 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
The proper name ofGod in theOld Testament; hence theJews called itthe name by excellence, the great name, the only name, theglorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of thesubstance, the proper name, and most frequentlyshem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.).
Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. TheConcordances of Furst ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is found in theOld Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name. TheSeptuagint and theVulgate render the name generally by "Lord" (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation ofAdonai — usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.
The Fathers and theRabbinic writers agree in representing Jehovah as an ineffable name. As to the Fathers, we only need draw attention to the following expressions:onoma arreton, aphraston, alekton, aphthegkton, anekphoneton, aporreton kai hrethenai me dynamenon, mystikon. Leusden could not induce a certainJew, in spite of his poverty, to pronounce the real name ofGod, though he held out the most alluring promises. TheJew's compliance with Leusden's wishes would not indeed have been of any real advantage to the latter; for the modernJews are as uncertain of the real pronunciation of the Sacred name as theirChristian contemporaries. According to aRabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according toMaimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction of theTemple. The Mishna refers to our question more than once: Berachoth, ix, 5, allows the use of the Divine name by way of salutation; in Sanhedrin, x, 1, Abba Shaul refuses any share in the future world to those who pronounce it as it is written; according to Thamid, vii, 2, thepriests in theTemple (or perhaps inJerusalem) might employ thetrue Divine name, while thepriests in the country (outsideJerusalem) had to be contented with the nameAdonai; according toMaimonides ("More Neb.", i, 61, and "Yad chasaka", xiv, 10) thetrue Divine name was used only by thepriests in thesanctuary who imparted theblessing, and by thehigh-priest on theDay of Atonement. Phil ["De mut. nom.", n. 2 (ed. Marg., i, 580); "Vita Mos.", iii, 25 (ii, 166)] seems to maintain that even on these occasions thepriests had to speak in a low voice. Thus far we have followed the post-Christian Jewish tradition concerning the attitude of theJews before Simeon the Just.
As to the earlier tradition,Josephus (Antiq., II, xii, 4) declares that he is not allowed to treat of the Divine name; in another place (Antiq., XII, v, 5) he says that theSamaritans erected on Mt. Garizim ananonymon ieron. This extreme veneration for the Divine name must have generally prevailed at thetime when theSeptuagint version was made, for the translators always substituteKyrios (Lord) for Jehovah.Ecclesiasticus 23:10, appears to prohibit only a wanton use of the Divine name, though it cannot be denied that Jehovah is not employed as frequently in the more recent canonical books of theOld Testament as in the older books.
It would be hard to determine at whattime this reverence for the Divine name originated among the Hebrews.Rabbinic writers derive the prohibition of pronouncing theTetragrammaton, as the name of Jehovah is called, fromLeviticus 24:16: "And he thatblasphemeth the name of theLord, dying let him die". TheHebrew participlenoqedh, here rendered "blasphemeth", is translatedhonomazon in theSeptuagint, and appears to have the meaning "to determine", "to denote" (by means of its proper vowels) inGenesis 30:28;Numbers 1:17;Isaiah 62:2. Still, the context ofLeviticus 24:16 (cf. verses11 and15), favours the meaning"to blaspheme".Rabbinicexegetes derive the prohibition also fromExodus 3:15; but this argument cannot stand the test of thelaws of soberhermeneutics (cf. Drusius, "Tetragrammaton", 8-10, in "Critici Sacri", Amsterdam, 1698, I, p. ii, col. 339-42; "De nomine divino", ibid., 512-16;Drach, "Harmonic entre l'Église et la Synagogue", I, Paris, 1844, pp. 350-53, and Note 30, pp. 512-16).
What has been said explains the so-calledqeri perpetuum, according to which the consonants of Jehovah are always accompanied in theHebrew text by the vowels ofAdonai except in the cases in whichAdonai stands in apposition to Jehovah: in these cases the vowels ofElohim are substituted. The use of a simple shewa in the first syllable of Jehovah, instead of the compound shewa in the corresponding syllable ofAdonai andElohim, is required by the rules ofHebrew grammar governing the use of shewa. Hence the question: What are the true vowels of the word Jehovah?
It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520 (cf. Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible", II, 1899, p. 199: Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterbuch", 13th ed., 1899, p. 311). Drusius (loc. cit., 344) represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the word Jehovah, and Fagius as it propagator in the world of scholars and commentators. But the writers of the sixteenth century,Catholic andProtestant (e.g. Cajetan and Théodore de Bèze), are perfectly familiar with the word. Galatinus himself ("Areana cathol. veritatis", I, Bari, 1516, a, p. 77) represents the form as known and received in histime. Besides, Drusius (loc. cit., 351) discovered it in Porchetus, atheologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the "Pugio fidei" of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745). Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin.
No wonder then that this form has been regarded as thetrue pronunciation of the Divine name by such scholars as Michaelis ("Supplementa ad lexica hebraica", I, 1792, p. 524),Drach (loc. cit., I, 469-98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache, 327), and others.
To take up the ancient writers:
The judicious reader will perceive that theSamaritan pronunciationJabe probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest; the other early writers transmit only abbreviations or corruptions of the sacred name. Inserting the vowels ofJabe into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name. It is not merely closely connected with the pronunciation of the ancientsynagogue by means of theSamaritan tradition, but it also allows the legitimate derivation of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in theOld Testament.
Jahveh (Yahweh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such asJacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, "Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache", 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attribute to aperson or a thing the action of thequality expressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjective or a participle. Furst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the formforma participialis imperfectiva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb "to be", Jahveh means "He Who is", Whose characteristic note consists in being, orThe Being simply.
Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfecthiphil or the imperfectqal.Calmet and Le Clere believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings intoexistence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive, Who realizes Hispromises, theGod of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping withExodus 3:14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verb meaning "to be"; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cognate languages by the pi'el form, except inSyriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence.
On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfectqal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditionalexegesis ofExodus 3:6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh.Moses asksGod: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? What shall I say to them?" In reply,God returns three times to the determination of His name.
First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here theVulgate, theSeptuagint,Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose thatGod uses the imperfectqal; only theTargums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfecthiphil. Hence we have the renderings: "I am who am" (Vulgate), "I am who is" (Septuagint), "I shall be [who] shall be" (Aquila, Theodotion), "the Eternal who does not cease" (Ar.); only the above-mentionedTargums see any reference to thecreation of the world.
The second time,God uses again the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here theSyriac, the Samaritan, thePersian versions, and theTargums of Onkelos and Jerusalem retain theHebrew, so that one cannot tell whether they regard the imperfect as aqal or ahiphil form; the Arabic version omits the whole clause; but theSeptuagint, theVulgate, and theTargum of Jonathan suppose here the imperfectqal: "He Who Is, hath sent me to you" instead of "I Am, hath sent me to you: (Vulgate); "ho on sent me to you" (Septuagint); "I am who am, and who shall be, hath sent me to you" (Targ. Jon.).
Finally, the third time,God uses the third person of the imperfect, or the form of the sacred name itself; here theSamaritan version and theTargum of Onkelos retain theHebrew form; theSeptuagint, theVulgate, and theSyriac version render "Lord", though, according to theanalogy of the former two passages, they should have translated, "He Is, theGod of your fathers, . . . hath sent me to you"; the Arabic version substitutes "God". Classicalexegesis, therefore, regards Jahveh as the imperfectqal of the Hebrew verb "to be".
Here another question presents itself: Is the being predicated ofGod in His name, themetaphysical being denoting nothing butexistence itself, or is it an historical being, a passing manifestation ofGod intime?
MostProtestant writers regard the being implied in the name Jahveh as an historical one, though some do not wholly exclude suchmetaphysicalideas asGod's independence, absolute constancy, and fidelity to His promises, and immutability in His plans (cf. Driver, "Hebrew Tenses", 1892, p. 17). The following are the reasons alleged for the historical meaning of the "being" implied in the Divine name:
Since then the Hebrew imperfect is admittedly not to be considered as a future, and since the nature of the language does not force us to see in it the expression of transition or of becoming, and since, moreover, early tradition is quite fixed and the absolute character of the verbhayah has induced even the most ardent patrons of its historical sense to admit in the texts a description ofGod's nature, the rules ofhermeneutics urge us to take the expressions inExodus 3:13-15, for what they are worth. Jahveh is He Who Is, i.e., Hisnature is best characterized by Being, if indeed it must be designated by a personal proper name distinct from the termGod (Revue biblique, 1893, p. 338). Thescholastic theories as to the depth of meaning latent in Yahveh (Yahweh) rest, therefore, on a solid foundation. Finite beings are defined by theiressence:God can be defined only by being, pure and simple, nothing less and nothing more; not be abstract being common to everything, and characteristic of nothing in particular, but by concrete being, absolute being, the ocean of allsubstantial being, independent of anycause, incapable of change, exceeding all duration, because He isinfinite: "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, . . . who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). Cf.St. Thomas,I.13.14;Franzelin, "De Deo Uno" (3rd ed., 1883, thesis XXIII, pp. 279-86.
The opinion that the name Jahveh was adopted by theJews from theChanaanites, has been defended by von Bohlen (Genesis, 1835, p. civ), Von der Alm (Theol. Briefe, I, 1862, pp. 524-27), Colenso (The Pentateuch, V, 1865, pp. 269-84), Goldziher (Der Mythus bei den Hebräern, 1867, p. 327), but has been rejected by Kuenen ("De Godsdienst van Israel", I, Haarlem, 1869, pp. 379-401) and Baudissin (Studien, I, pp. 213-18). It is antecedently improbable that Jahveh, the irreconcilable enemy of theChanaanites, should be originally aChanaanite god.
It has been said by Vatke (Die Religion des Alten Test., 1835, p. 672) and J.G. Müller (Die Semiten in ihrem Verhältniss zu Chamiten und Japhetiten, 1872, p. 163) that the name Jahveh is of Indo-European origin. But the transition of the Sanscrit root,div—the LatinJupiter-Jovis (Diovis), the GreekZeus-Dios, the Indo-EuropeanDyaus into theHebrew form Jahveh has never been satisfactorily explained. Hitzig's contention (Vorlesungen über bibl. Theol., p. 38) that the Indo-Europeans furnished at least theidea contained in the name Jahveh, even if they did not originate the name itself, is without any value.
The theory that Jahveh is ofEgyptian origin may have a certain amount ofa priori probability, asMoses waseducated inEgypt. Still, theproofs are not convincing:
As to the theory that Jahveh has a Chaldean or an Accadian origin, its foundation is not very solid:
Cheyne (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 1907, pp. 63 sqq.) connects the origin of Jahveh with hisYerahme'el theory; but even the most advanced critics regard Cheyne's theory as a discredit to modern criticism. Other singular opinions as to the origin of the sacred name may be safely omitted. The view that Jahveh is of Hebrew origin is the most satisfactory. Arguing fromExodus 6:2-8, suchcommentators asNicholas of Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan,Bonfrère, etc., maintain that the name was revealed for the first time toMoses onMount Horeb.God declares in this vision that he "appeared toAbraham . . . by the name ofGod Almighty; and my nameAdonai [Jahveh] I did not shew them". But the phrase "to appear by a name" does not necessarily imply the firstrevelation of that name; it rather signifies the explanation of the name, or a manner of acting conformable to the meaning of the name (cf. Robion in "la Science cathol.", 1888, pp. 618-24; Delattre, ibid., 1892, pp. 673-87; van Kasteren, ibid., 1894, pp. 296-315; Robert in "Revue biblique", 1894, pp. 161-81). OnMt. HorebGod toldMoses that He had not acted with thePatriarchs as theGod of the Covenant, Jahveh, but asGod Almighty.
Perhaps it is preferable to say that the sacred name, though perhaps in a somewhat modified form, had been in use in the patriarchalfamily before thetime ofMoses. OnMt. HorebGod revealed and explained the accurate form of His name, Jahveh.
Besides the works referred to in the text, the reader may consult: RELAND, Deeds Excreitationum (Utrecht, 1707); SCHRADER in SCHENKEL'S Bibel Lexicon, s.v. Jahve; PHAT, Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Jehovah; ROBERTSON SMITH in Brit. and Foreign Evan. Review (January, 1876), gives a summary of recent discussion of the subject; OEHLER, Real-Encyclopadie, S.V. Jehova.
APA citation.Maas, A.(1910).Jehovah (Yahweh). InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
MLA citation.Maas, Anthony."Jehovah (Yahweh)."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 8.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1910.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Thomas M. Barrett.Dedicated to Mary Kathryn French Barrett.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.