Thursday, October 8, 2020

T. Desmond Alexander on the use of the Divine Name Yahweh in Genesis and Exodus 6:3

 

 

. . . then began men to call upon the name of YHWH.  (Gen 4:26)

 

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name YHWH was I not known to them.  (Exo 6:3)

 

Some proponents of JEPD point to the apparent contradiction between these and similar texts. The argument, simplified, is that Gen 4:26 reflects a different source, one that used Yahweh for the name of God, while Exo 6:3 is part of a different tradition that, prior to this moment in the narrative, used Elohim and like-terms for God, but not Yahweh in the patriarchal narratives. 

 Commenting on this and some of the problems with the traditional approaches to this issue by JEPD proponents, T. Desmond Alexander noted:

 

Evidences supporting the claim that the peculiar arrangement of the divine names in Genesis is due to sources is drawn from a few significant passages: Genesis 4:26; Exodus 3:5-15; 6:3. Of these, Exodus 6:3, which is assigned to the Priestly Writer, is generally understood to state that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know God by the name Yahweh: ‘I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not made myself known to them.’ Although it is not expressed explicitly, Exodus 3:13-15, ascribed to E, may imply that the name Yahweh was only first revealed to Moses. Thus, in the early chapters of Exodus the E and P sources affirm that the patriarchs were not familiar with the divine epithet Yahweh. This, it is suggested, it supported by the observation that ‘Yahweh’ never appears in the E and P material preserved in Genesis. In marked contrast, right at the beginning of the primeval history, the J source introduces the name Yahweh, and this is confirmed by the statement in Genesis 4:26: ‘At that time men began to call on the name of Yahweh’. Only by dividing Genesis into sources, it is argued, is it possible to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements found in Exodus 6:3 and Genesis 4:26.

 

This interpretation of the evidence, however, creates an intriguing problem. Since the time of Wellhausen it has been customary to view J as the oldest of the Pentateuchal sources. Yet, if J existed prior to E and P, why did these later sources state that the patriarchs did not know the name Yahweh? Were the authors of E and P not already aware of the fact that the patriarchs knew God as Yahweh? In its present form, the Documentary Hypothesis offers no satisfactory explanation for this problem.

 

Although doubts have been expressed in the past about the validity of the criterion of the divine names, it is still widely viewed as an important guide to the sources underlying the Pentateuch, and especially the book of Genesis. Nevertheless, it is now acknowledged that a purely ‘mechanical application’ of this criterion is unsatisfactory. This is so for a number of reasons. First, whereas Yahweh is a personal name, Elohim is a common noun. While there are many occasions in Genesis where it is possible to interchange these terms, there are contexts which permit only the use of Elohim as a common noun meaning ‘deity’ (Gen. 9:36; 17:7, 8; 23:3, 7, 12, 27, 42, 48; 26:24; 27:20; 28:13[x2], 11; 31:5, 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 42[x2], 53[x2]; 32:10[x2]; 33:20; 35:2,4; 43:23[x2]; 46:1,3; 50:17). Second, there are some obvious instances where the use of a particular divine name is determined by the context. For example, in Genesis 3:1-5 the serpent and the woman use the designation Elohim, rather than Yahweh Elohim, which is used elsewhere throughout 2:4-3:24. As his adversary, it is hardly surprising that the serpent avoids using God’s personal name Yahweh. Third, ‘the name for God is not as stringent a criterion for J as it is for P (or E)’ (Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 579). Given that in E and P the divine name Yahweh was first revealed to Moses, we would clearly not expect to find ‘Yahweh’ appearing in E or P passages occurring in Genesis. There is, however, no reason why Yahweh should not appear in E or P narratives involving events after the revelation of this new name to Moses. Similarly, there is no reason why the epithet Elohim may not be present in any of the J Material (cf. Skinner, Genesis, l-li). Thus, strictly speaking, in Genesis only the present of ‘Yahweh’ in a text can be viewed as a decisive indicator for source analysis; the presence of Elohim in a particular verse does not automatically require that it should be assigned to either E or P. This factor may have important implications for the source analysis of chaps. 20-22. Fourth, an examination of biblical material outside of Genesis reveals that ‘variation in the name for God is certainly possible in a literary unity’ (Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 579; cf. Segal, ‘El, Elohim and Yhwh’, 94-97; Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 67-68). The presence of both divine names in a single passage does not necessarily 8imply that two separate accounts have been integrated together. It is possible for one author to use both divine epithets. Fifth, we should be alert to the possibility that the biblical texts may have been modified as a result of editorial activity. Thus, for example, Skinner argues that the presence of Yahweh in 22:11, 14; 28:21; 31:49 is ‘due to the intentional action of a redactor’ (Skinner, Genesis, l-li). Sixth, it is not inconceivable that in some instances a divine name was changed merely by accident in the transmission of the Genesis text. We cannot be completely certain that the Massoretic Text preserves accurately the arrangement of the divine names following the amalgamation of the supposed sources J, E and P. This possibly is supported by the different textual traditions found in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint (For a fuller discussion of the textual evidence, see J. Skinner, The Divine Names in Genesis [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914]. The SP differs from MT in some 9 cases [7:1, 9; 14:22; 20:18; 28:4; 31:7, 9, 16a; 35:9b]. The LXX manuscripts preserve over 60 readings where the divine names differ from the MT). All of these observations highlight the danger of adopting a purely mechanical application of the divine names criterion for source analysis.

 

Yet, even after making due allowance for these exceptions, the thesis that Genesis is comprised of sources which use different divine names remains highly credible. Not surprisingly, a majority of scholars appear content to accept this explanation for the distribution of the divine epithets in Genesis. As Westermann observes, ‘none of the attempts to explain the variation in the name for God in another way have (sic.) so far led to any convincing result” (Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 578). (T. Desmond Alexander, Abraham in the Negev: A Source-Critical Investigation of Genesis 20:1-22:19 [Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1997], 91-93, emphasis added)

 

 

Blog Archive