Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Martini and the Name Jehovah

The claim is being made that the word Jehovah is a Latin word that was invented in the 1270's by Raymundus Martini who is a RC Spanish monk.

First of all, this appears to assume that "Jehovah" is not a representation of the name as found in ancient Hebrew, but does not give what is thought to be the true English form of that name.

Secondly, the English form Jehovah is a direct transliteration of the form used by the Masoretes long before Raymundus Martini wrote any form of that name.

Thirdly, the form used by Martini was not at all Jehovah, but was :"Yohoua."

"Jehovah" may or may not be near the ancient Hebrew pronunciation, but that does not matter. No one on earth today knows for a certainty what the ancient Hebrew sounded like, and even if we did, sounds that existed in that language may not always be represented in sounds of other languages. Thus, when the NT writers wrote the NT, they did not use a Hebrew form for the name of the son of Nun, The form they used is often given the English transliteration of Iesous (or, Jesous), which is often given in English form as "Jesus". (Acts 7:45; Hebrews  4:8) Similarly, we find many Biblical Hebrew names adapted to Greek pronunciations in the New Testament. This proves that in Bible times names did change in form and spelling from one language to another. There is no command anywhere in the Bible that one has to pronounce and/or spell God's Holy Name exactly in every language the same as it was in original Hebrew.

Added 4/5/2017:

Another makes the claim that the Watchtower is hiding the fact that the name Jehovah is a man made name that was contrived by a man. Thus it is a man made, Latinized version of the divine name.

We are not with the Jehovah's witnesses, and our effort is seek the truth of God's Word, not to give support to an authoritarian organization.

However, if the name Jehovah is a man-made name, then, to be consistent, one would have conclude that Jesus, Joshua, Jeshua, Jacob, Abraham, Issaac, Daniel, Samuel, and every name that appears in any English translation of Bible are also man-made names.

It is claimed that the name "Jehovah" was never in the original writings.

While we do not have the original writings of any of the books of the Bible, the fact is that the Hebrew form of the name represented in its English form is found over 6,000 times in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. I assume, however, that by "name" it is being assumed that Jehovah is actually a different name than that found in the Bible? "Names" however, should not be viewed as different names because of difference of spelling and pronunciation that may be found in different languages. The different linguistic forms are simply variations of the same name; they are not actually different names.

The fact is that no English form of any name is found in original languages of the Bible. One will not find the English form, Jesus, in either the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible. Many represent the tetragrammaton of the Holy Name as YHWH, and claim that this the original Hebrew. In reality, one will not find the the Latin character "Y" nor the Latin character "H" nor the Latin character "W" anywhere in the Greek. YHWH is someone's Latinized transliteration of the four letters that make up the Holy Name in Hebrew (without any vowels). Many claim that "Yahweh" is God's real name. In reality, the Latinized form "Jehovah" as well as the Latinized form "Yahweh" are not different names than the Hebrew, but rather are both Latnized forms of the same name as found in Hebrew. Thus, the Hebrew form (however it was originally pronounced -- God never told us that His name had to be pronounced in other languages exactly as it was originally pronounced in Hebrew) is the same name as Jehovah and Jehovah is the same name as Yahweh. Jehovah is a direct transliteration from the Hebrew Masoretic text; Yahweh is based on someone's transliteration of the Holy Name as found in the Greek (transliterated into English as IAUE), which evidently left out the middle syllable because it became indistinguishable in the Greek pronunciation. Nevertheless the form "Yahweh" is based onthe transliteration from the Greek as IAUE which was then read back into the Hebrew to form the Latinized form, "Yahweh".

From the Bible standpoint, however, "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" should not be viewed as two different names, but rather as two different forms of the same name, just as Joshua and Jesus are two different forms of the same one name. This conclusion is based on the Bible itself, as can be illustrated from the way the Bible uses the name of the son of Nun, usually presented in English as "Joshua". Additionally, the Hebrew does not have just one form and one pronunciation of the name of the Son of Nun; to claim only one as the true Hebrew pronunciation using someone’s method of transliteration of one of those forms would be to ignore the other forms. In English, however, one form is often used to represent several different spellings and pronunciations of names given in the Hebrew in the Old Testament. Most English translators, in the Old Testament, render the name from the Hebrew that is used of the Son of Nun and some others as “Joshua” or “Jeshua.” In Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, the name of the son of Nun, in the Greek, is represented as  "ιησους". This same spelling that is used in many times in the New Testament to designate the Messiah. This demonstrates that "Joshua" and "Jesus" are, from the Bible standpoint, not two different names, but are both the same one name.

Nevertheless, one argues that "Jehovah" was not known was not known by the Jews, the prophets or Jesus and his disciples. The proof given is from the Watchtower book, Aid to Bible Understanding,page 885, and a link is provided to a video:>>

I am not with the JWs, and do not defend what they might have stated. It does not matter to me that the English/Latin form "Jehovah" was not used by the ancient Hebrew, since as I have shown, this is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, in the video it is evidently using an earlier edition of the book Aid to Bible Understanding, while the "Watchtower Library" disk is using a later edition. I have a copy of the 2011 Watchtower Library and I looked up the references, and I also looked up the page in the Aid book in the "Library", and see that it does not mention Raymundus. I also have a hard copy of the 1971 "Aid" book which appears to be what is used in the video.

The three quotes are given below:

*** w50 12/1 pp. 472-473 An Open Letter to the Catholic Monsignor ***
Jehovah was the incorrect pronunciation given to the Hebrew tetragrammaton JHVH in the 14th century by Porchetus de Salvaticis (1303). But let us say: The origin of the word Jehovah used to be attributed to Petrus Galatinus, a Franciscan friar, the confessor of Pope Leo X, in his De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, published in 1518. But the latest scholarship has proved he was not the one to introduce the pronunciation Jehovah, and neither was your aforementioned Porchetus de Salvaticis. As shown by Joseph Voisin, the learned editor of the Pugio Fidei (The Poniard of Faith) by Raymundus Martini, Jehovah had been used long before Galatinus. Even a generation before Porchetus de Salvaticis wrote his Victoria contra Judaeos (1303), the Spanish Dominican friar Raymundus Martini wrote his Pugio, about 1278, and used the name Jehovah. In fact, Porchetus took the contents of his Victoria largely from Martini’s Pugio. And Scaliger proves that Galatinus took his De Arcanis bodily from Martini’s Pugio. Galatinus did not introduce the pronunciation Jehovah, but merely defended it against those who pronounced the Hebrew tetragrammaton Jova.

Actually, the above is error. "Jehovah", is actually a transliteration of the form most often presented in the Masoretic Hebrew. Raymundus Martini, however, did not use the form "Jehovah", but rather he used the Latin form, "Yohoua".

*** w80 2/1 p. 11 The Divine Name in Later Times ***
The Divine Name in Later Times
THAT the divine name was used in early history is beyond question. But what about later times? Why have certain Bible translations omitted the name? And what is its meaning and significance to us? 
Interestingly, Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, first rendered the divine name as “Jehova.” This form appeared in his book Pugeo Fidei, published in 1270 C.E.—over 700 years ago. 
In time, as reform movements developed both inside and outside the Catholic Church, the Bible was made available to the people in general, and the name “Jehovah” became more widely known. In 1611 C.E. the King James or Authorized Version of the Bible was published. It uses the name Jehovah four times. (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4) Since then, the Bible has been translated many, many times. Some translations follow the example of the Authorized Version and include the divine name only a few times.
In this category is An American Translation (by Smith and Goodspeed) with a slight variation of using “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah.” Yet, one may ask: “Why have the translators done this? If using ‘Jehovah’ or ‘Yahweh’ is wrong, why put it in at all? If right, why not be consistent and use it every time it appears in the Bible text?”

This also is in error, since Raymundus Martnini did not present the Holy Name as "Jehova". The reality is that Raymundus Martini presented a Latin form of the Holy Name as "Yohoua". As best as I can determine, Martini never stated where he obtained the vowels to make the Latin form, "Yohoua". The real point, however, is that Martini never used the later English form "Jehovah" at all.

*** na p. 17 God’s Name and Bible Translators ***

In time, God’s name came back into use. In 1278 it appeared in Latin in the work Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), by Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk. Raymundus Martini used the spelling Yohoua. Soon after, in 1303, Porchetus de Salvaticis completed a work entitled Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos (Porchetus’ Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews). In this he, too, mentioned God’s name, spelling it variously Iohouah, Iohoua and Ihouah.  Then, in 1518, Petrus Galatinus published a work entitled De arcanis catholicae veritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth) in which he spells God’s name Iehoua.

The author of this appears to contradict the statement quoted earlier, in that he does not say that de Salvaticis presented the Holy Name as "Jehovah", but with some other forms. The forms given do not, however, represent any transliteration of forms from the Masoretic text, so I am not sure where the forms came from.

The video presents from the earlier edition of the "Aid" book, the following:

By combining the vowel signs of 'Adho-nay' and 'Elo-him' withe four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunication Yeho-wah' and Yeho-wih' were formed. The first of these provided the basis for the Latinized form "Jehova(h)." The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E.  Raymundus Martinin, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270. 

The problem with what is presented in the earlier edition is that the idea that the Masoretes took vowel points from other words to form the Hebrew often transliterated as "Yehowah" and "Yehowih" is evidently a theory that was later presented by Christian writers, and which has been told and retold so many times that people just accept it as fact without actual investigation. I have found no evidence that the Masoretes actually took vowels from any other word(s) to supply in the tetragrammaton of the Holy Name.

The later edition leaves out the reference to Raymundus Martini, and simply states:

*** it-2 p. 7 Jehovah ***
What is the proper pronunciation of God’s name?
In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God’s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say 'Adho·nai' (meaning “Sovereign Lord”) or 'Elo·him' (meaning “God”).

This also repeats basically the same thing as stated in the earlier edition, which, I believe is in error. I haven't found any evidence that the Masoretes "put other vowels signs to remind the reader that he should say 'Adho·nai' ... or 'Elo·him'." As best as I have been able to determine, the idea that the Masoretes did not insert what they believed to the proper vowels signs for the Holy Name is just someone's theory, which has been repeated over and over so many times that it is accepted as fact. Nevertheless, if the Masoretes did insert what they believed were the proper vowel points still does not mean that they were necessarily correct; we have no way of assuring that the vowel points that they have supplied us for any Hebrew word actually represents the way they were originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew.

No comments:

Post a Comment