Common objections regarding God’s name !
Knowing the name of God is useless. Knowing the name of God is vital for a religious Jew because it is written: And it shall come to pass [that] whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved (Joel 2:32). It is also vital for a religious Christian because the text of Joel is quoted in the New Testament (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13). Joel’s text has become obscure today because the name YHWH was replaced by KS in Greek, from 130 to 400 CE, then by KURIOS (“LORD”). The last stage was to replace “the name of LORD” by “the name of the LORD”. !
In the Old Testament, God’s name is not Jehovah but YHWH. Jehovah is the English vocalization of the transcription Yehowah, which is written YHWH in Hebrew. Accordingly Jehovah is the usual vocalization of YHWH in the same way that Jesus (Yehôshûa) is the usual vocalization of YHWŠW‘.
! We don’t know the pronunciation of God’s name because it has been lost. According to the Talmud: Rabbah bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The 4-letter Name of God is transmitted by the Sages to their studentsonce every seven years. And some say twice every seven years (Kiddushin 71a). Maimonides wrote in his Mishna Thora-Hilchot Tefillah 14:10: Outside the Temple, the 4-letter Name “Yud Heh Vav Heh” is pronounced “A-do-nai”. Inside the Temple, when the priests gave the Priestly Blessing, they pronounced it (“I-ehu-a”) as it is written (“Y-h-w-h”). There are no Jewish documents specifying that the pronunciation of God's name was lost in Hebrew. In contrast, some Cabbalists claim that the “true pronunciation (?)” of the 4- letter name could give you direct access to God, but this mystical teaching contradicts the Bible (as well as logic because Satan himself knows God's name). !
We cannot be dogmatic, the vocalization Jehovah is not certain. Generally, those who claim not to be dogmatic are paradoxically extremely dogmatic in their doubt. In addition, it is true that the pronunciation Jehovah is not absolutely certain, but like all the other names in the Bible, no more no less. One supposes for example that Jesus, the English pronunciation of the Greek name “Iesus”, comes from the Aramaic name Yeshu which comes itself from the Hebrew name Yehoshua‘, but obviously nothing is certain, including uncertainties. !
The true pronunciation of God’s name is Yahwoh (Iaô) according to a copy of the Septuagint found in Qumran. Given that it was forbidden to pronounce God's name in Qumran, under penalty of excommunication, consequently the form Iaô which was a Greek vocalization of the Hebrew substitute Yahû (YHW), already used (6th century BCE) by the Jewish scribes of Elephantine, was not the complete name YHWH. Given that the name Jesus means “Je[hovah is] salvation” in Hebrew 88 DID JESUS “JE[HOVAH]-SALVATION” KNOW GOD’S NAME? (Yehoshua), if Yahwoh had been the true pronunciation, the name Jesus would have been Yahoshua in Hebrew (“Ya[hoshua is] salvation”) and consequently would have been shortened into Jasus, not Jesus216. In addition, when the Psalms of the Bible were sung, God's name was sometimes replaced by Adonay or Elohim. Given that these two words have exactly 3 syllables (A-do-nay, Elo-him) they were used to replace Ye-ho-wah. As one can see, the name Yahwoh has only 2 syllables. !
The true pronunciation of God’s name is Yahweh according to its linguistic meaning “He causes to become (Yahaweh)”. The biblical meaning of Yehowah is given in Exodus 3:14 “I shall [prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be”. Given that the question of Moses was not about the linguistic meaning of God's name (because Moses knew Hebrew!), but only regarding the personality of God (in the same way Pharaoh asked: who is Yehowah?) accordingly there is no reason to link God’s answer with the pronunciation of his name. Interestingly, the verbal form yihweh (= yihyeh) found in Ecclesiastes 11:3 means “he will [prove to] be” which is identical to the biblical meaning of Yehowah. In contrast, the verbal form Yahweh “He causes to be/come” never existed in Hebrew. !
Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament, called Lord in the New Testament. Jesus and his disciples were Jews and they regularly quoted and read some verses of the Old Testament in 216 Moreover, if the true name of God had been Iaô (instead of YHWH), the evangelical writers would have used it in their writings. which YHWH appears frequently. In addition, the prohibition of not pronouncing God's name only appeared from 130 CE onward. The discussion between Jesus and Satan in Matthew 4:3-10 highlights a crucial point: Jesus read aloud God's name in Hebrew and systematically used it, while Satan never did so because one notices that he preferred to use the word God (Elohim). This choice was not made by chance because Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:13, which says: Yehowah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear. It reads: Yehovah your God in the Bible of Rabbi Lazarus Goldschmidt (1925) as well as Iehovah your God in the Rabbinic Bible of Samuel Cahen (1938-1851). No Jewish Bible contains the fanciful name Yahweh. !
Among the thousands of papyrus and manuscripts of the New Testament there is not one with Jehovah. In fact, among the hundreds of papyrus and manuscripts of the New Testament, between 150 and 400 CE, there is not one with KURIOS “Lord”, but only the cryptic name KS appears (similarly Jesus is written IS). Those strange names are called nomina sacra (“sacred names”). Before 150 CE, among all the Christian papyrus, including those from the Septuagint, there is not one with KURIOS “Lord”, but only the name YHWH written in Hebrew. In his letter to the Hebrews the apostle Paul [who knew Hebrew (Ac 22:1-3)] systematically quoted the Septuagint, but never the Masoretic text. COMMON OBJECTIONS REGARDING GOD’S NAME 89 !
The vocalization Iehouah (Jehovah) is very late. It appeared for the first time in 1518 in the work of Galatino. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in his sermon on John 1:1: In Principio Erat Verbum (1428 CE), explained, based on Maimonides’ works, the various names of God and the meaning of the tetragrammaton, which he vocalized Iehoua. Judah Halevi, a Jewish scholar, in The Kuzari (1140 CE), wrote that the main difference between the God of Abraham and the God of Aristotle was the tetragrammaton YHWH, which was the personal name of God. He pointed out that the letters of God’s name have the remarkable property of being “mother of reading”: Y = Î, W = Û and H (final) = Â, implying a reading IHUA for YHWH (Kuzari IV:1-16). The Book of Nestor the idolatrous priest (Sefer Nestor Hakomer) is a dispute between a Nestorian and Monophysiste which is commented by a Jewish scribe in the 7th century CE. This book teaches us two things: some Christian scholars had contact with Jews who (at that time) were using the Hebrew substitute Hashem (HŠM) which means “The Name”, abbreviated in H' in place of the tetragram (in the passage of Matthew 4:1-10 for example). In its onomasticon sacrum, the Codex Coislinianus 1 (dated 6th century CE) explains the God’s name Ïôa means “invisible” (αορατος) and Ïêoua “Life of G[o]d” (ζωη θυ). Some authors, such as Severus of Antioch (465-538), used the form IÔA (Ιωα), not IAÔ, in a series of comments on chapter eight of John's gospel (Jn 8:58), pointing out that it was God's name in Hebrew. Evagrius Ponticus wrote (c. 380 CE): The tetragram, which is ineffable, was written in Hebrew: Ioth, e, ouau, e, that is to say, πιπι the God. He also explained that the name of the Lord (Jesus) is: ioth, e, ouab, eth, with the Hebrew letter “s” (called shin) in the middle. Maybe he meant that the name Jesus was pronounced Iesûa in Hebrew, involving Ieûa for God’s name, because the name Jesus is written Iesoua (Dt 1:38) in the Septuagint of Aquila. According to the Talmud (c. 135 CE): They then brought up R. Hanina b. Teradion and asked him: Why hast thou occupied thyself with the Torah? He replied: Thus the Lord my God commanded me. At once they sentenced him to be burnt, his wife to be slain, and his daughter to be consigned to a brothel. The punishment of being burnt came upon him because he pronounced the Name according to its letters. But how could he do so? Have we not learnt: The following have no portion in the world to come: He who says that the Torah is not from Heaven, or that the resurrection of the dead is not taught in the Torah. Abba Saul says (c. 130 CE): Also he who pronounces the Name according to its letters (I-H-U-A)? He did it in the course of practising, as we have learnt: Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations, but thou mayest learn [about them] in order to understand and to teach. Why then was he punished? —Because he was pronouncing the Name in public (...) The Executioner then jumped and threw himself into the fire. And a bathkol exclaimed: R. Hanina b. Teradion and the 90 DID JESUS “JE[HOVAH]-SALVATION” KNOW GOD’S NAME? Executioner have been assigned to the world to come (Abodah Zarah 17b-18a). Rabbi Tarphon, related the problem (90-130 CE) of the destruction of Christian texts which contained the tetragram (Shabbat 116a). According to Flavius Josephus (c. 95 CE): 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 had in relief the sacred letters; these ones are 4 vowels (The Jewish War V:235). According to Philo of Alexandria (c. 40 CE): there was a gold plaque shaped in a ring and bearing 4 engraved characters of a name which had the right to hear and to pronounce in the holy place those ones whose ears and tongue have been purified by wisdom, and nobody else and absolutely nowhere else. And this holy prophet Moses calls the name, a name of 4 letters, making them perhaps symbols of the primary numbers (De vita Mosis II:115,132). Philo of Byblos, a Punic writer of grammatical and historical works, wrote (c. 100-120 CE): Of the affairs of the Jews the truest history, because the most in accordance with their places and names, is that of Sanchuniathon of Beirut, who received the records from Hierombal the priest of the god Ieüô (Ιευω); he dedicated his history to Abibaal king of Beirut, and was approved by him and by the investigators of truth in his time. Now the times of these men fall even before the date of the Trojan war (1184 BCE), and approach nearly to the times of Moses, as is shown by the successions of the kings of Phoenicia (Phoenician History IV). The character Hierombal (1300-1260 BCE), priest of Ieüô (Yehowah), was called “Hierobaal [Gideon], Judge of the god YHWH”, in the Septuagint (Jg 7:1). On a shield from Soleb (Nubia) dated around 1350 BCE we read: Land of Shasu (Israelites) those of Yehua. The name Y-h-w3, which is read Yehua (from conventional reading of Egyptian hieroglyphs), is still very close to Yehowah (in Hebrew). !
The vocalization Yehowah comes from a mix between the letters of God's name (YHWH) and the vowels of Adonay. The vowels of “Adonay” are a,o,a, not e,o,a, and up to 1300 CE the vowels of God’s name were only e,a (YeHWaH) originating from the Aramaic word shema “The Name”. !
Yehovah is better than Yehowah. Yehovah is God’s name in modern Hebrew and it originates from ‘Yehowah217’ in 1st century spoken Hebrew. Jesus was able to know and pronounce God's name (Hebrews 2:12) because, before 70 CE, the high priest knew God’s name and, above all, he had to pronounce it in the Temple of Jerusalem (Numbers 6:24-27). Given that in the 1st century we know that all theophorus names began with Yehô- (or Yehow-) in Hebrew, consequently YHW-H was to be pronounced Yehow-ah (Iôa in Greek) not Yahow-ah or Yahû (Iaô in Greek). !
Yehovah is better than Jehovah. Yehovah is God’s name in Israeli rendered as Jehovah in English. ! Ihouah is better than Jehovah. Maybe, but all theophoric names begin with Yehô- not Ihô-. 217 Until 130 CE, the Hebrew letter “W” (Û) was always pronounced Waw (ουαυ) in the Septuagint not Vav “V” (βαβ), see: Lamentations 1:6; 2:6; 3:15,16; Psalms 118(119):41. !
I have kept for the end the most formidable objection: if the pronunciation of the name of God in Hebrew was really Yehowah in the 1st century, Yehovah today, why is there still no linguist of the Semitic languages (absolutely none indeed) who endorses this choice? After reading this booklet the reader will have understood that the specialists who discredit Yehowah’s vocalization are essentially theologians. Indeed, the Old Testament asserts on many occasions that “the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah (Ezekiel 37:28)”, and the New Testament confirms that God will preserve “a people for His name (Acts 15:14)”. Consequently, God asserts unambiguously that he will preserve his word and especially his great name. The question of Moses about the name of God in Exodus 3:13-14 did not concern its pronunciation since his mother was called Yochebed “Yehow[ah] is glory” but its prophetic meaning “I shall [prove to] be what I shall [prove to] be” (and not its linguistic meaning since Moses knew Hebrew). Very early the rabbis assumed that the Hebrew pronunciation of God's name actually derived from the amalgam of three verbal forms Yihyeh, howeh, hayah “He will be, (He) being, He was”. Catholic and Protestant theologians have definitely obscured the name of God by proposing new meanings as “he is/he will be (yihweh)” in the Septuagint, then “he causes to be (yehaweh)” or “he causes to become (yahaweh)”. Evidently the linguists of the Semitic languages (who are not theologians) rely solely on linguistic and historical facts in order to recover the historical pronunciation of ancient words or names. One might think that these specialists could have been more objective than theologians but in fact this is unfortunately not the case because the name of God is above all a religious subject that strongly interferes with the religious beliefs of these specialists (atheism is also a strong belief). In order to understand why professors of Ancient Languages are systematically “silent” concerning God's name I recently sent an email to an eminent Professor of Hebrew and Hamito-Semitic in which I said: Since you know Emmanuel Tov I would like to ask you a question that I hope you will not judge impertinent. Indeed, I do not understand why the academics in general continue to endorse the Omerta on the pronunciation of God’s name (Yehovah in modern Hebrew). Indeed, I have observed many times that this was an open secret (even among the rabbis) but that it should not be revealed to the general public for reasons that I find indefensible. For example, I have a friend who is finishing his thesis on the Greek transcriptions of the tetragrammaton in medieval manuscripts and who has discussed several times with Emmanuel Tov. Although this eminent scholar never vocalizes the name of God in his works, he confided to my friend, without difficulty, that this name is actually pronounced Yehovah in Hebrew, but as he published in journals financed mainly by religious institutions (mainly Jewish) he did not want to offend his readers. It is because of this kind of behaviour that I admire the approach of Nehemia Gordon (who worked extensively with Emmanuel Tov) when he denounces this “conspiracy of silence” in his book Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence: The Hebrew Power Of the Priestly Blessing Unleashed (2012). I also find that his attitude is also more honest than that of other academics because he does not mislead his readers by making them believe that the 92
DID JESUS “JE[HOVAH]-SALVATION” KNOW GOD’S NAME? tetragrammaton cannot be pronounced or that its pronunciation is unknown. I know that you mention several times in your thesis on the Hebrew of Baruch Spinoza that this Jewish grammarian used the word Jehova several times, but you do not give any negative or positive criticism of this controversial linguistic choice. So my question is quite simple: do you think that this pronunciation Jehovah (Yehovah in modern Hebrew) is the right one? The first time I asked this question was to Jean Margain (my Hebrew teacher at the beginning of my research). He kindly replied in his letter dated February 22, 1998: « I cannot tell you that your conclusions are false. Everything connected with the designation of a divinity is not merely logical. Your work is to be placed on the subject of this delicate question in which beliefs of a religious or emotional nature, taboos, pagan influences and superstitious practices are mingled with the belief. I congratulate you for having carried out such an inquiry and I wish you to continue your research successfully ». Henri Cazelles, after having also congratulated me, registered my thesis in 1995 at the library of the Institut Catholique de Institute (T594GER) but without further action. I also asked Jean Leclant, who at the time was professor of Egyptology at the Collège de France, why he preferred to use Yahweh rather than Jehovah in his transcript of the tetragrammaton appearing in the shield found at Soleb and dated the 14th century BCE. He replied in his letter dated February 20, 1998: « It is very difficult to answer your question and it is best to stick to the conventional transcription system (yhw3) ». Professor Leclant obviously knew that the conventional transcription yhw3 was to be vocalized yehua according to this conventional system, as confirmed to me and patiently explained Jean-Claude Goyon, a research master at the CNRS and Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Lyon II. I received many answers to my question and some even explained why they were using Yahweh knowing it was wrong. For example, Alfred Kuen, a translator of the Living Bible and a professor at the Bible Institute, wrote to me in his letter of January 11, 2011: « I confess that I did not research as thoroughly as you did on the name of God. Personally, I do not like the name Yahweh (which sounds like the name of a foreign god), but its use has spread so widely —erroneously as you say— it is hard to escape from it. The reluctance to use the name of Jehovah doubtless comes, as you say, from the fear of being confused with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I carefully keep your letter with all this information to use when the time comes (which I do not see yet) ». After reading this letter I wondered whether the final remark was humour or involuntary mockery. As you see the subject is disturbing, but thank you for having read me to the end. One day later, immediate reply by the Professor (email written in French): « The reply of Jean Margain, [private information], is the best answer that can be given. There is, therefore, no conspiracy and, for me, everyone is free to utter the tetragrammaton as he sees fit, since academics have no elements to clarify their reading. Yours sincerely ». Readers will judge. As can be seen, the main objections to my conclusions are always the same: 1) There is no conspiracy against the Name (given that Satan does not exist), 2) everyone is free to utter the tetragrammaton as he sees fit (because of the right of free speech), 3) since academics have no elements to clarify their reading (because there is no absolute truth). These fallacious objections had already arisen when I published my book: The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written A FEW OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE NAME JEHOVAH 93 I_Eh_oU_Ah (University Press of America, 2002). As one can understand, the main conclusion of my work is summarized in the title, which clearly contradicts the three previous objections. When my book was accepted for publication, my editor asked several peer review committees to give their opinion in order to promote my academic work. Paradoxically, he received 2 contradictory opinions: one short positive review (which he kept on his website, obviously) and another long review, but very negative (which was largely promoted by those who did not like my book, obviously). ! The first review was published in the Religious Studies Review218 (July 2003 Vol. 29:3 page 285) by Professor Won W. Lee, Calvin College, who wrote: This detailed treatment of the Name is useful for those who are interested in the history of its translation of the centuries. As can be seen the support was low (not to say minimum) but it has been positive. ! In contrast the second review, which was published in the Review of Biblical Literature (6/6/2004) by Professor John Laurence Gee, a Mormon apologist, and Egyptologist at Brigham Young University, known for his writings in support of the Book of Abraham, who wrote: Certain issues need to be examined at least once a generation, if only to remind ourselves why the current consensus is what it is. The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is one of those issues. In the book under review, Gérard Gertoux, a French engineer, takes issue with the current consensus and contends that it is incorrect. With excruciating detail and tortured logic, Gertoux passionately argues his point. This work is a revision in English of the author’s thesis at the Institut Catholique de Paris. The French stamp on the work is apparent not only in the extensive use of French sources but in the transliterations throughout the work, which are into French rather than English. This proves one of the more frustrating aspects of the work, as too many times the French-style transliteration obscures rather than clarifies the argument, and in the case of the Egyptian evidence it leads Gertoux to erroneous conclusions (...) A decent editor could have fixed some of the book is obvious flaws. Errors of fact abound, and it would be pointless to attempt to correct them all. One wishes that less effort had been put into the Paleo-Hebrew fonts and more into fixing the transliterations used throughout the book. The book raises serious doubts about whether Gertoux controls any of the languages necessary for his study. Assertions such as “Hebraic language ... favors a vocalic reading of proper names instead of a consonantal reading (Aramaic)” (42) and errors in his transliteration chart (230) do nothing to assuage our doubts. Most of the relevant Egyptian evidence was passed over in silence, and what was used was often misconstrued; his appendix on the subject should be ignored. The Akkadian evidence was also underutilized. One wonders about his grasp of Greek phonetics when he asserts that “iotacism ... led mainly to the confusion of the sounds” iota, epsilon, eta, and alpha-iota (40). Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum, but possibly the best example of Gertoux’s failure to master his languages is his advocacy of what he calls his letters method. Gertoux’s letters method assumes that there is only one way to vocalize any particular consonantal skeleton, which is not the case. Thus his method is fundamentally flawed. 218 RSR is published by the Council of Societies for the Study of Religion (Valparaiso University). 94
DID JESUS “JE[HOVAH]-SALVATION” KNOW GOD’S NAME? The first criticism of Gee gives the key to understand what lies behind the curtain: With excruciating detail and tortured logic, Gertoux passionately argues his point. Did he mean that my arguments were satanic? In addition why was it so important to mention that I was a French engineer (from 1979 to 1983 to be precise)? In any case, the main objections were as follows: A decent editor could have fixed some of the book is obvious flaws. Errors of fact abound, and it would be pointless to attempt to correct them all (...) Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum, but possibly the best example of Gertoux’s failure to master his languages is his advocacy of what he calls his letters method. Gertoux’s letters method assumes that there is only one way to vocalize any particular consonantal skeleton, which is not the case. Thus his method is fundamentally flawed. A child can understand that according to “my letters method” the name
