Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Myron Joshua wrote:

> . . .
> In an encompassing article in JBL 111/3 (1992) p.385-408 W. Randall Garr
> makes a grammatical and contextual analysis of this verse. His analysis
> brings him to a reading of  Ex. 6:3
> I(=G-d) appeared to the patriarchs  as El-Shaddai,  but I, my name YHVH, was
> not (fully) known to them (in a covenantal relationship)".
>
> He maintains that
>  "  "YHVH" is not only the content of G-d's "name" but "YHVH" is G-d
> himself. That is, "YHVH" lies in (synonymous) apposition to "my" as well as
> defines the "name"."
>
> He has no need for emmendation and this analysis highlights the issue of
> continuity and contrast that underlies the passage.
>

Thanks, Myron, I looked at Garr's article again after your note.  Garr
makes his case well but my reservation is that the closest grammatical
parallels he offers to Exod 6:3 are all from poetry.  In my view, this
is problematic, since Exod 6:3 is not poetry (as far as I can tell), and
you do have the preposition used in the first part of the verse - I
appeared to the fathers as [B:] El Shaddai.  That is why I suggested the
missing preposition is actually to be found in LO).  I suppose one could
argue that if this construction is found in poetry it may be found in
prose as well - so I
say problematic, not impossible.

>
> >Accepting this solution for the grammatical problem also solves (2) -
> >[the response to Moses' complaint is that he must use this name to
> >Pharaoh because of its historical priority] -
>
> What complaint are you referring to?

Exod 5:23 "Ever since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name [Yhwh], he
has done harm to this people, and you have not delivered your people at
all."  Exod 6:3 is part of the answer to this complaint.

>
> Even continuing your method (ignoring documentary hypothesis), if it be to
> Mose's complaint that things got worse since he came, in YHVH's name this
> means that he came as a representative of YHVH and has nothing to do with
> the use of the divine name itself.

Moses is complaining that use of the name Yhwh has been not only
ineffectual, but counterproductive, which raises the issue, at least
implicitly, of whether he should continue to use that name (instead of
maybe one of the 2000 names of gods that Pharaoh did know, or a more
"generic" name for God such as El Shaddai).  To paraphrase, "why did you
send me to Pharaoh in your name Yhwh?"

>
> Where is the issue of "historical priority" raised between Moses and
> Pharoah?

It's not raised between Moses and Pharaoh.  It's an issue in the
patriarchal
revelation, where revelation in the name of Yhwh precedes revelation in
the name El Shaddai.  My interpretation of Exod 6:3 takes note of this
sequence as being the reason that Moses is to use the name Yhwh to
Pharaoh.

Garr's interpretation concentrates only on "P" so he ends up with an
interpretation that has the prioroty reversed from what you would
conclude reading the texts in context.

> If anything the name is used in the plague narratives to bring
> about a knowledge of  YHVH's total active control over the world and has
> nothing to do with knowledge of the name per se.

I think that the references to Yhwh's name being known through the
events of the plagues and the exodus pertain to those who before that
time did not know the name (e.g. Pharaoh, the Egyptians), or who knew of
the name but did not believe (many if not most Israelites).  I don't
think the patriarchs fall in that category, and the parallel with the
first half of Exod 6:3 (I appeared to the fathers as El Shaddai)
indicates to me that it is "knowledge of the name per se" that is the
issue, not some "deeper" meaning of the noun "name" or the verb "know."

All the extra words Garr has to add to Exod 6:3 to fit his
interpretation makes it in my opinion more unlikely:
"I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (in limited form) as El Shaddai
(who makes covenant promises). But I was not the object of (full)
covenantal knowledge to them as conveyed by my name yahweh (who keeps
covenant promises)."



>
> > and (3) - the patriarchs
> >did indeed know this name, and in fact the first "I am Yhwh" occurs in a
> >passage predicting the enslavement and exodus (Gen 15:7), i.e. the very
> >circumstances in which Moses is commanded to say to Pharaoh, "thus says
> >Yhwh."
>
> note that example you cite,the the first "I am YHWH" (Gen 15:7)  introduces
> G-d as one who has ACTED (as in the opening of the Decalogue) and not as one
> who is promising or predicting.
>

"I am Yhwh who brought you forth from Ur-Kasdim" does, as you say, speak
of what he has done in the past for Abram, but I think also foreshadows
what he will do for Israel, especially since the purpose for bringing
forth Abram from Ur-Kasdim (as he would later bring Israel forth from
Egypt) "to give you this land to possess it" is not going to be
fulfilled in Abram's lifetime, as the rest of the chapter makes clear.

> Of course these texts have nothing to do with the dispute concerning the
> historical independance of El and YHVH in Ancient Israel.

Agreed.

Regards,

John Ronning