YAHWEH ‫יהוה‬

I. Yahweh is the name of the official god of Israel, both in the northern kingdom and in Judah.
Since the Achaemenid period, religious scruples led to the custom of not pronoucing the name of
Yahweh; in the liturgy as well as in everyday life, such expressions as ‘the →Lord’ (ʾădōnāy, lit. ‘my Lord’,
LXX κύριος) or ‘the →Name’ were substituted for it. As a matter of consequence, the correct
pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was gradually lost: the Masoretic form ‘Jehovah’ is in reality a
combination of the consonants of the tetragrammaton with the vocals of ʾădōnāy, the ḥaṭēf pataḥ of
ʾădōnāy becoming a mere shewa because of the yodh of yhwh (ALFRINK 1948). The transcription
‘Yahweh’ is a scholarly convention, based on such Greek transcriptions as Ιαουε/ Ιαουαι (Clement of
Alexandria, Stromata 5, 6, 34, 5), Ιαβε/ Ιαβαι (Epiphanius of Salamis, Adv. Haer. 1, 3, 40, 5 and
Theodoretus of Cyrrhus, Quaest. in Ex. XV; Haer. fab. comp. 5, 3).

The form Yahweh (yhwh) has been established as primitive; abbreviations such as Yah, Yahû, Yô, and
Yehô are secondary (CROSS 1973:61). The abbreviated (or hypocoristic) forms of the name betray
regional predilections: thus Yw (‘Yau’ in Neo-Assyrian sources) is especially found in a North-Israelite
context; Yh, on the other hand, is predominantly Judaean (cf. WEIPPERT 1980:247–248). The alleged
attestation of Yw as an onomastic element on an arrowhead dated to the 11th cent. BCE on the basis of
its script (F. M. CROSS, An Inscribed Arrowhead of the Eleventh Century BCE in the Bible Lands Museum
in Jerusalem, ErIsr 23 [2992] 21*–26*, esp. n. 3), still maintained by J. C. DE MOOR (The Rise of Yahwism
[2nd ed.; Leuven 1997] 165–166), is uncertain on epigraphical grounds (P. BORDREUIL, Flèches
pheniciennes inscrites, RB 99 [1992] 208; A. LEMAIRE, Epigraphic palestinienne: nouveaux documents II-
décennie 1985–1995, Henoch 17 [1996] 211). The form Yhw is said to be originally Judaean (WEIPPERT
1980: 247), but its occurrence in the northern wayfarer’s station of Kuntillet ʿAjrud shows that it was not
unknown among Northern Israelites either. In the frequently attested Nabataean personal name
ʿbdʾhyw (variant ʿbdʾhy), the element ʾhyw (ʾhy) has been interpreted as a spelling of the divine name
Yahweh (M. LIDZBARSKI, ESE 3 [1915] 270 n. 1); it is not certain whether it is a theonym or an
anthroponym, though, and a connection with the tetragrammaton is unproven (KNAUF 1984). It is
unclear whether an allegedly northern Syrian deity Ιευώ (Porphyry, Adv. Christ. fr. 41, apud Eusebius,
Praep. Ev. I, 9, 21; cf. Ιαώ in Theodoretus, Graec. aff. cur. II 44–45 and Macrobius, Sat. I 18–20) is related

to the god Yahweh. In the Mishna, the divine name is usually written ‫ יי‬in combination with šĕwāʾ and
qāmeṣ (WALKER 1951).

II. The cult of Yahweh is not originally at home in Palestine. Outside Israel, Yahweh was not
worshipped in the West-Semitic world—despite affirmations to the contrary (pace, e.g. G. GARBINI,
History and Ideology in Ancient Israel [London & New York 1988] 52–65). Before 1200 BCE, the name
Yahweh is not found in any Semitic text. The stir caused by PETTINATO (e.g. Ebla and the Bible, BA 43
[1980] 203–216, esp. 203–205) who claimed to have found the shortened form of the name Yahweh
(‘Ya’) as a divine element in theophoric names from Ebla (ca. 2400–2250 BCE) is unfounded. As the final
element of personal names, -ya is often a hypocoristic ending, not a theonym (A. ARCHI, The Epigraphic

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
Evidence from Ebla and the Old Testament, Bib 60 (1979) 556–566, esp. 556–560). MÜLLER argues that
the sign NI, read yà by Pettinato, is conventionally short for NI-NI = ı̀-lɩ́, ‘my (personal) god’; it stands for ilı̄
or ilu (MÜLLER 1980:83; 1981:306–307). This solution also explains the occurrence of the speculated
element *ya at the beginning of personal names; thus dyà-ra-mu should be read either as DINGIR-lɩ́-ra-mu
or as dilix-ra-mu, both readings yielding the name Iliramu, ‘My god is exalted’. In no list of gods or
offerings is the mysterious god *Ya ever mentioned; his cult at Ebla is a chimera.

Yahweh was not known at Ugarit either; the singular name Yw (vocalisation unknown) in a damaged
passage of the Baal Cycle (KTU 1.1 iv:14) cannot convincingly be interpreted as an abbreviation for
‘Yahweh’ (pace, e.g., DE MOOR 1990:113–118). Also after 1200 BCE, Yahweh is seldom mentioned in non-
Israelite texts. The assertion that “Yahweh was worshipped as a major god” in North Syria in the eighth
century BCE (S. DALLEY, Yahweh in Hamath in the 8th century BC, VT 40 [1990] 21–32, quotation p 29),
cannot be maintained. The claim is based on the names Azriyau and Yaubiʾdi, attested as indigenous
rulers from north Syrian states in the 8th cent. BCE. The explanation of these names offered by Dalley is
highly dubious; more satisfactory interpretations are possible (VAN DER TOORN 1992:88–90).

The earliest West Semitic text mentioning Yahweh—excepting the biblical evidence—is the Victory
Stela written by Mesha, the Moabite king from the 9th century BCE. The Moabite ruler recalls his military
successes against Israel in the time of Ahab: “And →Chemosh said to me, ‘Go, take Nebo from Israel!’ So
I went by night and I engaged in fight against her from the break of dawn until noon. And I took her and I
killed her entire population: seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid servants, for I devoted
her to destruction (hḥrmth) for Ashtar-Chemosh. And I took from there the ʾ[rʾ]ly of Yahweh and I
dragged them before Chemosh” (KAI 181:14–18). Evidently, Yahweh is not presented here as a Moabite
deity. He is presented as the official god of the Israelites, worshipped throughout Samaria, as far as its

outer borders since Nebo (‫ נבה‬in the Mesha Stela, ‫ נבו‬in the Bible), situated in North-Western Moab,
was a border town.

The absence of references to a Syrian or Palestinian cult of Yahweh outside Israel suggests that the
god does not belong to the traditional circle of West Semitic deities. The origins of his veneration must
be sought for elsewhere. A number of texts suggest that Yahweh was worshipped in southern Edom and
Midian before his cult spread to Palestine. There are two Egyptian texts that mention Yahweh. In these
texts from the 14th and 13th centuries BCE, Yahweh is neither connected with the Israelites, nor is his
cult located in Palestine. The texts speak about “Yahu in the land of the Shosu-beduins” (tʒ šʒśw jhwʒ; R.
GIVEON, Les bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens [Leiden 1971] no. 6a [pp. 26–28] and no. 16a [pp.
74–77]; note WEIPPERT 1974:427, 430 for the corrected reading). The one text is from the reign of
Amenophis III (first part of the 14th cent. BCE; cf. HERMANN 1967) and the other from the reign of Ramses
II (13th cent. BCE; cf. H. W. FAIRMAN, Preliminary Report on the Excavations at ʿAmārah West, Anglo-
Egyptian Sudan, 1938–9, JEA 25 [1939] 139–144, esp. 141). In the Ramses II list, the name occurs in a
context which also mentions Seir (assuming that sʿrr stands for Seir). It may be tentatively concluded
that this “Yahu in the land of the Shosu-beduins” is to be situated in the area of Edom and Midian
(WEIPPERT 1974: 271; AXELSSON 1987:60; pace WEINFELD 1987:304).

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
 In these Egyptian texts Yhw is used as a toponym (KNAUF 1988:46–47). Yet a relationship with the
deity by the same name is a reasonable assumption (pace M. WEIPPERT, “Heiliger Krieg” in Israel und
Assyrien, ZAW 84 [1972] 460–493, esp. 491 n. 144); whether the god took his name from the region or
vice versa remains undecided (note that R. GIVEON, “The Cities of Our God” (2 Sam 10:12), JBL 83 [1964]
415–416, suggests that the name is short for *Beth-Yahweh, which would compare with the alternance
between →Baal-meon and Beth-Baal-meon). By the 14th century BCE, before the cult of Yahweh had
reached Israel, groups of Edomite and Midianite nomads worshipped Yahweh as their god. These data
converge with a northern tradition, found in a number of ancient theophany texts, according to which
Yahweh came from →Edom and Seir (Judg 5:4; note the correction in Ps 68:8[7]). According to the
Blessing of Moses Yahweh came from Sinai, “dawned from” Seir, and “shone forth” from Mount Paran
(Deut 33:2). Elsewhere he is said to have come from Teman and Mount Paran (Hab 3:3). The references
to “Yahweh of Teman” in the Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions are extra-biblical confirmation of the
topographical connection (M. WEINFELD, Kuntillet ʿAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance, SEL 1 [1984]
121–130, esp. 125, 126). All of these places—Seir, Mt Paran, Teman, and Sinai—are in or near Edom.

If Yahweh was at home in the south, then, how did he make his way to the north? According to a
widely accepted theory, the Kenites were the mediators of the Yahwistic cult. One of the first to advance
the Kenite hypothesis was the Dutch historian of religion Cornelis P. Tiele. In 1872 TIELE characterized
Yahweh historically as “the god of the desert, worshipped by the Kenites and their close relatives before
the Israelites” (Vergelijkende geschiedenis van de Egyptische en Mesopotamische godsdiensten
[Amsterdam 1872] 559). The idea was adopted and elaborated by B. STADE (Geschichte des Volkes Israels
[1887] 130–131), and it gained considerable support ever since, also among modern scholars (see, e.g.,
A. J. WENSINCK, De oorsprongen van het Jahwisme, Semietische Studiën uit de nalatenschap van Prof. Dr.
A. J. Wensinck [Leiden 1941] 23–50; B. D. EERDMANS, Religion of Israel [Leiden 1947] 15–19; H. H. ROWLEY,
From Joseph to Joshua [London 1950] 149–160; A. H. J. GUNNEWEG, Mose in Midian, ZTK 60 [1964] 1–9;
W. H. SCHMIDT, Exodus, Sinai, Wüste (Darmstadt 1983) 110–118; WEINFELD 1987; METTINGER 1990:408–
409). In its classical form the hypothesis assumes that the Israelites became acquainted with the cult of
Yahweh through Moses. Moses’ father-in-law—Hobab, according to an old tradition (Judg 1:16; 4:11; cf.
Num 10:29)—was a Midianite priest (Exod 2:16; 3:1; 18:1) who worshipped Yahweh (see e.g. Exod
18:10–12). He belonged to the Kenites (Judg 1:16; 4:11), a branch of the Midianites (H. H. ROWLEY, From
Joseph to Joshua [London 1950] 152–153). By way of Hobab and Moses, then, the Kenites were the
mediators of the cult of Yahweh.

The strength of the Kenite hypothesis is the link it establishes between different but converging sets
of data: the absence of Yahweh from West-Semitic epigraphy; Yahweh’s topographical link with the area
of Edom (which may be taken to include the territory of the Midianites); the ‘Kenite’ affiliation of Moses;
and the positive evaluation of the Kenites in the Bible. A major flaw in the classical Kenite hypothesis,
however, is its disregard for the ‘Canaanite’ origins of Israel. The view that, under the influence of
Moses, the Israelites became Yahwists during their journey through the desert, and then brought their
newly acquired religion to the Palestinian soil, neglects the fact that the majority of the Israelites were
firmly rooted in Palestine. The historical role of Moses, moreover, is highly problematic. It seems more
prudent not to put too much weight on the figure of Moses. It is only in later tradition that he came to

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
be regarded as the legendary ancestor of the Levitical priests and a symbol of the ‘Yahweh-alone’
movement; his real importance remains uncertain.

If the Kenite hypothesis is to be maintained, then, it is only in a modified form. Though it is highly
plausible that the Kenites (and the Midianites and the Rechabites may be mentioned in the same
breath) introduced Israel to the worship of Yahweh, it is unlikely that they did so outside the borders of
Palestine. Both Kenites and Rechabites are mentioned as dwelling in North Israel at an early stage; so
are the Gibeonites, who are ethnically related to the Edomites (J. BLENKINSOPP, Gibeon and Israel
[Cambridge 1972] 14–27). Some of these groups were not permanent residents of North Israel; they
came there as traders. Already in Gen 37:28 Midianite traders are mentioned as being active between
Palestine and Egypt (KNAUF 1988:27). If Yahwism did indeed originate with Midianites or Kenites—and
the evidence seems to point in that direction—it may have been brought to Transjordan and Central
Palestine by traders along the caravan routes from the south to the east (J. D. SCHLOEN, Caravans,
Kenites, and Casus belli, CBQ 55 [1993] 18–38, esp. p 36).

III. Explanations of the name Yahweh must assume that, except for the vocalisation, the
traditional form is the correct one. The hypothesis which says that there were originally two divine
names, viz. Yāhū and Yahweh, the former being the older one (MAYER 1958:34), is now generally
abandoned in light of the epigraphic evidence (CROSS 1973:61; pace KLAWEK 1990:12). The significance of
the name Yahweh has been the subject of a staggering amount of publications (for an impression see
MAYER 1958). This “monumental witness to the industry and ingenuity of biblical scholars” (CROSS
1973:60) is hardly in proportion to the limited importance of the issue. Even if the meaning of the name
could be established beyond reasonable doubt, it would contribute little to the understanding of the
nature of the god. The caution against overestimating etymologies, voiced most eloquently by James
Barr, holds good for divine names as well. From a perspective of the history of religion, it is much more
important to know the characteristics which worshippers associated with their god, than the original
meaning of the latter’s name. Having said that, however, the question of the etymology of Yahweh
cannot be simply dismissed. The following observations are in order.

In spite of isolated attempts to take yhwh as a pronominal form, meaning ‘Yea He!’ (from *ya huwa,
S. MOWINCKEL, HUCA 32 [1958] 121–133) or ‘My One’ (cf. Akk yaʾu, H. CAZELLES, Der persönliche Gott
Abrahams, Der Weg zum MenschenFS A. Deissler [ed. R. Mosis & L. Ruppert; Freiburg 1989] 59–60), it is
widely agreed that the name represents a verbal form. With the preformative yod, yhwh is a finite
verbal form to be analysed as a 3rd masc. sing. imperfect. Analogous finite verbal forms used as
theonyms are attested for the religion of pre-Islamic Arabs. Examples include the gods →Yaʿūq (‘he
protects’, WbMyth I 479) and Yaǵūṯ (‘he helps’, WbMyth I 478). Much earlier are the Akkadian and
Amorite instances of verbal forms used as divine names: dIkšudum (‘He has reached’, ARM 13 no. 111:6)
and Ešuḫ (‘He has been victorious’, H. B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts [Baltimore
1965] 215) are just two examples (CROSS 1973: 67). Morphologically, then, the name Yahweh is not
without parallels.

The interpretation of the theonym as a finite verb is already found in Exod 3:14. In reply to Moses’
question of what he is to say to the Israelites when they ask him which god sent him, God says: “I AM
Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
WHO I AM”, and he adds: “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you’ ”. The explanation
here offered is a sophisticated play based on association: the root HWH is understood as a by-form of
HYH, ‘to be’ and the prefix of the third person is understood as a secondary objectivation of a first
person: yhwh is thus interpreted as ʾhyh, ‘I am’. Since the significance of such a name is elusive, the
reconstructed name is itself the subject of a further interpretation in the phrase ʾehyeh ʾăšer ʾehyeh, ‘I
am who I am’. Its meaning is debated. Should one understand it as a promise (‘I will certainly be there’)
or as an allusion to the incomparability of Yahweh (‘I am who I am’, i.e. without peer)? Even in the
revelation of his name, Yahweh does not surrender himself: He cannot be captured by means of either
an image or a name. The Greek translation ὁ ὤν (LXX) has philosophical overtones: it is at the basis of a
profound speculation on the eternity and immutability of God—both of them ideas originally
unconnected with the name Yahweh.

Since the Israelite explanation is evidently a piece of theology rather than a reliable etymology, it
cannot be accepted as the last word on the matter. Comparative material from Akkadian sources has
been used to make a case for the thesis that *yahweh is in fact an abbreviated sentence name. Among
Amorite personal names, there are a number in which a finite form of the root HWY (‘to be, to manifest
oneself’) is coupled with a theonym. Examples are Yaḫwi-ilum, Yaḫwi-Adad (ARM 23, 86:7), and
Ya(ḫ)wium (= Iaḫwi-ilum, e.g. ARM 23, 448:13). These Amorite names are the semantic equivalent of the
Akkadian name Ibašši-ilum (‘God has manifested himself’). The objection that these are all
anthroponyms, whereas Yahweh is a theonym, is not decisive. Cuneiform texts also recognize a number
of gods whose names are in fact a finite verbal form with a deity as subject: dIkrub-Il (‘El has blessed’)
and dIšmêlum (= *Išme-ilum, ‘God has heard’) can be quoted in illustration. STOL has made a strong case
for regarding these names as those of deified ancestors (M. STOL, Old Babylonian Personal Names, SEL 8
[1991] 191–212, esp. 203–205).

Some scholars believe that Yahweh, too, is the abbreviated name of a deified ancestor. Thus DE
MOOR construes the original name of the deity as *Yahweh-El, ‘May El be present (as helper)’
(1990:237–239). In support of this speculated form he adduces the name Jacob (Yaʿăqōb), which is short
for Yʿqb-ʾl, ‘May El follow him closely’ (cf. Yaḫqub-el, H. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari
Texts [Baltimore 1965] 203–204; S. AḤITUV, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents
[Jerusalem 1984] 200), and such names as Yaḫwi-Ilu in Mari texts. DE MOOR draws the conclusion that
originally Yahweh was “probably the divine ancestor of one of the proto-Israelite tribes” (1990:244). Yet
though theoretically possible, it is difficult to believe that the major Israelite deity, venerated in a cult
that was imported into Palestine, was originally a deified ancestor. Though such gods are known, they
are never found in a leading position in the pantheon. Their worship tends to remain local, as an
ancestor is of necessity the ancestor of a restricted group.

There are admittedly ancient Near Eastern deities with a composite name who never were
ancestors. Examples include rkbʾl (traditionally vocalized as →Rakib-el) from Samʾal (KAI 24:16), and
Malakbel, ʿAglibol, and Yarhibol from Palmyra. Morphologically, however, these names do not compare
with a speculated *yahweh-DN, since the first component of the name is a substantive. The names just
mentioned are best interpreted as ‘Charioteer of El’ (cf. TSSI II 70), ‘Messenger of Bel’, ‘Calf of Bol’, and
‘Lord of the Source’ (cf. J. HOFTIJZER, Religio aramaica [Leiden 1968] 32–38; for the interpretation of the
Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
name Yarhibol, cf. Akk yarḥu, ‘water hole, pond’, CAD I/J 325), respectively. In addition to the
morphological difference with a hypothetical *yahweh-DN, Rakib-el and his likes are names of
subordinate deities; there is no example of such gods heading the pantheon.

Related to the thesis that *yahweh is an abbreviated theonym is the suggestion that it is an
abbreviation of a liturgical formula. The solution proposed by CROSS is an example. He speculates that
the longer form of ‘Yahweh’ is extant in the title →Yahweh Zabaoth. The ṣĕbāʾôt (transcribed as Zabaoth
in many English Bible translations) are the →host of heaven, i.e. the council of the gods. The name
Yahweh Zabaoth is itself short for *Ḏu yahwı̄ ṣabaʾōt, ‘He who creates the (heavenly) armies’, according
to CROSS (1973:70). Since in his view this is in fact a title of El, the full name might be reconstructed as
*Il-ḏu-yahwı̄-ṣabaʾôt. The analysis of Cross goes back to his teacher W. F. Albright (W. F. ALBRIGHT, review
of B. N. Wambacq, L’épithète divine Jahvé Sebaʾôt, JBL 67 (1948) 377–381). D. N. FREEDMAN quotes from
Albright’s notes for an unpublished History of the Religion of Israel listing a number of reconstructed cult
names such as *ʾēl yahweh yiśrāʾēl, ‘El-creates-Israel’ (on the basis of Gen 33:20) and *ʾēl yahweh rûḥôt,
‘El-creates-the-winds’ (FREEDMAN et al. 1977–82:547). Instead of a reconstructed form *yahweh-ʾel, then,
Albright reckons with a form *ʾEl-yahweh—which could be complemented by various objects. DIJKSTRA,
too, argues that the original form is El Yahweh, ‘El who reveals himself’—a form still reflected in such
texts as Ps 118:27 (M. DIJKSTRA, Yahweh-El or El-Yahweh?, “Dort ziehen Schiffe dahin …”: collected
communications to the XIVth congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old
Testament [BEATAJ 28; ed. M. Augustin & K.-D. Schunk; Frankfurt am Main etc. 1996] 43–52).

Leaving aside for the moment the problem implied in the identification of Yahweh with El, the
interpretation of Yahweh as an abbreviated sentence name (and possibly a liturgical formula) is not
without difficulties. Since the idea that a human ancestor could rise to the position of national god flies
in the face of the comparative evidence, a presumed El-Yahweh or Yahweh-El must of necessity be a
divine name followed or preceded by a verbal form characterizing the deity. By implication, then, the
proper name of the god has been replaced in the Israelite tradition by a verb denoting one of his
characteristic activities. Such a process is unparalleled in ancient Near Eastern religions—unless one
considers such Arab deities as Yâūq and Yaǵūṯ, epithets of another deity, which would suggest a South
Semitic rather than a West Semitic background for Yahweh. Isolated verbal forms such as proper names,
however, are not uncommon in the Semitic world, as witnessed by e.g. the name *Yagrušu of Baal’s
weapon. Solving the enigma of the tetragrammaton by positing another divine name is really a last
option. A solution which explains the name in the form it has come down to us is to be preferred.

A problem hitherto unmentioned is the identification of the root lying at the basis of the form yhwh,
and that of its meaning. Though some have suggested a link with the root ḤWY, resulting in the
translation ‘the Destroyer’ (e.g. H. GRESSMANN, Mose und seine Zeit [Göttingen 1913] 37), it is generally
held that the name should be connected with the Semitic root HWY. Also scholars who do not regard the
tetragrammaton as an abbreviated theonym usually follow the Israelite interpretation insofar they
interpret Yahweh as a form of the verb ‘to be’; opinions diverge as to whether the form is basic or
causative, i.e. a Qal or a Hiphʾil. The one school interprets ‘He is’, i.e. ‘He manifests himself as present’,
whereas the other argues in favour of a causative meaning: ‘He causes to be, calls into existence’. The
first interpretation has an exponent in VON SODEN. Adducing comparative material from Akkadian
Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
sources, he urges that the verb should be taken in its stronger sense ‘to prove oneself, to manifest
oneself, to reveal oneself’ (VON SODEN 1966). A representative of the second school is ALBRIGHT. He takes
*yahweh as a causative imperfect of the verb HWY, ‘to be’. Yahweh, then, is a god who ‘causes to be’ or
‘brings into being’. In this form, the verb is normally transitive (W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan [London 1968] 147–149).

A major difficulty with the explanations of the name Yahweh on the basis of HWY interpreted as ‘to
be’, however, is the fact that they explain the name of a South Semitic deity (originating from Edom, or
even further south) with the help of a West-Semitic etymology (KNAUF 1984a:469). The form of the
name has the closest analogues in the pre-Islamic Arab pantheon; it is natural, therefore, to look first at
the possibility of an explanation on the basis of the Arabic etymology. The relevant root HWY has three
meanings in Arabic: 1. to desire, be passionate; 2. to fall; 3. to blow. All three have been called upon for
a satisfactory explanation of the name Yahweh. The derivation of the name Yahweh from the meaning
‘to love, to be passionate’, which resulted in the translation of Yahweh as ‘the Passionate’ (GOITEIN 1956)
has made no impact on OT scholarship. Hardly more successful was the suggestion that Yahweh is ‘the
Speaker’, also based on the link of the name with the root HWY (cf. Akk awû, atmû; BOWMAN 1944:4–5).

A greater degree of plausibility attaches to those interpretations of the name Yahweh which identify
him as a storm god. Thus the name has been connected with the meaning ‘to fall’ (also attested in
Syriac), in which case the verbal form is seen as a causative (‘He who causes to fall’, scil. rain, lightning,
or the enemies by means of his lightning, see BDB 218a). Another suggestion is to link the name with the
meaning ‘to blow’, said of the wind (cf. Syr hawwē, ‘wind’). This leads to the translation “er fährt durch
die Lüfte, er weht” (J. WELLHAUSEN, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte [3rd ed.; Berlin 1897] 25 note 1;
KNAUF 1984a:469; 1988:43–48). Especially the latter possibility merits serious consideration. In view of
the south-eastern origins of the cult of Yahweh, an Arabic etymology has a certain likelihood. Also, his
presumed character as a storm god contributes to explain why Yahweh could assume various of Baal’s
mythological exploits.

The interpretation of the name of Yahweh is not entirely devoid of meaning, then, when it comes to
establishing his character. If yhwh does indeed mean ‘He blows’, Yahweh is originally a storm god. Since
Baal (originally an epitheton of →Hadad) is of the same type, the relationship between Yahweh and Baal
deserves to be analyzed more closely. In the Monarchic Era, Baal (i.e. the Baal cult) was a serious rival of
Yahweh. The competition between the two gods (that is, between their respective priesthoods and
prophets) was especially fierce since the promotion of the cult of the Tyrian Baal by the Omrides.
Because there was no entente between Yahweh and Baal, Yahweh could hardly have inherited traits of a
storm god from Baal. Inheritance is too peaceful a process. Yahweh’s ‘Baalistic’ traits have a dual origin:
some are his of old because he is himself a storm god, whereas others have been appropriated—or
should we say confiscated—by him. Examples of the latter include the designation of Mount →Zion as
‘the recesses of →Zaphon’ (Ps 48:3), the motif of Yahweh’s victory over Yam (→Sea; for a thorough
study see J. DAY, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of A Canaanite myth in the Old
Testament [Cambridge 1985]) and →Mot (W. HERRMANN, Jahwes Triumph über Mot, UF 11 [1979] 371–
377), and the Baal epithet of →‘Rider upon the Clouds’.

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
 Owing to the emphasis on the conflict between Yahweh and Baal, it is insufficiently realized that
Yahweh himself, too, is “a deity who is originally conceived in the categories of the Hadad type”
(METTINGER 1990:410). According to the theophany texts, the earth trembles, clouds drop water, and
mountains quake at the appearance of Yahweh (Judg 5:4–5). Though such a response of the elements to
Yahweh’s manifestation need not imply that he is a storm-god, the latter hypothesis offers the most
natural explanation. When Yahweh comes to the rescue of his beloved, he is hidden all around by
darkness, thick clouds dark with water being his canopy (Ps 18:12[11]). As he lifts his voice the thunder
resounds (Ps 18:14[13]). Like Baal, Yahweh is perceived as ‘a god of the mountains’ (1 Kgs 20:23), a
characterization presumably triggered by the association of the weather-god with clouds hovering
above the mountain tops.

Though few scholars would contest the fact that Yahweh has certain traits normally ascribed to Baal,
it is often argued that originally he was much more like El than like Baal. In the patriarchal narratives of
Genesis, El names such as →El Olam and →El Elyon are frequently used as epithets of Yahweh. Various
scholars have drawn the conclusion that El and Yahweh were identified at a rather early stage. This
identification is sometimes explained by assuming that Yahweh is originally an El figure (thus, e.g. H.
NIEHR, Der höchste Gott [BZAW 190; Berlin/New York 1990] 4–5). CROSS has argued that Yahweh is
originally a hypocoristicon of a liturgical title of El. Yahweh Zabaoth, allegedly meaning ‘He who calls the
heavenly armies into being’, is not a name but an epithet. According to CROSS, the god to whom it
applies in the first place is El, since El is known in the Ugaritic texts as the father of the gods. The latter
are conventionally referred to as ‘the sons of El’ (CROSS 1973). DE MOOR, who also holds that Yahweh is
an abbreviated sentence name originally belonging to a human being, links Yahweh with El as well.
Though *Yahweh-El was the name of an ancestor, the deified ancestor was also “an aspect of El” (DE
MOOR 1990:244). In order to solve the apparent contradiction, DE MOOR explains that the deified kings of
Ugarit, who ‘joined’ (šrk, KTU 1.15 v:17) El at their death, merged with the god (1990:242).

Speculations about the original identity of Yahweh with El need to be critically examined, however.
There are problems concerning both the nature of the identification, and the divine type to which
Yahweh belongs. It is insufficiently realised that, at the beginning of the Iron Age, El’s role had become
largely nominal. The process of El’s retreat in favour of Dagan (the major god at Ebla in the late third
millennium) and later Baal (the major god at Ugarit in the middle of the second millennium) had long
been under way. By the beginning of the Iron Age, the cult of El survived in some border zones of the
Near East. In most regions, however, including Palestine, El’s career as a living god (i.e. as a cultic reality
and an object of actual devotion) had ended; he survived in such expressions as ʿdt-ʾl (‘the council of El’)
and bny-ʾl (‘sons of El’, i.e. gods), but this was a survival only in name. This fact explains why there are no
traces of polemics against El in the Hebrew Bible. It can therefore be argued that the smooth
identification of El as Yahweh was based, not on an identity of character, but on El’s decay. His name
was increasingly used either as a generic noun meaning ‘god’ or, more specifically, as a designation of
the personal god. In both cases, Yahweh could be called ʾēl (on the identification of Yahweh and El see
VAN DER TOORN 1996:320–328).

Along with the name, Yahweh inherited various traits of El. One of them is divine eternity. Ugaritic
texts call El the ‘father of years’ (ab šnm) and depict him as a bearded patriarch; Yahweh, on the other
Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
hand, is called the →‘Ancient of days’, and also is wearing a beard (Dan 7:9–14, 22). Like El, Yahweh
presides over the →council of the gods. Compassion is another common trait: El is said to be
compassionate (dpid), whereas Yahweh is called “merciful and gracious” (Exod 34:6; for these and other
similarities see M. SMITH, The Early History of God [San Francisco 1990] 7–12). In some biblical passages,
the parallels are consciously explored. Thus GREENFIELD has shown that Deut 32:6–7 applies to Yahweh
various motifs and images originally associated with El. El (here Yahweh) is said to be Israel’s ‘father’ and
‘creator’; he is ‘wise’ and ‘eternal’ and has lived for ‘the years of many generations’ (J. C. GREENFIELD, The
Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature, The Literary Guide to the Bible [ed. R. Alter & F. Kermode;
Cambridge, Mass. 1987] 545–560, esp. 554).

An aspect of Yahweh that may be traced back to El, though only with great caution, is his solar
appearance. Even though the theophany texts depict Yahweh primarily as a warrior storm-god, there
are elements in their description which seem to assume that Yahweh is a solar deity. The Psalm of
Habakkuk mentions God’s ‘splendour’ (hôd), and possibly his ‘shine’ (tĕhillâ, v 3); God’s appearance
comes with brightness (nōgah) and rays of light (qarnayim, v 4). Likewise Deut 33:2 speaks about
Yahweh ‘shining forth’ (ZRḤ) and lightning up (YPʿ, hiphil; for the terminology cf. F. SCHNUTENHAUS, Das
Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament, ZAW 76 [1964] 1–22, esp. 8–10). The closest
extrabiblical parallel is found in a Hebrew text from Kuntillet ʿAjrud, in which the mountains are said to
melt when El shines forth (wbzrḥ.ʾl […] wymsn hrm, “when El shines forth […] the mountains melt”; M.
WEINFELD, Kuntillet ʿAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance, SEL 1 [1984] 121–130, esp. 126; S. AḤITUV,
Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions [Jerusalem 1992] 160–162). Also outside the theophany
tradition there is evidence of Yahweh as a solar god. Thus the word ʾôr, →‘light’, is sometimes used as a
divine title (Ps 139:11, cf. J. HOLMAN, Analysis of the Text of Ps 139, BZ 14 [1970] 37–71, esp. 56–58; for
other solar language applied to Yahweh see M. SMITH, The Early History of God [San Francisco 1990]
115–124, Ch. 4: Yahweh and the Sun [but cf. the review by S. B. PARKER, Hebrew Studies 33 (1992) 158–
162]; J. G. TAYLOR, Yahweh and the Sun [Sheffield 1993]).

A further link between El and Yahweh is the identity of their consort. Texts from Kuntillet ʿAjrud and
Khirbet el-Qom refer to Yahweh ‘and his →Asherah’ (wʾšrth). Though several scholars argue that this
‘Asherah’ is merely a cult symbol or a designation for ‘sanctuary’ (cf. Akk aširtu), the interpretation of
the word as a divine name is to be preferred (pace J. A. EMERTON, New Light on Israelite Religion: The
Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud, ZAW 94 [1982] 2–20; see M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ,
Jahweh und seine Aschera [UBL 9; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1992] 82–103). In the light of these data, the

suggestion to emendate ‫ אׁשדת‬in Deut 33:2e into ‫‘( אׁשרת‬and at his right hand Asherah’; H. S.
NYBERG, Deuteronomium 33:2–3, ZDMG 92 [1938] 320–344, esp. 335; see also M. WEINFELD, SEL 1 [1984]
121–130, esp. 124) remains a distinct possibility. Since Asherah is traditionally the consort of El in the
Ugaritic texts, the pairing of Yahweh and Asherah suggests that Yahweh had taken the place of El (cf. M.
DIJKSTRA, El, YHWH, and their Asherah: On Continuity and Discontinuity in Canaanite and Ancient
Israelite Religion, Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient [ALASP 7; ed. M. Dietrich &
O. Loretz; Münster 1995] 43–73, who finds here confirmation for the view that Yahweh is a
particularized form of El).

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
 Under northern influence, Yahweh came also to be paired with →Anat, possibly to be identified with
the →Queen of Heaven mentioned in Jer 7:18; 44:17, 18, 19, 25. Her link with Yahweh is evident from
the name Anat-Yahu, attested in Aramaic texts from the Jewish colony at Elephantine (VAN DER TOORN
1992). Considering the fact that the only other male deities with whom Anat is paired are Baal and
→Bethel (the deified baetylon, cf. also Sikkānu [‘stone stela’, Ug skn], a theonym surviving in the name

Sanchunjathon = ‫)סכניתן‬, no influence from the cult or mythology of El is apparent here.

Though Yahweh was known and worshipped among the Israelites before 1000 BCE, he did not
become the national god until the beginning of the monarchic era. Due to the religious politics of Saul,
Yahweh became the patron deity of the Israelite state (VAN DER TOORN 1993:531–536; 1996:266–286). As
David and Solomon inherited and enlarged Saul’s kingdom, they acknowleged the position of Yahweh as
national god. David brought the ark of Yahweh from Benjamin to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6); Solomon sought
the blessing of Yahweh at the sanctuary of Gibeon, the national temple of the Saulide state (1 Kgs 3:4;
VAN DER TOORN 1993:534–535). Evidence of the predominant role of Yahweh in the official cult during the
Monarchic Era are the theophoric personal names, both the biblical and the epigrapical ones. The divine
name Yahweh is by far the most common theophoric element (J. H. TIGAY, You Shall Have No Other
Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions [Atlanta 1986]; S. I. L. NORIN, Seine Name allein
ist hoch. Das Jhw-haltige Suffix althebräischer Personennamen [Malmö 1986]; J. D. FOWLER, Theophoric
Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew. A Comparative Study [Sheffield 1988]).

The practical monolatry of Yahweh should not be taken for a strict monotheism. Not only did the
Israelites continue to recognize the existence of deities besides Yahweh, they also knew more than one
Yahweh. Though at the mythological level there is only one, the cultic reality reflected a plurality of
Yahweh gods (MCCARTER 1987:139–143). Extrabiblical evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrud mentions a ‘Yahweh
of Samaria’ and a ‘Yahweh of Teman’; it is possible that the two names designate one god, viz. the
official god of the northern kingdom (‘Samaria’, after its capital). Yet the recognition of a northern
Yahweh is mirrored by the the worship of a Yahweh of Hebron and a Yahweh of Zion. Though the
constructions bĕḥebrôn and bĕṣiyyôn are normally translated ‘in Hebron’ and ‘in Zion’, a comparison of
the name Milkashtart (‘Milku of Ashtart’) with the expression mlk bʿṯtrt (‘Milku in Ashart’) suggests that
such expressions as yhwh bĕṣiyyôn (Ps 99:2) and yhwh bĕḥebrôn (2 Sam 15:7) should be understood as
references to local forms of Yahweh (M. L. BARRÉ, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip
V of Macedonia [Baltimore/London 1983] 186 note 473; cf. 1 Sam 5:5 Dāgôn bĕʾašdôd, ‘Dagan of
Ashdod’). The religious situation in early Israel, therefore, was not merely one of polytheism, but also of
poly-Yahwism. The Deuteronomic emphasis on the unity of Yahweh (→One) must be understood against
this background.

IV. Bibliography

L. E. AXELSSON, The Lord Rose up from Seir (ConB OT 25; Lund 1987); B. ALFRINK, La prononciation
‘Jehova’ du Tétragramme, OTS 5 (1948) 43–62; R. A. BOWMAN, Yahweh the Speaker, JNES 3 (1944) 1–8; F.
M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass/London 1973) 44–75 [cf. pp. 60–61 n. 61
for lit.]; M. DAHOOD, The God Yā at Ebla?, JBL 100 (1981) 607–608; O. EISSFELDT, El and Yahweh, JSS 1

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).
(1956) 25–37; D. N. FREEDMAN, M. P. O’CONNOR & H. RINGGREN, ‫ יהוה‬jhwh, TWAT 3 (1977–82) 533–554;
S. D. GOITEIN, YHWH the Passionate, VT 6 (1956) 1–9; R. S. HESS, The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze
Age Sources?, UF 23 (1991[1992]) 181–188; A. KLAWEK, The Name Jahveh in the Light of Most Recent
Discussion, Folia Orientalia 27 (1990) 11–12; E. A. KNAUF, Yahwe, VT 34 (1984a) 467–472; KNAUF, Eine
nabatäische Parallele zum hebräischen Gottesnamen, BN 23 (1984b) 21–28; KNAUF, Midian (Wiesbaden
1988) 43–48; R. MAYER, Der Gottesname Jahwe im Lichte der neuesten Forschung, BZ n.s. 2 (1958) 26–
53; P. K. MCCARTER, Jr., Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data,
Ancient Israelite Religion (FS F. M. Cross; ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson & S. D. McBride; Philadelphia
1987) 137–155; *T. N. D. METTINGER, The Elusive Essence: YHWH, El and Baal and the Distinctiveness of
Israelite Faith, Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (FS R. Rendtorff zum 65.
Geburtstag; ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz & E. W. Stegemann; Neukirchen 1990) 393–417; J. C. DE MOOR, The
Rise of Yahwism (Leuven 1990); H.-P. MÜLLER, Gab es in Ebla einen Gottesnamen Ja?, ZA 70 (1980) 70–
92; MÜLLER, Der Jahwenamen und seine Bedeutung. Ex 3, 14 im Licht der Textpublikationen aus Ebla, Bib
62 (1981) 305–327; A. MURTONEN, The Appearance of the Name yhwh outside Israel (StOr 16/3; Helsinki
1951); M. S. SMITH, Yahweh and other Deities in Ancient Israel: Observations on Problems and recent
Trends, Ein Gott Allein (eds. W. Dietrich & M. A. Klopfenstein; Freiburg/Göttingen 1994) 197–234; W.
VON SODEN, Jahwe, ‘er ist, er erweist sich’, WO 3/3 (1966) 177–187 [reprinted in Bibel und Alter Orient
(ed. H.-P. Müller; BZAW 162; Berlin & New York 1985) 78–88]; K. VAN DER TOORN, Anat-Yahu, Some Other
Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen 39 (1992) 80–101; VAN DER TOORN, Saul and the Rise of
Israelite State Religion, VT 43 (1993) 519–542; VAN DER TOORN, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and
Israel (SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996); N. WALKER, The Writing of the Divine Name in the Mishna, VT 1 (1951)
309–310; M. WEINFELD, The Tribal League at Sinai, Ancient Israelite Religion (FS F. M. Cross; ed. P. D.
Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson & S. D. McBride; Philadelphia 1987) 303–314; M. WEIPPERT, Semitische Nomaden
des zweiten Jahrtausends, Bib 55 [1974] 265–280, 427–433; *WEIPPERT, Jahwe, RLA 5 (1980) 246–253.

K. VAN DER TOORN

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden;
Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999).