The Name Yaua

The Use of the Tetragrammaton in the Second Temple Period
Thesis Proposal

School:
Course:
Subject: The Use of the Memorial Name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yaua, in the private life of Hebrews and Christians from the late second temple period to late antiquity.

Methodology: The main evidence surveyed will be that of inscriptions with a focus on Greek and Aramaic “magical texts” from the period involved. The New Testament scribal traditions will be considered in the light of Jewish scribal practices from the period. The main sources analysed include Lachish Letters, Elephantine papypri, Wisdom of Solomon, Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek Magical Papyri, Aramaic magical texts, Apocryphal writings. Having surveyed the evidence of the use of the memorial name conclusions will be drawn.

Outline
I Introduction/ Methodology
II Historical Religious context
III The Memorial name in Hebrew texts
IV The Memorial Name in Greek texts
V The Memorial Name in Aramaic Text
VI The Memorial name from the late Second Temple period to late antiquity in the life of Hebrews
VII The Memorial Name from from Late second Temple period Late Antiquity

Yaua God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, this is my name forever my memorial from generation to generation
Exodus 3:14



Introduction
1.0 The Subject of the Memorial Name in Judaism and Christianity

The proper noun Yaua (yod heh vav heh), the memorial (zeker) of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exod 3), has for 1976 years been the primary focus of Christian prayer throughout the earth. The central prayer of the faith ever since the first third of the first century when the disciples traditionally asked their teacher: “Our Lord teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples” (Luke 11). Every day the Charismatic, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Protestant, the Evangelical, the Messianic, the nominal and the committed will in all probability at some point approach their Father in heaven with the words “Hallowed be thy name” “avun dbashmaya niqadash shmaq”(55 Aramaic ); “`agiasqetw to ononma sou” (56- Greek) “avinu shebashamayim yitqadesh shimqa” (55 Hebrew). This prayer for the sanctification of the name of God the Father not by chance finds it counterpart in modern and historical Judaism’s “Kiddush Hashem ‘sanctification of the (divine) Name’...term denoting one of the loftiest principles of Judaism” (57, p.102) . In their terminology kiddush hashem is so central that a religious Jew is required to die rather than “hillul hashem” that is rather than profane the name. The covenant Yaua traditionally made with Israel on Sinai or at Horeb and its restatement at Nebo includes a specific commandment regarding the name which has entered into both Jewish and Christian tradition. It traditonally enters the covenant as the third commandment of the decalogue, Lo tisa et shem Yaua eloheiqa le shav, lo yenaqeh Yaua, et asher yisa et shmo leshav. Traditionally translated “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. He shall not remain guiltless who takes His name in vain”. Lamsa translates it based on the Peshitta “You shall not take a false oath in the name of the LORD [Yaua ] your God; for the LORD [Yaua] will not declare him innocent who takes an oath in his name falsely”(54).
1.1 How the Abuse of the Name was Punished
According to scriptural tradition the first man to blaspheme and curse the name Yaua, was quarantined from the desert camp of the Israelites and imprisioned until Moses could find out Yaua’s judgement for this unheard of crime among the Israelites. Moses consultation was not without result, Yaua gave the judgement swiftly and clearly “Bring outside the camp him who has cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him” (54 Lev 24:11). And a mishpat (law) was written into the Law of Yaua “Whoever curses his God shall suffer for his sin. And he who blasphemes the name of the LORD [Yaua] shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall surely stone him” (54 Lev 24: 15-16). This name then commanded the respected, then as now.
1.2 How the Name has been at the Center of many Debates
To some this legal ruling or the sentence for the crime of blaspheming (naqav) and cursing the name (qelalah) will no doubt in our present age be considered controversial. But this is by no means the only area of controversy in regard to this memorial. A mere cursory glance at the modern academic discussion around the name serves to show that this name, is and for thousands of years has been subject of discussion regarding such questions as the following: Where did it originate? Did the Egyptians know it? Did Abraham know it? What was its original form and composition? Is it the Hebrew letters yod, heh, vav, heh or yod, heh, vav, or yod vav, or yod, heh or heh, vav, or some form of Egyptian hierglyph? What does it mean? to cause be; or to fall upon; or He will be a disaster; He loves; He is kindly; or He blows? What is its pronunciation? Are the letters 4 vowels or are they 4 consonants? Should it be transliterated into Greek letters or into any alien alphabets? What way should it be transliterated into Greek letters?. Is it Iaw or Iao, Iabe or Iaue? Should it be written or not? Should it be translated or not? Should it be spoken according to its letters or not? Should it be spoken according to how it is written or not? Should it be written into Paleo Hebrew, Aramaic Square script or transcribed into Greek letters or just simply replaced? When is it permitted to speak it? Should the scriptures of the minim which contain the name be destroyed by “Orthodox” Jews? With these topics of dispute we begin the long journey of the area of controversy regarding perhaps the most mysterious and yet simple short name the world has ever known. The issue as to it number value (gematria) has also meant discussion. The basic gematria of the four letters are 26, of the three of yau 21, of the two of ya 15 or yu16, but does the name consist of 2, 3, 4, 12, or 42 letters? Is the name the highest name or the second highest name? Is the Gnostic Iaw/o the same as the Elephantine Yau or Yeo(yod heh vav), the same as Jeremiah’s Yaua, the same as the Father of Jesus Christ? Reflections have been held regarding the relation of the name to the Holy Trinity and its relation to the first created primordial Adam. We could go on but we will not, this name, if it is indeed one name, comes into the twenty first century with a lot of baggage. Most of this baggage consists of human traditions which have grown up around the form, composition, meaning, power, the writing, and the speaking of the memorial. And after much discussion we can not say today that there are many certainties, the field is still in a flux. This interest may be summed up in the word of Van der Toorn et.al. “The significance of the name Yahweh has been subject of a staggering amount of publications (for an impression see Mayer 1958)” (van der Toorn, p.913). This phenomena is according to Cross a “monumental witness to the industry and ingenuity of biblical scholars” (1973:60).
1.3 How The Name was Used in the Early Church Period
One area of this flux is whether the name was used outside the temple and in the daily lives of the Jews and the early Church, those Jews and Gentiles who joined Jesus Christ and their descendants. This is a controlling idea for this paper. This paper sets out to demonstrate the high probability that Christians, Jews and Gentiles in all probability, used the name in their spiritual or religious lives during the second temple period until the 7th century AD and beyond. They prayed it, called upon it, sanctified it, baptized with it, praised it, magnified it, wrote it, wrote about it, substituted it, exorcised with it, misunderstood it and revered it in different ways and at different periods during this time. Even as groups of Jews, Messianic Jews and Chrstians use the name in these various ways today, so they did in late antiquity. To demonstrate this we will need to refute some long held and yet unfounded religious and academic traditions regarding the name. Such as the idea that the memorial name was ineffable, forgotten, avoided by all Israel except in the temple. Even the idea that Christians have not really had much interest in the name has to be dealt with. In short everything that militates against the idea that Jews and Christians of late antiquity derived great blessing by calling on the name Yaua needs to come under critical evaluation.


Sources
2.0 The Archaeological and Literary Sources containing the Memorial Name
The sources we have for reassessing long held academic and religious traditions include sources leading up to the second temple period. We have both literary sources and non literary sources. We can start with the sources which indicate what the second temple period inherited from the exilic period and earlier regarding the name. We will review the early testimonies regarding the memorial and its use in the nine centuries before the second temple period. This includes the two Egyptian shields from (Soleb) Nubia which contain a testimony to the name in hieroglyphics from the fourteenth century B.C. as noted by van der Toorn et.al “There are two Egyptian texts that mention Yahweh”. They read it as “Yahu in the land of the Shosu-beduins”. This land is believed to be Edom or Midian ( van der Toorn p.911).
We see the names preservation in the theophoric names of Hebrews and and earlier. This will include names written in cuneiform, Phoenician, Aramaic and old Hebrew alphabets. Here we can see the Amarna letters. We will see the names appearance on the Moabite Stone from the ninth century BC in its first appearance in an Aramaic text. The name also appears on various Hebrew bullae and seals from the eighth century onwards in theophoric names. Our literary sources from pre exilic period are the Amarna letters and the Lachish letters.
2.1 Theophoric Name in Inscriptions or Literature containing the Memorial Name
Theophoric names testify to shortened forms of the memorial and consist of a form of the name of a god and usually some characteristic of him. Either the name of the god comes first or second or even in the middle. There are hundreds of these names. In terms of testimony to the memorial Yaua we have the following regular combinations.
Form
xxxx- Nathan He has given (2 Sam 7:2)
xxxx-ya Nathan-ya He has given Yah (1 Chron 25.2)
xxxx-yau Nathan-yau He has given Yah himself (Jer 36:14)
Yau-xxxx Yeo-nathan Yahu[ah] has given (1 Sa 14:16)
Ya -xxxx Yo-nathan Y(ah)u[ah] has given (1 Sa 14.1)


There are many of these names and they play a significant part in preserving testimony of the memorial name and even the way it was pronounced according to Gertoux (2). Modern studies have been carried out on them by, Joseph Tropper(Cuneiform) Joseph Tigay (Hebrew), Kutschner (Isaiah scroll DSS) and Gertoux (LXX).

3.0 Pre Second Temple Period Witnesses to the Memorial
As we approach the second temple period we find the four letter form of the name in a series of letters called the Lachish ostraca from the time Nebuchadnezzar and his assault on the kingdom of Judah. These are unique in being the only known cache of Hebrew prose preserved from this early period (Pritchard, 1958, p212) . They also contain shorter forms in theophoric names. We also have the Jerusalem amulet dated to the fifth or sixth century B.C. in which a four letter form of the name was found (75 Barkay, 1983,14).
3.1 Second Temple Period Witnesses to the Memorial
Judah returned from Exile around 538 BC, the second temple was completed around 515 BC from this time until the time of Christ we have five centuries. During the period we find that many Hebrews had forgotten Hebrew and were fluent in Aramaic. It also appears from exilic and post exilic writings that the Aramaic linguistic preferences began to change yao to yo as can be seen in the writings of Ezra, Nehehmiah, Zechariah and Haggai. During this period Palestine was firstly under the authority of the Persian Achaemenid dynasty, starting with Cyrus the Persian who liberated the Jews from Babylon. According to the record of Cyrus decree in 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1, Cyrus freely used the name in his decree calling Yaua, “the God of Heaven… the God who is in Jerusalem.”
3.11 The Witness of Elephantine and Maqqedah
Testimonies to the name in this period include the 5th century BC Elephantine papyri giving evidence of the three letter form Yau or Yao. And the fourth century B.C. Maqqedah excavation which yielded some one thousand potsherds inscribed in Aramaic. Among these were found one testifying to the three letter form of the name Yau and even to a hitherto unknown temple of Yahu (77 Lemaire, 2004).The Egyptian testimony to the name continues into the 3rd century B.C. with the first translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek under the Ptolomies. The tradition regarding this translation is given the in “Letter to Aristeas”, which though containing apocryphal material testifies to a fact that the Hebrew Torah was translated sometime in that period. From this period we also get clear evidence that the first century B.C. Jewish scribal practice regarding the memorial name in the holy scriptures was to retain the name in one of four forms. These forms of retention are represented in the evidence available. These were to transliterate to Yau into Iaw, to use Paleo Hebrew, Aramaic square script (as is used in modern Hebrew) or to transcribe it using Greek letters which look similar to the name pipi transliterated pipi in later Aramaic translataitons of Greek texts.
3.12 The Witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Magical Texts
During the second century BC we see the development of three main sects in Judaism These were the Essenes, the Saducees and the Pharisees. The first two are priestly sects with evidence that the Essenes were from the high priestly family of Zadok replaced by the priestly family of Hashmon around 164 B.C. after the latter had led the fight against the Seleucids and cleansed the temple. The evidence of the Essenes regarding the name we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls ranging from the first century BC to the first century AD. This evidence is very important in helping us know what was going on in the time of Jesus. The evidence from the second to the seventh century is mainly in the form of magical texts. Firstly the Greek Magical papyri start around the second century AD and go through to the 11th century AD, and secondly the Aramaic magical bowls and Amulets which generally range from the fourth to the seventh century. These sources present very strong evidence that the name was used in the private lives of Jews, Christians and even Pagans. The writings of the Church fathers give us examples of the Fathers using the name for teaching or for apologetic purposes and reporting what the second and third century Gnostic sects taught regarding Iaw/o and also some of the teachings of the fathers. The tenth century brings us to the evidence of the Masoretic texts with the vowel pointing of the masoretes and also brings us to the earliest manuscripts of the Mishnah and the latter examples of the Greek magical texts.

3.2 Has Late Antiquity’s Vocalisation of the name been lost?

An academic position held at the beginning and even in the middle of the twentieth century has now come under challenge. Smith from the late 19th century states a typical position on the great name Yaua (Jehovah or Iehovah of the original King James Bible):
Jehovah: The true pronunciation of this name by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost. The Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it. And substituting in its place one of the other words with whose vowel points it happens to be written…According to Jewish tradition it was pronounced but once a year by the high priest on the day of atonement when he enters the holy of holies; but on this point there is some doubt. (63, p.274)

The first claim in Smith’s assertion has been challenged by modern scholars, especially Gertoux, in his excellect study on the name(2). The term “Jews” being a generalization is automatically discounted by the diversity of the individuals in contrast to the community. When he says “Jews” he really means Orthodox Jews or the dati population. I, personally have heard many Jews make an attempt at pronouncing the name. The typical dati, will, rather than read Yaua in a reading in the synagogue, read Adonai. Rather than mention Adonai in the street he will say Hashem. Rather than say Elohim he will say Elokim and I have even heard Hallelukah over againt Hallelujah among the particularly zealous. All of these kinds traditions go back to the period of late antiquity and even before (msotah 7.6). Psalm 14 and 53 are an example of this the practice of replacing the name. The name Yaua in Psalm 14 has been replaced by Elohim in Psalm 53 . The whole 5 books of Psalms reflect focuses on different names of the deity.
3.21 The Failure of the Ban on the Pronouncing of the Name.
In contrast to this religious practice reform Rabbi David Weisberg from Hebrew Union College Cincinatti Ohio during his talk on “The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies” made the claim that they had found cuneiform inscriptions in excavations of Judean villages from 6/5th century B.C. Babylonia. One of which read gift of God “Nadav Yaua ”. When I asked him why he used that exact pronunciation, for it was one I had come across among in my own researches and among Arabs who rendered the pronunciation of the four Arabic letters, yah ha wah ha, the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew yod heh vav heh, he replied “I wanted to get as close to the cuneiform as possible”. I have had similar experiences with other Jewish individuals. This is a very important factor behind the thesis that the Christians and Jews used the memorial name in their private lives. Although there may be an official religious policy supported by an establishment opposing a practice, there will always be individuals who will debunk that policy and do what they consider is right. Another example is that of a religious bookshop owner in Jerusalem. Here he happily spoke the name.When I said to him that I thought it was forbidden for him as a Jew to speak the name. He replied that he had spoken it in another language (which is clearly in his mind not forbidden). The language then became for him the crux of the matter.
3.22 The Traditional Restriction late and not Limited in Scope
The traditional restriction on pronouncing the name is against vocalizing it according to its proper letters (msanhedrin 10.1) or reading it as it is written (msotah 7.2). If this is the restriction according to Jewish tradition this was the true pronounciation which according to Abba Shaul second century tanna barred a person from a place in the world to come (msotah 7:2). At the time Abba Shaul was speaking the Masoretes had another 500 years before they would set about putting the niqqudot on the consonants or semi vowels. Therefore we need to explore how the name may have been vocalized up until the end of late antiquity.
3.23 The Strange Tradition of the Ineffability of the Name
The tradition that the name was ineffable is a strange one. Ineffable (arrhtos) means I “unspoken, unsaid” (66) and II “not to be spoken not to be divulged, of sacred mysteries” and secondly “unutterable, inexpressible, horrible” or thirdly “shameful to be spoken”. Those who apply it seem to apply the term as though it was relevant during the second temple period. Paul used the terms in 1 Cor 12:4 regarding words heard by a man in paradise. This man heard “unsaid” words. However the name was in continuous use with no apparent legal ban on it from the time Abraham called on the name Yaua, to the well into the third century CE. And it continued to be used by Jews and Gentiles throughout the period when the Byzantines were running the Levant. Throughout this period and even up until the 10th century of the common era there is evidence of the use of the name (30), in public and private and by Jew and Gentile alike (Betz, 1992).
3.24 The Evidence Contradictory to the Idea of Ineffability
The assumption that the name was ineffable is then contradicted by much evidence. Its consequence, the idea that the pronunciation of the name has been forgotten, also comes under criticism. Some scholars assert that the vocalization of the name was never forgotten (EJ, Vol 7,p.680). We can ask then, Was the pronunciation of the memorial name Yaua forgotten?

This section might well have been called “The Myth of the Lost and Forgotten Tetragrammatton”. This academic tradition that indicates that the pronunciation of the name Yaua has somehow been lost and then forgotten by the Hebrews comes under our consideration now. Van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst state “Since the Achaemenid period, religious scruples led to the custom of not pronouncing the name of Yahweh; in the liturgy as well as in everyday life…as a matter of consequence, the correct pronunciation of the tetrgrammaton was gradually lost (61. 1999, 910). This position is supported by Thompson in his Anchor Bible Dictionary article “The pronunciation of yhwh as Yahweh is a scholarly guess. Hebrew biblical mss were principally consonantal in spelling until well into the current era. The pronunciation of words was transmitted in a separate oral tradition…The Tetragrammaton was not pronounced at all…Though the consonants remained, the original prounuciation was eventually lost” (84 Thompson )
This argument having established the fact that the name was gradually forgotten, then turns to Christian circles to attempt to reconstruct the pronunciation of the name . The usual authority appealed to is Clement of Alexandria and Theodoret. The conclusion is that Yahveh or Yahweh is believed to be the vocalization of the name. I do not doubt that we can not be certain of the exact way Yaua was pronounced in all the places and in all the times it was pronounced as we can not be certain how any word was pronounced in late antiquity, but the idea of the Hebrews allowing themselves to forget it is almost unthinkable. As can be seen above Van der Toorn, Becking and Van der Horst hold that “Yahweh” is a scholarly convention and Thompson holds that Yahweh is a scholarly guess, both hold that the pronunciation was “lost”. It is this academic tradition which we will explore and take issue with now.
Firstly we need to emphasise how unlikely it is that the pronunciation of the name was lost by the time of Clement of Alexandria that is the early third century. Indeed we will show that the pronunciation of the name as the Hebrews understood it was not lost by the early third century and evidence suggests it was not even lost by the 10th century. The Hebrews (Jews) have a great respect for their understanding of the Torah of Moses. And one of the biggest commandments Israel is given in the Torah is to remember and not to forget. This verb zakar (to remember) comes up at least 235 times in the MT and has a very strong association with the name Yaua. This name is called the God of Abraham’s memorial (zeker) from generation to generation, the very object the Hebrews were to use to call Yaua to mind and his great deeds to mind. It can perhaps be seen as his personal signature, seal and all his works are “copyrighted” in this name.
It is true that in Hebrew name means a lot more than the mere proper noun used to identify one person as oppsed to another. It is used in regard to the reputation of someone in terms of a good name. It is used in regard to someones character as when Jacob is changed to Israel. It is used as a prophecy over someones life as when Abram is changed to Abraham in light of his new future. In these senses the term name is used regarding Yaua also. However we find in the Torah the Prophets and the New Testament that Yaua is very We see in the prophets when Yaua says anything it is sealed with the authority of the name Yaua. Thus we see “Coh Amar Yaua and Neum Yaua” devar Yaua all over the writings of Moses and the prophets. When he has a house built it is called “beit Yaua” (Ps 23) and the future city will be called “Yaua Tzidkenu” (Jer 33). The emphasis on remembrance and its connection to the name Yaua militates against the idea of the names pronunciation being forgotten. What is far more likely and has evidence to support it is the fact that the Hebrews would have reserved the pronunciation of the name to themselves. The Rabbis would have ensured that the name was reserved to themselves and their close disciples. They would have taken precautions to ensure it was not forgotten and to keep it from the unworthy. It would have had restricted but continued circulation and usage among those considered worthy. Interestingly modern support for the thesis that the name was never forgotten comes from Jewish scholars who no doubt know only too well the desire of many Rabbis to keep from the unworthy or impious and the Gentiles knowledge that they might be perceived to abuse. The saying of Jesus against a particular group of Torah scholars is well known “Woe to you lawyers[experts in the Mosaic law]! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered” (Luke 11:52). They could only take away that of which they had possession. The use of the name was never completely forbidden in the second temple period and was still in use afterwards and so in the period of late antiquity was never “lost”. Clear evidence is available illustrating some of the ways the name was pronounced. Both articles in Jewish Encylopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica maintain that the pronunciation of the name was never lost.

The evidence that the name may have been forgotten because pronunciation of it was proscribed usually cites, LXX, Philo, Josephus, the Qumran community and Abba Saul. However if we look at each of these cases we find a number of interesting facts. The first three are all Hellenistic Jews. The Rabbis who preserved Judaism after the destruction of the second temple sought to proscribe or ignored the writings and traditions of all three. What the Hellenistic Jews testify to is unlikely to have been accepted by the tannaim. If we review their evidence briefly we will see that they do not support the idea that the pronunciation of the name Yaua was unknown or forgotten. Philo’s evidence indicates that the name was spoken and heard (Glazer p.253) . “And a golden leaf was wrought like a crown, having four names engraved on it which may only be mentioned or heard by holy men having their ears and their tongues by wisdom, and by no one else at all in any place whatsoever. And this holy prophet Moses calls the name, a name of four letters”.
3.25 Philo’s Evidence that the name was Spoken
For Philo it was not God’s name that could not be spoken but his nature for “no personal name even can be properly assigned to the truly existent…[but so that] “the human race should not totally lack a title to give the supreme goodness, he allows them by license of language, as though it were his proper name, the title Lord [kurios] God of the three natural orders, teaching perfection and practice” Philo is also the source of other evidence that the name is well known in the first third of the first century “If anyone, I do not say should blaspheme against the Lord of men and gods, but should even dare to utter his name unseasonably, let him expect the penalty of death”. Thus Philo testifies that the name might be uttered seasonably and unseasonably and if it were done it would be recognized, there was no mystery in what would be uttered but if not uttered seasonably a penalty should be expected. The first Philo passage indicates Yaua was spoken and heard in a small select group from the people of Israel, and this adds support to the case that the name was known and used in his time (25 B.C. to 50 CE approximately). He does not specify the place it was to be used as being the temple in Jerusalem or Leontopolis although we might assume this was his intention.

3.26 Some LXX Translators vocalized the name in a way in which it could be spoken
The LXX manuscripts we have from the period include transliterations of the name and the name written in Hebrew. The vocalised transliteration gives Iaw as the name. This transliteration would allow a person to read a form of the name because the word is vocalized with “a” and “u”. Evidence that this kind of transliteration was for vocalization purposes is supported by it use in the Greek Magical Papyri where it is used both as Iaw and Iao. Thus the particular speaker would transcribe it as he heard it not from a Hebrew Text with a systematic transliteration approach (5 Betz, 1986). Those who wanted to hide the name’s pronunciation would often write it in such as way as to make the true pronunciation difficult to discern. As we see in DSS 1QS where the name is replaced by four dots or in cases where the name is simply replaced by a surrogate as el or kurios. The surrogates these groups of “replacers” developed, number in their dozens (Lauterbach, 1931).
The name Iaw is used in the earliest Greek testimony to the rendering of the name and in the later Greek texts representing Church fathers, the Gnostics and Greek magical papyri. Both the the people of the Magical Papyri had every reason to pronounce the name and no reason to refrain from pronouncing the name. The first because in magical practices the exact pronunciation is very important in any incantation or spell or even prayer, and in the second one the myth of the origin of the name Iaw was in its pronunciation and the power released by it (Ireneaus chap 4).
3.27 The Limitation of Josephus’ Restrictions
Josephus restriction simply says that he is not lawfully allowed to say any more than he does regarding the name. He was referring to writing about the name not it’s pronounciation .
He [Moses] entreated him to grant him that power when he should be in Egypt;
And besought him to vouch safe him the knowledge of his own name;
And since he had heard and seen him, he would also tell him his name,
That when he offered sacrifice he might invoke him by his name in his oblations.
Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before Concerning which it is not lawful for me to say anymore.” (Josephus, Ant II, 12:4)
3.28 The Precise Knowledge of the Name Among the Essenes
The Qumran community and its beliefs contain many sectarian ideas which would have been unacceptable to the Tannaim and there descendants who produced the Mishna. They were a protest group who moved out of mainstream Jewish society in the second century B.C. However even their evidence from 1 QS indicates a very precise knowledge of the name. In this case one who unwittingly used the name was tried and punished by the community with an exile.
Whoever invokes the glorious name in a statement is subject to…
(asher yazkir dabar bashem hanichbad)
But if he has uttered a curse either because he was shaken by some crisis
Or what ever may have prompted him to do it, then reads from the book
Or offers a blessing, they shall exclude him from the community
(1 QS:VI:27-VII=)
From the text we do not know the result of the invocation of the name but the result of cursing is seen to be negative. For some one to curse with the name implies not only a precise knowledge of the name but it is usually the name which is well known and regularly used that is used by a man in cursing. It may be that the invocation of the name was not a negative thing for it is clear that the scriptures did not forbid the invocation of the name in truth. We also have other evidence that may indicate that the Essenes or a similar sect called the Hemerobathers, Daily Baptisers, made regular positive use of the name (Tos. Yad 2:20).
“In order to pronounce the name of God in prayer with perfect purity the Essene …underwent baptism every morning.” (Tos. Yad 2:20, Simon of Sens to Yad 4:9 and Ber. 22a cf.kid 70a).
3.28 The Witness of Abba Shaul that the Letters of the Name were readable as they were
This leaves only Abba Saul. Abba Saul and no other voice in the Mishna says that those who pronounce the Name with its proper letters have no place in the world to come (M San 10:1). The saying of Abba Saul was not confirmed or denied by the sages of the Mishna it is left hanging whilst the Mishna goes on to other kings and commoners having no place in the world to come. Because it is stated in the Mishna by no means gives it Halakhic authority. Danby (1935, 800) lists Abba Saul as a fourth generation Tanna who are dated from AD 140-165. On another level the evidence of Abba Shaul tells us quite distinctly that even in the middle of the second century A.D. there were Israelis pronouncing the name with its proper letters. And this for Abba Shaul was punishable only by heaven, for to be forbidden a place in the world to come has nothing to do with a trial and punishment on earth. The fact that Abba Shaul had to raise the protest and that Rabbi Judah ha Nasi included it in the Mishna in the next century points to the fact that people knew how to pronounce it “correctly” as the community understood it even into the third century. The Masoretes had not yet started their vocalisation work and despite the widespread idea that the Hebrew alphabet is not vocalized evidence of some weight is now available indicating that the letters aleph, yod and heh were used as matres lectionis, that is mothers of reading. This is important in looking at Abba Shaul’s statement that the name could be spoken with its proper letters indicating that on seeing the four letters yod heh vav heh, with out any vowel pointings, one could read them intelligibly. This implies that the four letters were readable and thus in all probability included vowels among them. A person on reading a torah text with those four letters could read them. The presence of vowels in the name is confirmed by Josephus who said the name was made up of four vowels (Gertoux). The question then is not could the letters be read but how should those four letters be read a thousand years before the masoretes set out on their traditional vocalization. We will develop this issue a little later. For now we continue with the evidence that the name was well known in the period of Late Antiquity.

3.29 The Evidence from the Courts that the Name was Accurately known and Heard
The outline of the trial of a blasphemer in Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5 also indicates that the way to pronounce the name as opposed to a substitute was clearly known when the Mishnah was redacted. Without this knowledge a sentence could not be given “‘The blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself” . The trial was conducted with a substituted name but when the final sentence had to be given the people were sent out and the witnesses testified as to what he actually heard. He would say it and “the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments” (Danby 1935,392) . The witnesses then testify that they heard the name by speaking the name. This indicates that it is clear the name was being used in public . The form of the substituted saying was “May Jose smite Jose”. In truth this may have been “May Yaua smite Jose[whoever Jose was]” . We notice that the witnesses are permitted here to use the name for the purposes of the trial. In other words it was a legitimate use of the name. Only two or three witnesses were required to testify in the trial and the crime is perhaps the blasphemy through cursing and not simply saying the name. In this tradition there is nothing said about the name being spoken according to its letters, but it is known that a forbidden use is made of the name . Some uncertainty arises because the form “May Jose smite Jose” indicates that Jose was substituted for Yaua and for the person who is object of the curse. But here in the Mishna we clearly see one of the substitutes for Yaua used in the Oral law. We should notice that the crime here is not simply using the name accurately but blaspheming or cursing using the name. The curse may have taken the form we noted above and at that period it was forbidden to speak in this manner.

3.30 The Possible Use of the Name by Jesus in his trial
Evidence that it may simply have been the use of the name and not its use to curse may perhaps be indicated in the trial of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of Matthew. In this case the High Priest responds to something Jesus says by doing exactly what is required of the judges in a blasphemy case and he cries out blasphemy at the same time.
The high priest said to him, “I charge You on oath by the living God that you tell that you tell us whether You are the Christ the Son of God.” Jesus said to him. “As you say, Besides , I tell you that shortly you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty (Dunamis) and coming on the clouds of heaven”
Then the high priest tore his clothes , saying “He has blasphemed![blasphemeo] What further need do we have of witnesses. What do you think? They answered “He deserves death”
Although he Mishna is late it is unlikely its procedures in this case would have been influenced by the gospel of Matthew, they are more likely to have derived their message from a common source. If the blasphemer, as stated above can not be put to death unless he speaks the name itself then if Jesus has blasphemed he must have spoken the name itself. But in the text their seems to be only the word dunamis or the right hand of dunamis which would be capable of containing the blasphemy. Dunamis is perhaps the Matthean redactors substitute for the name itself.
In Marks gospel we have a slightly different recollection which could perhaps help us a little
Again the high priest questioned Him. He said, “Are you the Christ , the son of the Blessed? Jesus said egw eimi. And you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tearing his clothes, said; “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; How does it seem to you? And they all condemned Him as deserving death. Mrk 14:62

In this case we see three possible substitutes, for Yaua: Dunamis and egw eimi and for God, Blessed (evlogetos). However Jesus statement egw eimi, has been used as a divine name in the LXX, translating Ani Hu but also in place of Ani Yaua in Isaiah 42. This first example reflects a passage in Isaiah where Yaua says “Ani hu Ani Hu” who blots out your sins. Ani hu is translated egw eimi who blots out your sins or “I am egw eimi who blots out your sins for my sake” (Is 43:25). In the second as noted it is possible that behind the egw eimi is a divine name which Jesus is not supposed to say. Egw eimi is also used for the phrase Ani Yaua that is it is a direct substitute for the memorial name, this combined with the high priests reaction and the courts sentence imply Jesus may very well have used the name at this point.
John’s gospel echoes this idea where egw eimi is definitely used as a divine name. And when it is used it is considered a blasphemy. But is it also possible that behind dunamis is Yaua. Thus it is conceivable, knowing Jesus uncompromising adherence to truth, that Jesus said: “Ani Yaua and you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven”
The strange thing in this case is the fact that only the high priest tore his clothes it is supposed to be all the judges. The problem is we can not be certain what was actually said.

3.4 Evidence that the Pronounciation was known beyond Israel and the 3rd Century
We see then that from the early period up to the 3rd century there is clear evidence that the name was neither forgotten or uncertain to the Hebrews. They knew when they heard the name and they had court procedures established for cases where the restrictions were transgressed. What we have considered is however only the beginning of the evidence. A number of other later texts also support the contention that to the Hebrews the name was not lost or forgotten. This includes the following examples:
1 Avodah Zarah 17b relates a tradition that one of the martyrs in the time of Hadrian, Hananiah b. Teradion, burned at the stake because he uttered the name according to its letters. Again this is evidence that the letters when seen by a Jew in that period were readable, that is the information for vocalization was contained in the four letters.
2 A third century Palestinian Amora (Mana the Elder) indicates that the Samaritans (“who swear”) in their oaths pronounce the Tetrgrammaton as it is written . Theodoret the 5th century Church Father indicates that by that time Samaritans used Iabh when they pronounced the name. This Samaritan usage is one of the reasons some scholars have opted for Yahweh as the vocalization of the name.
There are also traditions which indicate that Jewish scholars used to teach their disciples the name.
1. In Yer. Sanh 71b Yohanan notes that “Once each week the sages give their pupils the Four-Lettered Name.” Yer Yoma 40d relates “In former times the Name was taught to all; but when immorality increased it was reserved for the pious”. This testimony is very important for our thesis that the name was never forgotten but merely restricted to those considered worthy. But the fact that the name was not forgotten indicates that giving the disciples the four letter letter at a minimum would include pronouncing it bu would also include lessons on its use. What these lessons were would be an interesting subject for reasearch. Jesus may perhaps be classified among these teachers having made known and manifest his Fathers name to his disciples (John 17).
2 Haggadist Phinehas b. Kama refused to teach the name to a physician of Sepphoris who offered to pay for lessons (Yer Yoma 40d). Indicating that the Haggadist himself knew and possibly used the name, but restricted its use to those to whom he considered worthy.
3 A scholar of the fourth century offered to ‘transmit the Name’ to the amora R. Hanina of Sepphoris (Yer Yoma 40d). Evidencing a clear practice among some circles of ensuring that the name was passed accurately from generation to generation, even as Yaua had indicated that Yaua was his memorial from generation to generation.
4 Samuel a third century Babylonian amora heard a Persian curse his son using the name (yer. Yoma 40d) A very clear evidence indicating that even non Jews had access to and pronounced what Jewish Rabbis understood to be the name. As it is now so it was then.
5 Ecclesiates. Rabba. 3:11 relates that it was a Persian woman who cursed her son using the memorial Yaua. Here we see a Gentile women having knowledge of Shem ha-Meforash and using it freely. She is clearly familiar with the name and so famailiar that rather than curse her son with the names of one of the pagan deities or Ahura Mazada of the Zoroastrians she called on Yaua to smite her son. Thus indicating that the name was not spoken by Jews but also by varying types of Gentiles and that it was spoken and also heard in public. A women who curses her son using the name knows the name very well and believes in its power and veracity. Her son will in all probability learn from the example of his mother. He too will begin to use the name and thus the knowledge of it would be passed down the generations. This knowledge of the name displayed by the Gentiles is evidenced very clearly in the Greek magical papyri where the name is used around three times as much as any pagan deity (Smith, ).
All of this evidence indicates a clear understanding of the pronunciation however the question arises How was it pronounced?


4.0 Evidence For Various Vocalisations of the Name
We come now to the issue of how the name was vocalized. As has been seen in this paper I have vocalized the name as Yaua. This vocalization I present as an altenative to the many and various vocalization posited by various scholars. The main academic alternatives are YeHoWaH (Jehovah) defended by Gertoux, Yahweh the rendering is the academic’s conventional vocalization held by Albright and Yahuah supported by Reisel or Yahwa supported by Tropper.

The pronunciation of these four letters has probably seen more speculative vocalization than any other name in history. And not just speculative vocalizations but a sense in which the way to pronounce the name is actually important. For some a mispronunciation would lead to a loss of salvation. Before we go into the methods which can perhaps be used reconstruct a well grounded pronunciation a review of the various speculations will at least be informative.
Century Source Script Vocalisation Reference
14th B.C. Nubian shields Hierglyphics Yehua 2 Gertoux
9th-11th B.C. Amarna Letters Cuneiform Yahwa Tropper
5th B.C. Elephantine Papyri Paleo Aramaic Yahu/Yaho Albright
4th B.C. Maqqeda Potsherd Paleo Aramaic Yahu/ Yaho Lemaire
3rd B.C.
2nd B.C.
1st B.C 4 Q Lev Greek Iaw
1st A.D. Josephus Greek 4 vowels Gertoux
2nd A.D. Ophites Greek Iao Ireneaus Her I 30.5
2nd A.D Abba Shaul Hebrew YeHUaH According to its letters
3rd.A.D. Samaritans Greek Iaoue Clem of Alex (CA) Strom.5:6
3rd AD Origen Greek Iao Celsus 6:31
4th A.D.
5th A.D. Theodoret Greek Iabh Samaritans
5th A.D. Theodoret Greek Iao Heresies 1:7
6th A.D. Codex Marchalianus Greek Iaw Metzger, 35
7th A.D
8th A.D.
9th A.D.
10th A.D. Sepher Yetzirah Hebrew IHV Wynn Westscott, 1980
10th A.D. Masoretic Text Hebrew Yehowah
10th A.D. Masoretic Text Hebrew Yehowih
11th A.D.
12th A.D. Sefer Bahir Hebrew IHVH
12th A.D Maimonides Hebrew YeHUaH According to it letters
13th A.D.
14th A.D. Clavicula Salomonis Hebrew YHVH Key of Solomon
15th A.D. Pico Della Mirandola Hebrew YHVH Waite, A. Holy Kabbalah
16th A.D. Cornelius Agrippa Hebrew IHVH Iod Heh Vav Heh
1516 Peter Galatin Hebrew Jehovah
1567 Genebrardrus Greek Jahve Chronologia ed.(Paris 1600)
17th A.D.
18th A.D.
19th A.D.
1810 A.D. Fabre d’Olivet Hebrew IEVE The Tarot of the
Bohemians
1815 Gesenius Hebrew Jahweh
1855 A.D. Eliphas Levi Hebrew Jehova Transcental Magic
1855 A.D. Eliphas Levi Hebrew Jodcheva High priest’s prnounciation
1855 A.D. Eliphas Levi Hebrew Jodheva Kabalistic Tetragram
1863 A.D. Christian Ginsburg Hebrew Jehovah The Kabbalah
1877A.D. H.P. Blavatsky Hebrew Jehovah Substitute for mirific name

20th A.D.

Gertoux asserts that the 14th century B.C. vocalization of the Soleb shields gives Yehua. Tropper argues that the Amarna letters and Amorite cuneiform inscription lead to a vocalization of Yahwa. The Aramaic documents of the third and fourth century B.C. point to Yahu



Reading and Writing
An important issue regarding the pronunciation of the name comes up when dealing with the issue of reading the name. It is the issue of what is read when one comes across the name Yaua in the text. A Babylonian amora, Abina, has a comment on this based on Exodus 3:15’: “I am not read,’ says God, ‘as I am written; I am written with “yod”, “he” and pronounced with “alef,” “dalet” [] (Yer. Yoma 71a; Pes 50a. Jacob bar Aba refers to this tradition in Yer. Sanh 28b. Ahabah b. Ze’era (4th century) says “Men slay one another – so saith God- even by pronouncing the paraphrasis of the Divine Name; what would they do if I should teach them the Shem ha-Meforash?” The miraculous power of this word is known from the time of the Tannaim.







Methodology
The use of the memorial name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the private life of the Hebrews and the Christians from the late second temple period to late antiquity is one of most interesting and yet challenging subjects to research. This is due to the fact that its use has been so shrouded in the veils of religious tradition and academic tradition and lack of sources that to come to any certainty on the matter is a very complex process. When we have explored the issue many things in the life of Jesus and the New Testament Church will be explicated. For example why Jesus and Stephen and James were accused and put to death for blasphemy may be connected to this issue. The exposition of this issue will give greater insight to the life of the historical Jesus, the Jesus who actually walked on the earth in the later second temple period. For the comprehension of the life of Jesus and the life and work of the early Church is the real purpose of this paper. Did Jesus use the memorial name of the God of Israel? Did Paul and the early Christians use the memorial name of the Father? Did they write it, read it, pray it or call upon it? These questions are the true driving force behind this paper. When Jesus says to his Father in John 17, “I have manifested your name to the ones you gave me” Was he referring to the memorial name of the Father or to some other name?
The phrase the memorial name arises from an incident central to the understanding of the name of the God of Israel the incident which occurs between the angel of this God and Moses in the wilderness of Sinai some time back in the 15th or 13th century BC. The incident is the event which is traditionally seen as revealing to Moses the memorial name of the God of Israel. This incident may have taken place many eons before the age of the New Testament and before our present age but thanks to its being handed down and written it became an incident of great significance for all generations following. Thus although from the later 19th century until the present, modern scholars have seen two or more or less sources in this tradition, the age of late antiquity in all probability would have seen a history, which for the Hebrews was part of their memory, world view and tradition and for the Christians became their theological history and an example as to how the Father deals with his children, and how God (elohim) deals with his people. Both communities without the aid of the tools of modern source criticism saw in the story and life of Moses, a model of prophethood, an example in relating to their God (1 Cor 10).
According to the biblical tradition interaction between Moses and the God of his Fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob left Moses and all future generations with a memorial name for God.
The memorial name was YHWH (yod heh vav heh). or as vocalised in this paper Yaua For in this incident Yaua said to Moses, “You shall say to the Children of Israel, Yaua, the God (Elohei) of your Fathers, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name for ever (le olam) my memorial (zikri) from generation to generation.” (Exod 3:14) It is apparent from the context of the story that the first century Hebrew would have understood that the name left was not the identification, the God of your Fathers, but the name proper, Yaua. In Jewish tradition this name has stood out from all others. So even the medieval Jewish Rabbi Maimonides can say of this name:
It is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, he, vau, he. This name is applied exlusively to God, and is on that account called Shem ha-Meforash, "the nomen proprium." It is the distinct and exclusive designationof the Divine Being; whilst his other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions (Friedlander, 1956 p 89-90)
The whole of prophetic tradition in Israel has understood the uniqueness of this name ever since it was made known to Moses for if we look at all the writings of the prophets every single one of them came in the name Yaua including Jesus Christ as we shall see. The name Yaua in the Masoretic text outstrips all the titles and common nouns used to refer to the God of Israel together by a ratio of around 2 to 1(41 Clines, p.31). The understanding that Yaua and not Eheyeh is the memorial of the God of Israel would have been apparent even to the ancient expositor not trained in modern source or form critical approaches in the tradition related in Exodus itself . Although it appears in the incident that the God of Israel may have given Moses three names, Yaua, Eheyeh, and Eheyeh asher Eheyeh, in every place where Moses goes to speak to the elders and to Pharoah , he speaks only of Yaua and not of Eheyeh. So he uses a number of phrases using the name Yaua and not the name Eheyeh. We see for example Yaua God of your fathers, Yaua God of Hebrews, Yaua our God, Yaua God of their Fathers, “Thus says Yaua”, Yaua God of Israel, “Who is Yaua?, that I should obey his voice?” “I know not Yaua”, Yaua our God, Yaua look upon you and judge you. All of these clauses and phrases refer to Yaua and not to eheyeh. However the Masoretic text (MT), was not edited until the 10th century CE and we know that the Masoretes made adjustments to the text, in accordance with their own legal and theological worldviews (EJ, "Masorah"), so it will be necessary in our paper to seek out the ancient extra biblical attestations to the memorial name. One reason we have used the term memorial name and not the term Tetragrammatton is because of the many ways the memorial name is preserved as a trigrammatton (YHW) two and a duogrammatton YW and YH. Tetragrammaton is a Greek term and so does not occur in the Hebrew biblical writings. And no where in the Biblical writings to we get any emphasis on the memorial name being four letters. Clearly Yaua in the (MT) of Exodus 3 considers this name his memorial and in the scriptures this term memorial (zeker) is used as a parallel to the name (Ps 135:3, Hosea 12:5 ).
The revelation of the memorial (zeker) name was given to Moses and he spoke in the authority of that name (bethe memorial Yaua) and through that authority brought the children of Israel out of Egypt the house of bondage.
Moses also left behind a prophecy that Yaua would raise up a prophet like him (Moses) from the midst of the brethren of Israel (Deu. 18). One new and distinct thing about Moses was that he prophesied, proclaimed and performed many powerful deeds in the name Yaua and was the prophet of deliverance for Yaua’s people, Israel. Yaua said quite specifically in Deuteronomy that this future prophet would speak in his name [Yaua], to speak in another name would be considered unacceptable (Deu 18:19, Deu 13) “And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptously in my name which I have not commanded him to speak or which he shall speak in the name of other gods (elohim), that prophet shall die” (Deu 18:19-20). Thus to identify the prophet like Moses would require assessment first and foremost in which name did he speak (John 5:43, 12:17, 17:6, 11, 26; Acts 3:22). This MT evidence indicates this name is Yaua. We have seen the Moses encounter where Yaua says privately to Moses that Yaua was his name forever . For the believer of late antiquity Exodus 6 would also confirm this, not withstanding modern scholarly theories regarding the sources of these texts. “I am Yaua and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in El shaddai. But by my name Yaua, I did not make my self known to them” The manuscripts of the LXX confirms this understanding despite the fact that the bulk of the manuscripts we have available are late and have possibly been systematically edited to remove the name Yaua (2a Gertoux, Kahle 1959) “Egw Kurios.kai wphthen pros Abraam kai Isaac kai Iakwb, Oeos wn autwn. Kai to onoma mou Kurios ouk edelwsa autois”.

Principles of Private Religious Practice and the Memorial of God
The encounter with Moses above was a private religious encounter. Nobody knew about it except Moses and those whom he told about it. In that private encounter words were exchanged which were later repeated in public and later still written down, however certain parts of the experience were related only privately to the elders and not to Pharoah. When Moses went before the Pharoah other words were used. When talking to the elders, Moses may have said eheyeh at some point for this is what Yaua initially told him to do. But when talking to Pharoah he spoke of “Yaua the God of the Hebrews”. To the elders Moses spoke of Yaua coming down to visit them and deliver them, to Pharoah he spoke of going on a three day journey into the wilderness to worship Yaua (Ex 3-6). In relation to the ruling power of Egypt the message of deliverance and salvation was part of the Hebrews private life, and this privacy is reflected in that the words spoken publicly were different to the words spoken privately. The name Yaua was among the public words at the time of Moses. Evidenced by the fact the he used it in front of Pharoah and Pharoah himself used it (Ex 5:2). Yaua later says to Pharoah “For this reason have I raised thee up, in order to show in you my power and that my name may be declared (discussed-saper) in all the earth” (Ex 9:16). It is unlikely that you could get more public than that. And the name remained public for the next eight to nine hundred years at least but perhaps even beyond the end of the second temple period (msotah 7:6, mtamid 7;1-2, AvodZ. 17b, Yer Yoma 40d; Sifre Emor 19). This public use of the name is confirmed by the plan of Solomon when building the temple. He prays that the foreigner will come to this house built for the name Yaua, pray, be heard by Yaua and go back to his nation and testify of the greatness of Yaua. (I Kings 8). Solomon completes his dedication prayer with a desire that "all people of the earth may know that Yaua is God and that there is none else" (1 Kings 8:60).

Practices which were forbidden which a person wanted to persist in would enter into the realm of the private life, witness all the Greek and Aramaic magical texts. Roman law forbade the use of magic in the strongest terms (45 Smith 1977, p.77) but it did not stop its practice (5 Betz, 1986; 7 Meyer & Smith 1994). When we say private here we mean in relation to a larger public group. So an individual has privacy in relation to his family. This is exemplified in Jesus teaching or praying in the closet and being heard by the Father in secret (Matt 6). A sect such as the Nazarenes may have privacy in relation to rest of the Hebrews. The Pharisees had privacy in relation to the Saducees, the Essenes in relation to the general population. Forbidden practices would continue privately. This is exemplified in the story of Shaul and the witch of Endor. Here Shaul banishes all consultations of mediums. When he goes to see her she is fearful of practicing the secret art she clearly has the ability to practice. However she does not know who the man is and so she does a private séance for him (1 Sam 28). It is a contention of this paper that even if we accept, admittedly with reservations, the testimony of the mishnah regarding the restrictions on the use of the memorial name (msotah 7:6, mtamid 7:1-2 msanhedrin 10:1), we will find that in private the people continued to use it (30). The restrictions on speaking or writing it will have been ignored in some circles and this will be evidenced in the literary writings and the inscriptions from the period under review. And although a group of pietists sought to reserve its use to the temple (3 Alon, “The Expressed Name”, 30 JE) because of the many examples in the Biblical tradition commissioning its use, whole groups of Hebrews and many private individuals would persist in its use in private (7).
Although there is no official ban on using the name Yaua for prayer, prophecy, praise, invocation and intercession there is evidence that the "pious" started to restrict the use of the name to them and their disciples because of the growth of impiety and wickedness and the high priest started to mumble it so that those considered unworthy would not hear it (yer. yoma 40b, yer sanh 71b).
If we turn now to the time of the early Church we need to understand the fact that the texts of the life of Moses and the prophets as they stood had varying impact on the belief and behaviour of Jesus and the early Church (Luke 24:44, Matt 8:4), not the text as the modern source of form critic sees it. The modern higher critic sees a number of pericope put together after circulation as individual units. Jesus and his disciples saw a scripture that could not be broken and had to be fulfilled. It is this understanding of the scriptures which would provoke them to continue practicing what they understood to be the requirement of the Scriptures despite prevailing oral traditions among other sects, such as the certain groups of scribes which Jesus encountered (Matt 23). Jesus and the early Church saw in the scriptures the commandments of God and so despite opposition from other parties continued to practice their obedience (Matt 15:8, Mark7.6, 1 Cor 1). Thus if the groups of pietists who sought to reserve the use of the name to the temple and to the priest were perceived as placing restrictions on the permissions Yaua had granted in regard to his name those who accepted the scripture as unbreakable or as the commands of God would disregard the restrictions where possible. Most definitely in private but if legal also in public, and even if illegal and they are bold enough also in public. They will continue to practice what they understand as activity acceptable in the sight of God (John 10.36, Acts 5). Witness Peter’s answer to the council “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge” (Acts 4:19). Interestingly the disciples were being told not to preach any more in the name of Jesus, they refused to obey the human authority because they wanted to do what, in their sight, was righteous in the sight of God. This will apply to the perception of the restrictions on the use of the name Yaua.
We can also here illustrate a principle of function over grammatical and etymological merticulousness. To the modern scholar (2)Gertoux the name Yaua and the name Yahu are not derived from each other. “There is no obvious link between the short name YH and the great name YHWH. The vocalization Yah of the short name does not prove anything regarding the vocalization of the great name” (2a Gertoux, A14 ). However the Greek derivative of Yahu (YHW), IAW will happily be combined with the title Sabaoth by a Copt “in place of Yaua” (Meyer and Smith, 87) in his private religious or magical use of the name, to reflect the Biblical Yaua Tzevaoth . Maclaurin (42) states that some believe the phrase Yaua Tzevaoth to be ungrammatical in using a proper noun in a construct state (p.448), but this will still not hinder its use in the prayers and confessions of Hebrews and Christians in Late Antiquity. This principle will help us understand the way the Scripture becomes a model for behaviour and actions of Hebrews and Christians in late antiquity.
We will find in the private religion of individuals and groups a deliberate plan to follow the patterns and policies recorded in the scriptures they consider authoritative even if the public religion or the religion of those in control militates against it. Jesus is a perfect example of this attitude. Those traditions which were seen as in contravention of the word of Yaua Jesus would contravene in some cases privately. An example is the healing on a shabbat of the man born blind. Jesus healed him quietly and disappeared. This meant there were no witnesses and even the man himself did not know who had healed him until Jesus returned and identified himself to the man (John 9). We need to consider in relation to the memorial Yaua what uses we would expect it to be put in the period under review.

The Memorial Name Before Hebrew Texts
A hieroglyphic form of the memorial name is preserved in two Egyptian shields which were “found at Soleb[Nubia]…with a short inscription dated about the time of Amenophis III (1391-1353)” Additionally this short inscription is engraved in a shield used for subjugated peoples” (67 Leclant, 1980-81, p.474-475) The memorial is the thus preserved in a hieroglyphic from the 14th century BC just after or just before Moses was sent in the name to set Israel free . The hieroglyphs are firstly two upright feathers (y), then what looks like a 6 written with straight lines and laying down horizontally to the right (h). The third is a rope with an open knot at the right side (w3). The rope makes a elongated semi circle. The last is a little bird (w). The reading with conventional vocalization is y-eh-ua-w or Yehua’. The whole reading is according to Leclant “Land of the Bedouins of Yehua’. This reading is supported by Gertoux. Some scholars have maintained that the vowels of Egyptian words are not well known. This point Gertoux admits but notes “for foreign words, which is the case here, Egyptian used a sort of standard alphabet with matres lectionis, that is semi consonants which served as vowels. In this system one finds equivalences: 3=a, w=u, y=I, and that is exactly why reading by the conventional system gives acceptable results” Gertoux also notes that other dictionaries read the text as Yahweh which he notes does not agree with conventional vocalization.
The second hierglyphic text also has the memorial as the object of a preposition. In this shield the first three signs are the same. Although the shield is broken at the bottom it the glyphs are still clear. This time we only have the first three glyphs yh[ua] (Yehua) .
In the temple of Amon in Soleb (Nubia) there is a topographical list from the time of Amenhotep III (1408-1372 B.C.). In column IV.A2 is written t3 ssw yhw3 (…) In the ancient Near East a divine name was also given to a geographical place where the god was worshipped (Axelsson 1987, 60) concludes, “Thus it is conceivable that the full name of the area in question was Yhw’s land, Yhw’s city, Yah’s mountain, or the like (Axelsson 1987, 60)
This use of the name by the Egyptian is then to identify a group of Shasu and their land. The second is carved on to the statue base ot Kom El Hetan. This is the funerary temple of Amenhotep III. The shield “hangs” from the waste of a human figure.
The Memorial Name in Hebrew Texts
The memorial name has been preserved in Hebrew texts in the absolute case as the four letter form yhwh, Yaua. It has been preserved in the three letter form in the beginning of names as yhw vocalized as yeho and at the end of words as yhw vocalized as yahu. It has been preserved in the two letter form at the beginning of theophoric names as yw or yo and at the end of words as yh or vocalized a yah. It has also been preserved in the absolute case as yh vocalized as yah. In pre exilic texts it is preserved on the Samaria Ostraca from the reign of Jereboam II 786BC to 746BC (Pritchard, 1958) Jewish seals from various pre exilic centuries and on Lachish Ostraca (6th century BC) in letters.
Eight Century B.C.: Phrase, Servant of Yaua: Use, Written on Seals.
The name was also used in writing seals in the eight century. We have a seal in the Harvard Semitic Museum which has inscribed on it lamaqanyu abad Yaua, “belonging of Miqneyaw, the servant of yhwh” (62, 502). According to the Botterweck and Ringgren the name is levitical and the owner of the seal appears to be a priest. We notice this is a written use where the full name is written out without reservations and its use is not connected to any scripture. Thus we find that the name was used for seals of priests. It was also used to identify those who perhaps served in the temple. We can notice also that here we have a theophoric name Miqneyau, yau being one of the attested short forms of the memorial.
Eighth Century B.C. 2: Use, Epigram as a funerary Inscription
The name Yaua was also written as a funerary inscription in the 8th century B.C.. We have one from Khirbet el Qom which is south west of Lachish and is dated around 750BC (62 p.503) The funerary inscription reads: “barak Uriyahu laYaua, “blessed be Uriyahu by Yaua.”(62, p.503) . We see the form la Yaua.
4 An inscription found in Kuntillat ‘Ajrud which is near Sinai includes the letters hytb yhwh along with the name Baal, it is written in Phoenician (TWOT 503) .
5 The name Yaua is used in letter writing in greetings. The evidence of this come from the Lachish letters found at Tell ed-Duweir in southern Israel. There are 21 letters and they are written in classical Hebrew prose. In this period it was in the greetings of letters and in a number of formulas in the letters. This is very important indicating that that the name Yaua was used in the purely secular operation of writing letters just prior to the second temple period. It is used mainly in the greetings of the letters:
a ysm yhwh ‘t ‘adny s[m] ‘t slm ‘t kym , May {Yaua} make my lord hear good news soon”;
b yr’ yhwh ‘t ‘dny ‘t h’t hzh slm, May {Yaua} make my lord see this season in good health.”
We will observe some of Pritchard’s translations of the use in greetings:
Lachish Ostracon II
“To my lord Yaosh: May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear tidings of peace this very day, this very day!”
Lachish Ostracon III
“Thy Servant Hoshaiah hath sent to inform my lord Yaosh: May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear tidings of peace!”
Lachish Ostracon IV
“May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear this very day tidings of good!”
Lachish Ostracon V
“May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear [tidings of peace] and good [this very day, this very day!]”
Lachish Ostracon VI
“To my lord Yaosh: May {Yaua} cause my lord to see this season in good health!”
Lachish Ostracon VIII
“May {Yaua} cause my lord to hear tidings of good this very day!” (Pritchard 1958,212-214)

The Arad Ostraca also confirms this use of Yaua in the greetings of letters. One letter contains the greeting:” ‘l ‘dny ‘lysb yhwh ys’ l lslmk (lines 1-3), ‘To my lord Elyashib; may Yaua seek your peace’”
(TWOT 503)

The clear indication is that for this Hoshaiah in Ostracon III Yaua was part of his standard greetings in the letters he wrote. Perhaps comparable to the Apostle Paul’s “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”.

6 The name Yaua is used in letters to declare an oath. In Lachish Ostracon VI the writers swears:
a “As {Yaua} thy God liveth, truly since thy servant read the letters there hath been no [peace] for [thy ser]vant” (Pritchard 1958,214)
In Ostracon II there is also an appeal to the life of Yaua:
“And as for what my lord said, ‘Dost thou not understand ?- call a scribe!’ as {Yaua} liveth no one hath ever undertaken to call a scribe for me”;
7 The name is also used in praying judgement (cursing) upon certain groups:
“May {Yaua} afflict those who re[port] an (evil) rumour about which thou art not informed!” Here we see the use is specifically in the context of Yaua afflicting those who spread “rumours” unacceptable to the one praying or cursing.
8 The name Yaua is used in letters when referring to the house of Yaua. So a second Arad Ostracon letter has: “ wldbr ‘sr swtny slm byt yhwh h’ ysb, ‘And as for the matter concerning which you commanded me-it has been settled. In the house of Yahweh he remains,”
9 Yaua was written in prophecy on walls in the pre-exilic period. Naveh reports on some “Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave (IEJ 13 (1963), 74-96). The inscriptions are from Khirbet Beit Lei near to Lachish. One inscription reads “[‘]ny yhwh ‘lhykh ‘rsh ‘ry yhdh wg’lty yrslm, ‘I am {Yaua}, your God, I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem’” (TWOT 504)
10 Yaua was written out in prayers in burial caves. Another inscription from Khirbet Beit Lei reads: “nqh yh ‘l hnn nqh yh yhwh, ‘Absolve [us] O merciful God; absolve [us], O {Yaua}’”. Another example of this is an appeal for deliverance or salvation: “hws’ yhwh, ‘Deliver [us] {Yaua}’” (TWOT 504). Cross and Naveh disagree on the readings of these texts but agree that Yaua is present and that the texts are not formulaic.
The Memorial Name in Aramaic Texts
The Preservation of the Name
In the Aramaic alphabets and texts the name has been preserved absolutely in the four letters for yhwh, Yaua and in the three letter form yau, and in the two letter form ya. It has also faced substituion by such Aramaic nouns as Mar, Marya and Maran. There are also various other substitutes which have been used to replace the name.
The earliest testimonies to forms of the memorial names comes from its presence in theophoric names.
Ninth Century B.C. Aramaic Text 1: Use, On Stelae as Identification
The name Yaua because of its perceived mystery, power and blessedness has a history in it relationship with man and a knowledge of this can only help us to understand better its role in late antiquity. It will also help us to understand better the present day discussions around the name. In terms of its full four letter written form it enters the realm of by the 9th century B.C. inscription of Mesha the king of Moab the Dibonite. This king boasted that he had finally set Moab free from the dominion of Israel. He claims Chemosh his god sent him to “Go take Nebo from Israel” (60 Pritchard, p.210).
So I went there by night and fought by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all, seven thousand men, boys women, girls and main-servants, for I had devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh.
And I took from there the […] of …[Yaua] , dragging them before Chemosh
Wa qach mashama [tak]ly Yaua waschab ham lapani kamash
(60 Pritchard, p210).
This, the oldest of the external epigraphical testimonies to the four letter form of the memorial name, was found in 1868 and later taken to the Louvre. It is carved on a black basalt stela in old Aramaic script, not the more modern Aramaic square script. There are clearly no vowels point in that script so the way of reading the name would be down to the vocalization of the three letters often used as vowels in such alphabets, yod, heh and vav. It is the earliest evidence that the original form of the name was four letters yod, heh, vav, heh and confirms the primacy which the MT gives to that form. It is written in the Aramaic of the 9th century B.C. which was very close to the Hebrew and the Phoenician of the period. It is dated around 840 to 830 B.C.
Ironically Mesha speaks of Omri, the Biblical northern Israelite king who was considered in the scripture as the worst to of those who apostatized from the worship of Yaua. “But Omri did evil in the sight of Jehovah [Yaua] and worse than all the kings that were before him. The use we see the name put to here is on the first level as part of an inscription. It is written and used to identify the God of Israel. Secondly it indicates that non Israelites knew and used the name, that is it was a public name as the MT indicates in many places. Mclaurin, who argues that the four letter form is secondary makes the point that this use which is quite negative.
YHWH is the form of the name which religious tradition has specially preserved.YHWH is however found in the Moabite stone in a religious context – the Moabite Scribe probably chose this “official” form of the name in a deliberate attempt to to humiliate the bearer still further. To prevent this profanation as far as possible the priests probably encouraged the people to abandon the true pronunciation of the Name and to read Adonai for it. And probably the people were glad to avoid this mysterious name and to read Adonai when they came to the Biblical text (42 p.462).
The skeptical attitude to Yaua shown by Mclaurin reflects his focus on the primacy of shorter forms of the memorial, “There is no conclusive early evidence that the name was ever pronounced Yahweh”(p.462). He also claims there is plenty of evidence for Hu, Yah, Yo-, Yau- -yo, -yah. This is usually in the form of theophoric names. However Toorn asserts “The form Yahweh (yhwh) has been established as primitive” (p. 910)
Here then we find the name Yaua used by local Gentile kings to refer to the deity of Israel.








The Memorial Name in Greek Texts
We will do this for the NT for the main purpose of this paper is to argue that the Christians did use the name for various purposes. The context of the use in the life and will clearly be related to what the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms , the three bodies, which the scriptures were divided into, were seen as models and authority for acceptable thought, speech and actions in the eyes of the late antique Hebrews and Christians (1 Cor 10, John 10:36, Matt 5:17). Our approach will be to enter into the potential Jesus movement and Christian use of the memorial. We will then branch out from NT evidence backwards to our Hebrew sources and forwards to further Greek and Aramaic evidence which preserves the memorial.
The Christians texts we have were normally preserved in Greek and Aramaic. There is evidence that the first gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Papias, Eusebius, Ireneus, Pantaneus, Jerome and Origen testify that Matthew wrote down sayings in Hebrew (grammaton hebraikois) and that this gospel was found as far east as India. Papias noted that others translated the gospel to Greek as they were able (52 Wenham, p.116ff). There is also a tradition in Epiphanius’ Panarion, that there were “translations” of gospel in Hebrew in the city of Tiberius with Hillel II the Jewish Patriarch from the fourth century which fell into the hands of one of his assistants after his death. There is also evidence that second century Christian books contained Yaua. This gave Bar Kochba a headache when deciding to destroy them, it was forbidden to blot out or destroy the memorial (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).
In terms of the Greek manuscripts we have, most of them come from the 4th century onwards. One convenient element about the NT documents is there uniformity in substituting either kurios (Lord) or theos (God) not only for the words they appropriately translate, such as Adon/ Adonai or el/eloah/elohim but also to replace the memorial Yaua with these common nouns.
The New Testament texts often cite or allude to the supposed LXX, that is the Greek text which the Jewish community began to translate in the 3rd century BC. From some of these references we can discover some of the uses of the memorial in the NT community either by their reference to the name of by the use of the name in the documents. Observe the chart below on the name or using the name:
Chart 1: The Name in use and the Name Referred to
Matthew
1:21 Thou shalt call his name Jesus (Iesous-Yeshua)
1:23 They shall call his name Immanuel which interpreted is God with us
1:25 And they called his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins.
6:9 Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name.
7:22 My Lord My Lord Did we not prophesy in thy name.
7:22 And in your name cast out devils,
7:22 And in your name do many wonders
12:21 And in his name will the Gentiles find hope.
18:5 And he who will welcome one little child in my name welcomes me.
18:20 For wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there among them.
21:9 Hosanna to the son of David. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (en onomati kuriou- briq hu date bashmeh dmarya) Ps 118:25-26
23:39 Jerusalem Jerusalem, murdereress of the prophets and stoner of those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children, just as a hen gathers chickens under her wings, and yet you would not! Behold your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, from now on you will not seem me until you say Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (en onomati kuriou- bashmeh dmarya)
24:5 For many will come in my name, and say I am the Christ, and they will deceive many.

Our Father in Heaven Hallowed be thy name (hagiasthetw to onoma sou) Matt 6:25
2

We will base our analysis on the MT because here the memorial is witnessed 6828 times outside of this it is preserved a few hundred times in classical Hebrew more than in any other place (41 Clines). It is usually preserved as the four letters, yod heh vav heh. However it is preserved as three letters in the theophoric names beginning with yod heh and vav and always vocalized by the masoretes and in transliteration as yeho (2a Gertoux A14), and the theophoric names ending with yod heh and vav which are always vocalized yahu . The name is also witnessed in the two letter forms yu and ya, again mainly preserved in theophoric names but ya is used as a distinct form of the name in the MT between 25 and 50 times. Gertoux notes
The Jews reserved a different treatment for these two names [Yaua and Ya] because they always agreed to pronounce the short name, contrary to the great name, which was replaced around the third century BC by its substitute Adonay (Lord). Thus the short name Yah is found in the Christian Greek writings in the expression Alleluia (Rev 19:1-6), which means “Praise Yah”. Moreover , in the Qumran writings, the Tetragram was sometimes written in Paleo Hebrew inside the Hebrew text, which was not the case for the name Yah (2a Gertoux A 14)
Whilst Gertoux point has validity it also illustrates the slimness of some of the evidence we have to deal with. Alleluia only occurs four times in the last book of the Bible. Yah occurs 50 times in MT, once in Sirach and 4 times at Qumran.
The Forbidden Uses of The memorial Yaua
a. Lo tisa Et the memorial Yaua la shav No lifting up The memorial Yaua in vanity (Ex 20)
b. Qalal : No profaning or cursing the name (Leviticus 18:21)
c. Naqav: No blaspheming the name (Lev 24:11-16)
d. Zadown: No speaking in the name presumptuously or proudly (Deu 18)
e. Zakar lo be emet: No making mention of the name when not in emet or tzdaqah (Deu 28)
f. Zakar 2: Lohazcir bethe memorial Yaua. Amos sees a time when a man will say they are not permitted to mention the memorial Yaua
g. Eish ha dam : Men who have shed (innocent) blood are not allowed to build a house for The memorial Yaua (1 Kings 5:3)
h. It is a positive command to beware of and obey the voice of and angel in whom the name Yaua is (23:21).

The Permitted, Commanded and Expected uses of The memorial Yaua

a. Qara: It is permitted and commendable to call on or call out the memorial Yaua (Deu 32:3)
b. Qara 2: It is permitted and commendable to be called by the memorial Yaua (sp)
c. Qara 3: Some things are called by the memorial Yaua (the ark, the temple, the people, some gentiles-Amos 9) (2 Sam 6:2) (
d. Davar: It is a positive command for prophets to speak in the memorial Yaua
e. Sharat: It is a positive command (especially for Levites) to minister in the memorial Yaua
f. Barak: It is a positive command or permitted for Sons of Levi and Kings and others to bless in the memorial Yaua (2 Sam 6:18, Ruth, Num 6)
g. Barak2: It is a positive command to bless the memorial Yaua
h. Amad: It is a postive command for the tribes of Levi to stand in the memorial Yaua
i. Bo: It is blessed for some to come in the memorial Yaua
j. Bo2: It is permitted to defend in the memorial Yaua and to declare that one is doing so.
k. Amar: It is permitted to say in and to say the memorial Yaua(Is 45, Deu 18)
l. Shaba: It is a positive command to swear by or make an oath in or to cause to swear by the memorial Yaua as long as it is in truth (emet).
m. Banah: It is permitted for a Hebrew king who has not shed innocent blood to build for the memorial Yaua (1Kings 3).
n. Zamar: It is permitted to sing the memorial Yaua. (Ps 7:17)
o. Nazcir: It is permitted to remember the memorial Yaua. (Ps 20:7)
p. Yiyra: It is expected that goyim will fear the memorial Yaua (Ps 102:15,Is 59:19)
q. Lesaper: Yaua beholds the earth to declare the memorial Yaua in Zion (Ps 102:21)
r. Halelu et the memorial Yaua: It is commanded to praise the memorial Yaua.
s. Amilam: It is permitted for a king to circumcise or cut off in the memorial Yaua.
t. Lehodot le the memorial Yaua: The tribes of Israel went to Jerusalem to give thanks to the memorial Yaua.(Ps 122:4)
u. Ezrenu bethe memorial Yaua: It is permitted to declare that your help is in the memorial Yaua and thus to receive help from the memorial Yaua.
v. Yarotz: The righteous are permitted to consider the memorial Yaua as a strong tower (migdal oz) and to run into it for safety and in it they are safe (nisgav)
w. El meqom the memorial Yaua: It is expected that a present (shay) will be brought to the place of the memorial Yaua from beyond rivers of Cush (naharei cush) (Isa 18)
x. Hineh: It is permitted to behold the memorial Yaua (Is 30.27)
y. Batach: It is permitted to trust in the memorial Yaua.
z. Le ahavah et the memorial Yaua: Sons of strangers are commended for loving the memorial Yaua.
aa. Lehavi: Sons, silver and gold shall be brought to the memorial Yaua (Isaiah 60:9) in the resoration prophesied.
bb. Niqvu: All the goyim shall gather to, wait for, hope or expect the memorial Yaua (Jer 3:17)
cc. Nava: It is permitted and commanded that one sent should prophesy in the memorial Yaua.
dd. Vaanachnu nelek beshem-Yaua eloheinu leolam vaed: Micah sees that in the end Israel will walk in the memorial Yaua forever.
ee. It is permitted and commendable to write the memorial Yaua in letters of correspondence Jer 29)
ff. Ani Yaua:It is commanded that legal decrees be on the authority of the memorial Yaua (Exod 21-24)
gg. It is commendable to write the name Yaua on all the pots and bells of Jerusalem (Zech 14:10)
hh. It is a positive command to write the name Yaua on the high priests mitre.
ii. It is a positive command for the high priest to intercede using the memorial Yaua on Yom Kippur (Lev 16)

From this list the MT texts positive commands or exhortations, permissions and restrictions regarding the memeorial Yaua has




Although from the time of Jesus we have no clear ban on the use of the name for purposes of prophecy, taking an oath, for praising and praying and calling on it, we know that restrictions had already entered the community regarding the use of the memorial name. If any of these restrictions were considered to contravene the direct instruction of authoritative scripture or what the private individual or sectarian group considered to be necessary and acceprtable practice, that practice on the whole will move from the public realm to the private realm.
We find clear evidence that Jesus identified the apostles with the prophets (Matt 5-7). Jesus also understood himself as a prophet, for in the first case he said to the disciples that as the Jewish authorities had persecuted the prophets so they would persecute them. And Simon Peter after the resurrection speaks of Jesus as the prophet which Moses spoke about (Acts 3). According to Exodus 6, Moses had the memorial name made known to him in a way which it was not made known to Abraham . And Jesus made known his Fathers name to the men whom his Father gave him out of the world (John 17:26). Moses came and spoke in the name Yaua and even complained to Yaua, that ever since he had gone to the Pharoah to speak in the memorial name things had taken a turn for the worse. In fact Yaua had not delivered Israel at all. The claim in Acts (3-4) that Jesus is the prophet like Moses and in all the gospels that he came in the name of Yaua (John 12, Matt 21, Mark 11, Luke 13 and 19) gives us strong reason to infer, along with the later Jewish traditions regarding the ministry of Jesus, that Jesus actually used the name Yaua in his ministry. Toldot Yeshu the medieval Jewish caricature of the gospels indicates very clearly that among themselves the unbelieving Jews, who despised Jesus and opposed his message in their writings, believed that he performed miracles. And he performed the miracles by speaking the letters of the name Yaua over the sick person for example or to enable himself to ascend into heaven. The textual, literary and historical problem we have is that in the New Testament Manuscripts still preserved we only have Greek substitutes for the full memorial name (Metzger, 1981). There are many surrogates for the name but the full name itself does not occur, neither in transliteration as IAW , nor through the writing of the memorial name in Paleo Hebrew, Aramaic Square Script, or transcribing into Greek letters, pipi, which looks like the name. These are the ways the name was portrayed by the Jewish contemporaries of the Hebrew disciples when writing the Greek scriptures ((40) Fitzmyer, 1979, (18) Kahle 1959). Of the thousands of manuscripts we have of the New Testament, not a single fragment of evidence has been found to indicate that the authors of the New Testament wrote the memorial name in the text of their writings.
This is very strange considering that it is clear that the New Testament identifies Jesus at one moment with Moses (Acts 3) at another moment with Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4). When Jesus asked his disciples who the people thought he was, they responded by saying, John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets (Matt 16). A cursory glance at the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures and the stories of Moses, Elijah and Elisha and Jeremiah will indicate the pertinent point that each of them spoke and performed miracles in the name Yaua. Moses we have already noticed, but the first century Jew on reading about Elijah sees a man who stood alone for Yaua in Israel (James 5:17). He, standing against 950 prophets of other gods, and having shown an incredible sign, fire falling from heaven, saw all Israel prostrate before Yaua and crying “Yaua hu ha elohim, Yaua hu ha elohim” (1 Kings 18). A cursory look at Elisha shows a prophet who on facing the whole Syrian Army simply says “Yaua close their eyes” and they lose all awareness of where they are. This same prophet says “Yaua open his eyes”, and his servant Gehazi can see all the armies of Yaua surrounding the army of Syria (2 Kings 6). These prophets, Moses, Elijah and Elisha were adepts in the use of the name Yaua. As for John the Baptist, he was seen as a prophet by the people so much so that Jesus could challenge the chief priests (archiereis) and the elders of the people (prebuteroi) with the question “The Baptism of John was it from heaven or from men?” and they feared to deny speak against John’s authority because the people considered him a prophet. When we turn see what the Church has handed regarded the ministry of John the Baptist we find a number of key elements. Firstly John in in the wilderness making ready a way for Yaua, for the scripture cited in the Greek of the New Testament is Isaiah which reads
Qol qore bamidbar panu dereqYaua
Phwne bowntos en te eremw etoimasate ten hodon kuriou (Matt 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4).
It is highly unlikely that John was prophesying to the Hebrews in the Greek language. Thus they were thinking at the time of John not as a prophet of kurios but as a prophet of Yaua. The evidence for this has some weight to it. Firstly, John is compared to Elijah, who was the prophet of Yaua par excellence. Yaua promised in the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures, considered the last of the prophets, to send Elijah before the great and terrible day of Yaua. Secondly, John was proclaiming the “Repent, kingdom of Heaven is at hand”. The idea of kingdom in the Hebrew mind is linked very much with the idea of the shema. And to say the shema for the Jews was to take on the yoke of the Kingdom (mber 2:2). The shema starts with a declaration of Yaua’s name twice. “Shema Israel Yaua, Eloheinu, Yaua echad” (Hear Israel, Yaua is our God, Yaua is one). The kingdom was also associated with the name Yaua in the temple. When the priest would say the name Yaua in the temple on Yom Kippur all the people would prostrate themselves in the temple courtyards and proclaim “Baruch shem kavod malchuto le olam va ed” (mYoma 6.2). Thus we see again the name Yaua has a close association with the kingdom of heaven in the mind of the first century Hebrew. Thirdly John went out baptising. There is also evidence that baptism was also associated with the name Yaua in the mind of the Pharisees and Hemerobaptists in the tosephta (Tos Yad.ii.20, JE “Baptism”). According to this evidence the name Yaua was uttered apart of the baptism ritual, perhaps in a similar way to how the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were used in later baptism ceremonies. John was a priest and the son of the priest Zachariah. Like the priests Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Malachi before him the word of Yaua came to him and he began to proclaim in the name Yaua what Yaua told him to proclaim. We must bear in mind there is no recorded prohibition against prophesying in the name Yaua. Indeed according to the Torah if a prophet prophesied in any other name he was ought to receive the death penalty for trying to lead Israel astray(Deu 18, Deu 13). It would not simply be John’s clothing which would convince the people that he might be Elijah. The New Testament evidence suggests that Jesus himself saw John not just as his forerunner but as the Elijah to come.(Matt 17:12, Mk 9:13). Elijah was the prophet who stood up for the name Yaua when almost all of Israel had abandoned it. When then we see John was associated with Elijah and Jesus was associated with John and Elijah we have weighty evidence that this is association is connected to the name Yaua which they may have been proclaiming. This however brings the depth of our historical problem to the fore.


This memorial name of Abraham’s God is at the center of the life of Israel from the time of Moses perhaps before, right through to the time of Jeremiah when Israel went into exile. In that period of about 872 years the memorial name of the God of Israel was used by the people of Israel in many aspects of their lives. It was the God which the people were known to serve even in the dark ages of the 9th century BC under Omri and Mesha inscription testifies that the land of Israel was the land of Yaua. After this period the people of Israel went into exile to Babylon. And began to wonder “How can we sing Yaua’s song in a strange land (Psalm 139)? Just before this exile the name came under a challenge. According to the record of Jeremiah there was an attempt among a groups of prophets to cause the people to forget the name Yaua, which meant to forget Yaua’s authority and to replace this with another source of authority:
How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams , which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal
According to Yaua these prophets have a goal. The goal is to cause the people to forget (shachach) his name, as their fathers had forgotten his name for Baal. We see here to replacements for the name Yaua. The first is the title Baal and the second the Dreams of the prophets. According to Jeremiahs prophecy it was the intention of the prophets to cause the name to be forgotten, the plot against the name was deliberately contructed. It would not be an accident if the name was forgotten it would be the result of the planning of these prophets. As we have seen above Jesus was perceived to be a prophet like Jeremiah by some of the people in his time. They had read the prophecies of Jeremiah and knew the issues he addressed. We find some grounds for their position in the evidence we have regarding Jesus attitude to the name and its replacement. In Johns gospel Jesus makes a similar accusation against some of the people of his day. “I am come in my Fathers name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (John 5:43). Jesus spoke these words to that nebulous group among the Hebrew called “oi Ioudaioi” . A group whom Jesus said searched the scriptures because thought that in them they had life and who were so zealous that they were persecuting Jesus because he healed people on Shabbat. The evidence that the name Yaua in the name in sight and not simply and nebulous authority We see in the context of John 5 that Jesus is continually referring to the Son and is making God his Father. This would point to him being the son of David for the Psalms (2 and 89) indicate that the Messiah would be the son of Yaua. In Psalm 89 we some particular parallels with the themes of John 5. “Justice and Judgement are the habitation of thy throne” (Ps 89:14) says the Psalm and Jesus says “For not even the Father judges anyone , but he has given all judgement to the Son” (John 5:22). “In my name shall his horn be exalted” (Ps 89:24) and Jesus says “I have come in my Fathers name”(John 5:43). However the key connection is perhaps the fact that Jesus calls God his Father. He does not simply call God “Our Father” referring to Israel but his Father referring to him personally. The Psalmist prophesies of the seed of David “He shall cru unto me , Thou art my Father, my God and the rock of my salvation”.

Usage in Daily life
Palestine Aramaic Judaism

Contents
The Hebrew Context
Andersen. F. I., & Forbes. A. Dean. The Vocabulary of the Old Testament. (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto, 1989)
Gianotti, C.R. “The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH.” Bibliotheca Sacra. Jan-Mar,(1985), 38-51

Hertog, Cornelius Den. “The Prophetic Dimension of the Divine Name: On Exodus #:14a and Ist Context.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 64 (2002), 213-229.
Karel, van der Toorn., Becking, Bob., & Van der Horst. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible 2nd rev ed (Leiden: Brill, 1999).
Kutscher, The Language of the Isaiah 1Q1Sa

Jenni. E., & Westerman C. “Yahweh.” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Vol 2. Trans. Mark. E. Biddle. Hendrikson Publishers



Appendix 1
Emil Hirsch on the Jehovah
By : Emil G. Hirsch

(see image) Valley of Jehoshaphat.(From a photograph by Bonfils.)
A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "qere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")—"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. "Adonay" presents the vowels "shewa" (the composite under the guttural א becomes simple under the י), "holem," and "ḳameẓ," and these give the reading (= "Jehovah"). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with "chatef segol" () under the י —thus, (="Jehovah")—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced "Elohim" (). These substitutions of "Adonay"and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written, or even, and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name ").
The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI =] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κύριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κύριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila).
"Jehovah" is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X.'s confessor, Peter Galatin ("De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis," 1518, folio xliii.), who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius (= Büchlein, 1504-49). Drusius (= Van der Driesche, 1550-1616) was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of "Jehovah," and this view has been taken since his days (comp. Hastings, "Dict. Bible," ii. 199, s.v. "God"; Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterb." 1899, p. 311; see Drusius on the tetragrammaton in his "Critici Sacri, i. 2, col. 344). But it seems that even before Galatin the name "Jehovah" had been in common use (see Drusius, l.c. notes to col. 351). It is found in Raymond Martin's "Pugio Fidei." written in 1270 (Paris, 1651, iii., pt. ii., ch. 3, p. 448; comp. T. Prat in "Dictionnaire de la Bible," s.v.). See also Names of God.
The pronunciation "Jehovah" has been defended by Stier ("Hebr. Lehrgebäude") and Hölemann ("Bibelstudien.," i.).
The use of the composite "shewa" "qatef segol" () in cases where "Elohim" is to be read has led to the opinion that the composite "shewa" "qatef patach" () ought to have been used to indicate the reading "Adonay." It has been argued in reply that the disuse of the "pataḥ" is in keeping with the Babylonian system, in which the composite "shewa" is not usual. But the reason why the "pataḥ" is dropped is plainly the non-guttural character of the "yod"; to indicate the reading "Elohim," however, the "segol" (and "ḥirek" under the last syllable, i.e.,) had to appear in order that a mistake might not be made and "Adonay" be repeated. Other peculiarities of the pointing are these: with prefixes ("waw," "bet," "min") the voweling is that required by "Adonay": "wa-Adonay," "ba-Adonay," "me-Adonay." Again, after "Yhwh" (= "Adonay") the "dagesh lene" is inserted in, which could not be the case if "Jehovah" (ending in ה) were the pronunciation. The accent of the cohortative imperatives (), which should, before a word like "Jehovah," be on the first syllable, rests on the second when they stand before, which fact is proof that the Masorites read "Adonay" (a word beginning with "a").

Bibliography: Schrader-Schenkel, Bibellexikon, iii. 147 et seq.;
Köhler, De Pronunciatione Tetragrammatis, 1867;
Driver, Recent Theories on the . . . Pronunciation, etc., in Studia Biblica, i., Oxford, 1885;
Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj und Seine Gesch. 1889;
Dillmann, Kommentar zu Exodus und Leviticus, p. 39, Leipsic, 1897;
Herzog-Hauck, Real-Encyc. viii., s.v. Jahve.

Appendix 2 William Foxwell Albright and David Freedman
Form Vl Stem Meaning Notes
Yahwe Hwy to fall, become, come to existence Not qal imperfect (yihwayu>yihye> YHYH)
Yahwe Later indicative Hifil yihwayu>yahwiyu>Yahwe
Yahu Abbreviated form and Jussive form of imperfect causative. Shortened to yau in Israelite personal names and later to yah (p 259).
Yahwe Tzevaoth He who causes the hosts of Israel to come into existence
Yahwe shalom He who causes peace to exist
Yahwe yira He who causes worship to exist
Yahwe asher Yihye
Yahweh Pronounced like this “as we know from Greek transcriptions” (Albright, p.259)
Linguistically it can only be causative. It is probably an abbreviation of a longer name of litany formula, looking at analogies from Babylonia, Egypt and Canaan.
Yaum ilu Mine is the god, the most plausible of alternative meanings.
Yaua He blows
He fells
He loves
He is kindly
He causes to be (the only meaning that yields suitable sense.
No real evidence for a storm god
No real evidence for
No real evidence for a modified moon god.
Sinai Zuen>Zen, Accadian Sin (moon god of Ur as nannar) improbable
Sinai from place name sin or seneh (Aram sanya) bush Moses saw theophany.

Ehyeh asher ehyeh Would become when transposed in third person Yahweh asher yihweh > yihyeh
If transposed assuming causative Yahweh.”He causes to be what comes into existence.
This proposed solution is not isolated “we have it again and again in eyptian texts of the second millennium B.C. (a god) who causes to be (or who creates) what comes into existence’ See Gret hymn to Amun 15th century BC.

These last four without parallel in ancient near east onomastics.
Arguments:
1 Yahu is more original than Yahweh:
1ans all epigraphic and linguistic facts arre opposed to this.
2 This or that personal or divine name earlier non Israelite divine name shows a prototype.
2ans not impossible but every suggestion has been disproved.including the latest on Ugarit where Viroleaud suggest yw is “identical to Yahweh” p.259. Context doesn’t fit

Appendix 3
Chapter 5: An Emphasis on the Tetragrammaton
The use of the Tetragrammaton in the original writings of the Christian Scriptures is a central teaching of the Watch Tower Society. The Society teaches that Jehovah's name—written in Hebrew letters as יהוה—was used by the original writers of the Christian Scriptures, and that the present content of the Greek text (which does not use the Tetragrammaton) took form as a result of heresy and subsequent changes made by the scribes who copied the Scriptures. These scribes presumably changed the four Hebrew letters (YHWH) to the Greek word Kyrios.
A concise summary of this teaching is given in Appendix 1D of the New World Translation Reference Edition (page 1564). We quote in part:
Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures [in his gospel written in Hebrew[1]]. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.
[1] In this same section, Jerome is quoted as stating that there was a gospel written in Hebrew by Matthew. The testimony of Jerome must be accepted as being reliable. There is no reason to doubt that Matthew wrote a parallel gospel in Hebrew.
Not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter's speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God's name, Jehovah. When Peter's speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.
Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky'ri.os, Lord or The.os', "God."
Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how N[ew] T[estament] authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, יהוה (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate κς [abbreviation for ky'ri.os, Lord]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS [manuscript] tradition of the NT text itself."
We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a "theory," rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.

KIT KIT J20 Documentation NWT