Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the result of his inquiries in these words: "When an author, without evident, definite cause, confines himself in a long section to the use of one name, whether it be Elohim or Jehovah, he shows a certain preference for it, and may therefore be regarded as a different writer from one who, in the same proportion, proceeds in a direction quite opposite." If now, an evident, definite cause can be shown, the conclusion of Hartmann falls to the ground.

Ewald's latest view, as we learn from the review of Stähelin in the Studium und Criticum for 1831, Heft 3, is as follows: "The name Jehovah, as that of the Mosaic national God, may have been first imparted to the people by Moses, and associated with the national worship. In the period anterior to that of Moses, God may have been known by a general name, as Elohim; or a historian may so designate him, in contradistinction to that of the Mosaic revelation. The first groundwork of the whole Pentateuch is formed by a writing, which, as far as Exod. vi. 2, always names God Elohim, according to the belief or tradition that the name Jehovah was first made known by Moses, and closely connected with the whole structure of Mosaic worship. Another writing is interwoven with this, which, less correct in the ancient application of terms, employs Jehovah, the Mosaic divine name, to designate the Deity in the patriarchal times, using also the term Elohim; and thus portions occur in which Elohim appears exclusively, which is not the case with respect to Jehovah, unless incidentally. Those documents have, with judicious connexion and thought, been incorporated by a later writer into one, so that Genesis, in its present state, appears as the well connected work of some individual."

But if the difference between Jehovah and Elohim was generally recognized by the people, how is it possible that two Israelites, the author of the second writing and the col

lector, could commit so unfortunate a blunder as to employ the name of the national God in circumstances anterior to the national existence? They could not possibly have regarded it merely as the name of the national God. Another consideration, comprehending this idea, but not identical with it, will account for its use in periods before the time of Moses:

Hengstenberg very justly remarks, that it is of the greatest importance to determine the derivation, and hence to ascertain the fundamental meaning of the terms under consideration. He begins with Jehovah, and settles the previous question, whether the word is of foreign or of Hebrew origin. He investigates the Egyptian and Phœnician claims, and rejects them as inadmissible. The claim set up for a Chinese origin, and the derivation from Jovis, are hardly worthy of notice. The word is undoubtedly of Hebrew etymology.

The learned writer then proceeds to examine the correct punctuation of the word. In his opinion, the vowels in present use were taken from Adonai, and the original pronunciation was yahveh, 1 (or, 171) making the regular future of, and meaning the existing, literally, 'he will exist.' He considers Exod. iii. 14: "and God said unto Moses, I am what I am," or; 'I will be what I will be,' , as implying immutability. In the words of Augustin in loc.: "it is the name of unchangeableness. For all things that are mutable, cease to be what they were, and begin to be what they were not. Immutability is peculiar to essential truth. He has the property of existence to whom it is said, thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed, but thou art the same.' What is "I am that I am," but I am eternal'? What is "I am that I am," but 'I cannot be changed'?" The existing,' and 'the unchanging,'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

he considers as equivalent in meaning, and as conveying the sentiment of the text.

Like Hengstenberg, Drechsler also examines the signification of the two names, before he attempts to deduce any theory in reference to their use in the book of Genesis. In general views and results, those two scholars coincide. But the latter writer, proceeding, in his argument, from the same text in Exodus, comes to the conclusion, that Jehovah implies capability in himself. The words, "I will be what I will be," do not, he thinks, express the idea usually attached to them of immutability, but rather that of unlimited freedom. This, he maintains, accords with analogous usage, and refers to 2 Kings, viii. 1," sojourn where thou will sojourn," 109 1083 17; also to 2 Sam. xv. 20, and Gen. xliii. 14, which are less to the point. He considers the declarations in Exod. xxxiii. 19, Rom. ix. 15, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," as entirely parallel to the words in Exodus iii. 14. Independent action and independent being may be considered as necessarily connected. On this ground, and in as much as the word 'I will be,' or ‘I am,' is used instead of the whole expression, Drechsler concludes that the thought thereby conveyed, is that of independent being, p. 12.

This thought is so closely allied to that given by Hengstenberg, that the practical application of both, in reference to the use of the divine names in Genesis, coincides. To determine their comparative philological correctness, would be of little importance. The commonly received exposition, which asserts immutability of character, inasmuch as it accords with the simple meaning of the words, and comprehends the idea of independent volition and action, is here presumed to be the true interpretation. Unlimited freedom in the formation of plans, and also in their execution, is thus necessarily implied in the declaration under consideration,

The word Elohim is, in all probability, derived from a root, which, although lost in the Hebrew, is still retained in the Arabic language, N,, which not only means 'to worship God,' but also to be astonished, amazed, struck with fear.' Thus it conveys the idea of holy reverence and terror, analogous to the language in Gen. xxxi. 42, 53, where God is called "the fear of Isaac," meaning doubtless the object of his most sacred awe. Comp. Isa. viii. 13, "let him, (Jehovah,) be your fear and your dread." Thus Elohim may be regarded as a general term for God, implying his glory and dignity, as Creator, preserver and governor of all things, and by consequence exhibiting him as the great being, whom all his creatures are to honour and reverence, at the very thought of whose unlimited power all the universe must tremble: the great and mighty God, in contradistinction to the feeble and inefficient creature.

Hengstenberg objects to the opinion, so anciently and frequently maintained, that the plural form implies plurality of persons. In that case, he thinks it could not be used of divine personages in the widest application, as of angels and supernatural beings, as it is in Ps. viii. 5; 1 Sam. xxviii. 13; and also of idols. But, without deciding in favour of the opinion referred to, it may be said, that whenever the term is so used, that original ground of the plural form might be lost sight of. This is the case in a multitude of words, as their meaning varies in proportion to the extensiveness of their application. And it is the case in English when we apply the word God to denote a false god, an evil being, although originally it implied goodness, as a characteristic necessarily belonging to the being so designated.

If it is clear, that the Pentateuch contains a revelation of God progressively advancing, until it terminates in a developement of the complete theocracy; then, from the intimate connexion of name and thing, we may reasonably ex

pect that the author, by the use of designed and carefully varied divine names, intended to note a real difference characteristic of the earlier and later periods. If Elohim be the more general, and Jehovah the more definite and profound name of the Deity, we might consequently expect to find, that the use of these terms varies, before the full establishment of the theocracy, in a different manner from what it does after. According as the subject is connected with the earlier or later period, in other words, as the analogy with the world in general or with the theocracy predominates, the name Jehovah or Elohim must be employed. As the name indicates character, the language in Ex. vi. 3, "by my name Jehovah," is equivalent to 'in my character as Jehovah.' The reference is not to the mere name, but to the thing designated. "You shall know that I am Jehovah, your God;" you shall know it by the wonderful deliverance from Egypt. Such a developement of divine power was never made to the patriarchs, and indeed, from the nature of the case, it could not have been. This text determines nothing respecting the age of the term Jehovah. It speaks of the revelation of God as Jehovah. Thus far the same being, who, in one respect, was Jehovah, in another has always been Elohim. Now, the great catastrophe approaches, by which Jehovah-Elohim becomes or displays. himself as Jehovah.

Thus Hengstenberg. Drechsler also maintains that the use of the two names rests on grounds connected with the subject, and that the difference in such use observable in Genesis from that found in other books of the Old Testament, is not to be ascribed to mere arbitrariness on the part of the writer, but arises from its peculiar character of the contents, which bears an especial relation to one or other of the divine names, as either may be found to have been employed. He then remarks as follows.

« AnteriorContinuar »