580 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

Yahweh and the origin of Yahwism:

A critical evaluation1
Marlene E Mondriaan (University of Pretoria)

ABSTRACT
The origin of Yahweh and Yahwism has been extensively debated the
past few decades. From these debates, the Kenite hypothesis and the
hypothesis to equate Yahweh in origin with the Canaanite El figure
have emerged. These two hypotheses are tested and evaluated on the
basis of a selection of Biblical texts. Deficiencies and contradictions in
the arguments are pointed out. The epithet Yahweh is, inter alia, arbi-
trarily read into some texts. Furthermore, inferences that Yahweh es-
sentially possesses El attributes are contradicted by references in the
Masoretic Text whereby Yahweh is depicted as a storm god. It is con-
cluded that there is a significant similarity between the portrayal of
Yahweh and the traditional representation of the Ancient Near Eastern
storm gods.

A INTRODUCTION

According to two texts in Exodus, namely 3:14-15 and 6:2, Moses was the first
person to whom God revealed himself as Yahweh. Before this revelation, accord-
ing to the same texts, God had been known by El-related epithets. The Scriptural
appearance of the name Yahweh (Ex 3:15) is, however, preceded by its occur-
rence as early as in Genesis 2:4, and we are told that from the time of Enosh men
began to call upon the name of Yahweh (Gn 4:26). The question arises whether
Yahwism came into being with Yahweh making himself known to Moses or
whether it should be traced back to another origin.
Scholars have extensively debated the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism dur-
ing the last decades. As a result, several hypotheses were published. One of these
equates Yahweh with the Canaanite El-figure and enjoys reasonable consensus
amongst scholars. The origin of Yahweh, and thus of the Yahwistic cult, is, how-
ever, far too complex for such simplistic synonymising.
Arguments that have been used in debating various theories concerning
Yahweh and the origin of Yahwism contain significant deficiencies (Van der
Toorn 1999:912-919). Certain Old Testament texts are utilised to substantiate a
particular theory, instead of testing the theory in terms of the text. Scholars quote

1
This article is submitted in recognition of the contribution Professor Wouter van
Wyk made to my interest in the field of Semitic studies and in Biblical Archae-
ology.
 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 581

from the Masoretic Text to connect the origin of Yahwism with the Kenites. Fur-
thermore, the a priori assumption is made that there is a direct link between
Yahweh and the Canaanite El. Based on the premise that Yahweh originated
from El, Yahweh is mainly typified in terms of El-attributes. Such equating is,
however, repudiated by other texts in the Masoretic Text that present Yahweh
more as a storm god – characteristics not normally ascribed to El.
In this essay, two significant hypotheses are tested and evaluated on the basis
of a selection of texts, some of which are employed by scholars to reach such
conclusions as may substantiate their theory. The aim is here to indicate that a
specific text cannot be applied as such to support a theory, but rather that the
question should be asked what the text actually states. Furthermore, it is inti-
mated that in the portrayal of Yahweh there is a significant indication of influ-
ence by conceptions pertaining to Ancient Near Eastern storm deities. The hy-
pothesis is that assumptions cannot arbitrarily be made regarding the origin of
Yahweh and Yahwism. In the same vein, it cannot be presupposed that there was
no knowledge of Yahweh and Yahwism before the time of Moses.

B ORIGIN, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DESIGNA-

TION YAHWEH

Research on the origin of Yahwism necessarily involves investigation of the ori-

gin of the name Yahweh. According to tradition, as documented in Exodus, God
revealed his Name, YHWH (Ex 3:15), for the first time to Moses (thesis), al-
though this name already appears several times in the earlier history of Genesis
(antithesis). This apparent contradiction could, however, be resolved by the Exo-
dus statement that Moses was the first person to whom Yahweh disclosed the ac-
tual meaning (Ex 3:14) of his Name (synthesis).
The origin of the word YHWH has not been clarified to the satisfaction of all
scholars. Several proposals have been made; inter alia, that the name had been
derived from a formula or litany describing the God of the Covenant in a succes-
sion of sanctions, starting with the word YHWH. Later, this follows as a logical
abridgement for the Name of God2 (Freedman 1960:151-152). Another sugges-
tion is that the original form was y hu, possibly being a contraction of y huwa.
Abbreviations such as yhw and yh appear at times in extra-biblical sources3

2
According to Freedman (1960:151-152), the Tetragrammaton was the elementary
form of the name, as conferred by the Priestly source; the pronunciation was Yah-
weh; it is a verb, derived from the root hwy > hwh; appearing in Biblical Hebrew as
hyh; it is a Hiph‘il third person masculine singular imperfect form of the verb; yhwh
as a verb would have been a segment of a longer expression.
3
The form yahu can be explained linguistically as an abbreviation of yahuwa. Pre-
historical ancestors of the Northern Sinaitic tribes could possibly have invoked their
god with the cultic call ya-huwa; this could easily have developed into yahu or
yahwe. Divine names originating from cultic calls are known elsewhere (Mow-
582 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

(Mowinckel 1961:121-133). A further assumption is that the name Y h is the

original word and, thus, older than YHWH (Goitein 1956:9). The abbreviated
form Yah appears several times in the Masoretic Text, inter alia, as the cultic ex-
clamation hallelu-yah (praise Yah) (Anderson 1962:409). We find the Tetra-
grammaton in some of the earliest texts in the Old Testament, as well as on the
ninth century BCE Mesha Stele, indicating that YHWH was probably the earliest
and original form of the name. Abbreviations, such as Yah, Yahû, Yô and Y hô,
are secondary forms. The hypocoristic4 forms are regional predilections; thus the
name Yw (or Yau as in Neo-Assyrian sources) is mainly found in North-Israelite
context (Van der Toorn 1999:910).
Scholars are generally of the opinion that the name represents a verbal form
derived from the root hwy>hwh, reflected in Biblical Hebrew as hyh, meaning ‘to
be’ and interpreted as ‘I am’. The essence of YHWH is in the name. He is h y ,
in the fullest meaning of the word, the God that ‘is’ in creative activity and not in
mere existence. Scholars readily agree that the word should be analysed as a third
person masculine singular imperfect of the verbal form. The formula ’ nî yahwê,
which appears repeatedly in the Masoretic Text, creates a problem with the first
person pronoun as subject of the third person imperfect – a form that is basically
impossible. The traditional interpretation of YHWH is in the phrase ’ehyê-’ šer-
’ehyê: I am who I am, I am the One that maintains. Scholars have divergent opin-
ions as to whether the word is in a Qal or Hiph‘il (causative) form.5
There is credibility in Gianotti’s (1985:40-48) point of view that the God of
the Mosaic covenant is implied in the name YHWH, in the application of ‘I am

inckel 1961:121-133). Yahuwa is possibly derived from the Arabic huwa, being the
original Semitic form of the pronoun ‘he’ (Abba:1961:322-325).
4
A shorter form of a compound theophoric name (a proper name containing the
name of a deity or an element in a proper name derived from a divine name) (Deist
1990:118,259).
5
According to Obermann (1949:301-308, 323), the word YHWH represents a definite
verb in the imperfect, in all probability in the causative form originating from the
root hwy, related to the root hwy-hyy, meaning ‘to be’, or ‘cause to be’. He agrees
that the formula ’ nî yahwê, is actually impossible. Mowinckel (1961:121-133)
disagrees that the verb is a Hiph‘il third person masculine singular imperfect of
haya<haway. He is of the opinion that such an explanation is too philosophical and
abstract for the religious concerns of a pre-Mosaic period. According to his knowl-
edge, there is no divine name in the ancient Semitic world consisting only of a verb.
Maclaurin (1962:440-442) points out the problem that the traditional meaning of
YHWH, ’ehyêh ’ šer ’ehyêh (Ex 3:14), as a verbal form, requires the first person
singular Qal, while the prefix in YHWH is in the third person, possibly as a Hiph‘il.
The root of the verb ‘to be’, is hyh; there is no evidence of the form hwh at any
stage. According to van der Toorn (1999:913), the significance of such a name is
elusive.
 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 583

Yahweh’, during the passing of the commands at Sinai. The phenomenological6

point of view is hereby implicitly included, elucidating that the name Yahweh
indicates that God manifests himself in history. The absolute essence of the
meaning of the name YHWH cannot be determined merely by verb analysis. In
all probability, the author of Exodus 3:14 employed the similarity to the Hebrew
word haya (to be, to exist), to explain the name YHWH (I am, what I am) to the
best of his ability. Taking similarities, as well as disparities, into consideration
regarding aspects of the problem of the origin of the name, it is postulated that
the word YHWH was initially a descriptive designation for the God of Israel. Un-
til such time that more evidence is available, lengthy debates will continue on the
origin of the name/word YHWH.

C THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF YAHWISM

Handy (1994:3-4) is of the opinion that it is only with some audacity that anyone
can decide to explain religious traditions, where there is virtually no primary
source material available. Extant data are mostly too fragmented and inadequate
to create a coherent religious vision.
Since the nineteenth century, a number of theories have been developed on
the origin of Yahwism.

1 The Kenite hypothesis

According to a widely accepted theory, the Kenites were the mediators for the
Yahwistic cult (Van der Toorn 1999:912). The Dutch historian of religion, Cor-
nelis P Tiele, was one of the first persons to advance the Kenite hypothesis when,
in 1872, he characterised Yahweh as being historically the God of the desert,
who had been worshipped by the Kenites and their relatives before the time of
the Israelites. This hypothesis enjoys significant support among modern scholars
(Van der Toorn 1999:912). The classical formulation of the theory was devel-
oped by Budde in Germany and by Rowley in England.
In his formulation, Budde (1899:17-25, 35-38, 52-60) indicates that efforts
by scholars to reach the core of the ethical development of the Yahweh-religion,
as presented by Moses, have been unsuccessful. The problem is that tradition of-
ten disguises the actual history in such a way that, at first glance, the matter
seems insignificant. In Sinai, the Israelites adapted to a primitive nomadic relig-
ion. They worshipped the same God, Yahweh, as that of the Kenite tribe to which
Moses’ wife belonged. There was, however, right from the start a fundamental
difference in the religion of the Israelites and that of the Kenites. The God of the
Kenites was, for many generations, inseparably part of them. They worshipped

6
A method of philosophical inquiry concentrating on describing the essence of ob-
jects as they present themselves to human consciousness (Deist 1990:192).
584 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

him, not specifically by choice, but by an inevitable necessity of man’s way of

life. At Sinai, Israel experienced a previously unknown God. In his encounter
with Yahweh at the burning bush, Moses was instructed to remove his shoes as
he was standing on holy ground. According to Israel, the ground was holy as
Yahweh dwelled there; they have thus met a God that, according to their own
way of thinking, was associated with a specific abode. The God of Sinai was
worshipped by a nation [the Midianites] living in his territory. Moses tended the
flock of sheep of Jethro – his father-in-law and priest of Midian – on Midianite
soil. The Kenites were a clan of the all-embracing Midianite group. All indica-
tions are that the Kenites did not adopt the Yahweh-religion from another nation
but, rather, that they themselves were the original worshippers of this God. Ac-
cording to the classical Source hypothesis (West 1981:63-74), the Yahwist was
the earliest, original Israelite source.7 He uses the name Yahweh freely, right
from the beginning of Israel’s history. The Yahwist originated in Judah, in the
South, a territory closely connected with the Kenites.8 The calling of Moses was,
thus, a new revelation of an existing God. Later references to the covenant be-
tween Israel and Yahweh, by prophets and historians alike, were recorded in his-
torical narrative. They, however, described this covenant as no more than an alli-
ance between Israel and the nomad tribe, the Kenites, at Sinai. The adoption of
their religion, namely Yahweh-worship, is an inevitable result (Budde 1899:17-
25, 35-38, 52-60).
The Kenite hypothesis, which is widely supported by a group of modern
scholars, contains a number of important elements. The hypothesis, in its classi-
cal form, presupposes that the Israelites became acquainted with the Yahwistic
cult by the intermediation of Moses. The father-in-law of Moses, a Midianite
priest, has also been described as a Kenite; the Kenites were a tribe of the all-
embracing Midianite group. Moses had a blood relationship with the Kenites
through his mother with the theophoric name Jochebed (Houtman 1993:96) – and
the Israelites a close relationship with the Edomites/ Midianites. The Israelites
7
The classical Source Hypothesis has been seriously questioned by scholars during
the past number of years. A general reassessment is being done on the dating and
intent of sources or oral-tradition circles (Vosloo 1987:87). Additional independent
documents that cannot be integrated into the four traditional sources have been
identified. Genesis 14, for example, differs so much from the other patriarchal nar-
ratives that it cannot be ascribed to any one of these four sources (Rofé 1999:91,
130, 135). Some scholars question the dating of the Yahwist. Van Seters
(1980:220-233) indicates, inter alia, that information regarding the religion of the
patriarchs makes no contribution to primary data to date these narratives.
8
According to Albright (1968:38-39), the manner in which data on the Kenites in
Exodus, Numbers and Judges have been approached is an example of the practice
by scholars to allocate homogeneous material to different, independent sources. A
state of chaos amongst scholars is the result of a general misconception of the na-
ture of the early Israelite historical traditions regarding the connection between Is-
rael and the Kenites.
 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 585

worshipped Yahweh by choice, because he had liberated them, while the Kenites
were notably the original worshippers of Yahweh. They did not adopt the cult
from any other nation (Budde 1899:18-19). Situated in the border area between
Edom and Midian,9 Sinai could possibly have been a mountain sanctuary at an
earlier stage (Albertz 1994:52). Yahweh came from Edom and Seir, as well as
from Sinai, Mount Paran and Teman (in the south)10 (Van der Toorn 1999:912).
Two Egyptian texts, from the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE, refer to
Yahu in the land of the Shosu-beduins and of a place called Seir11 (Van der Toorn
1999:911-912). By the fourteenth century BCE, according to a northern tradition
found in a number of ancient theophany texts, groups of Edomite and Midianite
nomads had worshipped Yahweh as their god before the cult of Yahweh reached
Israel (Van der Toorn 1999:912). The status of the Kenites as a peripheral group
is implied in Judges 1:16; 4:17 and supports the hypothesis that they were metal
workers12 (McNutt 1993:407). Cain, the ancestor after whom the Kenites were
named, carried the mark of Yahweh (Abba 1961:320-321).

a Critical evaluation of the Kenite hypothesis

This hypothesis undoubtedly has merits, especially when certain elements that
have been presented to support the theory are taken into consideration.
According to the Exodus narrative, the Israelites became acquainted with the
cult of Yahweh by the mediation of Moses. The narrative confirms that Moses
was involved with the Kenites. Poetical texts in the Old Testament, as well as in-
scriptions – inter alia at Kuntillet Ajrud – indicate that Yahweh came from the
South, a territory belonging to the Midianites, and thus also to the Kenites. The
Yahwist is from the South, from Judah. Cain, who carried the mark of Yahweh,
is regarded as the ancestor of the Kenites.13 Jethro praised Yahweh at Sinai and
proclaimed the splendour of Yahweh (Ex 18:9-11). According to van der Toorn

9
Albertz (1994:52-53) indicates that Yahweh was a Southern Palestinian mountain
god before he became the God of liberation for the Moses group. Later tradition
masked the connection of the Mountain of God with the Midianites, and thus with
any pre-Israelite worship of Yahweh.
10
Judges 5:4; Deuteronomy 33:2; Habakkuk 3:3; inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud
(Emerton 1982:9-13). Certain poetical texts indicate a link with the areas con-
cerned. Psalm 68 describes Yahweh’s migration from the South.
11
The opinion of de Moor (1997:310-311) is that the Shosu land called s' rr in the
Egyptian texts is erroneously identified with the Biblical Seir.
12
The Kenites could possibly have been related to the Rechabites, another peripheral
group, who were ardent supporters of Yahweh (1 Ki 10:15-28) (McNutt 1993:407).
13
According to Mowinckel (1961:124-125), the Kenites, as well as the Midianites,
worshipped Yahweh; this is substantiated in Genesis 4:15 whereby Cain, ancestor
of the Kenites, carried the mark of Yahweh. The gist of this etiological legend is
that every member of the tribe carried the mark of Yahweh.
586 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

(1999:912), ‘the strength of the Kenite hypothesis is the link it establishes be-
tween different but converging sets of data’.
The hypothesis does, however, contain a number of deficiencies.
It is obvious that several traditions are relevant, as seen in the different
names and designations of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law: at times he is called a
Midianite, and then again a Kenite.14 He is also described as a Midianite priest
(Ex 2:16; 3:1; 18:1) who praises Yahweh (Ex 18:10-12).15 However, at no stage
it is mentioned, as such, that Jethro was a priest of Yahweh.16 Jethro’s proclama-
tion of the splendour of Yahweh (Ex 18:9-11) does not necessarily imply his be-
ing a worshipper of Yahweh, even though the Kenites were regarded to be wor-
shippers of Yahweh (Gn 4:15; Jdg 4:17). Jethro disappears from the scene (Ex
18:27), and is not present at the momentous manifestation of Yahweh on Mount
Sinai. Moses does not mention Yahweh’s manifestation to Jethro (Houtman
1993:97-98). The Kenites, who, according to the hypothesis, were responsible for
the introduction of Yahwism to the Israelites, are not mentioned in later Israelite
traditions; an adverse declaration in Numbers 24:21-22 foretells that the Kenites
will be destroyed.17 There is no acceptable evidence of a God by the name
YHWH amongst the Kenites. Apart from one allusion in the Masoretic Text, there
is no knowledge of the religion of the Kenites or Midianites.18 None of the an-
cient traditions describing Yahweh’s journey from the South19 mentions the exo-
dus or manifestation at Sinai; this implies that this journey had nothing to do with
Moses or the origin of Yahwism. The historical role of Moses is problematic (De
Moor 1997:310-311). According to Houtman (1993:97-98), no elements in the
Exodus narrative indicate a Midianite origin of Yahweh. The impression is not
created that the Midianites regarded Mount Sinai/Horeb as sacred; the mountain
is anyhow not inside Midianite territory.20 Biblical Seir, according to de Moor
(1997: 310-311), has been erroneously identified with a Shosu land, called s' rr.21
Disregarding the Canaanite origin of the Israelites is a significant deficiency
in the classical Kenite hypothesis. The perspective that the Israelites, under guid-

14
Houtman (1993:96); Albright (1968:38-39). Although it is possible that various tra-
ditions regarding the name of the priest of Midian could have bearing, assumptions
in this respect should not merely be made arbitrarily. The text and names should be
analysed in the light of modern information and science (Albright 1968:38-39).
15
Van der Toorn (1999:912).
16
Albertz (1994:51-55); Hyatt (1980:78-79).
17
McNutt (1993:407).
18
According to Jagersma (1994:39), there is no positive evidence, before the time of
Israel, that there was any knowledge of the name Yahweh outside the boundaries of
Israel.
19
Psalm 68; Habakkuk 3; Deuteronomy 32; Judges 5.
20
Exodus 3:1; 4:27; 18:5, 27.
21
Egyptian records; van der Toorn (1999:911-912); Astour (1962:971); de Moor
(1997:117, 124, 127).
 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 587

ance of Moses, became Yahwists during their wilderness journey and brought
this new religion to Palestine, discounts the fact that most Israelites, at that stage,
were already firmly settled in Palestine. The historical role of Moses, moreover,
is highly problematic. Only in later traditions was he regarded as symbol of the
Yahweh-alone movement and as legendary ancestor of the Levitical priests (Van
der Toorn 1999:912).
Some discrepancies are evident in scholars’ exposition of certain texts.
The account in Exodus 18:12 of the Israelites’ sharing a sacrificial meal with
Jethro, is some of the so-called corroborations of exponents of the Kenite hy-
pothesis.22 Scholars, such as Albertz (1994:51-52), declare that the sacrificial
meal was held on the mountain of God, in honour of Yahweh. According to the
relevant text in the Masoretic Text, sacrifices were in honour of Elohim; there is
no reference to the mountain of God. Albertz (1994:52) draws the wrong conclu-
sion: ‘then we may suppose that the Midianites or Kenites were already worship-
pers of Yahweh before the Exodus group joined them’.

Exodus 18:19-23 is also applied to confirm Jethro’s involvement with Yahweh.

According to this application, Jethro would have initiated Moses in the laws and
customs of Yahweh. Throughout this specific passage, references are to Elohim,
and not to Yahweh. Mowinckel (1961:124) proclaims, inter alia, the following:
‘in the legend in Exodus 18 we are explicitly told that this Jethro instructed
Moses in the ordinances and laws of Yahweh’, and also ‘it is certainly a fact that
both Qenites and Midianites were worshipers of Yahweh’.
Scholars, such as Abba (1961:320) and Mowinckel (1961:124), indicate that
Cain was under special protection by the mark of Yahweh and that, by implica-
tion – according to Mowinckel – every member of the Kenite tribe carried the
mark. Genesis 4:15, however, refers only to the mark Yahweh put on Cain; there
is no reference to his descendants. Vosloo (1999:24) notes that there is no clarity
on the mark of Cain. Scholars link Cain with the Kenites, and surmise that the
Kenites carried a type of tattoo that could be related to the mark of Cain.

b Conclusion

Observations made and conclusions drawn from the research (as pointed out in
1a) substantiate my inference that scholars, on occasion – to prove their precon-

22
Childs (1974:322-323) indicates that since the time of the Classical Medieval Jew-
ish commentators, they had a problem with Jethro’s part in the narrative. Sacrifices
to Yahweh by a foreign priest were unacceptable, unless he was a proselyte. At a
much later stage, historical critics were of the opinion that Jethro could sacrifice to
Yahweh, only because he was a Yahweh worshipper. From the perspective of the
history of religion, the Kenite hypothesis was an attempt to expand and systematise
these early perceptions [sic: sacrifices were not offered to Yahweh].
588 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

ceived theories – read into texts information not actually there. Boshoff et al
(2000:104) mention that Exodus 18 – as, to a great extent, the entire book of
Exodus – is an interweaving of Elohist and Yahwist traditions that, inevitably,
impede analysis of texts. However, that does not entitle scholars to arbitrarily
read YHWH into texts.

2 Identification of Yahweh with El

Several Biblical and extra-biblical sources attest that the roots and origin of the
God Yahweh can be found amongst the high gods of the Canaanite religion, as
well as amongst the tribal gods of the patriarchal families. According to Miller
(2000:24), the hypothesis of Frank Cross is the most acceptable reconstruction of
the origin of Yahweh.
Cross (1974:242-261) explains that the terminology ilu or el is actually a
common title for a god in the main group of Semitic languages. Among the Sem-
ites, Ilu or El also appears as a proper name. Any uncertainty that El was the
name of the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon was disposed of with the discov-
ery of the Ugaritic texts. Il is the proper name, mostly appearing in ritual texts,
pantheon lists and temple records. In the earliest Old Akkadian sources, the name
appears as a divine proper name. The element Il, in Akkadian theophoric names,
indicates that the god Il (later Semitic El) was the chief god of the pre-Sargon pe-
riod of the Mesopotamian Semites. Composites of Amoritic El-names appear in
Southern Arabia. The fact that we come across Il as proper name in the earliest
strata of Eastern, Northern, Western and Southern Semitic languages, leads us to
the conclusion that it also occurred in Proto-Semitic languages both as generic
appellation and as proper name. Etymologically it means, in all probability, ‘to
be strong’, ‘to be excellent’. Various epithets and attributes are associated with Il.
He has authority in the divine assembly, although his character is more fitting to
a patriarch and judge than to a divine king. The name El appears seldom, if at all,
in the Old Testament as the proper name for a non-Israelite, Canaanite god. The
prophet Ezekiel (Ezk 28:2), describes the Canaanite El in excessive mythological
terms, but applies the appellation elohim (plural), parallel with el. A series of
designations, linked to the element el, for example El Elyon (God Almighty, the
Exalted One), appears in the Genesis patriarchal narratives.
Cross (1962:225-232) continued with the work of Albrecht Alt, published in
1929. In the patriarchal traditions in the Pentateuch, he observed that the god
worshipped by the patriarch and his family could be identified by the patriarch’s
name. Thus we find examples like the god of Abraham or the bull of Jacob. Such
a god, who was in a relationship with, or had a bond of convenience with the
tribe, was not a local god, but the patron god of the tribe or social group. It was
his responsibility to protect and guide the tribe. The characteristics of the cult of
Yahweh were anticipated by the historical nature of this god’s activities, as well
as the special alliance with the social group. These patron gods were not anony-
 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 589

mous or without identity outside the confines of the tribe. They were high gods,
identified with gods of the Canaanite or Amoritic pantheons by common attrib-
utes or cognate names. Worship of the high god El was also identified in the pre-
Yahwistic patriarchal religion. According to the Genesis narratives, the gods of
the ancestors were associated with the Canaanite El; characteristics of El made
identification possible.
Cross (1962:225-259) furthermore indicates that a number of situations
would be better understood by recognising that Yahweh originally was a cultic
name for El; possibly also an epithet for El as patron god of the Midianites (or
Kenites) in the South. With the radical differentiation of his cult in southern Ca-
naan, Yahweh had separated from El, and El was eventually expelled from the
assembly of gods. Ancient gods and forces are doomed to death (compare Ps 82).
It can thus be deduced that Yahweh was originally an El-figure. Cross
(1974:260) adds hereto that the extensive overlapping of attributes, epithets and
names of Yahweh and El furthermore undoubtedly suggest that Yahweh origi-
nated from an El-figure. Yahweh separated from the old god El when the cult of
Israel deviated from its polytheistic context. Prophetic scripts from the eighth
century BCE contain numerous condemnations of Ba al and the Ba al-religion.
There are no such condemnations of El; on the contrary, his image as patriarch of
the assembly of the gods is freely used. The name Yahweh originates as a hy-
pocoristicon from a liturgical title of El, a well-known phenomenon in Amoritic
and Canaanite divine names and epithets.
Thus, recapitulating, the hypothesis denotes that, amongst the Semites, the
epithet el or ilu appears as a proper name for God, as well as a proper name for a
god. At times, in the early cult of Israel, the designation El was combined with
Yahweh; in Biblical tradition, the name El is often alternated with Yahweh. The
hypothesis, furthermore, suggests that, taking into consideration the overlapping
of attributes, epithets and names of Yahweh and El, it is evident that Yahweh
originated from an El-figure. According to the exponents of this hypothesis, it
explains the continuation between God of the fathers, the Canaanite El, and
Yahweh, the God of Israel. Yahweh separated from the old god El when the cult
of Israel moved on from its polytheistic context.

a Attributes of relevant gods from Ancient Near Eastern pantheons that

could be linked to the Israelite Yahweh and El

Extra-biblical evidence on similarities between the early Israelite culture and the
Canaanite culture indicates that these two cultures in reality cannot be separated.
Biblical terminology affirms that the Canaanite culture reached into the domain
of the Israelite religion. Smith (1990:7-8) infers that El was the original God of
Israel, as the name is not Yahwistic, but incorporates the theophoric element – l.
590 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

Most scholars agree that the Canaanite Il was, if only for a period of time,
leader of a pantheon of independent gods. The younger and more virile Ba al,
who appeared from elsewhere, displaced the older, inactive Il in the course of
time (Handy 1994:69-70). A number of epithets are ascribed to Il, namely father
and creator, sovereign Il, the ancient one, the eternal one, patriarch, eternal king,
king-father of years, eternal father, ancient one of days, the loving one, the com-
passionate one, the merciful one, judge, warrior (Cross 1973:42-43). According
to Ugaritic texts found at Ras Shamra, Il was also known as the Bull Il (Kapelrud
1962:804). Cross (1974:253) furthermore mentions that Il cannot be described as
a god of the heavens, storm god, chthonic god23 or a grain god [fertility god]. The
distinctive way he revealed himself, often in a dream, was either by way of a vi-
sion or an audition. This is in contrast with the theophany of a storm god whose
voice was the thunder, who travelled on the clouds and let the mountains shudder
with his wind and thunderbolts.
Ba al, also known as Ba al Hadad / Adad, was a Canaanite fertility god. His
cult was widely spread throughout the Levant, manifesting differently in the
various localities. Iconographically, Ba al is portrayed with a club in his right
hand above his head, and a thunderbolt in his left hand; on his head is a conical
crown with two horns on the front side (Fulco 1987:31-32). His sphere of influ-
ence was thunderstorms and life-giving rain (Handy 1994:101-102). Seven dif-
ferent storm gods are presented on two Syrian inscriptions; this is in accordance
with the Hebrew b lîm, the baals’ (Albright 1968:143).
Shemesh (Shamash) represented the Canaanite cult of the solar deity. Certain
references in the Masoretic Text could, in all possibility, refer to a solar cult, for
example, worshipping the host of heaven (sun, moon and planets, 2 Ki 21:3;
23:5), although such a cult, apparently, was not popular in Syro-Palestine during
the Iron Age (Lipinsky 1999:764-768). In the Assyro-Babilonian mythology, the
astral triad embodied Sin, the moon god, in unison with his two children, Sham-
ash (solar god) and Ishtar (the planet Venus) (Guirand 1996:57). The Assyro-
Babilonian god representing storm and fertile rains was Adad (Addu), depicted in
the Akkadian structure as Hadad (Haddu). The name is also associated with the
Arabian haddat, meaning ‘noise’, ‘thunder’. Adad was delineated by the sign dIM
(wind god). As a storm god, he was responsible for floods and disruptions (Fry-
mer-Kensky 1987:26-27). Ra (or Re) in the Egyptian religion symbolises the
creator and the sun as sovereign ruler of the sky (Guirand 1996:9-16).

b Similarities and relationships between Yahweh and El

Scholars have decided on conceptions of El attributes, to substantiate their theory

that Yahweh originated from an El-figure (see discussion in par 2a). To ascertain
which characteristics of El pertain to Yahweh, passages from the books of Job,
23
A deity of the Netherworld (Deist 1990:44).
 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 591

Psalms and the Prophets have been examined. The poetic passages of Job refer
only to Elohim (or related forms) apart from two exceptions, namely Job 12:9
that mentions the hand of Yahweh, and Job 28:28 that declaims the fear of Yah-
weh. In this instance, El attributes, as such, are not relevant to Yahweh. In
Psalms, there are references to Yahweh as Creator that resides in heaven, Sover-
eign, Yahweh the Host of heaven, and a few indications as Saviour, Judge, Pro-
tector, merciful and as Father. In some instances, the prophetic books name
Yahweh as a Judge, Creator, Sovereign, and Father and as a Leader. There is no
single reference to Yahweh as a bull. An exceptional incidence of Yahweh Se-
baoth (Yahweh, Host of Heaven)24 appears in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

c Similarities and relationships of Yahweh and Ancient Near Eastern

storm gods

As from Job 38, an intriguing phenomenon occurred when Yahweh addressed

Job out of the storm (Job 38:1). Yahweh is here indisputably equated to a storm
god. He commands the hail, snow and rain, as well as thunderstorms and light-
ning; he is responsible for fertility and proliferation. Images of the sun, water and
dawn (the sun) appear in these passages. In Job 38, as well as the following three
chapters, Yahweh is portrayed with images of force and power. Cosmic images
and representations from plant kingdom and animal kingdom are used to illus-
trate the omnipotence and greatness of Yahweh.
A remarkably large number of texts in the Psalms and the Prophets associate
Yahweh with fire, flames, red-hot coals, smoke, thunder, lightning, clouds, wa-
ters, sea, waves, storm, wind, mountain25 and earthquake. These attributes are
normally ascribed to storm gods of ancient pantheons.

d Critical evaluation of the hypothesis that Yahweh originated from an

El-figure

Certain aspects of this hypothesis, as a reconstruction of the origin of Yahweh

and Yahwism, have merits. A clear distinction is made in Exodus 6, between the

24
A plural form of majesty and intensity. The epithet Yahweh Sebaoth is not taken
into consideration for the purpose of the comparison, as it seems that Proto Isaiah
and Deutero Isaiah implemented the epithet with a specific regularity and with a
specific intention.
25
The divine mountain Zaphon was the abode of Ba al; El later took control of the
mountain (De Moor 1997:151, 162). Although Yahweh’s involvement with ‘moun-
tain’, ‘holy mountain’, and so forth could be categorised as an El attribute (the high
gods dwell on the mountains), it has in this instance been classified as a storm god
attribute. Descriptions of Yahweh’s being involved with a mountain, or mountains,
more often brings to mind a storm god, rather than just a dwelling of God.
592 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

religion of the patriarchs and that which existed from the time of Moses. Accord-
ing to all indications in the Old Testament, the popularity of El increased in the
South (Judah) in the course of time, compared to the popularity of Ba al in the
North. The essence of this hypothesis is based thereon that Yahweh was origi-
nally a cultic epithet for El, known as YHWH-Il. According to – inter alia – de
Moor (1997:191), Yahweh was a manifestation of El, worshipped by the early
Israelites. The epithets and attributes of this Yahweh overlapped with those of El.
Following the examination of a selection of texts to ascertain to what extent
El attributes and/or Ba al/storm god attributes have been allocated to YHWH, it is
concluded that there is no reference to either Yahweh or El/Elohim as a bull.
Texts with El attributes linked to Yahweh are mainly referring to Creator, Sover-
eign and Father. The majority of texts are those with storm god characteristics. It
is apparent that the theophany of Yahweh is mostly connected with fire, smoke,
thunder, lightning, storms, storm clouds, wind clouds and fierce waters. This ob-
servation, to a certain extent, supports de Moor’s (1997:39; 107-108) point of
view that YHWH (according to him, YHWH-EL)26 adopted Ba al attributes. Fur-
ther, there is merit in Van der Toorn’s (1999:917) opinion that the identifying of
YHWH with El should be critically examined. Considering the mainly storm god
characteristics of Yahweh, it seems that El has been artificially linked with Yah-
weh.

D CONCLUSION

It transpires from the preceding research that there are several shortcomings in
theories regarding the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism. In some instances, texts
are not approached by scholars as a point of departure to put their theories to the
test, but, on the contrary, have been arbitrarily utilised to substantiate a specific
theory. It is unscientific to handle texts in this manner. To equate Yahweh and El,
is to disregard the numerous references in the Masoretic Text whereby Yahweh
is depicted as a storm god. The complexity of the origin and history of the relig-
ion of the Israelites – in particular, Yahwism – with virtually no, or very little,
verifiable evidence, makes it well nigh impossible to reconstruct the relevant his-
torical events. Discrepancies in various hypotheses are an indication that accessi-
ble evidence is too meagre to render possible a solution to the quest for the origin
of Yahweh and Yahwism.

26
According to de Moor (1997:368-376), it was the belief of the ancient Canaanites
that eminent people were united with the patron god after their death. An ancestor
of one of the Proto-Israelite tribes would have procured the name Yahwi-Ilu in this
way. Yahwi was a common Amoritic name and Ilu the divine addition. De Moor is
of the opinion that the name YHWH has possibly been derived from Yahwi-Ilu.
 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594 593

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abba, R 1961. The divine name Yahweh. JBL 80, 320-328.

Albertz, R 1994. A history of Israelite religion in the Old Testament period. Vol 1,
From the beginnings to the end of the Exile. Tr by J Bowden. London: SCM Press.
Albright, W F 1968. Yahweh and the gods of Canaan: A historical analysis of two con-
trasting faiths. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Anderson, B W 1962. S v ‘God’ in Buttrick, G A (ed), The interpreter’s dictionary of
the Bible: An illustrated encyclopedia. Vols 1-4. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Astour, M C 1962. S v ‘Yahwe’ in Crim, K (ed), The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bi-
ble, suppl vol. Nashville: Abingdon Press..
Boshoff, W, Scheffler, E & Spangenberg, I 2000. Ancient Israelite literature in context.
Pretoria: Pretoria Book House.
Budde, K 1899. Religion of Israel to the exile. New York: G P Putnam. (American lec-
tures on the history of religions, 4th Series – 1898-1899.)
Childs, B S 1974. Exodus: A commentary. London: SCM Press. (OTL.)
Cross, F M 1962. Yahweh and the God of the patriarchs. Harvard Theological Review
55, 225-259.
— 1973. Canaanite myth and Hebrew epic: Essays in the history of the religion of Is-
rael. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
— 1974. S v ‘El’ in Botterweck, G J & Ringgren, H (eds). Theological dictionary of the
Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Deist, F E 1990. A concise dictionary of theological and related terms. 2nd rev and
enlarged ed. Pretoria: J L van Schaik.
De Moor, J C 1997. The rise of Yahwism: The roots of Israelite monotheism. Rev ed.
Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Emerton, J A 1982. New light on Israelite religion: The implications from Kuntillet
Ajrud. ZAW 94, 2-20.
Freedman, D N 1960. The name of the God of Moses. JBL 79, 151-156.
Frymer-Kensky, T 1987. S v ‘Adad’ in Eliade, M (ed.). The encyclopedia of religion.
Vols 1-16. New York: Macmillan.
Fulco, W J 1987. S v ‘Baal’ in Eliade, M (ed.). The encyclopedia of religion. Vols 1-16.
New York: Macmillan.
Gianotti, C R 1985. The meaning of the divine name YHWH. Bibliotheca Sacra 142,
38-51.
Goitein, S D 1956. YHWH the passionate. The monotheistic meaning and origin of the
name YHWH. VT 6, 1-9.
Guirand, F (ed) 1996. The Larousse encyclopedia of Mythology. Tr by R Aldrington &
D Ames. London: Chancellor Press.
Handy, L K 1994. Among the host of heaven. The Syro-Palestinian pantheon as bureau-
cracy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Houtman, C 1993. Exodus, vol 1. Kampen: Kok Publishing House. (Historical com-
mentary on the Old Testament).
Hyatt, J P 1980. Exodus. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. (NCBC.)
Jagersma, H 1994. A history of Israel to Bar Kochba. Tr by J Bowden. London: SCM
Press.
594 Mondriaan: Yahweh and the origin of… OTE 17/4 (2004), 580-594

Kapelrud, A S 1962. S v ‘Phoenicia’ in Buttrick, G A (ed), The interpreter’s dictionary

of the Bible: An illustrated encyclopedia. Vols 1-4. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Lipinsky, E 1999. S v ‘Shemesh’ in Van der Toorn, K et al (eds). Dictionary of deities
and demons in the Bible, 2nd rev ed. Michigan: William B Eerdmans.
Maclaurin, E C B 1962. YHWH: The origin of the Tetragrammaton. VT 12, 439-463.
McNutt, P M 1993. S v ‘Kenites’. The Oxford companion to the Bible. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Miller, P D 2000. The religion of ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press.
Mowinckel, S 1961. The name of the God of Moses. Hebrew Union College Annual 32,
121-133.
Obermann, J 1949. The divine name YHWH in the light of recent discoveries. JBL 68,
301-323.
Rofé, A 1999. Introduction to the composition of the Pentateuch. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Smith, M S 1990. The early history of God. Yahweh and the other deities in Ancient Is-
rael. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Van der Toorn, K 1999. S v ‘Yahweh’ in Van der Toorn, K et al (eds). Dictionary of
deities and demons in the Bible, 2nd rev ed. Michigan: William B Eerdmans.
Vosloo, W 1987. Die verhouding tussen Ou Testament teologie en inleiding, in Prins-
loo, W S & Vosloo, W (reds), Ou Testament teologie: Gister vandag en môre. Pre-
toria: NG Kerkboekhandel Transvaal. (Universiteit Pretoria teologiese studies.).
— 1999. Genesis, in Vosloo, W & Van Rensburg, F J (reds). Die Bybellennium Een-
volumekommentaar. Vereeniging: Christelike Uitgewersmaatskappy.
Van Seters, J 1980. The religion of the patriarchs in Genesis. Biblica 61, 220-233.
West, J K 1981. Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. London: Collier Macmillan
Publishers.

Marlene E Mondriaan, c/o Prof G T M Prinsloo, Department of Ancient Lan-

guages, University of Pretoria, 0002, Pretoria. E-mail: gert.prinsloo@up.ac.za