# Jehovah or Yehovah vs. Yahweh



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 26, 2020)

*
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 found assailing them and not us, whatever they may say.

J. Gresham Machen coined a phrase he used in many applications – the necessity of Christian education to replace soul-killing scientific instruction, contra euthanasia, and contra political oppression – that phrase being, *“the tyranny of experts”*, and his refusal to be subject to such. I have found it useful myself on occasion as I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts” of sorts who assert their views must be accepted as sound scholarship, and who proceed according to presuppositions and methodologies I do not subscribe to. I may consider their work and use their findings if I so choose, and I may not.

While supposed “experts” differ among themselves theologically or textually, the confessions are a safe shelter from such disputations, at least among those Reformed who honor them.

What I am referring to at the moment is the use of the divine name יהוה (YHWH), called the Tetragrammaton, and how it is to be pronounced.

In the Westminster Standards, the Larger Catechism at Q&A 101 we have this:

WLC 101 _What is the preface to the ten commandments?_

A. The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, _I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage_.1 Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being *Jehovah*, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God;2 having his being in and of himself,3 and giving being to all his words4 and works:5 and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people;6 who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom;7 and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.8

1 Exod. 20:2
2 Isa. 44:6
3 Exod. 3:14
4 Exod. 6:3
5 Acts 17:24, 28
6 Gen. 17:7 compared with Rom. 3:29
7 Luke 1:74, 75
8 1 Pet. 1:15-18; Lev. 18:30; Lev. 19:37

_____


In the Canons of Dordrecht we have

First Head of Doctrine

Error 9 / Rejection – *Jehovah* twice named

Second Head of Doctrine

Error 1 / Rejection – *Jehovah* once named

_____


The framers of these Confessions, in the texts of their Confessions showed their view of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. It is sometimes said, they didn’t have access to some of the data that is now available and we see them now as somewhat ignorant – as though the Lord was remiss in providing reliable data for the Reformers’ use at the time of Reformation, and we their progeny must capitulate to Rome in their steads, as they erred! _Sola Scriptura_ overturned! The Reformed communions thrown into disarray as their “Paper Pope” – the Masoretic Hebrew and Textus Receptus Greek – acknowledged by the expert scholars of our time to be inadequate exemplars of an intact and authoritative Bible.

This is actually what appears to be the case in our day! It would appear that, as regards textual matters, Rome has emerged victorious in overcoming Sola Scriptura _as the Reformers framed it_. The Reformed churches and their members are grievously divided as to what the genuine Biblical text is – a terrible wound in the body of Christ.

Does the Vatican exercise supervision over the UBS, and the Nestle-Aland Greek texts? See this:

*United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis*

The Introduction to the _Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece_, 27th revised edition (2006) explicitly confirms this close relationship between the UBS and the Vatican:

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships.” (p. 45)​


Does the Vatican have a say in what Old Testament texts are used in its United Bible Societies editions? It was the Old Testament variants – and the issue of the vowel points – Rome used against the Reformation divines back in those days.

Interesting information:

*EXPOSED – The Vatican “unites” with “separated brethren” through Bible versions. Stated goal since 1965.*

*The United Bible Societies and Rome*

An argument for Jehovah, and examination of the issues, although this approach is *not* my basis in this post:

*Who is this Deity Named Yahweh?* -Dr. Thomas M. Strouse

_________


A related topic on the Confessions, which may be of interest to some:

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:

*Westminster Confession of Faith 1646* 2.3
*Westminster Larger Catechism* Q&A 6
*Westminster Shorter Catechism* Q&A 6
*The London Baptist Confession of 1689* 2:3
*The Belgic Confession of 1561*, Article 9 quotes the passage: “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”
*The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563*, Lord’s Day 8, Q&A 25, footnote 5

-----


Is it to be supposed that the framers of these confessions were ignorant in this matter also, seeing as they didn't have access to some of the data and manuscripts that are now available to us in the 21st century? Or did the Lord God, in the providential preservation of His word, provide what *He* deemed necessary for these men to have available to them?

Many of us trust the Lord’s perfect providence for the Reformed divines over the expertise of scholars with a lot of data, particularly when the scholars look down on the Confessions.

Another article of interest, although – again – not my approach in this post:

*Aren’t newer translations based on a better Greek text?*

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 26, 2020)

photo of NA 27 page:

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 26, 2020)

Steve, what about those places where we have Adonai YHVH, where the vowels are different?
@Jerusalem Blade

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 26, 2020)

Steve,
By all means let's avoid the tyranny of the experts, but it would be helpful if you could actually address their arguments, not raise straw men. To begin with, this discussion is quite separate from other legitimate issues, such as Critical Text vs Textus Receptus for the New Testament, the existence and form of the LXX prior to the NT, confessional subscription, the Johannine comma, or Roman Catholicism. Those are all red herrings.

In favor of the idea that Jehovah is a composite of the consonants YHWH with the vowels of 'adonai (Lord), with the latter being read in place of the former (a permanent kethib/qere) we have the following:

1) the argument raised by Eyedoc84: there are a number of places in the MT where we have the combination 'adonai YHWH (e.g, Isa. 49:22). In these cases, the masoretic vocalization is 'adonai yehvih - an impossible combination in Hebrew, as any first semester Hebrew student should be able to tell you (you can't have a vocal sheva in a syllable closed by a heh, nor do you ever have the combination vav chireq heh at the end of the word). The conventional explanation, going back at least to the time of the medieval rabbis is simple: to avoid reading adonai adonai, the second word is vocalized differently so you know to read it adonai elohim. This is precisely how the KJV translates it in Isaiah 49:22 and elsewhere ("Lord GOD"), proving that there is no modernist/papist agenda behind such a rendering.

2) Regardless of the prior existence or otherwise of something resembling an LXX, the NT itself follows the pattern of reading adonai and not Jehovah when it quotes the OT text and translates the tetragrammaton with kurios. In other words, THIS IS HOW Jesus READ THE OT TEXT!

3) in a few places the divine name is abbreviated and its vocalization maintained. In all of these it is rendered as Yah not Jeh (the J in Jehovah comes into English from Latin Iehovah and is demonstrably not how "yodh" was ever pronounced). See Exod 15:2 for an example.

4) The pronunciation of the first part of the divine name is preserved in literally dozens of theophoric names (names including the name of a deity), such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hezekiah etc. The last part - the theophoric element - is always "Yah" never "Yeh".

Take all of this evidence together and it is clear that the first part of the tetragrammaton was pronounced "Yah" in antiquity, and long before the NT it was not being pronounced when people read sacred Scripture. There is much less evidence to reconstruct the latter part of the divine name, and there are a variety of scholarly theories on that topic. I don't think that we can be dogmatic on this. But since my Savior was happy to render the divine name as "kurios", whenever he quoted the OT, I'm comfortable doing the same (the Lord). If you wish to use Jehovah, or Yahweh, or Yahveh, I don't think you are in sin, or that I need to correct you, any more than I need to change every potluck dinner to a pot-providence. If you wish to argue a different conclusion, please interact with the arguments above and avoid straying onto irrelevant side issues. I don't think the paper you cited addresses any of these, Steve. No experts required, though you do have to have a little Hebrew to follow the discussion, as you would expect.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 8


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 26, 2020)

Dr. Duguid, are there not OT theophoric names starting with “Yeh” or “Y’h”?


----------



## Charles Johnson (Nov 27, 2020)

Dr. Duguid, what do you think of the arguments presented by Gomarus, p. 57-59, in favor of Jehovah being the authentic vocalization?
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=OWM9AAAAcAAJ


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 27, 2020)

@Charles Johnson could you summarize the arguments For those of us that can’t read Latin?


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 27, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Steve,
> By all means let's avoid the tyranny of the experts, but it would be helpful if you could actually address their arguments, not raise straw men. To begin with, this discussion is quite separate from other legitimate issues, such as Critical Text vs Textus Receptus for the New Testament, the existence and form of the LXX prior to the NT, confessional subscription, the Johannine comma, or Roman Catholicism. Those are all red herrings.
> 
> In favor of the idea that Jehovah is a composite of the consonants YHWH with the vowels of 'adonai (Lord), with the latter being read in place of the former (a permanent kethib/qere) we have the following:
> ...


Dr. Duguid's reply is a perfect example, to me, of why there is great merit in modern Bible translations continuing. So much has been learned regarding the Biblical languages in the past centuries these are blessings too important to ignore. In my humble opinion.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 27, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Dr. Duguid, are there not OT theophoric names starting with “Yeh” or “Y’h”?


Indeed there are. Names like "Yeho-shua" "Yeho-nathan" and so on. The difficulty for the traditional reading (which traces back to a medieval monk) is that it requires the vav to be a consonantal vav preceded by a cholem, which I think would be unparalleled elsewhere in Hebrew. This isn't really a new discussion. Samuel Mather is well aware of it in 1760, and while he comes down in favor of the traditional pronunciation (without actually answering why the Masoretes put different vowels under the divine name in different places), he pronounces it a matter of little import - as indeed I do myself. The issue is with describing the alternative as some kind of liberal/papist plot.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 27, 2020)

Yeah, the NT says “Lord” when quoting the name. That’s good enough for me. 

I also say “Jesus” not “Y’shua”. 

I find these discussions interesting, as it is God’s name after all, but it drifts into Gnosticism when one becomes more spiritual for saying it JUST the right way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SavedSinner (Nov 27, 2020)

The Bible should be translated into English. Ministers should be able to read the original language, but the preaching should be in ENGLISH. I can only laugh at ministers, most who are not even bilingual, using Hebrew and Greek in their English sermons or Bible reading. Preach and read in the language of the people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 28, 2020)

I say "Jesus" and I say "Jehovah." I'm an American and I speak English. Any questions?


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 28, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I say "Jesus" and I say "Jehovah." I'm an American and I speak English. Any questions?


Well, yeah. You might spell it that way but do you pronounce it that way? 

Reminds me of first year Hebrew student I knew who pronounced the name of the sweet psalmist of Israel: "Daweed."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 28, 2020)

As someone whose name is routinely mispronounced, I'm confident that the Lord prefers to hear his name mispronounced by someone who loves him than to hear someone with perfect diction who despises that name.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 2 | Amen 7


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 28, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Steve,
> By all means let's avoid the tyranny of the experts, but it would be helpful if you could actually address their arguments, not raise straw men. To begin with, this discussion is quite separate from other legitimate issues, such as Critical Text vs Textus Receptus for the New Testament, the existence and form of the LXX prior to the NT, confessional subscription, the Johannine comma, or Roman Catholicism. Those are all red herrings.
> 
> In favor of the idea that Jehovah is a composite of the consonants YHWH with the vowels of 'adonai (Lord), with the latter being read in place of the former (a permanent kethib/qere) we have the following:
> ...


What's a very brief explanation of the "v" vs the "w" sound for the waw? My Hebrew professor always used the "v" sound, but I never asked him why. I tend to prefer the v sound myself -- because I just like the sound better, if that makes sense.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 28, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> What's a very brief explanation of the "v" vs the "w" sound for the waw? My Hebrew professor always used the "v" sound, but I never asked him why. I tend to prefer the v sound myself -- because I just like the sound better, if that makes sense.


Also a debate. Most scholars say it was w and became v through European (German) influence. But I’ve read there’s evidence it was v and became w through Arabic influence. W sounds awkward to me. No language is monolithic, at least since Babel .

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 28, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> What's a very brief explanation of the "v" vs the "w" sound for the waw? My Hebrew professor always used the "v" sound, but I never asked him why. I tend to prefer the v sound myself -- because I just like the sound better, if that makes sense.


Here's a reasonable argument in favor of the "w" sound. Older grammarians tended to use "w": one of my professors at Cambridge, Prof Emerton always spoke of the "wow consecutive". But then he would probably have read Latin "v" as "w" as well. I think the more recent trend toward "V" owes more to the influence of modern Hebrew than to any clear linguistic data. It's clear that "yodh" would never have been pronounced with a J sound, however. That is largely due to the German habit of turning Latin "I" into "J".



Waw or Vav?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> I think the more recent trend toward "V" owes more to the influence of modern Hebrew than to any clear linguistic data



That makes sense. I recently listened to lectures by Jewish scholar Benjamin Sommer and when he read Hebrew, it was a "v" sound. I also think that Michael Brown pronounces the "v" as well.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 28, 2020)

To infer that because the WLC and CoD occasionally use the term Jehovah the authors are denying the plausibility of the term Yahweh is an example of the _dicto simpliciter _fallacy. For one thing, no philological issues are implied or under consideration in the limited places it occurs. Rather, the most that can be said for certain is that they used the most common vocabulary of their time.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Poimen (Nov 28, 2020)

It is possible that some are given to superstition in the manner in which they speak the name of God. It is also true that there be those who are ultra-orthodox in their manner of speaking the name lack the love of God that others who do not speak so correctly (or carefully) possess. It also true that the Reformers were men of their time and were not infallible in their nomenclature about God.

Yet while the scripture is exalted above God's name (Psalm 138:2) that very scripture reveals that name. It is especially true that scripture reveals that name as holy and, in so doing, a reverential manner (Psalm 103:1).

Moreover, the third commandment and its attendant applications in our catechism should, of itself, be sufficient to guard against any unscrupulousness as well as promoting a careful speaking of the name of the LORD, noting especially the warning that comes with it:



> Westminster Larger Catechism Q.114. What reasons are annexed to the third commandment? A. The reasons annexed to the third commandment, in these words, The Lord thy God, and, For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain,[1] are, because he is the Lord and our God, therefore his name is not to be profaned, or any way abused by us;[2] especially because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment,[3] albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men.[4]
> 
> 1. Exodus 20:7
> 2. Leviticus 19:12
> ...



This is especially true in our day and age where the culture at large teaches us these things do not matter, not only by their indifference but outright blasphemy and misuse of God's name. Brethren, I would assert that we have all the more reason to be scrupulous about these matters.

In light of these things, I believe we should welcome all attempts to parse and explain these things in as much detail of scripture as possible.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 28, 2020)

Poimen said:


> This is especially true in our day and age where the culture at large teaches us these things do not matter, not only by their indifference but outright blasphemy and misuse of God's name. Brethren, I would assert that we have all the more reason to be scrupulous about these matters.
> 
> In light of these things, I believe we should welcome all attempts to parse and explain these things in as much detail of scripture as possible.


Given this importance, have you reached a conclusion on the specific question at hand? If so, would you be willing to share and explain your thinking?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 28, 2020)

VictorBravo said:


> Reminds me of first year Hebrew student I knew who pronounced the name of the sweet psalmist of Israel: "Daweed."


Yes, I've known a few chaps like this myself. They typically take themselves very seriously.


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Nov 30, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Steve,
> By all means let's avoid the tyranny of the experts, but it would be helpful if you could actually address their arguments, not raise straw men. To begin with, this discussion is quite separate from other legitimate issues, such as Critical Text vs Textus Receptus for the New Testament, the existence and form of the LXX prior to the NT, confessional subscription, the Johannine comma, or Roman Catholicism. Those are all red herrings.
> 
> In favor of the idea that Jehovah is a composite of the consonants YHWH with the vowels of 'adonai (Lord), with the latter being read in place of the former (a permanent kethib/qere) we have the following:
> ...


Just to respond to Iain's points with some questions and comments:

1) Is it always so that theophoric names of this type always have either "Jah" at the end or "Jeho" at the beginning?

2) What is the theory for the origin of "Jeho" (e.g. Jehoshaphat) if the Tetragrammaton is really Yahweh?

3) What is "the" Masoretic pointing for the Tetragrammaton in Isa. 49:22? Different Hebrew Bibles seem to give different pointing. The Wikipedia entry for "Tetragrammaton" lists six different pointings used for the Tetragrammaton at different places in the Leningrad Codex. It would be interesting to have the same information for the Aleppo Codex. Unfortunately the Jerusalem Crown Bible has standardised on this matter.

4) Have we lost the knowledge of the Divine Name? Was this something that Moses knew and we didn't? I don't feel that "I\J" and "v/w" are of much significance, given regional and historic variations in pronunciation, but the "o" seems to me more relevant.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 30, 2020)

Welcome to the board Douglas; though it seems redundant given choice of user name, per the board rules, see the link at bottom of page for fixing a signature that will clue folks more to who you are. Again, welcome to the board.


Douglas Somerset said:


> Just to respond to Iain's points with some questions and comments:
> 
> 1) Is it always so that theophoric names of this type always have either "Jah" at the end or "Jeho" at the beginning?
> 
> ...


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 30, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> 4) The pronunciation of the first part of the divine name is preserved in literally dozens of theophoric names (names including the name of a deity), such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hezekiah etc. The last part - the theophoric element - is always "Yah" never "Yeh".


You've forgotten all the places where the divine name is at the _beginning _of a theophoric name: Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoiakim, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, Jehoshua, etc.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 30, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> You've forgotten all the places where the divine name is at the _beginning _of a theophoric name: Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoiakim, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, Jehoshua, etc.


A bit out of my league here, but can't vowel value change in Hebrew when you add syllables to a word? And Hebrew stress usually falls on the last syllable, as I recall. Thus the vowel of the first syllable is more likely to be altered -- via shortening -- in a longish word than the last. If so, wouldn't "Yeh" more likely be a shortening of "Yah" rather than the reverse?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 30, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> A bit out of my league here, but can't vowel value change in Hebrew when you add syllables to a word? And Hebrew stress usually falls on the last syllable, as I recall. Thus the vowel of the first syllable is more likely to be altered -- via shortening -- in a longish word than the last. If so, wouldn't "Yeh" more likely be a shortening of "Yah" rather than the reverse?


It works both ways. "Yah" can be a lengthening of "Yeh" due to it being at the end of the word rather than at the beginning. That being the case, it makes no sense to go to the pointing at the end of "Isaiah" to know what the pointing would be if "yah" were at the front of a word instead of the end (as it is in the tetragrammaton).


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 30, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> It works both ways. "Yah" can be a lengthening of "Yeh" due to it being at the end of the word rather than at the beginning. That being the case, it makes no sense to go to the pointing at the end of "Isaiah" to know what the pointing would be if "yah" were at the front of a word instead of the end (as it is in the tetragrammaton).


Um....no. Seghol could be lengthened to a qamets in a pausal form, but that's not what we're talking about here. That would have to be the last word or the word marked with an atnach accent. Can you give me an example of the change you have in mind?

On the other hand, a qamets routinely shortens to a sheva in a distant syllable (distant from the accent, which in Hebrew is usually the last or second last syllable. So dabar (word) becomes debarim, etc. So yes an original "yahu" would be expected to become "yeho" when it prefixes a name. That is quite literally lesson 1 in Weingreen's Introductory Hebrew grammar.

Having said that a hypothetical Hebrew form "Yehovah" would show the same shortening, so it certainly wouldn't be "Yahovah"; but in a two syllable word the contraction wouldn't happen: hence Yahweh. At the end of the day, theophoric names are not decisive by themselves. 

Douglas,
Isaiah 49:22 in the Leningrad codex is yehvih - an impossible form to pronounce in Hebrew (as is often the case with Kethiv/qere, where the vowels of one word are linked with the consonants of another. I don't know of any manuscripts that have anything else, but in any event this is just one of many places where this combination "adonai yhwh" happens. It is clear that the Massoretes intended you to read "adonai elohim" here, which should not be surprising since we all know that the Massoretes did not pronounce the divine name. So why would they put the vowels of a name that they never thought you should say.

Behind this question may be the idea that the vowel points were written by the original authors, rather than added later by the Massoretes. But this would actually be one of many pieces of evidence that for a long time the text was transmitted in unpointed script. That's a slightly different discussion, however.

I'm not sure why the "o" feels more important to you than the consonants. With my name, people mostly get the consonants right but vary wildly on the vowels. I still know who they are talking about.

Here's what we can say about the divine name:
1) we know for sure that it didn't begin with a J sound. The "yodh" is always a "y" sound and the monk who invented Jehovah in the Middle Ages would have written Iehovah in Latin; he also probably pronounced the Latin v as a "w", as most Hebrew grammarians believe the consonantal Hebrew vav/waw would have been.
2) Nowhere else in Hebrew (that I know of) is a consonantal vav preceded by a cholem (o sound). When vav's and cholem's occur together, either they are simply the vowel (o) or the vav comes first (Mitsvot). I'd be very interested if anyone can show me a counter example. 
3) When the divine name occurs in its shortened form, it appears to have been pronounceable: in these places it is always "yah". (see Ex. 15:2)
4) There are a number of two syllable Hebrew nouns in which the second syllable begins with a consonantal vav: e.g. mitsvah, miqveh. These are often formed from verbs with a consonantal vav in the middle (tsavah; qavah), just as yahweh is formed from hayah/havah.
5) It's really hard to explain why the tetragrammaton - of all words - would ever be mis-spelled by the Massoretes, unless they were marking it as a kethib/qere word, to be read as a different word in different contexts.

So yes, I do think the exact pronunciation of the divine name has not been clearly preserved for us. It certainly wasn't Jehovah; it may or may not have been Yahweh. That's why I generally try to follow Jesus' example and call his Father "Lord" (kurios) or "Father." But I won't quibble with anyone who wants to call him Jehovah, any more than I quibble with people who call me Doogood or make it French "Du Gweed". I know who they mean. After all, we don't quibble over the name "Jesus," though that is equally certainly not what the disciples would have called their master.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 5


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 30, 2020)

What if YHVH was never meant to be pronounced? What if it is just the sound of wind?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2020)

Phil D. – _dicto simpliciter _fallacy: In a nutshell, drawing a conclusion from an over-simplistic statement of a rule; or, assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case.

Not talking about a “rule” here, Phil, just the usage – sparce though it be – of the framers of the WLC, and the CoD.

“For one thing, no philological issues are implied or under consideration in the limited places it occurs.” Granted. “and, the most that can be said for certain is that they used the most common vocabulary of their time.” “Common vocabulary”? It was the _only_ vocalization of the Tetragrammaton used by these learned men. They were not country bumpkins.

-----

Hello Iain – my approach is “raising straw men”, and “red herrings”? I can see your saying that, as I bypass your – and much current Hebrew scholarship – in this. It boils down to this, I have confidence in the scholarship of the Reformation divines, and the textual materials providence gave to them, over my confidence in you, and your expertise, in this matter.

I’ll stand in the confessions of the Reformation, whatever you say.

Confidence in the LORD giving us a settled and sure Bible – the Hebrew and the Greek – has been shattered for many in our time. Regarding Rome: whatever their part in the Hebrew may not easily be discerned; in the Greek more easily. It remains – in glaring fact – that among Protestants we have generally capitulated to their view. Those with a strong faith in God’s word nonetheless, well and good; but the soft underbelly of modern Bibles (the plethora of variants) has been exposed, and many genuine believers are perplexed, dismayed. And many unbelievers rightly skeptical – and fortified against trusting God’s word. Yes, the Spirit of Christ may cut through that, but such doubt remains a terrible wound, except it be healed.

I will stand in the faith and the learning of our Reformation forebears – here on this confessional board.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 30, 2020)

Steve,

It is my understanding that the translators of our English Bible also left Latinized versions of many other Bible names, which they presumably knew were not the original pronunciation but which were familiar to their audience. Is it not possible that they did the same with "Jehovah", and that their (and our Confession's) use of it is a mere convenience and is not intended to be an authoritative stand?


----------



## Taylor (Nov 30, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Iain – my approach is “raising straw men”, and “red herrings”? I can see your saying that, as I bypass your – and much current Hebrew scholarship – in this. It boils down to this, I have confidence in the scholarship of the Reformation divines, and the textual materials providence gave to them, over my confidence in you, and your expertise, in this matter.
> 
> I’ll stand in the confessions of the Reformation, whatever you say.
> 
> ...



Brother,

Am I understanding you correctly, that you believe pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" led to and continues to lead to liberalism?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 30, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I’ll stand in the confessions of the Reformation, whatever you say.
> 
> Confidence in the LORD giving us a settled and sure Bible – the Hebrew and the Greek – has been shattered for many in our time. Regarding Rome: whatever their part in the Hebrew may not easily be discerned; in the Greek more easily. It remains – in glaring fact – that among Protestants we have generally capitulated to their view. Those with a strong faith in God’s word nonetheless, well and good; but the soft underbelly of modern Bibles (the plethora of variants) has been exposed, and many genuine believers are perplexed, dismayed. And many unbelievers rightly skeptical – and fortified against trusting God’s word. Yes, the Spirit of Christ may cut through that, but such doubt remains a terrible wound, except it be healed.
> 
> I will stand in the faith and the learning of our Reformation forebears – here on this confessional board.


Steve,

I have found it interesting comparing two esteemed Reformation Bibles - the Geneva Bible (1599 ed) and the Authorised Version (1769 ed).

The Geneva Bible says Rev 16:5 "And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and *Holy*, because thou hast judged these things." This follows the Greek text.
The Authorised version says "And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, *and shalt be*, because thou hast judged thus." This follows Beza's conjectural emendation.

The Geneva Bible says 1 John 2:23 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."
The Authorised version says "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." In my AV this extra portion is in italics.

Here we have textual variances among two esteemed Reformation Bibles. Which one is correct? It seems to me you cannot simply appeal to the Reformation Bibles for, in your words, "a settled and sure Bible".

I'll stick to my ESV and my NASB

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2020)

Hi Taylor,

You asked, "Am I understanding you correctly, that you believe pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" led to and continues to lead to liberalism?" No, not at all. I am sorry if I gave that impression!

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 30, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hi Taylor,
> 
> You asked, "Am I understanding you correctly, that you believe pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" led to and continues to lead to liberalism?" No, not at all. I am sorry if I gave that impression!


Thank you for the clarification, brother! I’m following the thread, but not engaging, since this isn’t my wheelhouse. I just wanted to make sure I was following aright.


----------



## iainduguid (Nov 30, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Phil D. – _dicto simpliciter _fallacy: In a nutshell, drawing a conclusion from an over-simplistic statement of a rule; or, assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case.
> 
> Not talking about a “rule” here, Phil, just the usage – sparce though it be – of the framers of the WLC, and the CoD.
> 
> ...


You just made my point about straw men and red herrings. There is NO text critical issue here, as far as I'm aware. It's not like the discussion of Majority Text vs critical text; we are both appealing to exactly the same Masoretic Text, with the same consonants and pointing. It's not like the Reformers had a text with one vocalization and we have another. The settled text that we both agree on has variant pointing for the divine name in different places. Nor has the pronunciation of yodh changed since then. I don't think the pronunciation of the divine name was a confessional issue for the Reformers, and so far you have not provided any evidence to the contrary, other than that they used the customary pronunciation of their time.

You said to Taylor "You asked, "Am I understanding you correctly, that you believe pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" led to and continues to lead to liberalism?" No, not at all. I am sorry if I gave that impression!" 

How else should we have taken your comment "I'll stand in the confessions of the Reformation, whatever you say"?

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for any answers to the points I made. If you think I am mistaken, please help me to see where the mistake might be. I'm open to be instructed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2020)

Stephen, in these two instances you cite, in 1 John 2:23, the italic words have been supplied to aid understanding; it is clear they are not in the text. It's really a distinction without a difference.

Regarding Rev 16:5, it's an interesting study. I touched on it briefly here; and a far better study is here, Beza and Revelation 16:5. I'd go with the AV.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2020)

Hello Iain, I did say (re straw men and red herring) "I can see your saying that, as I bypass your – and much current Hebrew scholarship – in this."

I certainly wouldn't call _you_ a liberal - in fact I am greatly edified by one of your commentaries, and was thinking of purchasing another one. Nor did an alternative pronunciation of YHWH lead to liberalism or continues doing such. Textual liberalism is a much bigger topic, and hinges on more than just one word.

-----

Stephen, The 1599 Geneva Bible uses the form "Jehovah" in Psalm 83:18, Genesis 22:14, and Exodus 17:15.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 30, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> Given this importance, have you reached a conclusion on the specific question at hand? If so, would you be willing to share and explain your thinking?


I recommend this lecture which I listened to recently: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=628201722420

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2020)

The Reformed Confessions are not “straw men” — they are _fighting men_, _wise men_, and _godly men_.
_____

Just because I disagree with Prof Duguid on this matter does not mean I disagree with him generally. It is similar to my relationship with William Hendriksen, my favorite NT commentator, although he is pretty much a strictly Critical Text man. I love him, but not on every point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 1, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Stephen, in these two instances you cite, in 1 John 2:23, the italic words have been supplied to aid understanding; it is clear they are not in the text. It's really a distinction without a difference.


I disagree Steve. The Geneva Bible thought it was not part of the text. The AV translators were 'unsure' so put it in italics. However two modern translations, NKJV (based on the TR) and the NASB (based on the CT) include this section *without italics. *The NASB and the NKJV usually use italics for words supplied but do not do so in this place. They believe these words are part of the original (unlike the Geneva and the AV which are a little uncertain of the text). 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Regarding Rev 16:5, it's an interesting study. I touched on it briefly here; and a far better study is here, Beza and Revelation 16:5. I'd go with the AV.


Modern translations agree with the Geneva Bible.

I believe my original argument holds Steve. You have real textual differences even with esteemed Reformation Bibles such as the Geneva and the AV.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 1, 2020)

Hi Stephen, it is possible the KJV translators were unsure, but we don't know that. All that we _know_ is it's in italics. Yes, there are differences between the Geneva 1599 and the AV, and the AV is to be preferred. It is the Reformation standard. That modern versions agree with the Geneva on Rev 16:5 proves nothing.

On a different note, did you know that William Shakespeare used the Geneva Bible? Or so I.D.E. Thomas affirms (and I believe him) in his book, _William Shakespeare and his Bible_. He shows that, although a member of the Anglican Church, he had strong leanings toward the Puritans. He amply proves his points through interacting with W.S.'s works. My only quibble with the book is that Thomas doesn't cite his sources when quoting others.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Um....no. Seghol could be lengthened to a qamets in a pausal form, but that's not what we're talking about here. That would have to be the last word or the word marked with an atnach accent. Can you give me an example of the change you have in mind?
> 
> On the other hand, a qamets routinely shortens to a sheva in a distant syllable (distant from the accent, which in Hebrew is usually the last or second last syllable. So dabar (word) becomes debarim, etc. So yes an original "yahu" would be expected to become "yeho" when it prefixes a name. That is quite literally lesson 1 in Weingreen's Introductory Hebrew grammar.
> 
> Having said that a hypothetical Hebrew form "Yehovah" would show the same shortening, so it certainly wouldn't be "Yahovah"; but in a two syllable word the contraction wouldn't happen: hence Yahweh. At the end of the day, theophoric names are not decisive by themselves.


Dr. Duguid,
Would it not be the case, if the original pronunciation was "Yehovah" (and was pointed in the traditional way), that when the "Yeh" syllable would be fixed to the end of a name, the sheva would be lengthened to a full vowel (such as a qamets)?


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 1, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Dr. Duguid,
> Would it not be the case, if the original pronunciation was "Yehovah" (and was pointed in the traditional way), that when the "Yeh" syllable would be fixed to the end of a name, the sheva would be lengthened to a full vowel (such as a qamets)?


That's backwards as a description. Vocal shevas are frequently a shortening of a medium length vowel, as may be seen from standard verb paradigms. I don't know of any case where a sheva in an uninflected root could properly be said to "lengthen" to a full vowel. It would always be a recovery of a vowel that had previously been shortened. 

Not that that is really significant for the form of "Jehovah". Since the first syllable is open and distant from accent, you would expect a medium vowel to reduce to a sheva there. Names like Yehonathan form a parallel. The difficulties come with a) the cholem before the consonantal vav and b) the fact that the Massoretic text consistently points the tetragrammaton differently when it occurs after 'adonai. 

Here's an example from the Second Rabbinic Bible, which most people reckon was the main Hebrew source for the KJV. Here you clearly have the vowels of Elohim (hataph seghol, cholem, chireq - even though a chireq never precedes a final he in Hebrew) under the consonants of the divine name. I'm still waiting for any alternative explanation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 1, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Um....no. Seghol could be lengthened to a qamets in a pausal form, but that's not what we're talking about here. That would have to be the last word or the word marked with an atnach accent. Can you give me an example of the change you have in mind?
> 
> On the other hand, a qamets routinely shortens to a sheva in a distant syllable (distant from the accent, which in Hebrew is usually the last or second last syllable. So dabar (word) becomes debarim, etc. So yes an original "yahu" would be expected to become "yeho" when it prefixes a name. That is quite literally lesson 1 in Weingreen's Introductory Hebrew grammar.
> 
> ...


Iain,

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps you are weary of the subject, but for me it is useful to discuss it more thoroughly with some further questions and comments.

1) The importance of the "o" or the extra vowel is that it seems to be the heart the discussion. The "I/J" and "v/w" variants are commonplace between, and even within, various languages (there was a fashion for saying "wulgar" in England in the nineteenth century), so they are not of much interest to the theologian or the preacher. But the "o" cannot be accounted for in this way.

2) It may seem a lot of fuss about a syllable, but the name "Jehovah" has been of considerable importance in Protestant piety (e.g. "Jehovah Tsidkenu is all things to me") over a long period of time, and it is not lightly to be given up without some close questioning. When you speak about "the monk who invented the name Jehovah", presumably you are thinking of Raymond Martini (c. 1270 AD)? Is it known that he "invented" the name, or simply that he is the first recorded instance of its use?

3) How much weight do you attach to the idea that certain forms occur nowhere else in Biblical Hebrew, e.g. a cholem before a consonantal vav? Do you know any English/Scottish word that rhymes with "Duguid" (although I have lived in Aberdeen for twenty-five years, I had to look it up in my pronouncing dictionary!) or with "Rachel"? Arguments of this sort need to be refined considerably before they can be regarded as conclusive. [In any case, since I wrote that I have learned that cholem before consonantal vav does occur in Eccl. 2:22 and Ezek. 7:26].

4) In every academic subject, there is a tendency for theories and "rules" to run ahead of data. Scholars jump to conclusions about rules, laws, trajectories, etc., and then become jealous for their theories and start forcing awkward data to fit their theories rather than adjusting the theory to fit the data. One can see this phenomenon in Ptolomaic planetary theory, in history (John Knox does not behave according to character!), in mathematical physics and theories of the origin of the universe, in evolutionary theory, in medicine, etc. I can't help thinking that something of this sort is happening with regard to the pointing of the Tetragrammaton. The explanations given on Wikipedia ("Tetragrammaton") for the various different ways of pointing adonai yhwh in the Leningrad codex have a distinctly "Ptolomaic" flavour. Neither the Leningrad codex nor the Aleppo codex actually use "Jehovah" very often. Where did Raymond Martini and others of his time get the name from? One instance where the Aleppo Codex does use "Yehovah" is in Ezek. 28:22, which is a case of "adonai yhwh". So these are not the vowels of elohim. Yet this is supposed to be an exceptionally accurate codex.

I feel that I need a more conclusive and thorough explanation than I have heard so far before I am convinced that "Jehovah/Yehowah" is a mistake. I don't feel obliged to come up with an alternative explanation; just to point out that the current scholarly explanation does not exactly fit the data.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 1, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Yes, there are differences between the Geneva 1599 and the AV, and the AV is to be preferred. It is the Reformation standard.


Steve, that argument is not convincing. One can say the *Geneva *Bible is the Reformation Standard and the KJV is wrong  After all Geneva is inextricably linked to the Reformation. My point is you cannot appeal to Reformation Bibles because there are differences between them.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> That modern versions agree with the Geneva on Rev 16:5 proves nothing.


It means the modern translators went back to what the Greek mss said, rather than what Beza thought they meant. Again one can say the Geneva Bible (and modern translations  ) are right on Rev 16:5 and the KJV is wrong. 

Steve, I used to believe in the perfection of the Received text. I was sincere. I used to be the South Island (New Zealand) agent for the Trinitarian Bible Society. But it was these types of problems that proved to me you cannot appeal to the Reformation text and ignore that there are differences even among Reformation Bibles.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 1, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> Iain,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. Perhaps you are weary of the subject, but for me it is useful to discuss it more thoroughly with some further questions and comments.
> 
> ...


Happy to continue the conversation.
1) That seems right - though if you are equally comfortable with Yehowah as with Jehovah, I'm not sure there is much at stake. Certainly the O is the major difference. 

2) It would be correct to say that Raymond Martini is credited with being the first to use the name Jehovah. I do find it intriguing and suggestive that the name Jehovah comes into use (whoever the originator) only after the Massoretes add the vowels to the Hebrew text in the latter part of the First Millennium AD. The early Church Fathers do not appear to use the divine name at all. So Justin Martyr: "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions."

3) Aberdeenshire has a unique pronunciation of Duguid (which is where the name is most frequently found in Scotland). However, Scots know how to pronounce the Scots word "Guid", even if no one else does. As for the challenge of finding a rhyme for Rachel. part of the problem is that it isn't really an English word but a Hebrew loan word. There are a number of potential rhymes in Hebrew. 
More importantly, I stand corrected on the use of cholem before vav. The occasions you cite (plus a couple of others) are exceptional, but do make the point that linguistic "laws" are not exactly like the laws of physics. 

4)When you say "Neither the Leningrad codex nor the Aleppo Codex use Jehovah very often" are you referring to the fact that they often omit the cholem, giving you the genuinely impossible Hebrew form "yehweh"? I don't see how that helps your case at all - rather the reverse. If the correct spelling is Yehowah you would expect this word above all always to be correctly pointed. Leningrad does have Yehovih in Ezek 28:22, as does the Second Rabbinic Bible; do you have a convenient reference for the Aleppo Codex for this verse? It would take me a while to track down, I suspect. 

Again, if you want to use Jehovah, go right ahead. It is not much more distant from the original form of the name than Jesus is from Yeshua. I'm not invested in derailing what remains the conventional pronunciation for many. It's just when people want to make it a confessional issue, then I think they are headed down the wrong track.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 2


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 2, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> That's backwards as a description. Vocal shevas are frequently a shortening of a medium length vowel, as may be seen from standard verb paradigms. I don't know of any case where a sheva in an uninflected root could properly be said to "lengthen" to a full vowel. It would always be a recovery of a vowel that had previously been shortened.
> 
> Not that that is really significant for the form of "Jehovah". Since the first syllable is open and distant from accent, you would expect a medium vowel to reduce to a sheva there. Names like Yehonathan form a parallel. The difficulties come with a) the cholem before the consonantal vav and b) the fact that the Massoretic text consistently points the tetragrammaton differently when it occurs after 'adonai.
> 
> ...


Thank you for giving me a more perfect understanding of how shevas and vowels work. That makes good sense.

I don't have an explanation for the pointing of the tetragrammaton after "adonai." 

The cholem > consonantal vav doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. Unless you can show that it is impossible for it to happen, it is an argument from ignorance, which is an informal fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is impossible according to the laws of Hebrew.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 2, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Thank you for giving me a more perfect understanding of how shevas and vowels work. That makes good sense.
> 
> I don't have an explanation for the pointing of the tetragrammaton after "adonai."
> 
> The cholem > consonantal vav doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. Unless you can show that it is impossible for it to happen, it is an argument from ignorance, which is an informal fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is impossible according to the laws of Hebrew.


You are right regarding the cholem, especially since Douglas pointed to some examples. They are rare but do happen. The primary challenges are to explain why the pointing in our earliest texts is what it is, often omitting the cholem, which results in an impossible form, and changing consistently to the vowels of Elohim whenever it follows adonai. It's hard to see how that can be anything other than a kethib/qere reading. Indeed, when you think of the Massoretes vocalizing the text, it's hard to imagine them filling in the vowels of the divine name, even if they knew them, for fear someone would accidentally read the divine name. It's much more likely that they would adopt a kethib/qere form, or alternatively leave the tetragrammaton unpointed. We know that Jewish readers of the OT were reading 'adonai rather than the divine name by the time of Jesus, because that is what the NT consistently does with OT citations that include the tetragrammaton, and it is the standard practice of the LXX. Not all ancient Greek translations did that. Some retained the tetragrammaton or the equivalent (pi-iota-pi-iota). Strikingly, the practice of pointing yhwh with the vowels of elohim likely postdates the LXX, since it adopts a variety of translations for adonai yhwh, combining the two words into one or translating "the Lord himself", and only very rarely translating "the Lord God".

None of this proves definitively that the divine name is not "Yehowah", though we have zero pre-medieval evidence for such a reading. It remains unlikely, however.

PS why are we so desperate to depart from the consistent practice of Jesus and the apostles, in addressing the Lord as "Lord" or "Father"? If it is good enough for the New Testament church, why isn't it good enough for us?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Logan (Dec 2, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> PS why are we so desperate to depart from the consistent practice of Jesus and the apostles, in addressing the Lord as "Lord" or "Father"? If it is good enough for the New Testament church, why isn't it good enough for us?



I've appreciated this point you've made in the past and it has given me pause. But I also do wonder why God revealed his name at all if we are supposed to just use "LORD". I don't know that I'll ever come to a conclusion


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 2, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> You are right regarding the cholem, especially since Douglas pointed to some examples. They are rare but do happen. The primary challenges are to explain why the pointing in our earliest texts is what it is, often omitting the cholem, which results in an impossible form, and changing consistently to the vowels of Elohim whenever it follows adonai. It's hard to see how that can be anything other than a kethib/qere reading. Indeed, when you think of the Massoretes vocalizing the text, it's hard to imagine them filling in the vowels of the divine name, even if they knew them, for fear someone would accidentally read the divine name. It's much more likely that they would adopt a kethib/qere form, or alternatively leave the tetragrammaton unpointed. We know that Jewish readers of the OT were reading 'adonai rather than the divine name by the time of Jesus, because that is what the NT consistently does with OT citations that include the tetragrammaton, and it is the standard practice of the LXX. Not all ancient Greek translations did that. Some retained the tetragrammaton or the equivalent (pi-iota-pi-iota). Strikingly, the practice of pointing yhwh with the vowels of elohim likely postdates the LXX, since it adopts a variety of translations for adonai yhwh, combining the two words into one or translating "the Lord himself", and only very rarely translating "the Lord God".
> 
> None of this proves definitively that the divine name is not "Yehowah", though we have zero pre-medieval evidence for such a reading. It remains unlikely, however.
> 
> PS why are we so desperate to depart from the consistent practice of Jesus and the apostles, in addressing the Lord as "Lord" or "Father"? If it is good enough for the New Testament church, why isn't it good enough for us?


Just on Iain's last point, I don't think I have ever used the name "Jehovah" in prayer, except perhaps in quoting the AV (a handful of occurrences) or the 1650 metrical psalms (about a dozen occurrences). But if we supposed a Messianic congregation in Israel trying to sing the psalms in Hebrew (surely a legitimate activity), what would they do when they came to "YHWH" in verse 2 of Ps 1? I expect that this happens and that they sing "Adonai", but it hardly seems satisfactory to observe a Jewish superstition in Divine worship. It seems to me that the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is a practical issue for the Christian Church. 

Continuing this line of thought, if Christ and his disciples sang psalms (in Hebrew, surely?), then the pronunciation of the Divine Name must have been known at that point.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 2, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Happy to continue the conversation.
> 1) That seems right - though if you are equally comfortable with Yehowah as with Jehovah, I'm not sure there is much at stake. Certainly the O is the major difference.
> 
> 2) It would be correct to say that Raymond Martini is credited with being the first to use the name Jehovah. I do find it intriguing and suggestive that the name Jehovah comes into use (whoever the originator) only after the Massoretes add the vowels to the Hebrew text in the latter part of the First Millennium AD. The early Church Fathers do not appear to use the divine name at all. So Justin Martyr: "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions."
> ...


Here is my source for some of the information on the Aleppo Codex.









Evidence in the Aleppo Codex


How to pronounce the Name of God, Evidence in the Aleppo Codex, Hebrew Bible manuscript, Hebrew name of God, Yehovah, Hebrew vowels, Tiberias, Syria, Name of God, Yah, Masoretes, Masorete, Masorah, Tiberian vowels



seekingtruth.info





I am not endorsing the website but it does have some convenient pictures including Ezek 28:22.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 2, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> Here is my source for some of the information on the Aleppo Codex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, Douglas. This is an interesting conversation, in which I am learning a lot. It is true that the Aleppo Codex has adonai yehowah in Ezek. 28:22 (bottom of right hand column, page 19-177-v). This is not the normal pattern for the Aleppo codex, however, as you can see from Ezek. 28:24 and 25 (middle of center column, same page) where it has adonai yehowih, indicating that it should be read adonai elohim (Lord God). As you noted earlier, for the divine name alone, Aleppo routinely has the unpronounceable yehwah, with only very rarely a cholem added. We might add that Leningrad and the Second Rabbinic Bible both have adonai yehowih at Ezekiel 28:22, suggesting that Aleppo made a mistake here. It's easy to imagine how that might happen, since it would simply be accidentally reverting to the normal vowel under the last syllable instead of carrying through the full set of vowels for Elohim.

For the original source of the Aleppo Codex, see here:
www.aleppocodex.org


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 2, 2020)

Iain, it’s not a “confessional issue” but a legitimate precedent of usage by the framers of our Confessions – men learned in the matters dealt with therein – who ought not be dismissed on the allegation they were ignorant compared to us in the 21st century.

I trust their usage, and the providence of God, over the learning of the moderns. It may _seem _“confessional” only because I stand on that precedent of usage by men whose learning I respect. It is a means of a common man (not learned in the Hebrew) resisting the “tyranny of experts” on legitimate grounds.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 2, 2020)

Stephen, you said, “the modern translators went back to what the Greek mss said, rather than what Beza thought they meant.” Which “Greek mss” are you referring to?

The earliest Greek witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree, as there is early corruption in the Greek *exemplars*. The earliest witnesses to Revelation 16:5, all differing, read:

ο ων και ος ην και οσιος (Papyrus 47 3rd Century)
ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος (Sinaiticus fourth century)
ο ων και ο ην οσιος (Alexandrinus fifth-century)

It was the late Bruce Metzger who said that evidence of corruption justifies conjectural emendations.

“In situations where the extent of corruption is so great that there is a likelihood that original readings may be lost in all existing manuscripts, judiciously applied conjectural emendations might be necessary in order to restore the original readings. The leading modern textual critic, Bruce Metzger, approved the use of a conjectural emendation as a valid method of textual criticism. He said:​​‘If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself. Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author's intention.’ (_The Text Of The New Testament_ at 182)​​“Bruce Metzger approved the method for ‘the removal of an anomaly’ that is ‘foreign to the author's intention’. The conjectural emendation in Revelation 16:5 is justified because the majority reading in Revelation 16:5, ‘who is, and who was’ followed by ‘that holy one,’ is anomalous in not completing the declaration of God's past, present and future aspects, as is done in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17*. Beza replaced ‘ο οσιος (that holy one)’ with ‘και ο εσομενος (and shalt be)’ to fix the anomaly. He said:​​‘But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place?’”​​(Theodore Beza, _Novum Sive Novum Foedus Iesu Christi_, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)​
[cont.]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 2, 2020)

This is Beza’s comment on the emendation:

"Et Qui eris, και ο εσομενος": The usual publication is "και ο οσιος," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not proper in making the change to "οσιος, Sanctus," since a section (of the text) has worn away the part after "και," which would be absolutely necessary in connecting "δικαιος" and "οσιος." But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "και ο εσομενος," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "ο εσομενος." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "ο ερχομενος" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear sitting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees.

(Theodore Beza, _Novum Sive Novum Foedus Iesu Christi_, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)​
These quotes from the article I referenced above.

Stephen, you said you were an agent for the TBS but gave it up as you were no longer convinced what you were promoting was correct. I would say you were not trained in the issues pertaining to the differences between the CT and the TR, and, for that matter, between the MT (Majority or Byzantine Text) and the TR. It is this latter that is of significance to us here regarding differences in the Reformation versions.

The textual situation in the Book of Revelation differs from that in the rest of the NT. There were two groups of manuscripts used by the respective versions, the Andreas, and the 046 groups of mss.

The best study on this is _Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence_ (also titled _When the King James Departs from the “Majority Text”_), by Jack Moorman. I recommend it as having the latest and most comprehensive information on this topic – to my knowledge, as of this writing.

It is available at The Bible For Today online bookstore (http://www.biblefortoday.org/search_result.asp), under item # 1617, and can be purchased from them ($20)

Moorman proceeds with an extended discussion of various factors and issues in this matter. He remarks,

“At the outset the Bible believer will be very happy to know [what] Hoskier’s basic conclusion was toward the 200 plus MSS he collated for Revelation:

‘I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest _number_ of existing MSS in the world _of one type_, he could not have succeeded better, since his family-MSS occupy the front rank in point of actual _numbers_, the family numbering over 20 MSS besides its allies.” (_The John Rylands Bulletin_ 19-1922/23, p 118.)​
“It should be noted that this exemplary MS used by Erasmus was of the Andreas group, the readings of which we find in the AV. Perhaps needless to say, we do not think it coincidence this primary manuscript fell into the hands of Erasmus. For we believe that the Lord providentially preserved His word, and the only place it makes sense to have been preserved in was the Greek Textus Receptus as discerned by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and the AV translators, and given to us in the AV.”​
[cont.]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 2, 2020)

I have discussed this matter here, in the thread, _Revelation 5:9-10 1st Person (“us”) or 3rd Person (“them”)?_ (please note, as this thread is from 2007, the formatting of the PB platforms have changed, the Greek is not rendered well.) For various reasons, the King James Version replaced the Geneva among the Lord’s people, and particularly the scholars of the Reformation who framed the Westminster Standards. The Reformation’s Bible, after the Westminster assembly, was the AV, not the Geneva. The readings of the Bible became settled for the next 400 years, in the Lord’s providence.

In sum, it is not sound to assert there are differences in the TR / Reformation versions, as the WCF 1:8 asserts, “The New Testament in Greek….by his [God’s] singular care and providence, [was] kept pure in all ages….” – and the impure was winnowed out.

Stephen, I’m not talking about the minutiae of readings (and defenses thereof) and preservation, but the final Reformation Bible, in Hebrew and Greek, and faithful translations thereof.

[I am having trouble posting fairly long remarks in one post - if a mod or admin can help me understand why I would appreciate it!]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In sum, it is not sound to assert there are differences in the TR / Reformation versions, as the WCF 1:8 asserts, “The New Testament in Greek….by his [God’s] singular care and providence, [was] kept pure in all ages….” – and the impure was winnowed out.



Not to derail from the discussion, but if it was "kept pure in all ages" then how can the "impure [be] winnowed out"?

The divines seem to have believed in a type of purity that was valid in _any_ age, not just theirs---and they knew that all ages and locations didn't have the exact same text. I know you believe in an "essential purity" that was then completely purified, but I don't see how the Confession can possibly mean that.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 3, 2020)

Hello Logan,

The WCF 1:8 in part reads, “The New Testament in Greek….by his [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages….”

_What_ was “kept pure in all ages”—an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. OR the pure readings of the Greek autographs *kept* in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions, known to and used by the Westminster divines, and put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 3, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> You are right regarding the cholem, especially since Douglas pointed to some examples. They are rare but do happen. The primary challenges are to explain why the pointing in our earliest texts is what it is, often omitting the cholem, which results in an impossible form, and changing consistently to the vowels of Elohim whenever it follows adonai. It's hard to see how that can be anything other than a kethib/qere reading. Indeed, when you think of the Massoretes vocalizing the text, it's hard to imagine them filling in the vowels of the divine name, even if they knew them, for fear someone would accidentally read the divine name. It's much more likely that they would adopt a kethib/qere form, or alternatively leave the tetragrammaton unpointed. We know that Jewish readers of the OT were reading 'adonai rather than the divine name by the time of Jesus, because that is what the NT consistently does with OT citations that include the tetragrammaton, and it is the standard practice of the LXX. Not all ancient Greek translations did that. Some retained the tetragrammaton or the equivalent (pi-iota-pi-iota). Strikingly, the practice of pointing yhwh with the vowels of elohim likely postdates the LXX, since it adopts a variety of translations for adonai yhwh, combining the two words into one or translating "the Lord himself", and only very rarely translating "the Lord God".
> 
> None of this proves definitively that the divine name is not "Yehowah", though we have zero pre-medieval evidence for such a reading. It remains unlikely, however.
> 
> PS why are we so desperate to depart from the consistent practice of Jesus and the apostles, in addressing the Lord as "Lord" or "Father"? If it is good enough for the New Testament church, why isn't it good enough for us?


Dr. Duguid,
I've wondered about the pointing without the cholem. I learned the classical pronunciation (which you referred to earlier) in my Hebrew class; if the "vav" or "waw" has a "w" sound, it seems to me that there's a kind of natural long "o" sound in the vocalization of "he > waw with qamets." The mouth makes the "o" sound in the transition, if only briefly. Could this account for the absence of the cholem?

The absence of the cholem is a problem for every position, correct? If the pointing was carried over from "adonai," you would expect a cholem to be present.

As to the question in your postscript, the real issue for me is the distinct but related question of the authority of the vowel points in general. I'm committed in principle to the divine authority of the points. I don't often use the tetragrammaton devotionally. I am open to the idea that the kethib/qere theory may be reconciled with the authority of the points; I'm unsettled on the question.

These discussions are very helpful to me. Thank you for interacting with me.


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 3, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Thanks, Douglas. This is an interesting conversation, in which I am learning a lot. It is true that the Aleppo Codex has adonai yehowah in Ezek. 28:22 (bottom of right hand column, page 19-177-v). This is not the normal pattern for the Aleppo codex, however, as you can see from Ezek. 28:24 and 25 (middle of center column, same page) where it has adonai yehowih, indicating that it should be read adonai elohim (Lord God). As you noted earlier, for the divine name alone, Aleppo routinely has the unpronounceable yehwah, with only very rarely a cholem added. We might add that Leningrad and the Second Rabbinic Bible both have adonai yehowih at Ezekiel 28:22, suggesting that Aleppo made a mistake here. It's easy to imagine how that might happen, since it would simply be accidentally reverting to the normal vowel under the last syllable instead of carrying through the full set of vowels for Elohim.
> 
> For the original source of the Aleppo Codex, see here:
> www.aleppocodex.org


Thanks Iain. How does one navigate the online Aleppo codex? There used to be a "Table of contents" but that seems to have disappeared. What does the "19" mean in "19-177-v". I assumed that the numbers were the extant books in order, but that did not seem to be the case. Also, is there an online Second Rabbinic Bible or do you just happen to have an extensive private library!?

With regard to the Aleppo codex, the erratic pointing of the Divine name may be a collection of mistakes, or a random use of equivalent alternatives, but I think it would be worth someone investigating the possibility that it was deliberate. The Codex was very carefully done by (presumably) a very clever man, and also it seems for parts of its life to have been a public codex in the sense that it was in use. So mistakes would have been detected. I don't know what they did with mistakes? I think they were supposed to throw out the codex, but obviously this didn't happen with a valuable codex like this one. I feel that there is a research project in comparing the pointing of the Divine name in the Leningrad and Aleppo codices. They don't seem to be quite the same.

Along these lines, presumably Raymond Martini got his "information" about the name "Jehovah" from a MS that was routinely pointing the Divine name with the cholem. So how do these MSS relate to those like the Leningrad and Aleppo which don't routinely use the cholem? There has been a lot of research on the use of the metheg, but to me this is a more interesting issue. Perhaps not to you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 3, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> Just on Iain's last point, I don't think I have ever used the name "Jehovah" in prayer, except perhaps in quoting the AV (a handful of occurrences) or the 1650 metrical psalms (about a dozen occurrences). But if we supposed a Messianic congregation in Israel trying to sing the psalms in Hebrew (surely a legitimate activity), what would they do when they came to "YHWH" in verse 2 of Ps 1? I expect that this happens and that they sing "Adonai", but it hardly seems satisfactory to observe a Jewish superstition in Divine worship. It seems to me that the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is a practical issue for the Christian Church.
> 
> Continuing this line of thought, if Christ and his disciples sang psalms (in Hebrew, surely?), then the pronunciation of the Divine Name must have been known at that point.


No one has come back on my question here. Any thoughts?

Also, does anyone know when the Jewish prohibition on the use of the Divine Name was introduced? Was it AD or BC? And how absolute was/is the prohibition? If it was absolute, then the knowledge of the Divine Name would have died out in a generation. I understand that "Adonai" and "Elohim" are now used with reluctance, but they are still used in some circumstances. I think that investigations in this direction may shed light on the Jehovah/Yahweh issue.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 3, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Dr. Duguid,
> I've wondered about the pointing without the cholem. I learned the classical pronunciation (which you referred to earlier) in my Hebrew class; if the "vav" or "waw" has a "w" sound, it seems to me that there's a kind of natural long "o" sound in the vocalization of "he > waw with qamets." The mouth makes the "o" sound in the transition, if only briefly. Could this account for the absence of the cholem?
> 
> The absence of the cholem is a problem for every position, correct? If the pointing was carried over from "adonai," you would expect a cholem to be present.
> ...


Good questions.


Douglas Somerset said:


> Thanks Iain. How does one navigate the online Aleppo codex? There used to be a "Table of contents" but that seems to have disappeared. What does the "19" mean in "19-177-v". I assumed that the numbers were the extant books in order, but that did not seem to be the case. Also, is there an online Second Rabbinic Bible or do you just happen to have an extensive private library!?
> 
> With regard to the Aleppo codex, the erratic pointing of the Divine name may be a collection of mistakes, or a random use of equivalent alternatives, but I think it would be worth someone investigating the possibility that it was deliberate. The Codex was very carefully done by (presumably) a very clever man, and also it seems for parts of its life to have been a public codex in the sense that it was in use. So mistakes would have been detected. I don't know what they did with mistakes? I think they were supposed to throw out the codex, but obviously this didn't happen with a valuable codex like this one. I feel that there is a research project in comparing the pointing of the Divine name in the Leningrad and Aleppo codices. They don't seem to be quite the same.
> 
> Along these lines, presumably Raymond Martini got his "information" about the name "Jehovah" from a MS that was routinely pointing the Divine name with the cholem. So how do these MSS relate to those like the Leningrad and Aleppo which don't routinely use the cholem? There has been a lot of research on the use of the metheg, but to me this is a more interesting issue. Perhaps not to you!


The Aleppo Codex is tricky to find your way around since there is no index. I started from the observation that Ezekiel begins about 60% of the way through the prophets in Leningrad, so that gave me a place to start. Then I looked for easily identifiable phrases or words; fortunately I know my way around Ezekiel and those pages are clearly preserved, which helps. There are paragraph divisions. You just have to remember that the columns are ordered right to left (as well as the script, obviously). I'm not sure what the "19" in the picture numbering represents; the v and r are presumably "verso" and "recto". By the way, I looked up four more occurrences in the Aleppo Codex (Isa 40:10 48:16; 49:22; 50:4): they are all pointed yehowih, increasing the likelihood that the yehowah in Ezek 28:22 is a mistake.

The Second Rabbinic Bible can easily be found online; it's much easier to navigate around.

I don't know that we can presume that Martini had a manuscript that was different from what we have. Our current texts have yehowah in some places, and he was probably astute enough to know that yehwah could not be right. I'm sure there could be (probably has been) more research on the subject of medieval manuscript practices. I think at least some corrections would be made right on the manuscript - maybe even by the scribe themselves. I'll let you know if I come across anything relevant. It's not really my area of specialization.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 3, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Dr. Duguid,
> I've wondered about the pointing without the cholem. I learned the classical pronunciation (which you referred to earlier) in my Hebrew class; if the "vav" or "waw" has a "w" sound, it seems to me that there's a kind of natural long "o" sound in the vocalization of "he > waw with qamets." The mouth makes the "o" sound in the transition, if only briefly. Could this account for the absence of the cholem?
> 
> The absence of the cholem is a problem for every position, correct? If the pointing was carried over from "adonai," you would expect a cholem to be present.
> ...


I don't think your explanation works since what we are talking about is the pointing of a written text, not how that text might sound. And the rules of Hebrew pointing are such that you need to have a vowel (or silent sheva) for every consonant (unless it is assimilated to the preceding vowel). A combination yodh + vocal sheva + he (without a written vowel) is simply not possible. The absence of the cholem is clearly not a mistake on such a grand scale. It is important to remember that we are dealing with texts that come to us through the Jewish community, so were transmitted by people who certainly themselves would never have pronounced the divine name. It is possible I suppose that they omitted the cholem to prevent accidental mistakes involving reading the name. We also know that they were, as a matter of fact, reading adonai every time they came to the divine name - the LXX and NT show us that clearly. So whether or not it was marked in the manuscripts as kethib-qere, it was clearly functioning in that way. So much so that they consistently pointed the divine name differently when it followed adonai (see note above about Aleppo; Leingrad does the same, as does the Second Rabinnic Bible, which was the main source for the KJV.

By the way, the KJV goes with the qere reading in a number of places, so I hope you can see how to reconcile kethib/qere with inspiration. Otherwise, you'll find it hard to find a Bible to use! The vowels in a particular Hebrew manuscript may err, as may the consonants, but the text is still inspired and inerrant. Indeed, in some cases kethib-qere simply represents development in Hebrew, as in the standard hu'/hiw' in the Pentateuch; at the time of writing, there was no feminine pronoun; the vowels represent the later feminine form, which readers would adopt.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 3, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> No one has come back on my question here. Any thoughts?
> 
> Also, does anyone know when the Jewish prohibition on the use of the Divine Name was introduced? Was it AD or BC? And how absolute was/is the prohibition? If it was absolute, then the knowledge of the Divine Name would have died out in a generation. I understand that "Adonai" and "Elohim" are now used with reluctance, but they are still used in some circumstances. I think that investigations in this direction may shed light on the Jehovah/Yahweh issue.


I'm not sure why you think that Jesus and the disciples would have sung the divine name in the psalms (in Hebrew), when every quotation from the OT in the NT uses _kurios_. Surely if Jesus had encouraged them to use Jehovah, they would have carried on that practice. I would suggest the reverse is true. To use Jehovah in OT quotations would have obscured something very important to the NT writers, which is the fact that _kurios _denotes both Israel's OT God _and_ Jesus. To say "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord (Lk. 2:11) means something quite different for people trained to think of "the Lord" as the title of Israel's God. When they sang the psalms and sang _kurios, _they would immediately think of Jesus. So perhaps we shouldn't think of this practice as a "Jewish superstition."

Some people think that the divine name was still pronounced by the priests in the temple for a period of time (which would obviously have ceased by AD 70). Others suggest that rabbis were allowed to pass it on to their students every seven years. But that is all somewhat speculative, I think. I'm not sure when the tendency to use G-D or "Ha-Shem" came into use. That obviously is much later, and does not fit with either the LXX or the NT.

Thanks for a stimulating conversation.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 4, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> The vowels in a particular Hebrew manuscript may err, as may the consonants, but the text is still inspired and inerrant. Indeed, in some cases kethib-qere simply represents development in Hebrew, as in the standard hu'/hiw' in the Pentateuch; at the time of writing, there was no feminine pronoun; the vowels represent the later feminine form, which readers would adopt.


Dr. Duguid,
Do you believe in the authority of the vowel points? I ask out of genuine curiosity; I know it's not a popular view.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 4, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> Dr. Duguid,
> Do you believe in the authority of the vowel points? I ask out of genuine curiosity; I know it's not a popular view.


Hi Tyler Ray,
It's important that we frame the question carefully, because I often find people misunderstand what exactly it is they are affirming. Let's start with the two ends of the process, where I think every evangelical should be able to agree.

1) God inspired words, not sets of consonants, so the original authors thought and intended to communicate particular combinations of consonants and vowels. 
2) We do not presently have a manuscript/edition that perfectly preserves all of those consonants and vowels (the KJV, for example, leans heavily on the Second Rabbinic Bible, but I believe it includes a couple of verses from the First Rabbinic Bible that were omitted from the Second. It also normally follows the Kethib reading, but occasionally follows the qere). This is essentially the same situation that faces us in the NT.

Now to the more controversial issues. Some earlier Reformed scholars championed the originality of the vowel pointing (ar at least a very early date for it, around the time of Ezra), suggesting that unpointed manuscripts had omitted the vowels, rather than the Massoretes adding them much later. That position is very hard to hold today, given the discoveries of large numbers of unpointed texts and inscriptions over the last several hundred years. But that doesn't mean the Massoretes were just guessing. They had been reading unpointed texts for a long time and knew what they said, as surely as you would know what vowels were missing from a birthday card that read "Hppy brthdy frm mm nd dd" . Pointing an unpointed text is pretty easy, if you know Hebrew well, and especially when you know what it is supposed to say.

As a result of 2) above, some level of text criticism is inevitably necessary. And no two people are on exactly the same place on the text criticism spectrum. Some scholars, following the tradition of the KJV, want to do as little text criticism as possible. In general, they will stick to the Massoretic text as closely as possible (though some of them have accused the Jews of tampering with the text in places, for example Psalm 22). They will also generally stick to the Massoretic pointing as well (though they generally follow the kethib rather than qere). There are times when there are variants in different Massoretic manuscripts, however, so everyone has to do some text criticism. At the opposite end of the spectrum, liberals used to conjecturally emend the text at will, with or without any text critical warrant. That trend has been significantly reigned in by the discovery of the Isaiah A scroll at Qumran, which is very close to the Massoretic tradition (without pointing of course). You can see the impact of the Qumran discoveries between the RSV, which leaned mort heavily on the Septuagint and the NIV, which is very MT oriented. Most evangelical scholars find places where it seems difficult to follow the Massoretic text, and the true reading has more likely been preserved in the LXX and/or Qumran. You can usually see those decisions reflected in your Bibles as marginal notes. Every evangelical I know would give strong preference to the MT and depart from it as little as possible. 

The question remains, "How little text criticism is possible?" The KJV departs from the MT less than any modern translation, but in my view the result is a marginally less accurate rather than more accurate translation. Obviously, that is a topic that is much discussed, and usually involves intricacies that are not necessarily easy to explain in simple terms to everyone. But we all agree that we have a reliable set of manuscripts for the OT, from which we can be confident our English translations are giving to us the infallible, inerrant Word of God.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 5 | Edifying 1 | Wow 1


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 4, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> I'm not sure why you think that Jesus and the disciples would have sung the divine name in the psalms (in Hebrew), when every quotation from the OT in the NT uses _kurios_. Surely if Jesus had encouraged them to use Jehovah, they would have carried on that practice. I would suggest the reverse is true. To use Jehovah in OT quotations would have obscured something very important to the NT writers, which is the fact that _kurios _denotes both Israel's OT God _and_ Jesus. To say "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord (Lk. 2:11) means something quite different for people trained to think of "the Lord" as the title of Israel's God. When they sang the psalms and sang _kurios, _they would immediately think of Jesus. So perhaps we shouldn't think of this practice as a "Jewish superstition."
> 
> Some people think that the divine name was still pronounced by the priests in the temple for a period of time (which would obviously have ceased by AD 70). Others suggest that rabbis were allowed to pass it on to their students every seven years. But that is all somewhat speculative, I think. I'm not sure when the tendency to use G-D or "Ha-Shem" came into use. That obviously is much later, and does not fit with either the LXX or the NT.
> 
> Thanks for a stimulating conversation.


The introduction of this paper gives some quotes and references on the Jewish prohibition on pronouncing the Divine Name.









"The Euphemism for the Ineffable Name of God and Its Early Evidence in Chronicles," JSOT 2013


"The Euphemism for the Ineffable Name of God and Its Early Evidence in Chronicles," JSOT 2013



www.academia.edu





I am not sure I really understand Iain's position. You seem almost to be arguing for the _abolition_ of the Tetragrammaton and its replacement with Adonai/kurios? But surely the NT quotes from the OT are not replacing the OT but adding to the OT and presenting new angles of truth. God is both YHWH and kurios, and so is Christ, but the two names or titles are not identical.

And I don't see that one can get away from the fact that some people read the OT aloud in Hebrew and are faced with the word YHWH. How should they pronounce it? What did Christ say in Nazareth (Luke 4:18)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 5, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> The introduction of this paper gives some quotes and references on the Jewish prohibition on pronouncing the Divine Name.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, Douglas, for the interesting paper reference, arguing (convincingly, I think) that the substitution of the divine name by adonai goes all the way back to the Chronicler. I think he's also right that the evidence of Greek translations is mixed. But I think everyone agrees that almost no one was pronouncing it by the time of Jesus; even if it was still pronounced by the High Priest in the temple it was _sotto voce_. 

If we take that as our starting point, why would we think that Jesus pronounces the divine name, when he quotes the OT (for example in Luke 4:12)? Certainly, Jesus is not afraid to break away from first century Jewish customs that obscure the revelation of God, but if he did so, wouldn't that have left a profound impact on his disciples and have scandalized his enemies? You would expect it to become a major point of contention between the disciples and their Jewish opponents (and perhaps even the Judaizers), yet as far as I can see there is nothing in the NT that supports that. Luke 4:12 would read exactly the same in Greek whether Jesus said to the devil Jehovah/Yahweh or adonai.

I don't think we should use the language of the abolition of the tetragrammaton: it is simply being re-stated: Jehovah/Yahweh _is_ the Lord Jesus Christ. This would be similar to the way in which the tetragrammaton itself is at least infused with new content (if not actually being a new revelation - see Exod. 6) at the time of the Exodus. In that vein, it is instructive to compare the use of the phrase "in the name of" in the OT and NT. In the OT, it is invariably "in the name of Jehovah/Yahweh/the Lord"; in the NT, it is most often "in the name of Jesus/the Lord Jesus Christ" or (in Mt 28:20 "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"). When the elders anointed with oil "in the name of the Lord" (James 5:14), what name did they use? Jehovah? Or Jesus? The normal baptismal formula suggests either the triune formula or "the Lord Jesus Christ". "Believe in the Lord your God (2 Chron. 20:20) becomes "Believe in the Lord Jesus" (Acts 16:31). The "no other name by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12) is Jesus (Acts 4:11).

I think our mistake is that we have bought the idea that Jewish refusal to speak the name of God was superstitious. That's hardly defensible if the NT follows exactly the same practice whenever it cites the OT (and maybe the Chronicler does the same as well). Remember, other Greek translations found ways to preserve the form of the tetragrammaton. Rather, I think we should recognize that the name Jehovah/Yahweh is a partial revelation of the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has now been fully revealed to us in these last days by his Son, Jesus (Heb. 1:1-4; John 14:9; Col. 1:15-20). We don't need to superstitiously fear pronouncing the name, any more than we do with El Shaddai, the primary way in which God revealed himself to the patriarchs. But as a name, the NT and Jesus teach us that it isn't a necessary or fuller revelation of who God is: he is "God", he is "the Lord", he is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", he is "Jesus Christ", he is "the one who is and was and is to come" (Rev. 1:4; the closest the NT comes to pronouncing the old name), not Jehovah/Yahweh/El Elyon/El Shaddai - not because these names are false but because now we have the fullness of revelation.

I'm exploring ideas here that are new to me, so please push back if I'm missing something. I'm raising questions and making suggestions here rather than fully formed conclusions. It would be interesting to know if there is any discussion of the divine name in the early church Fathers. One would have thought that it would have come up in their debates with the Jews, if there was such a striking difference between Jewish and Christian practice in this area. Is it really true that there is no attempt to formulate the divine name until the 13th century? If not, that's a remarkable fact in its own right. Once again, thank you for prodding me to think more fully about this area, and I pray that the Lord directs our thoughts in the right path.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 5, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Thanks, Douglas, for the interesting paper reference, arguing (convincingly, I think) that the substitution of the divine name by adonai goes all the way back to the Chronicler. I think he's also right that the evidence of Greek translations is mixed. But I think everyone agrees that almost no one was pronouncing it by the time of Jesus; even if it was still pronounced by the High Priest in the temple it was _sotto voce_.
> 
> If we take that as our starting point, why would we think that Jesus pronounces the divine name, when he quotes the OT (for example in Luke 4:12)? Certainly, Jesus is not afraid to break away from first century Jewish customs that obscure the revelation of God, but if he did so, wouldn't that have left a profound impact on his disciples and have scandalized his enemies? You would expect it to become a major point of contention between the disciples and their Jewish opponents (and perhaps even the Judaizers), yet as far as I can see there is nothing in the NT that supports that. Luke 4:12 would read exactly the same in Greek whether Jesus said to the devil Jehovah/Yahweh or adonai.
> 
> ...


It would seem to me, given the NT practice, the superstition lies not with saying “Lord” instead of “YHVH”, but rather with trying to verbalize “YHVH” _juuuuuust _right. 

I still find the discussions important and interesting, and this thread has been a joy to follow.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 5, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It was the late Bruce Metzger who said that evidence of corruption justifies conjectural emendations.





Jerusalem Blade said:


> The earliest Greek witnesses of Revelation 16:5 do not even agree, as there is early corruption in the Greek *exemplars*. The earliest witnesses to Revelation 16:5, all differing, read:


Steve, I will keep my comments brief as this is really about Jehovah vs Yahweh rather than the text of Rev 16:5.

I was surprised you used Metzer. I thought you did not trust him in textual criticism. Do you now trust him when he critiques the Received Text? Why the difference? Why did you not quote more conservative scholars? Is it because they do not buy your argument, and that they believe the KJV gets Rev 16:5 wrong, and the Geneva and modern CT translations get it right? 

James White says that the KJV clearly gets this passage wrong (See His King James Only Controversy (revised ed). He says the reading of Beza was unknown prior to Beza. You argue that the text has been kept pure in *all *ages. But if you are arguing for Beza's reading which was unknown prior in church history, how can you then say the text was kept pure in *all *ages? 

In short I stand by my argument that the Reformation Geneva Bible is correct and the Reformation KJV is in error. 

You disagreed with my reasons why I left the KJV as my standard. You are happy to quote Metzer. So why not interact with Dr Duguid's specific criticisms of the KJV text. It is scholars like Dr Duguid that convinced me that although God clearly did bless the KJV for a number of centuries it is not the best translation for today.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 5, 2020)

Stephen, I quote Metzger because he has set the standard for NT textual criticism among those who hold to the Critical Text, such as yourself. It is to show you that even he approves of conjectural emendation – one of your own!

There was obvious corruption in the earliest mss – they disagree among themselves. I think Metzger’s remark on conjectural emendation in such cases is on point.

Beza’s reading of Rev 16:5 was not unknown before Beza – not exactly, but similar – though he may not have been aware of it, see here.

Thomas Holland agrees with it. Jack Moorman, Jeffrey Khoo, and many other NT scholars who favor the KJV and its underlying Greek, hold as Khoo does, quoting EF Hills (who nonetheless did not hold with Beza’s reading on this verse),

“We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying the King James Version.”​
Even Scrivener let it stand when he made his 1894 edition of the TR, which he need not have done.

Stephen, Dr. White is not someone that textually conservative scholars agree with, although in my book he is a stand-up and godly brother, whom I love. His views have been rebutted numerous times.

I don’t interact with Prof Duguid’s arguments because I am not learned in the Hebrew, as I have stated. Which does not in the least negate my faith in how God providentially preserved His word. I rely on the expertise of those I trust in these matters. It is a matter of faith in God’s preservation.

You are free to stand by your argument, but you just simply keep repeating it, pretty much unchanged.


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 5, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Hi Tyler Ray,
> It's important that we frame the question carefully, because I often find people misunderstand what exactly it is they are affirming. Let's start with the two ends of the process, where I think every evangelical should be able to agree.
> 
> 1) God inspired words, not sets of consonants, so the original authors thought and intended to communicate particular combinations of consonants and vowels.
> ...


In addition to the vowel points, there are also the accents in the MT and there is a question over the authority of these too. The accents have a musical purpose (which I would not be able to understand, alas) and also serve as a refined system of punctuation, breaking each verse down into smaller units. The vowel points and accents together give you not only the words but the emphasis with which they are to be read. 

If the vowel points and accents are due to the Masoretes (which is not 100% certain) then they seem to have preserved an earlier tradition of how the text should be read, and I would regard this tradition as authoritative. The accents often give a sort-of commentary on the verse by grouping words in particular ways, highlighting certain words, etc. I have found them very helpful for preaching, and have a profound respect for the theological understanding that they preserve. In his _Outlines of Hebrew Accentuation_ (written in his semi-evangelical days), A.B. Davidson comments: "It is to be expected, seeing our translation [KJV] gives the general sense so accurately, that it will be only finer shades of meaning that the study of the accents will supply; yet these finer shades give generally the acutest pleasure to a cultivated reader or exegete" (p.47). He then gives various examples.

The book I have found most useful for understanding the system of the accents is James D. Price, _Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible_ (1990), which is freely downloadable. Much as I love the KJV, it does not follow the accents as closely as might be wished, and the NAS is often more accurate in this respect. There is considerable variation in the accentuation of Hebrew Bibles, and for accuracy I would commend the Aleppo Codex (where extant), the Second Rabbinic/TBS Bible, and then the Leningrad Codex third (not that I am any great expert in these things, but that has been my experience).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 5, 2020)

Stephen, a P.S. to the above: you mentioned in your post you thought the KJV was not the “best translation for today.” I don’t have a problem with that. In fact I use eight (and sometimes more) translations – all modern – (as well studies in the Greek and Hebrew) in my daily Bible reading and am greatly edified. I love these translations. Yet my primary Bible is my King James, for I trust its accuracy in the original languages.

You keep hammering away at what I trust. But my desire is to honor what I believe is the name of God given us. His name is wonderful to me. I am willing to lay my reputation (such as it is) on the line in this matter. I don't care if people, even dear brothers and sisters, disagree with me. “I believed, therefore have I spoken” (Psalm 116:10).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 5, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Thanks, Douglas, for the interesting paper reference, arguing (convincingly, I think) that the substitution of the divine name by adonai goes all the way back to the Chronicler. I think he's also right that the evidence of Greek translations is mixed. But I think everyone agrees that almost no one was pronouncing it by the time of Jesus; even if it was still pronounced by the High Priest in the temple it was _sotto voce_.
> 
> If we take that as our starting point, why would we think that Jesus pronounces the divine name, when he quotes the OT (for example in Luke 4:12)? Certainly, Jesus is not afraid to break away from first century Jewish customs that obscure the revelation of God, but if he did so, wouldn't that have left a profound impact on his disciples and have scandalized his enemies? You would expect it to become a major point of contention between the disciples and their Jewish opponents (and perhaps even the Judaizers), yet as far as I can see there is nothing in the NT that supports that. Luke 4:12 would read exactly the same in Greek whether Jesus said to the devil Jehovah/Yahweh or adonai.
> 
> ...


But if one follows this path, what happens to all the theology bound up in names such as El Shaddai, YHWH, and "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"? To me, the first speaks of God as the all-sufficient "breast" which supplies everything that a human being could wish for (as the breast supplies and satisfies the baby). The second speak of God's self-existence, self-sufficiency, unchangeableness, and overwhelming Being ("the living God"). And so on. Furthermore, if God has revealed himself by the name YHWH, then the refusal to use that Name (I don't mean in addressing him in prayer, but I mean the refusal so much as ever to mention it) seems to me rebellious. "The things that are revealed belong to us." "All scripture is ...profitable".

And I come back to this question. How is Ex. 6:3 to be read aloud in Hebrew (by Christian/Messianic Jews in Israel reading the Hebrew Bible in public worship as their vernacular)?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 6, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Stephen, I quote Metzger because he has set the standard for NT textual criticism among those who hold to the Critical Text, such as yourself.


First of all Steve I do not discourage people from using the KJV. Personally I love the KJV Reformation Heritage Study Bible. I question the accuracy of the Metzer quote re Rev 16:5. No conservative CT translation agrees with the KJV here. They agree with Geneva.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Even Scrivener let it stand when he made his 1894 edition of the TR, which he need not have done.


It is important to note Scrivener basically used the KJV and formulated his Greek on that. He did not go back to the earlier Received Text and build on that. A roundabout way of doing things.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Stephen, Dr. White is not someone that textually conservative scholars agree with, although in my book he is a stand-up and godly brother, whom I love. His views have been rebutted numerous times.


Dr Duguid agrees with Dr White textually  He is a conservative scholar. I have listened carefully to Dr Whites debates with Dr D.A. Waite, Jack Mooman, and Dr J Riddle. I believe Dr White won all debates? Why? He showed the inconsistency of the KJV only position. Now you are welcome to get a KJV man to debate Dr White. I would listen with an open mind.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> I don’t interact with Prof Duguid’s arguments because I am not learned in the Hebrew, as I have stated. Which does not in the least negate my faith in how God providentially preserved His word. I rely on the expertise of those I trust in these matters. It is a matter of faith in God’s preservation.


Dr Duguid has convincingly argued that God has providentially preserved His word. He has done so in the CT. I note your struggle to refute him.

Steve I am done with this debate. For the record I do not blindly hold to the CT position. I personally would like to see Ct scholars and Byzantine priority scholars discuss issues together more and bring more 'checks and balances' into the discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 6, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Dr Duguid has *connivingly* argued that God has providentially preserved His word.


I didn’t know your opinion of Dr. Duguid was so poor.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 6, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> First of all Steve I do not discourage people from using the KJV. Personally I love the KJV Reformation Heritage Study Bible. I question the accuracy of the Metzer quote re Rev 16:5. No conservative CT translation agrees with the KJV here. They agree with Geneva.
> 
> 
> It is important to note Scrivener basically used the KJV and formulated his Greek on that. He did not go back to the earlier Received Text and build on that. A roundabout way of doing things.
> ...


Stephen,
I appreciate your confidence in me, but when I began to interact on this thread I noted that the question of the pronunciation of the divine name has absolutely nothing to do with CT vs MT debates, or really the doctrine of preservation. The issues are exactly the same, whether you think the MT as transmitted in the Second Rabbinic Bible is without any flaws or whether you feel free to conjecturally emend the text (something no one here is advocating). The NT textual questions are quite different from the OT, and I am not an expert in that subject, nor do I think that I have expressed particularly strong opinions on that debate, here or elsewhere, let alone proved anything. On the contrary, I think it is a debate where there are good arguments on both sides, and everyone has to make up their own mind - hopefully not writing off the experts but listening carefully to them and formulating well-informed opinions.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 6, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> But if one follows this path, what happens to all the theology bound up in names such as El Shaddai, YHWH, and "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"? To me, the first speaks of God as the all-sufficient "breast" which supplies everything that a human being could wish for (as the breast supplies and satisfies the baby). The second speak of God's self-existence, self-sufficiency, unchangeableness, and overwhelming Being ("the living God"). And so on. Furthermore, if God has revealed himself by the name YHWH, then the refusal to use that Name (I don't mean in addressing him in prayer, but I mean the refusal so much as ever to mention it) seems to me rebellious. "The things that are revealed belong to us." "All scripture is ...profitable".
> 
> And I come back to this question. How is Ex. 6:3 to be read aloud in Hebrew (by Christian/Messianic Jews in Israel reading the Hebrew Bible in public worship as their vernacular)?


Great questions. I think the answer is that we don't lose any of that theology but read the OT names and titles of God in the light of the fuller NT revelation. I don't think we have to completely avoid using the divine name, and more than later OT writers refused to use El Shaddai. We can discuss what it means that God has revealed himself as Yahweh/Jehovah; I don't have a problem with singing "Before Jehovah's awful throne". The Psalms are particularly attracted to archaic titles of God, like El Elyon, so singing would seem to be an appropriate place to use the old name of God. Of course, we as Christians know more about the God of whom we are singing than the authors of the psalms. But I personally wouldn't normally use Jehovah/Yahweh when reading Scripture (I have good friends who would disagree, such as Ralph Davis). I'd follow the NT pattern of reading _adonai _(the Lord), which is what we do in our Hebrew classes. As I say, though, this is not a confessional issue: I'd happily serve alongside people who hold the opposite view on this.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 6, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> I do find it intriguing and suggestive that the name Jehovah comes into use (whoever the originator) only after the Massoretes add the vowels to the Hebrew text in the latter part of the First Millennium AD


Indeed! The Greek church fathers actually suggest Yahweh:

Clement of Alexandria usea “Iaoue” (pronounced Yahweh, short E)
Theodoret uses “Iabe” (pronounced Yahveh, again short E)
Origen quotes ancient LXX manuscripts which use Iaō (pronounced something like Yahw or Ya-ō)


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 6, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> I appreciate your confidence in me, but when I began to interact on this thread I noted that the question of the pronunciation of the divine name has absolutely nothing to do with CT vs MT debates, or really the doctrine of preservation. The issues are exactly the same, whether you think the MT as transmitted in the Second Rabbinic Bible is without any flaws or whether you feel free to conjecturally emend the text (something no one here is advocating). The NT textual questions are quite different from the OT, and I am not an expert in that subject, nor do I think that I have expressed particularly strong opinions on that debate, here or elsewhere, let alone proved anything. On the contrary, I think it is a debate where there are good arguments on both sides, and everyone has to make up their own mind - hopefully not writing off the experts but listening carefully to them and formulating well-informed opinions.


Iain I must have confidence in a fellow Scot  Seriously I take your point. I should have clarified better given your focus in the Old Testament text. The point I was trying to make was that you would be reluctant to take a KJV only position regarding the Masoretic Text and the OT textual choices of the KJV. I agree the NT textual issues are different. As I said there is valid debate going on re the MT and the CT. It is just that I am uncomfortable with a KJV only position. Trust that clarifies. 

On a lighter note, I worship at a confessional Reformed church in the 'Dutch Reformed' tradition. One day I reminded a zealous Dutchman that Scotland, not the Netherlands, is known as the Land of the Covenant. That created a stir


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I didn’t know your opinion of Dr. Duguid was so poor.


Oh dear. I do eat humble pie  I tease others when they make funny spelling mistakes now it has come back to bite me  

Thank you. I have corrected it.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 7, 2020)

So now the most pressing issue on the table... Dr. Duguid (@iainduguid ), how do you pronounce _your_ name?


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 7, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> In addition to the vowel points, there are also the accents in the MT and there is a question over the authority of these too. The accents have a musical purpose (which I would not be able to understand, alas) and also serve as a refined system of punctuation, breaking each verse down into smaller units. The vowel points and accents together give you not only the words but the emphasis with which they are to be read.
> 
> If the vowel points and accents are due to the Masoretes (which is not 100% certain) then they seem to have preserved an earlier tradition of how the text should be read, and I would regard this tradition as authoritative. The accents often give a sort-of commentary on the verse by grouping words in particular ways, highlighting certain words, etc. I have found them very helpful for preaching, and have a profound respect for the theological understanding that they preserve. In his _Outlines of Hebrew Accentuation_ (written in his semi-evangelical days), A.B. Davidson comments: "It is to be expected, seeing our translation [KJV] gives the general sense so accurately, that it will be only finer shades of meaning that the study of the accents will supply; yet these finer shades give generally the acutest pleasure to a cultivated reader or exegete" (p.47). He then gives various examples.
> 
> The book I have found most useful for understanding the system of the accents is James D. Price, _Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible_ (1990), which is freely downloadable. Much as I love the KJV, it does not follow the accents as closely as might be wished, and the NAS is often more accurate in this respect. There is considerable variation in the accentuation of Hebrew Bibles, and for accuracy I would commend the Aleppo Codex (where extant), the Second Rabbinic/TBS Bible, and then the Leningrad Codex third (not that I am any great expert in these things, but that has been my experience).


I came across an example yesterday somewhat relevant to this discussion: Jer. 10:10. The KJV translates it: "But the LORD is the true God...", which is how most other translations go, with small variants. The Masoretic accents, however, give: "But the LORD God [YHWH Elohim] is truth...", conjoining the two names or words for God and disjoining the final word "truth". The only translation that goes with this in my list was Darby (!), although it is also John Gill's preferred translation.

The reason for the ordinary translation, I think, is probably the poetic triple: "true God, living God, everlasting king". However, the Masoretes presumably had as much feel for Hebrew poetry as anyone else, and they read the verse differently. And their reading accords with John 14:6.

In Hong's paper that I linked to above https://www.academia.edu/4194235/_T...nd_Its_Early_Evidence_in_Chronicles_JSOT_2013
the name "YHWH Elohim" plays an important part in his argument, and he lists (p. 483) all the occurrences of this title outside Genesis/Samuel/Chronicles, of which there are four. But he misses this one (presumably because he followed the usual translation of the verse) and yet this is the one most relevant to his argument, and which somewhat undermines it (not that I thought his argument all that conclusive anyway).


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 7, 2020)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Indeed! The Greek church fathers actually suggest Yahweh:
> 
> Clement of Alexandria usea “Iaoue” (pronounced Yahweh, short E)
> Theodoret uses “Iabe” (pronounced Yahveh, again short E)
> Origen quotes ancient LXX manuscripts which use Iaō (pronounced something like Yahw or Ya-ō)


Couldn't "Iaoue" be pronounced "Ya-O-We" (which is as similar to Yehowah as to Yahweh)? The "o" is main part of the discussion, for me.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 7, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> Couldn't "Iaoue" be pronounced "Ya-O-We" (which is as similar to Yehowah as to Yahweh)? The "o" is main part of the discussion, for me.


I’m no Greek specialist but I don’t think this is possible. As I understand in Greek (Ιαουε is how Iaoue would have been spelled), the omicron-upsilon always make a diphthong (“oo” in English).

(And by the early Christian Era upsilon by itself would have been ypsilon and not pronounced as a “u” unless part of the diphthon with omicron.)

Ιαουε = Ee-ah-oo-eh = Yahweh
Ἰαβέ = Ee-ah-veh = Yahveh


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 7, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Great questions. I think the answer is that we don't lose any of that theology but read the OT names and titles of God in the light of the fuller NT revelation. I don't think we have to completely avoid using the divine name, and more than later OT writers refused to use El Shaddai. We can discuss what it means that God has revealed himself as Yahweh/Jehovah; I don't have a problem with singing "Before Jehovah's awful throne". The Psalms are particularly attracted to archaic titles of God, like El Elyon, so singing would seem to be an appropriate place to use the old name of God. Of course, we as Christians know more about the God of whom we are singing than the authors of the psalms. But I personally wouldn't normally use Jehovah/Yahweh when reading Scripture (I have good friends who would disagree, such as Ralph Davis). I'd follow the NT pattern of reading _adonai _(the Lord), which is what we do in our Hebrew classes. As I say, though, this is not a confessional issue: I'd happily serve alongside people who hold the opposite view on this.


The old (Puritan) approach would have been that the NT usage of kurios sanctioned the LXX usage and showed us how to translate the Divine Name into other languages, but did not require a back-translation of YHWH into Adonai in Hebrew as well. Thus they would read Exod. 6:3 as YHWH rather than Adonai. This further step of following the Jews in replacing YHWH by Adonai seems to be a relatively new idea in Protestantism. As far as I can see, the name YHWH has much more (or perhaps, even more) theological content than Adonai, and there would seem to be a great danger of losing or ignoring this if this further step is taken. It crosses my mind that perhaps Satan would wish the name YHWH to be buried in oblivion, and might have used the degeneration of the OT Church to promote this. 

The identification "Christ is YHWH" means that we may learn about YHWH from considering Christ, but also that we may learn about Christ by considering YHWH. To do this, we have to engage in "Biblical theology" and focus on the specific revelation given at each step of Old Testament history. The various compound uses of YHWH all contribute to this, as do the variations in Divine titles in parallel parts of Scripture. The OT is not simply scaffolding to be thrown away now that we have the NT; it was ingeniously contrived to be part of the NT building as well, so now with NT light we can find things there that were not noticed (or hardly noticed) in OT times, and which are not explicitly found in the NT either. I would regard the revelation concerning the Divine Name YHWH in this way. So I think it is important to keep it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 7, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> I came across an example yesterday somewhat relevant to this discussion: Jer. 10:10. The KJV translates it: "But the LORD is the true God...", which is how most other translations go, with small variants. The Masoretic accents, however, give: "But the LORD God [YHWH Elohim] is truth...", conjoining the two names or words for God and disjoining the final word "truth". The only translation that goes with this in my list was Darby (!), although it is also John Gill's preferred translation.
> 
> The reason for the ordinary translation, I think, is probably the poetic triple: "true God, living God, everlasting king". However, the Masoretes presumably had as much feel for Hebrew poetry as anyone else, and they read the verse differently. And their reading accords with John 14:6.
> 
> ...


Jeremiah 10:10 is an interesting example. Hong probably doesn't reference it because on the standard reading it isn't an exemplar of the pairing "the LORD God". Grammatically, it certainly could be, as you suggest, though it could equally well not be. There is a similar phrase in 1 Kings 17:24, where the woman says to Elijah either "The word of the Lord in your mouth is truth" - in this case, most English translation opt for that choice, supporting your argument in Jer 10:10 - or "The word of the Lord is truly in your mouth". Both translations are possible, as they are in Jer 10:10. I'm not sure that John 14:6 helps as much as you think. If it is alluding to this verse (which it may well be), John 14:6 takes "living" from the second part and translates the adjective into a noun, "life". So it could equally easily be taking the adverb "truly" and turning it into the noun "truth". But I'm sympathetic to your reading, which is certainly how the Massoretes read it, as the earliest interpreters of the text.

I thought the central part of Hong's paper was the observation that the Chronicler never reproduces the form Adonai Yahweh from Samuel-Kings in any of its nine occurrences. The simplest explanation for changing that title on every occasion is that the Lord was already being read as Adonai, which makes it an odd combination. Instead, the Chronicler shows the same kind of variety that we find in the LXX, which suggests that it had not yet reached the settled convention of reading "Adonai Elohim" which we find from Aleppo onwards. Not a conclusive argument, to be sure, but an intriguing observation.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 7, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> The old (Puritan) approach would have been that the NT usage of kurios sanctioned the LXX usage and showed us how to translate the Divine Name into other languages, but did not require a back-translation of YHWH into Adonai in Hebrew as well. Thus they would read Exod. 6:3 as YHWH rather than Adonai. This further step of following the Jews in replacing YHWH by Adonai seems to be a relatively new idea in Protestantism. As far as I can see, the name YHWH has much more (or perhaps, even more) theological content than Adonai, and there would seem to be a great danger of losing or ignoring this if this further step is taken. It crosses my mind that perhaps Satan would wish the name YHWH to be buried in oblivion, and might have used the degeneration of the OT Church to promote this.
> 
> The identification "Christ is YHWH" means that we may learn about YHWH from considering Christ, but also that we may learn about Christ by considering YHWH. To do this, we have to engage in "Biblical theology" and focus on the specific revelation given at each step of Old Testament history. The various compound uses of YHWH all contribute to this, as do the variations in Divine titles in parallel parts of Scripture. The OT is not simply scaffolding to be thrown away now that we have the NT; it was ingeniously contrived to be part of the NT building as well, so now with NT light we can find things there that were not noticed (or hardly noticed) in OT times, and which are not explicitly found in the NT either. I would regard the revelation concerning the Divine Name YHWH in this way. So I think it is important to keep it.


This of course gest us into the familiar question of how to render the divine name in our Bible translations. It sounds like you approve of the general translation as "the LORD" based on the NT example. As you know, both the KJV and the Geneva Bible only break with this tradition a few times - not consistently, and not nearly as often as the modern translations, the ASV and the HCSB. The problem is - and this is the discussion we had when updating the HCSB into the CSB - once you render the divine name as Yahweh/Jehovah anywhere in your translation, you are forced into indefensible inconsistencies that are inevitably confusing for the English reader. The most obvious place to put Yahweh/Jehovah is in Exodus 6:3, as both KJV and GNV do: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. (Exod. 6:3 KJV). Which obscures one of the great puzzles for the reader of Hebrew, which is that the divine name is all over Genesis - but Jehovah doesn't appear there in the KJV once. And it appears to drive a wedge between verse 3 and verse 2, where it says "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD (Exod. 6:2 KJV)". So which is he? The LORD or Jehovah? Shouldn't both verses translate the Lord's name the same way?

And where else do you use the divine name? 
Geneva has it at Gen 22:14; Ex. 6:3; 15:3; 17:15; 23:17; 34:23; Judges 6:24; Psalm 83:18
KJV: Gen 22:14; Exod 6:3; 17:15; Psalm 83:18; Isa 12:2; 26:4.

You can see the challenge to consistency, which suggests that there wasn't simply "a" Puritan tradition. 

Meanwhile, the KJV not only normally uses "the LORD" for YHWH, but also "the Lord GOD" for Adonai YHWH, clearly adopting the massoretic practice and following its pointing, reading the kethib not the qere.

At the end of the day, I'm not far from advocating advocating following the example of the KJV, however. I'm not averse to using the divine name from time to time (though I think it should probably not be used in Bible translations, following the NT example). I don't have any superstitious aversion to saying it, and I believe that it is a name that has distinct meaning, explained in Exodus. We can sing it. But we shouldn't try to routinely "reclaim" it, as if its disappearance from pronunciation was part of a Jewish (or even Satanic) conspiracy.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> This of course gest us into the familiar question of how to render the divine name in our Bible translations. It sounds like you approve of the general translation as "the LORD" based on the NT example. As you know, both the KJV and the Geneva Bible only break with this tradition a few times - not consistently, and not nearly as often as the modern translations, the ASV and the HCSB. The problem is - and this is the discussion we had when updating the HCSB into the CSB - once you render the divine name as Yahweh/Jehovah anywhere in your translation, you are forced into indefensible inconsistencies that are inevitably confusing for the English reader. The most obvious place to put Yahweh/Jehovah is in Exodus 6:3, as both KJV and GNV do: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. (Exod. 6:3 KJV). Which obscures one of the great puzzles for the reader of Hebrew, which is that the divine name is all over Genesis - but Jehovah doesn't appear there in the KJV once. And it appears to drive a wedge between verse 3 and verse 2, where it says "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD (Exod. 6:2 KJV)". So which is he? The LORD or Jehovah? Shouldn't both verses translate the Lord's name the same way?
> 
> And where else do you use the divine name?
> Geneva has it at Gen 22:14; Ex. 6:3; 15:3; 17:15; 23:17; 34:23; Judges 6:24; Psalm 83:18
> ...


I am not sure about "indefensible" inconsistencies, and I don't even feel that the inconsistency is very great. Basically, there are two ways to "translate" YHWH: one is to transliterate and the other is use "the LORD". The second is preferred, but in each of the cases you list one can see why the translators opted for the first alternative. It seems a good solution to me, and helpful to the English reader.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Jeremiah 10:10 is an interesting example. Hong probably doesn't reference it because on the standard reading it isn't an exemplar of the pairing "the LORD God". Grammatically, it certainly could be, as you suggest, though it could equally well not be. There is a similar phrase in 1 Kings 17:24, where the woman says to Elijah either "The word of the Lord in your mouth is truth" - in this case, most English translation opt for that choice, supporting your argument in Jer 10:10 - or "The word of the Lord is truly in your mouth". Both translations are possible, as they are in Jer 10:10. I'm not sure that John 14:6 helps as much as you think. If it is alluding to this verse (which it may well be), John 14:6 takes "living" from the second part and translates the adjective into a noun, "life". So it could equally easily be taking the adverb "truly" and turning it into the noun "truth". But I'm sympathetic to your reading, which is certainly how the Massoretes read it, as the earliest interpreters of the text.
> 
> I thought the central part of Hong's paper was the observation that the Chronicler never reproduces the form Adonai Yahweh from Samuel-Kings in any of its nine occurrences. The simplest explanation for changing that title on every occasion is that the Lord was already being read as Adonai, which makes it an odd combination. Instead, the Chronicler shows the same kind of variety that we find in the LXX, which suggests that it had not yet reached the settled convention of reading "Adonai Elohim" which we find from Aleppo onwards. Not a conclusive argument, to be sure, but an intriguing observation.


I would be inclined to look for a spiritual explanation in place of Hong's linguistic one. He considers this possibility rather perfunctorily on p. 483 but then dismisses it, asserting that his theory is the "only" possible one. He is really considering the seven instances in David's prayer. Scripture was given to be profitable, and Divine names were not used without reason. Perhaps meditation on the prayer in its two forms would furnish a better answer.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 9, 2020)

I just came across this interesting comment related to this subject:

It is agreed by all, that Jehovah is an essential name; and it will be easily allowed, that the Apostle John's is the best translation of it, "He who is, and was, and is to come;" the essential possessor and proprietor of being. Our translators have been very justly complained of for rendering this by the relative term, Lord, after the later Jews, whose superstition not permitting them to pronounce this name, always substitute Adoni, Lord, instead of it. But certainly they ought not to be followed by Christians.

Robert Riccaltoun, _Essays on Several of the Doctrines of Revelation_ in _The Works of the Late Reverend Mr Robert Riccaltoun, Minister of the Gospel at Hobkirk_ (3 vols, Edinburgh: A. Murray & J. Cochran, 1771-72), 1: 360.

In which case, I presume that Robert Riccaltoun would have been a champion of the old American Standard Version had he lived long enough to see it.  I really like the ASV's use of Jehovah. Even if it is not technically as accurate as Yahweh, the latter does not sound as good in English - and that should count for something.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 9, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I just came across this interesting comment related to this subject:
> 
> It is agreed by all, that Jehovah is an essential name; and it will be easily allowed, that the Apostle John's is the best translation of it, "He who is, and was, and is to come;" the essential possessor and proprietor of being. Our translators have been very justly complained of for rendering this by the relative term, Lord, after the later Jews, whose superstition not permitting them to pronounce this name, always substitute Adoni, Lord, instead of it. But certainly they ought not to be followed by Christians.
> 
> ...


Do you mean the latter doesn’t sound as good in English?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 9, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Do you mean the latter doesn’t sound as good in English?



Yes, Yahweh does not sound as good in English. I messed up the sentence when over-editing it, which is something that I do a lot.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 9, 2020)

I hate to throw a wrench into things, but it just occurred to me that one of the lessons from my graduate phonology course in college might be relevant to this discussion. One day we were working through a data set of Yemeni Arabic and Classical Arabic cognates that had been recorded and transcribed by one of the doctoral students and it kept arising that the rules we devised to account for the data couldn't account for medical-anatomical terms and religious terms in the Yemeni dialect (which according to traditional understandings of phonology shouldn't happen), and the professor remarked that it's a common phenomena across languages that words with superstitious religious or magical significance are exempt from regular sound changes because practitioners feel that the religious significance or magical power is lost if the pronunciation varies. I think there are two good lessons to take from this:
1) Phonological rules cannot be the primary basis for arguing the correct pronunciation of the divine name given this phenomena and the strong superstition of the Jews regarding it.
2) We should avoid exercising the same sort of superstition.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 10, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> I hate to throw a wrench into things, but it just occurred to me that one of the lessons from my graduate phonology course in college might be relevant to this discussion. One day we were working through a data set of Yemeni Arabic and Classical Arabic cognates that had been recorded and transcribed by one of the doctoral students and it kept arising that the rules we devised to account for the data couldn't account for medical-anatomical terms and religious terms in the Yemeni dialect (which according to traditional understandings of phonology shouldn't happen), and the professor remarked that it's a common phenomena across languages that words with superstitious religious or magical significance are exempt from regular sound changes because practitioners feel that the religious significance or magical power is lost if the pronunciation varies. I think there are two good lessons to take from this:
> 1) Phonological rules cannot be the primary basis for arguing the correct pronunciation of the divine name given this phenomena and the strong superstition of the Jews regarding it.
> 2) We should avoid exercising the same sort of superstition.


Fair enough, though I don't think anyone on this thread has argued on the primary basis of phonological rules. 

On 2) (and the quote by Riccaltoun above) the claim that this is driven purely by Jewish superstition founders on the obstinate fact that this is the universal practice of the New Testament, which presumably reflects the practice they were taught by Jesus. If Jesus had rejected the practice of reading 'adonai for YHWH in the OT as mere superstition, then wouldn't the disciples have done the same? Yet even when quoting (presumably Jesus' own account of) his interaction with the devil, they quote him as saying "kurios." So this CANNOT be a mere Jewish superstition that we should avoid.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 10, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> On 2) (and the quote by Riccaltoun above) the claim that this is driven purely by Jewish superstition founders on the obstinate fact that this is the universal practice of the New Testament, which presumably reflects the practice they were taught by Jesus. If Jesus had rejected the practice of reading 'adonai for YHWH in the OT as mere superstition, then wouldn't the disciples have done the same? Yet even when quoting (presumably Jesus' own account of) his interaction with the devil, they quote him as saying "kurios." So this CANNOT be a mere Jewish superstition that we should avoid.


That wasn't my point.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 10, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> The problem is - and this is the discussion we had when updating the HCSB into the CSB - once you render the divine name as Yahweh/Jehovah anywhere in your translation, you are forced into indefensible inconsistencies that are inevitably confusing for the English reader.


Iain, when the Legacy Standard Bible comes out I would be interested in your comments about how it translates the Old Testament. I assume it will be very accurate. In terms of the discussion over Yahweh/Lord, here is their translation policy:
Preface - Legacy Standard Bible (lsbible.org)


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 10, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Iain, when the Legacy Standard Bible comes out I would be interested in your comments about how it translates the Old Testament. I assume it will be very accurate. In terms of the discussion over Yahweh/Lord, here is their translation policy:
> Preface - Legacy Standard Bible (lsbible.org)


It's a well thought through defense of their (unusual) position, which we might call "Yahwistic maximalism" - rendering the divine name by Yahweh wherever possible. That is at least consistent - unlike the KJV/Geneva approach which has only a very few uses of Jehovah, or the HCSB with a relatively large number of Yahwehs, with no obvious rationale as to why the translation is made thus in these places and not others.

The problem (apart from breaking with the example of Jesus and the apostles in reading the OT, and offending everyone who thinks they should have adopted Jehovah) is twofold. 
1) it messes with a lot of people's favorite Bible passages. It throws people to turn to Psalm 23 and read "Yahweh is my shepherd". It probably shouldn't, and some people find the change refreshing, but I guarantee they will take some flak for it. Especially since their audience is fairly traditional. 
2) It drives apart NT quotations from the OT sources: the NT quotation will have "the Lord" while the OT source will have "Yahweh." They will have a footnote explaining the difference, but as we frequently reminded ourselves in translation committee, "Most people don't read footnotes". That will confuse some people and it makes it sound as if the NT is always doing its own translation rather than sometimes directly citing the Septuagint.

None of these objections is overwhelming, and to be honest, I prefer the all in approach to any kind of halfway house. But at the end of the day, I'm happy to stick with Jesus on this one.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 10, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> 1) it messes with a lot of people's favorite Bible passages. It throws people to turn to Psalm 23 and read "Yahweh is my shepherd". It probably shouldn't, and some people find the change refreshing, but I guarantee they will take some flak for it. Especially since their audience is fairly traditional.


That's interesting. The Spanish bible has always read "Jehová es mi pastor" in Ps. 23. I'd never thought much about the difference.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 11, 2020)

Hello Douglas / @Douglas Somerset ,

Thank you for presenting your views with respect to continuing the use of the divine name, *Jehovah* – it is greatly appreciated. For those who are not learned in Biblical Hebrew yet also love the name Jehovah, would you please summarize (you could certainly go at length, if you wish!) your arguments and thoughts on this.


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 11, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Fair enough, though I don't think anyone on this thread has argued on the primary basis of phonological rules.
> 
> On 2) (and the quote by Riccaltoun above) the claim that this is driven purely by Jewish superstition founders on the obstinate fact that this is the universal practice of the New Testament, which presumably reflects the practice they were taught by Jesus. If Jesus had rejected the practice of reading 'adonai for YHWH in the OT as mere superstition, then wouldn't the disciples have done the same? Yet even when quoting (presumably Jesus' own account of) his interaction with the devil, they quote him as saying "kurios." So this CANNOT be a mere Jewish superstition that we should avoid.


But the OT Jewish practice did not have the example of Christ at that stage. It was just superstition, refusing to use a name that God had revealed, while probably breaking his law in numerous other ways. 

It is not clear: a) what Christ's practice was (we are viewing it through a Greek lens, and he may have done and said many things that are not recorded); b) what the Apostles' practice was. The assumption is that because YHWH is not recorded in the NT therefore it was never used at that time. But obviously this fact (of NT silence regarding YHWH) admits of other possible explanations, and these have to be ruled out before the assumption becomes a conclusive argument.


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 11, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Great questions. I think the answer is that we don't lose any of that theology but read the OT names and titles of God in the light of the fuller NT revelation. I don't think we have to completely avoid using the divine name, and more than later OT writers refused to use El Shaddai. We can discuss what it means that God has revealed himself as Yahweh/Jehovah; I don't have a problem with singing "Before Jehovah's awful throne". The Psalms are particularly attracted to archaic titles of God, like El Elyon, so singing would seem to be an appropriate place to use the old name of God. Of course, we as Christians know more about the God of whom we are singing than the authors of the psalms. But I personally wouldn't normally use Jehovah/Yahweh when reading Scripture (I have good friends who would disagree, such as Ralph Davis). I'd follow the NT pattern of reading _adonai _(the Lord), which is what we do in our Hebrew classes. As I say, though, this is not a confessional issue: I'd happily serve alongside people who hold the opposite view on this.


The difference seems to be, then, that I regard YHWH as current whereas you regard it (I think) as provisional OT revelation (perhaps a bit like the Ark of the Covenant) which served its purpose but has now been fulfilled and superseded by the much more abundant revelation in Christ. And you would regard the name (again like the Ark of the Covenant) as "waxing old and ready to vanish away" even in OT times. 

This obviously affects the argument regarding Chronicles. You would see the changes between Samuel and Chronicles as pointing to the "vanishing away" of the name YHWH whereas I would regard that as an impossible explanation and would want to look for something else.


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 12, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Douglas / @Douglas Somerset ,
> 
> Thank you for presenting your views with respect to continuing the use of the divine name, *Jehovah* – it is greatly appreciated. For those who are not learned in Biblical Hebrew yet also love the name Jehovah, would you please summarize (you could certainly go at length, if you wish!) your arguments and thoughts on this.


I can't give a very strong argument, but basically it would be this. 

1) That the adoption of "Jehovah" by the Church (pre-Reformation and Reformation) from the time of Raymond Martini (c. 1280 AD) onwards -- and possibly earlier -- strongly suggests that Hebrew MSS of that period were pointing YHWH as Yehowah. (This is in contrast with the Aleppo and Leningrad codices which seldom point YHWH as Yehowah). 

2) That this pointing passed from Hebrew MSS to printed Hebrew Bibles, and continued to dominate until the twentieth century. So when Christians went to their Hebrew Bible they found "Jehovah".

3) From the early sixteenth century there have been those arguing that Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation. These people have strong arguments, but never quite convincing. Their theories don't quite match the data, and their confidence often seems excessive and somewhat suspicious to those have repeatedly observed "the assured results of human learning" toppling before new discoveries.

4) Meanwhile Christians (some of them at least) have quietly continued to benefit from contemplating the name "Jehovah", wondering what the future holds in store on the subject. They recognise that they seem unlearned, foolish, and stubborn to their critics but they remit that to the Lord.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 12, 2020)

I have taken some time to read through most of this thread. I have a few questions that I desire to gain some more simpler answers about. 1) What is the motivation for being so pin pointed about this issue. I know the importance of how one addresses another can be one. No one desires to address someone incorrectly. At the same time most of us accept some ambiguity. Superstition does play a part in this discussion. 2) When it comes to Deity, the names of God are more themed concerning some attribute concerning who he is. His names define him. Is it not more important to know and understand what the terminology is saying than how precisely it is spelled or pronounced? We say God instead of El. We say Jesus or Joshua instead of Jeshua. We say I Am instead of the Hebrew equivalent. Are my questions making sense? How can I clarify my thoughts if not? And yes, I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 13, 2020)

Thank you, Douglas! Your labors and views are much appreciated here.

-----

Hello Randy,

I suppose it comes down to this: I simply believe that Jehovah is the name of God given us in the Old Testament of His word. It was the name used by those who framed the Westminster Standards, as the use of the name in the WLC 101 appears to be an indication, and in the Canons of Dort as I mentioned in the OP. The Bible that I use – the King James – translates the Tetragrammaton with that name, when it does not adopt the convention LORD. The teachers I for the most part hearken to, those of the PRCA, use that name (though I note that _once_, in the four volumes of his _Unfolding Covenant History_, Homer C. Hoeksema used Yahweh, but many other times Jehovah). David J. Engelsma, who is continuing the series, uses Jehovah. There are many defenses supporting this usage (especially among the older writers), as well many defenses of either Yahweh or an admission of uncertainty. And there are many commentators I love who use Yahweh – we simply differ in that matter.

The hymnody of the church in earlier ages uses Jehovah, as do many of the metrical versions of the Psalms.

If I stand in the company of the Reformers and use Jehovah I will not only be in accord with them, but will be in good company.

In my personal communion with the LORD my God I usually use Father, or Lord Jesus, or Holy Spirit when addressing Him – or just LORD. Though I gladly sing, “Guide me, O Thou great Jehovah” when that hymn comes up in worship.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 14, 2020)

Well Steve, Concerning the denominational peculiarities, I sing from a Psalter exclusively during Sabbath worship and think that is important. That is another argument not to be digested here mind you. I think I understand your argument but think it is a bit narrow when the importance through history should have been placed more in the knowing what is meant by the terminology. I have heard other arguments that Adonai and YHWH were pulsed together to form Jehovah. I solidly came to understand the significance of 'I Am' when I was fully converted after reading, "Before Abraham was, I AM." I just don't believe the Hebrew equivalent is Jehovah by original pronunciation or diction. If that is a hill you decide to stand upon that is okay with me. I just don't buy the argument as I don't buy others of Hoeksema's peculiarities either. 

We are an English speaking people. Our dialect and speaking patterns differ so greatly from other foreign languages. When I consider the difficulty for middle eastern or any foreigner to pronounce things transliterated or spelled this argument gets stuck in a mire. It is more important to focus on the meaning then what I consider a very minor point. Yes, minor points lead to major points but the trees tend to get too dense in the forest sometimes. 

Just my opinion. And I agree with you Steve concerning the Reformers line of textual criticism. i.e. John Owen for example.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 14, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> We are an English speaking people.


Americans speak ENGLISH? That is news to me. Do you agree @Reformed Covenanter ?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 14, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Americans speak ENGLISH? That is news to me. Do you agree @Reformed Covenanter ?


Notice I didn't say we speak the Queen's English! LOL

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 14, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Americans speak ENGLISH? That is news to me. Do you agree @Reformed Covenanter ?


I had to remind a British friend recently that the name of the English language comes from the Angles that originally spoke it, and not our tea-drinking island dwelling friends across the pond. Of course there's inherently nothing wrong with putting leaves, grass clippings, or any other such thing in hot water and treating it as a commodity.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Americans speak ENGLISH? That is news to me. Do you agree @Reformed Covenanter ?



I agree with Winston Churchill. We are two peoples separated by a common language.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 14, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I agree with Winston Churchill. We are two peoples separated by a common language.


Common language? But he was biased. He was part American.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 14, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Common language? But he was biased. He was part American.


You can't just call every modestly overweight capitalist an American. Some Americans aren't capitalists.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 14, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Americans speak ENGLISH? That is news to me.



Americans invented English.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 14, 2020)

English was invented by kinda-Germans, improved by kinda-Frenchies, and perfected by Americans.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 26, 2020)

I'm curious: regardless of how one feels about this, it seems it would be correct to say that the pronunciation of "Jehovah" with a hard "j" sound is more of a mispronunciation of its Englished form, and it originally would have been pronounced with a "y" sound (e.g., as in Hallelu-jah). Is that the general consensus?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 26, 2020)

Logan said:


> I'm curious: regardless of how one feels about this, it seems it would be correct to say that the pronunciation of "Jehovah" with a hard "j" sound is more of a mispronunciation of its Englished form, and it originally would have been pronounced with a "y" sound (e.g., as in Hallelu-jah). Is that the general consensus?


I have read that the “J” sound is a fairly recent innovation, originating in French before migrating to English just a few centuries ago.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 26, 2020)

Logan said:


> I'm curious: regardless of how one feels about this, it seems it would be correct to say that the pronunciation of "Jehovah" with a hard "j" sound is more of a mispronunciation of its Englished form, and it originally would have been pronounced with a "y" sound (e.g., as in Hallelu-jah). Is that the general consensus?


Those who still promote Jehovah (such as Karaite Jew Nehemia Gordon) use the Y - Ye-ho-VAH. “J” is rather late in English and often has the “Y” sounds (e.g. hallelujah). Hebrew has no hard J sound, as many languages don’t. In fact, the only ones I know that use Jehovah with a J sounds are English, French, and Italian. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Russian, German, and the vast majority of others use the Y sounds, even if they use the J letter.

Do I think we should stop using Jehovah? In used to say yes, but now I say no. Jehovah is as much English as Jesus (vs. Yeshua), Isaiah (vs. Yeshayahu), or Paul (vs. Pavlos). I use Yahweh also but don’t have a problem with Jehovah.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 26, 2020)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Those who still promote Jehovah (such as Karaite Jew Nehemia Gordon) use the Y - Ye-ho-VAH. “J” is rather late in English and often has the “Y” sounds (e.g. hallelujah). Hebrew has no hard J sound, as many languages don’t. In fact, the only ones I know that use Jehovah with a J sounds are English, French, and Italian. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Russian, German, and the vast majority of others use the Y sounds, even if they use the J letter.
> 
> Do I think we should stop using Jehovah? In used to say yes, but now I say no. Jehovah is as much English as Jesus (vs. Yeshua), Isaiah (vs. Yeshayahu), or Paul (vs. Pavlos). I use Yahweh also but don’t have a problem with Jehovah.


Just to reinforce Johnathan's point, the "J" in Jehovah is the same as the J in every other place or person name in the Old Testament (or New Testament). So if you are going to scruple over that, you should also stop calling it Jerusalem, Jericho, or Jezreel, and rename Jesus, Jonathan and Jeremiah - and as for the Book of James (Iacobos)!!!. You should probably also never say you are flying (internationally) to Moscow, Geneva, or Prague, since all of those are anglicized versions of names in other languages. Most languages do that in some form or other.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 27, 2020)

That’s what I was sort of hinting at: it seems strange to me to scruple at “Jehovah” (with a hard j sound) being confessional and _the_ revealed name of God, and yet be fine with pronouncing it differently than it was originally in Hebrew or even in English.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

