Friday, November 8, 2024

Advocate - Is God Our Advocate?




Many often present a long list of "names" that often thought to be "names of God". One of the alleged names of God is often given as being "Advocate". As we have shown elsewhere, the Bible reveals only one name as being God's Holy Name. The Bible never speaks of "names" [plural] of God.

One of the scriptures given relative to this is 1 John 2:1, which reads: "My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. If anyone sins, we have a Counselor with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous."  (World English) The assumption appears to be that Jesus is the Supreme Being, and thus, since it is assumed that Jesus is the Supreme Being, then one of the alleged "names" of the Supreme Being is Advocate. Of course, in reality, Jesus spoke of his God and Father as being the only true God, the only true Supreme Being, and by stating that the only true God had sent him, Jesus denied being the Supreme Being. (John 17:1,3) Thus, "Advocate" is not a "name" of the only true God.

Another scripture sometimes given is John 14:26, where the spirit of truth is referred as "Counselor", "Comforter", or "Advocate" (depending on which translation is used). Evidently, it is thought that God's Holy Spirit is a person of God, and wholly and fully God, and thus God is being referred to as "Advocate". Of course, trinitarians and some others believe that Jesus is Jehovah, and thus that Jehovah, the Son of Jehovah, is our advocate before Jehovah, the Father of Jehovah. The scriptures, however, reveal no such concept.

The Bible, however, never presents Jesus as being the God and Father of Abraham, the "one God" from whom are the all, nor is God's Holy Spirit ever presented as being a person of God, or as being "wholly and fully God [Supreme Being".

See our study: Jesus is Not Jehovah

The word "advocate" is not actually a name, at least not in the sense that we speak of "Jesus", "Joshua", "Elijah", etc., as being names. The word "advocate" is a "name" in a more general sense as we might say that the word "apple" designates the name of a certain fruit. This word, as applied to Jesus and God's Holy Spirit, could better be termed a "title" rather than "name".

However, the Bible reveals only one name as being God's "Holy Name". This Holy Name is often presented in English as "Jehovah" (based on Masoretic Hebrew) or "Yahweh" (based on a Greek rendering of the Holy Name). 
The word "advocate" is often confused with the word "mediator"; they do not actually mean exactly the same thing. The word mediator signifies one who seeks to reconcile two parties who are not in harmony with each other. Before one becomes a child of God, one is estranged from God, and thus, in need the mediator by which to be reconciled to God. Thus, to become a child of God, one who receives Christ and has faith in the Jesus' sacrifice for our sins, becomes reconciled to God, and also becomes a new creation, separated from the old creation that remains under God's wrath. (John 3:36; Romans 5:10,12-19; 8:1,17-22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Timothy 2:5,6) The new creature in Christ, being a child of God, is without sin, and thus no longer needs a mediator.  In 1 John 4:1, John is not speaking to the world estranged from God, but rather he is speaking to sons of God, those who have already been united with God and who are thus no longer 'dead through their trespasses", but who have been 'made alive with Christ'. -- Ephesians 6:5.

An advocate is one who appears before a judge in their defense. Jesus is, in effect, the lawyer who serves as the counselor or advocate for the sons of God. Since the new creature still has to contend with the sinful flesh, the new creature needs an advocate, someone who is like a lawyer, to appear on his behalf before the only true God. Nevertheless, this representation before God is still based on application of the blood of Jesus, which has been offered in sacrifice for us all. (Hebrews 9:24-26) In other words, for any sin attributed to the sinful flesh, Jesus does not offer a new sacrifice for that sin, but as the advocate of the new creature, he appears before God so that such a sin does not put the New Creature at enmity with God.

Below needs to be edited:

The world has no advocate with the Father, but "we have."

The consecrated household of faith is represented in heaven itself by him who redeemed the whole world. This is in accordance with our topic of last Sunday, which many of you have doubtless followed through the public press. We there showed that after our Lord had finished his sacrifice at Calvary, been raised from the dead on the third day, spent forty days with the disciples, establishing them and preparing them for the work before them, he then ascended up on high, there to appear in the presence of God on our behalf, as today's text declares, "to be our advocate." (Heb. 9:24)

The figure is a peculiar one. An advocate, an attorney, appears to answer for his client, not to answer for others; and so, although our Lord paid the ransom price for the sins of the whole world, or, as today's text says, was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, nevertheless he did not appear for the whole world. The world has not retained him as an advocate. Only believers have come into this relationship, and consequently only for these does he appear, only for these has he made satisfaction; only these, therefore, have been brought into covenant relationship with the Father.

The same Jesus, on the basis of the same sin offering finished at Calvary, will in the next age take up the cause of the world – not as an advocate, not as appearing before the Father for them and having them justified through faith, but as a go-between, a mediator between God and man. God stands for his own justice. Mankind in general, the world, are in more or less of a rebellious attitude, lovers of sin, blind to their true interests. The Mediator undertakes a work on their behalf, to bring in reconciliation between God and these his rebellious subjects, and to recover the latter by opening the eyes of their understanding, by giving them valuable lessons and experiences respecting the blessings of righteousness and the undesirableness of sin, and thus to bring back as many as possible to fellowship with the Father, and to restore them mentally, morally and physically to the original likeness of God.

By the end of that Millennial age the Mediator will be ready to introduce the perfect members of the race to the Father, blameless and irreprovable – all those rejecting his ministries of reconciliation will have been cut off in the Second Death. Thenceforth there will be no more sorrow, pain, sighing, crying, dying, because all the former things will have passed away, the Mediator will have effected his grand work of destroying sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness.

How precious the thought that, while the world is mentally, morally and physically poisoned by sin and blind to it own best interests, the time shall yet come when they will be blessed with the opening of the eyes of their understanding and with all the assistances necessary for their recovery. And how the Lord's words resound in our ears, "Blessed are your eyes for they see and your ears for they hear." (Matt. 13:16)

We may well thank God that the light of the knowledge of his goodness has shined into our hearts, and that we no longer need to wait for the Mediator's work to reconcile us, but now in advance turn to the Lord promptly, as soon as we have heard of his grace in Christ. And how gracious is his provision in all respects for our adoption into his family, our begetting of the Spirit to a new nature, that we may become heirs of God and joint-heirs with his Son in the glorious Kingdom which is to bless the world.

How blessed, too, is this special privilege which we are considering today, namely, that although in our imperfection we must concede that we are trespassers of divine grace and fail to come up to the terms and conditions of our covenant, nevertheless God has provided for us an advocate, Jesus Christ the Righteous, whose righteousness has been imputed to us, by whose stripes we are healed, our blemishes covered and not counted to us, but counted to him who died for us on Calvary. Let us rejoice in this loving favor, and [NS360] more and more zealously strive to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, and to keep close accounts with the Lord, so that our consciences will be sensitive, and even slight violations of the law of love will appeal to us as contrary to our covenant and send us to the blood again, which makes and keeps us whole.



Wednesday, January 11, 2023

The Holy Name in Matthew

In this study, we will endeavor to provide all the scriptures with the book of Matthew in which we believe that God's Holy Name was changed to other words. In most instances, we will find that God's Holy Name has been changed to a form of the Greek word often transliterated as KURIOS. However, at times God's Holy Name has been changed to other words, especially to forms of the words often transliterated as THEOS.

We will be using the American Standard Version (ASV) of the Bible as a basis.

All Hebrew and Greek words will be presented with transliterations into Latin characters.

Matthew 1:20 
But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

The phrase rendered as "angel of Jehovah" in the Old Testament of the American Standard Version is found many times in the Hebrew scriptures. In most instances, in the Hebrew text, the phrase is without the definite article, which means that it could be rendered as "an angel of Jehovah" rather than "the angel of Jehovah". Nevertheless, the ASV usually adds "the" before each occurrence. In Matthew 1:20, the Greek text is likewise lacking the definite article before the Hebrew word for angel.

The addition of the definite article "the" in the Old Testament of the ASV and many other translations is probably due to the extra-Biblical teachings that there is only one "angel of Jehovah". The doctrine would have it that "the angel of Jehovah" or as many often would claim "the angel of the Lord", is Jesus, the alleged second person of a triune God, who evidently could be seen while the alleged first person of the triune God cannot be seen, etc. The usage in the New Testament, however, would not fit that concept, since it is obvious that the angel in Matthew 1:20 is not Jesus. Thus, the ASV does put "an" before the expression rather than "the".  This angel of Jehovah who appeared to Joseph was probably Gabriel as spoken of in Luke 1:11,19,26.

We should note that indefinite KURIOS of Matthew 1:20 has been rendered into English in the definite form "the Lord", that is, the definite article "the" has been added by the translators.

Nevertheless, it should be obvious that God's Holy Name has been changed to and anarthrous from KURIOS in Matthew 1:20, and thus that it would be proper to restore the Holy Name in this verse.


Matthew 1:22
Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through the prophet, saying, 
Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

We have included verse 23 in order to complete the sentence and to show what is being referred to in verse 22.  The quote in verse 23 is from Isaiah 7:14.

He who spoke through the prophet Isaiah is Jehovah (Yahweh) as can be seen from Isaiah 7:3, Isaiah 7:7 and Isaiah 7:10. This is the same one person who is "God" in Hebrews 1:1,2, who spoke through the prophets of old and who now speaks through his Son. 

It should be obvious that God's Holy Name has been changed to an anarthrous form of KURIOS in this verse, and thus it would be proper to restore that Holy Name.

*** More to be added later, God willing.

{Matthew 1:24} Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of Jehovah commanded him, and took his wife to himself;

{Matthew 2:13} Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of Jehovah
appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise and take the young child
and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you,

Matthew 2:14} He arose and took the young child and his mother by night,
and departed into Egypt, {Matthew 2:15} and was there until the death of Herod;
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through the
prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

{Matthew 2:19} But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of Jehovah
appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, {Matthew 2:20} "Arise and take
the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for
those who sought the young life of the boy are dead."

{Matthew 3:3} For this is he who was spoken of by Isaiah the
prophet, saying,
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
   make ready the way of Jehovah.
   Make his paths straight."

{Matthew 4:4} But he answered, "It is written, 'Man must not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Jehovah.'"

{Matthew 4:7} Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You must not test Jehovah, your God.'"

{Matthew 4:10} Then Jesus said to him, "Get behind me, Satan! For it is written, 'You must worship Jehovah your God, and you must serve him only.'"

{Matthew 5:33} "Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time,
'You must not make false vows, but must perform to Jehovah your
vows,'

{Matthew 6:33} But seek first the Kingdom of Jehovah, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.

{Matthew 15:6} he will not honor his
father or mother.' You have made the commandment of Jehovah void because of
your tradition.

{Matthew 19:24} Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Jehovah."

{Matthew 21:9} The multitudes who went before him, and who followed kept shouting, "Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah! Hosanna in the highest!"

{Matthew 21:31} Which of the two did
the will of his father?"

   They said to him, "The first."

   Jesus said to them, "Most certainly I tell you that the tax
collectors and the prostitutes are entering into the Kingdom of Jehovah
before you.



{Matthew 21:42} Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,
'The stone which the builders rejected,
   the same was made the head of the corner.
This was from Jehovah.
   It is marvelous in our eyes?'

{Matthew 21:43} "Therefore I tell you, the Kingdom of Jehovah will be taken away from you, and will be given to a nation bringing forth its fruit.

{Matthew 22:31} But concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't you read that which was spoken to you by Jehovah, saying, 
{Matthew 22:32} 'I am the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' Jehovah is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

{Matthew 22:37} Jesus said to him, "'You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'

{Matthew 22:43} He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, {Matthew 22:44} 'Jehovah said to my Lord, sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?'

{Matthew 23:39} For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah!'"

{Matthew 28:2} Behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of Jehovah
descended from the sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the
door, and sat on it.

Thursday, August 4, 2022

Did Tyndale Invent Jehovah?

Sometimes we are presented with the claim that Tyndale created the name "Jehovah".

According to Wikipedia: "Jehovah was first introduced by William Tyndale in his translation of Exodus 6:3, and appears in some other early English translations including the Geneva Bible and the King James Version."

Evidently, this is referring to the form of the Holy Name as "Jehovah", not to the Holy Name itself. Actually, the Holy Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, often represented in English as Jehovah, was created by God Himself. Scripturally, speaking, however, names change in form from language to language, and yet they are not considered as different names but rather the same "name". It is only in recent centuries that people have begun to treat various forms as different names. 

God's Holy Name name is represented in ancient Hebrew with four Hebrew characters, without written vowels, as ancient Hebrew had no written vowels for any name or word. Some have claimed the Holy Name was not pronounced because it had no vowels. If this is true, then no name, no word in ancient Hebrew, was ever pronounced, since no word at all had written vowels. The fact that ancient Hebrew did not have any written vowels does not mean that the vowels were not pronounced when the words were spoken. There is definitely no evidence that, in the times of the Old Testament, no one gave any pronunciation to the Holy Name because it had no vowels. There is nothing anywhere in the Old Testament that says that God's Holy Name is ineffable. Nor is there anything in the Bible that says that God commanded that his Holy Name had to be pronounced in all languages exactly as it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew, or else it is a false name. All these ideas come from man, not from God.

In most ancient languages, however, names often took on different forms within the same language, often depending how the name is sounded in context. Each variation, however, was not considered a different name, but rather as being the same name. The same is true with names rendered from the Hebrew Scriptures to the New Testament Greek scriptures. Likewise, the evidence indicates that a name rendered from Hebrew to Greek may have been given different sounds in Greek than in Hebrew, but in such circumstances, the forms of the name in Greek were not considered as being a different name than what appears in the Hebrew, but they were still considered as the same name even though they did not sound exactly the same as they did in Hebrew.

Several centuries after Christ, the Masoretes sought to provide written vowels for the ancient Hebrew. One of the forms that they provided was that which can be transliterated into English as "Iehouah," "Yehowah," "Jehovah." etc., depending on whose transliteration method one may use. It is generally believed that the Masoretes took vowel points they supplied to form the words often transliterated as Adonay and/or Elohim to create the forms of the Holy Name as is given their text, but there is no evidence in their work that they did such. 

Regardless of how some have claimed to prove that the Masoretes used vowel points they have provided to form ADONAI to used in the tetragrammaton, their proof always ends up being some kind of hypothesis presented as being fact. In other words, it is assumed that this or that is true, and this or that is presented as being fact. We have never, however, seen anything presented from the Masoretes themselves as to why or how they used certain vowel points in the Holy Name. Actually, the internal evidence from the Masoretes' work would seem to indicate that they did not take vowel points they supplied for any other word so as to form "Jehovah". 

God's Holy Name in Hebrew is a verb, an active form of the root of "to be". In Exodus 3:14 we find the Holy Name first presented with the form often transliterated as EHJEH (some transltierate as EHYEH, or even EHYAH). The name, however, in Exodus 3:15, however, is in the Masoretic Hebrew the form that is often transliterated as "Jehovah", "Iehouah", "Yehowah", or variations of these forms. In Exodus 3:14, we find the name presented in the first person form, which can be translated as "I am", "I will be", "I cause to be", etc. In verse 15, however, we find the same name presented, but it is in third person form ("He is", "He will be", "He causes to be", etc.). These two forms should not be thought of as two different names, but they are still the same name, presented from different perspectives.

Tyndale, however, did not actually present God's Holy Name as "Jehovah". Tyndale usually rendered the Holy Name in English as "Lord", "Lorde", "the Lorde", etc. In seven instances, however, he rendered the Holy Name, not as "Jehovah", but as "Iehouah": Genesis 15:2; Exodus 6:3; 15:3; 17:15; 23:17; 33:19; 34:23. Nevertheless, in many, if not most, English dialects of that time this may have been pronounced more like we pronounce "Jehovah," or "Jehouah," or possibly with the "J" sounding something like "J" in the French "Jascques".
https://youtu.be/8zuQae2OrMI

Some, however, have claimed that one has to pronounce the Holy Name as it was originally pronounced or else it is not the Holy Name. The Bible itself makes no such claim. The reality is that no one on earth today knows how it was originally pronounced. Many have presented various hypotheses of how they thought it should be pronounced, and they present their hypotheses as being facts, but the reality is that they do not know for a certainty how it was originally pronounced. On the hand, those who make a such claim do not appear to think of what such an idea leads to, since no one on earth today knows for a certainty how it was originally pronounced. All we have are various conclusions based on assumptions that are often thought, or at least presented as being, fact.

Others claim that certain scriptures (such as Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11) forbid mispronouncing the Holy Name, or based on these or similar scriptures, some claim that the Holy Name should not be pronounced at all. This appears to be the basis for substituting Adonai or Elohim for God's Holy name. Oddly, if it is thought that God's name should not be pronounced for fear of mispronouncing the Holy Name, pronouncing the Holy Name as Adonai or Elohim (or, HaShem, Kurios, Lord, the Lord, God, etc.) would surely be pronouncing, actually mispronouncing, the Holy Name by whatever words are being used to replace the Holy Name. We do not know of anyone that actually avoids giving some kind of pronunciation to God's Holy Name. To not give any pronunciation to the Holy Name, when reading the scriptures aloud, they would actually have skip over every place where a form of the Holy Name appears. We have not found anyone who actually does this. 

Some claim that they avoid pronouncing the Holy Name by substituting other words, such as ADONAI, HASHEM, ELOHIM, LORD, the LORD, GOD, etc., for the Holy Name. In reality such substitutions do not avoid pronouncing the Holy Name, but rather doing this results in pronouncing the Holy Name as being whatever words are used.

For instance, in Isaiah 42:8, The Complete Jewish Bible rendering is: "I am ADONAI; that is my name." So when one reads Isaiah 42:8 audibly, he would pronounce God's Holy Name as "ADONAI". Is "ADONAI" the correct original pronunciation of the Holy Name? No, it is not. ADONAI is indeed a fake name, a fake way, to pronounce the one Holy Name of the Most High. If one is seeking to avoid the pronunciation of the Holy Name, or if one is seeking to not mispronounce the Holy Name, changing the Holy Name to ADONAI, and pronouncing the Holy Name as ADONAI is certainly not the way to do so.

Many Bible translations in English render Isaiah 42:8 similar to: "I am the LORD, that is my name." As this reads, one would actually be pronouncing the Holy Name as "the LORD." Does the "the LORD" actually give the original pronunciation of the Holy Name. Certainly not! Indeed, it give a false English form as being the Holy Name, and to pronounce the Holy Name as "the LORD" would certainly be a false pronunciation of the Holy Name.

The Message Bible translation renders Isaiah 42:8 as "I am God. That's my name." Again, is God the original and or the correct way to pronounce God's Holy Name? Obviously, it isn't. So if one is concerned about the correct pronunciation, or of not pronouncing the Holy Name, to pronounce the Holy Name as "God" certainly does not fit either concern.

Regardless, it is not our argument that "Jehovah" [or, Iehouah, Yehowah, etc.] is the way the Holy Name of originally pronounced. No one on earth today knows for a certainty how God's Holy Name was originally pronounced, or how it may have varied in pronunciation in ancient Hebrew. It is simply not important for us to know, or else God would have provided some definite way for us to know the original pronunciations. 



Saturday, March 21, 2020

The Holy Name In The Original Hebrew/Greek

The claim is often made that we have no proof that the holy name appeared in the original Greek of the New Testament, and so we are challenged to produce a scripture from the original Greek wherein we might find the holy name.

The problem with this kind of argument is that we do not have the original Greek autographs of the New Testament; all we have are copies of the original Greek writings. One cannot prove anything either way by the original Greek New Testament Scriptures, since we do not have the original Greek writings in order to prove what was originally written.

On the other hand, there is no record of Jehovah giving anyone authority to change the name of Jehovah (Yahweh) to forms of the Greek words often transliterated as Kurios, Theos, or Dunamis. Jesus never claimed such an authority, and Jesus actually claimed to come in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  (Greek and Hebrew words are given with English transliterations throughout; we do not claim the transliterations represent the original pronunciation of the Hebrew or Greek words involved, which no one earth today knows for sure.)

The prophecy states that the Messiah would come in the name of Jehovah/Yahweh, not the name/authority of a God by the name of Kurios. Jehovah said to Moses concerning the Messiah: “He shall speak in my name.” (Deuteronomy 18:19) That the actual name is involved is shown in Deuteronomy 18:20, since it speaks of a prophet who would speak in the name of other gods. Thus, it is indeed vital that Jesus be recognized as coming in the name and authority of Jehovah, not Kurios. “Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah!” (Psalm 118:26) “Kurios” (Lord) does not identify the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is a common title used not only of men, but also of false gods. Thus, if Jesus said he came in the name of Kurios, one could wonder who he meant. Consequently, we have no doubt that that Jesus did not join with the rebellious Jews by substituting and taking away from his scriptural reference the most important name in the universe in Matthew 23:39, or any other place. No one in the scriptures has ever been given authority to change the name of the Most High to Kurios, or Theos, or Dunamis, etc.

To use the word KURIOS, LORD, as a proper name of a God, is similar to replacing Baal (Lord, Master) for Jehovah. Jehovah spoke of the time when the fathers “forgot my name for Baal [Lord].” (Jeremiah 23:27) Isn’t this what is happening with changing the holy name to the a different name, such as KURIOS (LORD)?

Later, rather than replacing Jehovah with forms of Baal, the Jewish leadership began to again seek to cause the people to forget the most holy name by claiming it would be blasphemy to speak his name orally (except in certain sacred places and occasions), and thus proposed orally replacing the holy name with Adoni (my Lord) or Adonai (literally my lords, being used as a plural intensive, thus meaning: Supreme or Superior Lord), rather than Baal (Lord, Master). Finally, sometime in the lifetime of Josephus, it appears that they went further in trying to get people to forget the most important name in universe by endeavoring to make it unlawful to speak the holy name at all. (In reality, the end result is that they were speaking the Holy name by words such as forms of the Hebrew words EL, ADON, or forms of the Greek words THEOS and KURIOS. Are we to think that Jesus or the Bible writers would join in such a conspiracy to remove the Most Holy name in the universe?

When Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, stated and identified Himself by his name to Moses, what did he say? “This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.” (Exodus 3:15) He did not say that this will be my name for now, and later my name will be something else. He said it was his eternal name. He never gave anyone authority to change that name. Kurios does not identify the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since that word could be also applied to false gods, as well as to men.

Exodus 3:15 - And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. -- American Standard Version.

Many claim that they are substituting some ‘title’ so as to avoid speaking or mispronouncing the sacred name. Some claim that to mispronounce the Holy Name, or even to pronounce the Holy Name at all, is blasphemy, or that by changing Holy Name to other words shows respect for the Holy name. Such do not seem to realize that whatever “title” or “word” that they replace the Holy Name with does the very thing that they seek to avoid. In reality, if one is afraid that they will mispronounce the Holy Name, by replacing the Holy Name with other words actually assures that they do mispronounce the Holy Name by whatever that “title” or “word” that may be used.  In other words, when one uses substitutes, such as “the Lord” (forms of Adon, Kurios), “God” (forms of El, Theos), etc.,  in reality, such do not actually avoid pronouncing God’s name, for they pronounce that name using forms of Adon “Lord”, forms of EL “God”, or with something else such as HaShem (the Name). In effect, by claiming to avoid pronouncing the holy name, they, in reality, end up changing the Holy Name to one of the titles of God, or to a description of the name, and thus end up pronouncing the name in that manner.

Additionally, there is nothing in the Bible that says that one should not pronounce the Holy Name in accordance with common pronunciation of his language, nor is there anything in the Bible that says that if one pronounces the Holy Name, it must be as it was originally pronounced in the ancient Hebrew. Recognizing that both “Jehovah” and “Yahweh” are common English linguistic variations that can be traced by the original Holy Name, we have every reason to conclude that both of these do in fact represent the true name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in English.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Does The Holy Name Mean “The Eternal”?


(Links need to be updated for this study)

The claim has been made that when God answered Moses pertaining to His name in Exodus 3:13,14, that God, by answering “I AM THAT I AM”, asserted his own eternity and removes Himself from having any designated name. The claim seems to be stating that Jehovah has no designated “name,” as does his Son (Jesus, Joshua, Yahshua, Yeshua), or any name similar to men like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, such a statement does not fit the Old Testament as a whole, since the Bible does indeed many times speak of the Holy Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and gives the designation of that name.

Even in Exodus 3:15, we read:

God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.”

Thus, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does indeed declare Himself to have a name, and proclaims that name to be His name forever.

Getting back to God’s answer to Moses, what does “I AM” mean? If one looks up the Hebrew word attributed here in Strong’s Concordance, we find that it is Hebrew #1961; Strong transliterates this as “Hayah”. This word is the infinitive, meaning, “to be”. This is could be deceptive, however, since Strong gives the infinitive of the verb, not the actual verb as it is used in Exodus 3:14. The expression “I AM” in the Hebrew form is the first person singular conjugation of the infinitive, HAYAH, and is usually transliterated as EHYEH. “I AM THAT I AM” is, therefore, often transliterated as EHYEH ASHER EHYEH. In other words we cannot plug the infinitive (HAYAH – to be) into Exodus 3:14 for the would mean “To be that to be”, which would not express the original thought.

According to Strong, hayah (Strong’s #1961, this word means “to exist,” but he adds, “i.e., be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary).” The claim, therefore, is that Jehovah was speaking about His existence when he stated these words. From this comes the related claim that the EYHEH means “ETERNAL”, although, in reality, simply stating one’s existence does mean that the person exists eternally. Thus, the idea of eternal existence has to actually be added to what God proclaimed of Himself in Exodus 3:14.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was indeed proclaiming his name to be EHYEH ‘ASHER EHYEH, or, to use the short form, EHYEH. This is said to be a substantive verb form, from which it is evidently concluded that one can “translate” the verb as a noun. Many Hebrew “names” use substantive verbal forms, so the holy name of God is not unique in this sense. Some, however, would seem to single out EHYEH in Exodus 3:14, as though this were something unusal only in that name, so as to make it appear to be that this usage means that we should render the Holy Name in English as a descriptive noun, in this case “The Eternal”. However, Hebrew names that use substantive verbal forms are not usually given a nounal interpretation or translation, nor are they usually rendered into another language with such an interpretive noun. The verbal substantive simply means that the verb itself is used as though it were a noun. In other words, although the word itself is a verb, it is used as a noun. However, the verbal names are usually NOT changed into a noun that are thought to be an interpretation of the substantive verb, and we have no reason to make such an exception in the case of God’s Holy Name as revealed in Exodus 3:14,15.

Nevertheless, the claim is made that “Jehovah” is a clumsy “translation” of the Hebrew verb used, evidently meaning Exodus 3:15. In Exodus 3:15, we do find the third person singular form of the verb, HAYAH. Again, it would be inappropriate to attribute the infinitive to the word that God declares to be His Name in Exodus 3:15, since it is not an infinitive; it is in the third person, singular, meaning “HE IS”. “Jehovah” is an English transliteration of that verb form from the Masoretic text. As such, Jehovah would take on the meaning of the original Hebrew, “HE IS”. If, however, “JEHOVAH” is a clumsy “translation” of the name in Exodus 3:15, then we would have to conclude the same thing is true of practically every name in the Bible that has been rendered into English, including the names Elijah, Joshua, Jesus, etc. “Jehovah” is indirectly based on the Masoretic text, wherein the Masoretes have given vowel points which gives the holy name an approximate pronunciation of “Yehowah,” using one form of English transliteration. Using any such English pronunciations, however, as related to either the Hebrew or Greek does not mean, however, that we are expressing the original Hebrew or Greek pronunciations, since we do not know if the phonemes we are giving to the English characters actually match that of the Hebrew phonemes. This is true of all the Hebrew words (not just the Holy Name). In Jesus’ day, the Hebrew had no vowel points, but Hebrew, or at least the Aramaic, was still being used. Shortly after A.D. 70, Hebrew became a dead language.

It was not until several centuries after Christ that Jewish scribes began to assign vowel points to Hebrew words. In other words, they were dealing with a dead language when they added the vowel points. Some claim that the Masoretes deliberately put vowels points that would cause one to mispronounce the holy name, but, as yet, we have not seen any conclusive evidence that this is true. Of course, even the Masoretes may have had difficulty assigning vowel points, since they were dealing with what had become a dead language at the time they assigned those vowel points. Thus, as one Hebrew scholar stated, we cannot be absolutely sure that any of the vowel points actually represent the original pronunciation of any of the Hebrew words. Nor can we be sure that our English phonemes actually match the original sounds, not only of the vowels, but also of the consonants.

Some argue that “Yahweh” actually represents the Hebrew pronunciation. Directly, however, the Latin form “Yahweh” came into existence as a result of the Greek rendering of the holy name with vowels, such as might be represented with the Latin vowels: IAOUE or IAUE. It is from this Greek usage that the English “Yahweh” was formed, by taking the Hebrew consonants YOD HE WAW HE and overlaying it with the assumed Greek pronunciation, and then attributing the English transliteration as being “Yahweh”. Regardless, however, we have nothing definite, but we do have probably over a hundred of theoretical guesses based on assumptions, about the true original pronunciation of the Holy Name in Hebrew. In reality, we have no more reason to assume that we need to have the exact same original pronunciation of God’s Holy Name than of the name of his son. The most common renderings in English of the Holy Name are Jehovah and Yahweh. The most common renderings of the name of his son into English are Jesus and Joshua. We should not view these renderings as different “names,” however, but simply as variations of the same one “name.” As being English renderings, respectively, they are all correct English pronunciations.

The claim, however, is that the word should always be rendered as in fact Dr. Moffat usually renders it, “the Eternal”. This we have to disagree with, since the Bible no where authorizes us to change the holy name to a noun: “The Eternal.” This phrase is actually a man’s nounal interpretation that has been given to the substantive verbal form of the holy name. If we are to do this with God’s name, what about the name of His Son? Should we stop referring to the Son as “Jesus” and start calling him “The Eternal’s Savior,” thereby giving an interpretive nounal meaning to his name? And what about all the other Hebrew names? Let us take the name Isaac, which is a verbal form meaning, “he laughs.” The name is a substantive verbal form, a verbal form that in Hebrew is being used as a nounal appellation. Should we bring that into English as “The Laughter.” Or perhaps we should give it the interpretation: “The Laughing One(?),” rather than the common English form, “Isaac”? Actually, the scriptures do not show that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ever authorized changing his holy name to such a nounal interpretation as “The Eternal.” We do not have Moffat’s translation of the Old Testament, but we would suspect that if he is changing the holy name to “The Eternal,” he has Isaiah 42:8 reading something like: “I am the Eternal, that is my name.” I am not sure how Moffat would fit this nounal interpretation into Exodus 3:14: “The Eternal who The Eternal(?).” If anyone has Moffat’s rendering of Exodus 3:14, we would like to see it. We suppose that he would have the holy name changed in Exodus 3:15 to read something like:

God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘The Eternal, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.”

This would not, as one has claimed, mean that “God asserts His own eternity and in fact removes Himself from association with any question of designating names,” since it would have God as asserting a name designated as “The Eternal.” However, we will emphasize that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never authorized anyone to change his name to a nounal descriptive, such as “The Eternal.” This is man’s doings and man’s interpretations. It assumes first that the verbal form, EHJEH (or EHYEH) and JEHOVAH (or, YAHWEH), are referring to eternal existence, and then it assumes that such eternal existence can be summed up in nounal phrase, “the Eternal.”

We realize that “man” has been debating the meaning of the holy name for centuries. Can we come to a certain understanding of its meaning? We believe that the Bible itself is designed to give us the proper the meaning. Donald E. Gowan, in his book, Theology in Exodus, sums up some, but not all, of the Biblical designs that show the proper meaning of the holy name, although he is hesitant to be definite about its meaning:

Quote from: Theology in Exodus, page 83
4. Should the verb ‘ehyeh be read as present or future tense? (Some even mix them.) The evidence points toward future, although it cannot be conclusive. The first-person singular of the verb “to be” is used in a rather restricted way in the Old Testament. It occurs without waw-consecutive forty-two times (counting the parallels 2 Sam. 7:14 and 1 Chron. 17:13 as one), and in twenty-nine of those God is the subject. All of the latter are future in meaning, and of those with other subjects, only Ruth 2:13, 2 Sam. 15:34, and some difficult and questionable passages in Job (Job 3:16; 10:19; 12:4; 17:6) have anything other than a clearly future sense. With God as the subject, the verb form occurs nine times in the formula “I will be with you” and eleven times in the formula “I will be your God and you will be my people.” This suggests very strongly that the form should be translated, not “I am,” but “I will be.” (11)5. Does the root hayah ever mean “existence” in the Old Testament? (12) Certainly it is used many times simply to indicate that some “is’ (e.g., “an the earth was a formless void,” (Gen. 1:2), but existence as over against nonexistence is not a subject Old Testament writers discuss, except perhaps in Second Isaiah: “I am Jehovah, and there is no other; besides me there is no god” (Isa. 45:5). But if the writer of Exodus wanted to tell his readers that God said to Moses he is the only God who exists, or (worse yet) that he is “absolute existence” (Maimonides and others), there was a straightforward way to do it — exactly as Second Isaiah did.
Lest any may not get the point here regarding Isaiah 45:5, we need to ask the question, what Hebrew verb form is used in Isaiah 45:5 for the words “am” and “is”? Is it a form of the verb hayah? Many may be surprised when we say that Isaiah used no verb form at all. The words “am” and “is” are supplied by translators. Most editions of the King James Version denote this by putting the words “am” and “there is” in italics, showing that there is actually no written verbs in the Hebrew in this verse. This implies that the usage of ‘EHYEH in Exodus 3:14 is more than just about existence vs. non-existence, eternal or otherwise.

While there is much we disagree with on this site (the author is evidently trinitarian), we will quote some of what the author says about the verbal forms ‘EHYEH and YAHWEH:

Quote from: Scripture Research – Vol. 2 – No. 17
The derivation of JeHoVaH seems to be from a root word meaning “TO BE”, i.e., Havah. This could be translated in either of two tenses. in the Qal, corresponding to a static perfect in which all movement has ceased, it would then mean, HE IS (if spoken by others) or I AM, if spoken by Himself. That is, The Supreme Being, The Self-existent, underived, self-sufficient, absolute BEING. The A.V. reflects this in Ex. 3:14, where God names Himself with the words:”I AM THAT I AM.”
If this be the only concept and proper translation, then the Name would be YEHWE or YEHWEH.
538
If the phrase EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, (I AM THAT I AM), is in the older Hiphil imperfect tense (most able authorities on the Heb. text favor this), then the Name would more nearly approach YAHWE or YAHWEH as a pronunciation. The meaning of this tense is an expansion over the other. From mere self-existence, an apathetic and immobile being in constant repose, distant and unfeeling … to One in constant movement, not only in connection with past revelations of Himself, but in loving living movement, acting in the present circumstances and affording new manifestations of Himself in the future. The whole context of the JeHoVaH passages bear this out. It is JeHoVaH Who has seen the affliction of the people in slavery … it is He Who will lead them forth. He will love them with an everlasting love and judge them when they embrace other gods. He will be gracious to whom He will be gracious — He will be to His people all that they need.
The important fact is that the name has the pre-form-ative ‘yod’. The force of this construction is to give the word a future or indefinite sense. The stress would fall on the active (and future) or continuing manifestation of the Divine Existence. The phrase EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, if rendered in the Hiphil tense would be translated:
“I Shall Be What I Shall Be”
“I Will Become Whatsoever I Please”
“I Will Be What I Will Be”
“I Will Be That I Will Be”
If spoken by others the “I AM” of Ex. 3:14b would be expressed as:
“He Who Brings Into Existence”
“He Who Shall Be (or) Shall Become”
“He Causes To Become”
The author of the above, evidently believing that this speaks of Jesus as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then endeavors to apply this meaning to the “seed of the woman,” in the sense of “the coming one.” In reality, the one promised by Jehovah in Genesis 3:15 is not “Jehovah” Himself who made the promise. Since this sidetracks the topic, however, we will not address this in detail at this time.

The point is that the verb forms ‘EHJEH and JEHOVAH are used in active terms. The “active” sense of these Hebrew verbal forms do not actually mean the expressions as we might interpret them into English in the phrases give above, since these phrases are only an approximation of the active sense of the verbal forms. All of them, we believe, although they try to express the active sense of the verbal forms, and probably express the best as possible in English, still they all probably fall short of the fuller sense as such expressed in the Old Testament times.

The contextual usage of Jehovah gives evidence that Jehovah is used in connection with Jehovahs’s covenants and his promises, and His faithfulness to His promises. Recognizing this, most scholars refer to the holy name as the ‘covenant name of God with Israel.’ Nevertheless, by this, they usually want to limit the Holy Name’s importance only to Israel after the flesh, and that, in the Old Testament only. This, of course, would ignore that the seed of Abraham belongs to the Old Testament covenant with Abraham, which convenant is implied in the reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The covenant with Abaham, however, has much to do with the Christian’s relationship with God. — Galatians 3:16-29.

Therefore, we read:

Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am God Almighty. Walk before me, and be blameless. I will make my covenant between me and you, … I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you.” — Genesis 17:1,2,7.

Jehovah appeared to [Abraham], and said, … ‘In your seed will all nations of the earth be blessed.” — Genesis 26:2,4.

The covenant with Abraham, Paul tells us, was 430 years before Jehovah gave the Law covenant to Israel. It is this covenant of Jehovah with Abraham that is applied to those who belong to Jesus. — Galatians 3:17-19.

Why is this covenant of Jehovah with Abraham so important to Christians? It is because Christians, by faith, enter into that covenant that Jehovah made with Abraham as the seed of Abraham. Thus the Holy Name should be just as important to Christians as it should be to Israel according to the flesh. (Luke 22:29 — Rotherham; Galatians 3:26,2) Jesus is the blessed one who came in the name of Jehovah. — Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Psalm 118:26; Matthew 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13.

In reality, since the main covenant involved is regarding “the seed of woman” (Genesis 3:15), as well as “the seed of Abraham,” the promise of Jehovah, the Holy Covenant Name does involve Jehovah’s active interest in fulling the promises to both the Israel of the Old Testament, and Israel of faith in the New Testament.

The point is that God’s Holy Name, Jehovah, means more than just that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is eternal, but rather that HE IS WHO HE IS, or HE WILL BE WHO HE IS. This covers all God’s qualities, His wisdom, love, justice, power, and his faithfulness to His Word. Like His Son, God of Israel cannot deny Himself; what He says will be — His promises are certain. — 2 Timothy 2:13.

It is being claimed that to give God a name, as men and false gods have a name, is to bring Him down to the level of those false gods and make Him one among them.

(1) In fact, “we” do not have to “give” God a name. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has given Himself a name. However, by replacing the holy name with “the Lord,” “God,” “Adonai,” or any other form, even “the Eternal,” what really happens is that man is indeed giving God a different name than He has given Himself.

(2) Scripturally, the name “Jehovah” does indeed distinguish the only true God from all the false gods, images, gods formed by the hands of men.

Exodus 3:15 – God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations. — Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Acts 3:13; 7:32.

1 Kings 18:24 – Call you on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Jehovah; and the God who answers by fire, let him be God. All the people answered, It is well spoken.

2 Chronicles 33:22 – He did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, as did Manasseh his father; and Amon sacrificed to all the engraved images which Manasseh his father had made, and served them.

Nehemiah 9:5 – Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah, [and] Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless Jehovah your God from everlasting to everlasting; and blessed be your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.

Psalm 105:1 – Give thanks to Jehovah! Call on his name! Make his doings known among the peoples. — Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13.

Ps 138:2,5 – I will bow down toward your holy temple, And give thanks to your Name for your lovingkindness and for your truth; For you have exalted your Name and your Word above all. Yes, they will sing of the ways of Jehovah; For great is Jehovah’s glory.

Isaiah 12:4 – In that day you will say, “Give thanks to Jehovah! Call on his name. Declare his doings among the peoples. Proclaim that his name is exalted!” — John 17:26.

Isaiah 42:8 – I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to engraved images.

Isaiah 48:2 – (for they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves on the God of Israel; Jehovah of Hosts is his name):

Jeremiah 3:17 – At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart. — Ephesians 4:17,18.

Jeremiah 8:19 – Behold, the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people from a land that is very far off: isn’t Jehovah in Zion? Isn’t her King in her? Why have they provoked me to anger with their engraved images, and with foreign vanities? — 1 Corinthians 10:22.

Jeremiah 16:21 – Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah.

Ezekiel 30:13 – Thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause the images to cease from Memphis; and there shall be no more a prince from the land of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt.

Joel 2:32 – It will happen that whoever will call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved; For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, As Jehovah has said, And among the remnant, those whom Jehovah calls. — Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13.

Micah 4:5 – Indeed all the nations may walk in the name of their gods; But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.

Zephaniah 3:9 – For then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that they may all call on the name of Jehovah, to serve him shoulder to shoulder.

Zechariah 13:9 – I will bring the third part into the fire, And will refine them as silver is refined, And will test them like gold is tested. They will call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say, ‘It is my people;’ And they will say, ‘Jehovah is my God.'”

It is claimed that the word “name” [SHEM] in Exodus 3:15 is based on the idea of renown or fame, as when we say “he made a name for himself”, and “memorial” — zeker — is rememberance or memory. It is further claimed that “For ever” — Ieolam — extends the name and the memorial, the fame and memory, into the illimitable future, into a continuance without a stipulated or visible ending. In what clearer terms could there be conveyed to mortal man. the realization that all his endeavours to know or visualize or defined God, the Creator, the Almighty, the Heavenly Father, call him what we will, the one simply expression “the Eternal” includes all and sets him for ever apart from the every other object of veneration and every other form of authority that has existed or can arise amongst man.

First we are told that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not have a name, but now we are told by the same author that the name [that he does not have?] means renown or fame. The Hebrew word “shem” does not, of itself, carry any thought of renown or fame. It can, under certain circumstances, refer to the fame earned which is associated to the appellation itself. We would not say that a certain newscaster made a name for himself and then attribute the term “the Newscaster” as the “name” associated with that fame, which is basically the same kind of thing that one does when one replaces the holy name with a man’s interpretation of that name, such as “the Eternal.” Yes, Yahweh is eternal, but he is much more, and His holy name means more than that. His being eternal does not relate to His keeping of his promises; the term man has replaced for the holy name, that is, “the Eternal,” simply relates to God’s eternal existence, which would imply neither anything good or bad, nor anything active toward the Israelites, so as to offer any hope to the Israelites as related to such a meaning. Thus, by limiting the holy name to the expression, “The Eternal,” one actually subtracts from the full meaning of the holy name.

And please note that the substitution of “the Eternal” for the holy name does not, as claimed, mean that such replacement in fact removes God from association with a name designation. It simply changes the name designation to “the Eternal,” and thus, “the Eternal” becomes the name designation, in the same way that many translators and copyists have changed the holy name to forms of the titles “the Lord,” “God,” etc.

We should also note that those who advocate that the Hebrew YAHWEH should be “translated” as the “the Eternal”, almost always do not refer to the holy name as “the Eternal,” but usually they follow the KJV tradition of using “the Lord” or “God” in references where the holy name is used in the Hebrew. For instance, when they refer to scriptures that use that word, do they they present that word as “The Eternal”, or do they use the KJV change to “the Lord” or “God”? Look at their writings eleswhere to see if they are actually following through with that idea that God’s Holy Name should be “translated” as “the Eternal.” Most often, you will find that they do not actually follow through with this. We believe that this only illustrates how strongly entrenched this change of the Holy Name to “the Lord” has affected so many of us. Many speak of the Holy Name as “the Lord” without giving it a second thought.

And one should realize that this does indeed, in effect, attribute the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as having the name of “the LORD”. Such would read Isaiah 42:8 as “I am the Lord; that is my name.” One would be attributing that God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as having as His Holy Name, “the Lord”. “The Lord”, however, is NOT God’s Holy Name. That reading is the result of changing God’s Eternal Name to that of “the Lord”, something that has not been authorized by God.

We are trying not to be overly-critical, but since the most important name in the universe is involved — the Holy Name of the only Most High, we believe that we should, as Bible Students, be more careful of how we present that Holy Name. We know that we all have, in times past, presented things we thought and believed at the time to be accurate, only later to find out that we were not as accurate as we thought, and thus we need to go back and adapt our study presentations so that they might be more accurate.

Related:

The Holy Name in the Original Hebrew/Greek

“I am” Statements of Jesus

The Holy Name in Genesis

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Martini and the Vowel Points


(Please note that many links are provided to other sites; we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions presented on those sites.)

Raymundus Martini was the author of the work called Pugio Fidei, which was not written in English, but rather in Latin. He also authored some other works. He lived about 300 years after the Masoretes had completed their work on the Hebrew text. The Masoretic text has the vowel points long before Martini was alive. The English forms Jehovah, Yehowah, Iehouah, etc. (depending on whose transliteration method is being used), are definitely transliterations from the Masoretic text corresponding to the vowel points that the Masoretes used in the Holy Name long before Martini was born.

As far as we know, Martini's original works in Latin are not online, and as yet I have not been able to examine them. From what we can determine, he challenged the form presented by the Masoretes, and presented the Holy Name as "Yohoua." We still have not been able to determine how he came up with this pronunciation, nor have we found anything about why he rejected the Masoretic forms of the Holy Name. Oddly, when his work was published after his death, the Holy Name was presented as "Jehova", which does appear to conform closely to the Masoretic text, although it drops the last consonant. Martini definitely did not take vowel points from the Masoretic words ELOHIM and/or ADONAI to form "Jehovah," despite the false claims that he did. Such simply does not conform with the historical facts. The Masoretic text had the vowel points in the Holy Name long before Martini was born.

However, the most common claim is that the Masoretes took vowel points from other words to create the form from which Jehovah is rendered. As best as we can determine, the first to suggest that the Masoretes substituted vowel points they supplied for ADONAI and/or ELOHIM was Wilhelm Gesenius. Gensenius lived from 1786-1842, about 700 years after the Masoretes completed their work. As best as we can determine, he was also the first to suggest that "Yahweh" was the original pronunciation, based on sounds attributed to a Greek form of the Holy Name. The form referred to is often transliterated as IAUE, and given Latin sounds, and placing those sounds with a transliteration of the tetragrammaton as YHWH, results in Yahweh. The reconstruction, however, depends on a lot of theory and assumptions, and although the theories and assumptions may be presented as being fact, they are still theories and assumptions. The reality is that the form Yahweh depends more on theories and assumptions than do the forms found in the Masoretic Hebrew. Nevertheless, as Wikipedia states, "The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is most likely Yahweh." Again, this is based on the assumption that the Masoretes substituted vowel points they supplied to form the Masoretic word often transliterated as ADONAI and/or ELOHIM.

As to theory, the whole study of linguistic history, as far as sounds, is based on theories. No one on earth today knows for a certainty even what English sounded like four hundred years ago, not to mention the many variations of English. We have theories, but written works suggest that there were many different dialects of English, lacking the uniformity we are used to today. Scholars, however, most often present their theories as being fact, although scholars often disagree with each other. No one on earth knows what ancient Hebrew actually sounded like, nor even the Koine Greek of the New Testament, despite the often detailed explanations of sounds that some scholars often present.

And then there is the study of the Masoretic text itself and the sounds often attributed to both the consonants and the vowels. It is obvious that the Masoretes sought some standardization of sounds, and thus it is possible that in doing so, they neglected sound variations of various consonants as well as the sounds attributed to their vowel points. In other words, where the Masoretes usually promoted one sound for each consonant, this may not actually reflect all the original Hebrew sounds.

There is some evidence that some copies of the Hebrew Old Testament may have had some kind of written vowel system before the Masoretes. There is no evidence, however, that the Masoretes used any earlier manuscripts with written vowels, however, in the creation of the Masoretic text.

In the Wikipedia article on "Names of God", we find the assumption presented as being fact:

The Masoretic Text uses vowel points of Adonai or Elohim (depending on the context) marking the pronunciation as Yəhōwāh (יְ הֹ וָ ה, [jăhowɔh] (About this sound listen)); however, scholarly consensus is that this is not the original pronunciation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#YHWH
(Much of the wording in this article presents a lot of opinions and assumptions -- both historical and otherwise -- as through fact.)

However, the fact that most scholars agree on an opinion (consensus) does not necessarily make the opinion correct.

References:
(We do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by these authors)

More may be added to this later... R. R. Day.

Friday, November 9, 2018

Did A Catholic Monk Invent “Jehovah”?

Many assertions are often made concerning the English form “Jehovah”; such assertions are often presented as being fact, although in reality much of what is presented is inaccurate historically. Most of the statements we are referring seem also be based on the assumption that “Jehovah” is a separate “name” from the Holy Name as it appears in Hebrew. Most of these also seem to assume that if God’s Holy Name is not pronounced exactly as it is in Hebrew, that it is a false “name”.

One makes the claim: “The term ‘Jehovah’ was the invention of a Catholic monk (Raymundus Martini) in AD 1202.” 

Another states: “We can trace the name Jehovah to the first person to use it, a Roman Catholic monk from the 1200’s.” 

Another site states: "The first recorded use of this spelling [Jehovah] was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270."

Surrounding this claim are theories of how  "Jehovah" was formed. These conflicting theories are often presented as being historical fact.

One claims: "About the 13th century the term 'Jehovah' appeared when Christian scholars took the consonants of 'Yahweh' and pronounced it with the vowels of 'Adonai.'"  This appears to assume that the form "Yahweh" is the correct name while Jehovah is incorrect. The reality is that the the vowel points were added by the Masoretes long before the 13th century.

 An author on another site (actually this statement appears on several sites) states: "The word 'Jehovah' comes from the fact that ancient Jewish texts used to put the vowels of the Name 'Adonai' (the usual substitute for YHVH) under the consonants of YHVH to remind people not to pronounce YHVH as written." Actually, what is being called here "fact" is simply somebody's theory; what ancient Hebrew texts are being referred to is not given. The first Hebrew text to supply vowel points was the Masoretic text which was completed sometime before the tenth century. One could call that ancient, although usually "ancient" is used of earlier manuscripts than the Masoretic text. The author continues: "A sixteenth century German Christian scribe, while transliterating the Bible into Latin for the Pope, wrote the Name out as it appeared in his texts, with the consonants of YHVH and the vowels of Adonai, and came up with the word JeHoVaH, and the name stuck." We could not confirm anything stated in this sentence. .We know, however, that the vowel points that provide the rendering of "Jehovah" were already in the Masoretic text long before the sixteenth century.

One asks: "The version Jehovah was invented by a Catholic monk in the middle ages–so, the question is, how can a word made up by a Catholic monk centuries later possibly be God’s name?" The term "middle ages" is vague, but evidently this is referring to the inaccurate claim being circulated that Raymundus Martini created the form "Jehovah." It is even often claimed that he supplied the vowels from Adonai and/or from Elohim, etc., to create the form "Jehovah."

It is claimed that “Jehovah is a false name” “made up by a Catholic monk”.  It is claimed that Jews do not believe in saying the “name of the Lord” Another asks: "How can 'Jehovah' have the same meaning as 'Yahweh' when it is a different name."  Evidently, the assumption is that Jehovah and Yahweh are not variations of the same name, but that the two forms are two totally different names.  Oddly, the author makes no assumption regarding the use of "Jesus", although the English form "Jesus" is definitely NOT the way the name was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew. The author goes on to say: "'Jehovah' was made up by putting the vowels of  'Adonai' into the Tetragrammaton, which Hebrew experts (I have quoted 3 in my study) say is an impossible form." Hebrew so-called "experts" have to work from various theories and assumptions; these "experts" were not alive several thousand years ago so as to be able to be able to verify their theories. We need to be careful in putting trust in theories of men, no matter how "expert" they may appear to be.

Nevertheless, arguments that place a lot of emphasis on the original pronunciation as being the only actually name of the Creator are actually all irrelevant to usage of the form "Jehovah" to represent the Holy Name in English, or similar forms in other languages. All of these arguments would have meaning ONLY IF such are supported by a scripture saying that the Holy Name has to be pronounced as it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew or else it is a false name. God has not given any command that his name or any other Hebrew name has to be pronounced in other langauges as it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew or else it is not His name, or that it is another name. Furthermore, the assumption would demand that every language have the sounds of every Hebrew name in each language; more than likely many languages would not have the same sounds as anceint Hebrew. Most scholars agree that the many Hebrew names found in the Koine Greek of the New Testament are not pronounced as they were in ancient Hebrew. On top of that is the fact that no one one earth today knows for a certainty how God's name, or even His Son's name, was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew. Further, no one on earth today knows for a certainty what the Koine Greek sounded like. All we have are the various theories that many promote about this and that upon which this or that pronunciation is thought to be correct, etc.

A side note: One in Texas claims to be have received divine revelation as to the correct English pronunciation and spelling. He has so many odd English spellings of Hebrew names and other words in his writings it is sometimes difficult to read what he writes. This man makes claims for his group similar to claims that Joseph Rutherford made for the Jehovah's Witnesses organization that he, Rutherford created, and called "Jehovah's visible organization." The governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses today continues to make the same claims, often even greater, claims for authority, denouncing an eternal doom on all who do not come to them for salvation. The focus on the Holy Name taken to extremes, and especially on some certain form of pronunciation of the Holy Name, often becomes a smokescreen Satan makes use of to turn one's attention from the glad tidings of great joy that will be for all the people.

As to the English form "Jehovah": it is actually based on the major form of the Holy Name as found in the Masoretic Hebrew text. The idea of insertion by Christians later of the vowels of Adonai and/or Elohim is simply someone's theories. The usual charge, however, is that the Masoretes themselves inserted vowels into the tetragrammaton to form Jehovah (or, Yehowah); this also, however, is an assumption that has been repeated so many times that it has become accepted as fact. Some scholars, however, have claimed that this assumption is not true; that the Masoretes did not take vowel points they supplied from other words to create the form from which "Jehovah", "Iehouah", "Yehowah", etc., are derived. So far we have found no evidence that the Masoretes did take the vowel points they supplied to form ADONAI or ELOHIM to use in the Holy Name.

Some authors like to to point out the Holy Name in the original Hebrew had no vowels, and they make many claims because of this. Many even seem to think that the lack of vowels is peculiar to the tetragrammaton of the Holy Name. The reality is that the original Hebrew has no written vowels at all for any name or any word whatsoever. The vowel sounds were spoken, however.

Nevertheless, the vowel points for the Holy Name were not originally provided by any Catholic monk, nor any Christian; they were provided by the Masoretes long before any Monk provided a transliteration of the Holy Name from the Masoretic Hebrew text. The Masoretes provided at least two different variations of the Holy Name, evidently depending on its contextual usage. This indicates that the Holy Name may not have had just one pronunciation, but at least two, depending on the context.

Nevertheless, if one should get all upset, or claim that one should not pronounce the Holy Name in English because we do not know for a certainty how it was originally pronounced, then, to be consistent, we should not pronounce the name of the Messiah, either. Definitely we should not pronounce the Holy Name as "the Lord" or "God". If the correct pronunciation of the Holy Name is the issue, then we know for a certainty that the Holy Name was not originally pronounced as "the LORD", "GOD", HaShem, ADONAI, ELOHIM, KURIOS, etc. "Jesus" is an English pronunciation which certainly is not the same pronunciation as the original Hebrew, and no one knows for a certainty how the name of the Messiah was originally pronounced in the original Hebrew. Most who get all upset about the pronunciation of God's name as "Jehovah" seem to have no qualms about pronouncing the name of God's Son as "Jesus."

On the other hand, the Jews who claim that oral pronunciation of  the Holy Name is not appropriate, do not, in fact, refrain from pronouncing the name, but they often will indeed orally pronounce the name as being Adonai (Lord), Elohim (God), HaShem (the name), or as something else. If they would not actually say the Holy Name at all, they would have to read Deuteronomy 6:4 as “Hear, Israel: — is our God; — is one,” which, of course, ends up being nonsense. If a Jew reads aloud Deuteronomy 6:4 from the Jewish Publication Society translation, he will be saying, “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” In effect, he will still be attributing the Holy Name to being “the LORD”, and pronouncing, saying, the Holy Name, as being “the LORD”. The ancient Hebrew pronunciation of the Holy Name, however, is most definitely NOT “the LORD”. Deuteronomy 6:4, in the World English, reads, “Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one.” In the American Standard, it reads, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Either of these latter two translations are definitely much better than totally changing the Holy Name to “the LORD”, which does not mean the same thing.

Indeed, we do not know of any person, when reading the Bible aloud, who does not pronounce the Holy Name with some kind of oral expression. We do not know of anyone who simply skips the Holy Name so as not to pronounce the Holy Name, despite their claims of not pronouncing the Holy Name by pronouncing the Holy Name as "ADONAI," “the LORD” or “GOD”, or whatever else.

For more of our studies related to Holy Name, see the listing of this site:
https://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html

Links to various sites in this study does not mean that we agree with the views presented on those sites.

Ronald R. Day, Sr., Restoration Light (ResLight, RlBible) Bible Study Services.

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Did Pietro Colonna Galatino Invent the Form "Jehovah"?

Brown-Driver-Briggs states:
The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety.
As yet we have not found Galatino's works online so as to examine how he used the form "Jehovah." Evidently, he wrote in Latin, not English. At any rate, the forms Jehovah, Iehouah, Yehowah, etc., are all based on one of the forms of the Holy Name as found in the Masoretic text. The Masoretes had supplied the vowel points for that form long before Galatino was alive. 

We have not been able to find much online about this, and most of what we found is inaccurate, or incomplete, in what is stated. We will present some of what we found, and our comments:

The statement still commonly repeated that [the form "Jehovah] originated with Petrus Galatinus (1518) is erroneous; "Jehova" occurs in manuscripts at least as early as the 14th century.
The form Jehovah was used in the 16th century by many authors, both Catholic and Protestant, and in the 17th was zealously defended by Fuller, Gataker, Leusden and others, against the criticisms of such scholars as Drusius, Cappellus and the elder Buxtorf. It appeared in the English Bible in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (1530), and is found in all English Protestant versions of the 16th century except that of Coverdale (1535). In the Authorized Version of 1611 it occurs in Exod. vi. 3; Ps. lxxxiii. 15; Isa. xii., xxvi. 4, beside the compound names Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-shalom; elsewhere, in accordance with the usage of the ancient versions, Jhvh is represented by lord (distinguished by capitals from the title "Lord," Heb. adonay). In the Revised Version of 1885, Jehovah is retained in the places in which it stood in the A. V., and is introduced also in Exod. vi. 2, 6, 7, 8; Ps. lxviii. 20; Isa. xlix. 14; Jer. xvi. 21; Hab. iii. 19. The American committee which cooperated in the revision desired to employ the name Jehovah wherever Jhvh occurs in the original, and editions embodying their preferences are printed accordingly. -- "Jehovah", 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
The author of this article evidently is only considering either Latin or English forms, and appears to disregard the vowel points supplied the Masoretes. The Masoretes completed their work sometime before the tenth century, but they had been working on this for several centuries before. As far as we can determine, there is no way to know when they first used the Hebrew form with its vowel points. Regardless, the form in that text predates all of the usages spoken of in the quote.

Another article:
He [Galatino] is sometimes referred to as the "inventor" of the Latinized term Jehovah; however, this is really not accurate. The pronuntiation "Jehovah" occurred as a result of mixing the Tetragrammaton "YHWH" with the vowels of "Adonai,"[citation needed] which the Jewish Masoretes had added to the Hebrew text to remind readers NOT to pronounce the Holy Name of God "YHWH", but substitute, in reading, "Adonai" which means "Lord.">> "Pietro Colonna Galatino", Wikipedia, The Free Encylopedia.
The author of the above does show that the Masoretes added the vowel points from which the form Jehovah is derived, but then repeats the often-stated claim that the Masoretes took the vowels from the Masoretic form transliterated as Adonai for use in the Holy Name, supposedly to remind the reader to mispronounce the Holy Name by substituting it with Adonai. While this view has become very popular among both Christian and Jewish scholars, there is no real evidence that this what the Masoretes did.

It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520 (cf. Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible", II, 1899, p. 199: Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterbuch", 13th ed., 1899, p. 311). Drusius (loc. cit., 344) represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the word Jehovah, and Fagius as it propagator in the world of scholars and commentators. But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant (e.g. Cajetan and Théodore de Bèze), are perfectly familiar with the word. Galatinus himself ("Areana cathol. veritatis", I, Bari, 1516, a, p. 77) represents the form as known and received in his time. Besides, Drusius (loc. cit., 351) discovered it in Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the "Pugio fidei" of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745). Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin. -- "Jehovah (Yahweh)", Catholic Encylopedia. 

The author of this article again does not point out that the Masoretes provided the vowel points that correspond to the rendering "Jehovah", "Yehowah", etc., sometime before the tenth century BC. The author does, in the context, discuss the use of vowels from ADONAI or ELOHIM in the Holy Name, although it does not mention the Masoretes or the Masoretic text.


Another point is that the author states that Raymund Martini used the form "Jehovah" about 1270. The form "Jehova", does appear in the later published work, but in the original, it is reported that Martini used the form "Yohoua." We have not been able to obtain a copy of this work, but it is reported that Martini argued against the Masoretic text, which would not support the idea that he used the form "Jehova" (as found in the later published edition), since "Jehova" is definitely based on the vowel points found in the Masoretic text.

At any rate, to say that any author invented the form "Jehovah" sometime after the tenth century AD would be very misleading, since the Masoretes had already provided the vowel points that result in the various forms "Jehovah", "Yehowah", etc.