Long Essay Materials.docx

Bible Research>Interpretation> Tetragrammaton

The Translation of the TetragrammatonBy Michael MarloweSeptember 2011 . Exodus 3:14, LXX. , , , . Psalm 90:2, LXX.The wordis used as a name for the God of Israel nearly seven thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. Theologians call it thetetragrammaton.1In this article I will discuss its etymology, various opinions about its significance, and its translation in several ancient and modern versions.Our starting point is the Bibles own explanation of the meaning of the tetragrammaton in the third chapter of the Book of Exodus. We will begin with an English version of verses 13 to 15. TheNew King James Versionreads as follows:13 Then Moses said to God, Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they say to me, What is His name? what shall I say to them? 14 And God said to Moses,i am who i am( ). And He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,i am() has sent me to you. 15 Moreover God said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: TheLord() 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.Here, as in most English versions, we findrepresented by the English word Lord. But this is not a translation of, it is a kind of substitution, which obscures the fact that the passage is making an etymological connection between the wordI am andhe is or he who is. Although the ordinary third person singular would be, the wordis understood to be an archaic form of the same. Clearly the meaning of the name is here being explained in those terms. Why then do the English versions give us theLord, which seems to convey nothing like the meaning assigned to the Name here?In this the English versions are following an ancient tradition, which was also observed by the writers of the New Testament. Long before the birth of Christ it had become customary among Jews to avoid pronouncing the sacred Name by substituting(Adonai, meaning Lord) forwhen the Hebrew text was read aloud, and the Greek equivalent to this is. And so we find in the Greek New Testamentused in quotations from the Old Testament, where the Hebrew has.Why did the Jews avoid saying the Name? Many have described this as a kind of superstitious taboo, but the custom probably sprung from a proper and salutary instinct of reverence. In all times and places, people have used titles rather than names when speaking of persons in authority. Every child knows better than to call his father by his name. Another consideration is that, during the Exile, the Jews had to live among Gentiles who might speak disrespectfully about the Holy One of Israel, and it would have been especially hard for the Jews to tolerate such blasphemy if the very Name of God were used. So it would be best if the Gentiles did not even know it. Another problem was the opposite tendency of some to invoke the Name presumptuously in magical spells, as if they could control God by uttering his name. We know that this was very commonly done with the names of deities in ancient times. There was also an entirely legitimate concern to keep people from violating the commandment against taking the name of the Lord in vain in oaths and curses. The prohibition of speaking the Name would have served all these good purposes.The custom of the Second Temple period (535b.c.to 70a.d.) may be seen in some remarks made by Philo of Alexandria. In a description of the head-dress of the high priest, which bore the words (holy to, cf. Exodus 28:36; 39:30), he mentions that only the pure in the holy place (i.e. the Temple of Jerusalem) were permitted to pronounce or hear the Name: And a golden leaf was wrought like a crown, having engraved on it the four [letters] of the name which only those whose ears and tongues are purified unto wisdom may hear or speak in the holy place, and by no one else at all in any place whatever.2This agrees with several statements recorded in the Talmud, in which it is said that the Name was spoken only by priests in the Temple.3The first Greek translations of the Hebrew books, collectively known as theSeptuagint, reflect this custom in various ways. In some ancient manuscripts of the Greek version the tetragrammaton is neither translated nor transliterated, but given in Hebrew characters (without vowels). This effectively hides the pronunciation from those who are not already familiar with it. Jerome mentions that he had seen such manuscripts in his day.4In some manuscripts a blank space is left where the Name would appear. In one manuscript of the Greek version of Leviticus found at Qumran, the name is represented by a series of three Greek letters,. Thisis also found in Gentile sources which purport to give the pronunciation of the Name. Because there is nodiphthong in Greek, one would have to insert the rough breathing between these letters, and pronounce the name asYa-hoe. But no one who knew Hebrew would have thought that this was a possible vocalization of. Probably it is based upon the formwhich occurs as a component of many Hebrew names (e.g. Jehoseph, Jehoram, Jehoshua), and which was understood to be an abbreviated form of. This abbreviated form might have been used as a deliberately obfuscating pronunciation of the Name invented by Jews who wished to avoid the true pronunciation.5Some manuscripts have the Greek letters , which resemble the later Hebrew characters in appearance, but not at all in pronunciation. These manuscripts must have been produced by copyists who didnt know that the letters of the Name were Hebrew.It is not that the correct pronunciation was unknown to anyone at the time. As we have mentioned above, ancient sources state that it was spoken by the priests in the Temple service. And in the writings of the Church Fathers there is evidence that Christians had received accurate information about the pronunciation, because in these writings we find the phonetically accurate transcriptions, , and. But these are not found in manuscripts of the Greek version itself. In any case, it was not necessary or even desirable to have an accurate transcription of the name in the Greek version, because the version was to be used in the synagogues of thediaspora, where the pronunciation of the name was forbidden. In nearly all extant manuscripts of the Septuagint we find the sacred Name represented by the Greek word, meaning Lord. The rule is applied consistently, even in such a verse as Isaiah 42:8, ,I am the Lord God, that is my name. This was nothing other than a Greek application of the Jewish custom of substitutingforwhen the Hebrew text was read aloud in the Synagogue.The interpretation of the Name in Hellenistic Judaism is evident from the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 3:13-15. I give here the text according to the edition of Rahlfs.13 , , , , ; 14 , . , . 15 , . .Here we seeforin verse 15, in keeping with the ancient custom. But the translator manages to put across the meaning of the Name in verse 14 anyway by his use of the phrase he who is instead of (I am) for the second and third occurrences of. So it says, And God said to Moses, I am the one who is,6and he said, Thus will you say to the sons of Israel,He who ishas sent me to you instead of I amhas sent me to you. In the Hebrew, God calls himself I am at this point. But the Greek rendering is intended to give the interpretation of the form, the Name itself, used in the next verse.Philo interprets verse 14 in this way: And he said, first tell them that I amHe Who Is( ), that they may learn the difference between what is (o) and what is not, and also the further lesson that no name at all can properly be used of Me, to whom alone Being ( ) belongs.7Thus the etymology or meaning of the Name was so emphasized that it was seen not really as a name but as an appellation meaningHe Who Is.In line with this Hellenistic interpretation ofwe find the phrase he who is used as an appellation of God several times in the Revelation of John (1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, and 16:5). In the Gospel according to John we also find a highly significant use of the phrase I am, which, when spoken by Christ, is intended to be an expression of his divinity. (See especially the ofJohn 13:19and18:5-6, 8.) For Christians this interpretation of the Name must therefore be accepted as canonical. It also has the support of modern critical scholars. The BDB Lexicon (1906) listsunder the verbal root, which is said to be a rare synonym of, presumably archaic (p. 217), andis defined fall out, come to pass, become, be (p. 224). Khler-Baumgartner (English edition, 2001) says that the etymology is controversial, but few if any would say that the derivation fromis improbable. In 1953 Khler wrote:What does Jahweh mean? The attempts that have been made to answer this question without reference to Ex. 3:13-14 are legion. One has only to work through the semitic roots that have the three consonantsh w hwith their possible usages and one may arrive at any of the following equally probable solutions: the Falling One (the holy meteorite), or the Felling One (by lightning, therefore a storm god), or the Blowing One (the wind-and-weather god), or many another. But however much these suggestions may deserve notice linguistically, they are of little consequence theologically, for none of them can be decisively accepted instead of the others and none of them leads to the Jahweh of the Old Testament. It is possible, however, with strict adherence to rules of philology and by comparison with other clear and well known Hebraic formulations to derive the name from the roothwh. Its meaning is then Existence [Sein], Being [Wesen], Life, orsince such abstracts were distasteful to the Hebrewsthe Existing One [der Seiende], the Living One. In that case the explanation found in Ex. 3:13 is on the right track.8Khler mentions here the Living One as another possible meaning for, because the verbis used in the sense live as well as be when the subject is a living being. But it cannot be the intention of Exodus 3:13-15 to give such a meaning, because we cannot render as I live what I live.From the 1860s on, many theological writers have asserted that the tetragrammaton is in some sense a covenant name, and have given explanations of its meaning in line with that idea. They accept the derivation from, but tend to minimize the be or live meaning by emphasizing the larger context of the Exodus narrative, which has much to do with the covenant relationship established at Sinai. Some have argued that there is a basis for this idea in the immediate context of Exodus 3, by pointing to I will be with thee in Exodus 3:12, which they take to be an indication of a meaning the One who is present in a redemptive or covenantal way.9And this idea of the meaning of the tetragrammaton is very often found in works of the twentieth century. It is the idea behind the note on Exodus 3:14 in theNIV Study Bible, which asserts that the tetragrammaton is the name that expressed his character as the dependable and faithful God who desires the full trust of his people (see v. 12, where I will be is completed by with you; see also 34:5-7). But it is a modern idea, originating in the mid-nineteenth century, and it is not really based on the connection withmade in Exodus 3:14-15. It is based on the notion that the tetragrammaton should be understood to have some more special meaning in connection with the Exodus narrative than Exodus 3:14 itself indicates. Modern biblical theologians tend to minimize the etymological significance indicated in Exodus 3:14 by largely ignoring it, and saying that whatever the etymology of the Name may be, the Israelite experience of God was so dominated by the covenant concept that the Name must have carried a covenantal meaning for them.10Some have dismissed the explanation in Exodus 3 as a mere play on words.11But the fact remains that in ancient times both Jews and Christians accepted He Who Is as the meaning of the name, and the use of the titleandto represent it seems to show that the idea ofdominioncame most readily to mind when ancient Jews referred to God.The substitution offorin the Septuagint set the pattern for all the ancient versions done by Christians. The Latin versions usedDominus, which also means lord. The same thing may be seen in versions done in modern languages at the time of the Reformation. Luther used derHerr in his translation. But by the middle of the sixteenth century Protestant scholars in Geneva were using the nameJehovahinstead of the traditionalDominusforin learned works written in Latin.12John Calvin ordinarily usesJehovahin the Latin version he prepared for his commentary on the Psalms (1557). A French version done by Calvins cousin Pierre-Robert Olivtan (Neuchtel, 1535) used the expressionL'ternel(the Eternal One) to representin some places, and the rendering was made consistent in a revision done by followers of Calvin in Geneva (the French Geneva Bible of 1588). This was the first attempt to represent the Name according to the supposed meaning, the One who exists eternally. To indicate the thinking behind this I will quote Calvin on Exodus 3:14 and 6:2.I am who I am.The verb in the Hebrew is in the future tense, I will be what I will be; but it is of the same force as the present, except that it designates the perpetual duration of time. This is very plain, that God attributes to himself alone divine glory, because he is self-existent [sit a se ipso] and therefore eternal; and thus gives being [esse] and existence [subsistere] to every creature. Nor does he predicate of himself anything common, or shared by others; but he claims for himself eternity as peculiar to God alone, in order that he may be honored according to his dignity. Therefore, immediately afterwards, contrary to grammatical usage, he used the same verb in the first person as a substantive, annexing it to a verb in the third person; that our minds may be filled with admiration as often as his incomprehensible essence [essentiae] is mentioned. But although philosophers discourse in grand terms of this eternity, and Plato constantly affirms that God is peculiarly (the Being); yet they do not wisely and properly apply this title, viz., that this one and only Being of God absorbs all imaginable essences; and that, thence, at the same time, the chief power and government of all things belong to him. For from whence come the multitude of false gods, but from impiously tearing the divided Deity into pieces by foolish imaginations? Wherefore, in order rightly to apprehend the one God, we must first know, that all things in heaven and earth derive at His will their essence, or subsistence from One, who only truly is. From this Being all power is derived; because, if God sustains all things by his excellency, he governs them also at his will. It would be tedious to recount the various opinions as to the name Jehovah. It is certainly a foul superstition of the Jews that they dare not speak, or write it, but substitute the name Adonai; nor do I any more approve of their teaching, who say that it is ineffable, because it is not written according to grammatical rule. Without controversy, it is derived from the wordorand therefore it is rightly said by learned commentators to be the essential name of God [nomen essentiale Dei], whereas others are, as it were, epithets. Since, then, nothing is more peculiar to God than eternity, He is called Jehovah, because He has existence from Himself, and sustains all things by His secret inspiration. Nor do I agree with the grammarians, who will not have it pronounced, because its inflection is irregular; because its etymology, of which all confess that God is the author, is more to me than an hundred rules.13The renderingL'Eternelseems to be based upon the idea that the imperfect tense ofshould be understood as a future, and upon philosophical inferences that an absolute and unconditional being must be self-existent, and therefore eternal. It may well be doubted whether such a conception was associated with the Name by ancient Hebrews when they used it, but the Eternal does, at least, indicate the etymological connection with being, and it is arguably a better representation of the Name than the traditional Lord.14Despite the growing use ofJehovahin learned works, the English versions followed the example of the Septuagint, the New Testament writers, and the Vulgate, by rendering the Name as the Lord. This rendering had already established itself by its use in the first English translation of the Bible, known as the Wycliffe version (which was based on the Latin version), and so it was retained in the translations done in the sixteenth century.15The King James Version introduced a refinement of the custom by employing capital letters where this rendering represents the Name, so that the reader may see whereoccurs in the Hebrew text, but in four places (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4) the translators felt the need to render the Tetragrammaton as a proper name, and in these places the name Jehovah appears.In the nineteenth century, some German scholars determined that Jehovah was an incorrect pronunciation of the Name, and that Jahveh represented the correct pronunciation (in German the letter J is pronounced like our Y). German translations intended for university students began to appear withJahvehinstead of derHerr. By 1870 this was being imitated by British scholars, who at first used Jahveh (after the German example), and later Yahweh (more frequent after 1880) in works designed for students. But these scholars did not see any need to correct the English version in common use. The attitude about this that prevailed in England during the 1870s may be seen in the remarks of Matthew Arnold:The English version has created certain sentiments in the readers mind, and these sentiments must not be disturbed, if the new version is to have the power of the old. Surely this consideration should rule the corrector in determining whether or not he should putJehovahwhere the old version putsLord. Mr. Cheyne, the recent translator of Isaiah,one of that new band of Oxford scholars who so well deserve to attract our interest, because they have the idea, which the older Oxford has had so far too little, of separated and systematised studies,Mr. Cheynes object is simply scientific, to render the original with exactness.16But how the Four Friends, who evidently, by their style of comment, mean their very interesting and useful book,The Psalms Chronologically Arranged,17for religious use, for habitual readers of the Psalms, and who even take, because of this design, the Prayer-Book version as their basis,how they can have permitted themselves to substituteJehovahforLordpasses ones comprehension. Probably because they were following Ewald; but his object is scientific. To obtain general acceptance by English Christians, who, that considers what the name in question represents to these, what the Psalms are to them, what a place the expressionThe Lordfills in the Psalms and in the English Bible generally, what feelings and memories are entwined with it, and what the force of sentiment is,who, that considers all this, would allow himself, in a version of the Psalms meant for popular use, to abandon the established expressionThe Lordin order to substitute for itJehovah?Jehovahis in any case a bad substitute for it, because to the English reader it does not carry its own meaning with it, and has even, which is fatal, a mythological sound.The Eternal, which one of the French versions uses, is far preferable.The Eternalis in itself, no doubt, a better rendering of Jehovah thanThe Lord. In disquisition and criticism, where it is important to keep as near as we can to the exact sense of words,The Eternalmay be introduced with advantage; and whoever has heard Jewish schoolchildren use it, as they do, in repeating the Commandments in English, cannot but have been struck and satisfied with the effect of the rendering. In his own private use of the Bible, any one may, if he will, changeThe LordintoThe Eternal.But at present, for the general reader of the Bible or of extracts from it,The Lordis surely an expression consecrated. The meaning which it in itself carries is a meaning not at variance with the original name, even though it may be possible to render this original name more adequately. But, besides the contents which a term carries in itself, we must consider the contents with which men, in long and reverential use, have filled it; and therefore we say thatThe Lordany literary corrector of the English Bible does well at present to retain, because of the sentiments this expression has created in the English readers mind, and has left firmly fixed there.18During the preparation of the English Revised Version of 1881-85, which was a revision of the KJV, there was some disagreement about this among the scholars who were preparing the revision. The American scholars who were invited to contribute to the work favored a consistent use of Jehovah to represent the Tetragrammaton. Although these scholars knew that Jehovah was not a correct pronunciation, they felt that the use of Yahweh would be unwise, because it would be entirely new and strange to the public. They did not seem to realize that Jehovah itself was practically unknown to most people, and that replacing the familiar Lord with this name in seven thousand places was not likely to be received gladly. The British scholars wisely preferred to keep the traditional rendering, theLord, and their opinion prevailed. It is not clear why the American scholars thought the use of Jehovah was important enough to justify the break with tradition. A prominent liberal scholar in America had some rather liberal thoughts about its theological significance:There can be little doubt that the substitution of Lord for Jahveh in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the Jewish Rabbinical Theology, has been associated with an undue stress upon the sovereignty of God. The Old Testament revelation in its use of YHWH emphasized rather the activity of the ever-living personal God of revelation. The doctrine of God needs to be enriched at the present time by the enthronement of the idea of the living God to its supreme place in Biblical theology, and the dethronement of the idea of divine sovereignty from its usurped position in dogmatic theology. The American Revisers differ from the English Revisers here. The former wished to substitute Jehovah forLordandGodwherever it occurs in the Hebrew text. There can be no doubt that there would be an immense gain by such a substitution. The ordinary reader would then get the idea that Jehovah is a proper name, even if he did not grasp its more essential meaning. We do not know why the English Revisers preferred to adhere to the ancient substitute. They might well hesitate to commit the English Bible to such a grave error as would be involved in so extensive a use of the impossible word Jehovah. The Revisers ought to have risen to the occasion and performed their duty by using the correct form, Jahveh. It is true the word would be strange to the English reader, and would require explanation at first. But it would receive the well-nigh unanimous support of Hebrew scholars; and Christian people would prefer to know the real proper name of God, as given by himself to his people. In a few years it would become familiar as a household word, pregnant with the richest associations, and all that wealth of meaning which it conveys to the enrichment of theology and Christian life.19When the American scholars prepared their own revision of the Revised version for publication in America (1901), they did employ Jehovah consistently, and in their Preface they explained:The change first recommended in the Appendix [of the English Revised Version] that which substitutes Jehovah for LORD and GOD is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people; not merely the abstractly Eternal One of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of those who are in trouble. This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.Benjamin Warfield expressed strong approval of this:It is manifestly impossible to enter into a discussion here even of the main classes of differences. They are enumerated, as we have said, in the Appendices attached to each Testament. The first one mentioned for the Old Testament concerns the use of the divine name Jehovah. As is well known, the British revisers continued to employ statedly for this covenant name the words the Lord, Lord, god, printed in small capitals. The American revisers restore the Divine name. We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the Lords personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that Jehovah is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahweh or any of the other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in his popular version meet statedly with Jehovah and learn all that Jehovah has been to and done for His people.20Although the American Revision (which came to be known as the American Standard Version) was appreciated and used by many Bible students in America, it never acquired real popularity, and its use of Jehovah was probably its most unpopular feature.21During the twentieth century two different revisions of the American Standard Version were done (the Revised Standard Version in 1952 and the New American Standard Bible in 1971) and both returned to the traditional rendering. The Preface of the Revised Standard Version explains:A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton. The American Standard Version used the term Jehovah; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English wordLord(or in certain casesGod) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced Yahweh, this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew wordAdonaimeaning Lord (orElohimmeaning God). The ancient Greek translators substituted the workKyrios(Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin wordDominus. The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word Jehovah does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.It is probably safe to say that among English-speaking Christians, few if any are really comfortable with Yahweh in their Bible versions. There is no popular support for using this rendering of the tetragrammaton in prayer and liturgy, despite all the interest that scholars have taken in it. The continued use of the Lord cannot really be objected to on theological grounds, because the precedent was established in the Church by the apostles themselves, and we cannot say that the apostles did this because of a superstition. We ought to assume that there is a good reason for it.The use of Jehovah and Yahweh are forbidden in the Roman Catholic liturgy. In 2001 the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (the agency in charge of liturgical matters) put forth an Instruction known asLiturgiam Authenticamwhich included the following directive:In accordance with immemorial tradition the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the wordDominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.22In 2008 this rule was then reinforced by a Letter to the Bishops Conferences on The Name of God,23prohibiting use of the termYahwehin the liturgy, particularly in hymns and Psalm translations. The letter calls attention to the fact that in the New Testament the use of the Lord to represent the tetragrammaton has had important implications for New Testament Christology:When in fact St. Paul, with regard to the crucifixion, writes that God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name (Phil 2:9), he does not mean any name other than Lord, for he continues by saying, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 2:11; cf. Is 42:8: I am the Lord; that is my name.) The attribution of this title to the risen Christ corresponds exactly to the proclamation of his divinity. The title in fact becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah of the Christian faith, even though it is not in fact one of the titles used for the Messiah of Israel. In the strictly theological sense, this title is found, for example, already in the first canonical Gospel (cf. Mt 1:20: The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream.) One sees it as a rule in Old Testament citations in the New Testament (cf. Acts 2:20): The sun shall be turned into darkness. . . before the day of the Lord comes (Joel 3:4); 1 Peter 1:25: The word of the Lord abides for ever (Is 40:8). However, in the properly Christological sense, apart from the text cited of Philippians 2:9-11, one can remember Romans 10:9 (If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved), 1 Corinthians 2:8 (they would not have crucified the Lord of glory), 1 Corinthians 12:3 (No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit) and the frequent formula concerning the Christian who lives in the Lord (Rom 16:2; 1 Cor 7:22, 1 Thes 3:8; etc).Summarizing this, we may say that there is a theological interest in holding to the New Testaments manner of identifying Christ with God by using the title Lord for both, and that this interest is best served by following the apostolic tradition of rendering the tetragrammaton as Lord. Religious devotion to Christ may even suffer diminution if this is not done. A rendering of the twenty-third Psalm that says The Lord is my shepherd allows the reader to think of Christ, the Good Shepherd; but Christ will not so readily come to mind if the Psalm is rendered Jehovah is my shepherd, as in the ASV.Of course it was not the intention of the ASV revisers to obscure these verbal connections and associations, or prevent Christians from identifying theLordwith Christ. But this has been the stated purpose of some translations done by Arians and Unitarians, who have a theological interest in sharply distinguishing Christ from God. In 1789 Joseph Priestley (a leading figure among English Unitarians) proposed a new English version of the Bible that would observe the following rule of translation: In the Old Testament, let the word Jehovah be rendered by Jehovah, and also the wordin the New, in passages in which there is an allusion to the Old, or where it may be proper to distinguish God from Christ.24Priestleys Unitarian version was never printed, but in 1950 a version done by Arians did adopt this rule. TheNew World Translationof the Jehovahs Witnesses uses the name Jehovah to translatein many places, so as to prevent anyone from identifying Christ with God.Other Sacred Name cults put great emphasis on the use of the tetragrammaton, and also upon the supposed Hebrew form of the name of Jesus, for reasons that are not always clear. Some seem to believe that particular Hebrew pronunciations of the names for God and Christ are a mark of the true Church, and that there is even something wrong with using the Graecized and Anglicized form Jesus instead of Yeshua, or Jehoshua, Yahshua, or whatever pronunciation is being put forth as most authentic.25The New Testament writers obviously cared nothing for all that. It stems from the dilettantish interest in Hebrew that one often finds among modern Pentecostals, Adventists, and other unorthodox people, who fancy that they are restoring something essential to true Christianity by using Hebrew names and words which the writers of the New Testament did not feel any need to use. These Hebrew words are then invested with sectarian significance. We sense that their desire to use a differentnamefor God is connected with a tendency to reject theconceptof God associated with historic Christian orthodoxy. TheirYahwehis not ourLord, theirYeshuais not our Jesus, theirMessiahis not our Christ.26Probably an inordinate interest in using the tetragrammaton also involves the same superstitious thinking that led some people in ancient times to use it as a magical word, with the idea that the power of the Deity can be summoned by the correct intonation of his name. This does not honor God, it spurns the custom of the apostles, and it would probably not have been tolerated by them.The use of theLord to represent the tetragrammaton will no doubt continue to be normal in English Bible versions. The example of the apostles, confirmed by two millennia of tradition, is not to be set aside lightly. The interests of scholars who wish to call attention to the use of the Name are adequately served by the use of the capital letters which indicate where the tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text.________________________________1.Borrowed directly from the Greek, meaning a word of four letters.2. , , .De Vita Mosis, book II 114, after the edition of Cohn and Wendland.3.J. F. McLaughlin and J. D. Eisenstein, Names of God, inThe Jewish Encyclopediavol. 9 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1905), p. 162. The pronunciation of the written Name was used only by the priests in the Temple when blessing the people (Num. vi. 22-27); outside the Temple they used the title Adonai (Sotah vii. 6; p. 38a). The high priest mentioned the Name on Yom Kippur ten times (Tosef., Yoma, ii.; 39b). R. Johanan said the sages delivered to their disciples the key to the Name once in every Sabbatical year.4.In hisPreface to the Books of the Kings, Jerome writes:Et nomen Domini tetragrammaton in quibusdam graecis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum litteris invenimus.And we find the four-lettered name of the Lord in certain Greek books written to this day in the ancient characters.5.See the discussion in Sean M. McDonough,YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and early Jewish setting(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), p. 120.6.E. Schild, On Exodus III 14: I Am That I Am,Vetus TestamentumVol. 4, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1954), pp. 296-302, argues that the Septuagints is really more accurate than the usual English translations.7. o o, , o o o o, o o ' o oo, .De Vita Mosis, book I 75 in the edition of Cohn and Wendland. See also Philos discussion of the revealed titles of God in his treatiseDe Abrahamo, 119-125. I should mention that in Philo the term Being is used in a metaphysical Platonic sense, as denoting the absolute and unchanging Reality that stands over the transitory and conditional Existence of earthly objects.8.Was bedeutet Jahwe? An Versuchen, ohne Rcksicht auf Ex 3.13-14 zu antworten, gebricht es nicht. Man hat dazu nichts zu tun, als die semitischen Wurzeln mit den drei Konsonanten h w h und ihren mglichen Spielformen durchzumustern, und kommt bei diesen Verfahren sowohl auf den Fallenden (den heiligen Meteorstein) als auf den Fllenden (durch Blitze; also einen Gewittergott) als auf den Hauchenden (den Wind- und Wettergott) als auf noch anderes, alles mit gleichem Recht. Aber so beachtenswert diese Deuteversuche auch sprachlich sind, so wenig tragen sie theologisch ab. Denn zweierlei steht fest: 1. keine dieser Deutungen kann etwas Entscheidendes geltend machen, was ihr vor den andern den Vorzug gbe; 2. keine dieser Deutungen fhrt zu dem Jahwe des AT hinber. Aber es ist mglich, unter strenger Beobachtung der philologischen Regeln und in genauer Analogie zu bekannten und durchsichtigen hebrischen Nominalbildungen, den Namen von der Wurzelhwhherzuleiten; dann bedeutet er: Sein, Wesen, Leben, oder, denn solche Abstrakta sind dem Hebrischen wohl fern: der Seiende, der Lebendige (s. L. Khler, Die Welt des Orients, 1950, 404 f.); dann is die Deutung von Ex 3.13 auf der richtigen Spur.Theologie des Alten Testaments, von Ludwig Khler(4th ed., Tbingen: Mohr, 1966), pp. 24-5. English translation fromOld Testament Theology by Ludwig Khler, translated by A.S. Todd, from the third German edition of 1953 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), pp. 42-43.9.An example of this interpretation of the Name is found in C.J.H. Wright, God, Names of,International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition, vol. 2 (Eerdmans, 1982) p. 507. In Ex. 3:14f. God declares that his name is'ehyeh 'aser 'ehyeh. The verb'ehyehis imperfect qal and is obviously linked to the tetragrammaton, as vv. 14f. make plain. Of the two possible senses for it, I am who/what I am and I will be who/what I will be, the latter is preferable but not because the idea of God as a self-existent, unique, transcendent being is foreign to Hebrew thought, as has often been said (cf. Isa. 40-55, which describe Yahweh in exalted language that implies all those things). Rather, it is preferable because the verbhayahas a more dynamic sense of being not pure existence, but becoming, happening, being present and because the historical and theological context of these early chapters of Exodus shows that God is revealing to Moses, and subsequently to the whole people, not the inner nature of his being, but his active, redemptive intentions on their behalf. He will be to them what his deeds show him to be. It is especially made clear that he will be with them. In the context of the call of Moses and the revelation of the significance of the divine name, the promise I will be with you/your mouth occurs three times (Ex. 3:12; 4:12, 15). The presence of God is then realized in the covenant, of which the vital preface is Gods proclaiming Himself as a redeeming (20:2) and forgiving (34:6) God. It is this assurance of the presence of the Saviour God with his covenant people which is embodied in the name Yahweh (Abba, p. 325). Likewise Elmer A. Martens, God, Names of,Bakers Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theologyedited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996. The meaning of the name YHWH may best be summarized as present to act (usually, but not only) in salvation. The name YHWH specifies an immediacy, a presence. Central to the word is the verb form of to be, which points in the Mosaic context to a being present. Again I would point out that this idea of the meaning of the Name is not based upon the etymology indicated in Exodus 3:14 but upon the larger context.10.H.H. Rowley,The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 55. For this reason we have no need to discuss the problem of the meaning of the name Yahweh. This has been much discussed, and a variety of views advanced. But etymology is not finally important here for Old Testament theology, since not etymology but experience filled the term with meaning.11.See Barry J. Beitzel, Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,Trinity Journal1/1 (1980), pp. 5-20. Likewise R.L. Harris, in an editorial note inserted in the articlein theTheological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Moody Press, 1980) dismisses the explanation given Exodus 3:13-15 as a play on words, and concludes: As to the meaning of the name, we are safer if we find the character of God from his works and from the descriptions of him in the Scripture rather than to depend on a questionable etymology of his name. (p. 211.) This however ignores the fact that the use of in the Revelation of John assumes that Exodus 3:13-15 does explain the meaning of the name.12.See George F. Moore, Notes on the Name,The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan., 1908), pp. 34-52.13.English translation fromCommentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony by John Calvin, translated by the Rev. Charles William Bingham(Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1843), pp. 73, 127. The latin text fromIoannis Calvini Opera Que Supersunt Omniaedited by Baum, Cunitz and Reuss, vol. 24, coll. 43-44, 78, reads:Sum qui sum. Futurum verbi tempus legitur Hebraice: Ero qui ero: sed quod praesenti aequipollet, nisi quod designat perpetuum durationis tenorem. Hoc quidem satis liquet, Deum sibi uni asserere divinitatis gloriam, quia sit a se ipso ideoque aeternus: et ita omnibus creaturis det esse, vel subsistere. Neque enim vulgare quidquam vel commune aliis de se praedicat, sed aeternitatem vendicat propriam solius Dei, idque ut pro sua dignitate celebretur. Proinde continuo post neglecta ratione grammaticae, idem verbum primae personae loco substantivi usurpat, et verbo tertiae personae annectit: ut admiratio subeat animos, quoties incomprehensibilis essentiae fit mentio. Etsi autem de hac aeternitate magnifice disserunt philosophi, et Plato constanter affirmet, Deum proprie esse , hoc tamen elogium non scite, neque ut decet, in suum usum accommodant, nempe ut unicum esse Dei absorbeat quascunque imaginamur essentias: deinde ut accedat simul summum imperium et potestas gubernandi omnia. Unde enim falsorum Deorum turba, nisi quod pravis figmentis divisum numen in partes impie laceratur? Ergo ut solide apprehendamus unum Deum, scire primum necesse est, quidquid in coelis est vel in terra, precario suam essentiam vel subsistentiam ab uno qui solus vere est, mutuari. Ex illo autem esse nascitur et posse: quia si Deus omnia virtute sustinet, arbitrio quoque suo regit. . . .De nomine Iehova longum esset referre omnium sententias. Certe quod ludaei nec proferre nec scribere illud audent, sed substituunt nomeu Adonai, putida est superstitio. Nihilo enim magis probabile est quod multi docent, esse ineffabile quia secundum rationem grammaticae non scribitur. Hoc quidem extra controversiam est, deduci a verbovelideoque recte nomen essentiale Dei a peritis interpretibus dicitur, quum alia sint quasi epitheta. Quum ergo nihil Deo magis sit proprium quam aeternitas, vocatur Iehova quod a se ipso habeat esse, et arcana inspiratione omnia sustineat. Nec Grammaticis assentior qui pronunciari nolunt quia non sit regularis inflexio: quando pluris mihi est etymologia, cuius omnes fatentur Deum esse autorem, quam centum regulae.14.The Eternal rendering became a traditional one in French Bibles, and it also became popular with German Jews after Moses Mendelssohn used its German equivalent (Der Ewige) in his translation of the Pentateuch (1780). Mendelssohns rather loose rendering of Exodus 3:13 was: Gott sprach zu Mosche: Ich bin das Wesen welches ewig ist. Er sprach nmlich: So sollst du zu den Kindern Jisraels sprechen: Das ewige Wesen, welches sich nennt: Ich bin ewig, hat mich zu euch gesendet. Thereafter he translates the tetragrammaton as Der Ewige. James Moffat also used the Eternal in his English translation of the Old Testament, published in 1926. In his preface Moffatt explains: One crucial instance of the difficulty offered by a Hebrew term lies in the prehistoric name given at the exodus by the Hebrews to their God. Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form of Jehovah. Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh. But almost at the last moment I have decided with some reluctance to follow the practice of the French scholars and of Matthew Arnold (though not exactly for his reasons), who translate this name by the Eternal, except in an enigmatic title like the Lord of hosts. There is a distinct loss in this, I fully admit; to drop the racial, archaic term is to miss something of what it meant for the Hebrew nation. On the other hand, there is a certain gain, especially in a book of lyrics like the Psalter, and I trust that in a popular version like the present my choice will be understood even by those who may be slow to pardon it.15.The one exception to this is the remarkably bad version of the Psalms included in the first two editions of theBishops Bible(1568), in which the tetragrammaton is rendered as God. In later editions of the Bishops Bible this version of the Psalms was replaced by that ofthe Great Bible(1539).16.Here Arnold refers to T.K. Cheyne,The Book of Isaiah Chronologically Arranged: An Amended Version with Historical and Critical Introductions and Explanatory Notes(London: Macmillan and Co., 1870). A Notice at the end of Cheynes Introduction says, The reader is requested to bear in mind that the form Jehovah is not adopted in this book on the supposition of its correctness, but simply in deference to custom. The proper form is Jahveh.17.Arnold is referring to an anonymous work entitledThe Psalms Chronologically Arranged: An Amended Version with Historical Introductions and Explanatory Notes, by Four Friends(London: Macmillan and Co., 1867).18.Matthew Arnold,Isaiah XL-LXVI with the Shorter Prophecies Allied to It, Arranged and Edited with Notes(London: MacMillan and Co., 1875), Introduction, pp. 12-14.19.Charles Briggs, The revised English Version of the Old Testament,The Presbyterian Review, vol. 6 (July 1885) p. 527.20.Benjamin Warfield, Review of the American Standard Version inThe Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vol. 13 (1902), p. 646.21.However correct this practice might be in scholarly theoryfor the word in Hebrew is indeed a proper name, not a titleit was disastrous from the point of view of the liturgical, homiletical, and devotional use of the Bible, and was almost universally disliked. Robert C. Dentan, The Story of the New Revised Standard Version,Princeton Seminary Bulletin11/3 (1990), p. 212.22.iuxta traditionem ab immemorabili receptam, immo in supradicta versione LXX virorum iam perspicuam, nomen Dei omnipotentis, sacro tetragrammate hebraice expressum, latine vocabulo Dominus, in quavis lingua populari vocabulo quodam eiusdem significationis reddatur.23.The full text of the letter may be seen at .24.See the Rules of Translating for A Plan to Procure a Continually Improving Translation of the Scriptures inThe Theological and Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Priestley, edited by J.T. Rutt, vol. 17 (London: G. Smallfield, 1820), p. 532.25.Members of one group known as the Assemblies of Yahweh have produced a revision of the Rotherham version entitledThe Restoration of the Original Sacred Name Bible(Buena Park, Calif.: Missionary Dispensary Bible Research, 1970). Their Statement of Doctrine says, We affirm that it is necessary and most important to our salvation that we accept the revealed, personal Name of our Heavenly Father YAHWEH and the Name of His Son, our Savior YAHSHUA the MESSIAH. We affirm also that the most accurate transliteration of these Names from the Hebrew into the English is by the spellings employed above. (Bob Larson,Larsons Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality[Tyndale House, 2004], p. 48).26.The use of Hebrew forms is connected with a desire to emphasize the Hebrew roots and the Jewishness of Christ and his apostles, but it runs directly against the grain of the New Testament, which constantly emphasizes that Christianity is a universal faith that quite transcends the Judaism of its time. Entire books of the New Testament are specifically designed to make this point. Christ was obviously not the ethnicMessiahof Jewish expectation, but rather the Savior of the world.

Bible Research>Interpretation> Tetragrammaton