JEHOVAH
330
JEHOVAH
tains only 6 wv xai 6 ^i-. (d) The comparison of Jeho-
vali with the Latin Jupiter, Joi'is. But it wholly neg-
lects the fuller forms of the Latin names Diespitcr,
Dioi'is. Any connexion of Jehovah with the Egyptian
Divine name consisting of the seven vowels i e t; oi
o u o, has been rejected by Hengstenberg (Beitrage
zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament, II, 204; sqq.) and
Tholuck (Vermischte Scliriften, I, 349 sqq.).
To take up the ancient writers: Diodorus Siculus writes Jao (I, 94); IreniEus ("Adv. ha>r.", II, x.xxv, 3, in P. G., VII, col. 840), Jaoth; the Valentinian heretics (Ir., "Adv. hrer.", I, iv, 1, in P. G., VII, col. 481), Jao; Clement of Alexandria ("Strom.", V, 6, in P. G., IX, col. 60), Jaou;Origen (" In Joh.", II, 1, in P. G., XIV, col. 105), Jao; Porphyry (Eus., "Prajp. evang", I, ix, in P. G., XXI, col. 72), Jeuo; Epiphanius ("Adv. ha;r.", I, iii, 40, inP. G., XLI, col. 685), Jaor Jabe; Pseudo-Jerome (" Breviarium in Pss.", in P. L., XXVI , 828) , Jaho ; the Samaritans (Theodoret , in " Ex. qua;st.", xv, in P. G., LXXX, col. 244), Jabe; James of Edessa (ef. Lamy, "La science catholique", 1891, p. 196), Jehjeh; Jerome ("Ep. x.xv ad Marcell.", in P. L., XXII, col. 429) speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name n I n I. The judicious reader will perceive that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe probably ap- proaches the real sound of tlie Divine name closest; the other early writers transmit only abbreviations or corruptions of the sacred name. Inserting the vow- els of Jabe into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name. It is not merely closely connected with the pronunciation of the an- cient synagogue by means of the Samaritan tradition, but it also allows the legitimate derivation of all the ab- breviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament.
II. Meaning of the Divine Name. — Jahveh (Yah- weh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such as Jacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, "Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache", 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attrib- ute to a person or a thing the action or tiie quality ex- pressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjec- tive or a participle. Fiirst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the form forma participialis imper- fecliva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb "to be", Jahveh means "He Who is", Whose characteristic note consists in being, or The Being simply.
Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfect hiphil or the imperfect qal. Calmet and Le C'lerc believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings into existence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive. Who realizes His promises, the God of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping with Ex., iii, 14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verlj meaning "to be"; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cog- nate languages by the pi 'el form, except in Syriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence.
On the other hand, Jahveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the tra- ditional exegesis of Ex., iii, 6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? w'hat shall I say to them?" In reply, God returns three several times to the determination of His name. First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: " I am who am" (Vulg.), " I am
who is" (Sept.), "I shall be [who] shall be" (Aquila,
Theodotion), "the Eternal who does not cease" (Ar.);
only the above-mentioned Targums see any reference
to the creation of the world. The second time, God
uses again the first person imperfect of the Hebrew
verb "to be"; here the Syriac, the Samaritan, the
Persian versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and
Jerusalem retain the Hebrew word, so that one cannot
tell whether they regard the imperfect as a qal or a
hiphil form; the Arabic version omits the whole clause;
but the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum of
Jonathan suppose here the imperfect qal: "He Who
Is, hath sent me to you " instead of " I Am, hath sent
me to you" (Vulg.); "6 fir sent me to you" (Sept.);
" I am who am, and who shall be, hath sent me to you"
(Targ. Jon.). Finally, the third time, God uses the
third person of the imperfect, or the form of the sa-
cred name itself; here the Samaritan version and the
Targum of Onkelos retain the Hebrew form; the Sep-
tuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac version render
"Lord", though, according to the analogy of the for-
mer two passages, they should have translated, "He
Is, the God of your fathers, . . . hath sent me to you";
the Arabic version substitutes "God ". Classical exe-
gesis, therefore, regards Jahveh as the imperfect qal
of the Hebrew verb "to be".
Here another question presents itself: Is the being predicated of God in His name, the metaphysical being denoting nothing but existence itself, or is it an his- torical being, a passing manifestation of God in time? Most Protestant writers regard the being implied in the name Jahveh as an historical one, though some do not wholly exclude such metaphysical ideas as God's independence, absolute constancy, and fidelity (cf. Oehler, "Thcologie des Alten Test.", 1882, p. 142), or again God's indefinableness, absolute consistency, fidelity to His promises, and immutability in His plans (cf. Driver, "Hebrew Tenses", 1892, p. 17). The following are the reasons alleged for the historical meaning of the "being" implied in the Divine name: (a) The metaphysical sense of being was too abstruse a concept for the primitive times. Still, some of the Egyptian speculations of the early times are almost as abstruse; besides, it was not necessary that the Jews of the time of Moses should fully understand the mean- ing implied in God's name. The scientific develop- ment of its sense might be left to the future Christian theologians, (b) The Hebrew verb haydh means rather "to become" than "to be" permanently. But good authorities deny that the Hebrew verb denotes being in motion rather than being in a permanent condition. It is true that the participle would have expressed a permanent state more clearly; but then, the participle of the verb Idiijah is found only in Ex., ix, 3, and few proper names in Hebrew are derived from the parti- ciple, (c) The imperfect mainly expresses the action of one who enters anew on the scene. But this is not al- ways the case; the Hebrew imperfect is a true aorist, prescinding from time and, therefore, best adapted for general principles (Driver, p. 38). (d) " I am who am" appears to refer to " I will be with thee " of v. 12; both texts seem to be alluded to in Os., i, 9, " I will not be yours". But if this be true, "I am who am " must be considered as an ellipse: " I am who am with J'ou", or "I am who am faithful to my promises". This is harsh enough ; but it becomes quite inadmissible in the clause, "I am who am, hath sent me".
Since then the Hebrew imperfect is admittedly not to be considered as a future, and since the nature of the language does not force us to see in it the expression of transition or of becoming, and since, moreover, early tradition is quite fixed and the absolute character of the verb hai/dh has induced even the most ardent pa- trons of its historical sense to admit in the texts a de- scription of God's nature, t he rules of hermeneutics urge us to take the expressions in Ex., iii, 13-15, for what they are worth. Jahveh is He \\ho Is, i. e., His nature
