GOD
not
uaed
the
name,
but
had
known
God
as
'El
Shaddai'
(Ex
62'
);
for
it
is
putting
force
upon
language
to
suppose
that
P
meant
only
that
the
patriarchs
did
not
understand
the
full
meaning
of
the
name
'
Jahweh,'
although
they
used
it.
P
is
consistent
in
not
using
the
name
'Jahweh
until
the
Exodus.
So
the
author
of
Job,
who
lays
his
scene
in
the
patriarchal
age,
makes
the
characters
of
the
dialogue
use
'Shaddai,'
etc.,
and
only
once
(12')
'Jahweh'
(Driver,
p.
185).
We
have
thus
contradictory
authorities.
Driver
(p.
xix.)
suggests
that
though
the
name
was
not
absolutely
new
in
Moses'
time,
it
was
current
only
in
a
limited
circle,
as
is
seen
from
its
absence
in
the
composition
of
patriarchal
proper
names.
■
Jehovah
'
is
a
modem
and
hybrid
form,
datmg
only
from
A.D.
1518.
The
name
'Jahweh'
was
so
sacred
tnat
it
was
not,
in
later
Jewish
times,
pronounced
at
all,_
perhaps
owing
to
an
over-literal
interpretation
of
the
Third
Corn-mandment.
In
reading
'Adonai'
was
substituted
for
it;
hence
the
vowels
of
that
name
were
in
MSS
attached
to
the
consonants
of
'Jahweh'
for
a
guide
to
the
reader,
and
the
result,
when
the
MSS
are
read
as
written
(as
they
were
never
meant
by
Jewish
scribes
to
be
read),
is
'Jehovah.'
Thus
this
modem
form
has
the
consonants
of
one
word
and
the
vowels
of
another.
'The
Hellenistic
Jews,
in
Greek,
substituted
'Kyrios'
(Lord)
for
the
sacred
name,
and
it
is
thus
rendered
in
LXX
and
NT.
This
explains
why
in
EV
'the
LoRn'
is
the
usual
rendering
of
'Jahweh.'
The
expression
'
Tetragrammatpn
'
is
used
for
the
four
consonants
of
thesacredname,
YHWH,
which
appears
in
Greek
capital
letters
as
Pipi,
owing
to
the
similarity
of
the
Greek
capital
p
to
the
Hebrew
h,
and
the
Greek
capital
i
to
the
Hebrew
y
and
w
[thus,
Heb.
nini
=
Gr.
n
I
PI
U-
(g)
Jah
is
an
apocopated
form
of
Jahweh,
and
appears
In
poetry
{e.g.
Ps
68",
Ex
16^)
in
the
word
'Hallelujah'
and
in
proper
names.
For
Jah
Jahweh
see
Is
11^
26'.
(A)
Jahweh
Ts^baoth
('
Sabaoth
'
of
Ro
Q^'
and
Ja
5<),
In
EV
'Lord
of
hosts'
(wh.
see),
appears
frequently
in
the
prophetical
and
post-exilic
literature
(Is
1'
6',
Ps
84'
etc.).
This
name
seems
originally
to
have
referred
to
God's
presence
with
the
armies
of
Israel
in
the
times
of
the
monarchy;
as
fuller
conceptions
of
God
became
prevalent,
the
name
received
an
ampler
meaning.
Jahweh
was
known
as
God,
not
only
of
the
armies
of
Israel,
but
of
all
the
hosts
of
heaven
and
of
the
forces
of
nature
(Cheyne,
Aids
to
Devout
Study
oi
Criticism,
p.
284)
.
We
notice,
lastly,
that
'Jahweh'
and
'Elohim'
are
joined
together
in
Gn
2«-3«
Q^",
Ex
9",
and
elsewhere.
Jahweh
is
identified
with
the
Creator
of
the
Universe
(Ottley,
BL'
p.
195).
We
have
the
same
conjunction,
with
'Sabaoth'
added
('Lord
God
of
hosts'),
in
Am
S".
'
Adonai
'
with
'
Sabaoth
'
is
not
uncommon.
3.
Pre-Mosaic
conceptions
of
God.
—
We
are
now
in
a
position
to
consider
the
growth
of
the
revelation
of
God
In
successive
ages;
and
special
reference
may
here
be
made
to
Kautzsch's
elaborate
monograph
on
the
'Rehgion
of
Israel'
In
Hastings'
DB,
Ext.
vol.
pp.
612-734,
for
a
careful
discussion
of
OT
conceptions
of
God.
With
regard
to
those
of
pre-Mosaic
times
there
is
much
room
for
doubt.
The
descriptions
written
so
many
centuries
later
are
necessarily
coloured
by
the
ideas
of
the
author's
age,
and
we
have
to
depend
largely
on
the
survival
of
old
customs
in
historical
times
—
customs
which
had
often
acquired
a
new
meaning,
or
of
which
the
original
meaning
was
forgotten.
Certainly
pre-Mosaic
Israel
conceived
of
God
as
attached
to
certain
places
or
pillars
or
trees
or
springs,
as
we
see
in
Gn
12«
13"
14'
35',
Jos
242"
etc.
It
has
been
conjectured
that
the
stone
circle,
Gilgal
(Jos
42-8-
'""■),
was
a
heathen
sanctuary
converted
to
the
religion
of
Jahweh.
A.
B.
Davidson
(Hastings'
DB
ii.
201)
truly
remarks
on
the
difficulty
in
primitive
times
of
realizing
deity
apart
from
a
local
abode
;
later
on,
the
Ark
relieved
the
difficulty
without
representing
Jahweh
under
any
form,
for
His
presence
was
attached
to
it
(but
see
below,
§
4).
—
Traces
of
'
Totemism,'
of
belief
in
the
blood
relationship
of
a
tribe
and
a
natural
object,
such
as
an
animal,
treated
as
the
protector
of
the
tribe,
have
been
found
in
the
worship
of
Jahweh
under
the
form
of
a
molten
bull
(1
K
12^';
but
this
was
doubtless
derived
from
the
Canaanites),
and
in
the
avoidance
of
unclean
animals.
Traces
of
'
Animism,'
GOD
or
belief
in
the
activity
of
the
spirits
of
one's
dead
relations,
and
its
consequence
'
Ancestor-worship,'
have
been
found
in
the
mourning
customs
of
Israel,
such
as
cutting
the
hair,
wounding
the
flesh,
wearing
sackcloth,
funeral
feasts,
reverence
for
tombs,
and
the
levirate
marriage,
and
in
the
name
elohim
{i.e.
supernatural
beings)
given
to
Samuel's
spirit
and
(probably)
other
spirits
seen
by
the
witch
of
Endor
(1
S
28'').
Kautzsch
thinks
that
these
results
are
not
proved,
and
that
the
belief
in
demoniacal
powers
explains
the
mourning
customs
without
its
being
necessary
to
suppose
that
Animism
had
developed
into
Ancestor-worship.
—
Polytheism
has
been
traced
in
the
plural
'Elohim'
(see
2
above),
in
the
teraphim
or
household
gods
(Gn
313",
1
S
19"-
":
found
in
temples,
Jg
17=
18";
cf.
Hos
3');
and
patriarchal
names,
such
as
Abraham,
Sarah,
have
been
taken
for
the
titles
of
pre-historic
divinities.
Un-doubtedly
Israel
was
in
danger
of
worshipping
foreign
gods,
but
there
is
no
trace
of
a
Hebrew
polytheism
(Kautzsch).
It
will
be
seen
that
the
results
are
almost
entirely
negative;
and
we
must
remain
in
doubt
as
to
the
patriarchal
conception
of
God.
It
seems
clear,
however,
that
communion
of
the
worshipper
with
God
was
con-sidered
to
be
effected
by
sacrifice.
4.
Post-Mosaic
conceptions
of
God.
—
The
age
of
the
Exodus
was
undoubtedly
a
great
crisis
in
the
theological
education
of
Israel.
Moses
proclaimed
Jahweh
as
the
God
of
Israel,
supreme
among
gods,
alone
to
be
worshipped
by
the
people
whom
He
had
made
His
own,
and
with
whom
He
had
entered
into
covenant.
But
the
realiza-tion
of
the
truth
that
there
is
none
other
God
but
Jahweh
came
by
slow
degrees
only;
henotheism,
which
taught
that
Jahweh
alone
was
to
be
worshipped
by
Israel,
while
the
heathen
deities
were
real
but
inferior
gods,
gave
place
only
slowly
to
a
true
monotheism
in
the
popular
religion.
The
old
name
Micah
(
=
'Who
is
like
Jahweh?',
Jg
17')
is
one
indication
of
this
line
of
thought.
The
religion
of
the
Canaanites
was
a
nature-
worship;
their
deities
were
personified
forces
of
nature,
though
called
'Lord'
or
'Lady'
(Baal,
Baalah)
of
the
place
where
they
were
venerated
(Guthe,
EBi
ii.
art.
'Israel,'
§
6);
and
when
left
to
themselves
the
Israelites
gravitated
towards
nature-worship.
The
great
need
of
the
early
post-Mosaic
age,
then,
was
to
develop
the
idea
of
personality.
The
defective
idea
of
indivlduaUty
is
seen,
for
example,
in
the
putting
of
Achan's
household
to
death
(Jos
7**'),
and
in
the
wholesale
slaughter
of
the
Canaanites.
(The
defect
appears
much
later,
in
an
Oriental
nation,
in
Dn
B*",
and
is
constantly
observed
by
travellers
in
the
East
to
this
day.)
Jahweh,
therefore,
is
proclaimed
as
a
personal
God
;
and
for
this
reason
all
the
older
writers
freely
use
anthropomorphisms.
They
speak
of
God's
arm,
mouth,
lips,
eyes;
He
is
said
to
move
(Gn
3b
11'
18"),
to
wrestle
(32mii.).
Similariy
He
is
said
to
'
repent
'
of
an
action
(Gn
6«,
Ex
32"
;
but
see
1
S
152'),
to
be
grieved,
angry,
jealous,
and
gracious,
to
love
and
to
hate;
in
these
ways
the
intelligence,
activity,
and
power
of
God
are
emphasized.
As
a
personal
God
He
enters
into
covenant
with
Israel,
protecting,
ruling,
guiding
them,
giving
them
victory.
The
wars
and
victories
of
Israel
are
those
of
Jahweh
(Nu
21",
Jg
5M).
The
question
of
images
in
the
early
post-Mosaic
period
is
a
difficult
one.
Did
Moses
tolerate
images
of
Jahweh?
On
the
one
hand,
it
seems
certain
that
the
Decalogue
in
some
form
or
other
comes
from
Moses;
the
conquest
of
Canaan
is
inexplicable
unless
Israel
had
some
primary
laws
of
moral
conduct
(Ottley,
BL^
p.
172
f
.).
But,
on
the
other
hand,
the
Second
Commandment
need
not
have
formed
part
of
the
original
Decalogue;
and
there
is
a
very
general
opinion
that
the
making
of
images
of
Jahweh
was
thought
unobjectionable
up
to
the
8th
cent.
B.C.,
though
Kautzsch
believes
that
images
of
wood
and
stone
were
preferred
to
metal
ones
because
of
the
Canaanitish
associations
of
the
latter
(Ex
34",
but
see
Jg
17');
he
thinks
also
that
the
fact
of
the
Ark
being
the
shrine
of
Jahweh
and
representing
His
presence
points
to
its
having
contained
an
image
of
Jahweh(but
see
§
3
above)
,and
that
the
ephod
was
driginally
