go? I do not know Jehovah," and such expressions as "the God of the Hebrews," show clearly, that even in the time of Moses, the holy name of God was either entirely or essentially unknown to the Egyptians, which fact Tacitus (Hist. v. 5) expressly testifies; see supplementary note to ii. 10.

2. It is not of Phoenician origin, as Hartmann (p. 156) and many others, leaning on certain fragments of the Phoenician author, Sanchuniathon, assert. It is now generally acknowledged, that those fragments are spurious compilations of the literary adventurer Philo Byblius, who lived between the reigns of Nero and Hadrian; and who can therefore prove nothing for so remote a time as the ante-Mosaic period.

3. It is only necessary to mention the absurd suppositions, that Jehovah is to be traced to a Chinese origin, or that (according to a certain oracle of Apollo Clarius), Dionysus and the sun bore the name of Jao, or that the resemblance of sound proves the original identity of Jehovah and Jovis.

We are, therefore, fully justified in subscribing the opinion of Gesenius (Thes. ii. p. 577): "that those labour in vain who strive to find a foreign origin to the name of Jehovah ;" and in asserting that the Tetragrammaton is the peculiar and exclusive designation of the God of Israel.

II. The vowels which are at present given to the name Jehovah, do not originally belong to it, but are borrowed from Adonai; for already before the time of the Septuagint the holy name of God was, according to a tradition based on Levit. xxiv. 16, considered too majestic to be pronounced, and was, therefore, called the name par excellence. The Talmud (Sanhedr. 90, a) enjoins: "Even he who thinks the name of God with its true letters, forfeits his future life;" and according to Maimonides (Jad Chasak., cap. 14, § 10), after the death of Simon the Just, the name Adonai, or another appel

lation consisting of twelve letters, was, even in the temple, substituted for the Tetragrammaton; and so the true pronunciation of that name was ultimately forgotten. Jerome, Origen, Eusebius, and others mention, that in their time" the Jews wrote the name in their copies of the Bible in Samaritan characters, instead of the common Hebrew or Chaldee, in order to veil it from the profane inspection of strangers" (Pict. Bibl.); and Josephus (Antiq. III. v. 4) did not even dare to write down the Ten Commandments in the words proclaimed on Mount Sinai, but only their sense and import. The author of the speculative work Emunah Ramah (Abraham Ben David Halevi), in discussing the various names of God, writes (iii. 6): "But the name Jehovah we are not allowed to pronounce. In its original meaning, it is conferred upon no other being, and therefore we abstain from giving any explanation of it."

III. The correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, which was by tradition confided only to the most pious men of their respective ages, is Jahaveh or Jahveh, in accordance with Theodoret (Quaest. xv. in Exodum i. p. 133). The Samaritans pronounce it, 'IABE, in perfect harmony with the explanation given in our text.

IV. Thus the holy name of God denotes the Eternal Being; He who is immutable, subject to no change through all generations. This explanation is corrorated by a variety of passages of the Old Testament. Compare Malach. iii. 6: "I am the Lord-I am immutable" (see Philo, De Incorrupt. Mundi, p. 950: "God is always equal and identical with himself, admitting neither of a change to a higher, nor to a lower degree"). We may also adduce the excellent comment of Plutarch on the word EI, Thou art, inscribed above the door of the temple of Apollo at Delphi: "This title is not only proper, but peculiar to God; because He alone is being, for mortals have no participation of

true being, because that which begins and ends, and is continually changing, is never one, nor the same, nor in the same state. The deity on whose temple this word was written was called ApolloΑπόλλων—from a negative, and πολύς many, because he is one, his name simple, his essence uncompounded." Gesenius (Thes. ii. 577, note) proposes to take Jahveh as the future Hiphil, signifying: "He who made exist, called into existence," the Creator; but this is no new attribute of the Deity (vi.3), unknown to the patriarchs, who revered him already as the Lord, that is, the Creator of heaven and earth (Gen. xiv. 19,22). We cannot see that this idea, which we have proved to be the fundamental notion of the holy name of God, is too profound or metaphysical for the simple age in which Moses lived; and the hypothesis of Koppe and others, that I am that I am means: "I am he whose essence is not to be described or expressed by any name;" or, "I am he who has no name," is well refuted by Hengstenberg, who remarks, that such a deity was certainly not calculated to afford much comfort and consolation to the Israelites in the severe oppression under which they then sighed. Yet Rabbi Jehudah Halevi, in his celebrated work, Cusari (iv.3), offers a similar, as it were negative, explanation, which, however, being one of the earliest philosophical illustrations of our subject, is too interesting to be omitted here: "By appearing to Moses under the name Jehovah, God wished to preclude all subtle speculations on the true nature of His essence, the knowledge of which is unattainable; and when Moses asked: 'If the children of Israel should inquire after Thy name, what shall I say?' God answered him: Why should they search after something which they will eternally be unable to comprehend? (just as the angel said to Manoah: 'Why askest thou

6

thus after my name, seeing it is secret or wondrous?' Judg. xiii. 18). Tell them only, 'I am,' that is, ' He who is,' or the eternal God, always manifest to those who seek me." We must repeat, that however sublime this interpretation of the divine name is in itself, its metaphysical ideality would have little contributed to secure for Moses any degree of enthusiasm among the Israelites, who, sunk in materialism, expected to see the power and competency of the Lord expressed in His very name.

V. After having thus developed the most probable-we may almost say authentic-meaning of the words, I am that I am, and of the name Jehovah, we proceed to enumerate the opinions of the more important interpreters, as nearly as possible in a chronological order. 1. Sept., ¿yú εiμ ò v, "I am that I am;" and just so 2. Vulgate," Ego sum qui sum;" 3. Aquila and Theodot., ἔσομαι ὃς ἔσομαι, "I shall be that I shall be," quite literally, but without distinct meaning; 4. Onkel, and the Syrian and Persian translators have retained the Hebrew words; 5. Saadiah, "I am the Eternal one, who never ceases;" 6. Targ. Jonath., "He who spoke and the world was; He who spoke and the universe was.' 7. Similarly Targum Jerusalem, "He who said to the world, Exist! and it was; and who will say to it, Exist! and it will be." 8. Rashi, "I shall be with them in their present Egyptian slavery, as I shall be with them in their future miseries (see Talm. Berach. 9). 9. Maimonides (Moreh. Nebuch. i. 63), "He who exists by internal necessity.” 10. Rashbam, "I am for ever, and therefore am able to realise my promises." 11. Abarbanel, "I am the prime cause of existence, not created like all the other objects of the universe, therefore not depending on any body or any thing for my existence.” And similarly Albo (Ikkarim ii. 27), "My

66 an

existence depends only on myself; my will and intention are therefore certain to be executed;.... no other being can say 'I am because I am'; but 'I am because something else is,' viz., the prime cause, on which the existence of all other beings depends." And so Boothroyd, "I am because I am, that is, self-sufficient." Vater also finds in these words, obscure allusion to the independence of God." This explanation, although acceptable in itself, has no necessary connection with the etymology given in our texts. 12. Mendelssohn, "I am, was, and shall be the king and ruler of the universe."Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Ewald and Hengstenberg, adopt the translation: "I am that I am," implying the eternity and immutability of God.-God can only be named and described through himself, however laboriously human language might strive to find an appropriate name for the Deity. The reader will find highly interesting illustrations of our verse in Maimonides Moreh Nebuch. i. 62, 63, which deserve attentive study.

15. The abstract designation of God is here more practically and intelligibly described by the historical addition, "God of their ancestors," who existed already in the remote ages before Abraham, and who will unchangeably exist till the last generations. Mendelssohn observes, that although there is essentially no difference between I am in the preceding verse, and Jehovah: the one is pronounced as it is written; but the other is not to be spoken with its own vowels; because I am is the name by which God calls Himself, and He knows His own nature and attributes; but Jehovah is the name by which men call God, and they cannot comprehend His essence and nature. This is my name, etc. The knowledge of God will never cease or disappear from the generations of man.

66

16. Go and assemble the elders of Israel. It is not impossible from these words, that the Israelites had in Egypt, on the whole, a patriarchical organization in tribes, each of which stood under its chief; the tribes were again divided into families, each of which was presided over by a Sheikh, or Saken, who was its representative in all public matters (See Exod. vi. 14, 25; xii. 21). The families stood under the authority of the heads of their respective tribes. The Saken, originally the oldest member of the family, is generally more an honorary designation (not nomen aetatis," but 66 nomen muneris"), like πрEσẞúтEроç in Greek, and senator or patres in Latin, and like these probably elective, not hereditary dignities (see note on v. 6). These elders might frequently, in cases of dispute, have performed the functions of judges, although they had no material power to give force to their decisions (see note on ii. 13); moreover, these judicial functions were not their ordinary vocation, but were only exercised besides their usual occupations and pursuits. However, that organization on the one hand, and the difference of religion and language, on the other hand, produced an insurmountable barrier between the Egyptians and the Hebrews; and the latter formed, in the heart of Egypt, a separate state, the more ominous for the former, as the lapse of time seemed only to increase the inward antipathies, and to revive in the latter, with greater force, the old reminiscences and traditions handed down from their ancestors, and the hopes of a miraculous realization of the promises vouchsafed to them.-About the Shoterim, see note on v. 6.-Rashi explains the elders of Israel by "chosen and appointed as a council, for how was it possible to assemble the elders of 600,000 men?" and similarly Ebn Ezra, coun

makes an experiment on the feelings of the Egyptian monarch, not explaining in the first instance, the full amount of his demand, that from the mode of its reception, in its most mitigated form, he might judge of what he was to expect when he should state it in its full extent." And Ebn Ezra observes deferentially with regard to this subject (on x. 10): "We must not sceptically enquire into the works of God; for He has ordained all things with wisdom, although it is often concealed even before the eye of the wise."

19. Even not by a mighty hand. Targ. Onkelos renders either, "he will not allow you to go, because his might is great," or more probably, "even not on account of Him whose might is great." But more appropriate than either interpretation is that of Abarbanel, who explains: "God said, Pharaoh will not let you go, even not if you encounter and oppose him with all your power. Therefore, will I stretch out my hand and force him to obedience by my wonders," which interpretation is perfectly adapted to our context; for although Pharaoh, in a moment of terror, after the tenth and most fearful plague, permitted the Israelites to leave Egypt, he soon repented and retracted his consent. Others translate: he will not let you go, unless with a mighty hand; but the Hebrew text does not admit of this interpretation.

21. And I will give this people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians (see Gen. xxxix. 21). "For in general, the Egyptians,

who suffered so many plagues through Moses, might not have been very amicably disposed towards the Israelites [see, however, on i. 11]; but so great was their fear of a universal destruction, that they granted them whatever they wished, lest their departure be retarded and new miseries ensue" (Clericus). Compare with the promise contained in our verse, Gen.

xv. 14.

22. But every woman shall ask of her neighbour, etc. Very frequently this conduct on the part of the Israelites has been severely castigated, and was used for the most vehement attacks against the Israelites as committing, and their God, as sanctioning, theft, falsehood, and every abject crime (see Irenaeus, b. iv. c. 49; August. contra Faustum, b. ii. c. 71, etc.). As a specimen of the virulence with which these hostilities have been directed against the Sacred Volume, we quote the following passage from the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist (Berlin, 1786, p. 53, edited by Lessing): "If we consider the action in itself, we cannot but admit, that the whole is falsehood, deception and theft. But how, if hereunto simply the words are added: the Lord hath said, or commanded;' will thereby base deceit and nefarious fraud assume the character of sacred revelation? will, thereby, the most impious wickedness be converted into a pious action? Thus, it would be easy indeed to stamp falsehood as inspiration, and rancour as virtue and piety; thus we loose every test and standard of laudable and criminal deeds; thus religion and