originating in Arabia. [He] was anything but a native Hebrew god, and on that particular point practically all scholars are agreed. They agree, too, that [he] originated in the south. They differ only as to whether [he] was of Arabic or Kenite origin. 27
The divine name, יהוה is by far the most common theophoric element. The practical henotheism of יהוה should not be taken for a strict monotheism. Far from it! Not only did the Israelite’s continue to recognize the existence of other deities besides יהוה, for a very long time, they also knew more than one הוה ! Though at the mythological level there is only one, the cultic reality reflected a plurality of יהוה gods. Non-biblical evidence mentions a “יהוה from Samaria” and a “יהוה of Teman”; it is possible that the two names designate one god, the official god of the northern Kingdom (“Samaria”, after its capital). Yet the recognition of a northern יהוה is mirrored by the worship of a “יהוה of Hebron” and a “יהוה of Zion” (2 Sam 15:7) all of which should be understood as references to local forms of יהוה worship centered in regional shrines dating back to the earliest days before the monarchy and reminiscent of the days of the tribal confederation. In the Hebrew Bible, the name יהוה is written in two different ways when standing by itself, יה (yah) and יהוה and, in three different ways, when used in personal names, יה, יהו, and יהו, but never as יהוה. Outside the Hebrew Bible, it is found in only two other places as יהוה—on the Moabite Stone and the ostraca from Lachish.28
Indicators all point to there being an early epithet of על (el) who, as the dominant god in the surrounding Semitic cultures, undoubtedly posed challenges to ancient Israel when the newly arrived Hebrews gained entrance into Canaan in the fourteenth-century BCE. The name elyon connects our three Psalms, 90, 91, and 92. There is also evidence to suggest that the inhabitants of the old Jebusite city (pre-Israelite Jerusalem) already entertained religious and cultic conceptions of the Highest God or el Elyon. Consequently, a qualitative distinction was formidably drawn between the worshiping practices in Israel and that of her surrounding neighbors.
This distinction is critical to any right understanding of the Hebrew conception of the incomparability of יהוה when contrasted to other gods. The religious situation in early Israel, therefore, was extremely complicated. For much of the period of old Israel, it faced a daunting reality that was not merely one of a rampant polytheism, but also of poly-yahwism. The Deuteronomic emphasis, of course, is on the unity of יהוה amid these complexities and ought to be so understood against this background. Israel’s journey to monotheism was a long, complicated and arduous one and was never arrived at easily.
The question of the origin and age of biblical monotheism has again been vigorously discussed in recent times [c. 1994]. Whereas earlier scholars generally saw the exclusiveness of Israel’s worship of Yahweh as an old legacy of the early period, which in the crises of the settlement and formation of the state was gradually developed into the express requirement of monolatry (sole worship) in the face of the threat of ‘Canaanite’ infiltration, and finally, during the exile, into theoretical monotheism (the assertion of a sole God and the denial of all others), in more recent scholarship the exact opposite has been maintained, that throughout its pre-exilic phase the religion of Israel had been a ‘polytheistic religion which was no different from the religions of the surrounding world’. The propagation of the sole worship of Yahweh is said to have begun only at a late stage, at the earliest with Elijah in the ninth century, but really only with Hosea in the eighth century, and to have been the concern of only small opposition groups (the ‘Yahweh alone movement’). According to this view, this movement was only able to influence society for a short period under Josiah, but then finally helped monotheism to victory in the exilic and early post-exilic period.29
The Hebrew text—which the LXX translated into Greek—differed from the MT (Masoretic Text) to some extent. The condition of that earlier text was quite variable and in some cases was doubtless superior to our present Hebrew text. But in other instances it was clearly inferior. Our conclusion here is that the LXX, while certainly indispensable to the study of the Psalms, must be handled with care. Diligence therefore must be exercised in weighing its evidences and appropriating its conclusions to our reading and interpretation of the text. 30
The MT (Masoretic Text) is the earliest Hebrew text available to us and dates from the ninth-century CE. In the MT the term שדי (Shaddai, Almighty) also appears only twice in the Psalter (91:1 and 68:14) but over thirty times, for instance, in the book of Job. Biblical references to שדי (Shaddai) in their present form, are most likely of post-exilic origin. In the LXX Shaddai has been rendered variously, but the predominant rendition was Almighty and it issued forth in the eastern Christian church, eventually, by the Greek title pantokrator or Lord of all worlds.
Pantokrator-as a Greek title of the divine and cosmic Lordship of Christ first appeared in the Eastern church in the 4th -5th centuries CE. That Jesus was the Christ of God and the one promised in the Old Testament was the central conviction with which Christianity had arisen out of Judaism. The conviction had been worked out in early Jewish -Christian debates, but Byzantine theology expanded the case for this identification of the Christ . . . It was the theme and purpose of Christian writings against Judaism to show ‘from the Scriptures and from the truth itself [that various passages of the Old Testament] speak about the incarnate economy of the Son of God.’ These passages had been fulfilled before the eyes of the entire cosmos, proving [to those who believed in his name] that Jesus was the promised one.31
In the early apostolic church, the confession (ἐστιν πάντων κύριος)—(“he is Lord of all”) in Acts 10:36, conveys the core conviction of the lordship of the risen Christ through this parenthetical remark by Luke. It is obvious that the early Christian writers utilized the LXX. Luke was certainly familiar with it. The theological significance to the speech by Peter is that the risen Jesus is become Christ, and, by Christians, is subsequently to be proclaimed as the Lord of all worlds. The gospel of the risen Christ—from the beginning of the Christian tradition–was understood, by implication, to have cosmic significance.
There has been considerable debate about the appearances of the name יהוה in the Pentateuch, primarily because of various theories asserting that the name יהוה was unknown in antiquity. The idea that the name יהוה was revealed here only raises the question of how God was known earlier. God is not a name but rather a concept. אל שדי (el shaddai) is used only a few times in Genesis. Israel would not have had a nameless deity–especially since Genesis says that from the very beginning people were making proclamation of, and erecting altars in the name of יהוה (Gen 4:26; 12:8). It is possible that they did not always need a name if they were convinced that there was only יהוה and there were no other gods.
Probably what Moses was anticipating was the Israelites’ needing assurance that he came to them with a message from their God and that some sign would serve as verification of the fact that the presence of יהוה was indeed with them. They would have known the Name and they would have known the ways in which יהוה had been manifested. It would have done no good for Moses to come to the people with a new name for God for that would be like introducing them to a new god. It would in no way authenticate to them Moses’s call, only confuse; after all, they would not be expecting a new name since they had been praying to their God all along. They would want to be assured that their God actually had sent Moses to lead them.
To satisfy the Israelites Moses would had to have been familiar with the name יהוה—if nothing more than to convey to them the reality of the divine presence among them; that this indeed was the self-revealing God who had appeared to him in the Exodus 3 theophany. They would also have wanted to know if יהוה had sent Moses
