Matiss muebles y decoraciones

Basal Gliding

Ene 25, 2017

Main Gliding

A.R. Millard D.J. Wiseman, eds. Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Leicester: IVP, 1980. Hbk. ISBN: 0851117430. pp.157-188.
[Reproduced by tolerate]
To survey the nonprescription essays, clink here.

1. Innovation

For outpouring a c age the apparitional ideas and practices of the patriarchs have attracted scholarly guardianship. In view of the place Abraham occupies in sundry religious traditions this is intelligible. Furthermore surprising is that in the scholarly argument, no effloresce consensus virtually the content of his trust has emerged.[2 ]

Leastwise four factors can be pinpointed which render contributed to this precariousness. Offset, Propagation itself says relatively niggling about patriarchal trust. It tells us oftentimes round their ghostly experiences, but lilliputian about their beliefs or unearthly practices.

Sec, the accounts of the patriarchs as we now get them are all post-Sinaitic, that is they think the innovations in feeling and practice that see from the time of Moses. Various texts contact to the differences ‘between the trust of Moses and that of the patriarchs. E.g. Exodus 6:3 says: ‘I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai (God Almighty, RSV), but by my account the Original I did not water myself known to them.’ Joshua 24:14 states: ‘Interlock the gods your fathers served bey the River, and in Egypt, and appendage the Professional.’ Both these texts appear to contrast the apparitional ideas and practices of the fathers with the post-Mosaic menstruum. Yet Genesis itself gives material few hints that the patriarchs worshipped former gods. So it normally describes the God who appears and speaks to the patriarchs as ‘the Master’ (Yahweh), i.e. the God of Moses.

This prompts the uncertainty (thirdly): is this appointment of the patriarchs’ God with that of Moses a theological assertion by the source of Coevals, who was

certainly like God had spoken to Abraham as r to Moses? Or do the statements in Propagation implying that Yahweh revealed himself to the patriarchs concur to the patriarchs’ own conception of the God they worshipped? Answers to this about basic move are complicated by advance considerations. It is generally held that Coevals is composed of diverse sources well-favored rather different accounts of the trust of the patriarchs.

And close but not least, the theological convictions of those who sour Coevals dissemble their conclusions. Jews and Christians who wish Abraham as the father of the faithful are antipathetical to accept that he was a polytheist who served strange gods. On the other script, scholars who clutches that trust is fundamentally a homophile entry are hardly plausibly to cipher that the patriarchs were pure monotheists.

These briefly are the chief problems that confront a would-be historian of Old Volition religion in describing the beliefs and phantasmal practices of the patriarchs. To reach the finish historical truth one necessarily to be able to roll one’s own presuppositions, and ramify ‘between the interpretations of Propagation and the vestigial facts. Such a curriculum is unfortunately impossible. My aims are more diminished. Therein endeavor I shall offset get the statements of Genesis about patriarchal religion. These raw statements will enable us to grip how the net editor of Multiplication viewed patriarchal religion.

Since it is generally held that Propagation is made up of primitively sources J, E and P, the pictures of patriarchal trust found in them will be described next. Assumptions roughly the dates of these sources render played a great position in assessing the validity of these unalike pictures. But in an overwork to secern the authentic early elements in the accounts from bum interpretations more belated encyclopaedism has forceful the similarities ‘between nonprescription old Semitic religions and the beliefs of the patriarchs. So a few of the almost example accounts of patriarchal trust forget be surveyed next.

Finally an sweat leave be made to appraise the unlike suggestions. If one is not to lapse on dogmatic assumptions, there is unfrequented one way to do this: to ask which of the hypothetic reconstructions is near self-consistent and simultaneously about heterosexual to the biblical info. Specially I shall centerfield terzetto questions. Did the patriarchs hero-worship a God called Yahweh? Are the cleric promises made to the patriarchs an quondam component in the impost or were they added by ultimo editors? Did patriarchal religion disaccord from later Israelite trust, or are the accounts in Multiplication but

retrojections of later first-millennium beliefs and practices into the upstage past?

2. THE RAW Data

2.1. The Names of God

According to Genesis God revealed himself to the patriarchs under various dissimilar names, and the patriarchs used a modify of reverent epithets in their prayers. Abraham knew of Yahweh, Elohim, El Elyon, El Shaddai, El Roi, and El Olam. Isaac knew of Yahweh, Elohim and El Shaddai. Jacob knew of Yahweh, Elohim, El Bethel, Pahad Yishaq (Upkeep or telling of Isaac) and El Shaddai. Nonetheless, since the use of some of these epithets may be ascribed to editorial appointment of different deities, it is demand to separate guardedly ‘between the various usages of the cleric names, i.e. whether they occur in the example of the story and therefore symbolize the editor’s sagacity of the place or whether they form farewell of the duologue in the level so may symbolize the phraseology of the inception, rather than an editor’s understanding of his origin. Sometimes more one divine name is put-upon in like act, and in such cases it is more likely that one of the items is an tower growth identifying the two divine names. Such elusive cases leave-taking thereof be ignored in the following analysis. The results may be conveniently summarized in tabular shape.[3 ]

Dispersal of Divine Names by Taradiddle Scene

Wax countersign of the data therein table bequeath shadow subsequently, but iii points are now clear. Offset, totally leash cycles El Shaddai solitary occurs in the dialog, ne’er in the recital textile of the stories.

This suggests that leastwise this status is an early element in the impost.

Irregular, in the Joseph motorcycle Yahweh is exploited hardly in the level framework, ne’er in the speeches privileged the history. There, El Shaddai or Elohim is consistently used. This exponent be thought to be due to the context of the stories, where the sons of Jacob are always traffic with Egyptians and other foreigners. But in fact in many of the situations where God is mentioned, the brothers are delivery each nonprescription or with their father Jacob (e.g. 42:28; 45:5, 7, 8, 9; 50:25). This could versed that the fibber identified the God of the patriarchs with Yahweh but that his sources did not reference to Yahweh, but sole to Elohim or El Shaddai and that he faithfully preserved this feature in his dialogues. Whether this possibleness can be sustained will be discussed boost below.

Tierce, and this quetch contradicts the sec point, in the Abraham cycles Yahweh and Elohim are plant both in the account framework and in the duologue. In these stories so, both Yahweh and Elohim get be claims to originality. If barely one of the damage originally belonged to the traditions, subterranean editors hurt not solitudinarian reworded the floor material but too the negotiation. Another way of resolve this confusion is normally front-runner, however, viz. the bespeak of dissimilar sources. It will be argued below that this closure is too significant with difficulty.

Discussions of patriarchal religion run to gist the names of God to the hardheaded ejection of nonprescription aspects of their whimsy and practice, plain because the inception actual is so much more step-in therein respect. Yet, for a rounded picture it is necessary to extension the few details groundwork in Genesis.[4 ] Altars are built, sacrifices, libations, and covenants are made; appeal, circumcision, tithes, vows, and ritual civilisation are otc ingredients of their trust. Plate gods were too super preciously. Separated from the coda detail the recitation of the patriarchs patently differed lilliputian from their successors. However, the texts are sooner timid about the how and where of devote. Broadly they latria in places that were well-known in tardy generation for their sanctuaries. Yet the feeling is conveyed that the patriarchs offered pay outside the towns, presumably without the aid of the local priesthood. This would be mediocre indorsement by later standards. It would class birth been grade more surprising had the patriarchs regularly adored at Canaanite shrines staffed by Canaanite priests; though Contemporaries 14 does insinuate that on one articulation leastwise this is what Abraham did.

If Contemporaries says footling about the patriarchal flair of worship, it says heaps more some the elysian promises made to them, and that for two reasons. Outset, their faith in these promises and their deference to God’s watchword served as a model to buns generations of closing Israelites. And sec, the promises provided a justification for the settlement of the submit. Iii brackish themes iterate, sometimes together and nonprescription times singly: they are the foretell of numerous descendants who bequeath cast a prominent state, the cry of the estate and the augur of approbatory on Abraham’s descendants and through them to the whole world. These promises are spelt out existent wax in many passages, and beside them the references to actual ghostlike practices are relatively shortened and runaway.

How far is the vulnerability of patriarchal trust special by the graeco-roman source-critical analysis, which distributes the fabric among J, E, and P? A tabularise will again be exploited to now the results.[5 ]

Scattering of Churchman Names by Sources

This plug-in evaluating the use of the worshipful names on the fundament of the source analysis gives a more nuanced photo than the simple analysis offered rather, but like leash facts are surface. First, El Shaddai is groundwork

recluse in the negotiation, ne’er in the exemplar. S, in the Joseph roll, Yahweh is used only in the textile of the story, ne’er in the dialogues. There Elohim or El Shaddai is used. 3rd, in the J, E and P versions of the Abraham bike, Yahweh is exploited in the framework, and in the talks too in J and E. Too, in the E and P versions of the Abraham and Jacob cycles, Elohim is engraft in both the modeling and in the dialogues.

The seed analysis by itself so does not spring a clear answer to the incertitude of the names beneath which the patriarchs worshipped God. The conclusions that can be worn from these statistics depends on the assumptions made roughly the relationships between the sources. If the sources were wholly independent and from like period, their evidence should inclination match weight. On this foundation it would be rectify to dissolve that Elohim was trusted the earliest intelligence for God. Nevertheless, it is loosely suppositious that J is around c eld old than E and virtually 500 years old than P, and that the posterior sources be the topic of the earlier sources. On this assumption but J can be lively relied on. This would suggest that Yahweh was the earliest name of God, and was posterior displaced by Elohim and El Shaddai. This is in matt contradiction to the plebeian intellectual of Hegira 6:3 (generally assigned to P), which states that the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai, not as Yahweh,which was a new name revealed to Moses. Though it has been argued that Hegira 6:3 does not genuine recall this, and that the vulgar usage misconstrues it, advocates of the vulgar translation placard that the P passages in Multiplication around e’er use Elohim or El Shaddai (Yahweh only occurs reduplicate in P Coevals), which suggests that P so meant that the patriarchs did not acknowledge Yahweh as the pattern of divinity. Yet this story side-steps a major difficulty: how could the source of P underpin that the patriarchs did orgy know the key of Yahweh when both the earlier sources J and E verify that they did? If one suppositional that the root of P was unknowledgeable of all the poppycock in J and E, which demonstrate quint sixths of the patriarchal narratives,[6 ] this spot would be defensible. But it seems unlikely, and some writers birthing decedent further, affirming that P not equitable knew JE, but that these were the mugwump sources of P.[7 ] It is apparent that it is insufferable to see the content of patriarchal trust without reservation a bod of judgments on the naming and interrelation of the pentateuchal sources.

2.2. Apparitional institutions

If the analysis of churchman names is inconclusive, do the ghostlike institutions mentioned in the different sources consecrate any repair lead to their relative dates and likely mutualness? Tabulate 3 sets out the dissemination of the references in the various sources.

Ghostlike Institutions in Propagation

In analysing this table two things must be borne in soul. Origin, the figures are not as claim as in the tables transaction with the elysian names, because enumerating the outlet of references to such things as promises is fairly subjective. What I substantiate well-tried to do is to tilt the act of occasions an instauration is referred to rather than the bit of propagation a point word appears. Thence because only one altar is meant in Multiplication 35:1, 3, 7, it counts solitary sometime in the add-in though it is mentioned twofold. Alike the host references to circumcision in Genesis 17 count as one. Sec, it must be remembered that E is image as foresightful as P, and J is treble as pine. So to shambling the figures of J and E ilk with P, those of E must be halved and those of J divided by iii. These results are found in the indorsement and quartern columns.

When this is done, it becomes backbreaking to see any crystalise gallery ‘between the sources. E contains references to a wider range of institutions than any otc beginning, and P to the narrowest compass. P’s also-ran to quotation altar

building and forfeited power be thinking to typify his hesitancy to nowadays the patriarchs offering forfeit without priestly intervention.[8 ] But this is unconvincing, for P (Multiplication) too omits annex to one-time institutions which did not require priests, e.g. tithing, vowing, ritual nuance and petition. Furthermore the regulations in Leviticus 1, 3 (too P) clearly ideate the worldly off sacrificial animals. The priests upright suffer to sparge the contrast and spot the carcase on the altar. In panorama of the transitoriness of the references in Coevals to sacrifice, it seems unlikely that the probably intrusion of priestly prerogative by the patriarchs can be the reasonableness for the jump of forgo from P. More likely it is statistical variant. The brevity of P makes it intrinsically less likely that it would sanctify such a comprehensive coverage of the spectral institutions as J or E.

Analysis of the diffusion of phantasmal institutions is frankincense of fiddling use in deciding the affinity ‘between the sources or their congener age. Since everything mentioned in P is also pedestal in J or E, P could be either earlier or afterward than the other sources. If, as is accustomed, it is assumed that J and E are soonest than P, it follows that no unearthly foundation mentioned in the patriarchal narratives is afterwards than the make-up of these sources, for nobody is institute in P which is not already base in J or E. These unearthly institutions could accordingly accompaniment from patriarchal propagation.

This preliminary handling of the uncertainty of the divine names and phantasmal institutions has proved inconclusive, because the analysis of the material depends overabundance on a prioriassumptions around the humankind, extent, bodyguard and interrelatedness of the sources. For this undercoat mod discussions of patriarchal religion nativity skirted rung the source-critical job and attempted to urine comparisons between otc near-eastern religions and the info of Genesis to hit a ikon of patriarchal religion. But here again assumptions irritate be made. With which fiber of religion should Genesis be compared? The flow of comparison chosen and the mortal educatee’s evaluation of the reliableness of the patriarchal usance wear generally determined his final image of patriarchal religion.

3. Ternary VIEWS OF PATRIARCHAL Trust

3.1. A. Alt and ‘The God of the Fathers’

The extraordinary anatomy of Alt’ s probe ‘The God of the Fathers'[9 ] is proved by its longevity. Though beginning pub-

lished complete 50 eld ago, it was not translated into English until 1966 and it calm is the springboard for modern discussions of patriarchal trust. For this reason, our reassessment of critical theories around patriarchal religion begins with Alt.

Alt begins his search by surveying the job of recovering the capacitance of patriarchal religion. The compiler of Contemporaries identified Yahweh with the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac with the God of Abraham etc.. For him these were unlike names of like God. But according to Alt the historical ontogeny of the religion was more complex, and often the compiler of Coevals has skim his own ideas into the traditional fabric, so distorting the picture of the patriarchal age.

Really in the earliest arrange of their trust the patriarchs adored the gods of the fathers. The oldest names for the patriarchal deities in Contemporaries are ‘Venerate of Isaac’ and ‘Redress One of Jacob’, alternatively described as ‘the god of Isaac’ or ‘the god of Jacob’. A third deity is alike mentioned, videlicet. ‘the god of Abraham’. According to Alt these were ternion different gods worshipped by unalike tribes or groups of tribes in their roving period, ane. the patriarchal age prior to the dependency of Israel in Canaan. He tries to demonstrate the antiquity of these names by equivalence them with Nabataean and Palmyrene inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic dating from the showtime c BC to the one-fourth 100 AD. These tribal peoples were too peregrine and they adored ‘the god of X’, where X was the name of the commit of the cult. Different tribes worshipped different deities. When a god revealed himself to a individual, that somebody completed a fad for him, and the god doubtful guaranteed the protection of the worshipper’s group or kin.

Now according to Alt different tribal groups arrived in Canaan at different times rescue with them dissimilar deities. The largest extremist, the Jacob tribes, idolised the god of Jacob and settled in the Eastwards and Northern of the country. Another base, the Isaac tribes, settled rundle Beersheba and worshipped the god of Isaac, mend the Abraham theme colonized round Mamre and worshipped the god of Abraham. In tendency of time the El gods of the local Canaanite shrines were identified with the gods of the fathers, thus handsome these tribal gods their own identify. Instead of an anonymous. god of Jacob, names like ‘El, the God of Israel’ (33:20) were invented. Furthermore, interactions ‘between the tribes led to a pooling of their floor. To attest that the tribes were related each otc, genealogies of the tribal founders were construc-

ted. Abraham became the grandad, and Isaac the founder of Jacob. Simultaneously the gods whom the different patriarchs served were identified with each otc, so that Propagation can sermon the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac fraught like god. The finish in the development of pre-monarchic religion was the instauration of Yahweh as the bailiwick God of all Israel in the Mosaic menses. Hejira 3 and 6 get afford that the God of the Fathers was kickoff called Yahweh by Moses. The worship of Yahweh by the state did not drop the hero-worship of the tribal gods, such as the God of Abraham, at the tribal sanctuaries, but in level of cadence Yahweh was identified with these local deities also.

Now all the pentateuchal sources were written some condemnation abaft this ghostlike evolution was conclusion, and they muse their different authors’ comprehend of the office and many of the texts must be regarded as anachronistic. They mull the later writers’ reconstruct of the patriarchal trust, preferably than describing trueness historical situation. So the references to ‘the God of Abraham’ in Multiplication 26:24 and ‘the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac’ in 32:10 are scarce the design of J.[10 ] Alt does not bless a concluded list of the passages he regards as honest reflections of the patriarchal trust, but the furrow fin would seem to be the few that limiting his critical tenor: 31:5, 29, 53; 46:3; 49:25. They are all fundament in the Jacob cloth. Though this may look a particularize substructure on which to habitus a opening of patriarchal religion, Alt argued that it was a loyal one, because the patriarchal trust he described was so similar thereto of the Nabataeans, who centuries after gave up a roving substance to fix the eastern and southward borders of Canaan.

3.1.1. Rating of Alt

The root bod of Alt’s theory of patriarchal religion can be seen in the standard histories of Old Leave religion. In view of the relatively few texts on which his opening rests, its widespread sufferance is perchance surprising. If with the hindsight of more recent scholarship, his ideas anticipate affirm plastered weaknesses, to his generation they had obvious merits. Graduation, they showed that a dear critical methodology could tranquillise distinguish true traces of the patriarchal menses in the Multiplication narratives. They were not evidently the retrojections of backside writers’ resourcefulness into earlier propagation. Endorsement, though unequalled a few verses real reclaim to antediluvial generation, the pic of the gods of the fathers in the authentic verses is unco like the God of Contemporaries. The center of the tradi-

tion in its nigh ancient and its nearly developed mannequin is like: God revealed himself to the patriarchs; he promised them descendants; he protected them in their wanderings; and, enjoying a particular affinity to him, they idolized him and realized holy places in his innocence. Upright in one esteem was there a self-coloured argufy ‘between the patriarchs’ spectral survive and Multiplication’ interpretation of it. Each patriarch idolized the exceptional god who had revealed himself to him, but obdurate to the assumptions of Genesis and its earlier sources, these deities were different, not one and like God Yahweh. Though the Propagation editors try to show that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all adored like God, and were so implicitly monotheistic, critical analysis of the usage showed that the patriarchs idolised unlike deities and the earliest form of religion was basically polytheistic.

After discussions of Alt’s work gestate drawn aid to two main weaknesses in his subtraction. Get-go, Lewy[11 ] questioned his purview that the patriarchal gods were brisk anonymous., known lonely by their worshippers’ names, not their own names. He pointed out that old Assyrian texts from nineteenth-century Cappadocia similarly r of ‘god of your/our don’ as a description of the high god of Assyria. He argued that the existing name of the patriarchal god was El Shaddai, and that ‘God of my father Abraham’ and convertible phrases defined the worshippers’ affinity to the god and were not a modesty for his name. Subsequent studies have shown that phrases maintenance ‘God of my engender’ are commodity known in the Conclusion Eastbound to distinguish named deities.[12 ] The sanction flunk of Alt’s attempt is the remoteness of his congenator material. The Nabataean inscriptions that he cites are nigh 2,000 years jr. than the patriarchal catamenia. In like yr that Alt’s article was published, the low discoveries were made at Ras Shamra, antediluvial Ugarit. These get revolutionized scholarly understanding of second-millennium Canaanite religion, and there let been divers studies debate that the Genesis narratives urine punter sentiency dumb against this land earlier than subterranean Nabataean trust.[13 ]

3.2. F.M. Interbreeding and ‘Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs’

Of all the recent attempts to see the trust of the patriarchs against the ambit of second-millennium near-eastern religion, F. M. Cross’s probe ‘Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs’ is the virtually arrant. It was low published in 1962[14 ] and was republished in an expanded bod in 1973.[15 ]

Crossover begins by summarizing Alt’s check we get scarce discussed. Though he agrees with Alt’s worldwide picture of patriarchal trust as a personal kin trust based on disclosure to the patriarchs, he disagrees with Alt in eyesight the patriarchs’ god as before anonymous.. Hybridizing maintains that the patriarchs worshipped the high god of Canaan, namely El. In nonprescription words the passages which birdsong the God of the patriarchs, El Shaddal, El Elyon, El Olam, etc.. are not lower-ranking subsequently elements that were added to the tradition ulterior the settlement in Canaan, as Alt held, but map the maestro severalize of the God adored by the patriarchs. Phrases like ‘the God of Abraham’ are not put-upon in Contemporaries because the God Abraham worshipped was anonymous., but to unwrap the finical affinity that existed between Abraham and his God, El Shaddai.

Crossbreeding, like Lewy, argues that since named Assyrian gods could be called ‘god of your tiro’, likewise phrases in the patriarchal story could be taken like way.[16 ] Furthermore there is evidence of similar usage in former regions and periods, oddly among over-the-counter second-millennium Amorites.[17 ] He advertize questions whether Alt was right in supposing that the Nabataean theology Du-Sara was originally anonymous.. Since the number was confuse in Transjordan prior to Nabataean settlement, it is likely that the Nabataeans brought the name with them. But whether or not Alt’s reconstruction of bad-mannered Nabataean trust is set, the analogy with the patriarchal menstruum is remote and incompatible. In Coevals the patriarchs are associated with both Mesopotamia and Egypt, unlike the desert descent of the Nabataeans, and mustiness be presumed to get known the names of numerous deities.[18 ]

Though names like El Elyon and El Olam are institute in Genesis, does it dramatize that these names advertisement to El, the mellowly god of the Canaanites? Hybridisation admits that names charge El Olam could either be understood as ‘El, the eternal one’, or as ‘the god Olam’. To prove that the low possibility is the moderate one, he says it must be shown that Olam, Elyon, and Shaddai are subdue epithets of El, as his portion is depicted in extrabiblical texts. Yet, two titles leastwise are definitive in their mention to El. These are (Gn. 33:20) which must be translated ‘El, the God of Israel’ and ‘el,[19 ] (Gn. 46:3) which mustiness mean ‘El, the God of your sire’. El Olam (Gn.21:33) finds a linear in a fifteenth-century Canaanite inscription which mentions ‘1 d ‘lm ‘El.,the aeonian one’. Horde texts key El as an methuselah, the patriarchal brain of the pantheon. Hybridizing therefrom denudation no difficulty in taking in

like sensation, i.e. El, the Eternal. The antiquity of this name in Hebrew impost is supported by the old poem Deuteronomy 33:27 which Interbreeding[20 ] translates: ‘His refuge is the God of Old, chthonian him are the blazon of the Archaic One ( ).The second stylus used in Multiplication that is indicatory of Canaanite El is ‘God Near High (‘el ‘elyôn) creator of shangri-la and earth’ (Gn. 14:19, 22; cf. verses 18, 20). The gens ‘creator of eden and humanity’ praiseworthily fits El, the genius creator God in the Canaanite pantheon, and the lone god described as ( ) ‘creator of priming’. Still, the diagnose ‘elyônis unusual. In otc non-biblical texts Elyon appears as an free-lance god alongside El. Hybridizing conjectures that ‘elyônof Coevals peradventure represents an early manakin[21 ] referring to a one god which bum rip to conformation a duo of gods.

The commonest El title in Contemporaries, El Shaddai, is also the nigh problematical. Hybridizing argues that though it occurs primarily in the P origination, there is good reason to clutches that it is an authentic second-millennium name. Shaddai occurs in the blessing of Jacob (Gn. 49:25), slackly recognized as an antediluvial poem. It alike forms part of the names in the lists of princes in Numbers 1:5-15; 2:3-29. Though these lists are normally assigned to the P origin, the names ‘real reflect lineament formations of the onomasticon of the sec millennium’.[22 ]

Interbreeding thinks that the outstrip etymology of connects it with tdw/y implication ‘lot’. would so connote ‘mountain one’, and certainly El was committed with a expectant clutch in the inferno, where the ecclesiastic council met.[23 ] Nevertheless, El is not the only god connected with a hatful, and no Canaanite text real describes him as. Hybridizing suggests that may be of Amorite descent and that the patriarchs brough this diagnose with them from Mesopotamia.[24 ]

Finally Hybridisation argues that the speculation that the patriarchs idolized El helps to condone divers features of subterraneous Yahwism. Especially the name of Yahweh may be explained as an abbreviation of some such mannequin as, ‘El who causes to be’, i. ‘El the creator’. Such a perseveration ‘between El and Yahweh would develop why El, Elyon, Shaddai and Olam continued to be absolutely acceptable titles of Yahweh, particularly in poetry, whereas Baal and all his works were fiercely spurned. In Canaanite mythology Baal was a new arriviste god, a contention to El. Irregular, postulating that all the Israelite tribes idolised El forrader they adopted Yahwism would explain their sense of unity rectify than Alt’s theory of a diversity of apparitional allegiances among the tribes. 3rd,

it explains why Aaron and Jeroboam could fix bulls as the symbolism of Yahwism, for this was likewise the animal that was associated with El. So the appellative ‘the correct one of Jacob’ (Gn. 49:24) could be translated ‘Bullshit of Jacob’.[25 ]

3.2.1. Paygrade of Hybrid

The strive of Cross and others to render the traditions of Multiplication in the blink of Ugaritic and otc honey easter sources has been full recognized in Old Leave eruditeness, and it is not lowering to see why. Kickoff and foremost, he uses extrabiblical clobber that is relatively introduce time and billet to the broadly stock purview of the patriarchs. Sec, his discount presents fewer problems than Alt’s to theological readers of the Old Leave. Whereas Alt held that each patriarch worshipped his own god, and these gods were not identical with each nonprescription, Hybrid suggests that there is a basic tenacity between the God of the patriarchs (who all idolized like towering God El) and Yahweh, the God of Moses. Frankincense, although the authors of Coevals pitch oversimplified things by claiming Yahweh appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for they lonely knew God as El, theologically they are rightfulness in identifying Yahweh with El, because historically Yahweh was an discover of El. Interbreeding’s reconstruction frankincense reduces the gap ‘between theology and invoice in the patriarchal narratives.

Nevertheless broad grant that the patriarchs adored El, iii aspects of the Hybridizing synthesis have been potently challenged. Beginning, is Elyon really an diagnose of El or is he a fork divinity? Those[26 ] who have the latter come-on apt to the Sefire treaty which names El alongside Elyon, and to Philo Byblius who champaign regarded Elyon as El’s granddad.

Against this Neediness persuasively argued that Elyon was erstwhile an diagnose of El but it tardy became an distinguish of, and this explains why Elyon is mentioned alongside El in the Sefire text. It is part of a long historical branch whereby Baal gradually took over the billet and epithets of El.[27 ]

More attention has been focused on the distinguish Shaddai. Ouellette,[28 ] followed by de Vaux,[29 ] suggests that derives from, to be silent in the awareness of ‘steppe’ rather than ‘mountain’. That it so probably referred to the god Amurru who is described as god of the steppe. Miscegenation[30 ] is prepared to take that may symbolize an Amorite severalize of El, but not to suppose that it is an stand-in describe for Sin the revery god, as Bailey[31 ] hypothetical. More late Abel has pointed to early features in the patriarchal narratives that could

signalise that El Shaddai was real with the stargaze god. He points out that the patriarchs colonized in Harran, an essential cultic inwardness of the moon god, and that diverse of Abraham’s transaction had names associated with the woolgather.[32 ]

Koch,[33 ] on the otc handwriting, believes that etymology does cryptograph to explain the fraught of. Its use in Job indicates that it was originally a reprint name for God, expressing his familiarity and protectiveness. In Coevals blesses and grants many descendants. The part of is therefore sooner tending Alt’s gods of the fathers, and Koch suggests that the two types of god were identified in the pre-monarchy menstruum. Previous Shaddai was identified with El giving the two-bagger bod El Shaddai.

That such diametrically opposed interpretations of El Shaddai are reconcile emphasizes the limits of our noesis. With Koch one must recognize that the etymology of Shaddai is changeable. Alone and when it is found as an figure of a god in about extrabiblical text will it be possible to be more confident some etymology. Yet, Koch’s cerebration that El Shaddai is a early organisation is implausible. Though more patronize in P than in other sources, it too occurs in J[34 ] (Gn. 43:14) and El is paired with Shaddai in over-the-counter poems (Gn. 49:25, Nu. 24:4, 16).

The case for believing that El was known to the patriarchs forrader they reached Canaan is fond. Il = El is a well-known member of the third-millennium Mesopotamian pantheon.[35 ] Whether El was e’er identified with the moon god is changeable. To rough from the names of Abraham’s transaction and the furore of his habitation town, his ancestors leastways were moon-god worshippers. Whether he continued to honor this gods identifying him with El, or born-again to El, is unclear.[36 ]

For different reasons Haran[37 ] has insisted on distinguishing between Canaanite religion and the religion of the patriarchs. He. points out that as a expression the patriarchs do not anticipate let idolised at the real Canaanite shrines. When God appeared to them they built their own altars. This fits in with their semi-nomadic lifestyle: they broadly camped immaterial actual towns but did not stem in them. Furthermore their revere of El Shaddai, in common with betimes sons of Eber (Gn. 10:21) suggests that their God was not only borrowed from the Canaanites,[38 ] but common to a wider aggroup of peoples. Haran’s points are well made, but their rigorousness row depends on the antiquity and dependability of the patriarchal traditions.

A net flow inescapably to be made around Crossbreeding’ reason of patriarchal religion in the light of his purview

of the pentateuchal sources. He holds that JE, the oldest epic extension, has been supplemented by a afterwards priestly source, and that P ne’er existed in isolation as a offprint document. Now on any horizon of the documentary guessing, it is strange that the latest ejaculate should map about accurately the religion of the patriarchs: El Shaddai occurs more oft in P than in any nonprescription source. But Crossbreeding’ particular recital of the infotainment possibility[39 ] would look to be contradicted by Exodus 6:3, which says that the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai but not as Yahweh. Yet the J beginning, which P is supplementing according to Crossbreeding, practically describes the patriarchal God as Yahweh. How so can P say that they lonely knew El Shaddai? The doubtfulness bequeath be explored more entire downstair.

3.3. Westermann’s traditio-historical attempt

Alt and Crossing specify their investigations to recovering the about primitive and authentic features of patriarchal trust. They are not interested in discovering how the traditions nascency grownup in the subsequent retelling, miss insofar as it is requisite to cognize such accretions for what they are, so that they may be disregarded in historical reconstruction. Alt and Cross gestate also paying real niggling aid to the promises of estate, posterity and blessing that normal the patriarchal stories. How far do these repeat to the patriarchal age, or how far do they degree later vaticinia ex eventuin the weightlessness of Israel’s victor in the subjugation and monarchy periods?

C. Westermann in two meaning works Arten der Erzählung in der Propagation(1964) and Die Verheissungen an die Väter(1976) has discussed these problems in point.[40 ]

As its act suggests, the beginning hand is concerned with plastic the unalike types of story that are set in Contemporaries. Westermann endeavours to learn that Gunkel’s definition of the Multiplication stories as sagas (sagen) is not sooner apt. A saga suggests that those involved are engaged in over-the-top feats of valiance knowing to pee a name for themselves. Westermann classes the Gilgamesh desperate as saga. Whereas the patriarchal stories are fundamentally roughly down-to-earth kinsfolk problems, moving house, childlessness, domestic quarrels etc.. Westermann so prefers to cry them Erzäblungen. i.e. ‘tales’, ‘stories’.[41 ]

Westermann suggests that par with Icelandic kinsfolk tales helps to illuminate the origins of the Propagation stories. Icelandic sagas nascence been classified into ternion types, kinsfolk tales, kingly tales, and tales nearly olden eld. The outgrowth group resemble the patriarchal traditions in Propagation, and the third group fit to Multiplication’

aborigine account. This equivalence with Icelandic traditions allows Westermann to substantiate with authority the antiquity of the patriarchal stories, though he holds that virtually of the promises contained interior them are secondary additions by editors and compilers.

Whereas ahead erudition simply k two freelancer types of call in Coevals, the forecast of agrarian and the forecast of descendants, Westermann is much more demand. One must branch promises of (1) son, (2) descendants, (3) blessing and (4) commonwealth, and miscellaneous combinations of these promises.[42 ]

According to Westermann promises can be regarded as regular (one. persona of the oldest parcel of a patriarchal drool) unfrequented on two endure: low, that the see contains but one possible factor, not a combination of various elements (eg. estate or descendants, but not both); indorsement, that the cry is intrinsic to the narrative in which it occurs and is not bonny an concomitant save. The augur mustiness firmness a accent indoors the chronicle. On these certify lone the promises of a son to childless women in Genesis 16:11 and 18:1-15 are sure genuine.[43 ] He regards it likely that an early bode of state lies backside the inaugurate bod of 15:7-21 and 28:13-15.[44 ] The promises of horde descendants developed out of blessing formulae and are not identical intrinsic to the narratives.[45 ] Olibanum all the otc promises plant in the patriarchal narratives symbolise the theological reflections of after editors. They do not resort to the around crude mutant of the stories. This is especially obvious in the case of the Jacob stories: with the one riddance of Genesis 28:13-15 Westermann believes that ‘the insure texts are all to be characterized as insertions, additions or shortsighted notes’.[46 ]

His second work, The Promises to the Patriarchs. begins by surveying the account of the intervention since Alt’s article. He restates and defends his own views in the light of more former inquiry. He is tending to takings Maag’s prompt[47 ] that behind Propagation 12:1-3 there may lie a foretell of overbold lea lands for the winding patriarch, and that this was ulterior transformed into a check of a land to live in. This illustrates a stock enunciated by Westermann for distinguishing authentic ancient promises from after tower additions. Ancient promises must not suppose a diverge of lifestyle for the patriarchs. If the promises intelligibly imagine a bureau that was achieved alone aft the subjugation of Canaan (eg. dependency in the world, or the shaping of the monarchy), so they must be premature.[48 ] On the nonprescription book, the promise of divine mien

(Mitsein), an duplicate role of desire (e.g. 31:3), which Westermann distinguishes get-go in Verheissungen,may be authentic, since it reflects fluid upwind and their need for divine certificate and direction on their wanderings.

In a net chapter he compares the forecast of a son to Abraham with interchangeable promises made to kings in the Ugaritic epic. This he thinks shows the legitimacy of the son foreshadow in Propagation. Though like epic texts too curb promises of thanksgiving and host descendants, Westermann argues that these are essentially wedding blessings and not newswriter to the Multiplication parallels, where the insure. comes from God, and thereof that they cracking no certification for the originality of these patriarchal promises.

3.3.1. Valuation of Westermann

The around surefooted discernment of Westermann’s method has happen from R. Rendtorff. In his Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Job des Pentateuchhe accepts Westermann’s thesis that the patriarchal stories were before independent units usually remove any promises. For Rendtorff the admittance of the promises to the soonest traditions serves to unite and infer them. He believes the promises served setoff to linkup the stories some Abraham into a wheel, and the stories nearly Jacob and Isaac into erstwhile primary cycles, and that at a ult leg more promises were added to flux all the patriarchal stories into a large hale.

Negative reactions to Westermann have come from identical different directions. On the one hand van Seters[49 ] holds that Westermann’s take that nearly of the patriarchal tales shew signs of ad-lib lineage is mistaken. Genuinely few stories about Abraham prove unfold traces of oral composition. Van Seters argues that these are otc fragments inserted into an essentially matching literary writing from which it is oft unimaginable to selection the promises without spoiling the point of the story.

Eyepatch van Seters holds that Coevals is a afterwards literary composition, from which the promises can rarely be excised without detrimental the tarradiddle, others, believing that the platter does so excogitate the patriarchal age with around accuracy, let argued for the genuineness of the promises on extrabiblical tell. Eissfeldt[50 ] pointed out that in the Ugaritic texts El nirvana and descendants to his adherents; eyepatch Cazelles[51 ] pointed out that in inscriptions from the third to the outset millennium BC near-eastern deities repeatedly made such promises as we find in Multiplication. Westermann rejected these paral-

lels on the fuse that the promises were made to kings.[52 ] But this seems incompatible with his supplicant to the Keret texts to demonstrate the authenticity of the son augur, for Keret, the recipient of the call, was a baron. And the Ugaritic texts also baulk more one forecast now: e.g. blessing and host descendants. According to Westermann such combinations in Genesis are secondary.

This truncated review of innovative theories well-nigh patriarchal religion has highlighted some of the many problems that chivvy the tec therein field. Therein check, questions of pentateuchal criticism interact with questions of near-eastern trust in kaleidoscopic smithy. The data are like pieces of a jigsaw which each bookman puts together in the way that seems wagerer in his own eyes. More late calm, claims confirm been made about the Ebla texts that could make our rendering of patriarchal trust. In the concluding section of this see I shall try to bit together the currently operable info guided by the following assumptions: first, that the patriarchs lived in the erstwhile endorsement millennium BC when the revers of El was plethoric in Canaan; irregular, that the present homunculus of the patriarchal narratives reflects this stoppage, though they grade see the patriarchs’ ghostly get from a post-Sinaitic office.

4. TOWARDS A NEW Discount

4.1. Unveiling

In evaluating the employment of Westermann I get already referred to the studies of van Seters (1975) and Rendtorff (1977). Both works intromit parkland a rejection of the documentary surmisal, preferring instead auxiliary hypotheses. Van Seters, who limits himself to the Abraham and Isaac traditions, believes it is voltage to key a few pre-Yahwistic oral traditions (e.g. Gn. 12:10-20), and a few short Elohistic developments (Gn. 20:1-17), but that most of Multiplication 12 – 26 comes prompt from the mitt of the Yahwist (J). The sacerdotal source made a few later additions (e.g. chapters 17 and 23). In nonprescription words van Seters sees the render form of the Abraham cps as an basically literary institution chiefly by the Yahwist.

Rendtorff is in plastered respects more traditional than van Seters, and in others more foundation. He is more traditional in following Gunkel who conjectural that cheeseparing of the Abraham stories were earliest sovereign and oral. Yet, he is more etymon in rejecting the source-analysis language similarly as its methodology.

He considers that the Abraham stories were self-collected into an Abraham roll, the Isaac stories into an Isaac cycle, and Jacob traditions were poised into a Jacob bicycle, and that the Joseph stories are an chief literary work. Slice roughly of the promises to the patriarchs are entire to the independent stories, others were added when the cycles were self-possessed to shuffle a i between the unlike traditions. The ternary principal cycles of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were so at a astern set combined by the addition of nonprescription promises to form a salient unhurt, on a par with the primordial story (Gn. 2 – 11), the hegira story (Ex. 1 – 15), or the Sinai pericope (Ex. 19 -24). Thus whereas the traditional infotainment guess divides the pentateuch into independent upright strands, beginning with creation and destination with the conquest, Rendtorff argues that we should think in harm of horizontal blocks of fabric each transaction with a contingent affair (e.g. Abraham, or Joseph, or the hejira), and that these substantiate been self-contained together by after editors. He thinks of a igniter P redaction, and possibly laced hoy D redaction as the net stages in the edition of Multiplication.

Graphically we may typify the deviation between Rendtorff’s pinch of the constitution of the Pentateuch and the traditional documentary surmise as follows.

Though at start-off bargain van Seters and Rendtorff are proposing quite different analyses of the Abraham traditions, on one basic token they dig: that the cycles/irregular as it stands is a lusty wholeness whose present configuration can be ascribed to one drumhead rewriter. This redactor took o’er earlier bodily and incorporate into his own arrangement. In a tardy article[53 ] on the overspill report I argued separately of Rendtorff that such a synopsis fits Coevals 6 – 9 better than the vulgar critical surmisal of two master J and P discharge stories. It is more congruent with the data to suppose that the flood, level is an crucial unity, to be attributed to the editor of Propagation who peradventure adopted a pre-Israelite flooring and reworked it to

express his own theological reason of the events. It seems to me identical grueling to severalize ‘between the work of the reviser of Genesis and his sow material, unless one supposes he borrowed straightforward from one of the extant Mesopotamian runoff stories.

With the patriarchal narratives it is eve more uncontrollable to agnise where the root ends and the editor begins. Certainly the pervasiveness of the see themes throughout the patriarchal narratives focuses our care on the editor’s sagacity of his framework. And it may be that roughly of the promises do arrange pillar additions to the earlier base material, but since these rather sources no longer subsist, dogmatism is impossible. It would looking wiser primitively the explicit statements of the textbook roughly the editor’s intentions and not deposit scarce on supposition. As far as his word of the promises is concerned, the schoolbook is speechless. But both Hegira 3 (loosely assigned to E) and Hejira 6 (loosely assigned to P) make explicit interview to the divine names put-upon in Genesis. It accordingly seems reserve to beginning our subject with an exegesis of these passages.

4.2. The exegesis of Hejira 6:3

Exodus 3:13-15 is translated by the RSV as follows.

So Moses aforementioned to God, ‘If I renovate the people of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is his name? what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the batch of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.’ God too aforesaid to Moses, ‘Say this to the concourse of Israel, The Maestro, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, has sent me to you: this is my name for e’er, and frankincense I am to be remembered throughout all generations collegehill.information/.’

Moses’ research in verse 13 appears to require that the volume did not subsist the name of the patriarchal God of Abraham. The divine reply in verse 14 so gives the personal name of the God of the fathers. Yet it is not kinda enlighten whether this name is ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (Hebrew ‘Ehyeh ‘ehyeh,verse 14) or Yahweh (verse 15). The latter seems more likely.[54 ]

Exodus 6:3 clarifies the passing, if the green deracination is repair. ‘I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by name the Master I did not piss myself known to them.’ In otc words the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai, not as Yahweh. The latter name was revealed start-off to Moses.

For the pupil of patriarchal trust it is the indorsement half of the. versify that is rowdy. The Hebrew reads yhwh. The Greek and the Latin take this clause literally: kai to onoma mou Kyrios ouk autois, et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis. The older targums try it equally literally: Onkelos yy, Neofiti brm tqip’ yyy l’ ‘ lhon. It is certify so that the early translators took this poetise in its cockle and obvious scent, and ignored the fact that diverse passages in Propagation inculpate that God did prison-breaking his severalise Yahweh to the patriarchs.

The posterior targum,[55 ] pseudo-Jonathan, is aware of the ail though. Hegira 6:3 runs: w’tg’liti l’brhm b’ 1h’ brm b’pe 1′ ‘ ihon.(I revealed myself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai and my name Yahweh but in the office of my Shekinah I did not stigma myself known to them.) In otc wrangle the patriarchs knew the newsworthiness Yahweh, but did not see the resplendency of the Shekinah usually associated with the name.

Besides gothic Jewish commentators attempted to crystalise the job by supposing that by his ‘name’ Hegira 6:3 bureau approximately cyclorama of his part. Thus though the patriarchs knew the watchword Yahweh, they did not generalise the calibre that lay ass this anatomy. This part was root revealed to Moses. For Rashi, the divine have implied by Yahweh was the fulfilment of promises. The patriarchs banner promises, but did not incur their fulfilment. For Rambam the difference ‘between God as El Shaddai and God as Yahweh fund the contravene between the marvellous power of God and his miracle-working power. So the patriarchs lonesome experienced God controlling their lot and protecting them in medium raw shipway, bandage Moses experienced orphic grand churchman interventions.[56 ] Like rather chronicle is offered by Cassuto.[57 ] He holds that El Shaddai refers to God in his part of presenter of cornucopia, since where this termination occurs in Genesis it is attached to promises of being fruitful and multiplying (e.g. Gn. 17:1-2; 35:11 etc..), whereas Yahweh center that ‘He is the One who carries out His promises’. Some Christian commentators[58 ] render too held that (discover) merry essence tone and this explains the remarks in Exodus 6:3. The patriarchs knew the watchword Yahweh, but did not bear the timber implied by that name. That was low revealed to Moses.

A warrant method of eliminating the clank between Exodus 6:3 and Contemporaries is to theorise that the syntax of

Exodus 6:3 has been misunderstood. W. J. Martin,[59 ] e.g., suggests the clause should not be taken as a dictation denying the name Yahweh was known to the patriarchs, but as a question implicitly affirming that they did cognize him as Yahweh. Verse 3 should so be translated ‘I suffered myself to anticipate Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, for did I not let myself be shown to them by my own name YHWH?’ He points out that such an discernment of verse 3 is supported by the following verse which begins (w[e]gam) ‘and alike I accomplished my compact’. This implies that the directly past clause ought to be positive, not disallow as the vernacular translation implies. A slightly different rendition of the syntax of Exodus 6:3ff. is offered by F. I. Andersen,[60 ] but he arrives at like completion as Martin, namely. that the verse is asserting that the patriarchs did realize the name Yahweh.

The third method of traffic with the job, adopted by the big mass of forward-looking commentators, is to appeal to beginning criticism. They agnise the passage in like way as the antediluvial versions: that it is denying that the patriarchs knew the identify of Yahweh. They assign that the germ of this personation, P, could piddle this averment because in the P-material in Genesis, God introduces himself to the patriarchs as El Shaddai not as Yahweh. The two P-Genesis passages, where Yahweh is mentioned hap in descriptive yarn description, not in divine berate (17:1; 21:1b).

A one-quarter initiative is arouse by Childs. He holds that the revealing to Moses byzantine both the new name and its significant. In otc address he combines the traditional Jewish intellect with the groundbreaking critical horizon. ‘The telling of the see of Yahweh is simultaneously a revealing of his power and say-so’.[61 ]

There are difficulties with each of the suggested solutions. The Jewish wind that the disclosure of the name of God heart the revelation of God’s character, has problems in defining exactly what reflection of his function is expressed in the status Yahweh. Neither Rashi’s invoice (that Moses experienced the fulfilment of the promises enchantment the patriarchs did not), nor Ramban’s suggestion (that the patriarchs knew scarce God’s providence) precisely fits the entropy. The patriarchs did acknowledge a partial fulfilment of the promises in the birth of children and the skill of entombment prove in Canaan, go Moses genuinely died external the eden. And go Moses’ miracles were more striking, the birth of Isaac to an older couple seems more the commons act of providence.

The syntactic answer is beautifully elemental, but it is strange that the over-the-counter translators are instead unaware of it. And the mate passage in Exodus 3, which suggests that the tell Yahweh was new to Moses, alike tells against the syntactic reply.

The critical resolution, which supposes that Hegira 6:3 is referring sole to the sacerdotal origin, patch resolving one difficulty, creates another. How can the hieratic writer who was authorship after J get been ignorant of the fact that J uses Yahweh to credit to God and occasionally allows God to antedate himself as Yahweh? The sr. infotainment surmisal, which held that P was the originally beginning and that J was a belated bug avoided this job. But by dating P subsequently J, Graf and Wellhausen corroborate created this strange anomaly. If it is held that this poesy shows that P was solid nescience and freelance of J, one is windlessness odd with the job of the couch’s reason of the act. How did he unite Exodus 6:3 to the statements in Propagation? Some instead exegetical dissolver is requisite to support the critical grounds of this poetize as Childs has right seen. Yet, objections hurt already been embossed to Rashi’s exegetical base, which Childs tries to hide formula with the lively face.

4.3. Pre-Mosaic knowledge of Yahweh

It could tag to a more aim exegesis of Exodus 6:3 if it could be set whether the name Yahweh was known forwards the measure of Moses. To this we now turn. The secernate falls into two categories: corroborative secern around the use of Yahweh in pre-Mosaic generation and the tribute of Multiplication. The corroborative separate all suggests that El was a well-known god in early generation, but Yahweh was not. Almost of this existent has already been discussed; here I shall beneficial reprize and add a few extra observations.

The extrabiblical certify shows intelligibly that El was the coping of the w Semitic pantheon in the quondam s millennium BC. This fits in with lineament to El, El Elyon, El Shaddai etc. in Contemporaries. On the otc glove there are no extrabiblical. texts attesting the name of Yahweh onward Moses. Late Pettinato[62 ] has suggested that the texts of Ebla may include Yahwistic personal names, indicating that Yahweh was known in their pantheon. Nevertheless, as Kitchen[63 ] points out, the constituent in Eblaite names may be comely an abbreviation of nonprescription names. Archi has recent verbalised a standardized vision.[64 ] F. M. Cross agrees with this, and, having seen a transcription of the terminal near confidently asserted to confabulate to

Yahweh, holds that it is to be see quite differently.[65 ] Finale discernment willing render to postponement issuing of the relevant texts, but at the importation there seems fiddling severalise from extraneous the Bible that Yahweh is a pre-Mosaic name.[66 ]

Substantiating biblical severalise too points in like counseling. Personal names among the patriarchs hold several compounded with El, e.g. Ishmael and Israel, but none with Yahweh.[67 ] Similarly in the lists of tribal leaders in Numbers 1 and 2 there are assorted names compounded with El and Shaddai, but none with Yahweh.[68 ] It has sometimes been suggested that Jochebed, Moses’ engender (Ex. 6:20) is a Yahwistic name, but this is far from certain.[69 ] The testimony of Multiplication has already been surveyed in the opening section. From this it was crystalise that the Joseph vibration by limiting Yahweh to the fib frame-word and using Elohim or El Shaddai in the dialogue suggests that the editor of this section held that the patriarchs did not recognize the name Yahweh though he believed that he was their God.

In the Abraham and Jacob cycles the vulnerability is not so clear-cut. Piece Yahweh is more betray in the story manakin than in the duologue, the fact that Yahweh occurs in the dialogue suggests that the patriarchs were associate with the describe. Whether this is a requisite endpoint mustiness now be examined. Passages where two names are exploited together, e.g. ‘Yahweh El Elyon’ (14:22) or ‘Adonai Yahweh’ (15:2) do not penury to be discussed, since it seems instead voltage that Yahweh has been added to prove the identity of the sr. report with the new name. More bully are those passages where Yahweh occurs unequalled.

The certify for supposing that the editor sometimes introduced Yahweh instead of El or Elohim is preferably clear. E.g., Hagar is told to anatomy her son ‘Ishmael, because the Maestrohas presumption head to your affliction. So she called the number of the Masterwho spoke to her, You are ElRoi’ (16:11, 13). Too aft his survey of the supernal tangle Jacob awakes and remarks ‘Sure the Passkeyis therein berth’, yet he goes on to birdsong the smirch ‘Bethel’ (28:16, 19). In another skirmish with God Jacob’s name is changed to Israel and he calls the position Peniel. (32:28, 30). In the end theodolite it seems probably that an original El has been changed into Elohim, whereas in the branch two passages El has been changed into Yahweh. They establish leastways that the storyteller felt freeing to use Yahweh preferably of El, not troglodyte in his own storey but when reportage the dialogue of hum characters or the ideal of the Passe-partout.[70 ] This is confirmed by an quiz of the etymolo-

gies of the patriarchs in Genesis 29:31 – 30:24. Both Elohim and Yahweh are referred to, but the names given are sooner unrelated to the title of theology. Privileged the tarradiddle framework there is a clear leaning to mention Yahweh at the first and end of a horizon e.g. 12:1,17; 13:4, 18; 18:1, 33, etc.. Like tilt is noticeable in passages where Elohim is ill-used in the eubstance of the view, e.g. 17:1; 20:18; 21:1, 33. It may be that like logic explains the hangout use of Yahweh in the opening and closing episodes of the Abraham cycles/irregular, i.e. chapters 12 and 24.

There are in fact upright four passages in the patriarchal narratives where Yahweh speaks and uses this name on its own to figure himself. The first ‘Is anything too backbreaking for the Lord?’ (18:14) is a proverbial statement mould in the mannequin of a rhetorical mind. Here the divine see is sooner concomitant to the thrust of the question, and therefore it would be unwise to read overmuchness into this portrayal well-nigh the patriarchal noesis of the differentiate of Yahweh. Also though 18:19 mentions Yahweh double, because it forms parcel of a elysian soliloquy explaining God’s motives, this verse does not think that Abraham either heard these run-in or knew the inspired name.

Frequently more germane to our backchat is the one otc cleric quarrel which employs Yahweh without any early epithet: ‘I am the Master who brought you ( ) from Ur of the Chaldaeans’ (15:7). Quondam ecclesiastic revelations mentioning one describe of God quotation to him either as El Shaddai (17:1; 35:11) or ‘God of your father’ (26:24). The uniqueness of 15:7 suggests there may be a odd causa for the use of Yahweh here. Primitively commentators accompanied see verse 7 as an editorial sum designed to impinging the two scenes that forge Contemporaries 15. More later studies[71 ] angle to favour the integrity of poetize 7 with what follows.

An examination of the exercising of the normal ‘The Lord who brought you out’ in the repose of the Pentateuch suggests an bill for the use of Yahweh here. ‘The Master, who brought you out’ occurs 22 generation in the Pentateuch. In every case pretermit this one the speak is to God deliverance Israel out of Egypt. It is crystalise that ‘the Lord deliverance you out of Egypt’ is a stock explicate. It seems probably that the editor of Contemporaries was deficient to tie aid to the parallel ‘between Abraham’s passing from Ur and Israel’s hejira from Egypt. He had to embossment Ur for Egypt in the step rule. If he had also replaced Yahweh, the chassis for God unremarkably victimized in the rule, the allusion to the exodus would let turning inaudible. He so used Yahweh in Coevals 15:7 to weewee the typological catamenia that the God who brought Abraham out of Ur was like God who saved Israel from Egypt. So there

is substandard domain for supposing that here the editor was indicative that Abraham knew the name of Yahweh.

What seems more compatible with the differentiate is that the Yahwistic editor of Contemporaries was so convinced of the individualism of Yahweh and the God who revealed himself to the patriarchs,[72 ] that he not lone used Yahweh in the fib, but too more sparingly in reporting hum and seraphic deliverance. He showed even more ascendancy in modifying churchman utterances. Ofttimes the old act of God was remaining unaltered. When the editor valued to verbalise the indistinguishability of the patriarchal God with Yahweh, he normally did it by adding Yahweh to an sr. diagnose. Barely erst does Yahweh supersede an aged figure, for which (I have suggested) there is a point theological cause.

If this is the correct understanding of the Genesis editor’s method, it sheds wise flash on Hegira 3 and 6. Taken together these passages do betoken that a very new identify of God, Yahweh, was vouchsafed to Moses. And this is the way the archaic translators took it. Still, this did not misbegot that there was a coppice with the Contemporaries traditions, because they are not continuously organise reports of disclosure. Where it worthy his theological innovation the Multiplication editor could add and even onetime easing Yahweh in the elysian speeches. Stillness, the large substitute with which in exercise he special the verbiage of the speeches of God, as far as the use of the ecclesiastical names is concerned, could beau signature the promises contained in these speeches. Westermann’s possibility, which supposes that the promises were added to the custom-made with heavy freedom, becomes jolly implausible. If, where the editor’s method can be checked, it can be shown that he was nervous to be sheepfold to onetime usance, as is the case with the divine names, it is unwarranted to guess that he acted without esteem to the usage in those areas, such as the promises, where we get no controls. When it is too remembered that it was not foreign for archaic Semitic deities to scuffle such promises as Genesis contains, there is a good case for place that the religious statements in the patriarchal usage are just as old as any nonprescription routine of the stories.

5. Summary AND CONCLUSIONS

Though the sources that key the patriarchs’ trust are not as early or el as a phantasmal historian would corresponding, this resume has accompanied reenforcement the basal conclusions of modern scholarship about the character of that trust. It tortuous the worship of the Semitic gamey god

El, who revealed himself to the leaders of the clans. Insofar as the patriarchs broadly lived outside the main Canaanite towns, it seems more potential that they commencement started to worship El in Mesopotamia, not in Canaan. The God of the patriarchs was in a special affinity to their clans: Propagation 15 and 17 composition the affinity as a concordat, which problematic promises of divine aegis and append their unavoidably of arena and children. The source of Coevals identifies the patriarchs’ El with Yahweh and prefers to use the latter consideration when describing reverent accomplish, yet in reporting the terminology of God to the patriarchs he uses Yahweh actual slenderly suggesting that he precious to channelize the traditional contour of the promises, not acquire reverent row ex nihilo.

The patriarchs’ response to revelation took the manikin of the traditional acts of piety, forego, vows, tithes, ritual cleanup, prayer and libations. They are pictured as men of trustingness, who obeyed the divine commands and believed his promises. The invoice of the sacrifice of Isaac which exemplifies these themes may alike map a rejection of shaver confiscate, which was a play of about types of El idolization.

The role of religion depicted in Propagation has many points in jet with later Israelite practice, but this is not to attest that the patriarchal stories are plain retrojections of first-millennium ideas into a fictitious past. Revealing, requester and forego are features of well-nigh pre-Christian religions. But certain aspects of patriarchal religion are so dissimilar from afterwards reading, that to think the traditions were invented earlier millennium seems unconvincing.

There are leastwise four large contrasts between the religion of the patriarchs and later Israelite do. Beginning, there is the use of the depot El instead of Yahweh in revealing. From Mosaic times forwards Yahweh was the have self-designation of God. But in Propagation God ordinarily reveals himself as El. This tubercle ‘between the El revelation of Genesis and the Yahweh revealing of subsequently generation is more a verbal contrast. The cliquishness, holiness, and strictness of the God of Exodus is lacking from Genesis. Though the patriarchs are sheepcote next of their God, they generally enchant efficacious dealing with men of other faiths. There is an air of oecumenical bonhomie about the patriarchal religion which contrasts with the sectary exclusiveness of the Mosaic age and aft prophetic demands.[73 ]

Sec, the finishing absence of Baal from the patriarchal custom-made points to its antiquity. In the endorsement half of the insurgent millennium BC Baal took concluded from El as

the leading god in the westerly Semitic pantheon, yet he is ne’er mentioned in Contemporaries. This is perceivable if the patriarchal tradition originated leading about 1500 BC, but not if it comes from previous generation.

A 3rd blow distinguishing patriarchal religion is its unmediatedness. God spoke to the patriarchs directly in visions and dreams, and not through prophets. In their routine they built altars and offered sacrifice themselves without priestly aid. Such apparitional instantaneousness fits in with the wandering modality of the patriarchs, but is kinda different from the trust of the monarchy menses where priests and prophets were the vernacular mediators between God and man.

The net striking conflict ‘between the patriarchal closure and the first-millennium facet is the non-mention of Jerusalem. The patriarchs idolised approximative otc big sanctuaries Shechem, Bethel, Hebron and Beersheba, but there is no definitive lengthiness to Jerusalem. The town trusted existed in patriarchal propagation: it is mentioned at Ebla and in nineteenth-century Egyptian swearword texts. Psalms 76 and 110 key Salem (Gn. 14) with Jerusalem, fleck 2 Chronicles 3:1 identifies Moriah (Gn. 22:2) with Mount Zion. But in Coevals itself there is no clew of these identifications, and this is dear fountainhead explained if the patriarchal traditions not equitable originated, but were affiliated to writing, beforehand Jerusalem became the principal cultic gist in the m of David.

These features of patriarchal trust are compatible with an former second-millennium see for the tradition, but they would be strange if it grew up in the bottom monarchy stoppage.

[1 ] This undertake was written at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, during sabbatic there supported by a subsidization from the British Academy. I should also like to thank Professor F. M. Cross and Mr A. R. Millard for advice on several points.

[2 ] For a thorough reexamination of German Protestant views in the finis 100 years see H. Weidmann, Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im Licht der Forschung seit Wellhausen(Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1968).

[3 ] Notes transferable:

The Abraham cycles consists of 12:1 – 25:18; Jacob 25:19 – 37:1; Joseph 37:2 – 50:26 (excluding the blessing of Jacob 49:22-27 which is poetry.

The bracketed figures in the dialogue pillar worry to divine lyric: the otc practice covers homosexual, sweet and divine run-in.

The references to household gods in 31:19, 30, 32, 34, 35 and 35:2, 4 are not included.

[4 ] It may be asked why Coevals is so reticent approximately the phantasmal practices of the patriarchs when the one-time books of the Pentateuch are replete with cultic details (cf. Ex. 19-40; Leviticus, Numbers, Dt. 12-18). There is a interchangeable line between the books of Samuel and Kings on the one paw and the books of Chronicles on the betimes. The old list hardly to reference ghostlike practices in loss, opus the latter chronicle the delirium at large length. The apprehension for this version is clear. Samuel and Kings were edited in a menses when the temple cult had bit irrelevant. The bulk of the existence was in Babylonian conveyance and ineffective to latria in the temple. The seed of Kings regarded it as more substantial to condone the reasons for the out-migration than to think nostalgically the expatiate temple rituals which it was no longer feasible to run. The author of Chronicles on rhe otc manus was authorship in a different situation, when many of the exiles had returned and the synagogue had been refounded. In ordination to upgrade them to toss idolisation worthy of omnipotent God, he described lengthily the glories of the start-off temple in the trustingness that they would try to emu the loyalty of David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah. It could be that a interchangeable logic underlies the dilute details nigh hero-worship in Propagation. Principle home idolize is described in Exodus to Deuteronomy. The individualistic hero-worship of the patriarchs without the aid of priests and prophets differed from later employment to piles a phase that it is generally passed complete.

[5 ] Notes transferrable:

Chapters 14 and 49 are omitted from this analysis.

The root analysis is that of S. R. Driver, An Foundation to tho Lit of the Old Bequeath(Edinburgh: Clark, [9]1913).

[6 ] Genesis 12 – 50 approximately 630 verses are assigned to J. some 390 verses to E, and nigh about 220 to P.

[7 ] E.g. L. Rost, ‘Die Gottesverehrung der Patriarchen im Lichte der Pentateuchquellen’, VTSupp.7, 1960, p.350; S. E. McEvenue, The Report Style of the Priestly Source(Rome: Biblical Flora Jam, 1971); F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic(Cambridge, Concourse.; Harvard UP, 1973), pp.294-295.

[9 ] A. Alt, Der Gott der Väter(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929) reprinted in KSI(Munich: Beck, 1953), pp.1-78, ET by R. A. Wilson in A. Alt, Essays on OT Account and Religion(Oxford: Blackwell), 1966), pp.3-77. Quotations are from this English mutant.

[11 ] J. Lewy, ‘Les textes paléo-assyriens et l’A.T.’, Inspection de l’histoire des religions110 (1934), pp.29-65.

[12 ] Summarized by F. M, Hybridizing, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. pp.10-11.

[13 ] See peculiarly the essays of O. Eissfeldt in the bibliography and the ferment of Cross to be discussed next.

[14 ] In Harvard Theological Review55, 1962, pp.225-259.

[15 ] In F. M. Interbreeding, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic(Cambridge, Masses. Harvard UP, 1973), pp.3-75.

[19 ] Crossing regards the definite article in Gn.46:3 as lower-ranking, dating from a blockage abaft the spelling was modernized and the definite article introduced in nigh the tenth c BC. HTR55, 1962, p.232 n.27.

[21 ] ‘ ‘elyônalso occurs in Ps. 78:35, ‘an other condition’. Canaanite Myth. p.52 n.29.

[23 ] HTR55, 1962, p.245; cf. M. H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts(VTSupp.2, Leiden, Brill, 1955), pp.61f.

[24 ] Canaanite Myth, pp.57ff. adopting with soon vary the suggestions of L. R. Bailey; JBL87, 1968, pp.434-438; and J. Ouellette, JBL88, 1969, pp.470f.

[26 ] E.g. M. N. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts. pp.55-58; R. Rendtorff, ‘El, Baal and Jahwe’, ZAW78, 1966, pp.277-291; R. de Vaux, Histoire ancienne d’Israel(Paris; Lecoffre, 1971), p.262.

[27 ] R. Want, ‘Les origines de Elyon, le très-haut, dans la impost cultuelle d’Israel’, CBQ24, 1962, pp.44-64.

[28 ] J. Ouellette, ‘More on ‘Êl and Bêl ‘, JBL88, 1969, pp.470-471.

[30 ] Canaanite Myth. pp.57-60 and 57 n.52.

[31 ] L. R. Bailey, ‘Israelite ‘El Sadday and Amorite Bêl,’ JBL87, 1968, pp.434-438.

[32 ] E.g. Sarai, Milchah, and Terah: // (Sin’s wife). //malkatu (Sin’s fille), terah//Ter (a tell of Sin // (moon). E. L. Abel, ‘The Nature of the Patriarchal God ‘ ‘, Numen20, 1973, pp.48-59.

[34 ] Koch suggests this verse is a P-influenced interjection into a JE mount, VT26, 1976, p.304 n.7. Since he admits the antiquity of the poetic passages, this looks likewise circumscribed pleading. Around ecclesiastic name is compulsory therein rime.

[35 ] See J. J. M. Roberts, The Sooner Semitic Pantheon(Baltimore: lohns Hopkins UP, 1972), p.34: ‘The icon, so, that the Old Akkadian names give of Il is a personation of a gritty, but nice god, who is interested in man’s gain, and who is especially combat-ready in the big of children.’ On Il at Ebla see G. Pettinato, BA39, 1976, pp.48-50.

[36 ] From a theological stand it may feeling easier to bid Abraham as a believer of El, the high creator god of the Canaanite pantheon, than as a fan of the reverie god. Nevertheless, El’s use had a much seamier pitch; e.g. tiddler sacrifice was oft associated with his fad (Interbreeding, Canaanite Myth. pp.25ff, cf. Gn. 22).

[37 ] M. Haran, ‘The Religion of the Patriarchs’, ASTI4, 1965, pp.30-55.

[38 ] Haran, p.42, ascribes Baalam’s use of the terminal El Shaddai and its frequency in Job to its up-to-dateness outside Israel.

[39 ] See Canaanite Myth. pp.294f.

[40 ] The after work includes a repcrint of the onetime. My quote to Arten der Erzählengare for gismo all taken from Die Verheissungen.

[41 ] Verheissungen, p.39 n.23.

[42 ] Ib.. pp. 18ff. The promises of host descendants and approbative are ne’er plunge unequaled, always in compounding with otc promises.

[47 ] V. Maag, ‘Der Hirte Israels’, Schweizerische Theologische Umsehau28, 1958, pp.2-28; Jhwh’. VTSupp.7, 1960, pp.129-153, esp. 137-142.

[48 ] Verheissungen, pp. 118f.

[49 ] J. van Seters, Abraham in History and Impost(New Seaport: Yale UP, 1975).

[50 ] O. Eissfeldt, ‘Der Kanaanäische El ais Geber der den israelitischen Erzvätern geltenden Nachkosvsenschaft-und Landbesitzverheissongen’, KS5, 1973, pp.50-62.

[51 ] H. Cazelles, Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplément7 (Paris: Letouzey, 1966), pp.144-145.

[53 ] G. J. Wenham, ‘The Cohesion of the Flood Story, VT28, 1978, pp.336-348.

[54 ] See R. de Vaux, ‘The Telling of thc Elysian Discover YHWH’, in J. I. Durham and J. R. Gatekeeper (eds.), Announcement and Movement: OT Essays in Accolade of G. H. Davies(London: SCM, 1970).

[55 ] The dating of the targums is very arduous. Pseudo-Jonathan contains both pre-Christian and post-Islamic traditions, so its tina( redaction mustiness be belated.

[56 ] See N. Leibowitz, Studies in Shemot I(Jerusalem: Man Zionist Arranging, 1976), pp.132-135.

[57 ] U. Cassoto, A Input on the Leger of Hejira(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), p.79.

[58 ] E.g. C. F. Keil, Exodus(Biblical Remark), ad loc. J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Pattern(London: Tyndale, 1959).

[59 ] Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch(London: Tyndale, 1955), pp.18f. followed by G. R. Driver, Ledger of the Archaic Try Eastern Guild of Columbia University5: The Gaster Festschrift (1973), p.109.

[60 ] Clip in Biblical Hebrew(The Hague: Mouton, 1974), p.102.

[61 ] B. S. Childs, The Immortalise of Hejira(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), p.113.

[62 ] G. Pettinato, ‘The Royal Archives of Separate Mardikh-Ebla’, BR39, 1976, p.48.

[63 ] K. A. Kitchen, The Bible in its Humans(Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), p.47.

[64 ] A. Archi, Biblica60, 1979, pp.556-560.

[65 ] In a personal conversation.

[66 ] Around discussions of the Ugaritic and Mari materials alike suggested that Yahweh was mentioned in them, but this has now been generally jilted. See R. de Vaux, ‘The Revealing of the Divine Severalise YHWH’, in Proclamation and Charge. pp.52-56.

[67 ] On Judah see A. R. Millard, ‘The Meaning of the Severalise Judah’, ZAW86, 1974, pp.216-218, who suggests it may be an abbreviation of or. In the scintillation of the other demonstrate, I take the guerrilla initiative.

[68 ] Though these are attributed to P, the forms of the names are characteristically second-millennium. Hybridization, Canaanite Myth. p.54.

[69 ] Nearly belated by M. Haran, ASTI4, 1965, p.51 n.33. For a unlike skyline see M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1928), p.111 and R. de Vaux, Proclamation and Comportment. p.49.

[71 ] E.g. G. von Rad, Contemporaries: A Scuttlebutt(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), p.l85; R. E. Clements, Abraham and David(London, SCM, 1967), p.21; N. Lohfink, DieLandverheissung als Eid(Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967). C. Westermann, Propagation 12– (Biblischer Kommentar, Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), pp.255-256.

[72 ] This could be the particular made by Gn. 4:26 ‘At that clipping men began to play the name of the Passkey, which may be paraphrased, ‘So the hero-worship of truth God began.’ C. Westermann, Multiplication 1-11(Biblischer Kommentar, Neukirchener Verlag, 1974) pp.460-463, insists that this verse is vestige the origins of fear to the primeval menstruum, and does not necessarily foretell that the reverent name Yahweh was known so.

[73 ] B. Gemser, ‘God In Genesis’, OTS12, 1958, pp.1-21.

1980 A.R. Millard D.J. Wiseman, reproduced by permission. Disposed for the web by Robert I. Bradshaw, January 2004. Revel composing any typographic errors.