Divine Names and the Documentary Hypothesis

Overview: Why multiple names are used to describe the divine throughout Torah, the assumptions of the Documentarians, and various explanations for Ex. 6:3, the revelation of the name YHWH.

The Documentarians argument

The Documentary Hypothesis (discussed more at length in “The Documentary Hypothesis: Deuteronomy”) puts much emphasis on the divine names used in Torah in their pursuit to discern the various “sources” that the theory claims to have identified. These various sources were stitched together by a later editor who compiled the religious documents of the time and created what we know today as the Torah. Overall, there are four “sources” – although many scholars argue for more than four sources or for subcategories – known as J, E, P, D.

The distinction between J and E is the divine names used in the verses being analyzed. The theory suggests that the J author preferred the name Jeho-vah (or J) for God while the author of the E passages preferred the name Elokim (or E). Genesis and Exodus are said to consist of both sources intertwined with each other by the later redactor who combined them all into the Torah. Leviticus and Numbers are primarily of the Priestly code (or P); and Deuteronomy is mostly the D code.

The theory suggests that various names of God were popular at different times and different places, thus each author of Torah preferring a specific name over another. They use these divine names as the key indicator to map out which verses were from which author’s quill.

But there’s a major assumption at play here and we will get to that later.

One key passage is used as evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis.^[i]

“I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with [the name] Almighty God [Shad-dai], but [with] My name YHWH, I did not become known to them.”  (Exodus 6:3)

This passage suggests that until this discussion between God and Moses, the name YHWH was unknown to mankind or to the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Yet, surprisingly, the name YHWH appears multiple times throughout Genesis, including times in which the Patriarchs refer to God by that name.^[ii] Was the author of Ex. 6:3 unaware of these YHWH instances in Genesis? The answer, according to the Documentarians, is that yes – the author of this part of Exodus was unaware of those Genesis narratives since that was the work of a different writer. As far as this “E” writer is concerned, this is the first time that the name YHWH is used in history and the Patriarchs wouldn’t have known that name. Only later when the redactor (known as R) combined the two sources (E and J), would the glaring contradiction become noticeable.

Since the Documentary Hypothesis draws much support from the division of the divine names and Exodus 6:3, we ought to scrutinize this basis and the assumptions that their assertions are based on. Below we will provide alternative explanations to the multitude of divine names as well as explanations for the intriguing verse of Exodus 6:3.

Alternative solutions to the divine names

> In English Today, many names are used to describe the divine: God, Lord, Saviour, Father, Hashem, etc. Even one author may write different names at different areas throughout their writings. To assume that the author was, therefore, multiple authors, is ludicrous. Just as it is nowadays, so it was back in ancient times. We find many Ancient Near East documents that contain multiple names for a single deity.^[iii]

> There may have been multiple scribes working under Moses, just as many kings had at the time. Moses would tell them what to write and would look it over once they were done drafting the document. If this were the case, then the multiple names for the divine can be attributed to multiple authors indeed – yet not undermining the Mosaic authorship of Torah. (For more on the subject of Mosaic authorship, see here.)

> A common religious answer to this issue is the idea that the various divine names each represent another attribute of God and that each time it is used in a specific context in Torah, it is in the context of that attribute. For example, Genesis ch. 1 repeatedly uses the name YHWH. This is because that name represents the divine attribute of grace, benevolence, or compassion – Chesed – and that’s exactly what the theme of Creation of the world (described in Genesis 1) represents. Genesis 2 and 3, on the other hand, discuss the more disciplinarian side of God – Gevurah – and thus the name Elokim is used as well. Some works have been made to go through each instance and demonstrate how this principle works.[1] However, some examples weaken this theory, e.g. Gen. 8:1 (cf Rashi there) and Gen. 6:5-7, which seem to counter this very model.

> The multiple names can, indeed, be attributed to multi-authorship in some cases. We have discussed the possibility for multi-authorship – a distinct model than the Documentary Hypothesis – here, as well as the theological implications of that. Some authors may have used the two words liberally, without giving it much thought – similar to the way many modern writers interchangeably use “God” and “Lord.” Other authors may have preferred one name over the other (e.g. the two flood authors, see here). And yet others may have had a theological difference between the two and only used that specific name when trying to bring out a specific theological message (e.g. Gen. 9:26-27).

Any my name YHWH I have not made known to them

What about the seeming evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis from Exodus 6:3? The ambiguous verse can be explained in various ways, effectively removing the “evidence” aspect of it for the Documentary Hypothesis.

“I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with [the name] Almighty God [Shaddai], but [with] My name YHWH, I did not become known to them.”  (Exodus 6:3)

> Retroactive editing

The interpretation brought in Ibn Ezra (although he himself rejects that approach) is that the Patriarchs have not heard that name, rather the Torah narrator is the one saying that name retrospectively. He does so because either way it’s not an exact quote of the words of the Patriarchs but a modified capsulation for the reader’s interest. The author doesn’t have Ex. 6:3 in mind the entire time while narrating other topics. However tempting this solution may be, it encounters problems with Gen 49:18 since there it seems to be a direct quote of Jacob mentioning YHWH.^[2]

> Rhetorical question

This explanation is a rather interesting one. Instead of reading the second half of the verse as a statement, it should be read as a rhetorical question: “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with El-Shaddai; and have I not made myself known to them by YHWH?!” – Surely I have, and I will fulfil the promises made to them (as the next verse continues).^[iv] This interpretation would resolve the contradiction and fits surprisingly well with the context of the passages. Also, the phrase in verse 4 “and also I have established My Covenant with them” fits well with verse 3 conveying a positive (i.e., I did reveal Myself to them as YHWH) rather than a negative (i.e., I haven’t revealed Myself to them as YHWH).

> Expression, not a name

On a number of occasions in the Bible, God uses the expression of it becoming known that “I am YHWH” in conjunction with a mighty manifestation of His power, such that witnesses will have no doubt that what occurred was His doing (e.g., Exod. 7:5;14:4, 18). Speaking of what it means to know His name, God declared, ‘I will make known to them My hand and My might and they shall know that My name is YHWH’ (Jer. 16:21).In Ezekiel the term “and they shall know that I’m the Lord” appears more than 60 times. In context it is clearly not referring to the four-letter name but rather the attribute of His acts and fulfilments of His promises.^[3] The patriarchs did experience in their personal lives in a limited manner but never on the grand, national scale that commands the attention of others. YHWH represents God’s attribute of projecting limitless power, justice spanning generations, and this was not shown to the Patriarchs. Only when God fulfils his Covenant made several hundred years earlier (see Ex. 6:4), with the projection of power against the Egyptian Empire, does YHWH become expressed.^{[v] [4]}

Weaknesses in the Documentary Hypothesis’ explanation

The Documentary Hypothesis draws much support from the Exodus 6:3 verse and its indication that its author was unaware of several Genesis narratives. But as we demonstrated earlier, there are other solutions to the seeming contradiction. Now we will note three issues with their interpretation of the verse as referring to God’s literal name of YHWH.

First is the fact that such a statement “I have not revealed my name YHWH to them” would have no relevance to the context – the Exodus and the fulfilment of the Covenant. It would be a rather odd statement to insert in this moving discussion between God and Moses.

Secondly, the verse does not say that God revealed His name Shad-dai but not the name YHWH. There’s no mention of a “name” in the first half of the verse in conjunction with Shad-dai. It would therefore seem that the name isn’t of importance here, but rather the expression or attribute of Shad-dai and of YHWH. This isn’t a knockout issue, since the Documentarians can argue that Shad-dai is obviously a name and therefore the narrator didn’t see the need to mention it – but the wording still fits better with the alternative model of these being expressions rather than names.

Thirdly, the term “have not made known” (no-da-ti in Heb.) wouldn’t be the appropriate term had an actual name been intended. The word, as used in Torah, implies intimate familiarity or knowledge of something. This would fit better with an attribute of God rather than a mere trivial name. The verse is therefore saying that the Patriarchs have not had this intimate knowledge of the attribute of YHWH – the fulfilment of the Covenant after many generations with the projection of power against the Egyptian superpower. Had a mere name been intended “said” (amar in Heb.) or “told” (higid in Heb.) would have been more appropriate terms to use.