Exodus 6:3 has been used by critics of the Bible to demonstrate a contradiction in the Bible.
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.- Exo. 6:3 ESVThe alleged contradiction is that in this passage Yahweh says He didn't reveal His name "Yahweh" to the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yet, there are passages in the book of Genesis where the patriarchs are said to have called on Yahweh. Seemingly knowing the tetragrammaton or tetragram [meaning the four letter word of God's covenant name]. For example:
To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. - Gen. 4:26 ESV
From there he [i.e. Abram] moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 12:8 ESV
to the place where he had made an altar at the first. And there Abram called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 13:4 ESVThere are multiple ways that this can be addressed. One way is to point out that Exo. 6:3 can be translated differently. As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser has pointed out numerous times:
With respect to the former, I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog (in footnotes, granted) that the consensus translation (” I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them”) is only one syntactical possibility. Another much less familiar option was pointed out by Francis Andersen years ago in his book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. On syntactical grounds, Andersen argues for a translation that is basically opposite in its meaning to the accepted view: “I am the Lord (YHWH). I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai. And my name is the Lord (YHWH); did I not make myself known to them?” The verse in this translation expresses a rhetorical question. At the very least, Andersen’s seminal work on sentence structure and its implications for this crucial text should be part of the conversation. [source]Heiser cites Francis I. Andersen's book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. If this alternative translation is taken, then the apparent contradiction disappears. It's a perfectly legitimate translation grammatically speaking.
Another way to address this issue is to point out the fact that the concept of "name" in Semitic cultures wasn't limited to the literal pronunciation of a word. But it often also included the concept of a being's character, nature, attributes, personality, wonted behavior, authority, sanction, permission (etc.). Sometimes without a literal reference to the exact word and it's pronunciation. This is why the naming of places and people was very important and informative in Semitic cultures. The Bible is literally FULL of instances where names that have great significance. A famous example is how Isaac is named. He was named Isaac because his mother laughed when she heard that she would bear a son in her old age. The name "Isaac" means "laughter." Or how Abram's name was changed to Abraham because God promised him that he would become the father of many nations. Or how Jesus changed Simon's name to "Peter" because it means "rock." Examples could be multiplied.
There are many instances where "the name" of God refers to God's character and personality as mentioned above. For example:
The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.- Prov. 18:10 ESV
And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.- Ps. 9:10 ESV
In these (and many other) passages in the Old Testament, the writer is not saying that knowledge of and proper pronunciation of God's name (Yahweh) can be used like a talisman by which one can cast spells for protection and provision (etc.). Rather, these passages are saying that God's character is such that those who pledge allegiance to Yahweh and put their trust in His faithful mercy will be protected and provided for.
If we interpret Exo. 6:3 with that concept of "name" [in the sense of character and nature] then the contradiction also vanishes. That's even if we assume the traditional translation is correct whereby the fathers/patriarchs DIDN'T know God's name. Because what it could be saying is that the patriarchs didn't know by experience the fullness of all of God's wonderful attributes. That the patriarchs may have had foretastes of it, but NOW [at the time of Exo. 6:3 and henceforth] the people of God would more fully know and experience God's gracious mercy with such fullness that by comparison it would be as if the patriarchs didn't know it. This is compatible with the patriarchs knowing the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, but not experiencing the fullness of God's nature.
Another possible way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to say that some or all of the patriarchs LITERALLY didn't know the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton and that in all places (or in many places) in Genesis where people are said to call upon the name of Yahweh, it's referring to the character of the one true most high God, rather than the literal pronunciation of Yahweh.
It should be taken into consideration that the name of Yahweh may have been lost and recovered on and off during the times of the patriarchs. So, it's not like the tetragrammaton and its pronunciation needed to be faithfully passed on from generation to generation in the holy genealogical line. It may have been lost and recovered from other peoples who may have preserved it outside of holy line. Remember for example that Melchizedek was a worshipper of the true God, El Elyon [the Most High God]. Melchizedek or some other persons may have passed on the tetragrammaton to some of the patriarchs, without the patriarchs having necessarily passed it on to the next generation.
Here's an unlikely hypothetical situation which I'll use as an illustration. The unlikeness of it is to show that even in a worse case scenario the alleged contradiction doesn't necessarily follow. Say for example that Abraham's father didn't know the tetragram, but then Abraham did know it either because Yahweh revealed it to him, or Melchizedek or some other worshipper of the true God revealed it to him. Then [to continue with this hypothetical], Abraham failed to passed on the tetragram to his son Isaac. But then Isaac's son Jacob might have rediscovered it because another worshipper of Yahweh revealed it to him. Again, this is an extreme example, since it's likely that if Abraham knew the tetragram that he would have passed it on to Isaac, and then Isaac to Jacob [etc.]. But there are probably gaps in the list of the names of the patriarchs and the tetragram may have been lost repeatedly in the godly line from Adam to Abraham.
Personally, I suspect that some or all of the patriarchs who are said to have called on Yahweh didn't literally call on the character of the true God using the tetragrammaton/tetragram. Rather, the writer(s) of Genesis and/or the inspired redactors wrote and edited it the way we have it because it was understood that the true God was being referred to and that therefore it was alright and not deceptive to say that they called on God using the tetragram. It would be analogous to saying the native Americans who lived in New York 1000 years ago experienced bitterly cold winters. Would I be lying by calling them "Americans" when the country known as "America" didn't yet exist? Would I be lying by referring to the place as "New York" when the place wouldn't be called New York for many centuries? Obviously not. It's understood that I'm "retrofitting" (so to speak) the modern names for the sake of clarity and greater understanding. Something similar could be what is going on in some of the places in Genesis where some or all of the patriarchs are said to have "called on the name of Yahweh." Especially, if it could also mean "invoking the character (i.e. name) of the God [who would eventually be known as] Yahweh [as you now do know it who are reading this sacred text]."
Given the likely gaps in the genealogical lists of the patriarchs, many probably didn't speak Hebrew or even proto-Semitic languages. In which case, it would be unlikely that they would have know the tetragram. Since the tetragrammaton is derived from the meaning of later developing Hebrew and other related Semitic languages at and (relatively) immediately prior to the time of Moses. Unless Hebrew is some kind of divine language that was revealed to humanity from the very beginning [as some, I think, mistakenly insist], then Hebrew wasn't around during Seth's lifetime, or Noah's (etc.). In which case, it doesn't make much sense that Seth would have known and invoked The Deity using the tetragram.
Rather, during the time of the Exodus God may have AT THAT TIME chosen the word "Yahweh" to be His new divine covenantal name for His newly re-constituted people to use by which to have a relationship with Him. And God did that based on the then contemporary state of the development of the various Semitic languages at that time and place. Possibly even with the influence of pagans who may have used a similar name (or names) for their gods. Something which most grant was the case with the use of the titles "el" and "elohim." No one denies that those words were used by preexisting pagans and taken up by the Israelites. Why then couldn't the use of the name "Yahweh" have been influenced by pagan names in a similar or parallel way? I'm not saying that's what did happen. Only that I don't see a problem if it did happen that way. Unbelieving secular scholars DO believe it DID happen that way. But even if it did, that's not problematic. Nothing in the Tanakh precludes that possibility. Nowhere does the Tanakh say that the divine name used by the Israelites (i.e. Yahweh) had no precursors and that it was a brand spanking new term to refer to the Supreme Being.
More could be said as to why Exodus 6:3 does not present a contradiction in the Biblical text. But what I've already written is enough to demonstrate why the alleged contradiction is ultimately baseless.
UPDATE
Here's InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones' take on this question:
