Is Gods correct name pronounced Jehovah?? What about the messiahs name?

by evergreen 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Our current understanding of the pronunciation of Hebrew names in the OT is almost totally dependant on the exacting and exhaustive work employed by the Masoretes, [Jewish scholars living between 500 - 1000 AD] who went to extraordinary lengths to supply the vowel equivalents required for these names. Rendering these same names into regional and national nominatives has been made possible only insofar as our dependance on the massoretes is accepted.

  Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration: the earlier transliterations of Hebrew into Greek (LXX) and other languages (e.g. Syriac or Latin) have contributed much more to most Western transliterations of proper names.

  Hence "Ezekiel" "Jeremiah" etc, thanks to the endeavours of the Massoretes, are not figments or randomized collections of sounds, but represent, in as accurate a form as is possible, the names of the persons involved.

  Compare Ezekiel to the Hebrew Masoretic Yechezqe'el vs. the Greek LXX Iezekièl, or the Hebrew Masoretic Yirmeyahu to the Greek LXX Ieremias.

  However, one name did elude the Massoretes. The Tetragrammaton, YHVH. In this place the Massoretes utilized the vowels for the Hebrew "Adohnai" the intention being, not to combine the consonants of YHVH with the vowels of "Adohnai" thus creating a hybrid or mongrelized sound meaning neither, but simply to accept that "Adohnai" was what intended to be pronounced.

  Or, 'elohim ("God"); or, shema' ("the Name"), depending on which passages and which mss.

  The point is that YHVH is unpronouceable. In our attempts to articulate the unpronounceable we are forced, like the Massoretes, to employ "surrogates" What seems to escape the dogmatism of the WTS, is that "jehovah" is a surrogate, as much a surrogate as "LORD" is, or "Yahweh" and no more represents the "name" of God than these substitutes.

  Well, most of the OT dialogues imply that Yhwh was pronounced in everyday speech (especially in a pre-monotheistic context). Yahweh is quite solidly attested in Greek transliteration (see the references I gave above). So as far as translating the Hebrew OT is concerned, Yahweh (or at least the consonantic Yhwh) is the best option imo.

  To give but one example, "I am Yahweh" and "I am the LORD" (in spite of the capitals) convey two entirely different meanings.

  But as far as the NT is concerned (including the OT quotations) I fully agree with you.
• 

  Narkissos

  evergreen,

  All the Joshuas of the OT are Ièsous in the Greek LXX. And there is no difference in the Greek NT between the OT Ièsous = "Joshua" and the Gospel hero = "Jesus". It is the same name in Greek, no need to revert to the Hebrew.
• 

  Leolaia

  Our current understanding of the pronunciation of Hebrew names in the OT is almost totally dependant on the exacting and exhaustive work employed by the Masoretes

  As Narkissos pointed out, we have considerabe evidence of vocalization of names through Greek transliteration (including the divine name in some sources). Also there are cuneiform representations of Hebrew names (in Assyrian and Babylonian texts), which also help give information on vowels.

  In this place the Massoretes utilized the vowels for the Hebrew "Adohnai" the intention being, not to combine the consonants of YHVH with the vowels of "Adohnai" thus creating a hybrid or mongrelized sound meaning neither, but simply to accept that "Adohnai" was what intended to be pronounced.

  In the MT, we mostly find "Yehwah" and "Yehowih" if I remember correctly, which reflects the vowels of shema and elohim....the form "Yehowah" is less a conflation of adonai and elohim than the incursion of a holem vowel in the older form "Yehwah" which has the vowels of shema. The incursion of the holem may be due to influence from elohim, but there are other possible explanations.

  Leolaia - Would it be possible for you to post the articles you mentioned earlier,[the ones written by Rutherford and Franz] or are they copyrighted or something. They would be most interesting to study

  I'm not sure if they are copyrighted or not...they date to 1928 and may well be public domain if the copyrights were not renewed. I was going to save them anyway for a future thread on "Golden Age Goodies"....

  The articles are interesting because (1) they misunderstand the Hebrew (i.e. that the holem in "Jehovah" does not correspond to the mater lectionis in yhw- "Jeho-" names) and (2) they basically admit that the divine name wasn't in the NT, a position which Franz reversed himself on later in the 1950s....
• 

  evergreen

  All the Joshuas of the OT are Ièsous in the Greek LXX. And there is no difference in the Greek NT between the OT Ièsous = "Joshua" and the Gospel hero = "Jesus". It is the same name in Greek, no need to revert to the Hebrew.
  
  Narkissos.
  
  But that is my whole point . You say no need to revert back to the Hebrew. But that was his original name whether we like it or not. When you travel abroad and tell people your name and they pronounce it incorrectly, do you not correct them as to the correct "pronunciation" of your name.
  
  As i have said before, names remain the same in the sense that they are pronounced the same way whether you are in France, Egypt, America, Japan, wherever. Yes you do have transliterations of names in differnt countries eg John in English is the same as Sean in Irish as yo'han is in Hebrew. But although thay all sound differently , each of these names is unique to the individual in the way it is phonetically pronounced.
  
  
• 

  Leolaia

  As i have said before, names remain the same in the sense that they are pronounced the same way whether you are in France, Egypt, America, Japan, wherever. Yes you do have transliterations of names in differnt countries eg John in English is the same as Sean in Irish as yo'han is in Hebrew. But although thay all sound differently , each of these names is unique to the individual in the way it is phonetically pronounced.

  Greek did not have the consonants expressed by the Hebrew letters `ayin and 'aleph. No matter what, Greeks would have pronounced Semitic names with these consonants differently. In Iésous, there is no hint of the `ayin in the last syllable (and there is no hint in Hebrew of the nominative ending that Greek inserts into the name). The fact of the matter was that names were adapted to the local language, just as foreign names were adapted into Hebrew as well. Compare Hebrew "Ahasuerus", Greek "Xerxes" and the original Persian Khashayar Shah.
• 

  Narkissos

  evergreen,

  You are on shaky ground extrapolating from one current practice about names. Such customs change according to times, places, socio-cultural necessities and fashions.

  Now we do not modify foreign names (or only unwittingly, for being unable to pronounce them correctly). This happens in a specific pluricultural context, where you can easily have a John, a Jean, a Juan, a Giovanni, a Johann, in the same room (or Internet forum) -- whose names of course are not interchangeable. As a result such names which were originally equivalents of one another (which, btw, attests that the ancient practice of translation did imply a modification of names) become alternative names, available regardless of one's origins (as in the case of French parents calling their son "John" or "Johann").

  This of course was not always the case, otherwise the different "equivalents" would never have existed in the first place (at least within the scope of a given graphic system, e.g. the Latin alphabet): in old English books (and in recent ones following the classical usage) you will read about John Calvin although his name was Jehan (Jean in modern French). The same would not occur for a 21st-century character. You have probably never read about James (or Jack?) Chirac.

  Back to the 1st-century setting, it is obvious, already in the LXX and still in Josephus, that personal names were considerably modified in translation, and that most people would readily hellenise their name in a Greek-speaking context. As for "Jesus," the older documents we have do belong to such a Greek-speaking context. Only imagination can figure out an Aramaic-speaking Yeshua`. That is what the few Gospel Aramaic quotations suggest us to imagine, but there may be little more to them than an artificial "exotic" touch with its cloud of mystery.
• 

  truth about the last days

  During my absence these past few months, I have done exaustive reserch in the subject of Freemasons after watching the film National Treasure with Nicolas Cage. If anyone wants to know as to where and how the name Jehovah came from, it came from the Freemasons. According to the Freemasons and their traditions, they could have started as far back as the builders in King Solomons time.With the early WT publications that C.T.Russell created, there are Freemason insignias such as the Cross and Crown and the sun god Ra with wings, ect.on the frount of the watchtowers and books. During my research, it seems that King James was ALSO a freemason. The Freemasons actually uses the 1633 KJV bible.He was the one to give autherity to translate the Latin into the Olde English. So, he was in position to make changes any way he wished to- including inserting the name Jehovah for The Most Highs name. Other translations, such as the Autherised Version had to get King James OK to have it released. This is why the NWT today (as well as other translations) has the name Jehovah in it. The Freemasons do have their own supreme being for worship named JAOBULON. JAO is the greek word for Jehovah, BUL is the rendering of the name Baal and ON is the term used in the Babylonian mysterys to call apon the dieity Osiris. I also have a chart where the name Jehovah is laid on the floor with the Skull and Bones as part of one of their ritules. I encourage everyone to look up all information about the Freemasons, as now it has been proven that it is them who is running this world. I even found out that the Watchtower symbol on the books and mags and letterheads are also Freemason imagery. The watchtower symbol is also still used as part of the Freemason Lodge here in England. But beware. This subject is HUGE, and will occupy much of your time on the website. Enjoy!
• 

  evergreen

  Truth about the last days, Somehow although i would like to take the time to look up the subject about the freemasons and the name Jehovah, i, as you say might, find my self spending alot of time on this particular subject. Although i would normally feel a little scepticle about such a subject, i wouldn't be surprised if what you are saying were true. I will certainly look into where the name Jehovah originally came from eventually but i am focusing on the Tetragrammaton at the moment, concentrating on the masoretic and ancient hebrew writings.
  
  Narkissos and leolaia, I really appreciate the time you have both spent explaining your views on this subject and do understand where you are both coming from on this subject. But ( and i hope you do not take this as an offence ) I feel that you are both playing on words trying to reason why God and the lords name are pronounced the way they should be according to what ever language people speak.
  
  Let me put it this way. Lets choose the hebrew name isayah. Lets say the French occupied the middle east (including Israel) at the time when the Greeks did. Many writings are written in French as they are the masters and occupiers of Israel which of course would make sense when we consider the way empires have enforced their ways right down through history. But for a start , would the Jews ( the chosen people)
  A people who were so careful to obey the mosaic law and keep their beliefs so strongly to their hearts regardless of what ever country occupied them, suddenly start using French names or the transliteration of their name into French, Because well the French have been ruling them for x amount of years. Hardly!!!!
  
  I cant see the Israelites picking the name Isayah and saying well i think the French version sounds nice, perhaps! maybe! but being God fearing people ( israelites) doubtful.
  
  If a person were called isayah, died and was resurrected by Jesus (Yahshua) when the Kingdom comes and everyone is calling him by a French version of his name , would he not find this strange??????? would he not be wondering who they are referring to when they are calling his name?????? surely he would want to be called by the name he was given and the way it used to be pronounced!!!!!
  
  Hope this clears up exactly where i am coming from. ps sorry i havent replied back for a while as been very busy recently.
  
  Evergreen
• 

  Narkissos

  evergreen,

  No offence taken (of course ).

  The idea that the "historical Jesus" would have insisted on a Hebrew name is plausible if he belonged to an exclusivistic, nationalistic, Judean (rather than Galilean) circle, which is as good a theory as another. (How such a character can be related to the "Lord" of Gentile Christians is another question.)

  Now, sticking to the Hebrew realm, there are at least two facts that you must take into account (repetition for emphasis):

  (1) In Hebrew the classical form yhwsh` (Yehoshua`) gave way to yshw` (Yeshua`) several centuries before Christ.

  (2) The form Yahshua` presupposes a spelling *yhsh(w)` which is never attested afaik, and would be quite exceptional as a prefixival form for the theophoric element (always yhw- or yw-, never yh).
• 

  DannyHaszard

  http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=125&page=16

  Think it over
  Organiser, India - 5 hours ago
  ... All gods began as tribal deities. Yahweh was no exception. He was the warrior God of the Jews (Jehovah to Christians.) He drank human blood ! ...