YHWH vs. Jehovah
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Mon, 8 Mar 1999 01:52:05 -0500 (00920897525, 06512613757906@unifour.com)
On 5 Mar 99, at 14:25, The Lord wrote:
> Hi everyone. I have a question about the origin of the name Jehovah and
> thought this would be the best place to ask.
>
> As far as I know, 'Jehovah' was a 19th-Century mistranslation of YHWH. I
> don't remember if it is because that would be written JHVH in Latin (with
> the 'ya' and 'wa' sounds apparently being represented by 'j' and 'v'), or
> if it came via German, as they would (I think) pronounce the 'w' as a
> softish 'v', and would also write the 'ya' with a 'j'.
Achilles
You are almost right. The "J" was indeed used for the Hebrew letter 'yod'
(which scholars at the time wrote as 'jod' but pronounced as we do 'yod.') This
part is not really a 'mistranslation' - latin had no Y and that sound was
normally (and properly) represented by the I. Eventually the J evolved, as a
modified I used for the consonant I, i.e. it was used exactly as we today use
Y. So the J is simply an archaism, not "really" a mistake.
The original Hebrew text, as you may know, had no vowels. The word KJV
translates "Lord" is "'yod''he''vau''he'" or YHVH. This is also called the
tetragramaton, and it is not incorrect to write it as JHVH either, just
confusing to modern english speakers since we normally use the Y for that
sound, and J for a totally unrelated voiced stop-fricative cluster (dzh.) To be
consistent, of course, if we are to render the tetragrammaton YHVH we should
quit writing Jesus (it's Yesus) or Joshua (Yehoshua) etc. etc. anyway, I
digress...
The Hebrews considered the tetragrammaton too holy to speak aloud, so when the
scrolls were read, 'adonai' ('lord') was read in it's place. When the vowel
sounds were invented, and eventually added to the Hebrew texts, the true vowel
sounds for the tetragrammaton were NOT added, either because of fear this would
encourage someone to sin by saying it aloud, or because they had been
forgotten, or both. Instead, the vowels for 'adonai' were written, to remind
the reader to say 'lord' instead of trying to utter YHVHs true name.
The christian mangling of the tetragrammaton into 'Jehovah' is in the vowels,
not the consonants (excepting the mispronunciation of the J which is simply the
consonant I.) Unaware of the facts I mentioned above, christians reading the
masoretic text tried to pronounce the tetragrammaton with the vowels indicated -
vowels which belonged to another word.
No one knows how the word was actually pronounced. The taboo against its
utterance caused it's pronunciation to eventually be forgotten. A scholarly
"best guess" is Yahveh, but there are other possibilities.
> Can anyone set me straight? One of my co-workers is 'one of Jehovah's
> Witnesses' and although he knows almost nothing about it that doesn't stop
> him confidently spouting crap.
Achilles
Oooh, a Jehovah's Witless! Those guys are so much fun to argue with... *grin*
>
> For example he told me some translations of the Bible are inaccurate, and
> I asked him to name one. He couldn't. Suspicious, I asked him to name as
> many translations as he could. He came up with the New World Translation,
> the KJV, and... that was it! LOL. I rattled off 17 and asked him which
> ones weren't accurate. He said he would 'find out' and 'let me know' --
> which is Witness-speak for 'I'll ask the witch-doctor'. I pressed him and
> he admitted he would get some more indoctrination from the 'circle of
> elders' or something spooky like that.
Achilles
They think that all translations besides the NWT are inaccurate. Of course,
they don't normally hit proselytes with that one up front. If you a KJOnlyist,
for instance, they will concentrate on criticizing the "modern translations" to
build up that sympatico...
> It was wierd -- he would believe something without knowing what he
> believed or why -- he knew some translations weren't accurate because he
> had been told so, but couldn't name one, nor did he know what a paraphrase
> was.
>
> The funniest part was when he was telling me that homosexuals wouldn't
> inherit the kingdom. I asked him where it said that in the New Testament,
> and he said he wasn't sure. Then his face brightened and he said it might
> be John 3:16! I almost LMAO.
>
> I asked him who mentioned homosexuals in the NT and he said it was either
> Paul or Peter. I couldn't help cackling. I was having so much I was half
> an hour late clocking back in. I sent him off with a copy of Helminiak's
> _What_the_Bible_Really_Says_About_Homosexuality_ and he promised to read
> it (probably under the guidance of someone more knowledgeable).
Achilles
I wouldn't take any bets on him actually reading it. You'll be lucky if you get
it back :(
> Sorry for the semi-off-topic post. It is only partially off-topic because
> I am wondering if anyone has any simple-but-juicy errancy bits
> specifically with regard to Witness theology and/or to do with the New
> World Translation? That and the origin of 'Jehovah' would make me a happy,
> naughty little infidel.
>
>
> Michael
Achilles
Hmm.. I am sure there is quite a bit of material available on the web. I would
try a search or two on www.dogpile.com - I will try to do that myself a little
later tonight, but you could always get a head start on me:). If you do, please
post the URLs for anything interesting you find, ok?
Achilles
Achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
The oracle says:
A man who can read and write is 9/10ths free even in chains.
-- Robert Heinlein in Expended Universe