rabbinic Tradition.” Pages 3–15 in The Revelation of the Name Yhwh to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity. Edited by Geurt Hendrik van Kooten. Themes in Biblical Narrative 9. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Benz, Frank L. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Studia Pohl 8. Rome: PontificalBiblical Institute, 1972. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Rev ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Besnard, A. M. Le mystère du Nom: Quiconque invoquera le nom du Seigneur sera sauve. Lectio Divina 35. Paris: du Cerf, 1962. Billings, Rachel M. “The Problem of the Divine Presence: Source-Critical Suggestions for the Analysis of Exodus xxxiii 12–23.” VT 54 (2004): 427–44. Bin-Nun, Joel. “Active Being and Existence in the Bible: Linguistic Interpretation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew).” Megadim 5 (1987): 7–23. Blackburn, W. Ross. The God Who Makes Himself Known: The Missionary Heart of the Book of Exodus. NSBT 28. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.    .  For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.    .  “How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4–5.” Pages 73–97 in How I Love your Torah, O Lord! Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.    .  “God.” Pages 336–55 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005.    .  “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel.” Pages 33–102 in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Edited by Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.    .  “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology.” Pages 200–236 in The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.    .  “Preaching Old Testament Apocalyptic to a New Testament Church.” CTJ 41 (2006): 17–52.    .  Ruth: The King Is Coming. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.    .  The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Bibliography

213

   .  “The Foundations of National Identity: A Study in Ancient Northwest Semitic Perceptions.” Ph.D. diss., University of Liverpool, 1981.    .  “The God Ezekiel Wants us to Meet.” Pages 44–72 in By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013.    .  The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.    .  “Who Do Commentators Say ‘the Lord’ Is? The Scandalous Rock of Romans 10:13.” Pages 173–92 in On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant R. Osborne on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Edited by S. E. Porter and E. J. Schnabel. TENTS 8. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Blum, Erhard. “Der vermeintliche Gottesname ‘Elohim.’” Pages 97–119 in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name. Edited by Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger. Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.    .  Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Siphrut 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.    .  Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 277. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Bohak, Gideon. “The Impact of Jewish Monotheism on the Greco-Roman World.” JSQ 7 (2000): 1–21. Boulluec, Alain le, ed. Clément D’Alexandrie: Les Stromates, Stromate V, Tome II, Commentaire, Bibliographie et Index. SC 279. Paris: du Cerf, 1981. Botterweck, G. J., H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–. Boyd, Steven W. “A Synchronic Analysis of the Medio-Passive-Reflexive in Biblical Hebrew.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1993. Brichto, H. C. “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry.” HUCA 54 (1983): 1–44. Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Boston: Houghton & Mifflin, 1906. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John (i-xii): A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 29. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, and Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Buber, Martin. Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant. New York: Harper, 1958. Buber, Martin, and Franz Rosenzweig. “On Word Choice in Translating the Bible: In Memoriam Franz Rosenzweig.” Pages 73–89 in Scripture and Translation. Translated by Lawrence Rosenwald and Everett Fox. ISBL. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Cardauns, Burkhart, ed. M. Terentius Varro: Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum, vol. 1: Die Fragmente. AWL. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

214

Bibliography

Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Case, Shirley Jackson. “ΚΥΡΙΟΣ as a Title for Christ.” JBL 26 (1907): 151–61. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967.    .  A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Adam to Noah Genesis I–VI 8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989.    .  “God (Hebrew).” Cols. 297–321 in vol. 1 of Encyclopaedia Biblica. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950.    .  The Book of Genesis and Its Structure (Hebrew). Translated by M. E. Artom. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990.    .  The Documentary Hypothesis. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Central, 1961. Cathcart, Kevin J. Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic. BibOr 26. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973. Chadwick, Henry, trans. Origen: Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology: A Proposal. Facets. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.    .  Memory and Tradition in Israel. Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson, 1962.    .  The Book of Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Civil, Miguel. “Enlil and Namzitarra.” AfO 25 (1974): 65–71. Clark, Gordon R. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 157. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Coates, Richard. “Properhood.” Language 82 (2006): 356–82.    .  “Singular Definite Expressions with a Unique Denotatum and the Limits of Properhood.” Linguistics 38 (2000): 1161–74. Coats, George W. Exodus 1–18. FOTL IIA. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Cody, Aelred. “When Is the Chosen People Called a Gôy?” VT 14 (1964): 1–6. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Cohon, Samuel S. “The Name of God: A Study in Rabbinic Theology.” HUCA 23 (1950): 579–604. Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.    .  Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. Forms of Old Testament Literature 20. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Colson, F. H., trans. Philo. 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953–94. Cosaert, Carl P. The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria. NTGF 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Cotterell, Peter. “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics, and Discourse Analysis.” Pages 131–57 in A Guide to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: The Introductory Articles­from the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989. Cowley, A. E. “A Passage in the Mesha Inscription and the Early Form of the Israelitish Divine Name.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2 (April, 1920): 175–84.    .  Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Bibliography

215

Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Davies, Graham I. “The Exegesis of the Divine Name in Exodus.” Pages 139–56 in The God of Israel. Edited by R. P. Gordon. UCOP 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Davies, Philip R. The Origins of Biblical Israel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 485. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Davis, Carl Judson. The Name and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology. JSNTSup 129. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient Near East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachman. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Delekat, Lienhard. “Yáho-Yahwáe und die alttestamentliche Gottesnamenkorrekturen.” Pages 23–75 in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Jeremias Gert, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Dempster, Stephen. “Canons on the Right and Canons of the Left: Finding a Resolution in the Canon Debate.” JETS 52 (2009): 47–77. Dindorf, Wilhelm, ed. Clementis Alexandrini Opera, Vol III. Stromatum V–VIII. Scripta Minora. Fragmenta. London: Macmillan, 1869. Dozeman, Thomas B. “The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis.” Pages 107–29 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Dozeman, Thomas B., and Konrad Schmid, eds. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Driver, G. R. “The Original Form of the Name ‘Yahweh’: Evidence and Conclusions.” ZAW 46 (1928): 7–25. Driver, S. R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Dyk, P. J. van. “The Function of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives.” ZAW 102 (1990): 19–33. Edwards, James R. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Eerdmans, B. D. “The Name Jahu.” Pages 1–29 in Oudtestamentiche Studiën. Edited by P. A. H. de Boer. OS 5. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Eissfeldt, Otto. “Äheyäh ʾašär ʾaheyäh ʾĒl ôlam.” FF 39 (1965): 298–300. Elssner, Thomas R. Das Namensmissbrauch-Verbot (Ex 20,7/Dtn 5,11): Bedeutung, Entstehung und frühe Wirkungsgeschichte. ETS 75. Leipzig: Benno, 1999. Enns, Peter. Exodus. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Erickson, Richard John. “Biblical Semantics, Semantic Structure, and Biblical Lexicology: A Study of Methods, with Special Reference to the Pauline Lexical Field of ‘Cognition.’” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1980.

216

Bibliography

Eslinger, L. M. “Knowing Yahweh: Exodus 6:3 in the Context of Genesis 1–Exodus 15.” Pages 188–99 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Evans, John Frederick. “An Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Intertextual Reading of Ezekiel’s Recognition Formulae with the Book of Exodus.” Ph.D. diss., University of Stellenbosch, 2006. Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Fichtner, J. “Die etymologische Ätiologie in den Namengebung der geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments.” VT 6 (1956): 372–96. Fields, F., ed. Origenis Hexapla, Volume 1, Prolegomena. Genesis–Esther. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fitzmyer, Joseph. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979. Floss, Johannes P. “‘Ich bin mein Name’: Die Identität von Gottes Ich und Gottes Namen nach Ex 3,14.” Pages 67–80 in Text, Methode und Grammatik. Edited by W. Gross, H. Irsigler, and T. Siedl. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1991. Flusser, David. Jesus (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001. Follingstad, Carl Martin. Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle ‫כי‬. Dallas: SIL International, 2001. Ford, William A. God, Pharaoh, and Moses: Explaining the Lord’s Actions in the Exodus Plagues Narrative. PBM. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. Fortan, Bezalel. “Name, Proper Names in Israel (Hebrew).” Cols. 29–51 in vol. 7 of Encyclopaedia Biblica, 29–51. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1982. Foster, Benjamin R. From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1995. Fowler, Jeaneane D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study. JSOTSup 49. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Franz, Matthias. Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34,6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. BWANT 160. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Freedman, David Noel. “The Name of the God of Moses.” JBL 79 (1960): 151–56.    .  “The Original Name of Jacob.” IEJ 13 (1963): 125–26.    .  “The Real Formal Full Personal Name of the God of Israel.” Pages 81–89 in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Shawna Dolansky. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1991. Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. Ganschinietz, Richard. “Iao.” Pages 698–712 in vol. 9, part 1 of Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by Georg Wissowa and Wilhelm Kroll. 49 vols. Munich: Druckenmüller, 1980. Garr, W. Randall. “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3.” JBL 111 (1992): 385–408.

Bibliography

217

Garrett, Duane. Re-thinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. Garsiel, Moshe. Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Name Derivations and Puns. Rev. ed. Translated by Phyllis Hackett. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992. Gelb, I. J. Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite. Assyriological Studies 21. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1980.    .  “The Name of Babylon.” JIAS 1 (1955): 1–4. Gericke, J. W. “Philosophical Interpretations of Exodus 3:14–A Brief Historical Oveview.” Journal of Semitics 21 (2012): 125–36. Gianotti, Charles. “The Meaning of the Divine Name Yhwh.” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (1985): 38–51. Gibson, Arthur. Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis. BibSem 75. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Gifford, Edwin Hamilton. Preparation for the Gospel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Goitein, S. D. “The Meaning of the Name ‘Yhwh’ (Hebrew).” Pages 9–12 in Sefer Biram: Articles in Biblical Research. Edited by Hayyim Gevaryahu. PSBRL 2. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1956. Gosnell, Peter W. The Ethical Vision of the Bible: Learning Good from Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014. Gowan, Donald E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Graffy, Adrian. A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets. Analecta Biblica 104. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1984. Graves, Michael. “The Languages of Palestine.” Pages 485–92 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Gray, George Buchanan. Studies in Hebrew Proper Names. London: Black, 1896. Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983.    .  Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983.    .  Understanding Exodus: A Holistic Commentary on Exodus 1–11. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013.    .  “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” Pages 123–35 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. Griffiths, J. Gwyn. “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12 (1953): 225–31. Groenewald, Alphonso. “Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews: A God Abounding in Steadfast Love (Ex 34:6).” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 64 (2008): 1365–78. Groom, Susan Anne. Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2003. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis: übersetzt und erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1917.

218

Bibliography

Gurtner, Daniel M. Exodus: A Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex Vaticanus. SCS. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Habel, N. “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. Hackett, Jo Ann. The Balaam Text from Deir ʾAllā. HSM 31. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984. Hamilton, Edith, and Huntington Cairns, eds. The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.    .  Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.    .  The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.    .  The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. New International Commentary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hanson, Anthony. “John I. 14–18 and Exodus XXXIV.” NTS 23 (1976): 90–101. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Harris, R. Laird. “The Pronunciation of the Tetragram.” Pages 215–25 in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. “Das ‘Angesicht Gottes’ in Exodus 32–34.” Pages 157–83 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. VWGT 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Hasel, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Haupt, P. “Der Name Jahwe.” OLZ 12 (1909): 211–14. Held, Moshe. “The Root zbl/sbl in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 90–6 in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser. Edited by William W. Hallo. AOS 53. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1968. Hengstenberg, Ernst W. Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament: Zweiter Band, enthaltend Untersuchungen über die Authentie des Pentateuches. Berlin: Oehmigke, 1836. Herford, R. Travers. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. LRPT. Clifton, NJ: Reference, 1966. Hertog, Cornelis den. The Other Face of God: “I Am That I Am” Reconsidered. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Hess, Richard S. Amarna Personal Names. DSASOR 9. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993.    .  Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.    .  “Issues in the Study of Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible.” Currents in Biblical Research 6 (1998): 169–92.    .  “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ʾādām in Genesis i–v.” Pages 1–15 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990.    .  Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1–11. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.    .  “The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources.” UF 23 (1992): 181–88.

Bibliography

219

   .  “The Onomastics of Ugarit.” In A Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by N. Wyatt and Wilfred G. E. Watson, 499–528. NMO 39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Hiene, Ronald E., ed. Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10. FC 80. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989. Hilberg, I., ed. Sancti Eusebii Heironymi Epistulae. Pars I: Epistulae I–LXX. CSEL 54. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996. Hoffmeier, James K., and Dennis R. Magary, eds. Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Hoftijzer, J., and G. van der Kooij, eds. The Balaam Text from Deir ʾAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Hood, Jared C. “I Appeared as El Shaddai: Intertextual Interplay in Exodus 6:3.” Westminster Theological Journal 76 (2014): 167–88. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 51–100. 2nd ed. HTKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000. Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Translated by Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra. Vol. 1. HCOT. Kampen: Kok, 1993. Howard, George. “The Tetragram and the New Testament.” JBL 96 (1977): 63–83. Huffmon, H. B. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965. Hülser, Karlheinz, ed. Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker: Neue Sammlung der Texte mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentaren. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Holzboog, 1987. Hupfeld, Hermann. Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung. Berlin: Wiegandt & Grieben, 1853. Hurwitz, Avi. “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments.” Hebrew Studies 47 (2006): 191–210. Imes, Carmen Joy. “Bearing Yhwh‘s Name at Sinai: A Re-examination of the Name Command of the Decalogue.” Ph.D. diss., Wheaton College, 2016. Irwin, W. H. “The Course of the Dialogue between Moses and Yhwh in Exodus 33:12–17.” CBQ 59 (1997): 629–36. Jacob, Benno. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated by Walter Jacob. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992. Jaeyoung Jeon. The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13. FAT 2/60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Jenkins, Allan K. “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch.” JSOT 10 (1978): 41–57. Jenni, Ernst, ed. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. With assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971–76. Johansson, Daniel. “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark.” JSNT 33 (2010): 101–24. Johnson, A. R. “Aspects of the Use of the Term pānîm in the Old Testament.” Pages 155–60 in Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstage. Edited by Johann Fück. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1947. Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd ed. Subsidia Biblica 27. Roma: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008. Kalverkämper, Hartwig. “Namen in Sprachaustausch: Namenübersetzung.” Pages 1018–25 in Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik. 2 vols. Edited by Ernst Eichler. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996.

220

Bibliography

Karo, G., and Johannes Lietzman. “Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus.” NGWGött (1902) n.p. Kaster, Robert A., ed. Macrobius: Saturnalia, Volume 1, Books 1–2. LCL 510. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Katzenellenbogen, Mordechai Leib, ed. Torat Hayyim: Exodus 1–19 (Hebrew). Vol. 3. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1993.    .  Torat Hayyim: Exodus 21–40 (Hebrew). Vol. 4. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1993. Kautsch, E. “Bibliotheca Samaritana II. Die Samaritanische Liturgie.” TLZ 11 (1886): cols. 220–4. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kienast, Burkhart. “Überlegungen zum ‘Pantheon Babylonicum’.” Orientalia 54 (1985): 106–16. Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.    .  Ramesside Inscriptions: Translated and Annotated. vol. 2: Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions. Series A: Translations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–79.    .  Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Kittel, Gisela. Der Name über alle Namen. 2 vols. BTSch 2–3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Knauf, Ernst Axel. “Yahwe.” VT 34 (1984): 467–72.    .  “Yahweh.” Cols. 847–9 in vol. 15: Tuc–Zyt Addenda of Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Antiquity. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, and Christine F. Salazar. 16 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002–14. Knowles, Michael P. The Unfolding Mystery of the Divine Name: The God of Sinai in Our Midst. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Koetschau, Paul, ed. Origenes Werke, Zweiter Band: Buch V–VIII Gegen Celsus. Die Schrift vom Gebet. GCS 3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. The Theology of the Psalms. Translated by Keith Crim. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Kripke, S. A. “Naming and Necessity.” Pages 252–355 in Semantics of Natural Language. Edited by D. Davidson and G. Harman. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972. Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Edited by Raphael Kutscher. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. Kuyper, Lester J. “Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God and its Use in the Johannine Gospel.” Interpretation 18 (1964): 3–19. Labuschagne, C. J. “The Emphasizing Particle gam and its Connotations.” Pages 193–203 in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodoro Christiano Vriezen Dedicata. Wagningen: Veenman & Zonen, 1966. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925–2000.

Bibliography

221

Lane, Nathan C. The Compassionate, but Punishing God: A Canonical Analysis of Exodus 34:6–7. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Langendonck, Willy van. “Name Theory and Set Theory.” Onoma 41 (2006): 45–61. Layton, Scott C. Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. Lemaire, André. The Birth of Monotheism: The Rise and Disappearance of Yahwism. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2007. Lemche, Niels Peter. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Lesko, Leonard H., and Barbara S. Lesko. A Dictionary of Late Egyptian. Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: Scribe, 1982. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Licht, Jacob. Storytelling in the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978. Lipton, Diana. “God’s Back! What Did Moses See on Sinai?” Pages 287–311 in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Lohfink, Norbert. “Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der Offenbarung des Jahwenames an Mose.” Biblica 49 (1968): 1–8. Long, Burke O. The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1968. Longman III, Tremper. Proverbs. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Lowery, Kirk E. “Relative Definiteness and the Verbless Clause.” Pages 251–72 in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller. LSAWS. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Luckenbill, D. “The Pronunciation of the Name of the God of Israel.” AJSLL 40 (1924): 277–83. Lundbom, Jack R. “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate.” HTR 71 (1978): 193–201. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Vol. 1. 5th ed. EKKNT. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Lydus, Johannes Laurentius. On the Months (De Mensibus). Translated by Anastasius C. Bandy. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2013. Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Magonet, Jonathan. “A Response to P. Auffret’s ‘Literary Structure of Exodus 6.2– 8’.” JSOT 27 (1983): 73–4.    .  “The Bush that Never Burnt: Narrative Techniques in Exodus 3 and 6.” The Heythrop Journal 16 (1975): 304–11.    .  “The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6.2–8.” JSOT 27 (1983): 56–67. Maimonides, Moses. The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Marcos, Natalio Fernández. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Margaliot, Meshullam. “The Interpretation of Exodus 3:15b (Hebrew).” Pages 26–39 in Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages: Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher. Edited by Gad B. Sarfati, Pinḥas Artzi, Jonas C. Greenfield, and Menaḥem Kaddari. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1980.

222

Bibliography

Mark, Martin. “Mein Angesicht geht” (Ex 33:14): Gottes Zusage personaler Führung. HBS 66. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Marks, Herbert. “The Language of Adam: Biblical Naming and Poetic Etymology.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1985. Martens, Elmer A. God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology. 3rd ed. N. Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1998. Matthews, Victor H., and Frances Mims. “Jacob the Trickster and Heir of the Covenant: A Literary Interpretation.” PRSt 12 (1985): 185–95. McBride, Samuel Dean. “The Deuteronomic Name Theology.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1969. McDonough, Sean. Yhwh at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in Its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. WUNT 2/107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. McEvenue, Sean. “The Speaker(s) in Ex 1–15.” Pages 227–8 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Festschrift N. Lohfink. Edited by Sean McEvenue, Georg Braulik, and Walter Gross. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Medina, Richard W. “La estructura sintáctica y la interpretación de Éxodo 6:2–9.” DavarLogos 4 (2005): 101–15. Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield, 1999. Mettinger, Tryggve. In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Meyers, Carol. Exodus. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Michaelowitz, Hannah. “The Divine Names Yhwh and Elohim (Hebrew).” BM 13 (1967): 71–103. Michel, Andreas. “Ist mit der ‘Gnadenformel’ von Ex 34,6(+7?) der Schlüssel zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments gefunden?” Biblische Notizen 118 (2003): 110–23. Middlemas, Jill. “Exodus 3 and the Call of Moses: Rereading the Signs.” Pages 131–44 in The Centre and the Periphery: A European Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Jill Middlemas, David J. A. Clines, and Else Kragelund Holt. HBM 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Miglio, Adam E. “The Verb i-KU-PU-šum in the Shamash-Temple Brick Inscription.” Antiguo Oriente 10 (2012): 115–24. Milgrom, Jacob. “The Desecration of Yhwh’s Name: Its Parameters and Significance.” Pages 69–81 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Miller, Patrick D. They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34. JSOTSup 22. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983.    .  The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.    .  The Theology of the Book of Genesis. OTT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Montgomery, James A. “Hebrew Hesed and Greek Charis.” HTR 32 (1939): 97–102. Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Bibliography

223

   .  The Gospel according to Matthew. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Motyer, J. A. The Revelation of the Divine Name. London: Tyndale, 1959. Mowinckel, S. “The Name of the God of Moses.” HUCA 32 (1961): 121–33. Mras, Karl, ed. Eusebius Werke: Achter Band, Die Praeparatio Evangelica. GCS 43/1. Berlin: Akademie, 1954. Muilenberg, J. “The Intercession of the Covenant Mediator (Exodus 33:1a, 12–17).” Pages 159–81 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Muraoka, T. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Nahkola, Aulikki. “The Memoires of Moses and the Genesis of Method in Biblical Criticism: Astruc’s Contribution.” Pages 204–19 in Sacred Conjectures: The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowth and Jean Astruc. Edited by John Jarick. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Nelson, Richard D. “Araunah.” Page 353 in vol. 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Nicolaisen, W. F. H. “Schliesslich . . . Beschäftigung mit Namen in der Literatur.” Onoma 40 (2005): 29–41. Nikolsky, Ronit. “‘God Tempted Moses for Seven Days’: The Bush Revelation in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 89–104 in The Revelation of the Name Yhwh to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity. Edited by Geurt Hendrik van Kooten. Themes in Biblical Narrative 9. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Niles, Daniel Premaselan. “The Name of God in Israel’s Worship: The Theological Importance of the Name Yahweh.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1975. Noth, Martin. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.    .  Exodus. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. London: SCM, 1962.    .  The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. Obermann, Julian. “The Divine Name Yhwh in the Light of Recent Discoveries.” Journal of Biblical Literature 68 (1949): 301–23. O’Connor, M. “The Ammonite Onomasticon: Semantic Problems.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 25 (1987): 51–64. Oldfather, C. H., ed. Diodorus of Sicily: Volume 1, Books I and II, 1–34. LCL 279. New York: Putnams, 1933. Oliva, Manuel. “Revelación del nombre de Yahweh en la ‘Historia sacerdotal’: Ex 6,2–8.” Biblica 52 (1971): 1–19. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Parker, Simon B., ed. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. SBLWAW 9. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. Paul, Shalom M. Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.    .  Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

224

Bibliography

Pedersen, Johannes. Israel: Its Life and Culture I–II. London: Oxford University Press, 1926. Petit, Françoise. Catena Graeca in Genesim et in Exodum I. Catena Sinaitica. CCSG 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1977.    .  Catena Graeca in Genesim et in Exodum II. Collectio Coisliniana in Genesim. CCSG 15. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986. Petruccione, John F., ed. Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, vol. 1: On Genesis and Exodus. Translated by Robert C. Hill. LEC 1. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Pietersma, Albert. “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for The Original Septuagint.” Pages 85–101 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His 65th Birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude E. Cox. Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1984. Porter, S. E. “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 199–235. Premstaller, Volkmar M. “Die Völkersprüche des Ezechielbuches.” Habilitationsschrift. Leopold-Franzens Universität, 2004. Procksch, Otto. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1950. Propp, William Henry. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999.    .  Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Provan, Iain W., V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Pury, Albert de. “Wie und wann wurde ‘der Gott’ zu ‘Gott’?” Pages 121–42 in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name. Edited by Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger. Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Peabody, MA: Prince, 2005. Ramsey, George W. “Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?.” CBQ 50 (1988): 24–35. Reindl, J. Das Angesicht Gottes im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1970. Reisel, M. The Mysterious Name of Y.h.w.h.: The Tetragrammaton in Connection with the Names of EHYEH ašer EHYEH-Hūhā- and Šem Hammephôraš. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957. Renaud, Bernard. “Proche est ton Nom”: De la révélation à la invocation du Nom de Dieu. Lire la Bible 149. Paris: du Cerf, 2007. Rendtorff, Rolf. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Rezetko, Robert. “Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.” Pages 215–50 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Richter, Sandra. The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 318. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Rolt, C. E., trans. Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Name and the Mystical Theology. TCLGT 1. New York: Macmillan, 1920.

Bibliography

225

Rösel, Martin. Adonaj–warum Gott “Herr” genannt wird. FAT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Rose, Martin. Jahwe: Zum Streit um den alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen. Theologische Studien 122. Zürich: Theologischer, 1978.    .  “Names of God in the OT.” Pages 1001–11 in vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Rousseau, Adelin, and Louis Doutreleau, eds. Irénée de Lyon: Contre les Hérésies, Livre I. Vol. 2: Texte et Traduction. SC 264. Paris: du Cerf, 2008. Rowe, Christopher. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. BZNWKAK­139. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Sadananda, Daniel Rathnakara. The Johannine Exegesis of God: An Exploration into the Johannine Understanding of God. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 121. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Sakenfeld, K. D. Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective. OBT 16. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.    .  The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. HSM 17. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978. Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. Scharbert, J. “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex. 34, 6f und seiner Parallelen.” Biblica 38 (1957): 130–50. Schild, E. “On Exodus 3:14: ‘I Am That I Am.’” VT 4 (1954): 296–302. Schmid, Hans Heinrich. Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976. Schmid, Konrad. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Siphrut 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Schmidt, W. H. “Der Jahwename und Ex 3, 14.” Pages 123–38 in Textgemäß: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10– 28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch.” Pages 157–71 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Schmuttermayr, Georg. “RHM–Eine lexikalische Studie.” Biblica 51 (1970): 499–525. Scholem, Gershom. On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism. Translated by Ralph Manheim. New York: Schocken, 1965. Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.    .  “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 27–45 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection?” Pages 3–16 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

226

Bibliography

   .  “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature.” Pages 3–21 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.    .  “What Is the Difference between Term and Metaphor? Bearing Iniquity/ Transgression/Sin in the Bible (Hebrew).” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 149–71. Scoralick, Ruth. Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. HTS 33. Freiburg: Herder, 2002.    . “‘Jhwh, Jhwh, ein gnädiger und barmherziger Gott . . .’ (Ex 34, 6): Die Gottesprädikationen aus Ex 34, 6f. in ihrem Kontext in Kapitel 32–34.” Pages 141–56 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. VWGT 18. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Seebass, Horst. “Mose in einem seiner Ausnahmegespräche mit Gott: Zu Ex 33,12– 23.” Pages 301–31 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag. Vol 1. Edited by Markus Witte. BZAW 345. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Segal, M. Z. “The Names Yhwh and Elohim in the Books of the Bible (Hebrew).” Tarbiz 9 (1937): 123–62.    .  “The Revelation of the Name Yhwh (Hebrew).” Tarbiz 12 (1940): 97–108. Seitz, Christopher R. “Handing Over the Name: Christian Reflection on the Divine Name Yhwh.” Pages 131–44 in Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001.    . “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name: Source-­ Critical Logic and Its Legacy.” Pages 145–61 in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by Christopher R. Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.    .  “The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between the Two Origin Traditions.” Pages 1–15 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman. Edited by C. Houtman and Riemer Roukema. CBET 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Shaw, Frank. The Earliest Non-mystical Jewish Use of ΙΑΩ. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 70. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Silberman, Lou H. “‘You Cannot See My Face’: Seeking to Understand Divine Justice.” Pages 89–95 in Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right?: Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw. Edited by David Penchansky and Paul L. Redditt. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1983. Sirmondi, Jacob, and J. Schulze, eds. Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia. PG 83. Turnhout: Brepols, 1979. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, eds. Qumran Cave 4: Palaeo-­Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Smith, J. M. Powis. “The Use of Divine Names as Superlatives.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 45 (1929): 212–13.

Bibliography

227

Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.    .  “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation.” CBQ 58 (1996): 25–50. Soden, Wolfram von. “Jahwe ‘Er ist, Er erweist sich’.” Die Welt des Orients 3 (1966): 177–87. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Translation as Commentary: The Case of the Septuagint to Exodus 32–33.” Textus 20 (2000): 43–60. Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. “Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Exodus 3:14): God’s ‘Narrative Identity’ among Suspense, Curiosity, and Surprise.” Poetics Today 31 (2010): 331–51. Sørensen, Holger Steen. The Meaning of Proper Names with a Definiens Formula for Proper Names in Modern English. Copenhagen: Gad, 1963. Soskice, Janet Martin. “Naming God: A Study in Faith and Reason.” Pages 241–54 in Reason and the Reasons of Faith. Edited by Paul J. Griffiths and Reinhard Hütter. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Soulen, R. Kendall. The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity: Distinguishing the Voices. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Sperber, Alexander. A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Spieckermann, Hermann. “Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr. . . .” ZAW 102 (1990): 1–18. Stählin, Otto, ed. Clemens Alexandrinus, Zweiter Band: Stromata Buch I–VI. GCS 15. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906. Stählin, Otto, Ludwig Früchtel, and Ursula Treu, eds. Clemens Alexandrinus, Zweiter Band: Stromata Buch I–VI. GCS 52. Berlin: Akademie, 1960. Stamm, Johann Jakob. Die Akkadische Namensgebung. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939. Stauffer, Ethelbert. “ἐγὼ.” Pages 343–62 in vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Streck, Michael P. “Der Gottesname ‘Jahwe’ und das amurritische Onomastikon.” WO 30 (1999): 35–46. Strong, John. “Ezekiel’s Use of the Recognition Formula in His Oracles against the Nations.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995): 115–34. Surburg, Raymond F. “Did the Patriarchs Know Yahweh: Exodus 6:3 and Its Relationship to the Four Documentary Hypothesis.” Springfielder 36:2 (1972): 120–29. Talstra, Eep. “‘I and Your People’: Syntax and Dialogue in Exod 33.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 33:2 (2007): 89–97. Theiler, Willy, ed. Poseidonios. Vol. 1. TKEAR 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Thierry, G. J. “The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.” Pages 30–42 in Oudtestamentische Studiën. Edited by P. A. H. de Boer. OS 5. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Thompson, Henry O. “Yahweh.” Pages 1011–12 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Thompson, T. L. “How Yahweh Became God: Exodus 3 and 6 and the Heart of the Pentateuch.” JSOT 68 (1995): 57–73.

228

Bibliography

Tigay, Jeffrey H. “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence.” Pages 157–94 in Ancient Israelite Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Toorn, K. van der. “Yahweh ‫יהוה‬.” Pages 910–19 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.    . “The Coincidental Nature of the Collections of Ancient Scriptures.” Pages 153–69 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 133. Boston: Brill, 2010. Tropper, Josef. “Der Gottesname *Yahwa.” VT 51 (2001): 81–106. Tsutserov, Alexander. Glory, Grace, and Truth: Ratification of the Sinaitic Covenant according to the Gospel of John. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Ulrich, Eugene, ed. The Qumran Biblical Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Unger, Dominic J., ed. St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies. ACW 55. New York: Paulist Press, 1992. VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “From Canon to Concept: ‘Same’ and ‘Other’ in the Relation between Biblical and Systematic Theology.” SBET 12 (1994): 96–124.    .  Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship. CSCD 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. SHJ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Vaux, Roland de. “The Revelation of the Divine Name Yhwh.” Pages 48–75 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. Edited by John I. Durham and J. R. Porter. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1983. Volgger, David. “Wer Bin Ich? Oder Noch Einmal Zu Ex 3,14.” LASBF 49 (1999): 9–36. Vollenweider, Samuel. “‘Der Name, der über jedem anderen ist.’ Jesus als Träger des Gottesnamen im Neuen Testament.” Pages 173–86 in Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name. Edited by Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Vriezen, T. C. “ʾEhje ʾašer ʾEhje.” Pages 498–512 in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Walter Baumgartner, Otto Eissfeldt, Karl Elliger, and Leonhard Rost. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapter 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, John H. “Isa 7:14: What’s in a Name?” JETS 30 (1987): 289–306.    .  “Principles for Productive Word Study.” Pages 158–68 in A Guide to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: The Introductory Articles from the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Bibliography

229

Weems, Renita J. Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Weiss, Meir. “Studies in the Biblical Doctrine of Retribution (Hebrew).” Tarbiz 32 (1962): 1–18. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Reimer, 1883. Wenham, Gordon J. “The Religion of the Patriarchs.” Pages 157–88 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66. OTL. London: SCM, 1969. Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. SBLSCS 30. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Widmer, Michael. Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14. FAT 2/8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wiemar, Peter. Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5. OBO 32. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Wilkinson, Robert J. Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 179. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Williams, A. Lukyn. “The Lord of Hosts.” JTS 38 (1937): 50–56.    . “Yahoh.” JTS 28 (1927): 276–83. Williams, Catrin H. I Am He: The Interpretation of ʾAnî Hûʾ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/113. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Williams, Frank, ed. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I (Sects 1–46). NHS 35. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Wilson, R. D. “Critical Note on Exodus VI. 3.” PTR 22 (1924): 108–19. Wimmer, Joseph F. “Tradition Reinterpreted in Ex 6,2–7,7.” Augustinianum 7 (1967): 405–18. Windt, Benedicta. “An Overview of Literary Onomastics in the Context of Literary Theory.” Onoma 40 (2005): 43–63. Witter, Henning Bernhard. Jura Israelitarum in Palæstinam terram Chananæam commentatione in Genesin: perpetua sic demonstrata, ut idiomatis authentici nativus sensus fideliter detegatur, Mosis Autoris primæva intentio . . . ipse textus Hebræus cum versione Latina. Hildesheim: Schröderus, 1711. Wutz, Franz. Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus. Vol. 2. TUGAL. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915. Yeivin, S. “Yaʿqobʾel.” JEA 45 (1959): 16–18. Youngblood, Ronald. “A New Look at Three Old Testament Roots for ‘Sin.’” Pages 201–5 in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by Gary A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Young, Ian. Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew. FAT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Zadok, Ran. “Some Jews in Babylonian Documents.” JQR 74 (1984): 294–97. Zakovitch, Yair. Das Buch Rut: Ein jüdischer Kommentar. SB 177. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999.    .  “Explicit and Implicit Name Derivations.” Hebrew Annual Review 4 (1980): 167–81.

230

Bibliography

Ziegler, Joseph. Isaias. 3rd ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Zimmerli, Walther. Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buch Ezechiel: Eine theologische Studie. ATANT 27. Zürich: Zwingli, 1954.    .  Ezechiel 1–24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.    .  Ezechiel 25–48. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.    .  Ezekiel 1, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.    .  I am Yahweh. Edited by Walter Brueggemann. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.    .  Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie. Vol. 2. TB 51. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974.    .  “Zum Problem der Mitte des Alten Testaments.” EvT 35 (1975): 97–118. Zuretti, C. O., ed. Codices Hispanienses: Pars Altera, Codices Scorialenses, Matritenses, Caesaraugustani. CCAG 11. Brussels: Lamertin, 1934.

Index of Authors Aaron, D. H.  20, 163 Abba, R.  1, 5, 52, 68 Achenbach, R.  2, 6 Ackroyd, P.  14, 51, 132 Aḥituv, S.  72, 73, 133, 144 Albrektson, B.  51, 52, 53 Albright, W. F.  5, 6, 7, 50, 62, 97 Alfrink, B.  62 Algeo, J.  19, 67 Allen, L.  112 Allen, W. S.  69 Alt, A.  50 Alter, R.  22 Alvarez-Altman, G.  21 Andersen, F. I.  86, 98, 119, 142, 185 Anderson, G.  151 Anderson, J.  37 Antin, P.  77 Ararat, N.  59, 131, 207 Arnold, W. R.  5, 45, 56 Astruc, J.  11, 204 Auffret, P.  89, 90, 92 Averbeck, R.  153 Axelsson, L. E.  65

Besnard, A. M.  20 Billings, R. M.  127, 128, 135 Bin-Nun, J.  52, 53, 54 Blackburn, W. R.  114 Black, M.  191 Blenkinsopp, ,J.  85 Block, D. I.  65, 100, 104, 112, 119, 133, 143, 145, 150, 156, 158, 159, 168, 170, 185, 188, 193, 198, 209 Blum, E.  11, 17, 126, 131 Boda, M. J.  152, 157, 158, 171 Boer, P. A. H. de  42, 62, 71 Bohak, G.  76 Boulluec, A. le  70, 82 Boyd, S. W.  94 Braulik, G.  47 Brichto, H. C.  123 Brown, R.  193 Brown, R. E.  193, 196 Brueggemann, W.  106, 185 Buber, M.  2, 43, 48, 49 Burelbach, F. M.  21 Cairns, H.  202 Cardauns, B.  75 Carr, D. M.  23 Carson, D. A.  196, 197 Case, S. J.  198 Cassuto, U.  30, 70, 90, 91, 93, 102, 103, 114, 119, 128, 204, 205, 206, 207 Cathcart, K. J.  174 Chadwick, H.  76 Childs, B. S.  49, 62, 114, 118, 120, 128, 138, 140, 141, 200 Chrysippus  14, 201 Civil, M.  49 Clark, G.  148, 149 Coates, R.  14, 15, 17, 18, 19 Coats, G.  88, 89, 125, 128 Cody, A.  133 Cogan, M.  208 Cohon, S.  202 Collins, J. J.  170 Colson, F. H.  52

Baden, J. S.  12, 13, 102 Baer, D. A.  150 Baker, H. D.  72 Bar-Efrat, S.  54 Bar-Ilan, M.  188 Barkay, G.  73 Barr, J.  2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 35, 36, 37, 38, 65, 182, 189 Bartelmus, R.  53, 54 Barton, J.  3, 12 Barur, A.  188 Bauckham, R.  199 Beaulieu, P.-A.  131 Beckman, G.  9 Beckwith, R.  23 Beitzel, B. J.  42 Bekkum, W. J. van  59, 202 Benz, F. L.  9 Berkhof, L.  200

231

232

Index of Authors

Cosaert, C. P.  68, 69 Cotterell, P.  2, 4 Cowley, A. E.  74 Cross, F. M.  5, 63, 64, 97, 98 Dalferth, I. U.  17, 198 Dalman, G.  160 Davidson, R. M.  17, 19 Davies, G. I.  14 Davies, P. R.  24 Davis, C. J.  198 Delekat, L.  5 Dempster, S.  23 Dindorf, W.  69 Diogenes Laertius  14 Doutreleau, L.  77 Dozeman, T. B.  11, 12, 92 Driver, G. R.  74 Driver, S. R.  50 Dumbrell, W. J.  90 Dyk, P. J. van  31 Edwards, J. R.  191 Eerdmans, B. D.  71 Eichrodt, W.  189, 199 Eissfeldt, O.  61, 160 Elssner, T. R.  118 Enns, P.  111, 136 Erickson, R.  4 Eslinger, L. M.  92, 106, 107, 108, 109, 116 Evans, J.  106, 107 Evans, J. F.  90 Fabry, H.-J.  96 Fee, G. D.  198 Fernández Marcos, N.  69, 82 Fichtner, J.  1, 29, 30 Fields, F.  70 Fishbane, M.  44, 112, 113, 150, 163, 166, 175, 180 Floss, J. P.  6 Flusser, D.  191 Follingstad, C.  44, 159 Ford, W. A.  83, 109 Fortan, B.  28, 38 Foster, B. R.  189 Fowler, J. D.  9, 10, 72, 74, 100, 175 Franz, M.  175, 178 Freedman, D. N.  5, 6, 7, 35, 70, 74, 131, 185 Fretheim, T. E.  86 Friedman, R. E.  24, 102, 156

Früchtel, L.  82 Ganschinietz, R.  69, 70, 71 Garr, W. R.  92, 93, 95, 99, 110 Garsiel, M.  27, 28 Gelb, I. J.  32, 33, 64 Gericke, J. W.  42, 200 Gertz, C.  121 Gibson, A.  3, 15 Goitein, S. D.  62 Gordon, R. P.  150 Gosnell, P. W.  179, 180 Gowan, D. E.  116 Graffy, A.  86 Graf von Baudissin, W. W.  160 Graves, M.  24, 77, 190 Gray, G. B.  8, 9, 10, 165 Greenberg, M.  23, 111, 112, 125, 169 Greene-McCreight, K.  49 Griffiths, J. G.  32 Groenewald, A.  142, 164, 176 Groom, S. A.  2, 3 Gross, W.  47 Grudem, W.  200 Gundry, R. H.  190, 191 Gunkel, H.  30 Gurtner, D.  125 Habel, N.  89 Hackett, J. A.  98, 99 Hamilton, E.  202 Hamilton, V. P.  35, 43, 77, 104, 156 Hanson, A.  196 Harrison, R. K.  24 Harris, R. L.  67 Hartenstein, F.  131, 136, 138 Hasel, G.  189 Haupt, P.  5, 63 Held, M.  34 Hengstenberg, E.  69, 81 Herford, R. T.  191 Hertog, C. den  44, 48, 53, 55, 56, 63, 66 Hess, R. S.  9, 16, 17, 24, 25, 35, 65, 72, 102, 111, 209 Hiene, R. E.  76 Hilberg, I.  77 Hoffmeier, J. K.  24 Hoftijzer, J.  98 Hood, J.  106 Hossfeld, F.-L.  178 Houtman, C.  88, 92, 99

Index of Authors Howard, G.  197 Huffmon, H. B.  9, 64 Hülser, K.  14 Hupfeld, H.  11 Hurwitz, A.  23 Imes, C. J.  117 Irwin, W. H.  128, 135 Jacob, B.  32, 55 Jenkins, A. K.  11 Jenni, E.  7, 67 Jeon, J.  88 Johansson, D.  198 Johnson, A. R.  133 Joüon, P.  93, 119, 137, 142, 146 Kalverkämper, H.  19 Karo, G.  82 Kaster, R. A.  78 Katzenellenbogen, M. L.  95, 96, 114, 141 Kautsch, E.  71 Keener, C. S.  191 Kienast, B.  9, 10, 65 Kitchen, K. A.  24, 65 Kittel, G.  189 Knauf, E. A.  64, 70 Knowles, M. P.  144, 201 Köckert, M.  126, 131 Koetschau, P.  76 Kooij, G. van der  98 Kooten, G. H. van  58, 59 Kraus, H.-J.  187 Kripke, S.  17 Kutscher, E. Y.  23 Kutscher, R.  23 Kuyper, L.  196 Labuschagne, C. J.  135 Lane, N. C.  177 Langendonck, W. van  15 Layton, S. C.  25 Lemaire, A.  62, 113, 117, 171 Lemche, N. P.  24 Lesko, B. S.  32 Lesko, L. S.  32 Levine, B.  165 Licht, J.  128 Lietzman, J.  82 Lindars, B.  51, 132 Lipton, D.  138, 139

233

Lohfink, N.  92 Long, B. O.  29 Longman, T. L.  24, 179 Long, V. P.  24 Lowery, K. E.  142 Luckenbill, D.  64, 66 Lundbom, J. R.  53, 54, 131 Luz, U.  191, 192 Lyons, J.  14, 15, 16, 77, 80 Magary, D. R.  24 Magonet, J.  85, 89, 90 Margaliot, M.  57, 58 Mark, M.  120, 121, 133 Marks, H.  6 Martens, E. A.  84, 91, 110 Matthews, V. H.  37 McBride, S. D.  1 McDonough, S.  194 McEvenue, S.  47 Medina, R.  90, 93, 111 Mettinger, T.  42, 48 Meyers, C. M.  108, 154 Michaelowitz, H.  207 Michel, A.  129, 190 Middlemas, J.  14 Miglio, A. E.  37 Milgrom, J.  187 Miller, P. D.  125, 126 Mims, F.  37 Moberly, R. W. L.  22, 47, 96, 103, 105, 111, 120, 121, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 148, 159, 161, 164 Montgomery, J. A.  196 Moor, J. C. de  65 Morris, L.  190, 192, 193, 197 Motyer, J. A.  48, 92, 93 Mowinckel, S.  5 Mras, K.  77 Muilenberg, J.  132 Muraoka, T.  91, 135 Nahkola, A.  11 Nelson, R. D.  66 Nicolaisen, W. F. H.  21 Nikolsky, R.  58 Niles, D. P.  14, 102 Noth, M.  8, 9, 10, 11, 55, 62, 85, 88, 172 O’Connor, M.  7, 9, 19, 36, 70, 93, 193 Ogden, G. S.  50, 61

234

Index of Authors

Oldfather, C. H.  75 Oliva, M.  86, 90 Pannenberg, W.  200 Parker, S. B.  143 Paul, S.  208 Paul, S. M.  132 Pedersen, J.  1 Petit, F.  69, 82 Petruccione, J. F.  70 Pietersma, A.  197 Porter, S. E.  191 Premstaller, V. M.  107 Procksch, O.  20 Propp, W. H.  11, 30, 48, 55, 85, 88, 99, 106, 110, 119, 132, 136, 141 Provan, I. W.  24 Pury, A. de  17 Rad, G. von  56, 189 Ramsey, G. W.  29 Reindl, J.  134, 138 Reisel, M.  59, 60 Reiterer, F. V.  96 Renaud, B.  13, 144 Rendtorff, R.  11 Rezetko, R.  23 Richter, S.  117 Ringgren, H.  7, 70, 96 Rolt, C. E.  201 Rösel, M.  160, 198 Rose, M.  71, 72, 197 Rosenzweig, F.  2 Roukema, R.  92 Rousseau, A.  77 Rowe, C.  198 Sadananda, D. R.  193 Sáenz-Badillos, A.  23 Sakenfeld, K. D.  147, 148 Sanderson, J. E.  74 Schäfer, P.  191 Scharbert, J.  126, 127, 158, 163 Schild, E.  51, 52 Schmid, H. H.  11, 88, 92, 121 Schmid, K.  11, 12 Schmidt, W. H.  6 Schmitt, H.-C.  121 Schmuttermayr, G.  145 Scholem, G.  201

Schultz, R.  163, 174 Schulze, J.  70 Schwartz, B. J.  12, 151, 155 Scoralick, R.  126, 127, 129, 141, 156, 157, 173, 174, 185 Searle, J. R.  15 Seebass, H.  127, 128 Segal, M. Z.  5, 48, 56, 84, 114, 204, 205, 206, 207 Seitz, C.  49, 83, 103, 114, 116, 199 Shaw, F.  62, 71, 75, 76, 77, 197 Silberman, L. H.  139 Silva, M.  2, 3, 18 Sirmondi, J.  70 Skehan, P. W.  74 Smith, J. W. P.  19 Smith, M. S.  43, 132, 142 Soden, W. von  64 Sonnet, J.-P.  6, 57 Sørensen, H. S.  14 Soskice, J. M.  201 Soulen, R. K.  144, 191, 199, 201, 202 Sperber, A.  66 Spieckermann, H.  127, 173 Stählin, O.  68, 69, 80, 82 Stamm, J. J.  9 Stauffer, E.  193 Sternberg, M.  22, 23 Stoellger, P.  17, 198 Streck, M. P.  64 Strong, J.  107 Tadmor, H.  208 Talstra, E.  130 Theiler, W.  75 Thierry, G. J.  42, 67, 68, 71 Thompson, H. O.  7, 68 Thompson, M. M.  193 Thompson, T. L.  24, 92 Tigay, J. H.  72, 133 Toorn, K. van der  7, 10, 65 Torrance, T. F.  3, 4 Tov, E.  46, 113, 125 Treu, U.  82 Tropper, J.  62 Tsutserov, A.  195, 196 Turner, M.  2, 4 Ulrich, E.  74, 88, 190, 192 Unger, D. J.  77

Index of Authors Vanhoozer, K.  144, 163, 200, 207 Van Seters, J.  92, 130 Vaux, R. de  5, 62 Volgger, D.  6 Vollenweider, S.  198, 199 Voorst, R. E. van  191 Vriezen, T. C.  2, 50, 52, 135, 137, 139, 189 Waltke, B. K.  19, 36, 93, 179, 193 Walton, J. H.  26 Weems, R. J.  185 Weimar, P.  5 Weippert, M.  97 Weiss, M.  164 Wellhausen, J.  12 Wenham, G. J.  114 Westermann, C.  86 Wevers, J. W.  84 Whybray, R. N.  12, 24, 128, 207 Widmer, M.  141, 152, 156, 157, 158, 164, 165 Wildberger, H.  26, 27 Wilkinson, R. J.  58, 59, 194, 197, 198, 202

235

Williams, A. L.  62, 63 Williams, C.  194 Williams, F.  70, 77 Wilson, R. D.  92, 114 Wimmer, J.  86 Windt, B.  21 Witte, M.  121 Witter, H. B.  11 Woude, A. S. van der  11 Wouters, A.  14 Wutz, F.  76, 77 Yeivin, S.  35 Youngblood, R.  152 Young, I.  23 Zadok, R.  72 Zakovitch, Y.  27, 100 Zenger, E.  178 Ziegler, J.  193 Zimmerli, W.  106, 107, 110, 112, 189, 190 Zuretti, C. O.  76

Index of Scripture Genesis 1–5  16, 17 1–11  35, 209 1:1 17 1:22 101 1:26  17, 93 1:28 101 2:4  103, 202 2:5 17 2:7 103 2:13 20 2:16 103 2:22 103 2:23  20, 29, 34, 39 3:6 36 3:8 103 3:14 103 3:15 93 3:20  20, 34, 39 3:24 132 4:1  29, 39, 40, 94, 102 4:2 142 4:16 102 4:24 102 4:25  16, 39, 40, 102 4:26 102 5:2 20 5:29  29, 39, 40 6 20 6:6 103 6:8 103 6:9 146 6:12 132 6:18 90 8:3 28 8:17 101 8:20 102 8:21 103 9:1 101 9:7 101 9:9 90 9:15 91 9:24 94

Genesis (cont.) 9:26 103 10:25  39, 40 11 31 11:4 20 11:9  32, 39 12:2 11 12:3 124 12:7  101, 102 12:8  101, 102 13:4 102 13:13 152 13:14–16 101 13:18 102 14:22  104, 142, 144 15  84, 85 15:2 54 15:4–6 101 15:7  51, 104, 111 15:13–16  84, 85 15:14 85 15:16  152, 186 15:18  90, 103 16:2  57, 104 16:5 104 16:11  39, 104 16:13  102, 144 16:13–14 39 16:14 39 17:1  97, 98, 104, 106 17:4–5 98 17:5  36, 39 17:6 98 17:7  90, 91, 114 17:8 98 17:11 93 17:15 27 17:15–16 101 17:17  39, 40 17:19 39 17:19–20 101 18:1 101 18:5 140

236

Genesis (cont.) 18:7–8 123 18:14 104 18:17–19 104 18:19  94, 132 18:27 160 19:1 103 19:13 104 19:14  104, 186 19:20  35, 39 19:20–22  35, 50 19:30 27 19:30–38 27 19:32 27 19:37–38 28 20:4 160 20:9 152 21:1 155 21:2 101 21:3 103 21:3–6 39 21:6 31 21:29 49 21:30 39 21:33  102, 142, 144 22:8 39 22:11 141 22:14  39, 104 22:15 43 22:16 104 24:3 104 24:7 104 24:12 103 24:21 103 24:27  103, 149 24:40 104 24:49 149 24:50 104 24:56 104 25:22 102 25:25  29, 35, 39, 40 25:26  38, 39 25:30  39, 40, 50

Index of Scripture Genesis (cont.) 26 33 26:2 101 26:2–4 101 26:3  90, 103, 114 26:20  33, 40 26:22  33, 40, 101 26:24 101 26:25 102 26:28 104 26:31–33 40 27:12 137 27:20 103 27:36  37, 38 27:42 103 27:48 103 28:3  97, 98 28:13 105 28:16 103 28:17–19 40 28:21 103 29  31, 67 29:27 60 29:31–35 31 29:32  40, 104 29:33  40, 104 29:33–35 50 29:34  29, 40, 41 29:35  40, 104 30:2 101 30:4–8 31 30:6  40, 101 30:8 40 30:9–13 31 30:11 40 30:13 40 30:14–18 31 30:17–18 101 30:18 40 30:20  31, 40, 41 30:20–23 101 30:24  40, 104 30:27 159 31:3  103, 114 31:47 36 31:48  36, 40 31:49  18, 40, 41, 104 32:3  40, 41 32:10–13 104 32:11  40, 41, 148

Genesis (cont.) 32:22 140 32:28 48 32:29  40, 41 32:30 114 32:31 40 33:17 40 33:20 144 35:7 144 35:8 50 35:9–11 106 35:10 40 35:11  97, 98 35:18 27 36:5 5 36:8 142 37:21 93 38:29  40, 41, 50 39:3  103, 114 39:9 17 39:21 103 39:23  103, 114 41:31 94 41:40 93 41:51  31, 40, 41 41:52  31, 40 42:16 148 43:14  50, 54, 97, 99, 145 45:1 94 45:4 51 46:2 141 46:12 41, 47:29  149, 159 48:3  97, 98 49:1 139 49:18 104 49:25  97, 98 50:11  33, 41, 50 50:24–25 85 Exodus 1–2 42 1–13 88 1–14  43, 46, 47 1–15  116, 118 1–18  30, 45, 48, 55, 85, 88, 125, 128 1–19  95, 96, 114 1:8 83 2  5, 11, 31, 43

237 Exodus (cont.) 2:10 32 2:11 41 2:22  29, 32, 41 2:23–25  44, 84, 85, 108, 114 2:24  85, 91 2:25 84 3  2, 5, 6, 12, 24, 42, 43, 48, 49, 59, 83, 85, 92, 112 3–4  42, 43, 88 3:1  45, 48, 142 3:1–3 45 3:1–4–17 45 3:1–4:17  43, 45, 47, 58, 86, 88, 128 3:1–4:18 89 3:1–12 45 3:2 93 3:4  132, 141 3:4–6 45 3:5–6 54 3:6  48, 155 3:7 84 3:7–8 45 3:7–9 113 3:7–10  45, 85, 108 3:8  18, 85 3:9 112 3:10  88, 130 3:10–12 44 3:11  44, 45, 88, 130 3:12  1, 44, 45, 52, 114 3:13  22, 45, 47 3:13–15  1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 63, 66, 79, 85, 92, 96, 114, 129, 138, 182, 184, 200 3:13–22 45 3:14  6, 7, 13, 18, 41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 62, 137, 144, 184, 192, 194, 200 3:14–15  2, 5, 6, 7, 25, 39, 45, 47, 56, 59, 62, 63, 65, 67, 71, 114, 137, 141, 191

238 Exodus (cont.) 3:15  47, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 189, 197 3:16–17  84, 85 3:16–22  45, 108 3:17 131 3:19 84 4:1  45, 46, 60 4:1–17 45 4:2–9 45 4:5 60 4:10  88, 130, 160 4:11 60 4:11–12 45 4:13  58, 61, 130 4:18 45 4:22 142 4:31  85, 159 5 43 5:2  83, 107 5:4–11 83 5:21 84 5:22  84, 89, 130, 160 5:22–6:8  91, 128 5:22–7:7 85 5:22–23  84, 88, 129 5:23 84 6  43, 88, 89, 92, 184 6:1  84, 85, 129 6:1–8 89 6:2  17, 85, 142 6:2–3  7, 11, 14 6:2–5  86, 89, 90, 91 6:2–7:7  85, 86, 88, 89 6:2–8  1, 11, 13, 22, 24, 45, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 96, 107, 108, 111, 113, 115, 116, 129, 141, 162, 183, 184 6:3  11, 12, 13, 18, 70, 83, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 144, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188 6:5 84 6:5–8 86 6:6  85, 88 6:6–8  86, 89, 90, 91, 108 6:7  6, 107, 108, 110, 184

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 6:9  85, 147 6:10 88 6:10–7:7 85 6:12  86, 88, 130 6:20 100 6:26–27 86 6:27 86 6:28–30 86 6:30 88 7:1–2 86 7:4 108 7:5 108 7:17 108 8:6 109 8:16–24 113 8:18  108, 134 9:14 109 9:16  22, 61, 109, 186, 188 9:29 109 10:2 108 10:28–29 138 11:3 131 11:7  109, 134 11:8 146 12:12 136 12:26 49 12:27 159 12:36 131 13:5 131 13:11 131 13:19  85, 155 13:21 130 14 109 14:4 109 14:19 130 14:31 42 15  92, 109 15–17 36 15–18 43 15:2 74 15:3  20, 22, 60 15:11  142, 143, 188 15:13 148 15:17  131, 160 15:23 41 15:25–26 152 15:26 106 16  33, 109 16–31 118

Exodus (cont.) 16:6  109, 116 16:7 136 16:10 140 16:15  33, 41 16:31  33, 41 17:1–4 33 17:6 138 17:7  33, 41, 134 17:9–14 72 18:4 93 18:11 116 18:16 152 19–20 43 19–24 43 19–40  11, 110, 132, 136, 141 19:5  152, 160 19:9 140 19:10 136 19:16 140 19:16–20 136 19:21 138 19:23 130 20 164 20:1 141 20:2 17 20:2–4 164 20:5  153, 159, 174 20:5–6  163, 164, 180 20:6 164 20:7 117 20:20 153 20:24  22, 118, 186 21–40 141 21:3 41 21:19 154 22:8  152, 153 22:26  145, 146 23:13  118, 208 23:15 138 23:17 138 23:20 130 23:21  22, 117, 153, 154, 164, 186 23:23 130 23:31 154 24:10–11 139 24:16  136, 140 25–31  120, 130, 153, 160 25:8 130

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 25:20–22 153 25:30  131, 133 28:38 153 29–30 153 29:14 153 29:33 153 29:36 153 29:45 130 29:46  110, 116, 131 30:10 153 30:13–14 140 31:12–17 127 31:13  110, 116 31:18 127 31:19 127 31:20–23 127 32 43 32–33  121, 132 32–34  22, 119, 141, 148, 157, 161, 163, 176, 178, 187 32:1  119, 120, 133 32:1–6 119 32:7–14 119 32:9 160 32:10  126, 147 32:11–14  119, 120 32:12  146, 147 32:12–13  125, 126 32:14 131 32:15–30 119 32:19  121, 131 32:30 153 32:31–33:6  119, 120 32:31–35  119, 153 32:32 154 32:33 154 32:34  120, 130, 131, 134, 155 32:34–33:3 121 32:35 158 32:35–33:5 147 33 130 33–34  136, 184 33:1  130, 132 33:1–6 120 33:2  120, 130, 131, 134 33:3 130 33:3–6 121

Exodus (cont.) 33:4–6 146 33:5  126, 131, 160 33:7 120 33:7–11  120, 121 33:7–23 119 33:9 140 33:10 146 33:11  120, 121, 128, 138 33:12  130, 165 33:12–13  129, 184 33:12–14 121 33:12–17  127, 128 33:12–23  13, 22, 24, 45, 116, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 154, 165, 183, 195 33:13  123, 165, 176, 177, 184 33:14  133, 160 33:15 138 33:15–16  130, 134, 135 33:15–17 121 33:16 159 33:17 135 33:18  48, 126, 130, 135, 196 33:18–23 127 33:19  22, 137, 140, 141, 144, 146, 184, 195 33:19–23  85, 121, 126, 136, 140 33:20  121, 138, 197 33:21–22 138 33:34 157 34  43, 163 34:1–4 121 34:1–9 119 34:3 140 34:5  22, 121, 140 34:5–8 92 34:5–9  22, 45, 116, 120, 121, 124, 126, 127, 129, 137, 140, 170, 184 34:6  18, 59, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149, 150, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 177, 196, 207

239 Exodus (cont.) 34:6–7  1, 11, 13, 24, 116, 126, 127, 137, 140, 141, 154, 156, 157, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 194, 195, 196, 201 34:7  150, 152, 157, 169, 172 34:8–9  121, 159 34:9  129, 131, 151, 159, 165, 170 34:10 160 34:10–26 164 34:10–27 121 34:10–28  121, 160 34:10–35 119 34:14  22, 62, 119, 174 34:20 138 34:23 138 34:34 198 35–40 160 38:26 140 40:3–5 136 40:34 195 40:34–35 161 40:35 195 40:36–38 161 Leviticus 4 153 4–6 153 4:3 152 4:14 94 5:16 67 10:17 152 17:11 153 18:25 155 19:19 18 24:16  58, 197 Numbers 1–20 165 1:5 99 1:6 99 1:12 100 2:10 99 2:12 99

240 Numbers (cont.) 2:25 100 3:40 155 4:7 133 5:31 154 6:24–27 188 10:18 99 10:19 99 10:25 100 11 36 11:3 41 11:11 130 11:34  36, 41 12:6 94 13–14 141 13:16  71, 100 13:17–18 124 13:23–24 41 14:11–25  165, 174, 180 14:13 130 14:14 165 14:14–19 126 14:16 166 14:17  163, 165, 167 14:17–19 180 14:18  146, 166, 171, 172 14:19 167 14:20 156 21:4 147 24:4 100 25:4 146 26:59 100 27:4 20 27:15 130 30:3 57 32:14 146 Deuteronomy 1:6–4:40 168 2:8 132 3:24 142 4 168 4:7 17 4:15 43 4:24  43, 174 4:31  145, 168, 180 4:32–40 168 4:35  168, 190 4:37 133 4:39 190

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 5 164 5:9 174 5:11 117 5:24 17 6:4 188 6:4–5 188 6:13 198 6:15 174 6:16 198 7:9  147, 148, 150, 168, 169, 172, 180, 190 7:9–10  172, 180 7:10 133 7:13 209 7:13–14 208 8:6 132 9–10 164 9:3 43 10:20 198 13:15 148 16:16 138 24:1 146 28:1–68 137 28:10 117 28:58 186 29:5 106 32 193 32:4  132, 148 32:23–25 208 32:24 209 32:29 200 32:39  193, 194 33:2 65 33:9 150 33:24 27 33:28 35 Joshua 1:5  44, 52, 53 1:8  123, 132 2:11 117 2:12 149 2:14 149 5:9 29 5:13–15 44 7:2 18 7:22–26 158 12:22 100 17:11 100

Joshua (cont.) 19:11 100 19:47 20 21:34 100 22:22  141, 143 23:7 118 23:14 94 24:19 174 Judges 1:11 25 1:17 29 1:23 25 1:26 26 1:27 100 2:13 209 5:1 18 5:4 65 6:11–17 45 6:11–24 43 6:16 137 6:25 209 6:28 209 6:36–40 206 7:25 25 9 206 9:7 123 11:9 53 13:17 49 13:18 49 15:11 94 16:16 147 18:29 25 19:1 142 20:15 155 1 Samuel 2:17 152 3:10 141 3:14 152 4:8 17 4:16 52 4:18 118 4:19–22 26 9:9 25 10:8 123 11:8 155 12:22 186 14:4 25 15:2 155

Index of Scripture 1 Samuel (cont.) 15:29 173 17:11 133 17:46 106 18:18 53 19:6 153 20:34 146 21:7 133 22:1 28 23:22–23 94 23:28 29 24:12 94 25:25 38 25:28 148 26:9 154 27:5 159 28:13 17 2 Samuel 2:6 149 2:12 208 2:16 29 3:8 155 4:9 192 7:26 186 7:28 136 10:2 147 15:3 54 15:4 54 15:19 57 15:20 149 15:34 53 16–20 206 18:18 29 19:38 123 20:6 155 22:26 148 22:31 209 24 66 1 Kings 2:37 123 3:15 160 3:16–28 206 3:23 60 7:21 25 8  170, 172 8:11 136 8:23  169, 180 8:33 186

1 Kings (cont.) 8:35 186 8:41 186 8:42 186 8:43  95, 186 8:50 152 10:1–13 206 10:9 57 11:19 146 13:1 17 15:10  25, 28 15:13 209 16:24  25, 29 16:32 209 17:18 118 18 209 18:19 209 18:39  17, 18, 141, 190 20:13 106 21:27–29 158 22:2 18 22:20 60 2 Kings 2:16 19 3:2 209 4:24 57 5:15 94 5:15–17 117 5:18 208 8:1 51 11:15 155 11:18 209 12:12 155 13:6 209 13:23 144 15:2 9 17:9 150 17:13 132 17:30 208 17:31 208 18:4  25, 28 18:8 150 19:37 208 20:19 149 22:12 175 23:10 208 23:13 208 23:26 146 25:23 155

241 Isaiah 1–12  26, 27 1:1 18 2:2 139 2:2–3 137 3:17 160 6:1 160 6:1–13 45 7:3  26, 28 7:4 146 7:14  26, 27, 192 8:1 26 8:1–4 27 8:3 26 8:4  27, 29 8:8 29 9:16 144 10:6 29 10:21–22  26, 29 12:4 186 13:4 155 13:6 100 13:11  155, 156 13:18 144 14:24 153 16:21 155 19 113 19:18 25 19:19–25  112, 114 19:20 112 19:21  94, 95, 113 24:15 186 25:1 186 26:2 148 26:8  57, 186 26:9 93 26:10 145 26:14 155 26:21  155, 156 29:23 186 30:27 20 34:14  27, 28 37:38 208 38:11 141 38:18 149 40–52  193, 194, 200 40–66 86 40:1–11 45 40:3 198 40:5 140

242 Isaiah (cont.) 40:10 93 41:4 193 42:3 148 42:5 16 42:8  20, 60 43:1 132 43:10 193 43:13 193 43:25 52 44:5 60 44:23 86 45 199 45:3 106 45:4  60, 132 45:5 199 45:23 199 46:1 208 46:4 193 47:8 193 48:2 60 48:9  147, 186 48:12 193 49:1  118, 132 49:7 148 49:9 132 49:10 178 49:23 106 49:26 106 50:6 139 50:10 186 51:3 19 51:15 60 52:5 186 52:6  95, 186 53:4 151 54:8 178 55:7 185 55:8–9 132 56:6 186 57:15  143, 186 59:19 186 60:1 140 60:16 106 61:9 95 62:4 26 63:7  148, 185 63:15 145 63:16  94, 186 63:19 96

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 64:1  95, 96, 186 66:5 186 Jeremiah 1:4–10 45 2:2 147 2:35 154 3:12 148 3:21 146 4:16 118 5:9 186 6:15 155 7:6 17 7:9 209 7:32 25 9:3 67 9:22–23 198 9:23  176, 181 10:6  20, 186 10:16 60 11:19 118 14:7 186 14:20 94 14:21 186 15:15 146 15:16 117 16:13 146 16:21 106 18:7–10  156, 158, 173, 186 19:6  26, 28, 29 20:3 26 23:6  26, 198 23:27 186 24:7 95 25:29 154 27:8 155 30:11  155, 185 30:25 53 31:6 150 31:29 157 31:35 60 32:17 176 32:17–18 181 32:18  60, 176 32:19  132, 149 32:20 186 32:38 56 33:2  20, 60

Jeremiah (cont.) 33:11 148 33:16 198 34:16 186 38:7 18 40:15 123 42:12 145 44:26 153 46:18 60 46:28  155, 185 48:11 95 48:15 60 48:17 95 49:19 83 50:34  26, 60 50:44 83 51:19 60 Ezekiel 1 112 1–20 112 1:1–3:15 45 1:2 77 1:24 100 1:28 140 5:16 112 6:11 112 8:3 112 8:4 140 10:5  100, 101 11:1 77 11:20 56 12:25 51 16:14 186 16:15 186 16:17 136 17:3 112 17:7 149 18 159 18:2 157 18:4 158 18:22 152 18:25  160, 170 18:25–30 132 18:29  157, 160 18:30  152, 158 20 111 20–48 112 20:5  94, 95, 111, 114 20:9  94, 95, 111, 112, 186

Index of Scripture Ezekiel (cont.) 20:11 112 20:14 186 20:22 186 22:5 186 23:19 112 25:16 27 35:11 94 36:20 186 36:21 186 36:22  186, 187 36:23 186 36:29 192 36:32 94 37:23 192 38:8 112 38:23 94 39:7  95, 96, 186 39:25 186 43:7 186 43:8 186 43:11 94 48:35  26, 28 Hosea 1:1–11 185 1:4  20, 155 1:4–5 29 1:6  29, 185 1:9  29, 56 2:10 209 2:15 155 2:19 118 2:22 106 11:1 136 12:5 57 12:6  26, 60 13:14 19 Joel 1:15 100 2:1 173 2:1–11 173 2:12 173 2:12–15 174 2:13  145, 146, 163, 173, 174, 181 2:13–14 173 2:14  173, 174 2:26 186

Joel (cont.) 3:5 198 4:17 106 Amos 2:7 186 3:2  94, 95, 155 4:12 28 4:13 60 5:8  20, 60 5:15 145 5:25–27 208 6:10 118 9:1 160 9:6  20, 60 Jonah 3–4 175 3:9 174 3:10 174 4:2  145, 146, 163, 174, 181 Micah 1:10 28 1:10–15 28 1:11 28 2:7 147 4:5 186 5:3 186 7:1–17 175 7:3 62 7:18  175, q80, 188 7:18–20  175, 181, 188 7:19 175 Nahum 1:3  146, 165, 174, 181 1:6  146, 147 3:1 175 9:10 186 Habakkuk 3:3 65 Zephaniah 3:12 186 Haggai 1:1 72

243 Haggai (cont.) 1:6 186 1:11 186 1:14 186 2:2 186 2:7 140 3:16 186 3:20 186 Zechariah 1:9 49 5:6 49 6:12 29 8:8 56 9:17 136 10:12 186 11:7–14 26 11:8 147 13:2 118 14:9 186 Malachi 1:12  160, 170 3:16 154 Psalms 2:4 160 3:5 93 3:8 93 4:2 145 4:7 151 5:8 147 5:12  186, 187 6:10 146 7:10 17 7:18 186 8 77 8:2 186 8:5 155 8:10 186 9:3 186 9:11 95 10:3 36 10:4 146 12:2 148 12:8 150 15:4 57 16:4  117, 118 18:2  144, 145 18:26 148

244 Psalms (cont.) 18:50 186 19:13 154 19:14 154 20:2 186 20:6 186 20:8 186 22:2 141 22:23  20, 186, 187 23:3 186 23:6 136 24:5 151 25:4 132 25:5 149 25:7  147, 148 25:10 149 25:11 186 27:5 138 27:7 93 27:13  136, 137 29:2 186 30:5 148 30:9 145 30:10 149 31:4 186 31:10 145 31:16 192 31:20 136 31:21 138 32:5 185 33:11 58 33:21 186 34:4 186 39:8 160 39:9 192 40:11  57, 148 40:11–13 185 40:12 145 42:6 133 42:12 133 42–83 17 43:1 148 43:3  148, 149 43:5 133 44:3 93 44:4 140 44:6 186 44:9 186 44:21  142, 186 45:3 57

Index of Scripture Psalms (cont.) 45:18 186 48:11  21, 186 50 56 50:1 143 50:21  53, 56 51:3  145, 185 52:11 186 54:3 186 54:8 186 59:2–3 192 59:6 155 61:6 186 61:8  149, 150 61:9 186 62:3 16 63:3–4 138 66:2 186 66:4 186 68:5 186 68:15 100 69:28 154 69:31 186 69:37 186 71:4 192 74:10 186 74:18 186 74:21 186 75:2 186 75:8 60 76:2  94, 113, 114, 186 78 177 78:37 178 78:37–38 178 78:38  145, 178, 181 78:69 57 79:8–9 185 79:9 186 80:2 67 81:9 153 82:6 17 83:5 118 84:12 57 85 178 85:3 185 85:6 147 85:8 185 85:11  149, 185 86  176, 177 86:5  178, 181

Psalms (cont.) 86:9 186 86:11 149 86:13  147, 148 86:14 176 86:15  145, 146, 149, 160, 176, 178, 181 86:16 177 89:15  133, 149 89:29 148 91:1  100, 138 91:14  95, 186 92:2 186 93:3 151 95:2 133 96:2 186 99:8 185 100:4 186 100:5 148 102:13 58 102:14 144 102:16 186 102:22 186 103 177 103:1 186 103:4 192 103:7 177 103:8  145, 146, 177, 181 105:3 186 105:8 58 105:45 150 106:8 186 106:47 186 108:2 93 108:6 17 109:14 185 109:21 186 111 178 111:4  145, 146, 163, 178, 181 111:9 186 112:4 145 113 187 113:1 186 113:2 186 113:3 186 115:1 186 116:2 145 116:4 178 116:5  144, 145, 178, 181

Index of Scripture Psalms (cont.) 117:6 198 118:7 93 118:26 186 119:2 150 119:22 150 119:37  123, 132 119:55 186 119:89 57 119:100 150 119:115 150 119:132 186 119:152 57 122:4 186 123:2–3 145 124:8 186 128:5 136 129:8 186 129:8 [LXX]  192 130:2 160 130:8 192 135:1  74, 186 135:3 186 135:13  57, 186 136 150 136:1 150 138:2 186 139:16 154 140:5 150 140:14 186 142:2 93 142:8 186 143:1 146 143:11 186 145 177 145:1 186 145:2 186 145:7  136, 148 145:7–8 178 145:8  145, 146, 177, 181 145:21 186 148:5 186 148:13 186 149:3 186 Job 1:16 60 1:21 186 6:2 62 8:3 101

Job (cont.) 9:13 146 9:28 155 10:12 147 10:19 53 12:4 53 12:9 178 12:20 57 14:13 192 21:23–25 60 27:2 100 27:11 101 28:28 160 30:24 18 35:15 155 37:23 101 42:14 25 42:16 157 Proverbs 2:11 150 3:3  149, 179 6:25 136 7:15 133 8:7 148 10:3 62 11:4 192 13:12 36 14:17  146, 179 14:29  146, 179 14:31 145 15:18  146, 179 16:5–6 179 16:6 179 16:32  146, 179 18:10  20, 186, 187 19:9 179 19:11  147, 179 20:28  147, 149 22:1 146 22:24  146, 179 25:15  146, 147, 179 27:17 133 28:23 146 30:4  48, 95 31:29 149 Ruth 1:1–2 123 1:2 25

245 Ruth (cont.) 1:7 132 1:20  29, 44, 101 1:20–21  100, 114 1:21 100 2:7 124 2:13 53 2:19 28 3:3 94 3:14 94 4:14 100 Song of Songs 1:3 20 3:19 60 8:6 19 Ecclesiastes 3:11 59 7:8  147, 179 Lamentations 1:6 136 2:19 170 3:41 151 4:17 18 Esther 4:16  50, 54 Daniel 1:7 26 1:8 18 2:20 186 4:34–37 117 8–12 170 9 170 9:2 23 9:4  170, 180 9:4–19 170 9:9 170 9:15 186 9:15–19 160 9:16 170 9:19 170 9:20 146 10:14 139 Ezra 1:1–2 117

246 Ezra (cont.) 2:2 72 2:61 25 3:2 72 7:1 18 7:28 147 10:3 170 Nehemiah 1:5  171, 180 1:6  170, 171 1:11  170, 171, 186 2:3 36 8:17 72 9  171, 173 9:2 171 9:5  171, 186 9:5–37 171 9:7–15 171 9:17  145, 146, 169, 170, 171, 180

Index of Scripture Nehemiah (cont.) 9:19–31 172 9:31  145, 172 9:32 172 9:32–37 172 1 Chronicles 4:3 5 4:9 29 7:2 5 7:23 29 9:39 208 11:7  25, 28 16:10 186 16:29 186 16:35 186 17:23 148 17:24 186 21:3 67 21:7 51 21:15 66 29:13 186

2 Chronicles 3:1 66 6:14 169 6:24 186 6:33 95 7:14 117 14:10 186 20:6 17 20:24 18 21:17 149 23:17 209 25:16 146 30:6 167 30:9  145, 167, 173, 180 32:25–26 192 32:32 148 33:13 146 34:20 175 36:16 192

New Testament Matthew 1:21  190, 191 1:23  26, 192 3:3 198 4:7 198 4:10 198 5:7 195 13:41 191 16:18 191 16:28 191 20:21 191 21:43 191 28:20 192 Mark 1:3 198 2:7 195 Luke 1  195, 197 1:50 195 3:4 198 4:8 198 4:12 198 6:36 195

Luke (cont.) 10:37 195 24:35 197 John 1:14–18  195, 196 1:17 196 1:23 198 6:20 192 8:24 192 8:28 192 8:33 194 8:58  192, 193, 194 10:11 193 13:19 192 18:5 192 19:22 54 Acts 2:21 198 2:36 198 8:16 198 19:5 198 19:13 198

Romans 2:4 195 3:20 152 7:7–12 152 9:15–16 195 10:9 198 10:13 198 12:1 195 16:22 198 1 Corinthians 1:9 195 1:30 198 8:6 198 10:13 195 10:21 198 12:3 198 2 Corinthians 1:3 195 1:18 195 3:16 198 4:5 198 6:6 195 10:17 198

Index of Scripture Ephesians 2:4 195

2 Thessalonians 3:3 195

Philippians 2:1 195 2:10 199 2:11  198, 199, 203

2 Timothy 2:13 195 3:10 195

Colossians 3:12 195 3:17 198 1 Thessalonians 4:17 198 5:2 198 5:24 195

Titus 2:14 192 Hebrews 1:4 198 2:17 195 6:12–15 195 7:27 195 9:28 195 13:6 198

247 James 5:7–8 195 5:11 195 1 Peter 2:24 195 3:15 198 2 Peter 3:9 195 Revelation 1:4  194, 200 1:8  194, 198 19:1–6 199 19:11–12 195

Deuterocanonical Literature Wisdom of Solomon 15:1 194 Sirach 2:10–11 194

Sirach (cont.) 5:5 194 50:19 194

1 Baruch 2:27 194 2 Ezra 7:132–140  194, 195

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 77:7 194

Testament of Levi 18:9 192

1 Enoch 62:2 192 69:27–29 192

Psalms of Solomon 17:26 192