|
The question of knowing
which vowels were with the four consonants of God's name is absurd because
the Masoretic vowels, which are the vowel-points, appeared after 500 of our
common era. Before this time the only vowels were the matres lectionis.
Furthermore, the vowels e,o,a did not play any role to
find again the true pronunciation among Hebrew Believer scholars. On the
other hand, in order to justify their pronunciation of the Name
"according its letters", they quoted the book of Maimonides The
Guide of the Perplexed (part 1 chapters 61 to 64) very often. In
addition, before 1100, the vowel-points written with the Tetragram were not e,o,a but e,a that is to say the vowels of the Aramaic word Shema’ meaning "The
Name".
The present Masoretic vowels
are not the genuine vowels because they appeared only after 500 CE. Before
this epoch, the Jews used a "mothers of reading" system (some
consonants were used as vowels) to pronounce most of the proper names. The
writings from Qumrân have shown that before the second century CE even usual
words were vocalized owing to these special letters (mothers of reading, that
is to say Y for the vowels I and E, W for O and U, and H for an A at the end of words), proving that the "mothers of
reading" system was widely used. Judah
Halevi wrote in his book The Kuzari (1140), that the letters of
the Tetragram are used as vowels for any other words (furthermore Judah
Halevi in The Kurazi IV:3 related that Y is used for I, W for O, and H for A). A long time before, in the first century, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish writer, had written that the Tetragram
is written with four vowels (and not four consonants).
Flavius Josephus 37-100),
who knew the priesthood of this time very well, clarified that, when Romans
attacked the Temple, the Jews called upon the fear-inspiring name of God (The
Jewish War V:438), but he wrote of his refusal to give it his reader (The
Jewish Antiquities II:275). However, he gave some information of primary
importance to rediscover the pronunciation he wanted to conceal. One can read
indeed in the work The Jewish War the following remark: "The high
priest had his head dressed with a tiara of fine linen embroidered with a
purple border, and surrounded by another crown in gold which supported into
relief the holy letters; these ones are four
vowels." (The Jewish War V:235) This description is
excellent; moreover, it completes the one found in Exodus 28:36-39. However,
as each one knows, there are no vowels in Hebrew, but only consonants.
Regrettably, instead of explaining this visible abnormality, certain
commentators (influenced by the form Yahweh) mislead the readers of Josephus
by indicating in note that this reading was IAUE. Now, it is evident that the "sacred letters" noted
the Tetragram wrote in paleo-Hebrew, and not in Greek. Furthermore, in Hebrew
these consonants Y, W, H, are
exactly used as vowels; they are moreover called matres lectionis
"mothers of reading". Qumrân's writings showed that in the first
century Y as vowel served only to indicate sounds I and E, W served only for sounds Ô and U, and a H final served for the sound A. Furthermore, the H was use as vowel only at the end of words, and never inside of it (but between two vowels the H is heard as a slight E). So, to read the name YHWH as four vowels, it is
to read IHÔA that is IEÔA.
The orthography of the
Aramaic portion of the Tell Fekherye Bilingual dated before 9th
century BCE(D.N. Freedman A.D. Forbes F.I. Andersen - Studies in Hebrew and
Aramaic Orthography in: Biblical and Judaic Studies vol.2 Indiana 1992 Ed.
University of California pp. 137-170) proves that for a long time three
vowels were used, waw for
û, yod for î, and he for final â. For example,
numerous words were read “according to their natural reading” in this old
inscription:
Complete
study, see : A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil, A. R. Millard - La statue de Tell
Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne. in: Etudes
Assyriologiques Cahier n°7, Paris 1982, Editions Recherche sur les
civilisations. pp. 13-60
Writing
|
Reading
|
|
Writing
|
Reading
|
TBH
|
TaBA
|
|
BTNWR<
|
BaTaNUR
|
TYTB
|
TITaB
|
|
YGTZR
|
YiGTiZaR
|
DMWT’
|
DaMUTa’
|
|
‘DQWR
|
‘aDaQUR
|
GWGL
|
GUGaL
|
|
YLQH
|
YiLQaH
|
’LYM
|
’aLIM
|
|
NHR
|
NaHaR
|
TSLWTH
|
TaSLUTA
|
|
LMT
|
LaMaT
|
WLKBR<
|
WaLaKaBaR
|
|
RHMN
|
RaHMaN
|
As a general rule the
‘natural reading’ was mainly used to vocalize proper names.
Fekherye
Alphabetic
|
Reading
according to:
|
reference:
|
Syllabic
|
> Akkadian
|
M.T.
|
LXX
|
HBWR
|
Ha-bur
|
HaBUR
|
HaBOR
|
Abôr
|
2 Ki 18:11
|
NYRGL
|
(Nè-iri-gal)
|
NIRGaL
|
NéRGaL
|
Nèrigél
|
2 Ki 17:30
|
GWZN
|
Gu-za-ni
|
GUZaN
|
GOZaN
|
Gôzan
|
2 Ki 18:11>
|
HDDSKN
|
Adad-si-ka-ni
|
HaDaDSiKaN
|
HaDaD-
|
Adad-
|
Gen 36:35
|
SSNWRY
|
Šama Š-nu-ri
|
SaSNURI
|
SiS-
|
Sos-
|
1 Ch 2:40
|
(YHWH)
|
-
|
(YiHWA)
|
(YeHoWaH)
|
|
|
The word YHWH meaning ‘He
will [prove to] be’ is found in the Sefire inscription dated 750 BCE. The
normal vocalization is probably YiHWaH at this time because the sound -èH
comes from an old -aH
A second witness of this
period about the pronunciation, is the Talmud itself, because the Tetragram
is called the Shem Hamephorash which means "the name distinctly
read" or "the name read according to its letters" (Sifre
Numbers 6:23-27) Hemephorash means "distinctly [read]" or
"separately [read]" in Hebrew. The early sense of "distinctly
read" is "word by word" or "letter by letter" (see
Gesenius 6567 comment on n°2), the sense "interpreted" or
"translated" is a later meaning. In spite of the fact that some
cabalists affirmed that the word mephorash meant "hidden" it
is easy to check the correct meaning of this word in the Bible itself (Neh
8:8; Ezr 4:18). Furthermore, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101a 10:1) forbids
the use of the divine Name for magical purposes, and the rabbi Abba Shaul
(130-160?) adds not to use biblical quotations containing the Tetragram for
exorcizing purposes and the pronunciation of the Tetragram according to
its letters as a preventive warning that those transgressing this command
would forfeit their portion in the future world. The sentence "to
pronounce the Name according to its letters" means pronouncing the Name
as it is written, or according to the sound of its letters, what is different
to spell a name according to its letters. Indeed, it was authorized to spell
the name YHWH according to its letters (because the Talmud itself did it),
that is in Hebrew Yod, He, Waw, He (or Y, H, W, H in English); on the other
hand, it was forbidden to pronounce it according to these same letters.
A third witness, always from
this epoch, coming from persons who had access to the priesthood, is that of
the translators of the Septuagint. This text had indeed fixed the
vocalization of proper nouns just before that was adopted the custom not to
use any more the Name outside the Temple. Now, one notices that all the
theophoric names beginning in YHW-() in the Hebrew Bible were vocalized
Iô-(a) in the Septuagint and ever in Ia-. So, the divine name, constituting
the theophoric name par excellence (that is to say YHW-H), to be in agreement
with all the other theophoric names should have been vocalized Iô-a in Greek, or, if one restores
the mute H (which did not exist in Greek) : IHÔA. Some authors, as Severi of Antioch (465-538), used the form
IÔA in a chain of comments on the
chapter eight of John's gospel (Jn 8:58), by clarifying that it was God's
name in Hebrew. Another book (Eulogy of John the Baptist 129:30) made
also allusion to the name IÔA
written in Greek iota, omega, alpha. In the codex Coislinianus dated
6th century, several theophoric names are explained owing to the Greek word aoratos
meaning "invisible" is found in the LXX in Genesis 1:2) and which
is read IÔA. The words aoratos or arretos (meaning
"unspeakable") are the equivalents to the Latin word
"ineffable".
There are several places in
the Talmud where it is written not to pronounce the Name "as it is
written" or "according to its letters". Maimonides,
a good Talmudist, quoting these remarks in his book The Guide of the
Perplexed (1190) concludes that this Name was pronounced with no
difficulty (without giving any vocalization). He said to his readers that
knowing the meaning of this name was more important than knowing its
pronunciation, because the meaning alone can incite to action.
There are several hundreds
of theophoric names in the Bible, which retain the vocalization of the
Tetragram. For example, the usual name "John" comes from the Hebrew
name Yehôhanan, which means "Yehow[ah] has been gracious".
In the A third witness, always from this epoch, coming from persons who had
access to the priesthood, is that of the translators of the Septuagint. This
text had indeed fixed the vocalization of proper nouns just before that was
adopted the custom not to use any more the Name outside the Temple. Now, one
notices that all the theophoric names beginning in YHW-() in the Hebrew Bible
were vocalized Iô-(a) in the Septuagint and ever in Ia-. So, the divine name,
constituting the theophoric name par excellence (that is to say YHW-H), to be
in agreement with all the other theophoric names should have been vocalized Iô-a in Greek, or, if one restores
the mute H (which did not exist in Greek) : IHÔA. Some authors, as Severi of Antioch (465-538), used the form
IÔA in a chain of comments on the
chapter eight of John's gospel (Jn 8:58), by clarifying that it was God's
name in Hebrew. Another book (Eulogy of John the Baptist 129:30) made
also allusion to the name IÔA
written in Greek iota, omega, alpha. In the codex Coislinianus dated
6th century, several theophoric names are explained owing to the Greek word aoratos
meaning "invisible" is found in the LXX in Genesis 1:2) and which is
read IÔA. The words aoratos or arretos (meaning
"unspeakable") are the equivalents to the Latin word
"ineffable".
In order to contend with
cabalistic influences Maimonides, a Jewish scholar and famous talmudist, gave
a whole new definition of Judaism. The central point of his reasoning was
about the Name of God, the Tetragram, which was explained in his book
entitled The Guide of the Perplexed, written in 1190, where he exposed
the powerful following reasoning: Maimonides noted that the God of
philosophers didn't involve any worship because it is impossible to establish
relations with a nameless God (Elohim), then he proved that the Tetragram
YHWH is the personal name of God, that is to say the name distinctly read
(Shem hamephorash), which is different from all the other names like: Adonay,
Shadday, Elohim (such ones are only divine titles with an etymology), and so
forth, because the Tetragram has no etymology. However, Maimonides knew the
problem about the pronunciation, because the Jewish tradition stated it had
been lost. On the other hand, he also knew that some Jews believed in an
almost magical influence of letters or a precise pronunciation of the divine
names, but he informed his reader against such practices as pure invention or
madness. The remarkable aspect of his argumentation lies in the fact of which
he managed to avoid controversy on a subject so ticklish. He asserted indeed
that in fact it was only the real cult
that had been lost, and not the authentic pronunciation of the Tetragram,
because this one was always possible
according to its letters. To support this basic idea (real cult is more
important than real pronunciation), he quoted Sota 38a to prove this name is
the essence of God and that is the reason not to abuse it, then he quoted
Zechariah 14:9 to prove the oneness of this name, he also quoted Numbers
6:23-27 to show that the priests were obliged to bless by this name only.
Then, to prove that the
pronunciation of the Name did not carry any problem in the past, and did not
contain any magic aspect, he quoted at first Qiddushin 71a, which said that
this name was passed on by certain rabbis to their sons. Furthermore,
according to Yoma 39b, this pronunciation was widely used before the
priesthood of Simon the Just, what proves the insignificance of magic
conceptions, because in this time if the Name was used it had no supernatural
aspect, except the spiritual aspect. Maimonides insisted on the fact that
what it was necessary to find was the spirituality connected to this Name,
and not the exact pronunciation. Well to demonstrate this major notion, to
understand sense and not sound conveyed with this name, he quoted a relevant
example. Indeed, in Exodus 6:3 the text indicates that before Moses, the Name
was not known; that is the exact meaning of this name, and not of the
pronunciation, because how can anybody reasonable believe that a good
pronunciation would have been suddenly able to incite the Israelites to
action, unless supposing a magic action of this name, what is contradictory
to the continuation of events? To conclude his demonstration, Maimonides
quoted Exodus 3:14 to show that the expression èhyèh ashèr èhyèh, that
one can translate into "I shall be who I shall be", is above all a
spiritual teaching. Because the Tetragram had no (linguistic) etymology, this
link with the verb "to be (haya)" expressed above all a religious
"etymology", that is a teaching on God, who can be defined as
"the Being who is the being" or "the necessary Being".
It is interesting to observe
that Judah Halevi, another Jewish scholar, gave almost the same arguments in
his book The Kuzari published some years before, in 1140. He wrote
indeed that the main difference between the God of Abraham and the God of
Aristotle was the Tetragram (Kuzari IV:16). He proved also that this
name was the personal name of God (idem IV:1) and that it meant "He will
be with you". To prove again that was the meaning of this name which was
important and not the pronunciation, he quoted Exodus 5:2 where Pharaoh asked
to know this Name: no the pronunciation which he used, but the authority of
this Name (idem IV:15). He clarified finally that the letters of the
Tetragram have the remarkable property to be matres lectionis, that is
the vowels associated to the other consonants, as the spirit is associated to
the body and let it lives (idem IV:3).
These two scholars gave so
convergent information which marked a turning point in the history of the
Name. However, the expression "pronounced according to its letters"
which Maimonides called back (vowel letters as clarified Judah Halevi) is
strictly exact only in Hebrew. Joachim of Flora gave a Greek transliteration
of the Tetragram (I-E-U-E) in his work entitled Expositio in Apocalypsim,
that he achieved in 1195. He also used the expression "Adonay IEUE
Tetragrammaton nomen" in his another book entitled Liber Figurarum.
Joachim of Flora gave also the three
other names: IE, EV, VE, whom he associated to the Father, to the Son and to
the Holy Spirit!
The
vocalization of the Tetragram (IEUE) connected to the name of Yeshua (EU) was
going to be quickly improved by the pope Innocent III in one of his sermons (Sermo
IV, in circumcisione domini) written around 1200. Indeed, he noticed that
the Hebraic letters of the Tetragram Ioth, Eth, Vau (that is Y, H, W) were
used as vowels, and that so the name IESUS had exactly the same vowels
I, E and U as the divine name. As Joachim of Flora, he decomposed the
divine name IEUE into IE-EU-UE, what allowed him to suppose that the name IE-SUS
contained God's name IE. He drew also a parallel between the name written
IEVE but pronounced Adonai and the name written IHS but pronounced IESUS.
The link between these two names will play afterward a determining role in
the process of vocalization of the Tetragram.
In the following years,
knowledge of the Hebraic language progressed strongly, involving notably the
role of matres lectionis. For example, the famous scholar Roger Bacon
(1220-1292) wrote in his Hebraic grammar that in Hebrew there are six vowels
(aleph, he, vav, heth, iod, ain)
near to the usual masoretic vowel-points. The French erudite Fabre d'Olivet
also explained in his Hebraic grammar the following equivalence: aleph = â, he = è, heth = é, waw = ô/ u,
yod = î, aïn = wo. He said in his work entitled La Langue hébraïque
restituée (The Hebrew Tongue Restored) published in 1823, that the best
pronunciation of the divine Name according to its letters was Ihôah/ Iôhah/ Jhôah. Moreover, when he began to translate the Bible (Genesis,
chapters I to X), he used systematically the name IHÔAH in his translation. Antoine Fabre d'Olivet, renowned
polyglot, knew numerous oriental languages, what brought him to privilege the
philological choice rather than theological), that is to say he refused to
mix the sound with the sense of the word. Moreover, Judah Halevi already
clarified in his work that the yod (Y)
served as vowel I, the waw (W) served as O, and that the he (H) and the aleph
(’) served as A. According to these rudimentary indications, one already
could read approximately the name YHWH "according to its letters",
as I-H-O-A (because the letter H
is never used as vowel inside words; in that exceptional case the use of the
letter aleph is preferred.) For example, the name YH is pronounced according to its letters IA in Hebrew, IH in
Latin and IE in Greek.
Paul Drach, a rabbi
converted to Catholicism, explained in his work De l'harmonie entre
l'église et la synagogue (Of the harmony between the church and the
synagogue) published in 1842, why it was logical that the pronunciation Yehova, which was in agreement with
the beginning of all the theophoric names, was the authentic pronunciation, contrary to the form of Samaritan origin
Yahvé. He proved the silly way of criticisms against the form Yehova, as
the charge of erroneous reading attributed to Galatino. He quoted Raymond
Martin and Porchetus de Salvaticis to reject this assertion. Then he demonstrated the delirious way of
the transmutation of vowels a, o, a of the word Adonay into e, o, a,
because this hypothetical grammatical rule (and against nature concerning a
qere / ketib) was already running down with the word Èlohim which keeps its
three vowels è, o, i without needing to change them in e, o, i.
In spite of the support of Vatican at this time, these denials had not great
effect.
Furthermore, this
vocalization has always been considered as the most correct by the Jews
themselves. For example, in the first Jewish translation in French (from 1836
to 1852) the Jewish translator Samuel Cahen systematically used the name
Iehovah. He defended his choice owing to the work of the famous German
grammarian W. Gesenius. The Jewish professor J.H. Levy explained why he
preferred the form Y'howah, instead of Yahweh, in his article published in
1903 in The Jewish Quarterly Review. At the present time, it can be
seen in a book written for the Jews, prefaced by the French Chief Rabbi
Joseph Sitruk, that the name Ye.ho.va
(Jéhovah), written with the Hebrew letters Yod, He Vav, He, is considered as the genuine name
of God.
In actual fact it is the
general case as one can check up on the following board.
ACCORDING TO
|
ITS CONSONANTS
|
ITS LETTERS
|
THE SEPTUAGINT
|
THE MASORETES
|
1 Ch 3:5
|
Yrwlym
|
Irušalim
|
Iérousalèm
|
Yerušalaïm
|
Gn 29:35
|
Yhwdh
|
Ihuda
|
Iouda
|
Yehudah
|
Gn 25:19
|
'brhm
|
'Abaraham
|
Abraam
|
'Abraham
|
Gn 25:19
|
Ysàq
|
Isaàaq
|
Isaak
|
Yisàaq
|
Jr 30:18
|
Y‘qwb
|
I‘aqub
|
Iakôb
|
Ya‘aqôb
|
2 Ch 27:1
|
Yrwšh
|
Iruša
|
Iérousa
|
Yerušah
|
Gn 46:17
|
Yšwh
|
Išua
|
Iésoua
|
Yišwah
|
1 Ch 2:38
|
Yhw’
|
Ihu’
|
Ièou
|
Yéhu’
|
Gn 3:14
|
Yhwh
|
Ihua
|
(Kurios)
|
(Adonay)
|
In Hebrew, the majority of
proper nouns, in full writing, can be read according to their letters. In the
first century, one has the equivalence Y = I, W = U, and H = A at the end of
words. Furthermore, one has always alternation consonant - vowel in the reading
of these names, except in the case of a guttural or of a H in final, which
are vocalized a. When a vowel is not indicated in a name, consonants
are vocalized with an a. This style of reading is usual in Hebrew, for
example with some famous names or a few names with an orthography close to
the Tetragram.
One notices in the board
above a remarkable agreement with the reading of these names according to the
Septuagint and their reading according to their letters (in Hebrew language).
The process of reading according to its letters is, on principle, very
rudimentary, because it contains only three sounds I (Y), U (W) and A,
while Hebraic language possesses seven (i,
é, [e], è, a, o, u). In spite of this intrinsic handicap, this method of
reading gives rather good results on the whole.
The two sounds "e"
and "o" are not archaic, because the original vowels in Hebrew, as
in the other Semitic tongues are only a,
i, u, that is to say e and o always arise from an obscuring or
contraction of these three pure sounds (A.E. Cowley - Gesenius' Hebrew
Grammar,1988 Oxford Clarendon Press p. 35). Furthermore, the Hebrew use of H for word-terminal o was anomalous
(F.I. Andersen A. Dean Forbes - Spelling in the Hebrew Bible, 1986 Rome Ed.
Biblical Institut p. 324). Many scholars
propose to read the H letter as a mater lectionis for the sound ô, but this
solution is unlikely, because this abnormal writing resulted from a
historical spelling of the pronoun -Hu "him" which became -Ho
(see Gn 9:21; 1K 19:23; etc.) that is a defective spelling for -Hô, moreover
Gesenius wrote that a large number of proper names ending in -oh or -ô (like
Shlomoh and Par'oh) used to be classed as nouns originally formed with the
affix -ôn (A.E. Cowley - Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar,1988 Oxford Clarendon Press
p.239). To check that the ending -W-H was read -U-A in Old Hebrew, note:
'Alwah / 'Alua (Gn 36:40); Ishwah / Ishua (Gn 46:17); Puwah / Puua (Nb
26:23); Tiqwah / Tiqua (2K 22:14); 'Iwah / 'Iua (2k 19:13) etc. (Very often
the Septuagint kept the sound oua).
The modern standard
transliterating for vowel /consonant is purely conventional. As professor
James Barr wrote "phonetically and acoustically, there is no absolute
and objective difference between the sound of the vowel i and that of the consonant y (and similarly with u and w). As Abercrombie puts it, an element like the y in English yet, or the w
in English wet, is a semivowel, but phonological function is a consonantal
element in a syllable pattern." (J. Barr - The Variable Spelling of the
Hebrew Bible, The Oxford University Press 1989 p.147). On the other hand, the
y in the name Yehudah is a consonant, but it becomes a vowel i in the
expression Wihudah "and Yehudah". "To Israel" is
pronounced in Ben Asher's tradition "Le-Yisrael", but
"L-Israel" in the Ben Naphtali's tradition (Angel Sàenz-Badillos -
A History of the Hebrew language Cambridge 1996 Ed. Cambridge University
Press pp. 94-102). Thus, an initial y consonant could have been read as i
vowel (P. Joüon T. Muraoka - A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew in: Subsidia
Biblica 14/I. Roma 1993 Ed. Pontificio Istituto Biblico p. 94 §26e).
Ambiguities exist only in
Masoretical Hebrew, because of (later) contraction of letters, but these
ambiguities did not exist in Old Hebrew. When official Hebrew became in time
rabbinical Hebrew, the main changes concerned precisely the pronunciation of
the letters y and w (ay became e, aw became ô, hû became ô/ w, ehû became aw,
etc. - D.N. Freedman -The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in
Orthography. Ed. Textus 2, 1962 pp. 88-102; D.N. Freedman K.A. Mathews- The
Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll Ed. A.S.O.R. 1985 pp. 52-54,58,68,79,82; E.
Qimron -The Hebrew of the Dead sea Scrolls in: Harvard Semitic studies n°29
Atlanta 1986 Ed. Scholars Press p. 59).
The "e" in I-eH-oU-Ah
corresponds to the shewa in the same way the "modern" Shlomoh is
pronounced Shelomoh with its shewa. Moreover, the Name Judah is correctly
pronounced with its shewa, that is I-eH-U-dAh,
not I-U-dAh, even if the first H (which is not a mater lectionis) is very
light. One notes that the verbal form yhwh in Qoheleth 11:3 is vocalized
Yehou'[a] (instead of Yihweh) and it means "He will be".
The word Yahowah has never
been used in any Bibles. The (fanciful) grammatical pattern which involves a
change a to e has never existed. In actual fact, before 1100
CE, the Tetragram has been pointed with only the two vowels e, a of
the Aramaic word Shema which means "The Name".The vowel o
appeared, after 1100 CE, owing to the influence of the reading of the word
Adonay.
Paul Drach, a rabbi
converted to Catholicism, explained in his work De l'harmonie entre
l'église et la synagogue (Of the Harmony between the Church and the
Synagogue) published in 1842, why it was logical that the pronunciation
Yehova, which was in agreement with the beginning of all the theophoric
names, was the authentic pronunciation, contrary to the form of Samaritan
origin Yahvé. He also demonstrated the delirious way of the transmutation of
vowels a, o, a of the word
Adonay into e, o, a,
because this hypothetical grammatical rule (and against nature concerning a
qere / kethib) was already running down with the word Èlohim which keeps its
three vowels è, o, i
without needing to change them in e,
o, i.
Of course, Hebrew Believers
knew the Masoretic pointing YeHoWaH but they rather used the remarks from
Maimonides, that they frequently quoted, to vocalize the Tetragram (The
variants came from a bad knowledge about the "mothers of reading"
system).
1- Period of Discovery
(1200-1500). Early on Hebrew scholars, such as Joachim of Flora (1195)
and Pope Innocent III (1200), tried to vocalize the name of God and they used
the name IEUE. Why such a vocalization ? The starting point came from the
book of the famous Maimonides, written in 1190, entitled The Guide of the
Perplexed in which he explained that the Tetragram was the true name of
God and he asserted that in fact it was only the true worship which had been
lost, and not the authentic pronunciation of the Tetragram, because this was
still possible according to its letters. That is why Pope Innocent III
noticed that the Hebrew letters of the Tetragram Iohdh, He’, Wav (that is Y, H, W) were used as vowels, and
that the name IESUS had exactly
the same vowels I, E and U as the divine name IEUE. He used the Hebrew/ Greek
equivalencies : Y = I, H = E and W = U
(In the first century, Josephus explained that the Tetragram was written
with four vowels.) Additionally, the French translator Jacques Lefèvre
d'Étaples, obtained the name IHEUHE, because he preferred using the Hebrew/
Latin equivalencies : Y = I, H = HE and
W = U in his comments on the Psalms written in 1509. However, Cardinal
Nicholas of Cusa explained in one of his sermon (Sermo XLVIII Dies
sanctificatus) written in 1445, that God's name is spelled in Hebrew Iohdh,
He’, Waw, He’; and these four letters serve as vowels, corresponding to I, E, O, A in Greek, because in this
language there is no specific vowel for the sound OU (the letter U in Greek is pronounced as the
French Ü). So, in Greek, the
transcription IEOUA would be more exact and would better reflect the OU sound
of the Hebrew name Ieoua, becoming in Latin Iehova or Ihehova,
because the letter H is inaudible
and the vowel U serves as a
consonant (V). The best equivalencies would be Y = I, H = A (at the end of
words) and W = O, as explained the Jewish writer Judah Halevi in his book The
Kuzari written in 1140. That is why, the modern scholar Antoine Fabre
d'Olivet said in his work entitled La Langue hébraïque restituée (The
Hebrew Tongue Restored) published in 1823, that the best pronunciation of the
divine Name according to its letters was Ihôah/
Iôhah/ Jhôah. Moreover, when he began to translate the Bible (Genesis,
chapters I to X), he used systematically the name IHÔAH in his translation (that is to say Y-H-W-H = I-H-Ô-AH.) Several scholars preferred
the equivalencies Y = I, H = A (at the end of words) and W = OU, because the
sound OU is older than the sound Ô, for example the name Y-H-W-D-H is read
I-H-OU-D-AH, not I-H-Ô-D-AH. They obtained the name I-H-OU-AH or IOUA because
the letter H is inaudible. Strangely, many scholars believed that this name
JOVA has been kept in the ancient name JOVE (Joue-pater that is Jupiter).
2- Improvements
(1500-1600). To set in order the variants of pronunciation of the
Tetragram, Pietro Galatino dedicated a good part of his work entitled De
arcanis catholice ueritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth),
published in 1518, to explain the reasons for this pronunciation. First, he
quoted the book of Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed abundantly,
specially the chapters 60-64 of the first part, to remind that the Tetragram
is the proper noun of God which can be pronounced according to its letters.
However, he demonstrated that the pronunciation Ioua, admitted in his time,
was too rough and he gave the reasons for this. He explained for example that
the name Iuda, written הדוי hdwy (YWDH), was an abbreviation of the name Iehuda
written hdwhy (YHWDH). All the Hebrew proper nouns beginning in YHW- [why] are moreover always vocalized Ieh-.
Consequently, if the Tetragram was really pronounced Ioua it would have be
written hW:y (YWH) in Hebrew, which was never the case. So, because the Tetragram is
written hwhy (YHWH), the letter H inside the Name has to be heard. He concluded that,
because this name is pronounced according to its letters, that the best
transcription was the form I-eh-ou-a (Iehoua), rather than the form I-ou-a
used, for example, by Agostino Justiniani, in his polyglot translation of
Psalms published in 1516 (if Galatino had directly transcribed the masoretic
form, he would have obtained Yehouah and not Iehoua). The French translator
Pierre Robert Olivétan also recognized in his Apologie du translateur
(Apology of the Translator) written in 1535, that God's name was in Hebrew Iehouah rather than Ioua, because
this last form did not express the aspiration of the letter H.
AUTHOR'S NAME
|
DIVINE NAME USED
|
DATE
|
Joachim of Flora
|
IEUE
|
1195
|
Pope Innocent III
|
IEUE
|
1200
|
Raymond Martini
|
YOHOUA
|
1278
|
Porchetus de Salvaticis
|
YOHOUAH
|
1303
|
Nicholas of Cusa
|
IEOA, IHEHOUA
|
1455
|
Marsilio Ficino
|
HIEHOUAHI
|
1474
|
Jacques Lefèvres d'Etaples
|
IHEVHE
|
1509
|
Sébastien Chateillon
|
IOUA
|
1555
|
Most of the time these
scholars specified that they tried to pronounce the Name "as it is
written"; only the cardinal Nicolas of Cusa explained the difficulties
to get a good transcription from Hebrew to Greek [I-E-O-A] or to Latin [I-HE-HOU-A].
The cardinal Nicholas of
Cusa used this name almost one century before (circa 1428). In actual fact
Galatino used this form explaining several important points. All the Hebrew
names beginning by YHW- are vocalized Ieh- in Latin. For example the name
Juda (YWDH) is pronounced Iouda
but its whole form is I-eh-ou-d-a (YHWDH). If the divine name was pronounced
Ioua (I-OU-A) the correct writing would be Y-W-H and not Y-H-W-H. Therefore
the name Iehoua (I-eH-OU-A) is the
best form taking into account the letter H inside the name, besides this name
had no link with the name Iouis (Jupiter).
In spite of the remarks of
Galatino, numerous Hebrew scholars believed, owing to the work of John Pic
della Mirandola, that the name Iehoua had a pagan origin that is to say that
it came from a change of the name Ioue (Jupiter) into Ioua then Iehoua. Besides
several grammar scholars thought that the Aramaic form "he will be"
(yhwh) was pronounced Iehue (or Iahue) and was connected with the Name.
As Michael Servetus noticed
in his treatise against the Trinity De Trinitatis erroribus written in
1531, the name Iehouah is very close to the theophoric name Yeshua which is
Iesua in Hebrew. This link seemed to him more convincing than the grammatical
form supposed by some cabalists of his time -a future piel (vocalized
YeHaWèH and meaning "He will make to be", "He will
constitute" or " He will cause to become"). For example, this
Hebrew form yehabe had been used by Abner of Burgos, a converted
Spanish Jew, in his work entitled Mostrador de Justicia (1330).
Servetus defended the name Iehouah against its supposed grammatical form (a
future piel!) yehauue explained as "He will generate"
in the book entitled The Epistle of Secrets of the Believer cabalist
Paulus de Heredia, published around 1488.
The debate of knowing if it
was necessary to use Iehoua or Ioua had been a felted quarrel of Hebraists.
However, when the victorious form began to reach the general public, the
debate changed to become much more theological and polemical. The first to
start hostilities was the archbishop Gilbert Genebrard, in his book written in
1568 to defend the Trinity, in which he dedicated several pages to prove the
errors of S. Chateillon, P. Galatin, S. Pagnin, etc. First of all, he
attacked the form Ioua used by Chateillon reminding that St Augustine had
explained according to the writer Varro that the Jews had worshiped Ioue
(Jupiter!), and that the use of Ioua was thus a return to paganism. He even
indicated in his foreword to comments on the Psalms that this name Ioua was
barbarian, fictitious and atheistic! Concerning the testimonies of Clement of
Alexandria (Iaou), Jerome (Iaho), Theodoret
(Iabe), he considered that they reflected altered forms of Ioue, and
apparently these testimonies appeared to him little reliable, because they
were too late and the Jews had not been pronouncing the Name for several
centuries. Finally, he reproached P. Galatin (and S. Pagnin), who had used
the form Iehoua, for not having taken into account the theological meaning:
"He is" to find the right vocalization. Indeed, since the
translation of the Septuagint, it was known that the divine name meant
essentially "He is". Genebrard tried to confirm this definition due
to his knowledge of the Hebraic language. Thus, because God indicates in
Exodus 3:14 by the expression "I am", (in Hebrew Ehie), one
should say in speaking about God "He is", that is in Hebrew Iihie
(a future qal form). Because of linguistic laws, it was likely that
this form Iihie came from a more archaic form Iehue suggested
in 1550 by Luigi Lippomano, Genebrard pointed out then that the abbot Joachim
of Flora had used this more exact form (Ieue) in his book on the Apocalypse.
The demonstration of Genebrard, while not convincing, impressed a lot by its
learning. Moreover, during the century which followed, biblical commentators
often quoted this form Iehue (or Iiheue) near to Iehoua. However, in spite of
the brilliant aspect of the demonstration, this remained speculative because
of the absence of testimonies (afterward, to mitigate this gap, the
Protestant theologians rehabilitated the historic testimonies of the first
centuries). Genebrard's major innovation was so to introduce the theological
meaning of the Name into the search for its vocalization (which was in fact a
cabalistic concept), a process which engendered (the knowledge of the Hebrew
language and of its history increasing) a profusion of new vocalized forms.
|
Those who believe that
Yahweh is the correct vocalization of the Name usually quote Clement and Theodoret. The
testimony of Clement of Alexandria appeared
very late (around 200 CE), furthermore as he explained that God's name Iaoue may be translated into
"the one who is and who will be", it appears that Iaoue is more a
theological pronunciation than philological (A. Caquot - Les énigmes
d'un hémistiche biblique in: Dieu et l'être 1978 Paris Ed. Études
Augustiniennes C.N.R.S. p. 24 note 23). Clement's Iaoue can not represent
an original God's name for the following reason: In spite of his claim
about God's name, Clement did not believe that God had a proper name. For
him Iaoue was only a word (not a name) which means ‘the one who is and who
will be.’ (Stromateon V:6:34), because God is ineffable (Stromateon
V:10:65), without name (Stromateon V:12:81,82). For him the real name
of God was the "Son" (Stromateon V:14:136). Another
example of the same confusion comes from Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) who
believed that the word IAÔ (Ιαω in Greek, [Iah] in Latin)
meant ‘Lord’ in primitive Hebrew (Against Heresies II, 24:2) and he
esteemed that the use of this Hebrew word IAÔ to denote the Name of the
unknown Father, was intended to impress gullible minds in worship of
mysteries (Against Heresies I, 21:3).
A remark from the book of
Theodoret (Quaestiones in Exodum cap. XV) is very often quoted to
support the pronunciation Yahweh, because of the following sentence:
"the name of God is pronounced Iabe". This remark is true, but Theodoret specified that he spoke about
Samaritans and he added that the Jews pronounced this name Aïa. In
another book (Quaestiones in I Paral. cap. IX) he wrote that
"the word Nethinim means in Hebrew ‘gift of Iaô’, that is the God who
is". According to Theodoret there were three different forms, but as
Theoderet probably ignored that there were several substitutes for the
Name, at his time. The intervening period which preceded the destruction of
the Temple, the Talmud (Sotah 7,6 Tamid 33b) makes it clear that
substitutes of the Name were used in Palestinian liturgy. These substitutes
were numerous, as one can notice in the literature of this time (2M 1:24 ,
25; 15:3; Si 23:4; 50:14-19).
The Greek Iaô (which comes from the old Hebrew
Yahu) and the Samaritan Iabe (which comes from the Aramaic Yaw) are not the
pronunciation of the only name YHWH. The name Aïa (probably) represents a
transcription of ’ehyeh form.
Even if the name Yahweh is
widely used its bases are very uncertain and that is why most of scholars
prefer the form YHWH. At the present time there are two main trends among
scholars. The first ones are those who think that the form YHWH is
equivalent to its etymology "He is" and they obtain the forms
Yahve, Yahwoh, etc. The second ones are those who try to read this name
only owing to the philology. For example, the French erudite Antoine Favre
d'Olivet used Ihôah in his
translation of the Bible (1823),the Jewish translator Samuel Cahen used Iehovah in whole his Bible (1836),
the Jewish doctor J.H. Levy preferred the name Y'howah (1903), and so on.
Strangely, some people put more faith in Professor Freedman than (1) in
most other competent scholars, (2) than the Bible and (3) than Professor
Freedman puts in himself.
1) In the note on Exodus
3:14 The Jerusalem Bible (Paris 1986 Éd. Cerf p. 87 note k) recognizes that
«at present the causative form "He causes to be" is an old
explanation, but it is more probably a qal form, that is "He
is."» According to the competent Hebrew scholar André Caquot, the name
Yahwe or Iaoue is a theological rather than a philological form of God's
name. (Les
énigmes d'un hémistiche biblique in: Dieu et l'être. 1978 Paris Ed. Études Augustiniennes C.N.R.S. p. 24 note 23). See
also the Karaites website.
2) In Exodus 3:14 the
Hebrew Bible uses a qal form “I shall [prove to] be what I shall
[prove to] be” and not a hiphil form “I cause to become what I cause
to become.” (see http://becomingone.org/gp/gp1b.htm)
3) Professor Freedman’s
answer to my letter in which I asked him about his amazing assertions,
wrote : «I was pleased to hear from you and to have your detailed
treatment of this valuable and interesting subject, on which I have written
from time to time. I have never been entirely satisfied with my own
analysis and interpretation of the divine name in the Hebrew Bible, or with
that of others, including my own teacher, W.F. Albright and his teacher
(from whom Albright derived his position), Paul Haupt. At the same time, I
haven’t seen anything to persuade me of the superior value of another
interpretation, but I will be glad to learn from your study and perhaps
discover that you have finally solved this long-standing puzzle.»
Despite Professor Freedman’s reputation as a famous editor, I would say
that his arguments are poor. For example, he stated «However, the name
could be a unique or singular use of the causative stem.» This cannot
be taken seriously because there is no evidence, because the causative form
of the verb “to become, to be” does not exist in Hebrew and it has never
existed. Whereas, the dogma of the causative form «He causes to become» is
not in the Bible. Therefore, can we believe in it ?
Furthermore, professor
Freedman chose this analysis not for grammatical reasons but for
theological reasons (See his own comment in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.)
Therefore the name Yahweh "He causes to become" is a theological
choice against Jehovah, who said
that "He will [prove to] be". For example, to prove the
causative form Professor Albright (who was Professor Freedman's teacher!),
in his book From the Stone Age to Believerity, supposed that the
true name could be rediscovered through names coming from false religions
(Babylonian and Egyptian). He then supposed that the formula of Exodus 3:14
was modified to fit his first hypothesis. By saying that, Professor
Albright modified the biblical formula. Thus, should we accept Professor
Albright’s hypothesis concerning an old modification of Exodus 3:14 ?
Professor Freedman's
theory is only supported by a tiny group of supporters (Freedman’s teacher
and a few others) but it is not based on reliable analysis. Even in 1906,
the Brown, Driver and Briggs dictionary stated: «Many recent scholars
explain יֲהוָה as Hiph. of הוה (…) But most take it as
Qal of הוה.» At present, competent scholars know (for
example, L. Pirot, A. Clamer Bible Ed. Letouzey et Ané, 1956, p. 83)
that the causative form cannot be taken into account for two main reasons.
Firstly, the causative form of the verb "to be" is not known in
Hebrew, furthermore to express a causative sense, the Piel form was used.
Secondly, this philosophical notion did not come from Hebrew (but from
Greek philosophy) and the more natural meaning is: "I shall be with
you" according to Exodus 3:12. Thus, the position taken by several
Bible Translation Committees is based on the Hebrew concept being the
omnipotent One who is the First Cause of the entire universe, but it
appears that there is confusion between philosophy and grammar.
Furthermore, this "Hebrew concept" is above all a
"philosophical Greek concept". The translators of the Septuagint
made a similar mistake, changing the meaning of Exodus 3:14 "I shall
[prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be" into "I am He who
is." In the same way, the sentence "I shall [prove to] be what I
shall [prove to] be" is sometimes modified into "I cause to
become what I cause to become", based on the same philosophical
concept, which is not an additional insight. In addition, the assertion
that the name of God means "He causes to become," is in itself a
“description” of God. However, there is no evidence except for the dogma of
the causative form.
The emeritus professor
E.J. Revell of the University of Toronto, in an answer to a letter of mine,
wrote: «I was very interested to read the copy of your work which you
sent me. Before reading your study, had no particular opinion on the
pronunciation of the name of God. As a student in the 50’s, I was told that
scholars had determined that “Yahweh” was the ancient pronunciation. I did not
find the argument well-grounded, but the view was held almost as an article
of faith by my instructors, and I had no superior argument, so I ignored
the problem. I have occasionally thought about it since, but I have not
acquired any information that you have not noticed in your study. You have
certainly collected more information on the question than any other study I
know, and you are to be congratulated on the production of a valuable work.
Many thanks for sending it to me.»
Moses gave the right explanation
"He will [prove to] be" of the name Jehovah (Ex 3:14).
Furthermore, it is written «my people will known my name» (Is 52:6)
that is, of course, the true name because Jehovah "will guard
it"(Ps 12:7) for his servants (Is 43:10). Yeshua officially declared
the name of his Father to his brothers (Heb 2:12). The name Yahweh (which is a barbarism) has only been created to
battle with the true name Jehovah. (The emeritus professor C. Perrot,
of the Institut Catholique de Paris, wrote to professor Gertoux “Your
arguments are very pertinent, but it would be hard to come back without
yielding to Jehovah's Witnesses.” !
First, if God says in
Exodus 3:14 "I am who I am" that involves one speaking of God
would say "He is who He is", but most of the Hebrew scholars
agree, at the present time, that God said "I shall be" and
therefore one would rather say speaking of God "He will be who He will
be". However the meaning "He will be" (or "He will
prove to be") does not allow finding a vocalization because this
meaning is above all a religious explanation without scientific purpose
(grammatical).
Very early etymology
intervened, not to vocalize the divine name again (which was usefulness)
but ‘to explain the real sense’ of this name. Indeed, the Hebraic Bible gives an etymological definition of this
name in Exodus 3:14 which is “I shall be which (who) I shall be”. Generally
the Talmud and Targums commented on this sentence by clarifying that God
strengthened his servants by saying to them ‘I shall be [with you]’. One
finds this same notion in the Believer Greek Scriptures «If God is for us,
who will be against us» (Rm 8:31). However, the translators of the
Septuagint (towards 280 BCE), under the influence of Greek philosophy,
modified this etymology by translating this sentence into “I am the being”
that is ‘I am He who is’, God becoming ‘the one who is’. Then at the
beginning of the third century there was a slight development of this
definition. In the Believer environment, Clement of Alexandria explained
that God's name Iaoue means ‘the one who is and who will be.’ In the Jewish
environment the Targum of Jonathan explained that in, Deuteronomy 32:29,
that God's name means “I am the one who is and who was and I am the one who
has to be”. At the end of the twelfth century Maimonides explained the
name as meaning: ‘The necessary being’. But in no way did these etymologies
serve to find the original vocalization of the Tetragram.
When the understanding of
the Hebraic language rose again in Europe during the thirteenth century,
some scholars tried to vocalize this name YHWH from an existing verbal
form. The choice was only between two possibilities: YeHaWèH (piel form 3rd person of masculine singular),
which means ‘He will make to be’ or ‘He will constitute’ a Hebraic
reconstituted form and YiHWèH a West Aramaic form (peal imperfect, 3rd
person of masculine singular) which means, ‘He will be’. The vocalization yehaweh
had the favor of a few cabalists (see the
Academy of Jerusalem) and the vocalization yihweh
had the favor of some Hebrew Believer scholars. The vocalization YiHWèH
rather than YèHèWéH (B. Davidson - The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee
Lexicon) derives from the word YeHU’a (Qo 11:3) meaning ‘He will be’.
3-rd person
Hebrew
|
Meaning
|
1st
person
Hebrew
|
Meaning
|
YeHaYèH
?
|
He
will constitute
|
’ahayèh
?
|
I
shall constitute
|
YiHYèH
|
He will come to be
|
’èhyèh
|
I shall come to
be
|
YaHaYèH ??
|
He will cause to
be
|
’ahayèh ??
|
I shall cause to
be
|
HÛ’
|
He
[is]
|
’anî
|
I
[am]
|
YéŠ
|
He
exists
|
-
|
|
HoWaH
|
Coming
to be
|
-
|
|
HaYaH
|
He
came to be
|
hayîtî
|
I
came to be
|
3-rd
person
Aramaic
|
Meaning
|
1st
person
Aramaic
|
Meaning
|
YeHaWèH
|
He
will constitute
|
’ahawèh
|
I
shall constitute
|
YiHWèH
|
He will come to be
|
’èhwèh
|
I shall come to be
|
YaHaWèH ??
|
He will cause to
be
|
’ahawèh ??
|
I shall cause to
be
|
However, no verbal form (3-rd person) corresponded
exactly to the biblical definition ’èhyèh (1-st person). Additionally, the form yehaweh would come
from an Aramaic root HWH (see the piel form YeHaWèH of the
verb HWH in Psalm 19:3), not from a Hebrew root HYH (see the piel
form YeHaYèH of the verb HYH in Job 36:6). The normal piel
form of the verb HYH would be, according to Hebrew, the form yehayeh,
not yehaweh. Even the modern hypothetical form ‘I shall cause to
become’or ‘I shall cause to be’ Yahayèh (hypothetical hiphil form
3-rd person of masculine singular)does not agree with the biblical form ‘I
shall [prove to] be’ that is: ’èhyèh
in Hebrew. Two explanations have been put forward to try to resolve the
differences between the biblical sense and the grammatical meaning. These
were to suppose that either the Masoretes had incorrectly vocalized the
form ‘I shall be’ or that the theophoric names which all begin by Yeho-
have lost their link with the Tetragram. For example, Johannes Wessel
Gansfort who proposed Iohauah for the name of the Father in his comment on
the prayer called ‘Our Father’ (around 1480), supposed that the sentence “I
shall be who I shall be” eheieh azer eheieh in his Latin manuscript
could be vocalized aheieh azer aheieh. The Masoretic vocalization
had shown itself to be very reliable; some scholars preferred to
reconstruct an archaic vocalization of the Tetragram based on its etymology
‘He will be’ or ‘He is’. The first to start this process was probably
Gilbert Genebrard in 1568, who proposed the verbal form Iehue or Iihue for
the divine name corresponding to the Aramaic yihweh, rather than
Iehoua, the usual Hebrew name. At the present time, the Karaites propose
the same choice, see this
link.
(etymology: "The
origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown be determining
its base elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning,
tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its
cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where
possible." - American Heritage College Dictionary)
Among the 60 etymologies
found in the Pentateuch, 15 of them have no link with their grammatical
meaning, in this last case some specialists speak of "folk's
etymology". For example the name Babel means "Gate of God"
(grammatically) but it means "Confusion" according to the Bible
definition, the name Noah means "Rest" but it means "
Consolation" according to Genesis 5:29 and so forth.
The method of identifying
a proper noun with its verbal shape is nevertheless contradicted by several
cases in the Bible. It can be seen that the Masoretic spelling is in
agreement with the vocalization of the Septuagint, but is not in agreement
with its own grammatical vocalization implied from its etymology. For
example:
Name
|
M.T.
|
Etymology
|
Meaning
|
LXX
|
Joseph
|
YÔSéPh
|
YÔSÎPh
|
He will add
|
Ioseph
|
Judah
|
YeHÛDaH
|
YeHÔDèH
|
He will laud
|
Iouda
|
Seth
|
ŠéTh
|
ŠaTh
|
He has set
|
Sèth
|
Jehovah
|
YeHoWaH
|
YiHWeH
|
He will be
|
(Kurios)
|
Therefore, those who want to re-vocalize Jehovah
into Yihweh or Yahweh should also change the names of Joseph into Yosiph,
Judah into Yehodeh, Seth into Shath, etc., which
was never done even by the translators of the Septuagint.
Therefore, as the famous
grammarian W. Gesenius acknowledged, according to the theophoric names,
that the name of God could be easily vocalized Iehouah. However, the evident form Iehouah was under attack
very soon because of cabalists then theologians who supposed that God's
name was a verbal form. This assertion is absurd because if God's name was a verbal form, Moses
who spoke Hebrew, would understand its meaning with no problem, which was
not the case (Ex 3:13). In fact Moses knew God's name, but he received
a religious insight of God's name which means "He will [prove to] be" (yihyeh) and not a
grammatical explanation. Furthermore, the normal way to ask a name is
to use the Hebrew pronoun mî (מִי); as in Judges 13:17 to
use mah (מָה) invites an answer which goes further, and gives
the meaning (‘what?’) or substance of the name. Therefore, this
answer "I shall [prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be" is more
a religious explanation rather than a grammatical remark!
To sum up the problem, the
pronunciation of God's name, that is
Jehovah, is easy to find using the theophoric names because without
exception, all the theophoric names beginning in YHW- are vocalized
YeHÔ- (IÔ- in the Septuagint). Therefore the ultimate theophoric name
that is to say YHW-H must be read as YeHÔ-AH.
The meaning of God's name is also easy to determine, that is "He will
[prove to] be" according to Exodus 3:14, which gives the correct
insight. To suppose an additional insight from the Cabal ("He will
make to be"), Hebrew grammar ("He causes to become") or
Greek philosophy ("He is, He exists") introduced serious confusion.
The vital key to avoid
confusion is to note that there are not equivalencies between the religious
etymologies in the Bible and the hypothetical grammatical
etymologies.
GRAMMATICAL ETYMOLOGY
|
NAME
|
BIBLICAL ETYMOLOGY
|
Rest
|
Nuah
|
Noah
|
Naham
|
Comfort
(1Ch 4:19)
|
He
will be laud
|
Yudeh
(?)
|
Yehudah
|
Yodeh
|
He
will laud"
|
He will [prove to] be
|
Yihweh
(?)
|
Yehowah
|
Yihyeh
|
He will [prove to] be
|
-
|
(?)
|
Abraham
|
Abhamon
|
Father of a crowd
|
For example, the famous
name Yehudah means "He will laud" according to Genesis 29:35, but
not according to Hebrew grammar (Yodeh). Thus, despite the biblical
explanation, Yehudah is a name and not a verbal form. Not understanding
these differences, many scholars and translators have tried to harmonize
grammatical etymologies and biblical etymologies. For example, one of the
translators of the Septuagint modified the biblical etymology
"He will comfort" (Ge 5:29) into a better grammatical
etymology "He will rest". In the same way, the Jewish writer,
Philo, modified the biblical etymology "Father of a crowd"
(Ge 17:5) into a better grammatical etymology "[chosen] father
of noise" (De mutatione Nominum §66) that is Abra‘am in Hebrew
which harmonizes better with the name Abraham than Abhamon. In the
past, many scholars tried to modify the biblical etymology "He will
[prove to] be" into a better grammatical etymology "He
causes to become", because this last form (hypothetically vocalized
Yahayeh which can hypothetically be derived from an ancient Yahaweh) could
explained the frequent beginning in Yah- of the Greek testimonies in Iaô of
the first century.
Before Moses Abraham
called on this Name and even Eve knew it. In actual fact Moses ignored the
true meaning of this Hebrew name Yehowah and that is why he asked his
question in Exodus 3:13, because the
name (or the fame) of God did not mean anything for most of Israelites.
His question is about the meaning of the name and not about its
pronunciation (like in Judges 13:17), besides God's answer is also about
the meaning and not about the spelling. (Translators generally modified the
question of Exodus 3:13 according to Judges 13:17, however in Hebrew there
is a small difference between "Your name, what is?" [Exodus 3:13]
about the meaning, and "Your name, who is?" [Judges 13:17] about
the spelling).
The biblical account of
the events which occurred before and after the destruction of the First
Temple helps us to understand the process of the progressive disappearance
of the Name. Indeed, some years before 600 BCE, Pharaoh Necho defeated King
Josiah then established Eliakim (God will raise up) as vassal and perhaps
as provocation, changed his name to Jehoiakim (Yehô will raise up). This
proves that Necho knew the great name of the God of the Hebrews (2K 23:34).
Some years later, in a similar way and in the same context, the Babylonian
king Nebuchadnezzar would establish as vassal King Mattaniah (gift of Yah)
and change his name to Zedekiah (rightness of Yah). This proves that he
also knew the divine name, but only the more familiar form Yah, and not the
form of the great name (2K 24:17). It is easy to understand the chain of
events after the destruction of the Temple. For the Hebrew people it was a
terrible humiliation to be defeated by pagans. Likely at this time they
took good care in the use of the holy name in order not to profane it (Ezk
36:20,21; Mal 1:6) and they surely remembered previous warnings on the
subject (Is 52:5; Am 6:10). It is noteworthy that after the return from
exile even the prophets avoided using the Name with non-Jews. For example,
Daniel used the Tetragram (Dn 1:2 9:2-20) but he used several
substitutes with non-Jews: God in the heavens (Dn 2:28), Revealer of
secrets (Dn 2:29), God of heaven (Dn 2:37,44), the Most High (Dn
4:17,24,32), the heavens (Dn 4:26). In the same way Ezra (-498?-398?) and
Nehemiah used the Tetragram with the Jews (Ezr 3:10,11 8:28,29; Ne 4:14
8:9) but they used several substitutes with non-Jews: God (Ezr 5:17), the
great God (Ezr 5:8), God of the heavens (Ezr 5:12; Ne 2:4,20), God of the
heavens and the earth (Ezr 5:11). Furthermore, these non-Jews no longer
used the Tetragram in their answers to the prophets. Cyrus was
probably the last (just after 539 BCE) who used the name Jehovah (Ezr 1:2).
In the book of Esther there is no Tetragram, but the last book (Malachi)
written for the Jews, contains it.
This prohibition appeared
only after the middle of the second century CE and it was given by rabbi
Abba Shaül, but long time before this date (circa third century BCE) the
Tetragram was not used anymore due to a mystical reverence toward the Name.
Furthermore the Jews considered the use of the Tetragram reserved to the
Temple and outside of it they preferred sometimes using the two substitutes
Yah and Yahu in Hebrew or Ia and Iaô in Greek (numerous archaeological and
historical witnesses during the period 500 BCE to 500 CE.)
There is no obvious link
between the short name YH and the great name YHWH. The vocalization Yah of
the short name YH does not prove anything regarding the vocalization of the
great name. For example, Betty and
Liz are short forms of Elisabeth, but the link between the short forms
and the full form is far from obvious. However, there are only four combinations
for all the theophoric names.
|
Nathan
|
|
He has
given
|
2Sa
7:2
|
|
Nathan
|
-Yah
|
He has
given - Yah
|
1Ch
25:2
|
|
Nathan
|
-Yahû
|
He has given - Yah
himself
|
Jer
36:14
|
Yehô-
|
Nathan
|
|
Yehow[ah]
- has given
|
1Sa
14:6
|
Yô-
|
Nathan
|
|
Y(eh)ow[ah] - has given
|
1Sa 14:1
|
The (short) name Yah is
considered as a name as a whole in the Bible (Ps 68:4), furthermore it
appeared in the same time that the (great) Name (Ex 15:2,3) and it was
mainly used in the songs (Ps 150:1). Contrary to the Tetragram the name Yah
has always been used as the word Alleluia proves it (Rev 19:1-6). The other
name Yahû (which is not found in the Bible) is not an abbreviation of the
Tetragram but a hypocoristic made from the name Yah. As a matter of fact
the name Yahû means "Yah himself" (Yah hû’). On the other hand
Yô- in the beginning of some names is an abbreviation of Y(eh)ô- which is
itself an abbreviation of the full name Yehow-(ah). One can notice that in
the Bible there is no name beginning by Yah- or Yahû- and none ending by -yô
or -yehô.
There is a confusion
between the short name YH and the great name YHWH. The reading in Ya- is
favored by a confusion between the two names of God: the full name YeHoWaH
(Ps 83:18) and the short name YaH (Ps 68:4). The Jews reserved a different
treatment for these two names because they always agreed to pronounce the
short name, contrary to the great name, which was replaced around the third
century BCE by its substitute Adonay (Lord). Thus, the short name Yah is
found in the Believer Greek Writings in the expression Alleluia (Rev.
19:1-6), which means "Praise Yah." Moreover, in the Qumran
writings, the Tetragram was sometimes written in paleo-Hebrew inside the
Hebrew text, which was not the case for the name Yah. It is also of note that
this name Yah was especially used in songs (Ex 15:2) and in psalms.
- The short name YH is
vocalized Yah (Hallelu-Yah in Hebrew and Allelou-ia in
Greek).
- The pet name YHW alone
(not found in the Bible, but found in Elephantine for example) is vocalized
Yahû in Hebrew and Iaô (ΙΑΩ) in Greek (found in a
first-century-BCE copy of the Septuagint). This name Yahû means in Hebrew
"Yah He" (Yah Hû’). The name Yahû is different from the name Jehu
(Yehû in Hebrew and Ieou in the Septuagint) which means
Yehow[ah-h]û’ that is to say "Yehow[ah] He" and not Yah-hû’ that
is "Yah He" (in which case the Septuagint would have kept the
form Iaou instead of Ieou).
The cuneiform
transcriptions in Akkadian are syllabic transcriptions which have only a
single sign to represent the following sounds: ya, ye, yi, yu, wa, we, wi,
wu. In fact, there is only a single specific sign to specify the sound ia,
and none for the sound h. So, the name Yehudah can be transcribed, at best,
only by Ia-u-da or Ia-hu-da; etc. The logical consequence of this is
that, if the Tetragram was pronounced Yehowah in Hebrew, the Akkadian
transcription of this name could be, at best, that Ia-u-a or Ia-hu-a.
We notice moreover that the name Yehu¹ was transcribed Ia-u-a (and Ia-u) in
Shalmaneser III's texts, dated 9th century BCE because of the lack of vowel
e in Akkadian. Therefore the name Ia-u-a could be read as Iu-u-a (or even Ie-u-a) see: http://www.achemenet.com/pdf/nabu/nabu1997-019.pdf
In addition to the initial
part Yehô- which was abbreviated to Yô-, the final part -yah also
had a diminutive -yahu, this last term means in Hebrew "Yah
himself." This term appeared for two reasons. First, the Hebrew term hu’
means "himself" (implied God) began to play a big role in
worship. For example, to distance himself from the other gods and to mark
his durability, God often expressed himself by using the Hebraic expression
’ani hu’, that is "myself" or more exactly "I,
himself" or "It is I." (Dt 32:39; Is 52:6; etc.) Although
human beings can use this expression in speaking of themselves (1Ch 21:17),
generally when one used "He" or "Himself" it was in
relation to God. (2 Kings 2:14)
The Hebrews did not delay
in integrating this divine name into their own names, as into the following
names Abihu’ (my father [is] He), Elihu’ (my god [is] He), or Yehu’
(Ye[huah is] He). Later, the final letter of these names being mute, it was
not written any more. For example, the name Elihu’ is very often written
Elihu. The names Abiyah (my father [is] Yah), and Eliyah (my god [is] Yah)
existing also, there was a mixture of Yah and Hu’ to obtain names like
Abiyahu’ (my father [is] Yah Himself), or Eliyahu’ (my god [is] Yah
Himself).
This association provoked
the appearance of a new divine name, which one does not find in the Bible,
except at the end of some theophoric names: the name Yah hu’, abbreviated
as Yahu. The assonance of this expression with the Tetragram doubtless
favored the emergence of this abbreviation. Moreover, one finds this name
alone (YHW), written next to the Tetragram (YHWH), in Kuntillet Ajrud's
writings, dated from the ninth century before our era. Some specialists
object that the ending in U could be a residue of an archaic nominative.
However, this would be a unique occurrence. Furthermore, this explanation
is all the less convincing as it does not apply to the name Elihu.
- The great name YHWH is
vocalized Yehowah in Hebrew and Iôa in the beginning of numerous
Greek names. In the same way, as there were theophoric names elaborated
from the great name, that is names beginning with Yehô- or its shortened
form Y(eh)ô-, there were also theophoric names elaborated from Yah.
However, a major remark is necessary in the Bible, Greek or Hebraic. The Hebrews took care of making either
their names begin with Yehô- or Yô-, or to end their names with -yah, but
never the opposite, without exception. So, in the Bible, it
is impossible to find, among hundreds of existing theophoric names, a
single name beginning with Yah-. So,
those who vocalize YHWH in Yahweh are obliged to admit that the Tetragram,
the theophoric name by excellence, does not belong to its family of
theophoric names, what is the height of irony. This nonsense is clearly
apparent when one opens a dictionary, where the name Yahve is completely
isolated from the other theophoric names like: Joshua, Jonathan, Yeshua,
John, etc. For example, the name YHWHNN
(John) is vocalized Yehôha-nan in Hebrew and Iôa-nan in Greek (not
Iaô-nan). For example, Severi of Antioch (465-538) wrote in his
comments on John chapter eight that the Hebrew name of God is IOA (ΙΩΑ).
Furthermore, this name IOA (ΙΩΑ) is found in the
sixth-century Codex Coislinianus.
It is possible to verify
that, without exception, the theophoric names beginning in YHW- are
vocalized YeHÔ- (IÔ- in the Septuagint), and those ending in -YHW are
vocalized -YaHÛ (IA or IOU in the Septuagint). In addition, the vowel a
very often follows the sequence YeHÔ-, that is to say the
"normal" sequence is YeHÔ-()a. This sequence is so universal in
the theophoric names that some names have been "theophorized" by
assonance in the following names of the Septuagint: Iôa-tam (Jg 9:7, 57; 2K
15:5, 32), Iôa-kéim (1Ch 4:22), Iôa-s (1Ch 23:10,11), Iôa-sar (1Ch 2:18),
Iôa-kal (Jr 37:3), etc. To sum up, the name Yehu’ results from a
contraction of YeHoWaH Hu’ to YeHoW-[aH]-u’ that is YeHoWu’ or YeHU’. On
the other hand, YaHu results from the contraction of the two names YaH-Hu’.
The form Yahowah is impossible because it may be
read in Hebrew as "Yah [is] howah". Now the
Hebrew word HoWah (found in Isaiah 47:11 or Ezekiel 7:26) means
"disaster" ( "ruin", "adversity", etc.).
However, there is also a homonym of the word HoWaH which means "coming
to be". So, in order to avoid an eventual blasphemous
misinterpretation, the expression YeHoWaH HoWaH (in Exodus 9:3) meaning
"Yehowah coming to be" was modified into YeHoWaH HOYaH. The name
YeHoWaH read as YeHoWaH may be undestood as "Ye [is] disaster"
(and also as "Ye [is] coming to be"), but Ye is not a short name
for God like Yehô, Yô or Yah, therefore, the expression "Ye [is]
disaster" means nothing in Hebrew, that this is not the case with the
name Ya which is the short name of God (Hallelu-Ya means "Praise
Yah"), which involves a potential risk of blasphemous misinterpretation
which the reading Yahowah.
Furthermore there is no evidence of the hypothetic
change Yahô- into Yehô-, because the first vowel a probably dropped
out during the third century BCE, that is to say the epoch when the
Septuagint were made. That is why the LXX has kept the older forms: Nathaniou,
Salomon, Samuel, Sodoma, etc., but it never kept a
form in Iaô- with the theophoric names (but only in Iô-).
The fall of the first
vowel does not apply to the great name YHWH. If theophoric names were still
pronounced Yaho- (in Hebrew) at the beginning of the 3-rd century before
our era, translators of the Septuagint should have preserved these names as
Iaô- because they generally kept the first vowel of proper nouns (Zakaria,
Nathania, Qahath, instead of Zekaria, Nethania, Qehath, etc.). Now, among
thousands of theophoric names in the Greek Bible, there are none which
remained in Iaô- (or even in Ia- only). This should have happened
frequently if these names began with Yahow- (or Yaw-). For example, all the
"theophoric" names of the god Nabu (beginning in Nebu- in Hebrew)
are written Nabou- in the Septuagint. So
the beginning in Iô- of theophoric names gives evidence of the vocalization
Y(eh)o- and not Y(ah)o-.
So, to suppose that all
the Hebrew theophoric names presently vocalized Yehô- would have resulted
from an "archaic" form Yahû- is indefensible from the point of
view of linguistic laws. On the other hand, the fusion of the group u-a
into a simple u is often seen especially inside a word.
Name
|
Meaning
|
Hebrew
form
|
Reference
|
Ge’û’el
|
majesty
of God
|
Ga’(a)w(ah)-’el
|
Nb 13:15
|
Mitswot
|
commandments
|
Mitsw(ah)-ôt
|
Nb 15:22
|
Yisra’el
|
He will contend, God
|
Yisra(h)’el
|
Gn 32:28
|
’Elohim
|
Gods/ God
|
’Elo(a)h-im
|
2K 1:12
|
Thus, the name
Ga’aw(ah)’el became Ga’ow’el that is Ga’û’el then Ge’û’el. More generally
there were contractions in the theophoric names. For example,
Yehowah-nathan became Yehow(ah)nathan that is Yehônathan, sometimes there
was a double contraction like Yehowah-’el which became Y(eh)ow(ah)’el that
is Yô’el, in the same way that the name Ga’(a)w(ah)’el became Ga’û’el (then
Ge’û’el), or Mitsw(ah)ot became Mitswot. Even the name Zeru(‘a)babel
meaning "seed of Babel" in Hebrew became Zerubabel.
At present, the oldest
likely theophoric name is Yôhanan (ywhnn), written in
paleo-Hebrew and dated 11-th century BCE. However, the influence of the
name Yahû is so powerful that the name Yôhanan is rather read Yawhanan.
Furthermore, there is a trend to vocalize as Ya- all the former names, this
being favored by the belief that all Semitic names followed a general
evolution Ya>Yi>Ye, according to a relatively well verified
linguistic law (Barth-Ginsberg's law). However, this law is often applied
back to front, that is Ye< Yi< Ya, which is manifestly false. For example, the name Yisra’él should
have been spelt Ia-aš-ra-il in this time; but at Ebla, in documents
dated from the end of the third millennium before our era, the name
Iš-ra-il, was found, the exact equivalent of Yisraél. In fact, some studies
proved that some verbal forms and names could become vocalized Yi- rather
than Ya- at Ebla. In addition, in the Mari's texts, dated from the same
period, specialists arrived at the same conclusion regarding the
vocalization Yi- rather than Ya- in numerous cases. For example, the name
I-krub (He blessed) is very often written Ia-krub. Thus, among the oldest
known texts, this law (Ya >Yi >Ye) has numerous exceptions.
Numerous linguists have
postulated that, even though this name was pronounced Yehowah in the first
century, it would have actually resulted from an "archaic"
Yahowah or Yahwoh with a classic fall (because of the stress) of the
initial vowel, that is the first syllable Ya- became Ye-. Now, if this
change is well attested for numerous names (although the influence of the
Aramaic language on Hebrew can also explain this modification), there is
not a trace of this phenomenon for the divine name. For example, the modern
names Zekaryah, Nethanyah, Sedôm, etc., had to have been pronounced
Zakaryah, Nathanyah, Saduma, etc., in "ancient times", because
the Septuagint kept the former forms with their initial vowel (Zakaria,
Nathania, Sodoma, etc.). Thus it kept numerous traces of this process which
took place in 3-rd century BCE (see: S.A. Kaufman - The History of Aramaic
vowel reduction. in: Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic literary Tradition. Ramat-Gan 1983 Ed. Bar-Ilan
University Press pp.47-55. A. Dupont-Sommer - La tablette cunéiforme
araméenne de Warka. in: Revue d'Assyriologie XXXIX (1944)
pp.60-61). If, according to the
hypothesis of the previously mentioned linguists, the theophoric names were
still pronounced Yaho- (in Hebrew) at the beginning of 3-rd century BCE,
the translators of the LXX should have kept these names as Iaô-. Now, among
thousands of theophoric names in the Greek (or Hebrew) Bible, there are none which remained as Iaô-
or even in Ia- only. Linguistic laws do not explain why the Septuagint
did not keep any trace of this term Iaô-, which should have nevertheless
been very widespread if the Name had been Yahwoh.
A second explanation is
then proposed: there was a transformation of the name Iaô for theological
reasons (i.e., the protection of God's name). This second assertion, which
is based on a well admitted fact, is still refutable. Indeed, if the
Tetragram was pronounced Yahwoh (the
form Yahowah is absurd, because in Hebrew it means "Yah [is]
howah", that is disaster), the complete name (which is already
surprising) would have been integrated at the beginning of theophoric
names, and all these names into Yaho- would have became Iô- (noted form in
the LXX except rare exceptions such as Ié-zikar, Ié-zébouth [2 K 12:21];
Iè-soué [1Ch 7:27]; -iarib [1Ch 24:7]). This transformation is illogical,
because when finales with -yahû were modified, one notices that the final
choice was shared among -ia and -iou; Now the transformation Iaô- into Iô-
would have been unanimous (which is already difficult to believe, because
even when the Believer copyists exchanged the divine name by the title
"Lord" some preferred the title "God") and in
disagreement with the previous choice of -ia for the end of theophoric
names (this theological choice of ia- was the most logical because it kept
the short form (Yah) of the divine name). Not only does the vocalization of
these names remains very hypothetical, but even their meanings, or their
etymologies, reflect more closely the convictions of current experts,
rather than actual proof. This remains true in spite of philosophical
justifications that are sometimes put forward.
The most reasonable
explanation is so to consider that the Greek term Iô- simply results from a
Hebrew
Y(eh)o-.
The oldest archeological
testimony favors the pronunciation Jehovah. A short inscription dated of
the time of Amenophis III (circa
1400 BCE has been found at Soleb. This writing is easy to decipher.
Indeed, one can transcribe this sentence written in hieroglyphs by:
"t3 š3-sw-w y-h-w3-w". This expression is vocalized in the
conventional system by "ta’ sha’suw yehua’w", which one can
translate by: "land of the bedouins those of yehua’".
These inscriptions contain
enough short writings to withstand cross examination. Furthermore, this
Bedouins Shasu usually indicates for the Egyptians some Bedouins
living with their bundles, in the region in the North of the Sinai. Some
specialists prefer to identify Yehua with an unknown place-name. Anyway,
this distinction is impossible to prove, as in the cases of biblical
place-names like: "land of Judah" (Dt 34:2); "land of
Rameses" (Gn 47:11); or with the Egyptian place-names of Thutmosis
III's list "[land of] Jacob-El"; "[land of] Josep-El".
However, one notices bad
will in the vocalization of this name Yhw3, because the totality of
dictionaries indicate either yhw’, what is illegible, or Yahweh, what is
not in agreement with the conventional vocalization, but never Yehua’. Some
specialists object that one badly knows the vowels of Egyptian words, what
is true. However, for foreign words, which is the case here, Egyptians used
a sort of standard alphabet with matres lectionis, that is of semic
consonants which serve as vowels. In this system one has the equivalencies:
3 = a, w = u, ÿ = i, and that is exactly why the reading by the
conventional system gives acceptable results. For example, in Merneptah's
stele dated 13-th century before our era, the name Israel is transcribed in
hieroglyphs Yÿsri3l, which one can read: Yisrial (conventional system),
what is not too bad. Nevertheless, some specialists who refuse the classic
system, read this name Yasarial because of its old age. Nevertheless,
almost a millennium before, at Ebla, one read this name Išrail, what
contradicts the reading Yasarial. So, in the current state of our
knowledge, the conventional system of reading of hieroglyphs is the best
alternative, and in this system the name (or place-name) Yhw3 is read "technically"
Yehua’.
When he read the text of
Isaiah in a loud voice (Luc 4:16-20) he met this Name (In the translation
of C Tresmontant (Catholic) one reads the name yhwh. In that of A.
Chouraqui (Jewish) IhvH and in that of J.N. Darby (Protestant) *Lord, that
is to say Jehovah according to the note on Matthew 1:20, [broken link] ).
As he vigorously opposed against human traditions it is very unlikely that
he accepted this one. Furthermore, there
was no prohibition about the use of the Name at this epoch and the
vocalization was still known because it has been used in the Temple until
70 CE for the blessing of the Yom-Kippur.
|
A18- Did early Believers pronounce the divine name ?
The trial of Stephen
is a good example to prove that early Believers pronounced the Name.
First of all Stephen was accused of blasphemous sayings and thus was
brought before the Sanhedrin (Ac 6:11,12). Stephen was considered to be a
blasphemer, because he was accused of apostasy (Ac 6:14), which charge he
attempted to refute. His argumentation should have exonerated him, but in
his defense he quoted the episode of the burning bush (Ex 3:1-15) with
the revelation of the Name (Ac 7:30-33) which led him to use the divine
name three times (Ac 7:31,33,49). On the other hand, refusing to name God
could have convinced the audience that Stephen implicitly recognized that
he spoke blasphemous sayings. The fact of using the divine name was not
reprehensible in itself, because
prohibition on its use would appear only by the middle of the second
century, but to use it when on trial for blasphemy before the final
verdict meant execution by stoning (Sanhedrin 7:5), which indeed
occurred (Ac 7:58). A few Judeo-Believers were executed in this ‘legal’
way (Ac 26:10). There were not simply vigilante killings because of two
reasons, first, it was an official (and not a popular) trial, secondly,
Saul, who was a legal expert, approved of Stephen's execution (Ac 22:20).
Some Bible scholars propose the idea that it was the last sentence about Yeshua,
which condemned Stephen. This is impossible for two reasons. The first is
that the proceedings were dealing with blasphemy against the Name and not
the charge of apostasy which would have only entailed a prison sentence
(Ac 8:3; 22:4) and exclusion from the synagogue (Jn 12:42), not capital
punishment. Secondly, the
prohibition on the use of the name of Yeshua did exist (Ac 4:18; 5:28),
but the penalty in that case was flogging (Ac 5:40) not death. This
penalty was often applied (Mt 10:17; Ac 22:19) on Believers of Jewish
origin but not on Believers of heathen origin.
The crime of
blasphemy is clearly codified in the Law of Moses and the culprit was to
be stoned to death outside the camp (Lv 24:14-16). For example, this
procedure was unjustly applied to execute Naboth (1K 21:13,14). The chief
priests tried to apply this charge against Yeshua, but several elements
made their plan fail. First of all the false witnesses did not agree among
themselves (Mt 26:59,60), and secondly the charge of blasphemous sayings
was a matter of interpretation.
In order for that
charge to be valid the accused person must have cursed God's name, with
two conditions, that is to blaspheme God and to use his name, or more
rarely to directly blaspheme God's name. Apostasy being considered as
blasphemous sayings, could entail the death penalty (Jn 10:33) if the
accused person also used God's name before the final verdict of the court
(Sanhedrin56a, 7:5). In this particular case, Yeshua did not so
use the divine Name and he demonstrated that the charge of blasphemous
sayings was untrue (Jn 10:31-39). In the time of Yeshua there existed
blasphemous sayings and blasphemy against God (Mt 12:31). If blasphemous
sayings (generally apostasy) were proved, the accused person was excluded
and cursed by the community. It was this threat which hung over the Jews
who became Believer (Jn 9:22; 12:42). They did not risk death, but rather
exclusion or excommunication (Ac 8:1). However, to satisfy the Jewish
religious leaders, the civil authorities did put some Believers of Jewish
origin to death (Jn 16:2) on vague charges of sedition (Ac 12:1-3; 19:40;
24:5) or disturbing public order (Ac 16:20; 17:6).
While the trial of Yeshua
is the most famous, certain elements appear contradictory as to the
motive for his condemnation and the procedure followed by the
authorities. To understand these difficulties we must remember that the
Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, was a body officially recognized by
the occupying power and endowed with competence in judicial and
administrative matters and in legal exegesis, existing as a single
institution under the presidency of the High Priest (After the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Sanhedrin ceased to exist in its
previous form). The Sanhedrin in the time of Yeshua was restricted to the
eleven toparchies of Judaea proper. It consequently had no judicial
authority at all over Yeshua whilst he remained in Galilee. He came
directly under its jurisdiction only in Judaea (Lk 23:7). In a sense, of
course, the Sanhedrin exercised such moral jurisdiction over all the
Jewish communities throughout the world (Ac 9:2: 22:5: 26:12), and in
that sense over Galilee too. The Sanhedrin judged civil and religious
crimes, but it had authority only over Jewish citizens and being under
the Roman authority, the execution of its judgments had to be overseen by
these authorities (Ac 22:30). For example, the Talmud of Jerusalem (Sanhedrin18a)
tells us that 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, that is in
30 CE, the Romans had deprived the Jews of capital punishment. With the
trial of Yeshua taking place in 33 CE, the Jews could indeed tell Pilate
that they could not put Yeshua to death (Jn 18:31). However, this
limitation concerned only civil crimes, because the Romans did not want
to take charge of religious crimes (Ac 18:14-16; 23:29; 25:19). Moreover,
Pilate pointed out that he had full authority to judge civil crimes (Jn
19:10) yet, he did not want to judge a religious crime (Jn 18:31) even
though this crime was punishable by death (Jn 19:7). With reference to
Judaea, Josephus states explicitly that the emperor delegated to
Coponius, Judaea's first Roman prefect (from 6 to 9 CE), the power to
rule on his behalf, and exercise his authority, including the right to
inflict capital punishment (The Jewish WarII:117). In Jewish law
the only religious crimes which were punishable by death, at this time,
were profanation of the Temple (Nb 4:15) and blasphemy against God's name
(Lv 24:16), which explains why the chief priests tried at first to
condemn Yeshua on these grounds (Mc 14:55). For example, in a extract
from a letter to Agrippa I(-10 to 44), Philo asserted that entry into the
Holy of Holies by a Jew, even a priest, or even the High Priest when not
expressly ordered, constituted a crime punishable by ‘death without
appeal’. Literary and epigraphic evidence indicate that a non-Jew, even
if a Roman citizen, was to be put to death if apprehended in the inner
Temple court (The Jewish War VI:126).
The chief priests who
wanted to eliminate Yeshua (Mt 26:4) tried to put him to death (Mt 26:59)
by using the only charge which allowed for capital punishment (Jn 19:7),
the charge of blasphemy (Mt 26:65). Since there had obviously been no
direct blasphemy against God, in order for that charge to work it was
also necessary that Yeshua use the divine name before the final verdict, which he did not do, using
substitutes such as Power (Mt 26:64), Above (Jn 19:11), God (Mk
15:34). So, the charge remained potential -“He is liable to death” but
could not become actual -“he is condemned to death”, because, although
the high priest ripped his outer garments, he asked «What is your
opinion?» (Mt 26:65-66). Furthermore the high priest alone ripped his
garments proving that the other members of the Sanhedrin did not fully
agree. Having failed, the chief priests then changed the charge of
blasphemy (religious crime), into a crime of lese-majesty (civil crime), but for this, the approval of Roman
authorities was necessary (Lk 23:1,2). This charge of crimen
laesae majestiswas perfectly understood by Pilate, but he did not
retain it (Lk 23:13,14). The law called lex Julia majestis
promulgated in 48 BCE recognized as a crime any activity against the
sovereign power of Rome. Finally, Pilate accepted unwillingly to execute Yeshua
but simply to restore law and order and to protect his career (Lk
23:22-24). It was mainly for this last reason that Believers of pagan
origin would be put to death. Roman historian Tacitus, wrote that to
silence rumors about the fire of Rome in 64 CE, Nero put to death Believers
who were already the object of popular hatred (The Annals XV, XLIV).
Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia around 111 CE, expressed his
perplexity over the absence of any legal motive for the execution of Believers
(Letters of Pliny X:96,3-5; 97,1).
The Romans easily
accepted new religions with the express condition (at the risk of death)
that they be licit i.e. authorized by the State according to the ancient
law called lex superstitio illicita. At the beginning of our era,
since Believers were mainly of Jewish origin, the Romans did not easily
distinguish between the two groups. The Jewish religion being a licit
religion, the Judeo-Believer should have been able to use the divine name
without risk of being pursued for blasphemy by the Roman authorities.
Whereas it was legal for a Roman to become Jewish, the law on
superstitions was nevertheless invoked to condemn Judeo-Believers (Ac
16:21).
This charge seems
paradoxical, because it was possible only if a new god had been
introduced, but certain philosophers believed this was the case in
hearing talk about Yeshua (Ac 17:18). A second possibility is that, as in
the first century, since the Romans knew that the Jews worshiped a god
who was not named, the use of a name unknown to them, would have led to
belief in the introduction of a new religion (Ac 18:13). For that reason,
Paul carefully avoided using the Tetragram, in his defense, but preferred
substitutes such as God, Lord of the heaven and earth, the Divine Being
(Ac 17:21-31). The proconsul Gallio considered that a quarrel on names
(Ac 18:15) did not come from the law on superstitions, but from the
Jewish law alone. Theoretically, the law on superstitions could apply to
the Jews or to the Judeo-Believers only if they mentioned the divine
name, a god unknown to the Romans. However even in that case, the penalty
was not necessarily death but expulsion. For example, historian Valerius
Maximus relates that around 139 BCE Praetor Cornelius Hispalus sent back
Jews who had tried to convert Romans to the worship of Jova Sabaoth
(Sabazi Jovi). However, under pressure from the crowd which hated Believers,
historian Suetonius wrote «that punishments were inflicted on the Believers,
a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition» (The Lives
of Caesars -Nero, XVI, 2).
The procedure
followed in the trial of Paul was still the same. The Jews, around 58 CE,
wanted to eliminate Paul (Ac 22:22) who was then brought before the
Sanhedrin (Ac 22:30). However, knowing perfectly well what had happened
to Stephen (Ac 22:20) and knowing that in any case the crowd would molest
him (Ac 21:31,35) after his judgment, Paul skillfully transformed a
likely charge of sedition, profanation of the Temple (Ac 21:28) and
apostasy (Ac 21:21) into a charge concerning different faiths (Ac 23:6),
which definitively held up his trial. (A few years before, around 50 CE,
a Roman soldier who heedlessly tore up a Torah scroll was put to death
for profanation of the Temple by Procurator Cumanus (The Jewish War
II:231)). It would seem that Paul in a previous trial had not acted
as skillfully, since he was indeed stoned and left for dead outside the
city (Ac 14:19). There is no record in the Scriptures of James' death.
The secular historian Josephus, however, says that during the interval between
the death of Governor Festus, about 62 CE, and the arrival of his
successor Albinus, the high priest Ananus (Ananias), «conveyed the judges
of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother
of Yeshua (Ga 1:19) who was called the Christ, and certain others. He
accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be
stoned» (Jewish Antiquities XX: 200). The stoning of James, a Believer
of Jewish origin, appears to be the last to be recorded.
A19- Does the New Testament give us a new teaching because it
shows that God has changed his name YHWH to "Lord" for Believers
?
Most of the early Believers
were (until 70 CE) Jews and this change has never be explicitly explained
in the Bible. The early Believers used and copied the Septuagint and it
is interesting to note that among all the copies which have been found
(less than 10) dated before 150 CE, none has the name "Lord"
(Kyrios in Greek). Before 150 CE only one piece of the Gospel has been
found (with no dispute, it is the P52 dated of 125 CE) and it is an
exception because there is no nomina sacra in it (holy names, this
process consisted to change a name, mainly the Tetragram, by its
abbreviation). The rabbi Tarphon related, between 90 and 130, the problem
of the destruction of heretic (believer) writings with the Tetragram. The
substitution of the Tetragram was not uniform because numerous copyists
preferred the word "God" (Theos in Greek) instead of
"Lord". Lastly, the apostle John, who was a Jew, still used the
name Yah, in 96 CE, when he wrote his book of the Revelation in which he
used the Hebrew expression Allelu-ia that is "Praise Yah" (Rev
19:1-6), not "Praise the Lord", that is Allelu-Adonay.
Usually, Adonay was
used as the main substitute (but not as the permanent substitute) in the
Palestinian liturgy (Sotah 40b; 7,6) and sometimes Elohim (Damascus
Document XV,1). For example, in the oldest text of Isaiah (from 150
to 100 BCE) found at Qumrân (1Qa), sixteen times 'Adonay' took
of the Tetragram. In daily life many occasional substitute (the Heavens,
Father, the Almighty, the blessed One, Power, the Name, etc.) were used
as seen in the Talmud or in the New Testament. The only exception seems
to have been in greetings, since the Talmud (Berakot 63a; 9,9)
noted that the divine name was to be used in this case, however this was
likely the name Yah (Berakot 9,1). During the period which
preceded the destruction of the Temple, the Talmud (Sotah 7,6; Tamid
33b) makes it clear that occasional substitutes of the Names were
used in Palestinian liturgy. These substitutes were numerous, as one can
notice in the literature of this time (2M 1:24,25; 15:3; Si 23:4;
50:14-19). some of them, used as proper names, are exceptionally found in
the Septuagint or in the New Testament like : God (Theos), Iaô (Fouad
266), Sabaôth (1S 1:3; Rm 9:29; Jm 5:4), etc.
A20- Is "Lord" (Kyrios) the name of God in the Greek
Scriptures ?
The papyrus P52 is
dated 125 CE, and contains the verse of John 18:31-33. Owing to the shape
of this piece of sheet (red part) it is possible to reconstruct the whole
codex to which it belonged (around 130 pages of 18 lines per page with an
average of 33 characters per line, and 29/30 on the verso).
OI.IOUDAOI.HMEIN.OUK.EXESTIN.APOKTEINAI
OUDENA. INA.O.LOGOS.TOU.IHSOU.PLHRWQE.ON.EI
PEN.SHMAINWN.POIW.QANATW.HMELLEN.APO
QNHSKEIN.ISHLQEN.OUN.PALIN.EIS.TO.PRAITW
RION.O.PILATOS.KAI.EFWNHSEN.TON.IHSOUN
KAI.EIPEN.AUTW.SU.EI.O.BASILEUS.TWN.IOU
DAIWN.APEKRIQH.IHSOUS.APO.SEAUTOU.SU
(John 18:31-33)
[Above was originally
entered using inaccessible font that does not map accurately to Roman.
Shorter passage below has been recovered as best as I can, although I do
not know Greek -- Stan Jones, author of Lifespurpose website.]
In the papyrus P90
dated 150 CE which contains the verses of John 18:36-19:7, the name of Yeshua
is this time shortened into JS according to the process of nomina
sacra, like the word Kurios (Lord) which is written KS. So,
when the sacred name was absent the word ‘Lord’ had to be written
without abbreviation. For example, in this codex the verse of John 12:38
have appeared:
INA.O.LOGOS.HSAIOU.TOU.PROFHTOU.PLHRW
QH.ON.EIPEN.KURIE.TIS.EPISTEUSEN.TH.AKOH
HMWN.KAI.O.BRACIWN.KURIOU.TINI.APEKALU
(John 12:38)
However this part of
the gospel of John quoted a verse from the book of Isaiah and in all the
Septuagints of this period (before 150 CE) there are none with the name Kurios
(Lord) instead of the Tetragram. For example:
INA.O.LOGOS.HSAIOU.TOU.PROFHTOU.PLHRW
QH.ON.EIPEN
.TIS.EPISTEUSEN.TH.AKOH
HMWN.KAI.O.BRACIWN.
.TINI.APEKALU
ΙΝΑ.Ω.ΛΩΓΩΣ.ΗΣΑΙΟΥ.ΤΟΥ.ΠΡΩΦΗΤΟΥ.ΠΛΗΡΩ
ΘΗ.ΟΝ.ΕΙΠΕΝ
.ΤΙΣ.ΕΠΙΣΤΕΥΣΕΝ.ΤΗ.ΑΚΟΗ
ΗΜΩΝ.ΚΑΙ.Ο.ΒΡΑΧΙΩΝ.
.ΤΙΝΙ.ΑΠΕΚΑΛΥ
(Isaiah 53:1 [LXX])
There are only two
ways to explain this modification, where the Tetragram was exchanged by
the word ‘Lord’. Either the Believers changed this name after 150 CE(more
exactly between 70 and 135) because they did not understand it anymore,
or they changed it before 150 CE (more exactly before the previous
period) for theological reasons but without there being any
archaeological witnesses. The first explanation seems more logical
because if the Believers (Judeo-Believers) had changed this name during
the first century (before 70 CE) this teaching would have been seen in
the NT especially among a Jewish environment, what is never the case. For
example, Yeshua should have said «I have made you known to them under
your new name ‘Lord’» but as a Jew he said nothing new on this very
important matter (John 17:6, 26). It should be remembered that the book
of John (who was a Jew) was written around 98 CE and he kept the short
name Yah rather than Lord in his book of Revelation (Rv 19:1-6) when he
wrote the Hebrew word Allelu-ia instead of Allelu-adonai. Even in 129 CE,
Aquila who was a Believer converted to Judaism kept in his translation of
the Septuagint the Tetragram embedded in a Greek text. It is interesting
to note that Rabbi Tarphon (Shabbat 116a), between 90 and 130 CE,
related the problem of the destruction of heretical (Believer) texts that
contained the Tetragram.
Dan Jaffé, a Jewish
scholar (Ph.D at Bar-Ilan University, teaching at the present time at the
Institut d'études et de culture juives of Aix-en-Provence), published a
new study entitled le judaïsme et l'avénement du believerisme (Cerf,
2005). In his chapter about the books of minim he explained that the
Hebrew name guilyonim came from the Greek word euaggelion
"Gospel". The Gospel was used by the Believers from Jewish
origin, called Judeo-Believers. Professor Jaffé published several new old
Jewish manuscripts (Tosefta Sabbath XIII,5; Sifre Nasso 16; Sabbath
XVI,1,15c in the Talmud of Jerusalem; Korah 1 in the Midrash Tanhuma;
Sabbath 116a in the Babylonian Talmud) which were not censored by
catholic authorities. It clearly appears according to these manuscripts
that the name of God was written in the Gospel.
Thus, between 70 and
135 CE, the Believer copyists (most of them were heathens who had become Believers,
furthermore they were strongly influenced by some antic Trinitarian
philosophies, see http://www.socinian.org/Numenius2.html) simplified the ‘strange’
writing YHWH [KURIOU] into a ‘sacred name’
,
consequently the expression KURIOS YHWH [O THEOS] became
o
, and
KURIOU IESOU XRISTOU became in the same way
. In
time, many other sacred names appeared. However, Symmachus still used the
Tetragram written in Paleo-Hebrew in his Greek translation (165 CE), and
according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History VI:17), he was an
Ebionite, that is a Judeo-Believer, who also wrote a comment on the book
of Matthew.
The replacement of
YHWH may explain the inexplicable number of errors leading to confusion
between the terms ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ in the Gospel. As we have seen, the
expression Kurios YHWH posed a difficult problem for the translators of
the Septuagint. This expression is much rarer in the Gospels; on the
other hand, the title ‘Lord’ (Kurios) is frequently applied to Yeshua,
which could lead to confusion with the other ‘Lord’, the translation of
YHWH. So, some copyists, to avoid this confusion, preferred to translate
YHWH by ‘God’ (Theos) or simply to omit this name, as noted in the
following passages: Lk 1:68; Ac 2:17; 6:7; 7:37; 10:33; 12:24;
13:5,44,48; 15:40; 19:20; 20:28; Rm 14:4; Col 3:13,16; 2 Tm 2:14; Jm 3:9;
Jude 5; Rv 18:8. The list of variants is considerable for these few
verses. Why did translators stumbled over the reading or understanding of
such simple and well known words as ‘God’ and ‘Lord’? Some specialists
admit that several times ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ took the place of YHWH. These
replacements were done early, since after the second century of our era
no more traces of the writing and pronunciation of the Name are found,
except among a few Believer scholars. Paradoxically, a Believer reader
might even believe that the God of the Bible was called Sabaôth, because
this name is found in the expression Lord Sabaôth (Κυριων Σαβαόθ) in Romans 9:29 and in James 5:4.
Finally those who
would like to keep the Jewish tradition, which appeared only from the
third century BCE, by replacing the divine name with YHWH (not
pronounced) should act in the same way with the name of Yeshua replacing
it with JS as was done during the three first centuries of Believerity!
A21- Did the Jews use the name Jehovah in their Bible translations
?
The Jews at present
use the term Adonay, Lord, Eternal, and so forth,in their translations of
the Bible; on the other hand, some museums in Israel use the name Yahve
(or Yahweh ), but religious authorities favor the name Ye.ho.va.
Additionally non-superstitious Jewish translators always favored the name
Jehovah in their translations of the Bible. On the other hand one can noted
there is no Jewish translation of the Bible with Yahweh.
NAME
OF VERSION (JEWISH)
|
TONGUE
|
PUBLISHED
IN:
|
DIVINE
NAME RENDERED
|
Immanuel Tremellius
|
Latin
|
1579
|
Jehova
|
Baruch Spinoza
|
Latin
|
1670
|
Jehova*
|
Samuel Cahen
|
French
|
1836
|
Iehovah
|
Alexander Harkavy
|
English
|
1936
|
Jehovah**
|
Joseph Magil (see below)
|
English
|
1910
|
Jehovah
|
Rabbi L.
Goldschmidt (see below)
|
German
|
1925
|
Yehovah
|
*(Bible partly
translated) Ex 6:2;3; Ex 15:11; 18:11; Is 58:14; Jr 9:24; 22:16; Ezk
20:26
**Gn 22:14 Ex 6:3;
17:15; Jg 6:24; Ps 83:18; Is 12:2
Deuteronomy 6:4
Left : Joseph Magil - Magil's Linear School Bible (1910 reprint)
1899 New York, Ed. J. Magil's Publishing Co.
Right : Rabbi Lazarus Goldschmidt - Die heiligen Bücher des alten
Bundes übertragen durch Vol. 1 (The Holy Books of the Old Covenant,
translated by Berlin, Ed. Rosenthal & Co. 1925)
A22- Do the Jews have some good reasons not to use the Name?
They agree themselves
there is no biblical prohibition, furthermore the Talmud gives valuables
information because they know that before the second century CE the high
priest used this Name inside the Temple and before the priesthood of
Simon the Just (before 200 BCE) Jews were able to use this Name with no
restriction. It is written in the Encyclopædia Judaica (second
edition, Keler 1973, volume 7 page 679) «If the divine name YHWH is
avoided to be pronounced it is (...) because of a wrong comprehension of
the third commandment (Ex.20:7; Deut.5:11) as it meant “you must not take
up the name of YHWH in vain”, when it meant “you do not swear falsely by
the name of YHWH your God”», furthermore the Rabbi A. Cohen in his
book Le Talmud (Payot edition 1991, pages 69,70) wrote that «this
habit appeared progressively but in the past the use of the Tetragram was
absolutely not prohibited. However, in the former times of the rabbinical
period it was only pronounced inside the Temple», the Rabbi A.
Marmorstein adds in his book The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God that
this interdiction was partially observed from the third century BCE until
the third century CE.
A23- Did early Muslims use and pronounce the supreme name?
Severi of Antioch
(465-538) who lived in Syria, used the form IÔA (Ιωα) in a chain of commentaries
on the Gospel of John chapter eight (Jn 8:58), explaining that it was the
Hebrew name of God. Commenting one of the work of Severi of Antioch, the
famous scholar James of Edessa (633-708) specified near 675 in his
commentary, that the copyists of the Septuagint (at his time) was shared
between two attitudes to write the divine name Adonay, either to keep it
in the text under the form Π Ι Π Ι(1) (corresponding to the Hebrew
name YHYH as he mentioned), or to translate it by Kurios and to
write it in the margin of the manuscript. Therefore, these famous
scholars of Syriac tongue knew the name of God.
1note,
these are the Greek letters "P I P I", which look most like the
Hebrew letters, but sound completely different.
In the Arabic Bible
of Yefet ben ‘Eli (920-1010), which appeared around 960CE, the Tetragram
was (seldom) punctuated Yahwah in the Arabic text (Yahuwah in some other
editions). According to the book entitled The Karaite Tradition of
Arabic Bible Translation of Meira Polliack, the name יוי ע (2) was used by Yefet ben ‘Eli.
2"ywy
ay" in Gertoux's document, tagged as "Hebraica" font; what
he meant was unclear.
Psalm
92:8,9 in Yefet ben ‘Eli's Bible
In the work entitled Codices
hebraicis litteris exarati quo tempore scripti fueriut exhibentes
written by Colette Sirat, the Babylonian manuscript 9 of a Codex dated
953/4 (page 82 plate 27) has the Tetragram punctuated in the Tyberian
system יֲהוָה. This exceptional punctuation
comes from the qere ’aDoNaY (אֲדנָי) which can also be found in some old
manuscripts punctuated in the Babylonian system as the manuscript B15_1
of Cambridge. However all the other manuscripts of the 12th century and
before, are only punctuated with the Aramaic qere SheMa’ (שְׁמָא) which can be found (that is
the vowels e, a), for example, in the B.H.S. (Despite the
tetragrammaton is punctuated YeHWaH (יְהוָה) it is always vocalized Adonay by the
Jews). It is possible, seeing the country (Irak) and the time (10th
century), that this seldom Babylonian vocalization YaHoWaH could
influenced in time the vocalization Yahuwah of the modern Arabic versions
(Fares Chidiaq & William Watts -The Holy Bible London, 1857 (Yahuwah
in Ex 6:3, 6, 8, etc.) The Dominican Fathers -The Dominican Bible Iraq,
1875 (Yahuwah footnote of Ex 3:14 and Yahwah in footnote of Ex 6:3)]. In
a surprising way, several Imans of this time as Abu-l-Qâsim-al-Junayd
(?-910), Fahr ad-Din Râzî (1149-1209), etc., mentioned in their writings
that the supreme name of God was Yâ Huwa (O He), not Allah (Ibn ‘Ata’
Allâh - Traité sur le nom ALLÂH (traduit par Maurice Glotton) Paris, Les
Deux Océans 1981 pp.145-147). A follower of al-Junayd, the Soufi Husayn
ibn Mansur al-Hallâj (857-922) asserted : “Here are the words of which sense
seemed ambiguous. Know that temples hold by His Yâ-Huwah and that bodies
are being moved by His Yâ-Sîn. Now Hû and Sîn are two roads which end
into the knowledge of the original point.” (L. Massignon - Akhbar
al-Hallâj Paris 1975 Ed. Vrin p. 113 de la traduction française, p. 26 du
texte arabe). Yâ-Sîn is
a reference to the Sura 36 and Yâ-huwah wrote y‘hwh in Arabic, makes
reference to the Hebrew Tetragram. Al-Hallâj was rejected as madman by
his teacher, al-Junayd, and died crucified in Bagdad as a heretic.
The below manuscript,
found at Muraba'at and dated 10th century CE (P. Benoit, J.T. Milik, R.
de Vaux - Les grottes de Murabbaât Oxford 1961 Ed. Clarendon Press pp.
286-290) has probably been written by a mystic Muslim (that is a Soufi)
and this text seems to be linked with some events involving the famous
Soufi Al-Hallâj.
Yâh
Huwa
The use of the
_expression yah yah yah huwa huwa huwa (literally, "Oh Oh Oh,
He He He!") is a magic way of pronouncing the divine name. At the
present time, the whirling dervishes (Soufi Muslims) use to sing many
times the _expression yah hu', yah hu', yah hu' in order to get
ecstasy (R.A. Nicholson -Studies in Islamic Mysticism 1921 Cambridge p.
96/ I. Goldziher -Die Richtungen der Islamischen Koranauslegung 1952
Leiden pp.260-2)
A24- Is the doubt about its pronunciation the main reason which
prevents the use of the Name and Is the use of the Tetragram really
important, or is it just a question of taste?
The pronunciation of
the name Yeshua is widely accepted in spite of its genuine pronunciation
Yeshua’. On the other hand the beginning of the name Yehow-ah is in
agreement with all the other theophoric names (Yehô-natan, Yehô-zabad,
Yehô-hanan, etc.). In actual fact the main reason which prevents the
pronunciation of the Name is above all affective, that is to say that one
who does not love another person also does not use his name. For example,
when Yeshua spoke with Satan (Mt 4:1-11) he systematically used the Name
(In the translation of C Tresmontant (Catholic) one reads the name
"yhwh". In that of A. Chouraqui (Jewish) "IhvH" and
in that of J.N. Darby (Protestant) "*Lord", [that is to say,
Jehovah, according to the note on Matthew 1:20,] http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/sacredname.html ), but Satan only used the
anonymous title "God". In his book Proverbs of the Jewish
Wisdom, Victor Malka explains that, according to the Jewish popular
wisdom only the names of those who are not loved are forgotten, therefore
the name of God cannot be forgotten. In addition, «only the very name
of the wicked ones will rot» (Prov 10:7).
In the Bible,
refusing to mention the name of a god means refusing to worship this god
(Ex 23:13) and that is why Satan incited the Israelites, by means of the
prophets of Baal, not to use the Name (Jer 23:27). In actual fact
refusing to use the Name means refusing to be saved (Rom 10:13 quoting
Joel 2:32).
Text from Professeur Gérard Geroux |
|
|
19Parsha T’rumah - Elevation offering - Sh’mot 25 :1 – 27:19 1 st M’lakhim 6:2 – 6:13, Mattityahu 5:33-37 Daniel ben Ya’acov Israel...