YHWH, The Origin of The Tetragrammaton

YHWH
THE ORIGIN OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON*

BY
E. C. B. MACLAURIN
Sydney
The earliestHebrew traditions(Ex. iii 12-15E, vi 3P) claim that

the IneffableName was unknown to the Patriarchs,since it seems
obvious that the J narrative(Gen. iv 26) is secondary.The Biblical
traditionis that YHWH was worshipped in Moses' familybefore
His Name was introducedto Israel (2, 3), and it is significantthat
out of the four earliest recorded theophoric names incorporating
this elementtwo are in Moses' family,(Jocabed and Jonathan:Jud.
xviii 30), the other two, Joash and Jotham,being in the familyof
Gideon to which kinglyrule was firstofferedin Israel (Jud. viii 22).
In spite of KITTEL's view (HistoryofIsrael,quoted by DUBARLE(36))
thatJocabedis not incontestablya theophoricname thewriteraccepts
BAUER'S argument(37) thatin factit is theophoric.Later on the two
sons of Samuel the king-maker,Abihu and Joel,bore YHWH names.
Numbersxiii 16 containsa significant statement-thatMoses changed
the name of Hosea to Jehoshua,making it into a YH theophoric
name, and GINSBERGrecords a similarchange in the name of Jo-
seph (4). The names Jacob-el, Joseph-el occur as place names in
Thotmes III's lists of conquests (6), and it should be noted thatthis
is the firstexample of an El-theophoricname being changed into a
YH-theophoric one. GINSBERG(4) also mentionsthat the Name of
Israel's God was not included in Pharaoah's lists of the gods of
subject peoples although those of Ammon, Moab, and Zidon were
included, a traditionwhich implies that the Tetragrammatonwas
unknown duringthe Egyptian servitude.On the otherhand DRIVER
maintainsthatYah was known to the Hebrews beforetheirdeliver-
ance. There is no record of the Tetragrammatonin any early in-
scription(7) other than that of Mesha, line 18, which, since it was
* I should like to expressmy
gratitudeto ProfessorP. A. H. DE BOERfor
drawingmy attentionto certainarticlesof whose existenceI was unaware.
This content downloaded from 144.122.201.150 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:23:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
440 E. C. B. MACLAURIN
inscribedabout 830 B.C., does not affectthe traditionalaccount in

Exodus (8, 9).
The Traditional
Meaning
The traditionalmeaning of YHWH is given in the account (Ex.
iii 14) of the divine revelationto Moses as "'ehyeh 'aser 'ehyeh".
There are several difficulties to the general interpretationgiven to
this traditioneven if it be agreed thatthe formis verbal: a) it would
require a verb in the firstperson singularQal whereas the prefixin
YHWH is thirdperson and the pointingwould probablyindicate a
hiphil; b) the root of the verb "to be" is hyh,and thereis no evidence
thatit was ever hwh in Canaanite,although as THIERRYhas pointed
out the verb, HWH usually rendered "to become", can have the
meaning of "to be" in Gen. xxvii 29; Is. xvi 4 (34). However this
etymologycannot be accepted as it would leave unexplained other
phenomena associated with the sacred name. Neverthelessthe exis-
tence of this root when associated with the revelation of Exodus
iii 14 by priestlyscholars may have played some part in obscuring
the true meaning of the sacred name. ROBERTSON SMITH (33, page
387) believes that 'ehyeh 'aser 'ehyehdoes not afforda patternwhich
can be applied to theinterpretation of the Tetragrammaton as YHWH
by itselfdoes not have the second phrase withoutwhich the clause
is incomplete.But see SCHILD(10) fora fulldiscussionofthesepoints--
it is sometimesclaimed that this type of interpretation("I am the
One who is") is too abstractand philosophic for the band of ex-
slaves to appreciate; but this objection loses its force when one
remembersthat the revelation was made to Moses whose early
upbringing had placed him in a different category to that of his
followers.This explanationprobably dates from Greek times when
the author of the Book of Wisdom interpretedthe Tetragrammaton
as "He who is" in an attemptto commendHebrew thoughtto Greek
thinking; it is in a more abstractcategorythan the West Semitic
propernameJa-wi-El(DOSSIN) quoted by KUPPER(30, page 8, note 3)
which may mean "El exists". If it were a verb one would expect
the name of a deityto follow as in the Mari names Ya-hwu-malik,
Ya-hw/u-daganetc. where the names seem to mean "Malik lives",
"Dagan lives", etc. As againstthisthe name Jacob in the Bible seems
to be purelyverbal,but occurs as a place name in the formYacob-el;
thereis no evidencefora YHWH-el anywhere(but compareUgaritic
VI AB: IV: 14 "The name of my son is Yaw-El"). In Isaac, El is
THE ORIGIN OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 441
understoodas thesubjectoftheverb yshq (WIDENGREN39, page 187).

Some scholars have seen in the Name a cognate of the Ugaritic-
Assyrianroot hwy (to reveal or proclaim; hwt: speech, word, 11, p.
138): a noun formedfromthis root is found in eighteenplaces in
the Old Testamentand GUILLAUME (12) believes it is a magical term;
in any case, it would certainlyforma suitablename for a God whose
characteris that He reveals Himself. Others suggest that it may be
cognate with hwy, "to fall", (cf. Sura 53: 1), and refer either to
event of the Tablets of Stone fallingfrom heaven or to a fertility
deity who causes rain to fall, or to a warrior-godwho causes his
foes to fall.Othersthinkit maybe an onomatopoeicword expressing
the sound of thunderas the storm-godapproaches,or a meaningless
ejaculationproducedundergreatemotionalstress,etc.cf.DRIVER(31),
TUR-SINAI (32), DUBARLE (36) and others. Thus TUR-SINAI thinks
that the name had its origin in the roar of thunder"wah-wah-wah"
which is interpretedas the roar of the hosts of the Lord (cf. Jer.
xxv 30-33). This however is surely more in characterwith Hadad
the stormand fertility deityand once the greatadversaryof YHWH
who later absorbed many of his characteristics(cf. KAPELRUD,
Ba'al in theRas-ShamraTextsetc.). But this was long afterthe events
on Sinai. As a matterof objective fact "wah-wah-wah" does not
representthesound ofthunderas closelyas thistheorywould demand;
it is closer to "rumph-rumph-rumph." It should also perhaps be
pointed out that if Yahweh Elohim means "the roar of the gods"
thenit is strangethatthereis no comparablesecularnoun in Hebrew
cf. the onomatopoeic words Hadad and hedad "the cheer of a multi-
tude". One would also expecta word endingin -eh (as the commonly
accepted form Yahweh is said to do) to form its constructin -eh
but the Massoretes show no knowledge of this: on the otherhand a
syllablewhose vowel was long u would remain unchanged. TUR-
SINAI maintainsthata personalname such as YHWH became cannot
be connectedwitha genitiveattribute;but thisphenomenonis found
in certainnon-Semiticlanguages.
The attemptsto explain the meaning of the name YHWH are
innummerable.The reader is referredto MURTONEN (40) fora more
completed discussion than is here possible.
The great and decisive argumentagainst any of these views is the
plain fact that the root of the word cannot be determined.We are
not dealing with some remote prehistoricterm but with a Sacred
Name given to a literatepeople in historictimes,and it is unthinkable
that the meaning,if any, should have been lost with some obscure
root which mustbe soughtin the cognatelanguages.It is much more
likelythat the meaningwas plain to all untilthe traditionarose that
the Name was too sacred to be pronouncedby ordinarymen or for
some other reason fell out of use.
The God of YourFathers
Since YHWH was not the name wherebyGod was known to the
patriarchs(Ex. iii 12-15, vi 3) one is led to considerwhat thatname
may have been.
It has been suggested(14) thatsince YHWH is describedas coming
fromSeir in Jud. v 4; Deut. xxxiii2; Is. xxi 11, he may be identical
with Dusares, Lord (dhu) of Shera (?- Seir). There is insufficient
evidence to show that YHWH was Lord of Seir; even if this were
established we would stillnot know the actual name of Dusares as
distinctfromhis title.
Ba'al-Berith(13 p. 18) is anotherpossibilityin view of the Hebrews'
belief that they were pre-eminentlythe People of the Covenant.
This deitywas worshippedat Shechemand ALBRIGHTsuggeststhat
the name recalls some early Amorite confederacy.The people of
Shechem called themselves"the sons of Hamor", and as the 18th
centuryB.C. Mari-inscriptions show thatthe Amoritesused the term
"to kill an ass" as equivalentto "to make a covenant" thereis some
justification forthishypothesis;but of course such a covenantwould
have been made beforethe IsraelitesenteredCanaan. Ba'al-Berithis
also an anonymbut as CanaaniteincantationsfromArslanTash show
that contractswere made under the supervisionof the god Hauron
this may be the name of Ba'al Berith.In any case, enough has been
said to indicatethat Ba'al Berithcannot be YHWH.
Other names for God include the Fear of Jacob, Yahweh of Hosts
(but cf. 32), the God of yourfathers(2) etc.,all ofthemepithetsrather
than names. The most importantof these is El Elyon -this term
appears in two formsin Ugaritic-'lyn (s i 3-11) and 'ly (K II iii 6,
8-11), and resemblescertainancient South Arabian forms(15). The
name is presumablyof the highest antiquityas the Old Testament
suggests.
W. F. ALBRIGHT (13) states that the theory is untenable which
claimsthatthe name YHWH can be tracedin Old Babyloniantablets
fromthe Second Milleniumin names of the type Iaum-ilum,Yawi-
ilum or Yakhwi-ilum.They belong to a common class of Amorite

personal names, consistingof a god-name with a jussive form of a
verb, meaning "May the god do-"; they are probably parallel to
early Canaanite names such as Jacob-el and Joseph-el mentioned
above. Nevertheless in spite of ALBRIGHT'S view one must give some
attention to this form of the name since ALBRIGHT himself admits
(page 64) that "we cannot be sure what the firstconsonant of the
verb was and the translationof the verbal formis precariousto say
the least". In other words ALBRIGHT cannot be sure that not one of
the componentsis any formof the Sacred Name.
It has been suggestedthat such formsas Ia(h)-wi-ila (which could
be equivalentto the Biblical Joel), Ia(h)-ma-, representthe fullform
of the Tetragrammaton.This hypothesisfailsto explain certainfacts
which must be explained by any theory which seeks to connect
YHWH with an Akkadian form in which no final consonant is
shown:
1. The Old Testamenttraditionthat Yahweh is a late form.
2. The strongevidence that it has a long finalvowel which rhymes
with hu' (26) in the last syllable according to early tradition.
3. The fact that the early Westernformswere -yam,-yah,yo- etc.
4. The existenceof the consonantalfinalhe which is at least as old
as the Moabite Stone.
It is desirable however to keep in mind the possibilitythat in
Babylonia in later times,duringthe Exile, the Tetragrammatonmay
have been renderedin cuneiformby the form Ia(h)-wi as this may
explain the origin of the Greek-Samaritantraditionexpressed by
'Ioca etc.
Since El was thehead of the Ugariticpantheonas well as a designa-
tion for God in the Old Testamentit is only to be expectedthatthis
termshould be an elementin many divine names duringthe second
MilleniumB.C. (cf. 3). One of these divine names is El Shaddai who
was the God of the storm-flood,of the wind, of the rain and the
weather cloud (32). He was perhaps a mountain-god,originallyof
Amorite origin; sdh means a plain in Canaanite but a mountainin
Sumerian (cf. 1 Kings xx 28). Aquila translatesit by 6 txocvo"The
Almighty"cf. Ruth i 21 LXX. The early names in Num. 1 5-13
have Shaddai but not YHWH compounds; this is what we would
expect if Ex. vi 2, 3 P were historicallyreliable. It is possible that
the name Shaddai is found amongst proper names at Mari-Sa-du-
um-la-bi, Sa-du-la-ba, Sa-du-um-la-ba(quoted by KUPPER: 30. p.

230, note 1) and this would fit in well with Hebrew tradition,for
Mari lay on the Euphrates,between Ur and Harran,and was "until
its destructionby Hammurabi an importanttrading city with ex-
tensivedependentterritories along the middle course of the Euphra-
tes" (GROLLENBERG, Atlas of the Bible, plate 3). Abraham probably
passed along this route and possiblyit was at Mari that El-Shaddai
was revealed to him but thereis no evidence thathe came to know
YHWH then; so possibly the Tetragrammatonwas unknown at
Mari-unless perhaps it is to be identifiedwith the firstpart of the
name Ia-wi-el: in this case Ia-wi-el > Ia-wi as Jacobel > Jacob,
Josephel > Joseph. EISSFELDT also claims that the names Piliava,
Padava, Igdaliava are evidence thatthe longer formJahwehwas in
use; this does not necessarilyfollow since all thatit need implyis that
the formJawa was in use, and this we know to have been the case.
There is a better explanationfor Ia-wi than identification with the
Tetragrammationas we shall see later. The writer agrees with
MURTONEN (page 62) who believes that Yau was known at Mari.
In the absence of any weightyevidence against this ancienttradi-
tion, (Ex. vi 2, 3 P) and in view of therebeing no reasonable case
in favour of any other deity,it seems safe to accept this tradition
unreservedly.
The Theophoric
Names
Examination of the Biblical theophoric names composed partly

of YH, YW, YHWH etc. reveals some importantfacts. YHWH is
rarelyfound in names of persons or localities in its full form (e.g.
Jehovah Jireh)and possibly in early 5th centuryAramaic Papyri
(27 text 1: 2) which we shall consider later. It is significantthat
Hebrew names which correspond to Babylonian-Jewishnames in
-jama never have the form YHWH as a component (cf. EISSFELDT
35). The formsYW-, -YH are found in personal names which can
be paired offthus showingtherewere two traditionsin the formation
of each theophoricname.
YW YH
Yoel Elijah
Yoab Abyah
Yohanan Hananiah
Yoahaz Ahaziah
Yoah Ahiyah
Yoash Maasiah
Yozabad Zabadiah
Yoad lxx, 1 Chron. ix 10 and Ne vii 39 Jehoiada
Yoazar Azariah
Buchanan GRAY shows by a series of tables (3) thatthe formsin

YW are spread throughoutthe entireBiblical period whilstthose in
YH, particularlythose ending in -yah,became commoner during
the later period. The following table deals with the names which
were mentionedin biblical literaturewhose sources were contem-
porarywith the persons whose names are quoted.
YW -YH
1. Early or pre-Davidic period 1-5 1
2. Davidic period 4 6
3. Earlier kings 8 18
4. Later kings 4 27
5. Post-exilicperiod 1 42
The tables dealing with persons mentionedin Chronicles show

comparable results. Buchanan GRAY points out that 157 names are
compounded with the sacred name, in 29 the divinename is thefirst
element,in 127 it is the last element,and in 1 it is the middleelement.
From this evidence one concludes that
1. the formYHWH was rarelyused in proper names.
2. the form YH was rare at firstand only became common as the
influenceof the priestsbecame greater.
3. the earlier form of this divine name was YW, a point of very
great importanceas will be shown later.
It will be recalledthatfiveof the six theophoricnames mentioned
near the beginning of this article-Yocabed, Yohanan, Yoash,
Yotham, Yoel and Abihu-belong to the YW-class whilstthe sixth
belongsto the-HW class. Moses seems to have been the firstto intro-
duce a YH name when he altered Hosea to Yehoshua. DRIVER'S
evidence (31, p. 8) supports this view. He shows that in Israelite
ostraca from Samaria (850-775 B.C.) the divine element is always
yo at the beginning or end. So also the name Iau-bidi of Hamath
(whose alternatename was Ilu-bidi) in Assyrian royal texts of the
9th centuryB.C. has the determinativeil placed in frontof Yau on
two occasions (31). A similarYW- name fromHamath is mentioned

in 2 Sam. viii 10. Other names in the Assyrianlist end in -yau,-yau,
-ya,or -au: most of theseformsrepresentyo. DRIVER'Sextra-Biblical
evidence supports Buchanan GRAY'S Biblical evidence; he points
out thatYW- was currentin pre-prophetic, YHW- in Deuteronomic,
both YW- and YHW- in Exilic times. Thus extra-Biblicalevidence
indicatesthatYW- and YH- occurredin the 9th and 7th centuries
B.C.; YHW- and YHH- in the 7th and 5th centuriesB.C. On some
seals where brevityis desirable-YW is found instead of -YHW in
the 5th and 4th centuriesB.C. showing that their owners felt that
there was no vital differencebetween the forms. On other seals,
jars, tombs,ossuaries etc. -YHW formsgo back to the 9th century
B.C., a change to -YH startingabout 500 B.C. (31); in Egyptian
papyri-YHW began to give way to -YH about the 5th centuryB.C.
and -YH became dominantwith only two late occurrencesof -YHW
about 300 B.C. These are probablyonly survivalforms,as -YW was
in this late period. In view of what has been said these occurrences
of -YHW about 300 B.C. should not be taken as evidence of the
later developmentof the use of this form,even in Egypt. Similarly
the occurrenceof YHH in Papyrus 13 line 14 (27) dated 447 B.C.
(cf. yhh'wr 1: 2, 495 B.C.) are possibly survivals but are of little
evidentialvalue in dating the use of the Tetragrammatonsince the
fullformYHWH existedin the Mesha inscriptionof about 830 B.C.
where furthermore it was writtenby a non-Jew showing that the
full formof the name was known outside Israel at this period. The
developmentfrom-yahu>yah was probablypromptedby the con-
siderationthat not only did -yah representthe Sacred Name but
was also a hypocoristicending.
GOITEIN (16) points out thatYH is found as an independentname
25 times in the Old Testament.It is never found in "narrativeand
legislative and other prose texts but it is restrictedto poems and
prayers".He refersto Ex. xv 2, 17, 16; Is. xii 2; Psalm cxviii 4, 14,
to which could be added Is. xxvi 4; Psalm lxviii 19 (very ancient)
and many late Psalms (17, page 219b).
Evidence adduced laterwill show thatthe adoption of -yah theo-
phoric names was really a return,afterthe impetus of Yahu and
YHWH had spent itself,to a very ancient form which was in use
in SouthernPalestine beforethe Exodus. It is most significantthat
the full element YHWH never (except as noted above) occurs in
proper names: this is most suggestive in view of the importance
attached by Semites to names of good omen-if YHWH had been

the originalpotentformof the sacredname it would in ancienttimes
have been incorporatedin the names of all persons for whom God's
help was sought and it must be rememberedthat personal names
are most conservativein preservingold forms(e.g. Penuel, Abijam
etc.)
It seems reasonable to conclude that YW and YH names are used
to the exclusion of names incorporatingthe full YHWH, and that
YW namesare moreancientthantheYH form;it would also seemthat
YH is in use at an early stage as the Name of God where a later
writerwould have writtenYHWH.
Adon
It is customaryto regard the Tetragrammatonas a sacred name
which pious Hebrews and Jews did not pronounce, susbstituting
for it the common Semitic word meaning "lord". To this end the
Massoretes did not point YHWH with any vowels of its own but
substitutedthevowels of Adonai (=my Lord). Such a view, although
held everywhereand for a very long time, has its weaknesses:
a) If the name YHWH were too sacred to pronounce-so sacred
thateven the numerals15, 16 were avoided because being YH, YW,
theycould be taken as abbreviationsof YHWH, why was -yahused
in theophoric names and, more seriously,why was Yah used in-
depently,as noted above, as the Name of God?; b) why were the
Jewish translatorsof the LXX not consistentin their replacement
of YHWH by Adonai (= Kyrios) ? Thus KAHLE (18, p. 222) points out:
"the Greek Bible text, so far as it was writtenby Jews for Jews
did not translatethe Divine name by Kyrios but the Tetragrammaton
writtenwith Hebrew or Greek letterswas retainedin such MSS.
It was the Christianswho replaced the Tetragrammatonby kyrios,
when the Divine name writtenin Hebrew letterswas not understood
any more". This may have been a deliberate returnto an older
traditionby Christiansanxious to assert the priorityof the basis of
theirreligionto thatof the "traditionof the elders"; c) When Jewish
scribesdid transliterateYHWH theyrenderedit as 'Isuc and similar
forms which invite pronunciation.The Qumran LXX renders it
by 'Iacx, using maiusculeletters.This seems to imply that the word
was pronounced; d) Theodoret said that the Samaritanspronounced
the Name as 'Icapeor as a reverentialperiphrasis,so theremay have
been a tendencyin Samaria to treatthe use of the Tetragrammaton
withgreatcaution: the evidenceforthis is late, however (20. p. 178).

The above factsmay indicate that the substitutionof Adonai for
YHWH is not so much due at firstto a wish to avoid pronouncing
the Name as forsome otherreason. Later on thepractisewas rational-
ized untilthe presentview was reached.
YHWH is usually accompanied in MT by some other divine
designation;theseare usually'elohim(in D), 'elohe Sabaoth (at times
'elohe is replaced by YHWH, so that the phrase, instead of reading
"Yahweh, God ofHosts" reads simply"Yahweh of Hosts"), Adonai,
and others.
The phrase Yahweh Sabaoth has been said to be ungrammatical
as it involves the use of a proper name in a constructstate. If this
be so thenit is presumablynot the originalmeaningin those passages
where it occurs but has arisen throughan unintelligentmechanical
substitutionof YHWH for the original construct.Was the original
phrase 'adon sebaoth or 'adon 'elohe sebaoth or yam 'eloha sebaoth
(the latter being erroneously changed into the construct 'elohe
sebaoth throughthe dropping of the finalmem when the original
form of the name had been forgotten?)
The Tetragrammatonoccurs about 6823 timesin MT (19, p. 369)
its principle distributionbeing in J. D. and P. "E uses YHWH
sparinglyby the side of Elohim". It (YHWH) is "the commondivine
name in pre-exilicwriters,but in post exilic writersgraduallyfalls
into disuse and is supplantedby Elohim and Adonai. In Job it is
used 31 times in prose parts, and xii 9 (a proverb); not elsewhere
in thepoem. Chr. apartfromhis sourcespreferselohimand ha-elohim.
Du. uses YHWH only in Chapterix (7 times); Ec. not at all. In the
Elohistic group of Psalms xlii-lxxxiiiit is used 39 times". SKINNER
(21, p. 31 ffquotes SCHL6GL: ExpositoryTimes,September 1909)
who analysed the occurrencesof YHWH in Genesis i 1 to Exodus
iii 12 and concluded that the Tetragrammatondid not occur ori-
ginally in this passage. Thus in 118 cases MT had YHWH where
other texts had elohim or YHWH-'elohim, in 30 cases all texts
read YHWH, in 59 cases where MT had 'elohim other texts have
YHWH, and in 47 cases all have YHWH-'elohim; accordinglyhe
concludes that in many passages YHWH is a secondary addition.
SimilarlyBuchanan GRAYin his commentaryon the Book of Num-
bers says, "Whenever (6) KupLosappears in the LXX it deserves
attentionas a possible indicationof the originaltext". The Samaritan
Pentateuch,the Peshitta,the Vulgate, and Aquila oftenuse 'elohim
in place of YHWH (21). This practise can be verysignificant in the

case of Aquila whose translationwas made for Jews for whom the
LXX, withitsadaptabilityfor Christianapologetics,was insufficiently
literal.In Is. xxvi 4 YHWH is obviouslya secondaryinsertionbeside
Yah.
So faras I know statisticsare not available showingthe occurrence
of YHWH in company with anotherdivine designationthroughout
the rest of the Hebrew Bible, but the principle seems to be fairly
clear-YHWH is not usually unaccompaniedand where it has com-
pany the Tetragrammatonis oftena secondaryinsertion.It has been
customaryto regardthe otherformsas secondary,insertedto protect
the divine Name, but it seems expedientnow to enquire whether
the other termsare not to be regarded as primaryand YHWH an
insertionfor doctrinalor political reasons.
This will lead us to enquire whetherAdon reallyis a reverential
periphrasisfor YHWH or whetherit is in fact earlierin time and
preferablein use. The position we have established concerning
YHWH is not what one would expect of a Sacred Name:
a. It is not ancient.
b. It is not pronouncedbut when it occurs in the MT thereis usually
anotherdivine designationbeside it which is pronounced.
c. It may be meaningless,being derivedfromno known singleroot.
d. It largelyceased to be used in later literature.
YW and YH
The UgariticdeityYam (=the See) was a son of El, the supreme
God of the Ugaritic pantheon. Yam was El's champion when the
latter was attacked by Ba'al the young intrusivefertilitygod: in
other words, the picture was comparable to the Old Testament
milieu in which El, whose name was variouslydescribedas Yahweh
or Yah, was the God of the Hebrews and his religionwas exposed
to aggression by the Ba'al cult.
Yam seems to have had power over the sea and the rivers-one of
his titlesin Ugariticis ChiefRiver-similar to Yahweh's power over
the Red Sea and the River Jordan-compare manyreferencesto the
primaeval strugglein Psalms and elsewhere(42)
Yam's name occurs in two forms in Ugaritic-Yam and Yaw
(compare MURTONEN40, page 91 etc. where he suggests Yawi as
an earlierform).
The statementsmade about Yaw in the Ugaritic texts are most
Vetus Testamentum XII 29
significant. In III AB B 17, 33-4 he is called "Adon of the gods" (24)

El himselfappointed Yam as lord and king (cf. the Biblical names
Elimelek, Malkiah, Adoniyah, etc.) saying to him (VI AB IV 17)
'at 'adn tp'r "thou art named lord". In III AB C 22 El says to Yam
(tp)t nhr mlkt "Chief (judge) river thou art king". El gave him
the epithet mdd'il "the darling of El" and proclaimed him Lord.
Thus Adon was an epithetof Yaw at a much earlierdate than the
Old Testamentscholarshave recognized.Its substitutionforYHWH
in the Bible may representthe revival of a very ancient tradition,
cf. Ugar. VI AB IV 13-20: Line 13ffreads:
"And Lutpan (=El), kindlyGod, answered.
"The name of my son is Yaw God" (compare Hebrew Yo-el).
And he did proclaim the name of Yaw" (compare Hos. xii 6;
Ex. xxiv 14).
There are also otherpoints of evidence thatYam was the original
form of this name. In Biblical Hebrew alternateforms of certain
names appear, for example Abijah (1 Sam. viii 2 etc.) and Abijam
(1 Kings xiv 31 etc.); Ahijah (1 Sam. xiv 3 etc.) and Ahi'am (2 Sam.
xxiii33 etc.),Yemu'el (Genesis xlvi 10; Ex. vi 15) withwhich compare
the more usual formJoel. Less certainreferencesto a divine name
Yam are its possible occurrencesin names such as Bin-yamin(dis-
countingthe popular etymology),'Ish-yamin(2 Sam. xx 1) and the
puzzling text Gen. xxvi 24. To these must be added the statement
"God came fromTeman" (cf. the alternateformYm' KOEHLER: 19,
page 1027) in the extremelyancient (41) poem Hab. iii 3, and Jer.
xlviii32; Is. lxii8 and Theodoret'sstatement (quoted byEERDMANS (26))
thatthename Nethinimmeant "the giftof God", and proper names
suchas Tel'aim 1 Samuel xv 4. It is possible thattheuniquelyHebrew
word 'elohim which is usually regarded as a plural of 'eloha may
reallybe 'Eloha-yam "the God Yam" in some passages where it has
been mistakenby the Massoretesfor a plural. AccordinglyDRIVER'S
evidence(31, page 14) that(Y)ama and generally-(y)au-alonerepresent
-YHW and -YH in the Babylonian documents of Murashu sons
(464-404 B.C) should not be interpretedas the result of an inter-
change of m and w but attributedratherto the factthat both -yam
and -yahformsof the Name were in use in Palestinebeforethe Exile.
It is also clear that it can no longer be maintainedthat the form
-yama affordsevidence supporting the use of the pronunciation
Yahweh at this or any earlierperiod. The form-yamanearlyalways
has a shortvowel in the second syllable(35) and it is unlikelythat
of Yahweh; it is safe to suppose

this could representa transliteration
thattheform-yamain Babyloniarepresented-yamor -yahin Palestine
KOEHLER (19, p. 383) gives the Akkadian formof yam "sea" as iame,
but it would be unsafeto argue fromthis factthatthe proper name
showed the same phenomenon since the common nouns developed
independentlyin both languages whereas the Name was probably
brought by the Amoritesinto Babylonia.
The antiquityof the formYah can be shown however frommany
sources. Thus KOEHLER (19, page 1041) quotes a name Tirya',
(1 Chron.iv 16) which at firstsightdoes not appear to be a yah name
but ratheran occurrenceof the hypocoristicending -ia: however
this name seems to occur in cuneiformin the formTirijama, which
would seem to indicate that it may be the earliestYah-theophoric
name yet discovered (but compare GRIMME'S view, quoted by MUR-
TONEN: 40, page 51, that the Tetragramis found in the Sinaitic in-
scriptions).Tirya is a Judahitename presumablywith associations
which may indicate that it was in existencein pre-Hebrew times.
The fact that it is spelt -i'a and not - iah is not significantin view
of the long a in the cuneiformrenderingsince it is therebyapparent
that both 'aleph and he are letters of prolongation. There were
certainlyYah worshippersin SouthernCanaan in pre-Hebraictimes
cf. Joshua xv 28 (7) and as alreadynoted DRIVER believes that Yah
was knownto theHebrews beforetheirdeliverence:also thePalestine
listof ThutmosisIII refersto Ba-ti-y-a"the house of Ya" (MURTONEN
40, page 51). If the theory be accepted (cf. MOWINCKEL,Psalmen
Studien)thatsome of the Psalms had theiroriginin pre-Hebraictimes
theoccurrenceof theformYah in Psalmslxviii 5, 19; lxxvii 12; lxxxix
9; xciv 7; cxiii 5, 17; cl 6 and in the extremelyancientformulaHalle-
luliah is a furtherwitness to its antiquity.It is also found in the
formula for praising God in the Temple, a significantfact since
religiousconservatismwould have ignored thisformhad it not been
ancient; it is also found in the prayer of Hezekiah, Is. xxxviii 11
(EERDMANS: 26 page, 19).
The Ugariticmaterialmay thus sustainthe accuracyof the Greek
account of Sanchuniaton'sstatementthat'Iuco was the name of one
of the Phoenician gods, and furtherevidence of this may be found
in the following non-IsraeliteYW-theophoricnames:
Joram,son of Toi of Hamath (2 Sam. viii 10)
Azriyau of Yau'di
Yau-bi'di of Hamath
Other examples could be quoted fromUgariticbut the above are

enough to show that Adon was an appellative of Yaw; more than
thirtyyears before Ugarit was discovered Buchanan GRAY had
recognized(3, page 139) that Adon was an appelative of YHWH
(Ex. xxiii 17; Psalms xcvii 5, cxiv 7) as was also Melek (Is. vi 5;
Psalm v 3) and Ba'al (Hos. ii 16; Is. liv 5, lxii 5; cf. Ba'aliyah, 1 Chron.
xii 5, a proper name meaning YHWH is Ba'al). GRAY lists certain
names compounded with Adon:
1. Two Canaanite kings: Adonibezek (Judges i 5) and Adonizedek
(Joshua x 3 JE).
2. Two Hebrews of the Davidic period: Adonijah (1 Kings i 8) and
Adoram (Adoniram 2 Sam. xx 24).
3. Two post-exilicfamilies:Adoniyah(Nehemiahx 17) and Adoniram
(Ezra ii 13).
4. Persons in the time of Jehoshaphat:Adonijah and Tob Adonijah
(2 Chron. xvii 8).
The Phoenician name Aduniba'al is attested in the Assyrian
inscriptions;GRAYbelieved that this formof name passed fromthe
Phoenicians to their neighbours.
The following sentencenames with their meanings will help to
indicate the various identificationsof divine persons in Hebrew
theophoricnames.
Minor Gods, eponymsof tribesetc.
Sophoniah S ph n is YH
Asherel Asher is El
Yadiel Yad is El
Daniel God is judge (Dan-el in Ugaritic)
Solomon Slm is Yah
Important identificationinvolving YH, HW, El.
Jehu YH is HW or YH is He
Elihu El is HW or El is He
Abihu The fatheris HW or the fatheris he
Adonijah Adon is YH
Ba'aliyah Ba'al is YH
The foregoingstatementseems sufficient to indicatethat YH/YW
was an independentdivine name both in Ugaritic and in Hebrew.
It is now necessaryto indicate how the form YW establishedin
Ugaritic,and the formsYah, Yo are connected.
Before 1500 B.C. a change took place in Canaanitein which (aw)

>(6). In Jerusalem"unaccenteddiphthongswere monophthongized
as throughoutCanaanite, but accented diphthongs remained" (22,
p. 29). DE LACY O'LEARY (23, p. 118 puts it well:
,,awa, aya > a i.e. as wa, ya (cf. Assyrian),thus qawam> qam.
But in noun formsthis contractionpresumablytook place at an
early date, so thatresultanta has become 6, as tawab > tob".
The resultsof thiswould be thatYaw, being unaccentedin Hebrew
theophoricnames, would become Y6, as in Yo-el, Yo-hanan, Yo-
kabed, etc. whilsttheindependentname Yaw, sinceit bore theaccent,
would not undergo this change in Ugariticetc.
Among Canaanite verbs those belonging to the class lamed/waw
lost the waw which was replaced by he as bearerfor a long qameg;
this is a developmentsimilarto what must have taken place when
the formof the Divine Name was Yaw. If DRIVER'S description(31,
p. 20) of what took place in Aramaic can also be applied to Canaani-
te the originof the formYahu can be explained.DRIVERhas pointed
out thatin Aramaic he is used as a letterof prolongationbeforewaw
to preventau being pronounced6: he points out the name Abraham
as an example of this prolongation. This mater lectionis was later
mistakenlytreated as a consonant so that YHW, which should
representYa(h)w, became improperlyYahu or Yaho. The form
YHW is found in the Lachish letterswhere the waw is probably
vocalic. SimilarlyCOWLEY(AramaicPapyri,p. xviii; cf JRAS 1920,
p. 175) says YHW "is not an abbreviationof the Tetragrammaton
but an earlier form,and only another way of writingthe earliest
formYW......... thehe seemsto be a merevowel sign or perhaps
a hamza". (Transliterationsby the presentwriter).It may be of use
to remarkthatcomparisonof AssyrianwithBabyloniantranscriptions
show that he came to be pronounced between the 8th and the 5th
centuriesB.C. But it will be shown laterthatthereis a betterexplana-
tion of the originof Yahu. It would thus appear thatin the Hebrew
formsYah, Yo we have both stagesin thistransformation preserved.
But when the originalformYam was the basis of the development
which DRIVER has describedwe can explain the origin of the forms
Ia(h)-mi etc. in Amoriteas recordedin the cuneiformtranscriptions.
There is however no evidence thatthis took place in Hebrew except
in the proper HW name Ahiam 2 Sam. xxiii 23.
HW
It is generally held that the elements Ho-, Hu-, -hu in theo-

phoric names are abbreviationsof the Tetragrammaton.They may
however be merelythe prefixesof certaintenses-e.g. hophal-in
the perfect,which may not be impossible since some names-e.g.
Jacob-are admittedlyimperfectin tense. However if it be accepted
theyare abbreviationsof the Name, theymust come froma common
ancestor,and it is hard to see how this ancestorcould be YH; they
are plainlyrelatedto the second syllableof Y-HWH.
It is best to excludetheformsin -yahufromthisdiscussionbecause
it is oftenquite impossibleto determinewhetherthe-y-is a connective
(in which case the name would be of the -hu class) or is part of the
Name Yahu. Similarlywe cannotadmitnameswiththeprefixYeho-
since it is not clear whetherthis is the original form of the name
(thus puttingthembeside the -yahuclass) or whether,as in Numbers
xiii 8 and 16 the originalHo-, Hu-, type has been made to conform
to the YH class by the additionof a prefixYa-, Yo-, etc. It is however
importantto note thatthe passage affordsclear evidencethatin some
names at least the Hu-, Ho-, formsprecededthe Yah forms.
Hu-, Ho-, and -hu are found in manytheophoricnames including
the following:
Hodwh (Kt.), Hodiah (Qre), the name of a Levitical familyNehe-
miahvii 43; thelaterformof thenamewas used by a familyof Levites
in Nehemiah viii 7 etc.
Je-hu', probably contractedfrom Yhwhw = "God is he" (17, p.
219b) cf. Manual of Discipline viii 13 Hw'h (=Hu is he?).
Ho-mam the son of Seir the Horite Genesis xxxvi 22 cf. KOEHLER
(19, p. 228b).
Ho-ram a Canaanitishking rulingin Gezar (Joshua x 33)
Ha-ram Judahite (cf. Sabaean proper names Hrm, and Hrmh)
1 Chron. iv 8.
Ho-shem one of David's heroes 1 Chron. xi 34.
It will be realized that the foregoingnames are all early, some
pre-datingthe arrivalof the Hebrews in Canaan (even the textfrom
Chroniclesrefersto ancienttimes) or are connectedwith an ancient
Levitical familyor with a religious reformerwhose name is very
close to YHWH (possibly the final he was retainedin the Tetra-
grammatonin order to avoid confusionwith the laterform). There
is no name in thislistwhichis of lateroriginthanthe timeof David.
A similarphenomenonmay be observed in consideringthe names

which end in -hu and their earliest occurrences: - 'elihu' (1 Sam.,
Job) 'abihu' (Exod., Lev., Num.) 'eliyahu (1 Chron.) 'eliyahu (1
Kings, 2 Kings) 'abiyahu (2 Chron.) 'eliyah (2 Kings and Ezra)
'abiyah (1 Sam., 1 Kings, Chron.). The evidence is by no means
conclusivebut it seems to indicatethatthe forms'elihu' and 'abihu'
both with final aleph are older than the other forms,i.e. we shall
have to look to -hu' ratherthan to -yahufor the older form.
Scholars appear to have feltconsiderabledifficulty in discovering
how theprefixHo- or the ending -hu can be derivedfromYHWH or
Yahu. Similarlythey find it hard to explain how -yahu in proper
names can be derived from YHWH: it must be rememberedthat
the traditionalpronunciationYo, Yeho etc. all indicatea long vowel
of the -u class in the final syllable: there is no traditionof a final
short e until Greek times(Ex. iii 14 does not reallysupportthe con-
jectural vocalization Yahweh). The problem is settled satisfactorily
by presumingthatthe formsHo-, -hu are relatedto an originalHu'
as the above evidence seems to indicate. The final letter of ha
has been dropped in the kethib of Jeremiahxxix 23 and in one
place in the Aramaic of Zinjirli,(17, p. 214) so it does not appear
to be indispensableat theend of proper names in Hebrew and Aram-
aic.
On the followingpassages Ha' seems to be used as a proper name
as well as a personalpronoun; the Semiticmind appreciatesthistype
of punning (compare Jer. i 11-14). The statement"I am Hu"' is
made in the followingpassages: Deut. xxxii 39; Is. xli 4, xliii 10, 13,
xlvi 4, xlviii 12; "Thou out Hi'" Ps. cii 28; Job iii 19 (?) and the
phrase qodesh hu Ex. iii 5. The followingpassages are also possible
examples: Numbersxxi 26; Deut. i 17; Gen. xli 25 could be possibly
translated"Hu' has shown to Pharaoh thatwhich ha-elohimwill do"
and Jer.v 12 may be of some significance"theyhave denied YHWH
saying16-hu"'. Much more convincingthantheabove are the follow-
ing cases of parallelism:
Exodus xxxiv 14 ki YHWH qn' smw

el qn' hui
Here YHWH //el and smw//hu'
Jer.x 10 wYHWH 'elohim 'mt
Hu'-'elohim hayyim
Here YHWH //hu'
Jer.xxv 33 whywhllyYHWH
bywmha-hi'
HereYHWH //hi'
LXX "and the woundings shall be by the Lord
in the day of the Lord"
Jer.xxv 31 ki rib 1YHWH b'gwym
naspt hfi' l'kol bsr
Here hi' //YHWH
Deut. xxxii 6 hlYHWH tgmlw-z'th'm nbl wlo' hkm
h-lw'-hi' 'abyk qnk hi' 'Sk wyknnk
Do ye requite this to the Lord, oh foolish and
unwise people.
Is not he (=hu') thyfatherthatcreated(cf. Gen.
xiv 19, 22) thee, he (=hu') that made thee and
establishedthee?
Here YHWH //hiT'
So the Septuagint translatorswere prepared to translatehf' as
a synonymof YHWH; it is significant thattheyomittedthe definite
article as if before a proper name. Perhaps the definitearticle did
not appear in the Hebrew texttheyhad beforethem.
Jeremiahxxix 23 consonantal text hawwyode'a
qre hayy6od'a
The consonantaltexthere could read Hu' y6de'a
since the weak letter'aleph does elide in various
words cf. BDB (17), KOEHLER (19).
The last two cases quoted mayindicatepious attemptsto suppress
the use of Hi' as a Divine Name.
Is. vii 14 seems to prove fairlyconclusivelythatHi' was regarded
as a form of the Sacred Name (cf. GESENIUS-KAUTZSCH-COWLEY,
§ 135 al).
HebrewGrammar,
It is significantthata similaruse of the thirdperson singularmas-
culine personal pronoun with referenceto a deity is found in the
Old Babylonian Name Yausu which is equivalent (MURTONEN: 40,
page 54) to thatof the king of Israel Yehu' (dissimilatedfromYohi')
and the Mari names Su-Dagon, Su-hu-ut-ki,Akkadian ma-nu-ki-su
(13) etc. There is a comparableuse in the followingpassages of the
Manuel of Discipline (28; MILLAR-BURROWStranslation 29):
3: 17 (twice) and He provides for them
and He created man
3: 25 He created the spiritsof light and of darkness.
4: 25 He knows the performanceof theirworksforall periods

of eternity.
8:13 To prepare the way of Hu'h.
10: 18 And He will repayto man his recompense.
Most of the above passages containthe personalpronoun without
any probable alternativemeaningbut 8: 13 is particularlyinteresting
in that here alone in the Qumran materialis the pronoun (?) found
as a direct substitutionfor YHWH in the original Is. xliii 3 from
which the quotation is taken. This passage indicatesthat in the first
centuryB.C. the pronunciationof the Tetragrammatonwas thought
to resemble that of the personal pronoun. KUHN says referringto
W. H. BROWNLEEB.A.S.O.R. Supplementary Studies Nr. 10-12.
"Brownlee u.a. vermuten,dass das Wort Ersatz furdas Tetragramm
ist". But it mustbe rememberedthatthe Qumran communityclaimed
to be conservativeswho were preservingthe old true ways that
Israel had forsaken.Their preservationof this form of the Sacred
Tetragrammatonwould be quite in keeping with this objective.
Thus the form seems to be identical with the personal pronoun
hi' (17, p. 219b), and it is worth while to considerthe development
of this particularform. HARRIS(22, p. 53) gives this table:
28. favouringof(hzwa)-overhzwatu
Hebrew-hw'(hu) < (hu'a) "he"; (hema) < (himat)< (himati)"they"
Moabite-h'
Ugaritic of 15th Century-hwt (huwatu) "he".
He remarks"there is no proof that Phoenician and Hebrew had
originallyhad the formwith deictic(-t), but the factthattheseforms
were regular in Ugaritic and the existenceof the deictic (-t) form
in the plural pronoun, makes it probable thatmost of Canaanitehad
the (-tu) form of the singularpronouns".
On page 71 he says, under the heading.
48. Disuse offormswithdeictic(-t)
"The formsin (-t) had probablyceased to be common in Hebrew
beforethe writingdown of the classical textsof the Judeankingdom
and beforethepropheticwritings".DRIVER(11, p. 137b) lists both hw
and hwt as the Ugaritic personal pronoun, third person singular
masculine,thehw formbeingnominativeand thehwt,fromaccusative
and oblique. He compareshwt with Sabaean masculinehwt,feminine
hyt. Similarlyin Ugaritic hy is nominative third person feminine
singularand hyt is accusative and oblique.
Thus it would appear thatat some timeafterthe 15thCenturyB.C.

Hebrew pronouns of the typehwt lost the final-t and aftera process
of developmentbecame hi'. There is an interestingform surviving
in the Qumran documentswhichin spiteof its late date mayrepresent
an intermediateform in this development. Here the pronoun is
spelt HW'H in 26 out of the 95 occurrenceslisted by KUHN (25).
This spelling would suggest that during the firstcenturyB.C. the
pronoun was pronounced hfiw as in classical Arabic. This form
must be an early survival,dating from the loss of final -t, for the
process of replacementof -at by -a is well establishedin Hebrew
nouns (22, p. 67), the -a in Hebrew femininesingularscarryinghe as
bearer.Similarly(11, p. 57-8) (-at) and (-at) were replacedby (-a) car-
rying,in Hebrew, he as a bearer for the a, in the third feminine
singular suffixof perfectverb stems.
At Qumran thisstagehas not quite been reached; therethepractice
is to representlong a by 'aleph; hence the finalhe must be still con-
sonantal.
The personalpronoun is also used to referto God in late Hebrew
and Islamic mysticalliterature.
It is sometimes claimed that the various Greek transliterations
affordsupportforthepronunciationYahweh in earlytimes.It should
firstbe emphasizedthatthe Greek formsare of evidentialvalue only
forthe Greek period even when theyclaim to representa much older
traditionbecause it is always possible that this older traditionhas
been harmonizedwithcurrentpracticein the course of transliteration
or copying; it is also possible that modern scholars have misinter-
preted the Greek evidence. It has been shown that -jawa/i,-jama/i,
are formswhich existedin Akkadian and possibly Ugariticand He-
brew although the case endings were not preserved in the Old
Testament.The Greekforms'Iol3p'loCpocL'IOc 'Iu probablyrepresent
an attemptto reproduce this form-it must be noticed that none
of the bi-syllabicformsend in -fuand so theycannot representthe
form-yahfl.As statedearliertheycould also representa transliteration
of the Akkadian formsIa(h)-wi-ilaetc. but, as indicatedearlierin this
article this fact cannot be used as evidence for the earlyuse of the
pronunciationYahweh. They can also representthe pronunciationof
YHWH withthevowels ofha-shemorashim(a)althoughI amnot aware
that thiswas ever done. Similarlyit is generallyheld thatthe spelling
Jehovahoccurredfirstabout 1100 A.D. (KOEHLER: 19, page 369) but
the Greek forms'Ioous 'Iocouo.L etc. may representthepronunciation
of YHWH with the vowels of 'adon'ai at a much earlier date.

In fact some Greek evidence seems to support the view already
establishedon Semitic evidence that the original form of the name
may have been Yau or Yah. Thus Eusebius (PreparatioEvangelica
1: 9 quoted by LANGDON, SemiticMythology, page 44) says a God
Yeuo was worshipped at Gebal about 1000 B.C., and Clement of
Alexandria(quoted by THIERRY 34) quotes the formYao. The Greek
form Aia (Theodoret) may owe somethingto 'ehyeh (Ex. iii 14)
but EERDMANS(26) quoting Epiphanius thinksit is some evidence
for Yao: the presentwriterprefersto identifyit with Yah. Samaritan
evidence may indicate that two pronunciationsYahweh and Yahu
existed,but the possibilitythat the bitterenemies of the Jews used
the form Yahweh is no evidence that the Hebrews did likewise.
JEROME(in a Commentary
ofPsalm viii quoted by THIERRY 34) the only
churchfatherexcept Origin who painstakinglysought to determine
the originalformof the Hebrew text,supportedthe formYahu.
EISSFELDT (35) advances the form YHBYH of the 7th century
A.D. to support a thesis that,since it came fromthe area (Nippur)
wherethe-jama -jawa formswereformerly foundit is a fairindication
that these names representedan early transliteration of the pronun-
ciation Yahweh into Akkadian: it seems much more likelythattradi-
tion would not remainconstantover a troubledperiod exceeding a
thousand years and that the late form YHBYH may representa
transliterationback into Hebrew of the Greek which was in itself
perhaps a fromthe Akkadian -iawa/itraditionwhich
transliteration
is derived from Amorite Yaw. It is more likely to be a mystical
speculation on the name Yah (cf. FRANK, La Kabbale; ABELSON,
JewishMysticism;EERDMANS 34) possibly representinga borrowing
of the Johannineconcept "God is love". It could also mean "let
God give a blessing". But its evidentialvalue for an earlyuse of the
pronunciationYahweh is nil.
The evidence adduced indicatesthatthe second syllableof YHWH
probablyrepresentsan earlystage in the developmentof the personal
pronoun, probablycurrentlyin use when the great events at Mount
Sinai took place and which with true religious conservatismwas
"frozen" at this stage. If YHWH does closelyresemblethe personal
pronoun in pronunciationit is easy to understandwhy the pronoun
and the Sacred Name seem at times to have been substitutedfor
each other.Of course it is possible thatHu' mayrepresentsome name
taken over from the Midianites or Qenites and misunderstood;it
may be the closest approach the Hebrew could make to dhu as in

Dhushera.
The workof Moses
The course of events which led the Hebrews to worship YHWH
seems clear. The slaves in Egypt had presumablyworshipped as
their chief deity El who in the hypostasisof El Shaddai had been
the God of the fathersin Canaan, and possible Yah also; perhapsthe
two had been identifiedbeforethe originalHebrews had leftCanaan
cf. UgariticVI AB IV 14 "The Name of my son is Yaw-el". Possibly
at an early date Canaanite legend (cf. Psalm xciii) had represented
El as triumphingover the sea-god Yam-a victory attributedto
Ba'al in Ugaritic(11) afterthe penetrationof Ugarit and the usurpa-
tion of many of the attributesof El by Ba'al. In that case the place
names in Joshua xv Kabzeel "the Congregationof El" (v. 21) and
Bizzoth-Yah "the despisingof Yah" (v. 28) preservea memoryof
this early contestbetween El and Yah. Moses was living with the
Midianites when he encounteredthis deity Yah and on his return
to Egypt introducedthis God to his fellow Hebrews as a potential
deliverer.On leaving the land of bondage he led his people to the
place where Yah had been revealed to him and deliberatelyboth
he and Aaron, took second place while Jethropriest of Midian
sacrificed-an importantpointbecause as I have shown elsewhere(38)
it reveals that Moses considered Jethromore experienced in the
service of Yah than he himselfwas.
Such a combination of the names of two Gods-if indeed they
be two separate Gods-is not unknown. Thus BAETHGEN, Beitrdge
254 (3) speaks of ,,G6tteramalgamation"whereby two originally
distinct deities were worshipped as one, and quotes as examples
Ba'al Zaphon and Ba'al Gad, Ugaritic Ktr-w-Hss. It is probably
not correctto include in this category such deities as 'El Shaddai,
Dan-'el, Tor-'el, etc. as they should be perhaps considered local
manifestationsof El the head of a Ugaritic pantheon. About 1300
B.C. Resheph was identifiedas Shulmanto become a compositedeity
Reshap-Shalmon(13, p. 79).
The answer to Moses query regardingthe actual identityof God
had been unsatisfactory;the Deliverer was vague about the actual
formof his name since to reveal it to Moses would in contemporary
thinkinghave put God in the power of man (cf. Gen. xxxii 30).
his vague replyexpressedthe incomprehensibility of God but partly
revealed his nature. There was only one final conclusion possible;
the evasive reply 'eheyh evoked memoriesof Yah and Moses con-
cluded yahu "yah is he".
It is fascinatingto imagine the dramaticscene when the prophet
returned to the anxious assembled Israelites and proclaimed the
identityof the God who had broughtthemout of the land of Egypt
"he is Yah-Yah-hfi".
Yah they knew and the identificationwas at once accepted by
those to whom Yah's power over the sea had so recentlybeen re-
vealed. They hailed him "Yah-hu'! Yah-hu'!"
The traditionalmeaningof thename is thusupheld. YHWH means
"I am (YH) what I am (Hui')"-the sort of mysteriousstatement
which oftencharacterizesorcales, but which is seen to be apt when
once it has been explained. This proclamation of a definiteGod,
known to their ancestors,as a delivererprobably representedan
attemptby Moses to consolidate the Hebrew confederacy.
It would seem then thatthis syntheticname continuedto be used
amongstthe Hebrew priestsand Levites and probablyothermembers
of the community'sleaders but never displaced the older terms
amongst the common people who continued to referto theirGod
as Adon Elohim, Yah, and Hi'. The Hebrew scribesprobablyintro-
duced YHWH into the Old Testamenttextbeside theexistingdivine
names duringthe great literaryactivityof the 7th centuryB.C. and
the Exile. Sometimes the older names were omitted or altered to
conform with the new practice, following the example of Moses.
Jewish legend has preserved a memory that the texts have been
tamperedwith (4, vol. 1B: page 257), for they record that Ahaziah
"had the Name of God expunged from every passage in which it
occurred in the Holy Scripturesand the names of idols insertedin
its place". FurtherManasseh, the greatnessof whose scholarshipis
almost proverbial, is said, like Jehoiakim,to have obliteratedthe
name of God fromthe Scriptures.One wonders to what extenthis
reputationforwickednessmay be due to his oppositionto the priests
and what the nature of the "obliteration" of the Name of God
reallywas.
But the word was inconvenientand unfamiliarto the ordinary
people and as time passed it graduallydropped out of general use.
It should be repeatedthatthereis no conclusive earlyevidence that
the name was ever pronounced Yahweh but thereis plentyof early
evidence for Hi', Yah, Yo-, Yau-, -yah and perhaps -yo. Yahu is
only found combined with other elementsin proper names in the

Old Testamentbut does occur separatelyelsewhere(e.g. in Elephan-
tine) thus indicatingthat YHWH is the form of the name which
religioustraditionhas speciallypreserved.YHWH is however found
in the Moabite Stone in a religious context-the Moabite scribe
probablychose this"official"formof thename in a deliberateattempt
to humiliateits Bearer stillfurther.To preventthis type of profana-
tion as far as possible the priestsprobably encouraged the people
to abandon the truepronunciationof the Name and to read Adonai
for it; and probably the people were glad to avoid this mysterious
name and to read Adonai when theycame to it in the biblical text.
Even in writingthe older names gradually re-assertedthemselves
as we have seen and the Tetragrammatonbegan to fall into disuse.
Nevertheless YHWH still retained its sacred characterprobably
because its origin had accompanied the great event of the giving of
the law.
When the Septuagint was translatedno attemptwas made to
translateYHWH but the Christianswho felt no longer bound by
the traditionof the fathersdid not hesitateto replace it by "kyrios",
the equivalentof 'adon-a thing they would not have dared to do
had the name appeared as sacred to themas it did to the Massoretes
some seven centuries later. I would venture to suggest that the
Christianrejection of the transliterationYHWH-and also of the
untransliterated Hebrew letters-in the Septuagint was one of the
chieffactorswhich sanctifiedit among the Jews.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ImmanuelLEWY,"The Beginningsof theWorshipof Yahweh", VetusTesta-
Vol. 6, No. 4.
mentum,
Vol. 5,
2. J. P. HYATT,"Yahweh as the "God of My Father" ", Vetus Testamentum
No. 2.
3. G. Buchanan GRAY, Hebrew Proper Names.
4. L. GINSBERG, Legendsof theJews,Vol. 2.
5. W. ROBERTSON SMITH, Religionof theSemites,Ed. 3, ed. S. A. COOK.
6. S. R. DRIVER, ModernResearchas IllustratingtheBible.
7. Garrod DUNCAN, New Light on Hebrew Origins.
8. C. D. GINSBURG, The Moabite Stone,a fascimile.
9. E. ULLENDORFF, "The Moabite Stone", Documentsfrom Old TestamentTimes
ed. D. WINTON THOMAS.
Vol. 4, N o.3,
10. E. SCHILD, "On Ex. 3:14 "I am thatI am" ", Vetus Testamentum,
p. 296.
11. G. R. DRIVER, Canaanite Mythsand Legends.
12. A. GUILLAUME, "Magical Terms in the Old Testament", J.R.A.S., 1942.
13. W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeologyand the Religionof Israel.

14. Lankester HARDING, The AntiquitiesofJordan.
15. A. JAMME, Pieces Epigraphiquesde Heid bin Aqil.
16. S. D. GOITEN, "YHWH the Passionate", Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 6, no. 1.
17. BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS, Oxford HebrewLexicon.
18. P. KAHLE, The Cairo GeniZah (2nd edition)
19. L. KOEHLER, Lexicon in Veteris TestamentiLibros.
20. J. E. H. THOMSON, The Samaritans.
21. J. SKINNER, The Divine Names in Genesis.
22. Z. S. HARRIS, Developmentof the Canaanite Dialects.
23. DE LACY O'LEARY, ComparativeGrammarof the SemiticLanguages.
24. Marvin POPE, El in the Ugaritic Texts.
25. K. G. KUHN, Konkordanzzu denQumrantexten.
26. B. D. EERDMANS, Oudtestamentische Studiin,Deel V.
27. A. COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth CenturyB.C.
28. The Dead Sea ScrollsofSt. Mark's Monastery,Vol. II. Fasc. 2, Plates and Trans-
criptions of the Manual of Discipline ed. Millar BURROWS.
29. Millar BURROWS, The Dead Sea Scrolls.
30. J. R. KUPPER, Les Nomadesen Mesopotamieau tempsdes roisde Mari.
31. G. R. DRIVER, "The Original form of the Name "Yahweh": evidence and
conclusions", Z.A. W., 1928.
32. H. TORCZYNER (TUR SINAI), Die Bundesladeunddie Anfdngeder ReligionIsraels.
33. W. ROBERTSON SMITH, The Prophetsof Israel.
34. G. J. THIERRY, "The Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton". Oudtestamen-
tischeStudiin, Deel V.
35. 0. EISSFELDT, ,,Neue Zeugnisse ftir die Aussprache des Tetragramm als
Jahwe" Z.A.W., 1935.
36. A. H. DUBARLE, La revuedes sciences et theologiques,
philosophiques 1951.
37. H. BAUER, ,,Die Gottheiten von Ras Schamra", Z.A.W., 1933.
38. E. C. B. MACLAURIN,The Originof the Hebrew SacrificialSystem.
39. E. WIDENGREN, "Early Hebrew Myths and their Interpretation", in Myth,
Ritual and Kingship,ed. S. H. HOOKE.
40. A. MURTONEN, A Philologicaland LiteraryTreatiseon theOld TestamentDivine
Names.
41. W. F. ALBRIGHT, Studiesin Old TestamentProphecy presentedto T. H. Robinson.
42. J. MACDONALD, "The Tetragrammaton in Samaritan Liturgical Composi-
tions" Glasgow UniversityOrientalSociety,Vol. XVII, 1957-8.

YHWH, The Origin of The Tetragrammaton

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

YHWH, The Origin of The Tetragrammaton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

YHWH

THE ORIGIN OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON*

The earliestHebrew traditions(Ex. iii 12-15E, vi 3P) claim that

inscribedabout 830 B.C., does not affectthe traditionalaccount in

understoodas thesubjectoftheverb yshq (WIDENGREN39, page 187).

The God of YourFathers

ilum or Yakhwi-ilum.They belong to a common class of Amorite

um-la-bi, Sa-du-la-ba, Sa-du-um-la-ba(quoted by KUPPER: 30. p.

Examination of the Biblical theophoric names composed partly

Buchanan GRAY shows by a series of tables (3) thatthe formsin

The tables dealing with persons mentionedin Chronicles show

two occasions (31). A similarYW- name fromHamath is mentioned

attached by Semites to names of good omen-if YHWH had been

withgreatcaution: the evidenceforthis is late, however (20. p. 178).

in place of YHWH (21). This practise can be verysignificant in the

significant. In III AB B 17, 33-4 he is called "Adon of the gods" (24)

of Yahweh; it is safe to suppose

Other examples could be quoted fromUgariticbut the above are

Before 1500 B.C. a change took place in Canaanitein which (aw)

It is generally held that the elements Ho-, Hu-, -hu in theo-

A similarphenomenonmay be observed in consideringthe names

Exodus xxxiv 14 ki YHWH qn' smw

4: 25 He knows the performanceof theirworksforall periods

Thus it would appear thatat some timeafterthe 15thCenturyB.C.

of YHWH with the vowels of 'adon'ai at a much earlier date.

may be the closest approach the Hebrew could make to dhu as in

only found combined with other elementsin proper names in the

13. W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeologyand the Religionof Israel.

You might also like