Abraham, whereas Mount Moriah at Jerusalem was wholly strange to it.

(iv) The later Jews may have had the same reason for corrupting this passage in Genesis, by changing D, Moreh, into

, Moriah, so as to draw away attention and honour from the famous, or, in their view, infamous, Samaritan mountain to their own Temple-hill, as they had for making the change in D.xxvii.4, Jo.viii.30, where, as KENNICOTT, Diss.ii.c.1, has convincingly shown, they have undoubtedly changed the original Gerizim, which still stands in the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch, into Ebal, making thus the latter, the barren mount, the mount of cursing, D.xxvii.13, instead of Gerizim, the fertile mount, the mount of blessing, D.xxvii.12,--on which Joshua himself, with the royal tribe of Judah, the priestly tribe of Levi, and his own tribe of Joseph, were to stand to bless the people,' v.12- to be the mount, on which Joshua and all Israel were to build an altar, and offer peaceofferings, and eat there, and rejoice before Jehovah their God, and set up great stones, with the Law engraved upon them, to remain as a record for all future ages.

257

CHAPTER XI.

THE NAMES ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH.

be

327. THE word ELOHIM, D, is a plural noun; it is the general name for Deity in the Hebrew language, and may used, accordingly, for a heathen god. Upon this word KUENEN observes, p.62:

אֱלֹהִים The plural

as well as the singular i, is derived from the root , which is not used in Hebrew, but in Arabic has the meaning ‘to fear, dread, tremble.' Hence, is properly fear,' then 'object of fear'; compare the use of, 'fear, terror,' G.xxxi.42,53, [where God is called 'the Fear of Isaac ']; and in the same sense is used. How the plural form is to be explained, whether it expresses the abstract, (res tremendœ=numen tremendum, ‘the Deity,') or is a pluralis majestaticus, or, perhaps, a real plural, and so a relic of a former state of polytheism, I leave undetermined. It is enough that Elohim, by virtue of its original meaning, is used to denote Deity in general.

328. Hence it is quite a mistake to think of proving the doctrine of the Trinity, as some do, from the fact, that Elohim is a plural name. It is true, this plural noun is generally used with a singular verb,- but not always; for it occurs with a plural verb in G.xx.13, and with a plural adjective or participle in Jo.xxiv. 19, Ps.lviii. 12. And, as above mentioned, it is used of an idol,- Dagon, 1S.v.7, Astarte, 1K.xi.5, Baalzebub, 2K.i.2,3,6,

as well as of the True God. It is, therefore, most probably, a pluralis excellentiæ, according to the very common Hebrew idiom, by which a plural noun is used to express a superlative degree of excellence of any kind. Thus we have

, a cruel lords,' Is.xix.4, and 'If I am a lords, D, where is my fear?' Mal.i.6; so DP, the Holy Ones,' Pr.ix.10,

S

Hos.xi.12, thy Creators,

ib, 'God my Makers,' Job xxxv. 10, 'Remember a,' Ecc.xii. 1, 'thy Husbands is thy Makers, q qva,' Is.liv.5, Jehovah is thy Keepers, 7, Ps.cxxi.5. So, too,, Adonai, 'Lord,' so often used for God, is plural; and in D.x.17 we have the double plural, D, Lords of lords.'

329. JEHOVAH, however, is never used of a heathen god; it is the proper Personal Name of Him, who is declared to be emphatically the covenant God of the Hebrew people, 'Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,' E.iii.16, Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews,' v.18, 'Jehovah, your God,' vi.7. Hence it is never used as an appellative, as Elohim often is. Thus we may find it written, 'thy Elohim,' 'Elohim of Israel,' 'Jehovah, thy Elohim,' &c. but not thy Jehovah,' Jehovah of Israel,'Elohim, thy Jehovah.' In D.vi.4 we have 'Jehovah our God is One Jehovah,' and in Zech.xiv.9 there shall be One Jehovah and His Name One.'

The assertion, therefore, of Dr. MCCAUL, Aids to Faith, p.195, if it is true of any of the more noteworthy results of modern criticism, is certainly not applicable to our reasoning:-

The theory [of the existence of distinct Elohistic and Jehovistic passages in Genesis] rests upon an assumption totally false, that the names of Elohim and Jehovah are synonymous, and that they can be used indifferently one for the other.

330. We have said (300) that the Elohist never uses the name Jehovah until it has been published in E.vi, or, as we rather believe, in E.iii. Without going fully at present into the question, as to what portions of Genesis, Exodus, &c. are due to this writer, we may observe that E.iii appears to be mainly Elohistic, for the following reasons:

(i) The name 'Elohim' occurs in it repeatedly, in fact, twenty-one times. (ii) The phrase 'Mount of Elohim,' in v.1, is found again in E.xviii.5, xxiv.13, which are decidedly Elohistic passages, and in the first of them, Jethro is given, as here, for the name of Moses's father-in-law, not Reuel, or Raguel, Heb. Say,

as in E.ii.18, N.x.29. For 'mount of Elohim' the later writer uses 'mount of Jehovah,' N.x.33.

(iii) The expression in v.6, 'I am the Elohim of thy father, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob,' is thoroughly Elohistic. As we have seen in (300), the Jehovist would most probably have written, 'I am Jehovah, the Elohim of thy father, &c.'

331. And yet there are phrases in it, which are never used by the Elohist, such as a land flowing with milk and honey,' v.8,17, a very characteristic expression, which does not occur, however, in any of the Elohistic promises in Genesis, or in the undoubtedly Elohistic passage, E.vi.8; and the name 'Jehovah' occurs in it seven times.

If, then, this passage was originally Elohistic, a later Jehovistic writer must have retouched it here and there, as if to make the older narrative, which he had before him, and which, perhaps, he was transcribing, more distinct and complete. We shall see hereafter, upon close inspection, that there is good reason to believe that this is really the case.

332. In E.iii.14, may say, 'I AM THAT I AM,'* we find explained, apparently, the derivation of the name, ñiñ', 'Jehovah,' according to the writer's view, from the Hebrew word

,I AM,אהוה or אהיה havah, to be, as if הוה hayah, or,היה

were closely connected with ', having, at all events, the same root with it. So we have Eve's name in Hebrew in, khavah,, khayah, because she was the mother of all living,, kol-khay,' G.iii.20; and the imperative П, heveh (with medial ) occurs in G.xxvii.29, and, perhaps, in Job xxxvii.6, and ", hevi, imp. fem., in Is.xvi.4.

Whether this be

the true origin of the Sacred Name or not, it appears to have been that which approved itself to the Elohistic author. The

* It has been suggested that the translation of this passage should rather be, ‘I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.' In E.iii.12, just before, we have the same word, where it is translated 'I will be,' and so in G.xxxi.3: it appears also with Vau Conversive in 2S.vii.6, Ps.cii.7(8), where our versions, both Bible and PrayerBook have 'I am,' but JEROME, more correctly, fui.'

proper vowel-sounds of the word л are, indeed, now unknown; and it is always pronounced, as it was by the later Jews, with the vowel-sounds of 8, Lord, or with those of , when itself precedes it, as in G.xv.2,8. By the later Samaritans the word D or D, 'the Name,' is regularly

יהוה substituted for

333. It is difficult, however, to say what part of the verb П it can be, unless it be, as GESENIUS and most German critics suppose, (and so HENGSTENBERG, Pent.i.247,) a particular form of the future third pers. sing. , Jahveh, or This would agree with the Samaritan pronunciation, as given by THEODORET, quæst. 15 ad Ex.vi, kaλoûσi dè avтò Σaμapɛîtai, IABE, 'Iovdaîo de AIA, which last seems to point to . But the ordinary form of the future of 'n is, as given in 1K.xiii.32, o niąt mig 23. The name IAN, DIOD. SIC.,* or IAOT, CLEM. ALEX.,† is evidently formed from the abbreviated Hebrew or . PORPHYRY‡ represents it by IETO. JEROME says on Ps.viii,—

Prius nomen Domini apud Hebræos quatuor literarum est, jod, he, vau, he, quod propriè Dei vocabulum sonat, et legi potest Jeho, et Hebræi ă3ónτov, i.e. ineffabile, opinantur.

334. Thus derived, the name ' may be considered to mean HE IS,' in opposition to the gods of the Gentiles, which are not,' which are no D' Is.xxxvii.19, but mere

' vanities,' L.xix.4, xxvi.l, and to represent, in the mouths of men, the 'self-existent Being,' the 'Eternal,' the Living God,' Who was, and is, and is to come,' ó v kaì ó v kaì ó éρxóμevos,

6

* παρὰ μὲν γὰρ τοῖς Αριμασποῖς Ζαθραύστην ἱστοροῦσι τὸν ἀγαθὸν δαίμονα προσποιήσασθαι τοὺς νόμους αὐτῷ διδόναι

étikaλoúμevov Deóv. i.p.105, ed. Wesseling.

παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ιουδαίοις Μωσήν τὸν ΙΑΩ

† λέγεται δὲ ΙΑΟΥ, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος.

Paris. 1629.

Strom.v p.562, ed.

† ἱστορεῖ δὲ περὶ Ἰουδαίων ἀληθέστατα, ὅτι καὶ τοῖς τόποις καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν αὐτῶν τὰ συμφωνότατα, Σαγχουνίαθων ὁ Βηρύτιος, εἰληφὼς τὰ ὑπομνήματα παρὰ Ἱερομβάλου Toû iepéws beoû, toÛ IETO. EUSEB. Præp.Ev.i.p.67, ed. Gaisford.