Yaweh(LSB) vs. Jehovah(KJV) in regards to the preservation of God’s word teaching found in Matthew 5:17-18.

[NicolasD1689]

Since most TR and KJV only Christians believe that God has kept his Word pure in all generations, even to the smallest letter or syllable rendering of a word, how do we examine the fact that we do not have the original spelling of God's covenant name in the OT? Wouldn't this throw the teaching of preserving every letter and stroke in the TR pure tradition?

Thank you for your help! I have been watching a few debates over these issues, and that question crossed my mind.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Since most TR and KJV only Christians believe that God has kept his Word pure in all generations, even to the smallest letter or syllable rendering of a word, how do we examine the fact that we do not have the original spelling of God's covenant name in the OT? Wouldn't this throw the teaching of preserving every letter and stroke in the TR pure tradition?

Thank you for your help! I have been watching a few debates over these issues, and that question crossed my mind.

TR Advocate and KJV Strongly Preferred, here.

I don’t believe so, no, as the original Hebrew, as I understand it, didn’t include written indicators of how to pronounce the letters and there are no vowels.

But Professor @iainduguid or someone else more knowledgeable than me may be able to confirm or comment further, although I don’t think PB is known for having many TR Only-ists, at least not these days.

 

[NicolasD1689]

I appreciate your answer! Thank you!

 

[iainduguid]

This was (for me at least) a very profitable thread here on PB on the topic of the divine name. I learned from it, and I think most of us who took part did so as well.

Jehovah or Yehovah vs. Yahweh

Jehovah or Yehovah vs. Yahweh One of the wonderful things about our confessions is that we may take refuge in them in matters of controversy, and though we may be assailed for our views on certain topics – here I am referring to textual matters – if the confessions support us detractors will be...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[MyCrows]

I think the general context of the passage is in reference to how Jesus came not to say aside, or destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17-19 KJV ONLY

The "passing away" therefore of "jots and tittles" i dont think necessarily refers to the original spellings of the written word, but the weight or thrust(teaching) contained therein.

 

[NicolasD1689]

I think the general context of the passage is in reference to how Jesus came not to say aside, or destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17-19 KJV ONLY

The "passing away" therefore of "jots and tittles" i dont think necessarily refers to the original spellings of the written word, but the weight or thrust(teaching) contained therein.

Good to hear from you again!

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on the interpretation of that passage. Watching James White vs TR/KJV only Christians, the TR/KJV Christians assume that the Matthew 5:7-8 passage means that God has kept pure all letters and strokes in all ages of His people.

That is what made me confused, when I heard them bring up the spelling and pronunciation of God's covenant name (Yaweh vs. Jehovah). Wouldn't that hurt the TR Pure interpretation of Matthew 5:7-8? I don't have James White's personal email, so I come here to discuss these thoughts of mine lol.

 

[NicolasD1689]

Thank you for this reference!

This was (for me at least) a very profitable thread here on PB on the topic of the divine name. I learned from it, and I think most of us who took part did so as well.

Jehovah or Yehovah vs. Yahweh

Jehovah or Yehovah vs. Yahweh One of the wonderful things about our confessions is that we may take refuge in them in matters of controversy, and though we may be assailed for our views on certain topics – here I am referring to textual matters – if the confessions support us detractors will be...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[MyCrows]

Good to hear from you again!

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on the interpretation of that passage. Watching James White vs TR/KJV only Christians, the TR/KJV Christians assume that the Matthew 5:7-8 passage means that God has kept pure all letters and strokes in all ages of His people.

That is what made me confused, when I heard them bring up the spelling and pronunciation of God's covenant name (Yaweh vs. Jehovah). Wouldn't that hurt the TR Pure interpretation of Matthew 5:7-8? I don't have James White's personal email, so I come here to discuss these thoughts of mine lol.

I haven't watched much of Mr. White's material, and it's not due to a lack of respect for him so much as a lack of time.

As for keeping God's Word pure in all ages for his people, most definitely. Maybe not in regards to spellings or translation discrepancies, but in regards to doctrine, for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, there is no doubt. 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV ONLY

 

[iainduguid]

Hi Nicolas,
The issue is a bit broader than simply the divine name, though that is one particularly important example of it. The Masoretic text as we have it has some variations within different manuscripts, as well as some words where the vowels that are written with the consonants don't agree. The consonants are called the "kethiv" (what is written), while the vowels have to do with what the Masoretes intended us to read (the "qere"). In some cases, it is simply an issue of adapting to later spelling (Yerushalayim often lacks the last yod, for example, but the vowels presuppose it). In other cases, distinct words are in view. So whatever your view of the preservation of the Hebrew text, it cannot be that both consonants and vowels were perfectly preserved. In general, the KJV goes with the "Kethiv" (the consonantal text) and ignores the Masoretic corrections.

This has relevance for the spelling of the divine name. In this case, the Masoretes attached the vowels of what the readers were intended to read (adonai [the Lord]) rather than the consonants yhwh. We know that this is the case since where the original text was adonai yhwh, the vowels under yhwh are those for elohim (God) rather than adonai. The KJV follows this practice, as you can see for example in Genesis 15:2, where if you look carefully you will see they wrote Lord GOD, not LORD God. In four places, they departed from their normal practice and actually transliterated the divine name as Jehovah. It's not obvious why they did this in these four places and not in others. Two of them uniquely have yah yhwh where the first part is a shortened version of the divine name (supporting the argument that the first vowel was originally an "a" sound; Isa 12:2 and 26:4), while the other two particularly focus on the divine name (Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18). For more discussion on the original form of the divine name, see the thread I posted, but the bottom line is that the KJV intends us normally to follow the Septuagint/NT pattern of calling Israel's God adonai/kurios ("the LORD"), and I see no reason we should try to be wiser than they were. Which doesn't entirely answer your question, but highlights some complexities in these issues of textual preservation.

 

[NicolasD1689]

Hi Nicolas,
The issue is a bit broader than simply the divine name, though that is one particularly important example of it. The Masoretic text as we have it has some variations within different manuscripts, as well as some words where the vowels that are written with the consonants don't agree. The consonants are called the "kethiv" (what is written), while the vowels have to do with what the Masoretes intended us to read (the "qere"). In some cases, it is simply an issue of adapting to later spelling (Yerushalayim often lacks the last yod, for example, but the vowels presuppose it). In other cases, distinct words are in view. So whatever your view of the preservation of the Hebrew text, it cannot be that both consonants and vowels were perfectly preserved. In general, the KJV goes with the "Kethiv" (the consonantal text) and ignores the Masoretic corrections.

This has relevance for the spelling of the divine name. In this case, the Masoretes attached the vowels of what the readers were intended to read (adonai [the Lord]) rather than the consonants yhwh. We know that this is the case since where the original text was adonai yhwh, the vowels under yhwh are those for elohim (God) rather than adonai. The KJV follows this practice, as you can see for example in Genesis 15:2, where if you look carefully you will see they wrote Lord GOD, not LORD God. In four places, they departed from their normal practice and actually transliterated the divine name as Jehovah. It's not obvious why they did this in these four places and not in others. Two of them uniquely have yah yhwh where the first part is a shortened version of the divine name (supporting the argument that the first vowel was originally an "a" sound; Isa 12:2 and 26:4), while the other two particularly focus on the divine name (Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18). For more discussion on the original form of the divine name, see the thread I posted, but the bottom line is that the KJV intends us normally to follow the Septuagint/NT pattern of calling Israel's God adonai/kurios ("the LORD"), and I see no reason we should try to be wiser than they were. Which doesn't entirely answer your question, but highlights some complexities in these issues of textual preservation.

A lot of these issues are above my head. I just started looking into the TR view. Just listening to debates or any argument for that matter, I like to live by the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method. Take what is complex and boil it down to its simplest form. I know many, many people have done more research in these areas. So whenever I listen, I try to get to the fundamentals of the matter.

I appreciate your help in giving me more information to chew on! Thank you, brother!

 

[Deleted member 13126]

A lot of these issues are above my head. I just started looking into the TR view. Just listening to debates or any argument for that matter, I like to live by the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method. Take what is complex and boil it down to its simplest form. I know many, many people have done more research in these areas. So whenever I listen, I try to get to the fundamentals of the matter.

I appreciate your help in giving me more information to chew on! Thank you, brother!

There is a KISS method for the text and canon issue as well: it’s called the KJV.

 

[NicolasD1689]

There is a KISS method for the text and canon issue as well: it’s called the KJV.

That was funny! Thank you for the video.

 

[TylerRay]

Interestingly, Peter Williams, of Tyndale House, Cambridge fame, says that Yahweh is an impossible pronunciation. His pronunciation is essentially Jehovah with a soft J and V (Y and W sounds, respectively).

The whole lecture is very informative, by the way.

 

[iainduguid]

Interestingly, Peter Williams, of Tyndale House, Cambridge fame, says that Yahweh is an impossible pronunciation. His pronunciation is essentially Jehovah with a soft J and V (Y and W sounds, respectively).

The whole lecture is very informative, by the way.

Peter is a good scholar, but I think you misunderstood him. We should perhaps point out that he doesn't think it should be pronounced Jehovah, either, but Yah-weh (or perhaps Yah-veh, if we use the modern pronunciation). Unfortunately, because it's a popular lecture, he doesn't show any of his working, so it's hard to evaluate his reasons; the stress on the second syllable is obviously right grammatically, and the vocalization of the he makes sense (cf yihyeh, the 3ms imperfect of the verb to be) but there is no comfort here for supporters of "Jehovah", since he clearly isn't arguing for a sheva as the first vowel or a cholem for the second.

 

[TylerRay]

Peter is a good scholar, but I think you misunderstood him. We should perhaps point out that he doesn't think it should be pronounced Jehovah, either, but Yah-weh (or perhaps Yah-veh, if we use the modern pronunciation). Unfortunately, because it's a popular lecture, he doesn't show any of his working, so it's hard to evaluate his reasons; the stress on the second syllable is obviously right grammatically, and the vocalization of the he makes sense (cf yihyeh, the 3ms imperfect of the verb to be) but there is no comfort here for supporters of "Jehovah", since he clearly isn't arguing for a sheva as the first vowel or a cholem for the second.

The way he pronounces it is Yahoweh. Granted, it's not Jehovah, but it's not Yahweh, either. To my ears, it sounds pretty close to Jehovah.

I should probably point out that my pronunciation of Jehovah doesn't have the long e that Brits often use.

For my part, I don't buy the Yahweh reconstruction, but Jehovah is obviously an anglicisation. To me, the Hebrew (vowel points and all) seems to be Y'howah (or Y'hovah, depending on how you pronounce your waws/vavs).

 

[Charles Johnson]

Responding to the OP, many historically did (and still do) believe the pronunciation "Jehovah" is correct (although the preservation of Scripture is not necessarily dependent on that fact).
Franciscus Gomarus, one of the more famous members of the Synod of Dort, presents the following arguments:
"Concerning the right pronunciation of it, seeing as the learned contend, there is still a dispute on this point. For some affirm that Jehovah is the genuine pronunciation. Others, on the other hand, deny it, and contend that vowels which do not belong have been added to this name. And both sides are supported by their arguments. We esteem, and not rashly, that, just as the second opinion is to be tolerated, so also the first opinion is still to be preferred. The first reason is that the vowels of the name Jehovah, written with the consonants, are able to agree with them, (no less than those of Jehudah to his name). Neither is there any necessary, underlying reason why the vowels must be judged not to belong. This fact, from an examination of the opposing opinion, is well known. The second is, because the first half of the name Jehovah; namely, יהו, “Jeho”, is extant with entirely the same points in the words composed from it, and is without controversy read by all in the same way. Names of this sort, on this account, are called ἰαωφόρα, τετραγραμματοφόρα, (Yah-bearing, Tetragrammaton-bearing) by the most famous Drusius. Of which kind are יהונתן Jehonathan, and with a contraction, יונתן Jonathan (that is, θεόδωρος, God-given), and no few similar names. The third reason is, from the testimony of the LXX translators, who from the words of Jer. 23:6 יהוה צדקנו, “Jehovah our righteousness,” constructed the name ἰωσεδὲκ, from Jehovah and tsedek, ‘righteousness,’ (ιω for jeho, by contraction, fitting the usage of the Scripture and the natural tendency of the Greek language). The fourth reason is, from the ancient custom of the Jews, guided by some ancient religion, who abstained from the whole pronunciation of the name Jehovah. Yet they pronounced its very parts, which were present in the words composed from it, and it was freely employed in them with a similar freedom in place of the whole Jehovah. That is, certainly, Iaho, and in Greek, ἰαὼ. Diod. Biblioth. bk. 1; Theod. qu. 15 in Ex., and Therap. bk. 2., changing sheva, not into an e, as is often done, but with a smoother sound into à. Just as the LXX employed נבו, Num. 32:38, Nabo; שבא, and דדן, σαβὰ, δαδάν, Gen. 10:7; שמואל, σαμουῆλ. 1 Sam. 1:20. Finally, the fifth argument for the former opinion emerges from our retort to the object of this first reason. For if Jehovah were to have the points of the name אדני Adonai, then from it, similarly, the first point would not be a simple sheva, but a sheva with patach: just as, when, certainly, the points of the name אלהים Elohim, the first ones, are quite fittingly sheva with segol."
(Quoted from Johannes Hoornbeeck's Institutiones Theologicae, §3.2; translation my own)

This was (for me at least) a very profitable thread here on PB on the topic of the divine name. I learned from it, and I think most of us who took part did so as well.

Jehovah or Yehovah vs. Yahweh

Jehovah or Yehovah vs. Yahweh One of the wonderful things about our confessions is that we may take refuge in them in matters of controversy, and though we may be assailed for our views on certain topics – here I am referring to textual matters – if the confessions support us detractors will be...

www.puritanboard.com

Dr. Duguid, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Gomarus's reasoning, and whether you find it persuasive.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The way he pronounces it is Yahoweh. Granted, it's not Jehovah, but it's not Yahweh, either. To my ears, it sounds pretty close to Jehovah.

I should probably point out that my pronunciation of Jehovah doesn't have the long e that Brits often use.

For my part, I don't buy the Yahweh reconstruction, but Jehovah is obviously an anglicisation. To me, the Hebrew (vowel points and all) seems to be Y'howah (or Y'hovah, depending on how you pronounce your waws/vavs).

It has long been my understanding that there is no letter in Hebrew for the "j" and "w" sounds we have in English (though these sounds can be produced in Hebrew via dipthong). And if I remember correctly from my university "History of the English Language" course, the "j" sound has only existed in humans for less than1000 years. So I have long preferred using "Yehovah" or "Yehowah" - I think the latter is probably more accurate historically, but the former is more palatable to modern ears. Regardless, back to the OP, the perseverance of every jot and title does not, in my view, extend to pronunciation.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

Responding to the OP, many historically did (and still do) believe the pronunciation "Jehovah" is correct (although the preservation of Scripture is not necessarily dependent on that fact).
Franciscus Gomarus [...]
(Quoted from Johannes Hoornbeeck [...]

spelling ≠ pronunciation

The English J is a speech impediment. Gomarus and Hoornbeeck would certainly not use the English pronunciation of the letter J and Johannes Hoornbeeck would pronounce his first name Yohannes.

That said, there is no reason for people to change a traditional pronunciation of the tetragrammaton. We don't do that with the name Jesus either - A Hebrew name, transliterated into Greek, then into Latin and then pronounced differently in English, Dutch, Spanish, etc.

 

[iainduguid]

The way he pronounces it is Yahoweh. Granted, it's not Jehovah, but it's not Yahweh, either. To my ears, it sounds pretty close to Jehovah.

I should probably point out that my pronunciation of Jehovah doesn't have the long e that Brits often use.

For my part, I don't buy the Yahweh reconstruction, but Jehovah is obviously an anglicisation. To me, the Hebrew (vowel points and all) seems to be Y'howah (or Y'hovah, depending on how you pronounce your waws/vavs).

As several people have alluded to here, there are two distinct questions in view. One is "What English version of the tetragrammaton should we use?" Our Bibles give us at least three options: The Lord, Jehovah and Yahweh. In my view, all three are perfectly acceptable, not least because we anglicize every other Bible name anyway. Peter Williams' point was that most people mispronounce Yahweh anyway, so claiming that it is more precise is a bit silly.

The second question is whether the vowels in the divine name match those in Jehovah/Yehovah, or whether this is an example of kethiv/qere, where the vowels of the word you are intended to read have been substituted for those that were originally attached to the divine name. This often lies behind the other discussion and was the topic of the thread I cited earlier. This is really the question behind the text critical concerns of the OP. On this point, I argued that this is an example of kethiv/qere (and I am sure Peter would agree with me on this). The obvious proof is that where YHWH occurs after the Hebrew word "Lord" (adonai) a different set of vowels is supplied, to avoid reading adonal adonai. Our English translations (including the KJV), reflect that by translating "Lord GOD" or equivalent. Gomarus doesn't seem aware of this, or at least doesn't address it, but it seems to me fatal to his position.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

As several people have alluded to here, there are two distinct questions in view. One is "What English version of the tetragrammaton should we use?" Our Bibles give us at least three options: The Lord, Jehovah and Yahweh. In my view, all three are perfectly acceptable, not least because we anglicize every other Bible name anyway. Peter Williams' point was that most people mispronounce Yahweh anyway, so claiming that it is more precise is a bit silly.

The second question is whether the vowels in the divine name match those in Jehovah/Yehovah, or whether this is an example of kethiv/qere, where the vowels of the word you are intended to read have been substituted for those that were originally attached to the divine name. This often lies behind the other discussion and was the topic of the thread I cited earlier. This is really the question behind the text critical concerns of the OP. On this point, I argued that this is an example of kethiv/qere (and I am sure Peter would agree with me on this). The obvious proof is that where YHWH occurs after the Hebrew word "Lord" (adonai) a different set of vowels is supplied, to avoid reading adonal adonai. Our English translations (including the KJV), reflect that by translating "Lord GOD" or equivalent. Gomarus doesn't seem aware of this, or at least doesn't address it, but it seems to me fatal to his position.

Professor, is it at all considered plausible in academic circles that Exodus 3:14 KJV is a kind of non-answer in light of verses such as Judges 13:18 KJV and Revelation 19:12 KJV (in particular) and Deuteronomy 29:29 KJV and Isaiah 55:8-10 KJV (more generally)?

By a non-answer, I mean to ask if it thought to be plausible that He’d given Moses a placeholder or something to call Him that isn’t His actual name?

I’d welcome responses from others as well, but chiefly had @iainduguid in mind.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Just a side note on “J”: Even in English it used to be “y” in sound. It comes in written form from the italic capital I at the beginning of a word. English acquired the “j” sound via French just a few hundred years ago.