The Names and Doctrine of God

R. V. Foster
1884 The Old Testament Student  
This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of
more » ... istence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which W+TB? .-OLD-'TEST EQT ' STUDEQT.* This is the oldest Semitic name of the Divine Being of which we have any knowledge. It is allied to the verb 1XK, to be stronig; and hence among the Semitic nations K, the Mighty One, is the name designating the Semitic conception of deity, or, rather, the gods; the polytheistic notion being if not the primitive, at least a very early, one, and power the dominant idea. It is applied for this purpose in no otherwise than in respect to strength, dominion, power. It was not an abstract notion of existence, nor of immortality, nor love, nor justice, which was apotheosized, but power, and the authority which power implies. It need not be inquired here whence the notion came. It is sufficient to say that the Semitic nations considered it the type or manifestation of a being beyond themselves, and accordingly they named it tR, and worshipped it. Or it may have been a mutilated and distorted form of the doctrine'of the Divine Being transmitted to them from the beginning. ,NM is supposed to be only an etymological development of '., the original sense, therefore, being that of power. Thus, Gesenius, Ewald, Fuerst, and others. Another view regards it as a distinct word, and makes its root meaning to be terror, in which case ntK is the Being who inspires terror. But as this may be most easily conceived to be done by a manifestation of power, it may be said that the idea of power still subjectively inheres in ;riLN. It is found both inside and outside of the sphere of revelation. Dt', R also denotes might or power. It is found in none of the Semitic languages except the Hebrew. It is generally believed to have been invented by the Hebrews to express the infinite fullness of the might and power which lies in the Divine Being. Hence the plural form. The Deity so called was conceived of as the aggregate of many infinite forces, or powers. It hints at the mystery of the Trinity only so far as to furnish a foundation for that doctrine. From the Israelite point of view it is singular in sense, and is so construed grammatically; but it is also not infrequently applied from the polytheistic standpoint to the gods of the Semites and other peoples, being usually followed in such cases by an adjunct, as the name of the nation whose gods are meant; as "the gods of the nations," " the gods of the peoples," the " gods of silver." As the name of the true and most high Divine Being D';ifK is commonly, though incorrectly, rendered God. But the two words are by no means lexical equivalents; they designate the same Being,. but do not signify the same thing. Nations name their deity according to the attribute to which they attach most prominence. With one it is force or power, and then the deity is the Mighty One; with another it may be goodness; and then the deity is the Good One. The primitive significations of the names may, however, in process of time, entirely disappear, and altogether new ones attach themselves thereto.. So it has to come to pass that God has practically ceased to signify the Good Being; nor is it safe to suppose that KR awakened in the latter and more enlightened Hebrew mind precisely the same idea as in the case of the early. Hence the original, or root, meanings of words are not always the ones to be sought after. The antediluvian and pre-Abrahamic doctrine of God was probably a decay; the Hebrew doctrine of Him was a growth. Qualified by various other words, .K was used in the pre-Mosaic period to designate the Hebrew conception of God. Confining ourselves in the selection of such qualifying words, to the ground form of the Pentateuch, wherein must be found, if at all, the theology of the patriarch, as contradistinguished from the latter theology of Moses, we may make out the early Hebrew doctrine of God, and its progressive development. Thus (I), God appeared unto Abraham and said, 'I am Almighty El," "ei LN. In Gen. XLVIII., 3, Jacob said unto Joseph, "'T KN appeared unto me, etc. " This name," says Oehler, " characterizes God as revealing Himself in His might"; equivalent to the Greek aavroipdatp, with which word the expression is commonly rendered in the Septuagint Book of Job, though not generally in the Pentateuch. " It is no longer the powerful Divinity ruling the world in general that is El Shaddai, but the God who testifies of Himself in special deeds of power"; not merely the God who, by his power rules nature, but the God who, to use the words of Delitzsch, "compels nature to do what is contrary to itself, and sub-lies in the Divine Being. Hence the plural form. The Deity so called was conceived of as the aggregate of many infinite forces, or powers. It hints at the mystery of the Trinity only so far as to furnish a foundation for that doctrine. From the Israelite point of view it is singular in sense, and is so construed grammatically; but it is also not infrequently applied from the polytheistic standpoint to the gods of the Semites and other peoples, being usually followed in such cases by an adjunct, as the name of the nation whose gods are meant; as "the gods of the nations," " the gods of the peoples," the " gods of silver." As the name of the true and most high Divine Being D';ifK is commonly, though incorrectly, rendered God. But the two words are by no means lexical equivalents; they designate the same Being,. but do not signify the same thing. Nations name their deity according to the attribute to which they attach most prominence. With one it is force or power, and then the deity is the Mighty One; with another it may be goodness; and then the deity is the Good One. The primitive significations of the names may, however, in process of time, entirely disappear, and altogether new ones attach themselves thereto.. So it has to come to pass that God has practically ceased to signify the Good Being; nor is it safe to suppose that KR awakened in the latter and more enlightened Hebrew mind precisely the same idea as in the case of the early. Hence the original, or root, meanings of words are not always the ones to be sought after. The antediluvian and pre-Abrahamic doctrine of God was probably a decay; the Hebrew doctrine of Him was a growth. Qualified by various other words, .K was used in the pre-Mosaic period to designate the Hebrew conception of God. Confining ourselves in the selection of such qualifying words, to the ground form of the Pentateuch, wherein must be found, if at all, the theology of the patriarch, as contradistinguished from the latter theology of Moses, we may make out the early Hebrew doctrine of God, and its progressive development. Thus (I), God appeared unto Abraham and said, 'I am Almighty El," "ei LN. In Gen. XLVIII., 3, Jacob said unto Joseph, "'T KN appeared unto me, etc. " This name," says Oehler, " characterizes God as revealing Himself in His might"; equivalent to the Greek aavroipdatp, with which word the expression is commonly rendered in the Septuagint Book of Job, though not generally in the Pentateuch. " It is no longer the powerful Divinity ruling the world in general that is El Shaddai, but the God who testifies of Himself in special deeds of power"; not merely the God who, by his power rules nature, but the God who, to use the words of Delitzsch, "compels nature to do what is contrary to itself, and sub-lies in the Divine Being. Hence the plural form. The Deity so called was conceived of as the aggregate of many infinite forces, or powers. It hints at the mystery of the Trinity only so far as to furnish a foundation for that doctrine. From the Israelite point of view it is singular in sense, and is so construed grammatically; but it is also not infrequently applied from the polytheistic standpoint to the gods of the Semites and other peoples, being usually followed in such cases by an adjunct, as the name of the nation whose gods are meant; as "the gods of the nations," " the gods of the peoples," the " gods of silver." As the name of the true and most high Divine Being D';ifK is commonly, though incorrectly, rendered God. But the two words are by no means lexical equivalents; they designate the same Being,. but do not signify the same thing. Nations name their deity according to the attribute to which they attach most prominence. With one it is force or power, and then the deity is the Mighty One; with another it may be goodness; and then the deity is the Good One. The primitive significations of the names may, however, in process of time, entirely disappear, and altogether new ones attach themselves thereto.. So it has to come to pass that God has practically ceased to signify the Good Being; nor is it safe to suppose that KR awakened in the latter and more enlightened Hebrew mind precisely the same idea as in the case of the early. Hence the original, or root, meanings of words are not always the ones to be sought after. The antediluvian and pre-Abrahamic doctrine of God was probably a decay; the Hebrew doctrine of Him was a growth. Qualified by various other words, .K was used in the pre-Mosaic period to designate the Hebrew conception of God. Confining ourselves in the selection of such qualifying words, to the ground form of the Pentateuch, wherein must be found, if at all, the theology of the patriarch, as contradistinguished from the latter theology of Moses, we may make out the early Hebrew doctrine of God, and its progressive development. Thus (I), God appeared unto Abraham and said, 'I am Almighty El," "ei LN. In Gen. XLVIII., 3, Jacob said unto Joseph, "'T KN appeared unto me, etc. " This name," says Oehler, " characterizes God as revealing Himself in His might"; equivalent to the Greek aavroipdatp, with which word the expression is commonly rendered in the Septuagint Book of Job, though not generally in the Pentateuch. " It is no longer the powerful Divinity ruling the world in general that is El Shaddai, but the God who testifies of Himself in special deeds of power"; not merely the God who, by his power rules nature, but the God who, to use the words of Delitzsch, "compels nature to do what is contrary to itself, and sub-lies in the Divine Being. Hence the plural form. The Deity so called was conceived of as the aggregate of many infinite forces, or powers. It hints at the mystery of the Trinity only so far as to furnish a foundation for that doctrine. From the Israelite point of view it is singular in sense, and is so construed grammatically; but it is also not infrequently applied from the polytheistic standpoint to the gods of the Semites and other peoples, being usually followed in such cases by an adjunct, as the name of the nation whose gods are meant; as "the gods of the nations," " the gods of the peoples," the " gods of silver." As the name of the true and most high Divine Being D';ifK is commonly, though incorrectly, rendered God. But the two words are by no means lexical equivalents; they designate the same Being,. but do not signify the same thing. Nations name their deity according to the attribute to which they attach most prominence. With one it is force or power, and then the deity is the Mighty One; with another it may be goodness; and then the deity is the Good One. The primitive significations of the names may, however, in process of time, entirely disappear, and altogether new ones attach themselves thereto.. So it has to come to pass that God has practically ceased to signify the Good Being; nor is it safe to suppose that KR awakened in the latter and more enlightened Hebrew mind precisely the same idea as in the case of the early. Hence the original, or root, meanings of words are not always the ones to be sought after. The antediluvian and pre-Abrahamic doctrine of God was probably a decay; the Hebrew doctrine of Him was a growth. Qualified by various other words, .K was used in the pre-Mosaic period to designate the Hebrew conception of God. Confining ourselves in the selection of such qualifying words, to the ground form of the Pentateuch, wherein must be found, if at all, the theology of the patriarch, as contradistinguished from the latter theology of Moses, we may make out the early Hebrew doctrine of God, and its progressive development. Thus (I), God appeared unto Abraham and said, 'I am Almighty El," "ei LN. In Gen. XLVIII., 3, Jacob said unto Joseph, "'T KN appeared unto me, etc. " This name," says Oehler, " characterizes God as revealing Himself in His might"; equivalent to the Greek aavroipdatp, with which word the expression This content downloaded from 128.135.012.127 on August 13, 2016 06:05:41 AM All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c). vah "; viz. D7iy tN, the Everlasting El (Gen. XXI., 33). The patriarchs knew Him, therefore, as the Almighty and Everlasting El, though possibly not yet as the only one. He is in some sense rather a tutelary El. " Jehovah, thy God, is one God," and the only one was a truth subsequently to be impressed, and a hard lesson to learn it proved to be. In Gen. xvI., I3 He is called KNI .R, not the El who has become visible to me, but the El to whom I am visible, the Allseeing El. To Isaac He appeared as the El of Abraham; to Jacob as the El of Abraham and Isaac, thereby contradistinguishing Himself from the god of the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, and other nations among whom, or contiguous to whom, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived. The name was afterwards nationalized as El Israel, the El ruling over, and recognized by the descendants of Jacob. So, therefore, the identity of the idea is preserved and transmitted, and God-so nearly the trite God only as is represented by these attributes-is known to all pre-Mosaic Hebrews as the almighty, all-seeing and everlasting El, though still, perhaps, not yet as the only one. They are yet not far from polytheism, and El is still tutelary. Thus far he has to them no moral qualities, so far as the names employed to describe Him are concerned. He does not become K3p N. the jealous El, the El jealous in the defense of his own honor, until Ex. xx., 5, He so announces Himself to Moses, and asserts it again and again in the peculiarity, and oftentimes the severity, of His educational dealings with Israel. He does not become D.In'l N, the tender, the compassionate, the merciful El, until He so reveals Himself during the same dispensation. In Deut. XXXII., 4, He is 1.ON. LN, the unchangeable, or faithful, El, on whom one may securely rely. By the post-Mosaic writers, KN is used interchangeably with 5y', as by the authors of the books of Samuel and Chronicles. Baal is also the Mighty one, and hence the Lord and Ruler over things in so far as he possesses them-the nom.en numinis of a great part of the Semitic races. It is also used interchangeably with 3N, as in Jeremiah II., 27, 28, the stock and stone being called 'N in the one, and '.1. --dues it to bow and minister to grace." God subsequently revealed Himself as Jehovah, but in some sense at least, not so to Abraham; as in Ex. VI., 3: "I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai; as Jehovah I was not known unto them." According to Taylor's Hebrew Concordance El Shaddai occurs in Genesis fifteen times, and, according to Fuerst, in the pre-Mosaic book of Job, thirtyone times. (2). DiY. "And Abraham called there upon the name of Jehovah "; viz. D7iy tN, the Everlasting El (Gen. XXI., 33). The patriarchs knew Him, therefore, as the Almighty and Everlasting El, though possibly not yet as the only one. He is in some sense rather a tutelary El. " Jehovah, thy God, is one God," and the only one was a truth subsequently to be impressed, and a hard lesson to learn it proved to be. In Gen. xvI., I3 He is called KNI .R, not the El who has become visible to me, but the El to whom I am visible, the Allseeing El. To Isaac He appeared as the El of Abraham; to Jacob as the El of Abraham and Isaac, thereby contradistinguishing Himself from the god of the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, and other nations among whom, or contiguous to whom, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived. The name was afterwards nationalized as El Israel, the El ruling over, and recognized by the descendants of Jacob. So, therefore, the identity of the idea is preserved and transmitted, and God-so nearly the trite God only as is represented by these attributes-is known to all pre-Mosaic Hebrews as the almighty, all-seeing and everlasting El, though still, perhaps, not yet as the only one. They are yet not far from polytheism, and El is still tutelary. Thus far he has to them no moral qualities, so far as the names employed to describe Him are concerned. He does not become K3p N. the jealous El, the El jealous in the defense of his own honor, until Ex. xx., 5, He so announces Himself to Moses, and asserts it again and again in the peculiarity, and oftentimes the severity, of His educational dealings with Israel. He does not become D.In'l N, the tender, the compassionate, the merciful El, until He so reveals Himself during the same dispensation. In Deut. XXXII., 4, He is 1.ON. LN, the unchangeable, or faithful, El, on whom one may securely rely. By the post-Mosaic writers, KN is used interchangeably with 5y', as by the authors of the books of Samuel and Chronicles. Baal is also the Mighty one, and hence the Lord and Ruler over things in so far as he possesses them-the nom.en numinis of a great part of the Semitic races. It is also used interchangeably with 3N, as in Jeremiah II., 27, 28, the stock and stone being called 'N in the one, and '.1. --dues it to bow and minister to grace." God subsequently revealed Himself as Jehovah, but in some sense at least, not so to Abraham; as in Ex. VI., 3: "I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai; as Jehovah I was not known unto them." According to Taylor's Hebrew Concordance El Shaddai occurs in Genesis fifteen times, and, according to Fuerst, in the pre-Mosaic book of Job, thirtyone times. (2). DiY. "And Abraham called there upon the name of Jehovah "; viz. D7iy tN, the Everlasting El (Gen. XXI., 33). The patriarchs knew Him, therefore, as the Almighty and Everlasting El, though possibly not yet as the only one. He is in some sense rather a tutelary El. " Jehovah, thy God, is one God," and the only one was a truth subsequently to be impressed, and a hard lesson to learn it proved to be. In Gen. xvI., I3 He is called KNI .R, not the El who has become visible to me, but the El to whom I am visible, the Allseeing El. To Isaac He appeared as the El of Abraham; to Jacob as the El of Abraham and Isaac, thereby contradistinguishing Himself from the god of the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, and other nations among whom, or contiguous to whom, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived. The name was afterwards nationalized as El Israel, the El ruling over, and recognized by the descendants of Jacob. So, therefore, the identity of the idea is preserved and transmitted, and God-so nearly the trite God only as is represented by these attributes-is known to all pre-Mosaic Hebrews as the almighty, all-seeing and everlasting El, though still, perhaps, not yet as the only one. They are yet not far from polytheism, and El is still tutelary. Thus far he has to them no moral qualities, so far as the names employed to describe Him are concerned. He does not become K3p N. the jealous El, the El jealous in the defense of his own honor, until Ex. xx., 5, He so announces Himself to Moses, and asserts it again and again in the peculiarity, and oftentimes the severity, of His educational dealings with Israel. He does not become D.In'l N, the tender, the compassionate, the merciful El, until He so reveals Himself during the same dispensation. In Deut. XXXII., 4, He is 1.ON. LN, the un-
doi:10.1086/469461 fatcat:xygvzf3phfclnh2jzjvdrpitme