Tod

[Tod]
Back to the original point. Above, I had said you hadn't given good reason to believe that the verse in Exodus 6:3 was "enigmatic." This was in response to what seemed like claims from you that Exodus 6:3 was too "enigmatic" to accept the translation in the "extant translations," and that an alternate, presumably equally valid interpretation exist. I have not seen this nebulous and increasingly vague alternate translation. Since it is not in the "extant" texts, and those are all we have, then I fail to see how you could possibly support your case.

[Sheshbazzar]
A few minuits of using the "search" function (Google) for "Exodus 6:3 enigmatic The Name" brought up more than a few entries, one interesting site relevant to our ongoing dialog is;
"IBRI Research Report #29 Exodus 6:3 and Patriachal Knowledge of the Name YHWH"
Respectfully, Sheshbazzar

Well it would have been nice had you provided the link rather than force me to have to find it. A search for "Exodus 6:3 enigmatic The Name" gave me a lot of irrelevant stuff. Here is what you refer to.

First of all, remember when you asked me if I granted that this verse had two interpretations? I replied: Do some people interpret it otherwise? Sure, but only, so far as I've ever seen, only to avoid a contradiction.

This source you provide is an obvious case of this. The author states:

Exodus 6:3 has held an important place in such arguments. De Wette cited Ex 6:3 as proof that in the E document, "God is not recognized as Jehovah, therefore the name does not occur."1 More recently, but in the same well-worn rut, E. A. Speiser has cited Ex 6:3 as explicit testimony to the validity of the methods which gave rise to this theory:

The Pentateuch itself lends a measure of credibility to this argument from divine appellations. For Exod vi 3 (P) states explicitly, and Exod iii 14 (E) indirectly, that the personal name Yahweh [= DeWette's Jehovah] was not employed prior to the time of Moses; what this adds up to is that the use of the name Yahweh had been unfamiliar to these two sources [E and P] until then. This lends circumstantial confirmation to the hypothesis of the composite character of the Pentateuch, since the frequent occurrence of the term Yahweh in Genesis would otherwise involve the two passages in Exodus in outright contradiction of inescapable facts.

As you can see in the bold highlighted segment, the author concedes that the motivation for this alternate interpretation is to avoid contradiction. It must mean something else you see, because otherwise there'd be a contradiction. Ho-hum... I don't find such reasoning compelling.

The argument provided was not convincing in the least, and amounted to little more than hebrew-laden special pleading: a could've/should've hypothesis. Most of it worked under the assumption that the contradiction if interpreted as stated lied in the general use of YHWH in Genesis. That is a faulty assumption to begin with, as the only contradiction is with Gen. 22:14.

Your source goes on to say:

The traditional translation of Ex 6:3 is: "... and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by My name, LORD [YHWH], I did not make Myself known to them." We propose instead the following translation, which involves reading the preposition wl in place of the negative particle al: "... and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai; but as for My name YHWH, by it I had been known to them." In more idiomatic English, this could be rendered, "When I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai, I was already known to them by my name YHWH....The confusion of al for wl is very easy, especially before verbs, just as wl is often confused for al after verbs which take the preposition.

So for this interpretation to be correct, we have to assume that originally the preposition wl was used, and somewhere along the way it was "confused" for al. What evidence exist that the originals included wl instead of al? None, zip, nadda... Could've/Should've... We don't have any copies that use "wl" instead of "al," making this idle speculation that is being engaged in only to avoid contradiction, and not because it is the most obvious interpretation.

The change involved in your source's alternate interpretation culminates to this monstrosity:

I am YHWH. When I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai, I was already known to them by My name YHWH. Furthermore, I set up a covenant... And furthermore, it is I [yna, that is, hwhy] who have heard... And I remembered My covenant. Therefore say to the children of Israel, "I am YHWH, and I will bring you forth... and I will take you for My people and I will become your God, and you shall know that I am YHWH your God"... I am YHWH.

From this:

... and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them.

Pretty strained stuff. It isn't very convincing.

Sheshbazzar

Tod, I've reread all of your posts in this thread, and I must admit here, I am puzzled as to what it is that you believe, or do not believe, so indepenent of a long ongoing disputation, would you please tell me what it is that you do believe about this in simple straight forward words,
Did Abraham call "the name of that place Yaweh-yireh"? Gen. 22:14
Because your posts seem to imply you accept the verse as valid, yet your argumentation seems to reject the premise as invalid.
Thanks Shesh.

Tod

I see no room for being puzzled. I believe that Exodus 6:3 contradicts Gen. 22:14. That's pretty straightforward stuff.

Do I believe Abraham called this place "Yahweh-yireh"? Hell, I don't know that Abraham was even a real person. I neither believe nor disbelieve that Abraham REALLY named this place anything, or that Abraham actually existed for that matter. Genesis 22:14 says he did name this place Yahweh-yireh, however. Exodus 6:3 says that Abraham didn't know Yahweh's name, so he couldn't name the place using Yahweh's name.

What I believe is kinda irrelevant, save only my belief that the Bible contains inconsistencies. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible, nothing more.

Amlodhi

Hello Tod & Sheshbazzar,

And in case there is still confusion as to my contention, it is fairly well represented in the linked quote which Tod posted:

As I said in a previous post, Ex. 6:3 is one indication that the pentateuch is a compilation of the writings of multiple authors with a likely additional redaction inserting "YHWH" into some places which originally presented only "Elohim".

IOW, it is unlikely that a single author would have included such an apparently contradictory statement.

Those who intend to argue that Ex. 6:3 is simply being mistranslated should stand ready to provide that which they consider to be the "correct" translation.

Although the contention that the verse is simply "mistranslated" was asserted long ago, no reasonable alternative was ever presented; with the exception of the purely speculative "mis-copied negative particle" suggestion only recently provided in the linked information.


Namaste'

Amlodhi