Martini and the Name Jehovah

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

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 the English form "Jehovah" is not a representation of the name as found in ancient Hebrew, but those who make this claim often do not give what they might think as being the true English form of that name. It appears that for many, their goal is to denigrate only the form "Jehovah". Some, however, make claims that "Yahweh", "Yahwah", or some other form is the "correct name", and thus reject "Jehovah", often with the claim that Jehovah is a "fake name". Any, however, who present this or that form as being "correct" do so based on some kind of assumptions that they accept as being fact along with the assumption the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is apparently too petty to recognize his Holy Name as represented in other languages as being pronounced differently from the way it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew.

Additionally, we should note that the English form Jehovah is a direct transliteration of one of the forms used by the Masoretes long before Raymundus Martini wrote any form of that name.

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

Add to this that no one on earth today knows for a certainty how ancient Hebrew actually sounded, and no one on earth today knows for a certainty how God's Holy Name was originally pronounced, or even if it was pronounced the same throughout the times of the Old Testament, nor if it was pronounced differently in various regions, etc.

"Jehovah" may or may not be near the ancient Hebrew pronunciation, but that does not matter. God has not given any command regarding this. If God does consider such important, then we are left in trouble, since none of us can actually know for a certainty how His Holy Name was originally pronounced, despite the claims many make otherwise. Even if we did know the original way the name of pronounced, sounds are not the same in every language. Sounds that existed in ancient, may not exist every language. 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 pronounced in original Hebrew. Furthermore, the Biblical usage of names show that the variations in the Hebrew names as they in the Greek New Testament are not treated as different names, as is often done today. In the Bible, the Greek forms from which the English Jesus is rendered are not presented as being different names from the Hebrew forms from which the English Joshua are rendered. In effect, that would mean that "Joshua" and "Jesus" are variations of the same name, not two different names.

One 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 the claim is that it is a man made, Latinized version of the divine name. Some things published by the Watchtower are cited as proof of this.

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 to conclude that Jesus, Joshua, Jeshua, Jacob, Abraham, Issaac, Daniel, Samuel, Yahweh, Yeshua, Yahshua and every Hebrew 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. Indeed the idea that Jehovah is a false "name" is based on the assumption that "Jehovah" is a different "name" than that found in the Bible. Based on scriptural usage of names, however, "names" should not be viewed as different names because of differences in spelling and pronunciation that may be found in different languages, or even within the same language. 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 the 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 is the original "name" as given in Hebrew. In reality, one will not find the Latin character "Y" nor the Latin character "H" nor the Latin character "W" anywhere in ancient Hebrew, nor in Koine 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, based on Biblical usages of names, the Latinized form "Jehovah" as well as the Latinized form "Yahweh" should not be understood as being different names than the Hebrew, but rather are both Latinized 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 on the transliteration from the Greek as IAUE, and the sounding attributed to this form was then read back into the Hebrew Tetragrammaton of the Holy name to create the Latinized form, "Yahweh". "Yahweh" thus is just as "man-made" as it is claimed regarding "Jehovah", perhaps even more so.

From the Bible's 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 validity of the other forms. In English, however, one form is often used to represent several different spellings and pronunciations of names given in the Hebrew of 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”, irrespective of how it is given in the Hebrew text. In Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, the name of the son of Nun, in the Koine Greek, is represented as  "ιησους". This is the same spelling that is used many times in the New Testament to designate the Messiah. This demonstrates that "Joshua" and "Jesus" are, from the Bible's standpoint, not two different names, but are both the same one name.

Nevertheless, it is claimed that "Jehovah" was not known by the Jews, the prophets or Jesus and his disciples. One alleged proof that has been presented is from the Watchtower book, Aid to Bible Understanding, page 885. Some provide a link to a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWzetMUXPGo

We are not with the JWs, and do not defend what they might have stated. Nevertheless, it does not matter to us that the English/Latin form "Jehovah" was not used in the ancient Hebrew, since as we 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. In our original research into this, we used the 2011 Watchtower Library and looked up the references, and we also looked up the page in the Aid book in the "Library", and see that it does not mention Martini.

This is the first JW quote that is given:

*** 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 in error. "Jehovah", as well as "Iehouah", "Yehowah", etc., are all actually transliterations of one of the forms presented in the Masoretic Hebrew. Despite claims often made, we have no way of knowing if any of the various transliteration methods men have devised actually represent the original pronunciation of ancient Hebrew. Nevertheless, attaining the original pronunciation of the Holy Name would be important only if God gave a command that his Holy Name or any other name had to be pronounced as originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew. God has not given any such command, and thus any commandment requiring that God's Holy Name be pronounced as it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew has to come from man, not from God. History shows that Hebrew names did change in spelling and pronunciation when rendered in other languages in order to conform to the sounds and patterns common to each language.

 Raymundus Martini, however, did not use the form "Jehovah", but rather he used the Latin form, "Yohoua".  Martini never published his Pugio Fidei. In the 17th century, about 400 years after Martini had written his work, Joseph Voisin evidently edited Martini's work and changed "Yohoua" to "Jehova". Thus many mistake Voisin's change as actually being the way Martini presented the Holy Name in the 13th century.

The next JW is:

*** 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? 

THE NAME “JEHOVAH” BECOMES WIDELY KNOWN 

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 Martini did not present the Holy Name as "Jehova". Martini's work was first published publicly, not in 1270, but in 1651,  about four centuries after Martini's original version. The reality is that Raymundus Martini -- in his original manuscript -- presented the Holy Name in Latin as "Yohoua". We don't have information of how Martini came up with the vowels to make the Latin form, "Yohoua". The real point, however, is that Martini never used the later English form "Jehovah" at all. And one still must remember that the Masoretes had already supplied their vowel points for the Holy Name long before Martini was alive. The English forms, "Jehovah," Iehoua," Yehowah," etc., are all English transliterations from one of the forms of the Holy Name presented in the Masoretic Hebrew text.

The next JW quote is:

*** 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 following is presented from the earlier edition of the "Aid" book:

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 create the Hebrew forms often transliterated as "Yehowah", "Jehovah", "Iehouah", "Jehowih," "Yehowih" , etc. is evidently a hypothesis (although presented as fact) 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. We 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, we believe is in error. We 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 we have been able to determine, the idea that the Masoretes did insert vowel signs from other words to remind readers not to pronounce 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, the theory is that it was to remind the reader to use the words ADONAI or ELOHIM, rather than to pronounce the Holy Name. Ostensibly, the claim is that this would avoid pronouncing or mispronouncing the Holy Name. In fact, such would mean that by changing the Holy Name to these other words the Holy Name would be definitely mispronounced as being these other words. 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 represent the way they were originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew.

Related:
Did a Catholic Monk Provide Consonants to Invent Jehovah?

References: (we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given)
Raymond Martini (Wikipedia)

JeHoVaH, YaHWeh and the Lord-Jesus: A study in the history of doctrine anent God’s name JHVH -- Dr. F. N. Lee

The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah

By Gerard Gertoux