The Zakar Yaua theory
Appendix 1 : The Zacar Yaua Thesis
The theory I posit I will call the Zakar Yaua theory of the name.
In the Zakar Yaua theory we analyse the changes in terms of three phases. The Memorial Phase, the Forgetting Phase or the Rewriting Phase and the EliminationPhase. These are the three phases which the name Yaua goes through until it completely disappears from texts and the life a group. The treatment of the name takes place in certain parts of the community not all parts of the Jewish and Christian community went through these stages. The Memorial Phase is the time when the name was used freely in a group. It, for example, applies to the writers of the Lachish Letters nd other pre exilic documents. Here the name is used completely and freely as part of the Jewish community in 6th century BC. “May {Yaua} make my lord hear good news soon”, is typical greeting in one of these letters. The Forgetting Phase or the Rewriting Phase is exemplified by the exilic Elephantine Papyri where the name is shortened from Yaua to Yau. The Elimination Phase is represented in earlier Israel by the replacement of Yaua by “Baal” (Jerem 23:27) and the replacement in the Mishna by such substitutes as Heh and in the dead sea scrolls by four dots and the replacement in the Greek text of Iaw by kurios. This hypothesis only describes the process of change. The causes of change also need to be addressed. Here I posit that the name has three main contexts of function. The Prophet Power and Might function, the Identity Priestly Temple function and the State Legal Authority function. My thesis holds that whilst these functions are in place the name continues to be used in a community or group. But when one of these functions or the institutions representing these functions disappear, or pass through major transformation, the use of the name is subject to change.
The Prophet, Power and Might function of Yaua
The Prophet, Power and Might function is exemplified in the names use as the authority and signature in prophetic words. All true signs and wonders are to be referred to his name. Those of the true prophet to confirm that the word spoken was a word of Yaua. Moses exemplifies this function at two levels the first was the sign he showed Israel to demonstrate he was the deliverer sent by Yaua. His first of turning water to blood was paralleled by Jesus turning water to the blood of the grape, wine. The second in seeing that the words he prophesied were fulfilled. By this they knew this was a words Yaua had spoken (Deu 18). This function is also illustrated by Solomon’s prayer that Gnetiles would come from a far land pray to Yaua and that he would answer them. They would then go back to their nations and tell how great the God Yaua was. That he would have demonstrated his power to the strangers. The greatness of his name as a result of the power would then be spread abroad among the nations. Yaua’s desire for this universal reputation is seen in his declaration to Pharoah “For this reason have I raised thee up to manifest my power in thee and that my name my be declared in all the earth” (Exod 9), and the prophetic word of Malachi “For I am a great king and my name is great in all the earth” (Mal 1:14). This function is also represented in the “magical” use of the name to heal the sick or cast out demons. Where the function continues the group using the name tends to preserve the whole name it recieved and to use it. In Hebrew the whole name is Yaua but Ya also used and in Greek Iaw and Iao.
This function is also exemplified by statements of prophets as Jeremiah: “Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is [Yaua]”.
The Identity Priestly Temple Function of Yaua
The Identity Priestly Temple Function is rooted in the tradition that the name is the special preserve of the sons of Aaron who are given the role of putting Yaua’s name on the sons of Israel. The key words of the Aaronic blessing represent a central feature of this function. “Yevereqa Yaua ve yishmereqa, Yaer Yaua panav eleiqa vichuneqa, Yisa Yaua panav eleiqa veyasem leqa shalom”. These words were used daily in the temple to put Yaua’s name on the people of Israel. They also preserved the usage of the name very clearly as long as the temple was standing. The Levites had the function of guarding the the house of Yaua (beit Yaua) and of praising Yaua in Psalms. This activity also took place in the temple and in the first temple period would have been part of the memorial phase. With the destruction of the first temple and the exile to Babylon we have evidence of reticence to singing Yaua’s song in a strange land (Ps 139). These songs of Yaua were seen a songs of Zion. Again they were a way of preserving the name but the evidence we have of the use of the name in these songs in later period is slim. The Psalms are full of references to the name and reflections on the name, Yaua was glorified in these songs. The role of baptism and seems to belong under the head of the prophetic and the priestly functions. This is partyl because these two functions most definitely over lap. Many of the prophets came from among the sons of Aaron, for example Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Malachi. This was because the presence of Yaua was very strong in his house and it was from their and the word of Yaua often went forth. The house of Yaua was the place where he was praised daily and we see in the case of Elisha that singing and praise lead to the coming of the Spirit and the word of prophecy. All prophets to be considered genuine had to proclaim in the name of Yaua. The Essenes and John the Baptist practiced baptism and they were also descendants of the priesthood. It is not however exclusively a priestly acitivity. The Pharisees also practiced baptism and they were most definitely not a priestly group although they had connection with priests.
The State Legal Authority Function
Since much of the set up Israel was delivered through the prophecies of Moses we again have an overlap with the prophetic function. However in the Legal Authority Function the name Yaua is used as a signature to the judgements (mishpatim) Yaua gives to Moses and the Israelites to guide the nations. Many of the decrees have the signature “Ani Yaua”. We see from the beginning of the monarchy under King Saul and before this in the period of the judges, judgments that were made on the authority of Yaua. Yaua used the kings to execute his decrees in his name. An illustration of Yaua’s sovereignty exercised through the kings is that of Yau (Jehu). Elisha sends a prophet appoint him king and to give him his assignment. The child of the prophets went to Ramoth Gilead and found Jehu and said to him:
Thus saith Yaua , I have anointed thee king over the people of Yaua, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yaua, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel.
King David was in the habit of consulting directly with Yaua when he had to make a military decisions and had the ability through song to bring the Spirit of Yaua on to a person. He also claimed that the Spirit of Yaua spoke by him and his word of covenant was on his lips.
While this three contexts of the functions of the name Yaua stood there would be a tendency for the use of the name Yaua to be maintained. However when were removed there was a tendency for the name to disappear from that function. So when Israel lost its state authority in Elephantine the name lost its final heh. It what was perhaps its long movement in Egypt away from Yaua to Yau to Iaw to kurios. This illustration I have given is a bit extreme but this at the end of the day is just one process the name would go through until it was transformed out from a particularly community.
Whilst State Authority may lose the name or turn away from the name for example from Yaua to Baal, the prophetic function would act as a guardian of the name. So when Israel in the north rejected Yaua from Baal Yaua raised up Elijah to preserve the name. Elijah anointed Elisha who sent the child of the prophet to Jehu. He then went and executed Yaua’s word on Yaua’s enemies. And so the prophets would through the prophetic word acts as guardians of the name selecting persons they considered willing and able to execute the decrees of Yaua. This function kicked in under extreme occasions. In general the guardianship of the name was in the hands of the family of Levi, starting with Moses and Aaron but continuing from generation to generation. It was they who stood and ministered before Yaua. And whilst in the provinces the name Yaua had already passed through a Eliminationphase, in the temple of Jerusalem in the first century it was still in the memorial phase right up until the destruction of the temple. After the temple destruction the name came under challenge and with the disappearance of the priesthood came the supposed disappearance of the name.
The Zakar Yaua theory and the Hebrew and Aramaic Evidence for the Name
The Memorial Phase
The Hebrew and Aramaic evidence for the use of the memorial name in its full form span at least a two thousand year period. When we say the Hebrew and Aramaic evidence we are talking about not simply the occurrence of the name in the Aramaic alphabet but the occurrence of the name in Hebrew or Aramaic documents. By far the greatest number of occurrences of the name in the Memorial Phase occurs in the Masoretic text of the tenth century. Although the manuscripts for this text are late there is clear evidence that the source of this text is extremely ancient. Kutschner argues from the form of theophoric names that the text goes back to an earlier source than that of the dead sea scrolls. The Masoretic text in Jewish tradition can be divided into three sections, The Torah, the Prophets and the Ketuvim. Jenni and Westermann (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament) give a total figure of 6828 occurrences of the name, Torah 1820, Prophets 3523 and Ketubim 1485. Andersen and Forbes agree with the total and give a distribution: Torah 1820, Former Prophets 1406, Latter Prophets 2117, Poetry 814 and Other Writings 671. The Masoretic text clearly represent a text in the Memorial Phase in terms of the written usage of the name. However according to evidence furnished by the Masoretes and other manuscript the Masoretes changed the name in at least 134 places to adonai. This would make a total of 6962 occurrences of the name in the text received but then changed by the Masoretes.
Although the Masoretic text (MT) is an exemplary example of a Memorial phase text, we see in the changes brought into a text a movement to the Rewriting Phase and finally to the Elimination Phase. The note of Ginsburg is worth observing:
We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonaī as if it were written אדני [’Adho·nai´] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.
(Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115,)
Thus according to Ginsburg the restriction on the use of the true name by this particular group within medieval Jewish Orthodoxy lead to changes in the text itself, whether by carelessness of copyists or deliberately in line with the whims of the particular copyist. This is apparently surprising when we read such injunctions in the MT itself as Deu 4:2 “Do not add (yasaph) to what I command and do not subtract from it, but keep the command of Yaua your God that I give you”. But not so surprising when we hear the concerns of Jeremiah regarding scribes of his time “How can you say “We are wise, for we have the Torah of Yaua when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely” (Jer 8:8).
The pen of the Masoretes has had much influence on both Jewish and Christian traditions regarding the name. Whilst the pen preserved the name Yaua in approximately 6828 places of the present text they supposedly added vowel points to four letters yod he vav he which did not present the true reading of the name. These additions have caused great division in traditional and academic community regarding the true vocalization of the name.
Zakar Yaua Theory and the Actions of the Masoretes
In the text of the 24 books of the Tanakh the Masoretes added varying sets of vowels according to the relationship of the name Yaua to the letters and words around it. There seem to be four main sets of vowel points.
1 Yehoah: The letters and vowels read yod shewa heh holem vav qametz heh. The vowel points usually said to be those used for Adonai so that on seeing the vowels the reader ignores the name Yaua and reads a replacement in this case Adonai. However if one turns to Adonai in the MT he does not find these vowel points but shewa-patach holem and qametz. Thus Adonai is spelt aleph,shewa-patach daleth holem nun qametz yod. Although they are different it is maintained among some scholars that shewa holem qametz are directing the reader to shewa-patach holem and qametz and to Adonai which is supported by Adonai being written into the margin of some texts.
The differences had lead some scholars to question the thesis that the pointing is designed to indicate Adonai and may in fact indicate how the name was understood to have been vocalized. There is evidence that Yehoah was in use by 1270. In that year it appears in Raymond Martin’s Pugio Fide. Van der Diesche (Drusius 1550-1616) first ascribed it to Peter Galatin, Pope Leo X’s confessor, and many have followed this opinion. He used it in Arcanis Catolicæ Vertatis (1518, folio xliii). Fagius (Buchlein 1504-1549) followed Galatin in its use (97 Hastings). In the ninteenth century Yehoah was defended by Stier, Hebr. Lehrgebaude and Holemann (Bibelstudien).
It is not only the “holiness” of the name which affects its treatment, it very frequency of occurrence also has an influence. According to Davidson (100) in the ketibh Qere model the ketibh is the consonantal text. When the Masoretes wanted to indicated a reading alternative to what was actually written the vowels of the reading were placed under the ketibh and “the consonants which could not find a place in the text , were set in the margin. This recommended reading is” Qere. A small circle over the ketibh draws attention to the margin. Where the Masoretes substitute along with the word qri . Davidson gives the example of Gen 24:14. The word in the text is hanaar the margin reading is hanaarah. However according to Davidson this procedure is not followed in the case of Yaua. “In the case of [Yaua] and a few other words of very frequent occurrence, the Qere is not placed in the margin, but its vowels are simply inserted in the text” (Davison 41). Thus frequency of occurrence affects the treatment of the name.
The Hebrew grammars as developed by modern Hebraists (For before Saadia of Gaon of the ninth century there were no Hebrew Grammars), justify the difference on assumed or derived rules of Hebrew grammar they have used. In this academic tradition the name Yehowah is seen as grammatically impossible or as a hybrid which the ignorant late medieval Christians introduced into their tradition. Many European translators have been influenced directly by this tradition. Thus the translators of the Revised Standard Version (1973) indicate:
A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but every where, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the Kings James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translator and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh”, this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached the vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”).… The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word…For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (I) the word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church. (RSV, 1973,vii)
As can be seen this modern translation justifies the Rewritng Phase by arguing that the vowel points use the Masoretes placed on Yaua belonged to another word. And thus since Yehovah had supposedly not ever been used in Hebrew it should not be used in translation. However this still left justification for putting their proposed favored “Yahweh” into the text. However this case was removed on the basis of the theology of the translators, they decided philosophically that a name, despite the vast majority of the Biblical writings presenting solid evidence that the God who spoke to the prophets had a proper name, was unnecessary and so eliminated the name Yaua from their translation completely. It is true that the statement of the Committee is vague or inaccurate on almost every single line. The issues will be taken up as we develop the Zakar Yaua thesis. For now we recognize two things: The vowel points of Yaua are different from those of Adonai and this will be thousands of the cases. In the three cases where Yaua is used as part of a proper name the Yehowah form is used. Thus we have according to the vowel pointing of the masoretes
Yehoah elohim (He who causes the mighty ones)
Yehoah el olam (He who causes God eternal)
Yehoah tzevaoth (He who causes the hosts)
Yehoah yireh (He who causes will see),
Yehoah nisi (He who causes my banner),
Yehoah tzidkenu (He who causes our righteousness),
Yehoah shalom (He who causes peace),
Yehoah shammah. (He who causes place)
These readings are based on the interpretation of Botterweck and Ringgren of the name Yaua.
In the MT Elimination Phase oral reading tradition each of these meanings is changed completely.
Adonai elohim (my Lord mighty ones)
Adonai el olam (My lord God eternal
Adonai yireh My Lord will see
Adonai nisi My Lord my banner
Adonai tzidkenu My Lord our righteousness
Adonai Shalom My Lord Peace
Adonai Shammah My Lord Place
Although the RSV (1973) committee understands Adonai to mean “Lord” and some scholarship and usage support this position the pronominal suffix, yod and the Maimonides indicate the letters aleph daleth nun yod mean either my Lord or my Lords.
2 Yehovih The second way the Masoretes pointed the letters gives the reading Yehovih. The letters and points are yod shewa segol heh holem vav hireq heh This pointing occurs when the name Yaua and Adonai occur together in the Masoretic text. Theses point are the same as those by which Elohim aleph shewa-segol lamed holem heh yod hireq mem is pointed. During this elimination phase the fact that the eliminators of the name have chosen a one of the titles of Yaua to replace his name causes them a problem. Adonai and Yaua are combined in the MT approximately 294 times.[1]
Thus in these cases where the reading tradition would require Adonai Adonai
A comparison of the reading of a text in the Memorial and Phase and one in the Rewritten Phase can be illustrated. A memorial phase reading of Numbers 6:24 –27 will illustrated the differences very starkly.
Memorial Phase Forgotten Phase
Yaua bless you and keep you Adonai bless you and keep you
Yaua make his face shine upon you Adonai make his face shine upon you
And be gracious to you and be gracious to you
Yaua life up his face upon you Adonai life up his face upon you
And give you peace and give you peace
The effect of the practice is to completely replace the actual name of the God of Abraham in the text. It is true that usually what we have in the first case is the written text and what we have in the Forgotten Phase is the text of the oral tradition but as generations past some may arise who never knew the memorial name Yaua and may grow up believing that Adonai is the name of their God.[2]
The danger of this occurring is recognized in the MT itself. Those who see the danger represent the groups who would be among those seeking with their utmost to preserve the name in text and in usage. The first example is Psalm 20, attributed to David. The Psalm is in some sense devoted to the name of God beginning with:
Yaua hear thee in the day of trouble
The name of the God of Jacob defend thee
Here we see the name in what might be considered a power function. The name Yaua is answer by “the name of the God of Jacob” in the parallelism. The whole Psalm has an interest in the power and memorial function of the name. Verse seven emphasizes the importance of remembrance directly in another parallel:
Some trust in chariots, Some trust in horses
But we will remember the name of Yaua our God
Yaua save the king
Veanachnu bashem Yaua eloheinu mazcir…
Yaua hoshia ha melech
There is a clear attachment to the name Yaua in the text which precludes a substitutes because Yaua was given as the memorial (zeker) to Moses in the Torah. The prayer is mizmor ladavid a Psalm to or for David. It is clear from the context of the psalm written as a prayer for the king. It is most likely then that those assigned to the role of encouraging the king were the ones who would be praying this prayer or singing this mizmor. This would place it among the Levites and the Priests who were given the task of upholding the king before God. They were also the ones assigned by God to the ministry of his name. The fact that they affirm that they will mazcir (remember ) the name of Yaua as opposed to trusting in chariots or horses indicates the belief in the power of the name of God to defend the king, but also the recognition of a threat to the name from these other sources which could lead to the forgetting of the name.
A text in MT Jeremiah also recognizes this danger, as we mentioned earlier.
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 neighbor,
As their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal
This tendency among parts of Israel to move into the forgetting phase or even to have certain persons planning to cause the people to forget the name is seen by some Israelites as leading to dire consequences and it is seen as a reason for Yaua to judge and punish Israel:
To forget Yaua’s name is the same as forgetting him:
All this is come upon us;
Yet we have not forgotten(shakach) thee…
If we have forgotten the name of our God
Or stretched out our hand to a strange god (al zar)
Shall not God (alohim) search this out.
The assumption is that if they had forgotten the name there would be some justification for what had come upon them. The contrast between the name of Israel’s God, Yaua, and that of strange gods, for example, Ashur or Molech, that is those of other names, is also brought out in the MT Torah. The remembrance of the names of other gods is proscribed “make no mention (Lo tizkiru) of the names of other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth (la yishma al piqa) (Ex 23:13). It is clear the proscription is to do with the vocalization or the speaking of the names of other deities. The verb zakar, that is connected with the name Yaua as memorial (Ex 3) is that referred to in the proscription. Thus although it is clear that the reference to the name refers not simply to the speaking and the writing of the name the encouragements to remember Yaua and serve him most definitely include the recognition of the personal name as a name to be used in various functions, for example to prophesy, praise and make oaths.
The Memorial Phase of the use of the name in the MT sees then a group who were out to protect and guard the use of the name. They even understood that the forgetting of the name would be justification for certain judgments. In the MT Memorial phase of the name many formulaic expressions were developed which used the name. Examples of the Rewriting Phase indicate that some of these expressions are retained but in the Elimination Phase Yaua completely disappears from these expressions and is replaced by a more general or common noun which later takes on features of a proper noun as though it exclusively referred to Yaua. There are a number of texts which exhibit both the Rewriting Phase and the Elimination Phase inside MT. Below we can see many of the expressions developed in the Biblical period MT. When the manuscripts we have of the MT were being copied most of these expressions were not vocally in use. For the writers of the MT were people living the rest of their lives in the Rewriting or in the Elimination Phase. This is demonstrated in looking at the writings of the Talmud from the period, that is the 10th century AD onwards and Jewish tradition as summarized by such writers as Maimonides.
Prophet Might Power Priest and Temple Legal Authority Other
Yaua Tzevaoth Yaua eloheinu Chi Yaua
Yaua elohim Panai Yaua Yaua tzidkinu
pi Yaua has spoken Shem Yaua Yom Yaua
Malaq Yaua Shiru la Yaua Ani Yaua
Adonai Yaua Malaq Yaua beoz Yaua
Koh Amar Yaua Yaua yireh bigon shem Yaua elohaiv
Neum Yaua Behar Yaua Yireh vePasach Yaua
Ani Yaua eloheiqa amad liphnei Yaua venoqev shem Yaua mot yumat
Anoki Anoki Yaua Baruch haba beshem Yaua
Et Yad Yaua Ana Yaua hoshiah na
Yamin Yaua romeimah Ana Yaua hatlicha na
Vayera alaiv Yaua berchnuchem mibeit Yaua
Yaua natzav alaiv meet Yaua haitah
Sar tzava Yaua VaYaua hiphgia bo et avon kulano
Adonai Yaua shalachani
Vanacham alaiv Ruach Yaua
Koh Amar Yaua Tzevaoth
Naam adonai Yaua shuvu
Merahoq Yaua narah
Ki ani Yaua (eloheiqa,
Qadosh Israel moshieqa)
Ruach adonai Yaua alai
Mashach Yaua oti
Liqro shanat ratzon laYaua
Mata Yaua lehitpaer
Veatah amar Yaua
Hayiphaleh meYaua davar?
The Priestly Uses
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").
Appendix 1 The 134 Extra Places
The 134 Changes
In 134 places the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to ’Adho·nai´. Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonaī as if it were written אדני [’Adho·nai´] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.”
Following is a list of these 134 places, according to Gins.Mas, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26, § 115:
Ge 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32; 19:18; 20:4; Ex 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9, 9; Nu 14:17; Jos 7:8; Jg 6:15; 13:8; 1Ki 3:10, 15; 22:6; 2Ki 7:6; 19:23; Ezr 10:3; Ne 1:11; 4:14; Job 28:28; Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17, 22, 23; 37:13; 38:9, 15, 22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11, 17, 19, 22, 26, 32; 73:20; 77:2, 7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15; 89:49, 50; 90:1, 17; 110:5; 130:2, 3, 6; Isa 3:17, 18; 4:4; 6:1, 8, 11; 7:14, 20; 8:7; 9:8, 17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6, 8, 16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14, 16; 49:14; La 1:14, 15, 15; 2:1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20; 3:31, 36, 37, 58; Eze 18:25, 29; 21:9; 33:17, 20; Da 1:2; 9:3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 19; Am 5:16; 7:7, 8; 9:1; Mic 1:2; Zec 9:4; Mal 1:12, 14.
We restored the original reading in 133 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.” The only exception is Ps 68:26, where BHK and BHS already have the Tetragrammaton.—See Ps 68:26 ftn, “Jehovah.”
Eight Other Changes
According to Gins.Int, pp. 368, 369, in some instances the Jewish Sopherim substituted ’Elo·him´ for the Tetragrammaton. We restored the original reading in eight places and rendered it as “Jehovah,” namely, in Ps 14:1, 2, 5; 53:1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
Thus we restored the Tetragrammaton in the above 141 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.”
[1] This is based on a manual count using the Strongs concordance where Yaua has ben translated God.
The theory I posit I will call the Zakar Yaua theory of the name.
In the Zakar Yaua theory we analyse the changes in terms of three phases. The Memorial Phase, the Forgetting Phase or the Rewriting Phase and the EliminationPhase. These are the three phases which the name Yaua goes through until it completely disappears from texts and the life a group. The treatment of the name takes place in certain parts of the community not all parts of the Jewish and Christian community went through these stages. The Memorial Phase is the time when the name was used freely in a group. It, for example, applies to the writers of the Lachish Letters nd other pre exilic documents. Here the name is used completely and freely as part of the Jewish community in 6th century BC. “May {Yaua} make my lord hear good news soon”, is typical greeting in one of these letters. The Forgetting Phase or the Rewriting Phase is exemplified by the exilic Elephantine Papyri where the name is shortened from Yaua to Yau. The Elimination Phase is represented in earlier Israel by the replacement of Yaua by “Baal” (Jerem 23:27) and the replacement in the Mishna by such substitutes as Heh and in the dead sea scrolls by four dots and the replacement in the Greek text of Iaw by kurios. This hypothesis only describes the process of change. The causes of change also need to be addressed. Here I posit that the name has three main contexts of function. The Prophet Power and Might function, the Identity Priestly Temple function and the State Legal Authority function. My thesis holds that whilst these functions are in place the name continues to be used in a community or group. But when one of these functions or the institutions representing these functions disappear, or pass through major transformation, the use of the name is subject to change.
The Prophet, Power and Might function of Yaua
The Prophet, Power and Might function is exemplified in the names use as the authority and signature in prophetic words. All true signs and wonders are to be referred to his name. Those of the true prophet to confirm that the word spoken was a word of Yaua. Moses exemplifies this function at two levels the first was the sign he showed Israel to demonstrate he was the deliverer sent by Yaua. His first of turning water to blood was paralleled by Jesus turning water to the blood of the grape, wine. The second in seeing that the words he prophesied were fulfilled. By this they knew this was a words Yaua had spoken (Deu 18). This function is also illustrated by Solomon’s prayer that Gnetiles would come from a far land pray to Yaua and that he would answer them. They would then go back to their nations and tell how great the God Yaua was. That he would have demonstrated his power to the strangers. The greatness of his name as a result of the power would then be spread abroad among the nations. Yaua’s desire for this universal reputation is seen in his declaration to Pharoah “For this reason have I raised thee up to manifest my power in thee and that my name my be declared in all the earth” (Exod 9), and the prophetic word of Malachi “For I am a great king and my name is great in all the earth” (Mal 1:14). This function is also represented in the “magical” use of the name to heal the sick or cast out demons. Where the function continues the group using the name tends to preserve the whole name it recieved and to use it. In Hebrew the whole name is Yaua but Ya also used and in Greek Iaw and Iao.
This function is also exemplified by statements of prophets as Jeremiah: “Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them , I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is [Yaua]”.
The Identity Priestly Temple Function of Yaua
The Identity Priestly Temple Function is rooted in the tradition that the name is the special preserve of the sons of Aaron who are given the role of putting Yaua’s name on the sons of Israel. The key words of the Aaronic blessing represent a central feature of this function. “Yevereqa Yaua ve yishmereqa, Yaer Yaua panav eleiqa vichuneqa, Yisa Yaua panav eleiqa veyasem leqa shalom”. These words were used daily in the temple to put Yaua’s name on the people of Israel. They also preserved the usage of the name very clearly as long as the temple was standing. The Levites had the function of guarding the the house of Yaua (beit Yaua) and of praising Yaua in Psalms. This activity also took place in the temple and in the first temple period would have been part of the memorial phase. With the destruction of the first temple and the exile to Babylon we have evidence of reticence to singing Yaua’s song in a strange land (Ps 139). These songs of Yaua were seen a songs of Zion. Again they were a way of preserving the name but the evidence we have of the use of the name in these songs in later period is slim. The Psalms are full of references to the name and reflections on the name, Yaua was glorified in these songs. The role of baptism and seems to belong under the head of the prophetic and the priestly functions. This is partyl because these two functions most definitely over lap. Many of the prophets came from among the sons of Aaron, for example Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Malachi. This was because the presence of Yaua was very strong in his house and it was from their and the word of Yaua often went forth. The house of Yaua was the place where he was praised daily and we see in the case of Elisha that singing and praise lead to the coming of the Spirit and the word of prophecy. All prophets to be considered genuine had to proclaim in the name of Yaua. The Essenes and John the Baptist practiced baptism and they were also descendants of the priesthood. It is not however exclusively a priestly acitivity. The Pharisees also practiced baptism and they were most definitely not a priestly group although they had connection with priests.
The State Legal Authority Function
Since much of the set up Israel was delivered through the prophecies of Moses we again have an overlap with the prophetic function. However in the Legal Authority Function the name Yaua is used as a signature to the judgements (mishpatim) Yaua gives to Moses and the Israelites to guide the nations. Many of the decrees have the signature “Ani Yaua”. We see from the beginning of the monarchy under King Saul and before this in the period of the judges, judgments that were made on the authority of Yaua. Yaua used the kings to execute his decrees in his name. An illustration of Yaua’s sovereignty exercised through the kings is that of Yau (Jehu). Elisha sends a prophet appoint him king and to give him his assignment. The child of the prophets went to Ramoth Gilead and found Jehu and said to him:
Thus saith Yaua , I have anointed thee king over the people of Yaua, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yaua, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel.
King David was in the habit of consulting directly with Yaua when he had to make a military decisions and had the ability through song to bring the Spirit of Yaua on to a person. He also claimed that the Spirit of Yaua spoke by him and his word of covenant was on his lips.
While this three contexts of the functions of the name Yaua stood there would be a tendency for the use of the name Yaua to be maintained. However when were removed there was a tendency for the name to disappear from that function. So when Israel lost its state authority in Elephantine the name lost its final heh. It what was perhaps its long movement in Egypt away from Yaua to Yau to Iaw to kurios. This illustration I have given is a bit extreme but this at the end of the day is just one process the name would go through until it was transformed out from a particularly community.
Whilst State Authority may lose the name or turn away from the name for example from Yaua to Baal, the prophetic function would act as a guardian of the name. So when Israel in the north rejected Yaua from Baal Yaua raised up Elijah to preserve the name. Elijah anointed Elisha who sent the child of the prophet to Jehu. He then went and executed Yaua’s word on Yaua’s enemies. And so the prophets would through the prophetic word acts as guardians of the name selecting persons they considered willing and able to execute the decrees of Yaua. This function kicked in under extreme occasions. In general the guardianship of the name was in the hands of the family of Levi, starting with Moses and Aaron but continuing from generation to generation. It was they who stood and ministered before Yaua. And whilst in the provinces the name Yaua had already passed through a Eliminationphase, in the temple of Jerusalem in the first century it was still in the memorial phase right up until the destruction of the temple. After the temple destruction the name came under challenge and with the disappearance of the priesthood came the supposed disappearance of the name.
The Zakar Yaua theory and the Hebrew and Aramaic Evidence for the Name
The Memorial Phase
The Hebrew and Aramaic evidence for the use of the memorial name in its full form span at least a two thousand year period. When we say the Hebrew and Aramaic evidence we are talking about not simply the occurrence of the name in the Aramaic alphabet but the occurrence of the name in Hebrew or Aramaic documents. By far the greatest number of occurrences of the name in the Memorial Phase occurs in the Masoretic text of the tenth century. Although the manuscripts for this text are late there is clear evidence that the source of this text is extremely ancient. Kutschner argues from the form of theophoric names that the text goes back to an earlier source than that of the dead sea scrolls. The Masoretic text in Jewish tradition can be divided into three sections, The Torah, the Prophets and the Ketuvim. Jenni and Westermann (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament) give a total figure of 6828 occurrences of the name, Torah 1820, Prophets 3523 and Ketubim 1485. Andersen and Forbes agree with the total and give a distribution: Torah 1820, Former Prophets 1406, Latter Prophets 2117, Poetry 814 and Other Writings 671. The Masoretic text clearly represent a text in the Memorial Phase in terms of the written usage of the name. However according to evidence furnished by the Masoretes and other manuscript the Masoretes changed the name in at least 134 places to adonai. This would make a total of 6962 occurrences of the name in the text received but then changed by the Masoretes.
Although the Masoretic text (MT) is an exemplary example of a Memorial phase text, we see in the changes brought into a text a movement to the Rewriting Phase and finally to the Elimination Phase. The note of Ginsburg is worth observing:
We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonaī as if it were written אדני [’Adho·nai´] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.
(Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115,)
Thus according to Ginsburg the restriction on the use of the true name by this particular group within medieval Jewish Orthodoxy lead to changes in the text itself, whether by carelessness of copyists or deliberately in line with the whims of the particular copyist. This is apparently surprising when we read such injunctions in the MT itself as Deu 4:2 “Do not add (yasaph) to what I command and do not subtract from it, but keep the command of Yaua your God that I give you”. But not so surprising when we hear the concerns of Jeremiah regarding scribes of his time “How can you say “We are wise, for we have the Torah of Yaua when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely” (Jer 8:8).
The pen of the Masoretes has had much influence on both Jewish and Christian traditions regarding the name. Whilst the pen preserved the name Yaua in approximately 6828 places of the present text they supposedly added vowel points to four letters yod he vav he which did not present the true reading of the name. These additions have caused great division in traditional and academic community regarding the true vocalization of the name.
Zakar Yaua Theory and the Actions of the Masoretes
In the text of the 24 books of the Tanakh the Masoretes added varying sets of vowels according to the relationship of the name Yaua to the letters and words around it. There seem to be four main sets of vowel points.
1 Yehoah: The letters and vowels read yod shewa heh holem vav qametz heh. The vowel points usually said to be those used for Adonai so that on seeing the vowels the reader ignores the name Yaua and reads a replacement in this case Adonai. However if one turns to Adonai in the MT he does not find these vowel points but shewa-patach holem and qametz. Thus Adonai is spelt aleph,shewa-patach daleth holem nun qametz yod. Although they are different it is maintained among some scholars that shewa holem qametz are directing the reader to shewa-patach holem and qametz and to Adonai which is supported by Adonai being written into the margin of some texts.
The differences had lead some scholars to question the thesis that the pointing is designed to indicate Adonai and may in fact indicate how the name was understood to have been vocalized. There is evidence that Yehoah was in use by 1270. In that year it appears in Raymond Martin’s Pugio Fide. Van der Diesche (Drusius 1550-1616) first ascribed it to Peter Galatin, Pope Leo X’s confessor, and many have followed this opinion. He used it in Arcanis Catolicæ Vertatis (1518, folio xliii). Fagius (Buchlein 1504-1549) followed Galatin in its use (97 Hastings). In the ninteenth century Yehoah was defended by Stier, Hebr. Lehrgebaude and Holemann (Bibelstudien).
It is not only the “holiness” of the name which affects its treatment, it very frequency of occurrence also has an influence. According to Davidson (100) in the ketibh Qere model the ketibh is the consonantal text. When the Masoretes wanted to indicated a reading alternative to what was actually written the vowels of the reading were placed under the ketibh and “the consonants which could not find a place in the text , were set in the margin. This recommended reading is” Qere. A small circle over the ketibh draws attention to the margin. Where the Masoretes substitute along with the word qri . Davidson gives the example of Gen 24:14. The word in the text is hanaar the margin reading is hanaarah. However according to Davidson this procedure is not followed in the case of Yaua. “In the case of [Yaua] and a few other words of very frequent occurrence, the Qere is not placed in the margin, but its vowels are simply inserted in the text” (Davison 41). Thus frequency of occurrence affects the treatment of the name.
The Hebrew grammars as developed by modern Hebraists (For before Saadia of Gaon of the ninth century there were no Hebrew Grammars), justify the difference on assumed or derived rules of Hebrew grammar they have used. In this academic tradition the name Yehowah is seen as grammatically impossible or as a hybrid which the ignorant late medieval Christians introduced into their tradition. Many European translators have been influenced directly by this tradition. Thus the translators of the Revised Standard Version (1973) indicate:
A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but every where, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the Kings James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translator and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh”, this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached the vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”).… The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word…For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (I) the word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church. (RSV, 1973,vii)
As can be seen this modern translation justifies the Rewritng Phase by arguing that the vowel points use the Masoretes placed on Yaua belonged to another word. And thus since Yehovah had supposedly not ever been used in Hebrew it should not be used in translation. However this still left justification for putting their proposed favored “Yahweh” into the text. However this case was removed on the basis of the theology of the translators, they decided philosophically that a name, despite the vast majority of the Biblical writings presenting solid evidence that the God who spoke to the prophets had a proper name, was unnecessary and so eliminated the name Yaua from their translation completely. It is true that the statement of the Committee is vague or inaccurate on almost every single line. The issues will be taken up as we develop the Zakar Yaua thesis. For now we recognize two things: The vowel points of Yaua are different from those of Adonai and this will be thousands of the cases. In the three cases where Yaua is used as part of a proper name the Yehowah form is used. Thus we have according to the vowel pointing of the masoretes
Yehoah elohim (He who causes the mighty ones)
Yehoah el olam (He who causes God eternal)
Yehoah tzevaoth (He who causes the hosts)
Yehoah yireh (He who causes will see),
Yehoah nisi (He who causes my banner),
Yehoah tzidkenu (He who causes our righteousness),
Yehoah shalom (He who causes peace),
Yehoah shammah. (He who causes place)
These readings are based on the interpretation of Botterweck and Ringgren of the name Yaua.
In the MT Elimination Phase oral reading tradition each of these meanings is changed completely.
Adonai elohim (my Lord mighty ones)
Adonai el olam (My lord God eternal
Adonai yireh My Lord will see
Adonai nisi My Lord my banner
Adonai tzidkenu My Lord our righteousness
Adonai Shalom My Lord Peace
Adonai Shammah My Lord Place
Although the RSV (1973) committee understands Adonai to mean “Lord” and some scholarship and usage support this position the pronominal suffix, yod and the Maimonides indicate the letters aleph daleth nun yod mean either my Lord or my Lords.
2 Yehovih The second way the Masoretes pointed the letters gives the reading Yehovih. The letters and points are yod shewa segol heh holem vav hireq heh This pointing occurs when the name Yaua and Adonai occur together in the Masoretic text. Theses point are the same as those by which Elohim aleph shewa-segol lamed holem heh yod hireq mem is pointed. During this elimination phase the fact that the eliminators of the name have chosen a one of the titles of Yaua to replace his name causes them a problem. Adonai and Yaua are combined in the MT approximately 294 times.[1]
Thus in these cases where the reading tradition would require Adonai Adonai
A comparison of the reading of a text in the Memorial and Phase and one in the Rewritten Phase can be illustrated. A memorial phase reading of Numbers 6:24 –27 will illustrated the differences very starkly.
Memorial Phase Forgotten Phase
Yaua bless you and keep you Adonai bless you and keep you
Yaua make his face shine upon you Adonai make his face shine upon you
And be gracious to you and be gracious to you
Yaua life up his face upon you Adonai life up his face upon you
And give you peace and give you peace
The effect of the practice is to completely replace the actual name of the God of Abraham in the text. It is true that usually what we have in the first case is the written text and what we have in the Forgotten Phase is the text of the oral tradition but as generations past some may arise who never knew the memorial name Yaua and may grow up believing that Adonai is the name of their God.[2]
The danger of this occurring is recognized in the MT itself. Those who see the danger represent the groups who would be among those seeking with their utmost to preserve the name in text and in usage. The first example is Psalm 20, attributed to David. The Psalm is in some sense devoted to the name of God beginning with:
Yaua hear thee in the day of trouble
The name of the God of Jacob defend thee
Here we see the name in what might be considered a power function. The name Yaua is answer by “the name of the God of Jacob” in the parallelism. The whole Psalm has an interest in the power and memorial function of the name. Verse seven emphasizes the importance of remembrance directly in another parallel:
Some trust in chariots, Some trust in horses
But we will remember the name of Yaua our God
Yaua save the king
Veanachnu bashem Yaua eloheinu mazcir…
Yaua hoshia ha melech
There is a clear attachment to the name Yaua in the text which precludes a substitutes because Yaua was given as the memorial (zeker) to Moses in the Torah. The prayer is mizmor ladavid a Psalm to or for David. It is clear from the context of the psalm written as a prayer for the king. It is most likely then that those assigned to the role of encouraging the king were the ones who would be praying this prayer or singing this mizmor. This would place it among the Levites and the Priests who were given the task of upholding the king before God. They were also the ones assigned by God to the ministry of his name. The fact that they affirm that they will mazcir (remember ) the name of Yaua as opposed to trusting in chariots or horses indicates the belief in the power of the name of God to defend the king, but also the recognition of a threat to the name from these other sources which could lead to the forgetting of the name.
A text in MT Jeremiah also recognizes this danger, as we mentioned earlier.
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 neighbor,
As their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal
This tendency among parts of Israel to move into the forgetting phase or even to have certain persons planning to cause the people to forget the name is seen by some Israelites as leading to dire consequences and it is seen as a reason for Yaua to judge and punish Israel:
To forget Yaua’s name is the same as forgetting him:
All this is come upon us;
Yet we have not forgotten(shakach) thee…
If we have forgotten the name of our God
Or stretched out our hand to a strange god (al zar)
Shall not God (alohim) search this out.
The assumption is that if they had forgotten the name there would be some justification for what had come upon them. The contrast between the name of Israel’s God, Yaua, and that of strange gods, for example, Ashur or Molech, that is those of other names, is also brought out in the MT Torah. The remembrance of the names of other gods is proscribed “make no mention (Lo tizkiru) of the names of other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth (la yishma al piqa) (Ex 23:13). It is clear the proscription is to do with the vocalization or the speaking of the names of other deities. The verb zakar, that is connected with the name Yaua as memorial (Ex 3) is that referred to in the proscription. Thus although it is clear that the reference to the name refers not simply to the speaking and the writing of the name the encouragements to remember Yaua and serve him most definitely include the recognition of the personal name as a name to be used in various functions, for example to prophesy, praise and make oaths.
The Memorial Phase of the use of the name in the MT sees then a group who were out to protect and guard the use of the name. They even understood that the forgetting of the name would be justification for certain judgments. In the MT Memorial phase of the name many formulaic expressions were developed which used the name. Examples of the Rewriting Phase indicate that some of these expressions are retained but in the Elimination Phase Yaua completely disappears from these expressions and is replaced by a more general or common noun which later takes on features of a proper noun as though it exclusively referred to Yaua. There are a number of texts which exhibit both the Rewriting Phase and the Elimination Phase inside MT. Below we can see many of the expressions developed in the Biblical period MT. When the manuscripts we have of the MT were being copied most of these expressions were not vocally in use. For the writers of the MT were people living the rest of their lives in the Rewriting or in the Elimination Phase. This is demonstrated in looking at the writings of the Talmud from the period, that is the 10th century AD onwards and Jewish tradition as summarized by such writers as Maimonides.
Prophet Might Power Priest and Temple Legal Authority Other
Yaua Tzevaoth Yaua eloheinu Chi Yaua
Yaua elohim Panai Yaua Yaua tzidkinu
pi Yaua has spoken Shem Yaua Yom Yaua
Malaq Yaua Shiru la Yaua Ani Yaua
Adonai Yaua Malaq Yaua beoz Yaua
Koh Amar Yaua Yaua yireh bigon shem Yaua elohaiv
Neum Yaua Behar Yaua Yireh vePasach Yaua
Ani Yaua eloheiqa amad liphnei Yaua venoqev shem Yaua mot yumat
Anoki Anoki Yaua Baruch haba beshem Yaua
Et Yad Yaua Ana Yaua hoshiah na
Yamin Yaua romeimah Ana Yaua hatlicha na
Vayera alaiv Yaua berchnuchem mibeit Yaua
Yaua natzav alaiv meet Yaua haitah
Sar tzava Yaua VaYaua hiphgia bo et avon kulano
Adonai Yaua shalachani
Vanacham alaiv Ruach Yaua
Koh Amar Yaua Tzevaoth
Naam adonai Yaua shuvu
Merahoq Yaua narah
Ki ani Yaua (eloheiqa,
Qadosh Israel moshieqa)
Ruach adonai Yaua alai
Mashach Yaua oti
Liqro shanat ratzon laYaua
Mata Yaua lehitpaer
Veatah amar Yaua
Hayiphaleh meYaua davar?
The Priestly Uses
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").
Appendix 1 The 134 Extra Places
The 134 Changes
In 134 places the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to ’Adho·nai´. Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonaī as if it were written אדני [’Adho·nai´] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.”
Following is a list of these 134 places, according to Gins.Mas, Vol. I, pp. 25, 26, § 115:
Ge 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32; 19:18; 20:4; Ex 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17; 34:9, 9; Nu 14:17; Jos 7:8; Jg 6:15; 13:8; 1Ki 3:10, 15; 22:6; 2Ki 7:6; 19:23; Ezr 10:3; Ne 1:11; 4:14; Job 28:28; Ps 2:4; 16:2; 22:30; 30:8; 35:17, 22, 23; 37:13; 38:9, 15, 22; 39:7; 40:17; 44:23; 51:15; 54:4; 55:9; 57:9; 59:11; 62:12; 66:18; 68:11, 17, 19, 22, 26, 32; 73:20; 77:2, 7; 78:65; 79:12; 86:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15; 89:49, 50; 90:1, 17; 110:5; 130:2, 3, 6; Isa 3:17, 18; 4:4; 6:1, 8, 11; 7:14, 20; 8:7; 9:8, 17; 10:12; 11:11; 21:6, 8, 16; 28:2; 29:13; 30:20; 37:24; 38:14, 16; 49:14; La 1:14, 15, 15; 2:1, 2, 5, 7, 18, 19, 20; 3:31, 36, 37, 58; Eze 18:25, 29; 21:9; 33:17, 20; Da 1:2; 9:3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 19; Am 5:16; 7:7, 8; 9:1; Mic 1:2; Zec 9:4; Mal 1:12, 14.
We restored the original reading in 133 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.” The only exception is Ps 68:26, where BHK and BHS already have the Tetragrammaton.—See Ps 68:26 ftn, “Jehovah.”
Eight Other Changes
According to Gins.Int, pp. 368, 369, in some instances the Jewish Sopherim substituted ’Elo·him´ for the Tetragrammaton. We restored the original reading in eight places and rendered it as “Jehovah,” namely, in Ps 14:1, 2, 5; 53:1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
Thus we restored the Tetragrammaton in the above 141 places and rendered it as “Jehovah.”
[1] This is based on a manual count using the Strongs concordance where Yaua has ben translated God.
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 10:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home