241

CHAPTER IX.

THE DERIVATION OF THE NAME MORIAH.

311. THERE is, however, one word in Genesis, the name of a place,, Moriah, G.xxii.2, which appears at first sight to be compounded with Jehovah. HENGSTENBERG, 1.274-277, insists very strongly on this point; and, for the sake of the Hebrew student and critic, we must consider his arguments at length.

For the ordinary reader, however, it will be sufficient to observe as follows:

(i) This is the only instance in the whole book of Genesis, where any name of place or person is (apparently) compounded with the name Jehovah; it is, therefore, highly probable from the first, that the derivation maintained by HENGSTENBERG may be erroneous.

(ii) It is most unlikely that this place was generally known -(as the Divine command in v.2, Get thee into the land of Moriah,' evidently implies)—known, therefore, to the idolatrous Canaanites,-by a name compounded with Jehovah, when there is not a single other instance, in the whole Bible, of the existence of another name, so compounded, in that age.

(iii) It is impossible that the place could have been already known familiarly as 'Moriah,' which means, according to HENGSTENBERG, appearance of Jehovah,' before that very appearance

R

6

of Jehovah' took place, described in the story, G.xxii, to which the giving of the name itself is ascribed.

(iv) It is shown below, on critical grounds, that the word in question, in, cannot be formed as HENGSTENBERG supposes.

(v) It is also shown below that there is no real ground for the identification of the mount of Abraham's sacrifice with the Temple Hill at Jerusalem, the hill of Jehovah's appearance to David, 2Ch.iii.1, the assumption of which identity is one of the main supports of HENGSTENBERG's argument.

(vi) The reader is referred to Chap. X for the reasons which lead us to identify the mount of Abraham's sacrifice with Mount Gerizim.

312. We proceed now to consider the arguments of HENGSTENBERG seriatim.

(i) 'Although in Genesis the composition of Proper Names with EL is throughaut predominant (!),—(which indicates that the knowledge of JEHOVAH was yet feeble and vacillating, that men did not yet properly venture to associate Him, the High and Holy One, with earthly things, and satisfied themselves with what was constant and invariable, rather with the lower and more general names of God, (such as Elohim,) which corresponded to the general and prevailing state of religious knowledge and sentiment,)-yet, at least, there is one Proper Name, which indisputably is compounded with JEHOVAH, viz. Moriah, precisely that, in which the 'JEHOVAH' could with least propriety be wanting, whether we look at the first great event, by which the place was consecrated in the Patriarchal life, or keep in view the later historical developement.'

Ans. I reply, generally, as above, that the introduction of EL, in Proper Names compounded with the name of the Deity, is not merely the predominant, but the invariable, usage, throughout the book of Genesis, in a multitude of instances, both of persons and places; and, therefore, it is à priori exceedingly improbable that this single name should form an exception to the universal rule. It is also, as said above, highly improbable that, in that age, at all events, when names generally were not so compounded, the place in question should have been commonly known, (as is implied by the command given to Abraham, 'Get thee into the land of Moriah,')—known, therefore, to the Canaanites, as well as to Abraham,—by a name compounded with the name Jehovah.

(ii) 'That the name was first formed on the occasion of the event mentioned in

G.xxii, is expressly stated in v.14; so that the use of it in v.2 must be considered as proleptic (!)'

Ans. That is to say, according to HENGSTENBERG, when God Almighty said to Abraham, 'Get thee into the land of Moriah,' He, the Divine Being, used the name, Moriah, proleptically! He commanded Abraham to go to a place, which was not yet called by the name by which He called it!

But, in point of fact, v.14 does not 'expressly state' that the name 'Moriah' was formed on this occasion. It says, 'Abraham called the name of that place (not Moriah, in, but Jehovah-Jireh, 7 min, with express reference to the proverb, As it is said, In the Mount of Jehovah it (or He) shall be seen (I).”

(iii) ‘The name is compounded of, the Hophal participle of the verb , and, an abbreviation of in, and means literally 'the shown of Jehovah''the appearance of Jehovah.' This derivation is supported by the only admissible etymology, joined with the demonstrable falsehood of any other. The Hophal of the verb occurs in the Pentateuch four times, and nowhere else, and certainly in the sense of being caused to see,' viz. E.xxv.40, 77, xxvi.30, ♫♫, L.xiii.49, 77, Div.35,

Ans. It is difficult to see how the Hophal participle of can possibly have the meaning assigned to it by Hengstenberg, viz. 'the shown (= the appearance) of Jehovah,' or the kindred meaning proposed for it by KNobel, (Genesis, p.174,) the shown of Jehovah' = 'the place which Jehovah has shown.' In the first three of the four instances above quoted, in which the Hophal of this verb is used, it is employed in the sense, which it ought regularly to have, of 'being made to see'; and, most probably, it is to be taken in the same sense in the fourth instance, L.xiii.49, with a peculiar use of the particle, prefixed to a nominative, as in G.xvii.5, E.x.8, L.x.18, thus ¡by ), and the Priest shall be shown it shall be made to see it.'

Besides, the derivation proposed by Hengstenberg, viz. YOŅI? = mhid, is inadmissible. It will be observed that in each of the above four instances the characteristic radical, , of the verb is not wanting. It could not have been omitted in a word compounded of the Hophal of and

On this point H. says: The trifling (!) deviation from the common form of the participle in Hophal has been sufficiently justified by FULLER, Misc. Theol. ii.14.' On referring to FULLER (Camb. Un. Lib. ii.27,30) I find that he gives no 'justification' whatever for the omission of this . His words are then by some kind of contraction is struck out' (tum per contractionem quandam eliditur g).

[H. then proceeds to show the 'demonstrable falsehood of any other derivation.' But, as we do not profess to be able to give with certainty the true origin and meaning of the word, we need not consider at length this part of his argument. He proceeds, however, as follows.]

saw

(iv) 'This derivation and meaning of the name is alluded to in 2Ch.iii.1, 'Then Solomon began to build the House of Jehovah at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where He appeared (?) to David his father.' Comp. 1Ch.xxi.16, ‘And he (1) the angel of Jehovah,' and 2S.xxiv.17, 'when he saw angel.' The name Moriah had been revived under David: the 'appearance of Jehovah,' of which it was a memorial, had been repeated to him. On this account Solomon chose exactly this spot for the Sanctuary of Jehovah.'

Ans. It is possible that the Chronicler may have made the false etymology, which H. ascribes to him, of deriving in, the name of the Temple Hill, from the verb with reference to Jehovah's 'appearing' to David. But the LXX version seems to imply the contrary, since it reads in 2Ch.iii.1, èv õpei тoû ’Aμwpía, ' in the mount of Amoria,' and the Syriac also has 'the mountain of the Amorites.' Yet, however this may be, it would still be impossible that the place of Abraham's sacrifice should have been called 'Moriah,' if that word means 'the appearance of Jehovah,' three days, at least, before Jehovah appeared to Abraham. G.xxii.2,4.

(v) 'This derivation forms the basis of the passage in G.xxii.14, 'And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-Jireh, (n?? nin,' Jehovah will see), as it is said to this day, In the mount of Jehovah He will be seen.' The name of the place, in its peculiar form, occurs in v.2, and is assumed to be universally known,'

Ans. No doubt, the name, ?! nin, Jehovah-Jireh, is derived from the verb 'to see,' with express reference to the words of Abraham in v.8, 'God will provide for Himself (lit. see for Himself, i-7) the lamb for a burnt-offering.” But this does not show that any connection exists between in v.2 and 7,

or that the place could have been called the 'appearance of Jehovah,' and this name be used freely by Jehovah Himself, as a name 'universally known,' before that 'appearance' took place, in consequence of which the name itself is supposed by H. to have originated,

(vi) For this reason an explanatory paraphrase is substituted for it in ???; and in such a case, throughout Genesis, it is usual to give not a strict etymological derivation, but only an allusion to the etymology. That God's 'seeing' here, where it is mentioned with reference to v.8, 'God will provide (7), 'will see') for Himself,' is only so far noticed as it is inseparably connected with his 'being seen' or 'appearing,' the following words prove, As it is said to this day, &c.' The hope of the future appearing rests upon the certainty of the present appearing. On Moriah, the place of God's appearing, He has appeared; and there, faith hopes, He will manifest Himself for the future.'

Ans. Evidently v.14 contains a proverb which was current in the writer's day, the general meaning of which is that, in the time and place of need, God's care will be manifested for the obedient soul, that steadily pursues the path of faith and duty. The LXX translate èv тâ õpeι Kúpios pen, 'in the mount the Lord

was seen,' that is, they appear to have read my nin! ^ng,—' in the mount (i. e. in the extreme pinch of difficulty) Jehovah shall be seen''Man's extremity is God's opportunity.' Indeed, from the reference which is here made from the name to the proverb, we should rather expect the same form of expression to occur in each, so that in the latter will stand by itself, and ¡ be taken as the subject of the verb, as it is in the former, and this is what we find in the LXX version. Still, however, the agreement is not quite complete; since, as the present Masoretic text stands, (which expresses also the reading of the LXX,) we have in the name, ?? ning, and in the proverb, in, the vowel-points of the verb being different in the two cases, while the consonants are the same. TUCH (Genesis, p.394) suggests that the original writer meant to be read in both cases, but he supposes that the vowel-points have been changed in the name, so as to refer it to the expression in v.8. Is not the contrary, however, more probable, viz. that the writer meant to be read in both cases, by which the reference is made at once to v.8? Only, on either supposition, the change in the vowel-sounds must have been made at an early age, before the LXX translation was made.

In this proverb, however, there is no kind of prediction, that in that particular mount, at some future time, viz. the days of David, there should be a second remarkable 'appearance of Jehovah.'

(vii) Thus the expression, 'as it is this day,' is to be regarded as a prophetic anticipation, on account of E.xv.17, where this anticipation, the hope of a future and more glorious revelation of God upon the site of the former, is yet more clearly expressed,—'Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, in the place, Jehovah, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, Jehovah, which Thy hands have established.' ABEN-EZRA'S and ROSENMÜLLER's interpretation of the 'mountain [of Thine inheritance],' as the 'mountainous land of Canaan,' deserves no attention. That the mount Moriah, as the place which Jehovah would choose hereafter for the habitation of His Name, is intended, the two following clauses show plainly enough.'

Ans. It is by no means plain that mount Moriah is intended throughout the verse in question. On the contrary, it would rather seem that there is a gradual narrowing of the holy circle, in which God's Presence was specially to be manifested, from the whole land of Canaan, the 'mountain of God's inheritance,' (comp. Jo.xi.16, the mountain of Israel and the valley of the same,') which was holy, to the 'more holy' City, 'the place which He would choose to dwell in,' and the 'most holy' Sanctuary.

But, supposing with HENGSTENBERG that the Temple is referred to throughout, and that the 'mount' here mentioned is mount Moriah, there is not the least reason for regarding this passage as referring to the fulfilment of the (supposed) prediction in G.xxii.14.