the religion by ordinary development to rise to the ethic monotheism in which it so soon appears. Granted even that the case for the modern theory has been so far made out, what was there at all in the religion of Jahaveh to make it a distinctive religion of Israel, and to give to that people the only bond that could unite them to one another, and mark them off from their neighbours? Or if that is not enough, what was there to enable them to rise, as they did rise, from this low level to the height of the so-called ethic monotheism? And how was it that, with the first appearance of written prophecy, we find the teaching of a much purer faith, appealing also to a hoary antiquity for its sanction? We must therefore now inquire particularly what was this Jahaveh religion, and how its subsistence for so long and its rise to its purest form are accounted for. 266 CHAPTER XI. THE JAHAVEH RELIGION. The Jahaveh religion characteristic of Israel-The points to be examined in this chapter: I. Its origin; II. Its specific initial significance—I. Origin sought for in (1) Indo-Germanic; (2) Assyro-Babylonian; (3) Egyptian; (4) Kenite; and (5) Canaanite language or religion-Conclusion that it is distinctively Israelite—II. Significance—Etymological considerations-Critical derivation, "thunderer” — Biblical derivation -Historical considerations in its favour-Importance of determining the initial signification of the name-If it is of Israelite origin, and introduced under definite historical circumstances, it must have a specific signification- The other explanation is open to the following objections: (1) There is no evidence that Jahaveh was a tribal God; (2) No reason is given for the substitution of the name Jaharch for El; (3) Stade's proofs are a confusion of early and late, and give no intelligible account of the initial significance of the pre-prophetic conception of Jahaveh-Conclusion that higher qualities were there from the first. THE thing that distinguished Israel in early times from the surrounding nations, and in later times, was their contribution to the religious good of the world, was the possession of the Jahaveh religion. Even if we admit that, as is maintained, Jahaveh was only to them what the gods of the nations around them were to their worshippers, they had this, at least, as a distinctive mark; and it was from it as a germ that the purer religion of the prophets was Points to be determined. 267 developed. Even if, in pre-prophetic times, the national religion was of a low type, at the bottom of it lay the belief that Jahaveh was Israel's God; nay, even if they thought it no sin to employ the names of heathen deities in forming proper names and so forth, they were all the time professors of the Jahaveh religion, and the most that can be said is, that they bestowed on Jahaveh Himself those names that other nations applied to their gods. I have advanced considerations to show that the positions referred to as to the low character of the pre-prophetic religion are not by any means established. But I insist upon this point now, that even if they were established, the great problem has still to be solved. Two points, mentioned in a former chapter,1 still remain to be demonstrated: (1) We must be shown the origin of the Jahaveh religion, and it must be seen to have such distinctive marks as will make it characteristic of Israel, and bind them together at the most critical period of their history; and then (2) the process of development must be pointed out by which, in well-marked historical stadia, it rose to the religion which is described as ethic monotheism. Briefly put, we must have an explanation of the Jahaveh religion at both extremities of its development, at its start and at its final development; and it is incumbent on those who refuse to take the Biblical account of the matter to present us with another that will stand the test of historical criticism. They must show us (a) the source of the Jahaveh religion; (b) its specific initial significance; and (c) its historical development from the lower to the higher stage. A consideration of the first two of these three points will be the subject of this chapter. I. In regard to the origin of the Jahaveh religion, as in 1 Chapter vi. p. 166. regard to other distinctive features of the history, investigations have been pursued in various directions with the view of discovering, if possible, some point of contact with and dependence upon other nations with which Israel was brought into connection; and different investigators have thought that they have discovered either the actual name Jahaveh, or the idea which it expresses, in the languages and religious conceptions of different peoples. Inquiries of this kind are perfectly legitimate, and often lead to most instructive results. The issue of them, however, must be carefully noted. When, for example, Wellhausen says that Nabiism passed over from the Phoenicians to Israel at a certain time, that is not a final explanation of Israelite prophetism. Even if the fact were as he asserts -and it depends very much on his assertion-there still remains to be explained how the "passing over" took place at such a time, and the more difficult fact that it passed over into so different a phenomenon; and for both these circumstances we have to fall back upon some predisposing cause, and some inherent capability in Israel. Similarly, should it be proved that the name Jahaveh, or the idea denoted by the name, is found among some other people, we are no nearer the solution of the problem. First of all, we are driven a step farther back in our search for its origin, and have to explain whence that other people got it; and secondly, we have to account for Israel's adopting it; and lastly, we have to explain why it became, in their hands, quite a new thing. The investigations that have been made in the directions indicated are interesting and exhaustive. The name, or the idea which it expresses, has been in turn sought for in (1) Indo-Germanic; (2) in Assyro-Babylonian; (3) Egyptian; (4) Kenite; and (5) Canaanite lan Indo-Germanic Derivation. 209 guage or religion. We must briefly consider the arguments advanced for these various views. (1.) An Indo-Germanic source of the name has been sought by some scholars. Thus Von Bohlen,1 referring to the varying forms, Jave, Jaho, and Jao (law), under which the name appears in writings of the Jews, Samaritans, and Christian fathers, says that "in this shape it is clearly connected with the names of the Deity in many other languages"-Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit-and that the original form would have been Jah. This opinion has been pronounced by J. G. Müller 2 as "not lightly to be set aside." The idea is that the Indo-Germanic root div shine, which lies at the basis of Jovis or Diovis, is to be recognised as also underlying the Hebrew tetragrammaton, which originally may have sounded Javo, Jevo, Jove, or Jeva. But the connection of the IndoGermanic root with the Hebrew vocable cannot be made out so easily as is thus done. And there are two special difficulties in the way of such a theory,-(a) that if Jahaveh is originally an Indo-Germanic word corresponding to a root div, which is widely diffused in these languages, it does not appear to have passed over in this sense into the Semitic languages generally, but only to have been appropriated for a special name by a small and comparatively insignificant branch of them; and (b) more particularly, there is already in the Hebrew language, not to speak of other branches of Semitic, a common root, hawa, from which the name can be derived by an exact analogy with other proper names, like Isaac, Jacob, and so forth. 1 Introduction to the Book of Genesis, Heywood's Translation (1855), vol. i. p. 151 f. Compare Vatke, Bibl. Theol., p. 672. 2 Die Semiten in ihrem Verhältniss zu Chamiten u. Japhethiten (1872), p. 163 f. |