Names were profoundly significant in the ancient Semitic world. The opening words of the Babylonian Epic of Creation, Enuma Elish, refer to a time before the cosmos existed: “When on high the heaven had not been named ,/Firm ground below had not been called by name” (E. A. Speiser in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 60). Without a name there is no real existence (U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, p. 37). To destroy the names was to destroy the enemy rulers themselves (IT and H. A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson and Thorkild Jacobsen, in Before Philosophy , pp. 21-22). “The name is a thing of individuality and of power; the act of speaking a new name is an act of creation. Thus we have the picture of the creator squatting on his tiny island and inventing names for eight parts of his body-of four pairs of parts—with each utterance bringing a new god into existence” (John A. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 62-63). In much the same way, the Hebrews also attached special importance to the concept of names. In the Yahwistic account of the garden of Eden, “The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air and to every beast of the field” (Gen.2:20).

The Hebrew word, s h em, name, occurs over eight hundred times in the Old Testament. The essential character of a man is concentrated in his name, as for example in Gen.27:36, where by a word-play the name “Jacob” is understood to mean “supplanter,” “cheater”. The popular etymology, as von Rad points out, op. cit., p. 273, is found also in Hosea 12:4 and Jer.9:4 (H 3). J. Pedersen, the Danish scholar, states succinctly, “To know the name of a man is the same as to know his essence”; indeed, “the name is the soul” (J. Pedersen, Israel I-IL 1926, p. 245). Names are frequently symbolic. Isaiah of Jerusalem has a son named “Shear-jashub,” *4a remnant shall return” (Isa.7:3. See William L. Holladay, The Root Stkbh in the Old Testament, p. 146). Another son a named “Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” “The spoil speeds, the prey hastes” (Isa.8:3), referring to the imminent spoliation of Judah by Assyria. So also, Isaiah announces to Ahaz that a son will be born to a young woman (Isa.7:14), who will call his name “Immanu-el,” “God with us”. Name also implies reputation, renown, fame. There is, as it were, an extension of his personality” (R. Abba, article: “Name” in IDB, III, p. 502).

A change in name means a change of character. Folk etymology attempts to set forth the original meaning of names, as popularly understood, and sometimes provides an aetiology or explanation. In a narrative containing a number of aetiological elements, Jacob’s name is changed to Israel (Gen.32:28), after he has wrestled at the ford of the Jabbok. The meaning of the new name, Israel, ״He who strives with God” or “God strives/’ represents a popular etymology. According to W. F. Albright, “The Names ‘Israel’ and 4Judah’ with an Excursus on the Etymology of Todah and Torah,” JBL, XLVI (1927): 151-185, the most probable derivation is from the verb yasar, which with ‘ël means “God heals” (pp. 167, 168). For a full treatment of the name Israel, see:

ch with ‘ël means “God heals” (pp. 167, 168). For a full treatment of the name Israel, see G. A. Danell, Studies in the Name of Israel in the Old Testament (Uppsala, 1946). Danell equates the name Israel with Jeshurun and Asher. In Haldar’s opinion, the most probable derivation is from the root V, “successful,” “happy”; “Israel, Names and Associations oï^IDB II (N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 765.

According to M. Reisel, the bestowing of a new name was meant to influence not only the character of the recipient, but his future (M. Reisel, Observations on ‘Ehyeh ^sher ‘eh y eh, hw*h’ and shem ha mm ephorash, p. 2). The Old Testament contains about one thousand four hundred different proper names of individuals. More than half of them consist of two parts, one of which is the name or designation of a deity (L. Köhler, Hebrew Man, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd, pp. 63-65).

Since names assigned to human beings are regarded as significant in what they declare about the character and influence of individuals, we are justified in expecting divine names to carry specific meaning. Walther Eichrodt emphasizes the importance of this expectation in his treatment of the name of the covenant God, YHWII, “If the saying nomina sunt realia is valid in any context, it is surely that of the divine name in the ancient world. The question, therefore, of what kind of name the God of Israel bore is no idle one, but can be the means of arriving at an important insight into Israel’s religious thought” (W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, trans, by J. A. Baker, p. 178). The Old Testament contains various titles and surrogates for God, such as El Shaddai, El Ely on, Haqqadosh (The Holy One), and Adonai. In chapter three, consideration will be given to names ascribed to God in the patriarchal period. In this respect YHWH stands in contrast to the principal deities of the Babylonians and the Egyptians. “Jahweh had only one name; Marduk had fifty with which his praises as victor over Tiamat were sung in hymns. Similarly, the Egyptian Re is the god with many names”. In addition to the name YHWH, the designation for God which occurs with greatest frequency is the word Elohiin. The noun Elohim (A. Murtonen, A Philological and Literary Treatise on the Old Testament Divine Names, p. 42) occurs 2,570 times in the Old Testament ( F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 43a).

Grammarians have regarded Elohim as a plural of intensity or majesty, summing up the essential characteristics and intensifying the original idea, i.e., Godhead. The plural ending retains a plural significance in those instances where the reference is clearly to the gods worshipped by non Israelites, “other gods”(Exod.23:13;Deut.31:18), “foreign gods” (Judges 10:16; Jer.5:19), “gods of the nations2) ״ Kings 18:33; Deut. 29.18). These Elohim, rulers and judges of the pagan nations, are stripped of their divinity (Ps.82:7). In other cases (e.g. Ps,138:1, Ps.8:5), the translation “angels,” “divine beings,” would not be inappropriate. An unusual occurrence is found when the medium at Endor, summoned by Saul to “bring up” Samuel, cries out, “I see a god Çeiôhîm) coming up out of the earth” (1 Sam.28:13). The Tetragrammaton, YHWH (i.e. YAHWEH), the proper name of the God revealed to Israel, occurs 6,823 times (BDB, p. 217b).

The distinction of the names Elohim and YHWH in the Old Testament has been of special interest ever since Jean Astruc, in 1753, first used the occurrences in Genesis as the basis for distinguishing separate sources in the first book of the Bible (J. Astruc, Conjectures sur les mémoires dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese). Johannes Dahse claimed that the text of the LXX is a more reliable witness to the original text of the Hebrew than the MT. This view rests on an elaborate “Pericope-hypothesis,” based on the Seder divisions of the Pentateuch in the lectionary of the synagogue, to account for the names in the Greek text, in which kyrios (YHWH) usually occurs at the beginning of a section, although ho theos (Elohim) may stand elsewhere.

Ivan Engnell claims that the alternation of divine names “is not due to an alternation of documents, but to an intentional stylistic use by those who handed down the tradition” (John T. Willis, p. 55). Rather than an indication of diverse sources, “the name Yah we h is used in contexts which distinguish Israel’s national god from foreign gods, relate the history of the ancestors, etc., while the name Elohim, ‘God’, expresses a more theological, abstract, cosmic idea of God, and therefore is used in a broader, more comprehensive way” (I. Engnell, op. cit., p. 56). The Yahwistic source (J) (O. Eissfeldt, op. cit., pp. 158-212; Sellin-Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testa ment, trans, by David E. Green, pp. 103-195) regularly employs the Tetragrammaton (sometimes in combination with Elohim, as in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis). The Elohistic (E) and Priestly (P) sources prefer Elohim, although Ρ uses the divine name YHWH from Exod.6:2,3 on, a matter which will be referred to again in connection with the Kenite hypothesis of the origin of the divine name (see chapter two).

The absence of the name YHWH and the use of such names as El, Elohim (without the definite article), Eloah and Shaddai in the poetic sections of the book are intended to provide the atmosphere of the patriarchal period, although the book of Job in its present form may be as late as the fifth century (H. H. Rowley, Job, The Century Bible: New Series, pp. 21-23) or even later. Other late books, such as Ecclesiastes and Daniel, prefer Elohim (usually with the definite article) as the name for God. Daniel also frequently refers to God as the Most High (e.g., Dan.4:2,24; 7:18,22, etc.). The fact that the Tetragrammaton appears in the Book of Daniel only in Daniel’s prayer (in Dan.9) perhaps indicates that this passage is an addition (Ο. Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 529. See also N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, OTL, pp. 135-139). Nevertheless, in late books of the Hebrew bible, the Tetragrammaton has ceased to be used with the frequency which characterizes the earlier Old Testament literature. The problem of the ‘Έ-lohistic redaction” of the Psalter consists in the fact that Psalms 42-83 show a decided preference for the name Elohim rather than for YHWH, whereas Psalms 1-41 and 84-150 employ the Tetragrammaton much more frequently as the usual mode of address to God. G. F. Moore has suggested that the appellative Elohim in Psalms 42-83 was substituted by an editor who belonged to a circlc in which there were now scruples about the use of the Tetragrammaton, for reverential reasons (G. F. Moore, Judaism, I, p. 424).

Old Testament scholars have almost unanimously regarded Elohim as the generic term for God, or as a synonym for YHWH, the specifically Israelite name (W. Eichrodt, op. cit., I, pp. 185-192; Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology, Eng. ed., pp. 194-198, P. van Imschoot, Theology of the Old Testament, I, God, trans, by Kathryn Sullivan and Fidelis Buc, pp. 12-19). This view has now been challenged by Eliezer Berkovits, who main tains, on the contrary, that YHWH “is the biblical name for God in the universal sense, as the God of all creation, known as such by all nations” (Eliezer Berkovits, Man and God, p. 63), whereas Elohim is to be understood as God in his immanence, loving and caring for his people. On this understanding, YHWH represents the revelatio generalis׳, Elohim, the revelatio specialis. In support of his thesis, Rabbi Berkovits appeals to 1 Kings 18, the account of Elijah on Mount Carmel. He claims that the usual translation of 1 Kings 18:21, “If the Lord (YHWH) is God (Ha’ elôhîm)9 follow him,” obscures the meaning of the passage, since the definite article before yeïôhîm is ignored.

The distinctions made by Berkovits between YHWH as always indicating tran scendence and Elohim as expressing immanence seem artificial and do not reflect the way in which the divine names are actually utilized. The Tetragrammaton and Elohim are frequently synonyms, as for example in the Psalms, where stylis tic considerations govern their use. Transcendence or immanence may be ex pressed by either name, depending on context (e.g., transcendence: Ps.29:10, YHWH; Ps.77:13, Elohim; immanence: Ps.34:18, YHWH; Ps.l4:5, Elohim). YHWH was the characteristic name for God in the southern tradition, Elohim in the northern tradition, still in use as an appellative even after the Tetragram maton had been accepted. The phrase, “YHWH, thy God (Elohim),” represents the fusion of the two traditions.

Grether traces the use of the phrase “the name of YHWH” in pre Deuteronomic and in post-Deuteronomic times (O. Grether, op. cit., pp. 26-30; 35ff). In the earlier period, “the name of YHWH” is used as a synonym for God (e.g., Amos 2:7; Micah 5:4; Isa.29:33). In two important passages (Exod.23:20,21 ; Isa.30:27f.), “the name” is equivalent to a direct manifestation of God. Exod.23:20,21 declares that “an angel” (malfikh) will go before Israel, “to bring you to the place (ham׳ mäqom) which I have prepared”; furthermore, “my name is in him 0beqirbo).” M.Noth comments, “The ‘angel* is the ambassador of Yahweh (cf. ‘my angel,’ v.23) who represents Yahweh himself and in whom Yahweh himself is present; the latter is expressed in v.21 by saying that the ‘name* of Yahweh is present in the ‘angel’ as the name represents the one who bears it” (M. Noth, Exodus, p. 193). U. Cassuto, drawing attention to the reference to the mal*âkh in Gen.24:7, interprets the passage in Exodus in similar figurative fashion, “the angel of God is simply God’s action” ( U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, p. 305). Isa.30:27,28 is a strongly anthropomorphic description of God, burn ing with anger, his lips full of indignation, his tongue like a devouring fire. The imagery is that of a thunderstorm (R. B. Y. Scott, “The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39” in IB, p. 336). In the post-Deuteronomic period, “the name” is frequently used as a syno nym for YHWH, especially in the Psalms (e.g., Isa.25:l; Mal.3:16; Ps.7:17; Ps.34:3; Ps.92:1; Ps.103:1). There are other passages where “the name” is virtu ally an hypostasis for YHWH (e.g., Prov. 18:10; Mal. 1:14; Zech.l4:9). Eventu ally, hashshëm was used by the Rabbis as a usual periphrasis for God.

1. The Tetragrammaton before Moses
2. Pentateuchal source criticism has undergone modifications since the time of Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen, yet in large measure scholars are agreed on the major sources. For important recent studies of J and P, see: Peter F. Ellis, The Yahwist (Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Inc., 1968); J. G. Vink, “The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament,” Ο TS XV (1969): 1-144; S. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, Analecta Biblica No. 50 (Rome: Pont. Inst. Bibl., 1972). Since the work of P. Volz and W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler: ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? BZ A W, LXIII (1933), the delineation of Ε has been less certain. See, however, Sellin-Fohrer, Intro duction to the Old Testament, trans, by David E. Green (N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1968), espec. pp. 152-158. Redaction of the J and Ε strata has complicated the task of analysis. According to Martin Noth’s analysis ( M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, trans, by J. S. Bowden, pp. 56-62) Exod.6:2-7:7 contains the Priestly version of the call of Moses, which like the JE version in Exod.3: Iff. regards the divine name YHWH as a new revelation. In fact, the Ρ strand in the Pentateuch now consistently uses the new title from this point on ( J. Skinner, The Divine Names in Genesis, pp. 9-14).

In the light of these divergent traditions and in order to provide an explana tion, the Kenite hypothesis was first put forward over a hundred years ago by F. W. Ghillany (under the pseudonym, R. von der Alm) (R. von der Alm, Theologische Briefe an den Gebilden der deutschen Nation, I (1862), pp. 216, 480). This hypothesis, ad mittedly speculative, finds a measure of probability on the basis of a cumulative argument. More recent proponents differ in details of presentation, but neverthe less agree on a number of propositions. Those who have held to some form of the Kenite hypothesis include B. Stade (Β. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, pp.42f), Κ. Budde (Karl Budde, The Religion of Israel to the Exile), H. Gressmann (Hugo Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, pp. 163ff), J. Morgenstern (J. Morgenstern, ‘The Elohist Narrative in Exodus 3:1-15,” AJSL, XXXVII 1920-21: 242-262), G. Beer (G. Beer, Exodus, mit einem Beitrag von Kurt Galling, p. 30), and the most eloquent advocate of all, H. H. Rowley (I. IL Rowley, The Re-Discovery of the Old Testament, pp. 79-87). M. Noth (M. Noth, Genesis: A Commentary, OTL, p. 104) and J. Gray (J. Gray, “The God YW in the Religion of Canaan.” JKES, XII (1953): 278-283) also appear to be in general sym pathy with the hypothesis, and even R. de Vaux, who rejects it, at least holds open the possibility that the divine name, YHWH, is pre-Israelite (R. de Vaux, “The Revelation of the Divine Name YHWH” in John L Durham & J. R. Porter, eds. Proclamation and Presence, Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, p.56).

1. The Kenite hypothesis may be summarized briefly as follows. Prior to the time of Moses, YHWH was already the God of the Kenites. When Moses fled from Egypt, he found sanctuary with Jethro, the priest of Midian, and married his daughter, Zipporah. Jethro, who belonged to a Kenite clan of the Midi an! tes, introduced Moses to the god, YllWII, and later (Exod. 18:11) rejoiccd at the discovery that YHWH had delivered Moses and the Israelites in the Exodus from Egypt and the passage of the Sea of Reeds. This in no way detracts from the new understanding of YHWH gained by Moses as a result of the encounter at the burning bush (Exod.3:1-15). Various southern tribes, including Judah, which were not involved in the sojourn in Egypt, or in the Exodus under Moses, had penetrated Palestine from the south. Kenites had been associated with them in this northward movement from Kadesh-barnea. The worship of YHWH had been adopted by the southern tribes at a time much earlier than that of Moses, and indeed, according to Gen.4:26 and the J tradition, YHWH was acknowledged as having been worshipped from antiquity. The “Joseph” tribes, whom Moses led out of Egypt, did not worship God under the name YHWH, until Moses declared this name to them, after his return from Midian. This is the situation reflected in the Ε and Ρ traditions, in which Moses is recognized as the prophetic figure whointroduced Yahwism to the tribes which he led out of Egypt. Later, Joshua led descendants of these same tribes into central Palestine. Yet another considéra tion we may wish to add to this very condensed summary of the Kenite hypoth csis is that Josh (the account of the covenant at Shechem) may be regarded as pointing to the occasion of the establishment of the twelve-tribe amphictyony in covenant with YHWH.
2. Eventually, both northern and southern tribes incorpo rated into their traditions accounts of the mighty acts of YHWH in the events of the exodus and the revelation at the sacred mount in the giving of the law to Israel.
3. According to the Kenite hypothesis, Exod. 18:1-12 records Jcthro’s glad acceptance of the fact that YHWH, the deity whom he worships, has proved to be the deliverer of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Iiis appreciation of the greatness of YHWH is therefore considerably enhanced. Martin Buber, on the other hand, regards the event as the occasion when Jethro acknowledges the greatness of Moses’ god, and just as Abraham had identified Iiis god with the Έί ΈΙγοη of Melchizedek (Gen. 14:22), makes a similar identification between his god and YHWH, the god of Moses (ML Buber, Kingship of God, 3rd. ed., trans, by Richard Scheimann, pp. 29-36). Much depends on the interpretation of the phrase catîah yadhcftî in Exod.18:1 L A parallel may be made with the 44Now I know” of Gen.22:12, where Abraham’s response to the testing command to sacrifice Isaac, confirms the fact that he indeed fears God. Likewise, the “Now I know” of Jethro in Exod. 18:11 indicates that he has received confirming evi dence that his god is in fact the greatest of all.
4. Archaeological research has helped immeasurably in illuminating the biblical patriarchal narratives (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, The Anchor Bible), yet because of the incompleteness of the evidence, “we will never be able to write a historical biography of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Joseph or even a real history of the patriarchal period” (Ignatius Hunt, The World of the Patriarchs, p. 82; Chagar Bazar, From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 180-325). W. F. Albright comes to the conclusion that “the Patriarchs were indeed human beings who were the heroes of stories handed down from the Patriarchal Age. It is, however, quite true that there is a good deal of ethnic tradition intermingled with the Patriarchal narratives of Genesis” (W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, p.56).