yehovah jehovah yahovah yahweh yhwh jahovah

The Yehovah Deception

Request Booklet  Download as an e-book  Read as PDF

Yehovah, this latecomer in the rendering of our Creator’s Name, has gained popularity within the Messianic and Hebrew Roots communities. However, there are serious linguistic flaws with this pronunciation.

Before discussing those, however, it’s important to understand the premise of those who advocate “Yehovah.” This rendering is based on late medieval Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament that show the four letters yod-hey-waw-hey [hwhy] with the vowel points from Adonai.

Within these manuscripts or codices there are several instances where the vowel points for “Yehovah” (English, “Jehovah”) are found. Based on this fact, it is theorized that the scribes who produced these manuscripts accidentally preserved the name “Yehovah” by not removing the vowel points. There are serious flaws with this hypothesis and logic as you will soon see.

Scribal Error?

For those who believe this was a scribal error, it’s important to realize that Jewish scribes were ultra-meticulous. After copying a text, scribes would painstakingly review the script for any errors. The thought that a scribe would overlook numerous instances of the same mistake is unthinkable. According to the Jewish Talmud, there were 20 steps a scribe would go through to ensure textual accuracy. Below are some of these steps:

  • The scribe must be a learned, pious Jew, who has undergone special training and certification.
  • All materials (parchment, ink, quill) must conform to strict specifications, and be prepared specifically for the purpose of writing a Torah scroll.
  • The scribe must pronounce every word out loud before copying it from the correct text.
  • The scribe may not write even one letter into a Torah scroll by heart. Rather, he must have a second, kosher scroll opened before him at all times.
  • A Torah scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is added.
  • A Torah scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is deleted.
  • Every letter must have sufficient white space surrounding it. If one letter touches another in any spot, it invalidates the entire scroll.
  • If a single letter is so marred that it cannot be read at all, or resembles another letter (whether the defect is in the writing, or the result of a hole, tear or smudge), the entire scroll is invalidated.
  • Each letter must be sufficiently legible so that even an ordinary schoolchild could distinguish it from other, similar letters.
  • The scribe must put precise space between words, so that one word will not look like two words, or two words look like one word.
  • The scribe must not alter the design of the sections, and must conform to particular line-lengths and paragraph configurations.
  • A Torah Scroll in which any mistake has been found cannot be used, and a decision regarding its restoration must be made within 30 days, or it must be buried.

Considering these extraordinary measures, it is unfathomable that a scribe would leave the same mistake multiple times in a Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament. The logic that “Yehovah” arose due to Jewish scribal mistakes is seriously flawed. No scholar would accept this explanation.

Written One Way, Read Another

So how do we explain the instances where the vowel points for “Yehovah” are found in these ancient Hebrew codices? According to biblical scholars, following a Jewish tradition beginning after the 6th century BCE, The Masoretes, i.e., Jewish scribes from the 6-10th centuries CE, used an orthographic device known as Qere / Ketiv to conceal the name. Qere means, “what is read,” and ketiv means, “what is written.” It is found in existing Masoretic manuscripts dating to the 9th and 10th centuries, CE. There are several forms of Qere / Ketiv, including: ordinary, vowel, omitted, added, euphemistic, split, and qere perpetuum.

The ketiv that is most relevant is the vowel qere. In this this case, the consonants are unchanged, but different vowel signs are added and only the qere, i.e., what is read, is vocalized. The most notable example of this is with the Tetragrammaton or the four letters of the divine name. To ensure that the name was not pronounced, Masoretic Jewish scribes left the Hebrew consonants, but added the vowel points from Adonai, and on occasions Elohim. Following the Qere / Ketiv, the reader was to read Adonai or Elohim, depending on the vowel points used. It was never the intent of the scribes that the reader pronounce the vowel points with the consonants. Not realizing this, early translators of the Hebrew Bible transliterated the Tetragrammaton as “Jehovah.” Once scholarship realized that this was never the intent of the Hebrew text, they noted the mistake. Today, there are some who either don’t understand the Qere / Ketiv system or who are actively trying to mislead people by insisting that the pronunciation is Yehovah. However, as nearly all Hebrew scholars acknowledge, this name arose through a deliberate modification in the Hebrew text following a tradition of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, as noted by the below references.

“After the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE), and especially from the 3rd century bce on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal rather than merely local religion, the more common noun Elohim, meaning ‘God,’ tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (‘My Lord’), which was translated as Kyrios (‘Lord’) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures,” Encyclopedia Britannica.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901 version) and the Babylonian Talmud, after the death of Simeon the Just, 290 BCE, the Jews stopped pronouncing the Holy Name. The Babylonian Talmud states, “Tosaf Sotah 38a suggests that the Ineffable Name could be pronounced only when there was some indication that the Shechinah rested on the Sanctuary. When Simeon the Righteous died, with many indications that such glory was no more enjoyed, his brethren no more dared utter the Ineffable Name,” Yoma 39b, footnote, p. 186.

As confirmed by the Jewish Talmud, hundreds of years before the birth of Yahshua the Messiah the Jews stopped pronouncing the divine Name and began concealing it by reading the vowel points from Adonai into the Tetragrammaton. The motivation behind this practice was not from irreverence but through a strong veneration for the Name. They were afraid that if it were pronounced, someone might misuse or blaspheme the Name. Part of this hesitation doubtless arose from their time in Babylon. While their reasoning was admirable, it is against the clear teachings of Scripture.

The Bible confirms the use of the Divine name in both the Old and New testaments, e.g. Genesis 12:8; 13:4; Exodus 3:15; Acts 2:21; and Romans 10:13. Clearly, our Heavenly Father’s Name was used by all believers. Additionally, the Bible states we’re to bless (Psalm 145:21), call (Psalm 80:18; 99:6; Isaiah 12:4), confess (2Chonicles 6:24-25; 1Kings 8:35-36), declare (Exodus 9:16; Psalm 22:22; John 17:26; Romans 9:17; Hebrews 2:12), exalt (Psalm 34:3); glorify (Psalm 86:9, 12), honor (Psalm 66:2), magnify (2Samuel 7:26), praise (2Samuel 22:50; Psalm 69:30), remember (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 45:17), sing (Psalm 68:4), and trust (Isaiah 50:10) in His Name.

Scholarship Explains “Yehovah”

 

The decision to hide or replace the Tetragrammaton with the invalid vowel points from Adonai is what led to “Yehovah” (“Jehovah” in English). Except for a few outliers, nearly all scholarship confirms this basic fact. Consider the following:

“In the early Middle Ages, when the consonantal text of the Bible was supplied with vowel points to facilitate its correct traditional reading, the vowel points for Adonai with one variation – a sheva (short ‘e’) with the first yod [Y] of YHWH instead of the hataf-patah (short ‘a’) under the aleph of Adonai – was used for YHWH, thus producing the form YeHoWaH. When Christian scholars of Europe first began to study Hebrew they did not understand what this really meant, and they introduced the hybrid name ‘Jehovah’” (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 7, p. 680).

“The Tetragrammaton or Four-Lettered Name…which occurs 6,823 times, is by far the most frequent name of God in the Bible. It is now pronounced ‘adonai; but the church father Theodoret records that the Samaritans pronounced it as (Iabe), and Origen transcribes it as (Iae), both pointing to an original vocalization yahveh [The waw yields a ‘w’ sound, not a ‘v’]” (The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5, p. 6).

“Jehovah, modern form of the Hebrew sacred name of God, probably originally ‘Yahweh.’ From c.300 B.C. the Jews, from motives of piety, uttered the name of God very rarely and eventually not at all, but substituted the title ‘Adonai,’ meaning ‘Lord,’ the vowels of which were written under the consonants of ‘Yahweh.’ In the Middle Ages and later, the vowels of one word with the consonants of the other were misread as Jehovah” (The Collegiate Encyclopedia, vol. 9, p. 580).

“Jehovah….What has been said explains the so-called qeri perpetuum, according to which the consonants of Jehovah are always accompanied in the Hebrew text by the vowels of Adonai except in the cases in which Adonai stands in apposition to Jehovah: in these cases the vowels of Elohim are substituted. The use of a simple shewa in the first syllable of Jehovah, instead of the compound shewa in the corresponding syllable of Adonai and Elohim, is required by the rules of Hebrew grammar governing the use of Shewa” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. VIII, p. 329).

“Jehovah, an erroneous pronunciation of the name of the God of Israel in the Bible, due to pronouncing the vowels of the term ‘Adonay,’ the marginal Masoretic reading with the consonants of the text-reading ‘Yahweh,’ which was not uttered to avoid the profanation of the divine name of magical or other blasphemous purposes. Hence the substitution of ‘Adonay,’ the ‘Lord,’ or ‘Adonay Elohim,’ ‘Lord God.’ The oldest Greek versions use the term ‘Kurios,’ ‘Lord,’ the exact translation of the current Jewish substitute for the original Tetragrammaton Yahweh. The reading ‘Jehovah’ can be traced to the early Middle Ages and until lately was said to have been invented by Peter Gallatin (1518), confessor of Pope Leo X. Recent writers, however, trace it to an earlier date; it is found in Raymond Martin’s Pugeo Fidei (1270)” (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 16, p. 8.).

“The personal name of the [El] of the Israelites …The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Yahweh, Micropedia, vol. 10).

“In the Hebrew Bible the Jews wrote the consonants of the Tetragrammaton as YHWH, but out of reverence for the sacred name of God (or out of fear of violating Exod. 20:7; Lev. 24:16), they vocalized and pronounced it as Adonai or occasionally as Elohim.  It is unfortunate, then, that the name was transliterated into German and ultimately into English as Jehovah (which is the way the name is represented in the American Standard Version of 1901), for this conflate form represents the vowels of Adonai superimposed on the consonants of Yahweh, and it was never intended by the Jews to be read as Yehowah (or Jehovah)” (The Making of a Contemporary Translation, p. 107).

“Jehovah in that form was unknown to the ancient Israelites.  In fact, Hebrew scholars say that Jehovah would have been impossible according to the strict principles of Hebrew vocalization.  The God of Israel was known by a name approximately rendered into English as Yahweh,” (A Book About the Bible, George Stimpson, p. 247).

“Although the meaning of the name remains subject to debate, Yahweh is most likely a verbal form of Heb. haya (perhaps originally hwy)…Because of the utmost sanctity ascribed to the name, Jews from postexilic times on have declined to pronounce it in public reading, and only the consonants were written (YHWH; the Dead Sea Scrolls use the archaic, ‘paleo-Hebrew’ script).  Although the original pronunciation was thus eventually lost, inscriptional evidence favors yahwae or yahwe.  The name is represented in the MT by the consonants with the vowel pointing for ‘adonay ‘Lord.’  From this derived ca, the sixteenth century the form ‘Jehovah’ (yehowah).  In modern usage pious Jews often substitute the expression has-sem ‘the Name,” (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Allen C. Myers, Ed., “Yahweh,” p. 1075).

“The scribes reasoned that if they did not point the name Yahweh then it could never be treated lightly since his name would not really be known.  Initially the real pointing was probably passed along by tradition, but in time it was lost.  In Exodus 20:7 the name Lord is written in capital letters according to the convention of signifying the name Yahweh, but the name as it appears in the Hebrew text is hwhy (yehowa), in which appear the consonants from the name Yahweh (hwhy [yhwh]) and the vowels from the word Lord (ynda [‘idonay]).  Proof for the fabricated nature of this word are the two vowels which appear on the waw, an impossibility in Hebrew.  However, until the revival of the Hebrew language in western Europe scholars read the consonants YHWH (Germans would read them as JHVH) with the vowels of ‘adonay, thereby originating the incorrect form Jehovah.  This word was then introduced into English by William Tyndale and was continued by the King James Version,” (The Journey from Texts to Translations, Paul D. Wegner, pp. 172-173).

“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 vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning ‘Lord’…The ancient Greek translators substituted the word Kyrios (Lord) for the Name.  The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus.  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… reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version… the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” (Revised Standard Version, Preface, pp. iv-v).

“The probable pronunciation of the OT four-lettered word YHWH, the most profound and sacred of the Hebrew names for God.  The name is interpreted in Ex. 3:14 as ‘I am who I am.’  The name was held in such high regard that the Jews were forbidden to pronounce it and read the word ‘Adonai’ (i.e., lord) instead.  When the Hebrew masoretes added the vowel points to the consonantal text, they used the vowels of Adonai with the four consonants YHWH; this was transliterated in the early versions as Jehovah.  This form of the word became quite popular, but it should be remembered that such a word never existed,” (The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, “Yahweh,” Vol. N-Z, p. 2537).

“Why not in the form ‘Jehovah’?  Is that not euphonious?  It is, without question.  Is it not widely used?  It is, and may still be freely employed to assist through a period of transition.  but is it not hallowed and endeared by many a beautiful hymn and many a pious memory?  Without doubt; and therefore it is with reluctance that is here declined.  But why is it not accepted?  There it is–familiar, acceptable, ready for adoption.  The reason is, that it is too heavily burdened with merited critical condemnation–as modern, as a compromise, as a ‘mongrel’ word, ‘hybrid,’ ‘fantastic,’ ‘monstrous.’ The facts have only to be known to justify this verdict, and to vindicate the propriety of not employing it in a new and independent translation.  What are the facts?  And first as to age. ‘The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety.’ Next, as to formation. ‘Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16…To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai] and pronounce it Jehovah, is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal – viz., Gormuna.  The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D.’  From this we may gather that the Jewish scribes are not responsible for the ‘hybrid’ combination.  They intentionally wrote alien vowels–not for combination with the sacred consonants, but for the purpose of cautioning the Jewish reader to enunciate a totally different word, viz., some other familiar name of the Most High,” (The Emphasized Bible, [Joseph Bryant Rotherham], Introduction, p. 23-25).

“‘Jehovah’ is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although ‘Yahweh’ is favored by most Hebrew scholars.  The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te∙tra-, meaning ‘four,’ and gram’ma, ‘letter’).  These four letters (written from right to left) are hwhy and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH),” (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 5:  “Jehovah,” Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988).

“Jehovah – ‘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 “kere” (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 aleph becomes a simple shewa under the yod), “holem,” and “kamez,” and these give the reading  (= “Jehovah”). Sometimes, when the two names YHWH and Adonay occur together, the former is pointed with “ḥatef 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”).’” (Jewish Encyclopedia, Emil G. Hirsch)

The above sources all confirm the fact that “Yehovah” or “Jehovah” arose from scribal additions to the Hebrew text. They added the vowel points from Adonai to the Tetragrammaton. Those who state that the name Yehovah is based on Hebrew manuscripts neglect to realize this crucial fact. The debate of Yehovah is not whether this name is found in Hebrew manuscripts, but how the name arose within these manuscripts. As scholarship overwhelmingly verifies, the name Yehovah arose from willful and deliberate alterations to the Hebrew text by Jewish scribes. For this reason, those promoting this name are simply following an old Jewish superstition designed to conceal the true name of our Creator, Yahweh!

A Late Rendition – Evolution of Je(ho)vah by the Masoretes.

From the book Pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: A Historico-Linguistic Approach, we find this interesting scholarly explanation regarding the progression of the name Jehovah and the evolution of the “ho” sound from early Masoretic (Ben Asher) Manuscripts to the later Medieval Manuscripts.

“Both Paul Kahle and Peter Katz believed Jehovah to have originated with a combination of vowels of ‘adhonay and shema’ with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton. Dr. Reisel concurs: ‘The sewa under the yod is in my view connected with the pronunciation shema (rendering for yhwh), from which the spelling yehouah < yehwah was derived, under the partial influence of ‘dhny.’ In early Masoretic (Ben Asher) MSS the common vocalization of the Tetragrammaton is yehwah in later (Medieval) MSS we find yehouah. This is the reason why many scholars view Jehovah (Yehovah) as an unnatural, artificial construction. Such arguments against the Jehovah-pronunciation would become null and void if it could be traced back to early North Israelite usage.” And this is the problem we see. Yehovah lacks any ancient manuscripts before the Masoretic times to back it up. The preponderance of ancient evidence clearly shows it must be discounted as a viable pronunciation.

Case of the Missing Vowel Point 

Some will debate that the vowel points of Adonai and Yehovah are not the same. While this is technically true, this difference is due to Hebrew grammar. Wikipedia explains this process: “The vocalisations Yehovah and Adonai are not identical. The shva in YHWH…and the hataf patakh in [Adonai]…appear different. The vocalisation can be attributed to Biblical Hebrew phonology, where the hataf patakh is grammatically identical to a shva, always replacing every shva nah under a guttural letter. Since the first letter of ינדא is a guttural letter while the first letter of הוהי is not, the hataf patakh under the (guttural) aleph reverts to a regular shva under the (non-guttural) Yod.”

The above citation was sent to Professor Fassberg, Ph.D., at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and he concurred that the explanation was correct based on Hebrew grammar (for additional information on Professor Fassberg, see section “Waw or Vav?”).

Once a person realizes this fact, the argument that Yehovah does not contain the vowel points from Adonai is simply false. The hataf patakh (compound shwa) found under the aleph of Adonai and missing from the yod of Yehovah is the result of Hebrew grammar.  Those who state otherwise in defense of Yehovah are not understanding the mechanics of the Hebrew language.

Additional Hybrids 

Another problem with those claiming that Yehovah is confirmed through the vowel points from Adonai is that we see alternative pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton based on Hebrew vowel points added by the Masoretes. For example, the Leningrad codex, a codex that many advocates of Yehovah rely on, contains additional Hebrew spellings. Below are six examples where the Divine name contains different vowel points (transliteration approximate):

יְהוָה – Yehwah (Genesis 2:4)
יְהֹוָה – Yehowah (Genesis 3:14)
יֱהֹוִה – Yehowih (Judges 16:28)
יֱהוִה – Yehwih (Genesis 15:2)
יְהֹוִה – Yehowih (1Kings 2:26)
יְהוִה – Yehwih (Ezekiel 24:24)

Using the above vowel combinations you can prove the name Yahweh by simple deduction. If the name Yahweh holds the true vowels, you would not expect to see the “Yah” and “Weh” in any form by the Masoretes, as the entire function of Kativ Kere was to hide the name and amazingly this is exactly what we see.

The Adonai Preceding Yehovah Dilemma

Those who argue that the vowels for Yehovah have no relation to Adonai have some explaining to do. Within the Leningrad codex and the Aleppo codex (see image below) is it merely coincidence that when the Tetragrammaton is preceded by Adonai, it receives different pointing? If Yehovah contains the proper and correct vowels, then why do we see the pattern of inserting the vowels for Elohim in the Tetragrammaton when Adonai proceeds it? This is a serious dilemma for the Yehovah proponents and clearly proves a redundant pattern. This is one of those elementary concepts that slips past the unlearned but is well understood in scholarship.

As seen (on p. 15) in the Aleppo Codex in Judges 16:28, the name YHWH appears twice with two different sets of vowel points with the approximate renderings “Yehwoh” and “Yehohiw.” “Yehwoh” derives from the vowel points of Adonai and “Yehohiw” derives from the vowel points of Elohim. When the word Adonai was in close proximity in the text to  YHWH, the Jews added the vowel points from Elohim to YHWH, indicating the reader was to read “Elohim.” This was to reduce redundancy with the Hebrew Adonai.  Strong’s OT:3069 explains this process: “Yehovih (yeh-ho-vee’); a variation of OT:3068 [used after OT:136, and pronounced by Jews as OT:430, in order to prevent the repetition of the same sound, since they elsewhere pronounce OT:3068 as OT:136]” (for clarification, OT:136 correspondents to “Adonai” and OT:430 to “Elohim”). According to the Englishmans Concordance, OT:3069 is found a total of 615 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.

Those who support Yehovah do so entirely on the vowel points added by the Masoretes. However, as we find in the Leningrad and Aleppo codices, along with many others, there are several different renderings for the Tetragrammaton. How it is possible to reconcile that the Jews both preserved the name Yehovah and explain why they introduced these alternate Hebrew spellings? Those who believe that Yehovah is the correct pronunciation, their only recourse would be to state that these other spellings were mistakes. However, based on the Talmud, the thought of a Jewish scribe making such a mistake, especially to the Divine name, is unthinkable. Jewish scribal rules required that if a Torah Scroll was found to contain any mistakes it could not be used, unless the mistake was resolved within  30 days. If not, the scroll was to be buried. Knowing this, even if these alternative pronunciations were mistakes, to believe that they were all missed and allowed to remain in the text is incredulous.

The other explanation is that the Jews willfully concealed the name with the vowel points from Adonai (as seen in Genesis 2:4 within the Leningrad codex) and Elohim (as seen in Judges 16:28 of the Leningrad and Aleppo codices). Considering the implausibility that the Jews overlooked these alternative spellings, the only logical conclusion is that they were aware and added the vowel points to instruct the reader not to pronounce the Divine name and replace it with the words “Adonai” and “Elohim.” As a side note, the Masoretes would often add the vowel points from Elohim to YHWH when the Tetragrammaton preceded the word “Adonai.” This was to reduce redundancy within the text.

Waw or Vav?

Another linguistic impossibility with Yehovah is the use of the “v.” While some who support Yehovah will state that the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet was originally a “vav” and not a “waw,” pronounced as a “v” and not a “w,” most Hebrew scholars disagree. According to some linguists, the Hebrew vav arose from Ashkenazi Hebrew, which was influenced by the Germanic language.

Menahem Mansoor notes, “There are, generally speaking, two main pronunciations: the Ashkenazi, or German, originated by Central and Eastern European Jews and carried to all countries to which those Jews have emigrated (Western Europe, America, etc.): and the Sephardi, or Spanish, used by the Jews of Spanish or Portugese stock in Europe and America and also by Jews from Oriental countries. In all universities and through-out Israel, the Sephardi pronunciation has been adopted, since it is generally believed that this is the pronunciation nearest to the original…” (Biblical Hebrew, p. 33)

As noted by Menahem Mansoor, Sephardi is older than Ashkenazi and closest to biblical Hebrew. Unlike Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Yemenite Hebrew were never influenced by the Germanic language and therefore maintained a closer resemblance to ancient Hebrew.

Edward Horowitz in his book, How the Hebrew Language Grew, states, “The sound of waw a long time ago wasn’t ‘vav’ at all but ‘w’ and ‘w’ is weak. The Yemenite Jews of Arabia who retain an ancient, correct and pure pronunciation of Hebrew still pronounce the waw as ‘w,’ as does Arabic, the close sister language of Hebrew,” pp. 29-30. As Horowitz notes, the “vav” is a modern form of the older “waw.”

In addition, J.D. Wijnkoop,. literary candidate in the University of Leyden and rabbi of the Jewish Congregation in Amsterdam,  states in his book, Manual of Hebrew Grammar, “Waw is a softly, scarcely audible pronounced w, which is produced by a quick opening of the lips,” (Forgotten Books, Classic Reprint Series, 2015, p. 3, original publication 1898).

Mansoor, Horowitz, and Wijnkoop all confirm that the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet was originally a waw and pronounced as a “w.” Horowitz also notes that the Yemenite Jews have a purer form of Hebrew as compared to modern Hebrew. Incidentally, during our 2016 expedition to the Holy Land, our Israeli archaeologist, a graduate of Hebrew University and archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, confirmed that the pronunciation was Yahweh and stated that this is how his Yemenite wife would pronounce the Name and explained how Yemenite Hebrew is closer to biblical Hebrew with the use of the “waw” in place of the newer “vav.”

Dr. Steven Fassberg, who received his Ph.D. from Harvard and teaches at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as a professor in the Hebrew language department, also confirms the use of the waw and the erroneous nature of Yehovah. He states, “The pronunciation you mentioned [i.e., Yehovah] is a mistake. The Hebrew consonantal text is YHWH and no one really knows how that was pronounced in Old Testament times. At a later date (the latter half of the 2nd millennium CE) Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal text. Whenever the Tetragrammaton was written, they added the vowel signs of the word ‘Adonay,’ which means ‘My Lord’ – there was a taboo on pronouncing the Divine name and one was supposed to read the word ‘Adonay – my Lord.’ Much later some started reading the vowel signs together with YHWH and came up with the nonsensical word Jehovah.

“There is no doubt that the original sound was w and not v. Sometime during the history of the Hebrew language there was a shift from w > v in pronunciation, probably already during the Mishnaic Period” (email correspondence).

In addition to serving as director of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature from 2006-2009, he has also contributed to many articles and publications. Below are a few as noted on his online profile:

  • Revision and updating of the entries “Aramaic,” “Neo-Aramaic,” and “Semitic Languages,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, eds. M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007.
  • A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. Harvard Semitic Studies 38. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990. 322 pages.
  • Studies in the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994. 202 pp. (in Hebrew)
  • The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa. Semitic Languages and Linguistics 54. Leiden: Brill, 2010. p. 314
  • The Language of the Bible, 87-104 in Zipora Talshir, ed., The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2011 (in Hebrew).

Even though Professor Fassberg does not admit to the Divine name, he makes it absolutely clear that Yehovah is a mistake as it follows the old Jewish tradition of adding the vowel points from Adonai to the Tetragrammaton. He concludes by stating that Jehovah, i.e., Yehovah, is “nonsensical.”

He also explains that while the Jews combined the vowel points with the Divine name, the Jews were to read Adonai. Only later did some Jews incorrectly begin reading the vowel points with “YHWH,” phonetically enunciating Yehovah. Ironically, those who support Yehovah today are not only following a long-standing rabbinic tradition of concealing the Name, but doing so incorrectly based on the initial Jewish practice.

He also confirms here with absolute certainty that the waw pre-dates the vav. This again poses a significant problem for those who support Yehovah. Since the “vav” did not exist in biblical Hebrew, Yehovah would have been an impossibility. Only in modern Hebrew do we see the use of the “vav.”

In another email correspondence we asked Professor Adina Moshavi of the Hebrew University, why does the Hebrew University teach in their curriculum that anciently, the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a “w” sound rather than the modern Hebrew “v” sound?

She said: “…there are many ways to demonstrate that the waw was not originally pronounced as a labiodental “v” as it is in Tiberian Hebrew. The fact that the waw is frequently used as a mater lectionis for a long u sound would be impossible to explain if it was pronounced v, like the bet rafeh, rather as the semivowel w. Furthermore, there are many Hebrew words where a historical diphthong aw, as evidenced from Semitic cognates, has been reduced to a long vowel, e.g., in hiphil perfect of w-initial verbs hawrid > horid “he brought down”, or in the word yawm > yom “day”, and alternations between a diphthong and a long vowel, e.g., absolute mawwet vs. construct mot “death.  Such correspondences are only understandable if the phonetic value of the waw was a semivowel.” Professor Adina Moshavi has a Ph.D. in Semitic languages and Literature, Biblical Hebrew syntax, Biblical Hebrew pragmatics, and is part of the faculty at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hebrew Language Department.

However, even with such overwhelming evidence, there is one popular teacher within the Messianic community who  attempts to support the use of the vav by stating that the waw arose through Arabic influence.  While he states that this was confirmed by a “top expert,” he fails to identify this person. It should also be noted that Hebrew is far older than Arabic in fact Arabic is derived from Aramaic, which uses a “w” for the sixth letter. We should also note, the Aramaic square script alphabet was adopted by the Jews around the time of Ezra. According to scholars, the Arabic language does not predate the 4th century CE. The thought of a newer language influencing a pre-existing language in such a way is illogical. This person also states that the vav can be verified from a 6th century CE Hebrew poet Eleazar ben Killir. According to Professor Fassberg, the “v” as it pertains to vav, can be be verified by the Mishnaic Period (1st to 3rd century CE, see below). Therefore, knowing that the “v” existed by the 3rd century CE, it should not be a surprise to find a Hebrew document from the 6th century CE using the “v.” These co-called proofs for a “v” sound for the Hebrew waw is nothing but smoke and mirrors and contrary to the preponderance of scholarship.

yehovah, manuscripts, 1000, adonai, eleazar ben Killir, aleppo codex, codex Cairensis, mishnaic period,

Dead Sea Scrolls Rebuff “Yehovah”

Additional waw as found in Dead Sea Scrolls, but replaced with the holam in Masoretic codices.

There’s another issue with Yehovah and that is the use of the “o.”  This letter derives from the holam, the vowel point that sits above the waw within the Masoretic manuscripts. The issue with this letter is that it’s not supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In many cases, when a holam appears in the Masoretic documents, the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect this sound through the use of the letter waw, which in biblical Hebrew was used as both a vowel and consonant. An example of this can been seen with the Hebrew elohim in Psalms 138:1. In this instance, yehovah, pentagrammaton, jehovahthe Dead Sea Scrolls contain an additional waw, which is replaced with the holam in the Masoretic codices.  With this in mind, we should anticipate seeing an additional waw in the Tetragrammaton in some of the instances of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Surprisingly, though, there are no instances where the Tetragrammaton contains a second waw to reflect the “o” within the Dead Sea Scrolls. This lack of evidence strongly suggested that the holam or “o” within Yehovah is a recent addition. This is one more piece of evidence confirming that Yehovah is a counterfeit.

Four Vowels 

Flavius Josephus, the prominent Jewish historian who lived between 37 – 100 CE, also attests to the use of the waw or “w” within the Hebrew language. In describing the High Priest’s mitre or turban, he writes, “A mitre also of fine linen encompassed his head, which was tied by a blue ribbon, about which there was another golden crown, in which was engraven the sacred name: it consists of four vowels,” The Wars Of The Jews, Book 5, chapter 5, paragraph 7.

Besides the waw the other letters in the mitre were yod and hey, which formed the Tetragrammaton (yod-hey-waw-hey), that appeared on the High Priest’s mitre. Technically, the Hebrew language has understood vowels and these Hebrew letters are vowel-consonants with the following sounds:

  • Yod = “ee”
  • Hey = “ei,” “ay,” “ah”
  • Waw = “oh,” “oo”

Vowels are spoken with an open mouth, allowing unobstructed air flow, and consonantal sounds are produced with the mouth fairly or partially closed. We can see that in such consonants as v, f, s, and z, the airflow is obstructed and the sound is made by squeezing the air through a narrow space.

While “v” is considered a consonant, “w” can be both a vowel and consonant and categorized as a semi-vowel. The Standard American Encyclopedia states, “W represents two sounds: 1) The distinctive sound properly belonging to it is that which it has at the beginning of a syllable, and when followed by a vowel, as in was, will, woe, forward, housework, etc.; 2) at the end of syllables, in which position it is always preceded by a vowel, it has either no force at all (or at most only serves to lengthen the vowel), as in law, paw, grow, lawful; or it forms the second element in a diphthong, as in few, new, now, vow, in such cases it is really a vowel,” Vol. XIV, “W,” 1940.

Once a person understands how a vowel is formed and that Yahweh’s Name (YHWH) consists of four vowel-consonants, the question about the “vav” and “waw” is quickly settled. Since the “vav” produces a “v” sound, representing a consonant, and the waw produces a “w” sound, representing a consonant or vowel, the only possible option is the “waw.”

Early Church Fathers

While “Yehovah” does not appear in any manuscript before the 9th century, CE, there is evidence for “Yahweh” within Greek manuscripts dating to the 2nd century CE, and later. Consider the following sources:

“The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh’” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 7, p. 680).

“Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions  also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. x, p. 786).

“The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by transliteration of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form iaoue (Clement of Alexandria) or iabe (Theodoret; by this time Gk. b had the pronunciation of v)…Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the only ‘name’ of God. In Genesis wherever the word sem (‘name’) is associated with the divine being that name is Yahweh” (Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, 1979 p. 478).

“Such a conclusion, giving ‘Yahweh’ as the pronunciation of the name, is confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers and gentile writers, where the forms IAO, Yaho, Yaou, Yahouai, and Yahoue appear. Especially important is the statement of Theodoret in relation to Ex. lvi., when he says: ‘the Samaritans call it [the tetragrammaton] ‘Yabe,’ the Jews call it ‘Aia’…” (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, “Yahweh,” p. 471).

“I mentioned the evidence from Greek papyri found in Egypt. The best of these is Iaouee (London Papyri, xlvi, 446-483). Clement of Alexandria said, “The mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton…is pronounced Iaoue, which means, “Who is, and who shall be”’” (Dr. Anson R. Rainy, Biblical Archaeology Review, Sept.-Oct 1994). Dr. Rainy is a professor of Ancient and Near Eastern Cultures and Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University.

As confirmed through these references, the pronunciation of Yahweh was preserved in Greek by several church fathers. This included Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Theodoret. It’s important to realize that these Greek documents contain vowels, ensuring the exact pronunciation, and that they pre-date the Hebrew manuscripts containing the pronunciation “Yehovah” by nearly 700 years.

Gnostic Support

In addition to early church writers, evidence for Yahweh is also found in The Nag Hammadi codices, dating from the 2nd to 4th century CE. This library of Gnostic writings was discovered in Upper Egypt, near Nag Hammadi, in 1945. In all, there are over 50 texts within this library. Since they are in Greek, as the church fathers, they preserve  the pronunciation.

One such book is The Secret Book of John. Within this codex, it mentions the name Yahweh and notes, “Eloim and Yawe, two names of God in the Hebrew scriptures…. Yahweh is the name of God (based on the Tetragrammaton, the ineffable four-letter name)” (Dr. Marvin Meyer, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, p. 127).

The Secret Book of John dates to the second century, as it was known to the church father Irenaeus. This was the same timeframe as Clement of Alexandria, who also confirmed the name. Even though Gnosticism was rightly deemed heretical by the early church, it is another witness to the pronunciation of Yahweh. The fact that these groups were at odds, but agreed on “Yahweh,” is significant and adds credence to this pronunciation. It verifies that “Yahweh” was widely recognized as early as the second century, nearly 700 years before any Hebrew manuscripts containing Yehovah.

Yahweh, BCE

There is perhaps evidence supporting Yahweh’s name as far back as Hammurabi (1810 – 1750 BCE), the first king of Babylon. According to Halley’s Bible Handbook on page 62, “Sayce announced (1898) that he had discovered, on three separate tablets in the British museum, of the time of Hammurabi, the words jahwe…is God.” Clearly, jahwe would be rendered “Yahweh.”

Additional evidence for the short form “Yah” may also be found in the Murashu texts dating back to 464 BCE (Aramaic cuneiform scripts on clay tablets) and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, containing the first syllable of the Tetragrammaton and corresponding to IA or YA. This may offer additional evidence against the “yeh” in Yehovah.

It’s important to note that both of these sources contain vowels, which confirms the “yah” syllable before Jewish vowel pointing.

Akkadian Tablets Reveal “Yah”

Another strike against the “Yeh” prefix in Yehovah is that we find many Jewish names with the theophoric element “Yah” and “Yahu” dating to 572-477 BCE in Akkadian cuneiform tablets, a language cognate to Hebrew.  Examples of such names include: Yahadil, Yahitu, Yahmuzu, Yahuazar, Yahuazza, and Yahuhin. YRM recently contacted several professors through email inquiring about these names and received the following responses. Professor Ran Zadok from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who specializes in Mesopotamian, Iranian and Judaic Studies, confirmed, “It seems to me that the cuneiform spellings render approximately *Ya(h)w” (see similar rendering on the Dead Sea Scroll fragment below).

Professor Martin Worthington from Cambridge who specializes in Mesopotamian languages and literature, states, “…scholarly consensus has it that Yahwistic names are well attested in first-millennium Babylonia. As several scholars have observed, there is a strong tendency (though not an absolute rule) for the form to be yahu at the beginning of the name, and yama at the end of the name (though yama is actually yawa, since in this period intervocalic m is usually pronounced w). The cuneiform script does include vowels.  The sign IA is a bit of a special case, since it can represent ia, ii, iu or ie.  But in this case we also have spellings such as ia-a-hu, showing that the vowel is indeed ‘a’.” For additional study, refer to Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer by Laurie E. Pearce and Cornelia Wunsch.

In addition to these sources confirming the short form “Yahw” or “Yaho,” they also suggest that a shift occurred between “Yah” to “Ye” within the prefixes of Jewish names between the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid (572-477 BCE) and the Masoretic (6-10 century CE) periods. These names also offer indirect evidence for the prefix “Yah” within the Tetragrammaton and therefore casting doubt on the “Ye” within Yehovah.

The Smoking Gun

It’s surprising for some to learn that the short form of the name “Yah” (Yahweh = ee-ah-oo-eh) is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Manuscript 4Q120-4QpapLXXLevb (See below) shows the Greek: Iota, Alpha, Omega, transliteration: YAW or Yahw. This clearly shows that the vowel pointing with “Yeh” is erroneous as it relates to the phonetic pronunciation of the name and supports the scholarly consensus that these vowel markings are a direct result of the later vowel pointing for Adonai added to the Tetragrammaton.

It’s important to understand that the “Omega” in Greek does not produce the sound of a “V” but a “W.” In phonetic terms, the Ancient Greek Ω or lowercase ω; is a long open-mid o, comparable to the vowel of the British word “raw.”

As noted in the book – The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, pg. 472: “…It is worth noting that in Lev. iv, 27 (4Q120, fr. 20, 4) the Tetragram (the divine name YHWH) is rendered semi-phonetically as Iao, and is not replaced, as was customary later, by the Greek Kurios (Lord).”

It’s rather puzzling to see an attempt to use late manuscripts e.g. Leningrad Codex, Aleppo Codex (both 10 Century C.E. MSS) as proof for Yehovah, but which also have several other renderings like Yehohiw (with the vowels for Elohim inserted) written in the text. Yet, we see in the Dead Sea Scrolls three of the four parts of the Tetragrammaton (Yahw) going back to the 1st Century written in Greek with the vowels preserved. This is over 900 years before the Leningrad and Aleppo codices were written.

yahweh, dead sea scrolls, iao, yehovah, yahu, greek,

Retracting Yehovah

There are at least two instances where scholars accepted Yehovah but then later retracted their support in favor for Yahweh. After supporting Yehovah in its first edition, the Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentaries removed it from later printings. They stated, “…it must be conceded that the pronunciation Jahve [Yahweh] is to be regarded as the original pronunciation.  The mode of pronunciation Jehova [Yehovah] has only come up within the last three hundred years; our  own ‘Jahava’ [in the first edition] was an innovation” (Nehemiah to Psalm LXVII, p. 827).

Gesenius also initially accepted the Tetragrammaton with the vowel points from Adonai, but then later retracted his support for this hybrid and was noted within Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, “This opinion Gesenius afterward thoroughly retracted,” p. 337.  Upon rejecting Yehovah, he supported the pronunciation Yahweh.

Both Keil and Delitzsch and Gesenius [1786–1842] , perhaps the most renowned linguistic scholar of his day and even in modern scholarship, rejected the inaccurate form Yehovah in favor of Yahweh. This withdrawal offers additional evidence for the erroneous nature of Yehovah.

Wilhelm Gesenius in his Hebrew Lexicon, the first edition published in 1810 and 1812,  supported the pronunciation Yahweh (with the final letter being silent) as a result of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by early church theologian Theodoret (393–458/466 CE), and because the theophoric name prefixes YHW /jeho/ and YW /jo/, the theophoric name suffixes YHW /jahu/ and YH /jah/, and the abbreviated form YH /jah/ can be derived from the form Yahweh. The Dead Sea Scrolls Manuscript 4Q120-4QpapLXXLevb seen above in Greek rendering YAW, clearly illustrates the Masoretes later inserted the vowels for Adonai – ‘Yehovah’ by reading the Masoretic text in Leviticus 3:12. It’s interesting to point out that this later evidence was unaware to Gesenius and reaffirms his position.)

Gesenius referenced the 1707 book by Adriaan Reland which reprinted the views of a number of scholars on the proofs for and against the pronunciation “Yahweh” vs “Jehovah”, which allowed the readers to make their own determination based on the evidence. Already there was a move by scholars to support Reeland’s view that the pronunciation was indeed Yahweh (יַהְוֶה‎) and better represents how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced, rather than the previously believed Masoretic punctuation “יְהֹוָה‎” (Yehovah) thought correct by early Catholic scholars uneducated in the Hebrew language, who did not understand the orthographic device called Qere Ketiv, from which the English name Jehovah was derived. Another Masoretic Ketiv Kere punctuation, “יֱהֹוִה‎”, is used where the synagogue reader speaks Elohim, as he sees the vowels for Elohim inserted in the Tetragrammaton.

Weighing the Evidence 

Let us weigh the evidence for Yehovah and Yahweh. First, we will consider Yehovah. According to a small number of individuals, the name Yehovah is found in Hebrew manuscripts dating back no earlier than the 9th century CE. And while they provide such late Hebrew manuscripts for this conclusion, they have no additional proof to offer. It’s also noteworthy that these manuscripts all include the vowel points or diacritical notes of the Masoretes or Jewish scribes.

The same is not true for Yahweh. The name Yahweh is confirmed by church fathers and Gnostic codices dating back to the 2nd century CE, nearly 700 years before Yehovah appears within any Hebrew manuscript. In addition, biblical and linguistic scholarship nearly universally agrees that Yehovah is an erroneous hybrid that arose by adding the vowel points from Adonai to the Tetragrammaton, a point that advocates of Yehovah disagree with, but have no scholarship to rebut. Modern scholarship also overwhelmingly is in agreement with the pronunciation Yahweh. Also, the “w” in Yahweh (Hebrew letter “waw”) is almost unanimously agreed upon by scholars to pre-date the modern “v” or “vav” within Yehovah. Credible biblical Hebrew classes like “Basics of Biblical Hebrew” from Zondervan and many others will teach this as fact in their curriculum.

The real issue with Yehovah is not that it doesn’t appear in Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, but how it originated within those manuscripts. Therefore, whether a person claims one or a thousand manuscripts, the result is the same; this hybrid arose from willful and deliberate scribal modifications of the Tetragrammaton due to a belief that this Name was too holy to use, a claim that the Bible clearly refutes. This was done by adding the vowel points from Adonai and Elohim to the four letters of the Creator’s name. While this was done out of reverence for the name, such tampering is not biblically permitted. The Third Command warns of not using Yahweh’s name in vain. One way of using Yahweh’s name in vain is by replacing it with a counterfeit, such as Yehovah.

For additional information, watch the below videos exposing the hybrid Yehovah:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Posted in Sacred Name.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

151 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wayne
7 years ago

History records the letter W didn’t exist before the 13th-14th century. The letter W replaced the use of VV and UU. The proper name of our Father in heaven is Yahuah.

Rich
Rich
Reply to  Wayne
7 years ago

No, the first syllable is not Yah. The vowel points make it very clear it is Yeh.

Collin Busbee
Collin Busbee
Reply to  Rich
2 years ago

Yeah your right, it’s so funny how these guys miss it. The “kamatz” in Yah is replaced be a “sh’va” when the word is elongated, or when the first three letters of the Tetragrammaton are at the beginning of a name. Great example, prime Minister Benjamin Netan-yahu (first three letter of the Tetragrammaton at the end of the name) which means “Given of Yah”, is the same as Jonathan but backwards. Jonathan in Hebrew is “Yeho-natan” (first three letters of the Tetragrammaton at the beginning of the name) which means “Yah is Given”. When those letters appear at the beginning… Read more »

james burley
james burley
Reply to  Rich
22 days ago

There was no niqqud in Biblical times.

Levi
Levi
Reply to  Wayne
5 years ago

Take any accredited “Biblical Hebrew” class and you will find that the W (double UU) had the “W” sound anciently. Modern Linguists base this off of Yemenite Hebrew, which is studied as the purest from of Hebrew, as the Yemenite Jews were never displaced like all the others from the region. My second class in “Basics of Biblical Hebrew” with Van Pelt PhD gave this explanation. The name Yahuah is not a scholarly name but surmised from some who do not understand how Hebrew works and the many rules associated with it. To think you can remove a Hebrew letter… Read more »

Marc
Marc
Reply to  Wayne
5 years ago

I concur and so does Dr. Steven Pigeon, The son of YAHUAH used the Hebrew name YAHUSHA. Both Names are held in the highest esteem and are sacred and divine.

Rich
Rich
Reply to  Wayne
4 years ago

No it isn’t. You obviously don’t know Hebrew.

Steven
Steven
7 years ago

The only problem I have with Yah we have with Yahweh are the rules of translation to my understanding is to constants next to one another without a vow point Yah-weh where is the vowel between the Hey and the waw. Though three syllables in the name e-yeh aser e-yeh or e-yah aser e-yah is see so many reasons why the pronounced name may not be considered . Will you explain. And there is more

Rich
Rich
Reply to  Steven
7 years ago

The name Ehyeh is actually 3 syllables. It’s Eh-heh-yeh.

Sven
Sven
Reply to  YRM
1 year ago

In your article you make the statement “mandated by Hebrew grammar” as to why the hateph-patach of adonay, when applied to YHVH, is changed or reduced further(?). Could you please quote the Grammar you are referencing? I can’t find an example of this in any of my Hebrew Grammars. Or were you just parroting this information from somewhere else? Either way, it appears you are misapplying the concept of propretonic reduction of an initial qamats, tsere, and some segholate nouns, but that applies to nouns NOT NAMES to the process you show. The word adoneem (lords), the plural of adon,… Read more »

Sven
Sven
Reply to  YRM
1 year ago

Telling the truth of ancient Hebrew is cynical? You are telling half truths as counterfeits to the whole truth. Gutterals and resh can take a sheva – הוֹדַעְתָּ (Psa 77:15) and פַרְעֹה (Gen 12:15) – a silent one. But this rule and the rules from the grammar you quote are irrelevant in this situation. It is true these rules exist in grammar for adding prefixes and suffixes or elongating nouns with pluralization. So this is the half truth. The whole truth is this is substitution of vowels of one word onto another – there are no rules. In the Dr.… Read more »

Steven
Steven
7 years ago

I’m sorry I mean the two constants next to one another without a vowel point.

Wesley Holder
Wesley Holder
7 years ago

I for one am grateful. I was watching a new show the other day and the one hosting the show kept using the name Yehovah. At this point in my life, I had never heard of such a name. My curiosity has been getting the better of me. I am so glad that Yahweh led me to your discussion. I personally believe that you cannot call on the Name of the LORD if you don’t know what His Name is. Once again thank you for solving this problem for me.

Linda
Linda
Reply to  Wesley Holder
5 years ago

Excellent point?

Rich
Rich
7 years ago

Hebrew grammar dictates that G-d’s name is three syllables. So right off the bat, Yahweh is incorrect. Secondly, Yehoveh is the correct vocalization of the name, unless your tradition vocalizes the vav as a “w”. In that case it would be Yehoweh. The true pronunciation is Yeh- ho- vuh. There isn’t any debate among Orthdox Jewish scholars. Everyone of them, without fail have verified this although they refused to say it, they had no aversion to me saying it and them agreeing with my pronunciation.

Anthony Hallman
Anthony Hallman
Reply to  YRM
4 years ago

You seem to be sharing a monologue of your views without being open to the possibility that your contentions could be incorrect. “Based on scholarship, this is incorrect.” —what is that scholarship? and can it be evaluated? “Greek inscriptions from early church fathers, along with the Samaritans and Gnostics, all verify the pronunciation of Yahweh.” —what are those inscriptions? and can they be evaluated? “The name “Yehovah” developed through a deliberate effort to conceal the Name by transposing the vowel points of Adonai to the four letters of the Father’s Name.” —what is the evidence that there was such a… Read more »

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

May you please include the root words of both YAHWEH and Yehova, as far as I have seen, Hova means destruction.

Robert Steven Hamburg
Robert Steven Hamburg
Reply to  Anonymous
5 years ago

Different root for hova

Diane Watson
Diane Watson
6 years ago

Sorry but the only deception is this article. Almost now 100 witnesses to the name Yehovah in both early and later texts…What witnesses do you have for Yahweh? Zero. The Father will get the truth out despite the obstacles you place in the way of His people. May your hearts be softened, and may you be willing to seek out the truth even if it means that you are wrong and the name of your ministry has to change.
Shalom. And you keep deleting my comments…That’s okay…the Father knows.

Elton Eyas
Elton Eyas
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

encyclopedia was written 1900’s, those evidence nehemiah gordon showed dated way beyond the dates you can present. the author of encyclopedia has never been born yet when those eivdence was written. its older than the oldest person you know today. then, you just made assumptions of the hebrew language without presenting evidence. thats a failure on your side. if we cannot trust those scrolls on how it was voweled out, where should we get our original scrolls to correct those wrong tranlsations? you said scribes should be knowledgeable enough to write those scrolls accureately, you have spoken right, but then… Read more »

Ba'al
Ba'al
Reply to  YRM
5 years ago

ADNIs vowels would not sound anything like YHWHs except in the rabbinical tradition you’re speaking of where they purposely did this. You know how to read hebrew right? Because Adonai has different vowels than our pronunciation of yehowah…. They said adonai instead of it because yehowah is an unspeakable name and they would not even pronounce it with adonai’s diacriticals that is just how it was written because of mystical traditions and belief, and if they had pronounced it with adonai’s vowels in it which they did not. Except in kabbalistic tradition where they would cycle through all vowel combinations… Read more »

Robert Steven Hamburg
Robert Steven Hamburg
Reply to  YRM
5 years ago

If its “Technically” true. Then that would mean, it’s true. Any person can see the first vowel in adonai and the devine name are….different. People can say IF they do this, or simply change that to this, then it means this other thing. People can reinvent definitions to say anything they want to. Men can claim they are women. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Except to those who want to believe it.

Peter Howell
Peter Howell
Reply to  YRM
4 years ago

It seems you want to believe that the name is Yahweh more than anything else and you’re fighting to hold on to it. You have recited many ancient pagan sources to support this pronunciation and I would say that they speak against the name being Yahweh, as they did not have a relationship with God, nor a connection with the Hebrew language. I first came to understand the meaning of the name from Jews who knew the name stood for “He who will be, he who is, he who was” and Yahweh does not have that meaning — this was… Read more »

Fair play
Fair play
Reply to  YRM
3 years ago

Yet in none of those examples you give is it “Yah-“. However, you are looking at ONE codex, and a few dead sea scroll fragments, and specifically only looking at things that support your view point. The weight of evidence in just the Leningrad Codex is against you, not to mention other codexes, and thousands of manuscript fragments.

roger gloux
roger gloux
Reply to  Elton Eyas
5 years ago

Elton Eyas, when Nehem-iah Gordon started his ministry, he actually went to his Rabbi mentor and asked him how to say YHVH. He didn’t know. Also, if you follow Nehem-YaH -, you will find he is adamant his name is “Nechem-YaH and not Nechem-YeHO. His Rabbi said it could also be “yihyeh” (which is the causitive form of EXIST) One place “yihyeh” shows up is in the First Commandment which reads….. Lo yih’yeh le’kha e’lo’him a’hhe’rim al pa’nai. …word for word is…. Not exist to you elohim others upon faces me. The translators had to rearranged this to read…. “You… Read more »

Bruce
Bruce
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

Would youplease explain why you think the pronunciation Yehovah is an impossibility?

Bruce
Bruce
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

It lloks like there have been document found that date well beyond 1520.
Please continue your research.

Bruce
Bruce
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

I believe I know why there is so much confution on the pronunciation; but I would need to be in person for us to be able to hear the sounds. Type print doesnt do it?

YOSEF
YOSEF
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

YRM: Regarding the time period of the pronunciation Jehovah – 1520 AD. Is this not the same time period of the invention of the letter “J”. The English converted the “I” in Greek to the English “J”, as I understand it. Thus, we have much mischief regarding “times, seasons, etc.” which our adversary will use to misdirect our worship. Shalom family.

Lisa
Lisa
Reply to  Diane Watson
5 years ago

Diane, I don’t think your comments are being deleted… I can see this one 🙂

Todd
6 years ago

Interesting reading. I’ve read many materials all claiming to be right. Over the past several years and after listening and following several scholars, teachers and Linguists who are Fluent in the Languages and the ancient writings and manuscripts, I’ve come to my own conclusion that Yahweh isn’t his name. I started off believing it was. But have discovered and now believe otherwise its not despite this excellent written article. I believe His name is Yehovah and his son’s name is Yeshua. I don’t believe in the names of Yahshua, or Yahuda or Yahusha, etc. There are simply too many people… Read more »

Patrick Williamson
Patrick Williamson
6 years ago

It’s very comforting and reassuring that being a ”new creation” in Messiah Yeshua the pronunciation of YHWH is recognized by Him, as Daddy.

Tom
Tom
6 years ago

Question – are you yourself fluent in Hebrew and have you read to multitudes of documented commentary from centuries of Rabbis whom specifically verify the validity that Yehovah is indeed the correct pronunciation?

Corey
Corey
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

Thanks for writing this up as I’ve wondered on the history of where Yahweh came from and this was a good concise write up with some great detail for the non-Hebrew speaker and researcher. I’m wondering if you have kept up on Mr. Gordon’s work as only in the last few years has 10s (might be hundreds, but I don’t want to exaggerate) been found among Hebrew only texts making them inaccessible to most of the world. Gordon goes into great detail about the cost of relying on Gnostic, and generally pagan sources for the name of the father while… Read more »

Michael
Michael
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

http://www.jesus-messiah.com/studies/yahweh-full-copy.html

The Yahweh name was invented by a Catholic monk in 1725AD plus there are over 20 guesses of the creator’s name the best name to call the creator is Heavenly Father or Heavenly Father King of the Universe

Ryanman
Ryanman
Reply to  Corey
6 years ago

Answer me this, why do we see every time the Tetragrammaton was preceded with Adonai the pointing of the Tetragrammaton contains the vowels of Elohim? This is in the Lenengrad and Aleppo codices. I have yet to find one Yehovah proponent rationally explain this phenomenon. I would expect they wouldn’t since Yehovah is a combination of the Nikkud of Adonai.

James
James
Reply to  Ryanman
6 years ago

I could be perpetuating a myth as I don’t speak Hebrew, but this is the explanation that I heard in regard to your question: “However, when God’s name and the title Adonai appear side by side, the reader is faced with an obvious problem—the awkward repetition ‘Adonai Adonai.’ In such cases the reader is supposed to use Elohim (meaning ‘God’) as a replacement for God’s name rather than the usual Adonai. To prompt the reader to make this substitution, the final vowel of the word Elohim (ḥireq, long E) was inserted into God’s personal name, creating the altered form Yehovih.… Read more »

YOSEF
YOSEF
6 years ago

Wow! Maybe the “body of Christ” should take a deep breath and pump the brakes a little? This discussion about the “proper” pronunciation of the name of the Most High. Yet, all of us know that this system is rooted in deception and lies. (Revelation 12:9) We also know that none of us need to develop a massive case of dogmatitists, especially at this late date. Each member of the “bride” has a gift that can only be enjoyed in the presence of other members of the “bride”. Seems to me, we should be willing to share rather than argue… Read more »

trackback
6 years ago

[…] Learn more about Yahweh Name through our booklet, including why it matters whether we use Yahweh or Jehovah, Your Father’s Name. For more info on the origins of Jehovah please check out our article: The Yehovah Deception. […]

Diggindrums
Diggindrums
6 years ago

Interesting

trackback
6 years ago

[…] Based on these facts, the number of manuscripts found with the vowel points of Yehovah is irrelevant. This reasoning is nothing but smoke and mirrors designed to lead people astray from the correct pronunciation Yahweh. For additional information, read our online article: The Yehovah Deception. […]

Janice
Janice

Over 2400 manuscripts now…in the year 2022

Matt C
Matt C
6 years ago

I used to be in the Yahweh camp, I even have a couple YRM bibles. At that point YRM was my go-to site, second was eliyah.com. I found fellowshiped locally with a group who used Yehovah. When I ernestly sought an answer with prayer, and an open heart to explore available sources for the answer. After many months I found an answer that was confirmed by more than one source. Not the opinions of those who relied on the status-quo, Strong’s Concordance, nor the defense of tradition, but actual research by a Hebrew scholar. If you want to hear an… Read more »

Lars
Lars
Reply to  Matt C
3 years ago

I would be very cautious to trust a man like Nehemiah Gordon. For the following reasons: 1 He is not a Christian. Nehemiah is a Karaite Jew. He openly rejects that Jesus is Messiah. He says he found another Jesus in a secret old Hebrew text based on the gospel of Matthew. He goes on to explain who he thinks his Hebrew version of Matthew’s book reveals Jesus to really be: “It seems more and more that Yeshua may have been a first century Karaite opposing man-made laws of the Rabbis and returning people to the Torah.” I find this… Read more »

Last edited 3 years ago by Lars
Lars2
Lars2
Reply to  Lars
1 year ago

It’s about time someone mentioned that the man who warns against using “pagan” resources is in fact a “non-believer” trying to persuade people who, I may be wrong but I don’t think so, believe in Y’shua as Messiah. He seems to have amassed a great number of die-hard “followers” among “believers”. Amazing. Another observation is how many responses to this article don’t seem to have actually read the article as witnessed by their objections.

Walter Schwenk
Walter Schwenk
Reply to  Lars2
1 year ago

lars, NG is correct in comparing Yahshua to a “karaite” mindset. Yahshua taught to beware the added mandates of the pharisees, just as most karaites do. He is wrong on the “name”, but that is a different story. I hope we can agree that Yahshua advised to beware the leaven of the pharisees.

trackback
6 years ago

[…] [9] In these essays I’ve used several names for the Hebrew יהוה.  Admittedly, I was being catty when I used Jehovah to obliquely reference the undercurrent in religious thought that Jesus died to save us from an evil god.  I abandoned the name Yahweh for reasons akin to the genetic fallacy: I learned Yahweh from Nietzsche.  He was not only an atheist but a philologist as well.  I settled on yehôvâh because it was in Strong’s Concordance, the same source I’ve used for all the other Hebrew words addressed in these essays.  Subsequently I’ve come across an argument favoring… Read more »

Joe
Joe
6 years ago

I stopped reading after the first sentence! The vowels of Yehovah are NOT the same as the vowels of Adonai. Period.

Eric castanier
Eric castanier
Reply to  YRM
6 years ago

putting the vowels of adonai in yhwh s is falsified the name of GOD something a scribe could never do

KiruvMedia
6 years ago

The name “Yahweh” is a Christian-pagan invention! Yehovah is the proper name of God.

hoshayah
hoshayah
Reply to  YRM
4 years ago

Why cant the name just be call YAOH The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by transliteration of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form iaoue (Clement of Alexandria) or iabe (Theodoret; by this time Gk. b had the pronunciation of v)…Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the only ‘name’ of God. In Genesis wherever the word sem (‘name’) is associated with the divine being that name is Yahweh” (Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, 1979 p. 478). “Such a conclusion, giving ‘Yahweh’ as the pronunciation of the name, is confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers and gentile writers, where the forms… Read more »

Edison
Edison
6 years ago

Yeho-váh is THE TRUE PRONUNCIATION OF GOD’S NAME . MANY LIES YOU SAY. Give me your emails and I will send u a serious study about this mater

trackback
5 years ago

[…] Request booklet >> Read Online >> […]

Tehillim 130
Tehillim 130
5 years ago

No one knows the name but I can say that it is not Yahweh or some weird spelling like Yahuweh, Yihweh, or something else, better of just use the titel Adonai just to be sure. But this is my opinion, I believed earlier it was Yehovah. Nehemiah convinced me but when I started to use that name in prayer and praising, weird things begun to happen in my home, something not so good. I think most people using the Nehemiahs version of the name is also experiencing weird things, like I said “I think” I do not know. Don’t know… Read more »

trackback
5 years ago

[…] Literary Support for Yahweh’s Name Your Father’s Name The Yehovah Deception  […]

trackback
5 years ago

[…] For additional information, read our online booklet: The Yehovah Deception. […]

trackback
5 years ago

[…] For additional information on Yehovah, see our article: The Yehovah Deception. […]

trackback
5 years ago

[…] For additional information on Yehovah, read The Yehovah Deception. […]

Steve
Steve
5 years ago

This is simply an opinion post. I notice that there’s always the “v” sound issue being brought up in this topic. Why this is a factor is beyond me. Had the name not been lost (and assuming it is Yahweh, which I believe it is), the Germanic influences would have produced the name Jahveh. I mean if you take Jehovah and apply the rules of ancient Hebrew you get Yehowah. Just follow how Yehoshua and its shorter form Yeshua became Joshua and Jesus. You guys at YRM are schooled in this, so you fully understand that my Mexican friend Jesus… Read more »

Steve
Steve
Reply to  YRM
5 years ago

You and I are essentially saying the same thing! My point was if someone comes in here and insists that it is a “v” and not a “w”, they have not likely looked into the linguistics one iota. The post was more directed at the “Jehovah” crowd. I’ve read posts, blogs, etc insisting that there was a “v” sound in ancient times. Obviously that has been debunked and it was a “w” sound. My example of Messiah’s name was basically to show how the “j” and “v” sounds injected themselves long after Messiah left Earth, and why “Jehovah”, “Jehowha” and… Read more »

Steve
Steve
Reply to  YRM
5 years ago

I came across a website that goes DEEP into linguistics and such showing the solid evidence of the pronunciation as Yahweh. I figured I’d come back and share the link. Maybe it can help you garner more material for your content. This is exactly what people like me that have burnt out there eyeballs studying this topic would, in my opinion, consider a great find.

http://truthofyah.net/studies/fathersname.html

Walter
Walter
5 years ago

well i’m not an expert on hebrew language but i am an expert on using common sense since the bible warned me that there is a deceiving spirit in the world at war with god constantly. so i have learned to use common sense and add 2 + 2 and never get anything other than 4. so this is what I have to say. if this is such an original discovery why isn’t it found in older documents? if the documents where this name Yehovah is found are copies of older documents and the older documents don’t have this name… Read more »

André
André
4 years ago

So what do you say about these arguments? https://dralgarza.blog/2017/12/07/yahweh-vs-yehovah/

André
André
Reply to  YRM
4 years ago

Perhaps in a general sense, but not in a particular sense because: (1) the article above does not address the claim there was a Rabbinic tradition that did in fact perserve the vocalization al along. However, the facts in the link seems to indicate this (although certainly no conclusive proof for it). (2) Furthermore, the information in the link support the idea that the Rabbis wanted to *conceal* that the name is “Yehovah” which does not fit with the theory that “Yehovah” were “desinformation” by jews that wanted to conceal the true vocalization. (3) I realize that this vocalization is… Read more »

André
André
4 years ago

You state that there are no early evidence that favors Yehovah, however that seems to be incorrect. “The oldest archaeological evidence favors the pronunciation “YEHOVAH.” In the Amun-temple in Soleb (Sudan) can be found sculptures from the time of Amenhotep III. These sculptures date from circa 1382-1344 B.C. On one sculpture is an Egyptian hieroglyph with the Divine Name — this being the OLDEST archaeological occurrence of the Divine Name that we are aware of . . . The pronunciation of the hieroglyph has been determined by Gerard Gertoux, professor at Association Biblique de Recherche d’Anciens Manuscrits in France, and… Read more »

Peter Howell
Peter Howell
Reply to  YRM
4 years ago

I think the problem is that you’re not looking at Jewish sources, as most Jews would tell you that it’s definitely not Yahweh. Unfortunately most modern bible scholars are NOT believers and only God gives wisdom, so non-believing scholars are not going to have the answers. You can see that in their continued use of pagan sources to find answers to this question and not Jewish ones. I am seeing more and more online sources returning to Yehovah (Jehovah) — Hallelujah. Although God’s name has been hidden for centuries, the truth will come out in these last days, since all… Read more »

Peter Howell
Peter Howell
Reply to  YRM
4 years ago

The pagans actually do have a reason not to use the correct name, just like those Jews that don’t believe in Jesus refer to him as Yeshu (a derogatory name). They would profane the name by using a derogatory substitute. In some distant future, scholars might wrongfully believe Jesus’ name was Yeshu! These sources are from nations that didn’t know God, didn’t follow God and most certainly didn’t love God. They would have a biased opinion, they would not have led righteous lives, and would have no reason to reveal the true name; only more likely to refer to the… Read more »

Janice
Janice
Reply to  Peter Howell
2 years ago

Amen!

Israel Fisher
Israel Fisher
Reply to  YRM
1 year ago

It sounds like you were very fortunate to meet those rabbis and archeologists only who sided with your dogma. How fortunate indeed you were to have only those who agree with you to converse with on your belief that God had concealed his name and would not share the meaning thereof, a terragram. I think you will continue to find only those kinds, for you have ruled (As only a ruler would) out anything contrary to your bias with such nice sounding words like : that is not correct, or- but the scholars say, or -I spoke to so and… Read more »

Joshua Blessed
4 years ago

שלום יהוה אליך. Shalom of Yahweh to you.
See now yourself, how Elohim today circumcised the heart of His people, that we may obey His voice at; http://www.prophecyofYahweh.com
Amen, Amen, I say unto you, ”Ye shall know them by their fruit;…”

Rich
Rich
4 years ago

I am a non-Jew who worked in an Orthodox Jewish school in St. Louis, Missouri. One day I was showing the head rabbi of the shul my copy of the Aleppo Codex. When he came to the name, instead of saying Hashem which was the common practice at the school, he pronounced the name as Yehovah. I then went to another rabbi to ask him about this and he told me that every child in that school knows God’s name is Yehovah but that they say Hashem (the name) out of tradition.

Roope
Roope
Reply to  Rich
2 years ago

That’s strange but they also think that Kabbalah is a divine teaching and that Yehovih is also His name. They teaches that He has 7 names, Yehovah and Yehovih is two of the 7 names. These rabbis are not to be trusted. We don’t know the name.

God’s Servant
God’s Servant
4 years ago

While I agree both NG and YRM’s research bring value to our understanding of Almighty God’s name YHWH, YRM you loose credibility when you site Wikipedia as a trusted source of reference. For it is well known fact that it is auto updated by bots and no longer verified by humans for its authenticity and credibility and therefore contains many errors. AI bots are editing majority of Wikipedia articles these days, something to think about.

Other than that great research mate

God’s servant

Uniting Servants Of Most High God Yahweh
Uniting Servants Of Most High God Yahweh
3 years ago

Trust nothing that the Masoretes had published, including their scribes. These originated between 6 – 10 CE including Aramaic, which came out of Babylon much like all of the false gods they worshiped. Under the direction of Babylonian leaders, Hebrew scribes were under the pressure to hide the name of Yahweh and come up with the non sense vowel pointing. This was satan’s game to mess with Yahweh’s name. The true original dead sea scrolls and manuscripts were only written in paleo-hebrew (the real original Hebrew) and they never contained the names Jehovah and Yehovah, but only HWHY / Yahweh. When… Read more »

Eddie Rogers
3 years ago

What you have presented in this teaching in my opinion is very well researched and it confirms what He, Yahweh, spoke to me many years ago. At that time, I was hearing and also seeing His Name spoken and written in many different ways. I thought to myself, “How can this be?” I knew He is not the author of confusion. So, I did what most inquisitive children do and that is to ask questions. So, I asked Him one day, “What is Your Name?” This is what He spoke to me, “My Name is Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, Yahweh. This is My… Read more »

Amazing Grace
Amazing Grace
Reply to  Eddie Rogers
3 years ago

Hmmm! Strong’s Concordance shua: a cry for help Original Word: שׁוּעַ Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: shua Phonetic Spelling: (shoo’-ah) Definition: a cry for help If it YHVH, how can it be pronounced with a “W”? It can’t… Yahovah is how I came to it. NOT by scholars of men. I read in my Father’s sacred word and came across the following. Yah I read form Psalm 68:4 (I will use KJV for the Stong’s # and Geneva) (Psa 68:4) Sing H7891 unto God,H430 sing praisesH2167 to his name:H8034 extolH5549 him that ridethH7392 upon the heavensH6160 by his nameH8034 *JAH,H3050 and rejoiceH5937 beforeH6440 him. H430… Read more »

Roope
Roope
2 years ago

We don’t know the pronunciation of the Name YHVH, but I think it’s dangerous to find support outside the Bible in pagan suorces. We don’t know the name, I think the right way to call upon Him is as the Messiah did “Father” and we know the Messiahs name is Yeshua shorten and long version is Yehoshua because it’s on the Bible.Read about it in the Book of Joshua, the son of Nun.
,

A. Believer in Messiah
A. Believer in Messiah
2 years ago

I find it so sad that after presenting all this scholarship on the Word of G-o-d, that I found out you do not believe in the Triune nature (Triunity) of Yahweh!

Joshua
Joshua
2 years ago

Nicely done article! As I was reading through the evidence you provided from the early Church Fathers, however, I can’t see that it supports your concluding idea of an english “w” sound that would result in Yah-weh, but instead an english “v” sound resulting in Yah-vay. You give iaoue, iabe, IAO, Yaho, Yaou, Yahouai, Yahoue, Yabe, Aia, Iaoue, and Ιαβε. Two of the forms you give, Iaoue, and Ιαβε, give the strongest indication of a “v” sound, as the β of Ιαβε would certainly not become a “b” sound but an english “v” sound, and the “u” of Iaoue I… Read more »

Jimspace
Jimspace
2 years ago

Hi, I enjoyed your presentation here. I was really fascinated by this point:

“In many cases, when a holam appears in the Masoretic documents, the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect this sound through the use of the letter waw, which in biblical Hebrew was used as both a vowel and consonant. An example of this can been seen with the Hebrew elohim in Psalms 138:1.”

I would like to see some other examples. Can you list the other cases or direct me to a paper that does? Thank you for any assistance.

Rod Koozmin
Rod Koozmin
2 years ago

I could be wrong this is possible. Do you believe in the four species?

Manuel
Manuel
2 years ago

Hi , Very interesting discussion. I just want to comment on some on this point. “Some will debate that the vowel points of Adonai and Yehovah are not the same. While this is technically true, this difference is due to Hebrew grammar.’ Isn’t it true that that during substitutions, the ketiv word is immaterial or is of no use whatsoever in the pronunciation since what matters is the pronunciation of the qere So in my mind with this alone it very unlikely that the masoretes will toil to change the vowel point of the the aleph in adonay just to… Read more »

Manuel
Manuel
2 years ago

Another point, “The decision to hide or replace the Tetragrammaton with the invalid vowel points from Adonai is what led to “Yehovah” (“Jehovah” in English). Except for a few outliers, nearly all scholarship confirms this basic fact.” If the real intention was to conceal the pronunciation of the name of God, then the Masoretes should have not put any vowel points at all on the Tetragrammaton. But since the main reason why there is vowel pointing is for the jews to be guided what to CORRECTLY say when reading the that part. It appears that putting the invalid vowel points,… Read more »

Larry Acheson
Larry Acheson
2 years ago

Shalom, Thank you for sharing this exposé on the pronunciation of the Creator’s name. I appreciate well-researched studies and I consider this study to be well-researched, EXCEPT for one item. Ultimately, I hope our mutual love for the Almighty, regardless of how His name is pronounced, supersedes our insistence of how His name “must” be pronounced. Sadly, I don’t get that impression from some of the folks who have posted here, some of whom who obviously post without actually having read what was written, yet I’m sure it’s our love for Him and His Son that truly drives us all and… Read more »

Larry Acheson
Larry Acheson
Reply to  YRM
2 years ago

Shalom, I appreciate your passing along my concern about the information presented in this article. I’m wondering if it’s possible that instead of the anonymous author’s reference to Gesenius retracting an acknowledgement of Yehowah being a possible pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, maybe he was thinking of Heinrich Ewald, another Hebrew scholar of the 19th century? I know in Ewald’s work A Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament, published by Willaims & Norgate, London, 1836, p. 55, he referred to the Almighty as “Jehovah” (p. 2, 55). However, 34 years later, in a footnote within his work Introductory Hebrew Grammar,… Read more »

Bob Koch
Bob Koch
2 years ago

IMO – Yahweh, Jehovah and Yehovah are all incorrect pronunciations according the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus all are a violation of Devarim (Deut) 5:11. “You shall not carry [upon your tongue] the name of YHVH your Elohim (God) in any false way for YHVH will not let go without punitive measure him who pronounces His NAME with futility or with emptiness.” Thus, unless we are 100% sure, we shouldn’t even attempt to pronounce the Tetragrammaton. However, “…My people shall know my name… in that day…” What day? The day of “YHVH’s return to Tzion.” Isa 52:6-8. That day is cited by… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by Bob Koch
Larry Acheson
Larry Acheson
Reply to  Bob Koch
2 years ago

Shalom, Bob.  I’m sorry to report that I respectfully disagree with most of what you wrote. First and foremost, my faith is in a loving and merciful Heavenly Father, and I have a difficult time believing He would be the slightest bit upset with one of His children for earnestly seeking out how to pronounce His Name. Would such an individual thus be doomed for mispronouncing it in spite of his or her best efforts to get it right? I’m reminded of my visit to Spain when one of our Spanish-speaking hostesses tried in vain on several occasions to pronounce my name correctly. She… Read more »

Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Reply to  Larry Acheson
2 years ago

Shalom Larry… Thanks for your thoughtful reply. But please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anybody was “doomed”. I quoted the third commandment which identified it as a “sin” to “lift up” the NAME of God “falsely, to make it “worthless”, “empty” and use it with “futility” (all from the Heb “shoov”). And yes, to “carry” or “lift up” the NAME does include pronunciation since one is usually lifting up that NAME in prayer, Torah reading, etc., isn’t one? That’s basic stuff. As far as I know, the ONLY biblically sanctioned Hebrew word that can be used… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Reply to  Larry Acheson
2 years ago

I tried to email you an attachment with a more complete response. I couldn’t do it. So, I’m just pasting it here. Please read the comment below first. Thanks. Larry… Here’s a more complete response with a few “proofs”. Enjoy. What if our sincere belief about the correct pronunciation of God’s NAME and/or its written form is WRONG? Wouldn’t that be a violation of the third commandment found at Sh’mot 20:7 and clarified at Devarim (Deut) 5:11? KJV translates 5:11: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that… Read more »

Larry Acheson
Larry Acheson
Reply to  Bob Koch
2 years ago

Shalom, Bob,   You wrote: “Thanks for your thoughtful reply. But please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anybody was “doomed”. I quoted the third commandment which identified it as a “sin” to “lift up” the NAME of God “falsely, to make it “worthless”, “empty” and use it with “futility” (all from the Heb “shoov”).”   I reply: I apologize if you feel I “put words in your mouth,” but I was only taking your words to their logical conclusion without writing an entire dissertation about it. You avoid explaining what becomes of those who violate the precepts of the… Read more »

Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Reply to  Larry Acheson
2 years ago

I’ll just address the main points and try to keep it brief as possible: 1. “Your reducing the final determination to it’s ‘His/Its business’ (how He/IT punished sin) is not encouraging at all.” So what? Again, God knows you are not INTENTIONALLY sinning… He/IT does know your heart. But “where does it say” pronounce My Name, “My memorial forever” any way you think is best in your heart because I know you’re being very sincere about it”? If the Name is “My memorial forever” and you’re not calling out that Name but another one, what’s the point? What if I continually… Read more »

Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Reply to  YRM
2 years ago

Yes… we all have our experts, don’t we? The “w” or “v” sound is moot for our discussion. Bottom line: You can’t prove the Name “Yahweh” is correct. “We have strong evidence…” simply means that any honest “expert” will tell you that this is their best guess… PERIOD. I can prove the “YaH” is 100% correct and appropriate until we “ALL will know His Name”. Thanks for playing. Shalom

Last edited 2 years ago by Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Reply to  YRM
2 years ago

“Scholarship is for the most part unanimous on the pronunciation Yahweh (OF COURSE NOT 100% but accepted in MOST academic circles as the CLOSEST pronunciation AVAILABLE) and this is no accident”. And yet at the same time you say, “…but in reality the name Yahweh is easily provable.” Hilarious… Please make up your mind. Can’t you see that you are double-minded about this issue, [regardless of whether you prefer “w” or “v” sound for the sixth letter or believe Aramaic came before Hebrew]? I will not waste any more time playing “dueling experts” with you. The fact is, you guys… Read more »

Fact Checker
Fact Checker
Reply to  Bob Koch
2 years ago

I’ll keep this short because you don’t know how to. You bring a real meaning to the word “bloviate.” You never address any proofs given to you, only talk long-winded empty pseudo facts. You’re a waste of time, not contributing anything to the conversation. I suspect you know far less than what you lead on…

Last edited 2 years ago by Fact Checker
Larry Acheson
Larry Acheson
Reply to  Bob Koch
2 years ago

Shalom, Bob,   The reason I personally regard you as being an “internet bully” is because I see no indication that you joined this discussion with any intention of edifying anyone or learning anything – it was an egocentric attempt at asserting misguided, ill-advised values on others. I realize we’re all different, and you and I are about as alike as a cow and a boat, so I don’t realistically expect you to relate to anything I believe, practice or hold dear. As for me, I conduct occasional internet research, and one of my searches brought me to this site. I offered YRM… Read more »

Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Reply to  Larry Acheson
2 years ago

I’m going to disregard your accusations and all the other negative crap and keep it short. I changed your name to drive home a point in a simple and (hopefully) mildly humorous way, not to be a playground bully. I’m sorry you couldn’t see that… even with several emojis. Oh well; no biggie. While I do agree that intentions definitely count and IF it is a sin it’s an unintentional one that will not “damn you to hell” which I never maintained, I will also assert with great confidence since the Jews have been saying “Hallelu-YaH” since I’ve been going… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by Bob Koch
Larry Acheson
Larry Acheson
Reply to  Bob Koch
2 years ago

Shalom, Bob, You wrote: I’m going to disregard your accusations and all the other negative crap and keep it short.” I reply: I don’t consider my previous words directed at you to be accusations, per se – just observations based on what appears to be the attitude and approach behind the author. You wrote: “I changed your name to drive home a point in a simple and (hopefully) mildly humorous way, not to be a playground bully. I’m sorry you couldn’t see that… even with several emojis. Oh well; no biggie.” I reply: R-i-g-h-t.  Mildly humorous at whose expense? And emojis mean “I’m only kidding”?… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by Larry Acheson
Bob Koch
Bob Koch
Reply to  Larry Acheson
2 years ago

Thank you for impugning my motives one more time. I don’t need to provide any evidence that I was trying to edify anybody. My extensive responses are evidence enough of that fact. Your reply to my understanding of the German roots of “God” continues to make my point. There’s room for disagreement about many things and the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is certainly among them… a fact with which you and yrm both agree. As to the rabbi’s response, it’s just another opinion. As to punishment, I never said there would definitely be one. I said I wouldn’t want to… Read more »

Larry Acheson
Larry Acheson
Reply to  Bob Koch
2 years ago

Shalom again, Bob: You wrote: “Your reply to my understanding of the German roots of ‘God’ continues to make my point. There’s room for disagreement about many things and the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is certainly among them… a fact with which you and yrm both agree.” I reply: We keep making each other’s points! My point was (and is), no matter how you slice it, “God” is teeming with pagan, even demonic roots. Should I mention that the word “GOD” in Russian means reptile? Same for Polish. Moving westward, the Irish serpent deity was Gad-el-glas (“green serpent el[ohim”]).  Glas means “green” in Gaelic,… Read more »

Walter Schwenk
Walter Schwenk
1 year ago

Thank you YRM. I have resisted the term “yehovah” since the main proponents began promoting it, about 15 years ago. Frustrating no end, as they figuratively set the “fox” (masoretes) to guard the Yahwistic “henhouse”. The only justification I can imagine for their untenable stance is it might have (probably did) curry favor with the rabbinic community in Israel. Hardly necessary though, in my opinion, as others such as CO Dodd and Don Esposito were able to retain their ministries in Israel without compromising the name.May Yah take the glory!

AMB
AMB
1 year ago

Research Nehemia Gordon’s work: Nehemia’s Wall. com and Shabbot Night Live

John
John
Reply to  YRM
1 year ago

Where does he use the name yahweh? I don’t see it.

Walter Schwenk
Walter Schwenk
Reply to  John
1 year ago

John, Nehemia used the name “yahweh” many years ago, but since went to yhvh. Probably to make peace with his rabbinic cousins in israel.

Walter Schwenk
Walter Schwenk
Reply to  AMB
1 year ago

AMB; I am sure that the tentative trend to “yehovah” will gain an additional audience over the adherents to “yahweh”, but suspect that the proponents of the former are fighting an uphill and losing battle. Still though, I respect and appreciate Gordon, Rood, Johnson, and the other “yehovah” torah fans. They will in many cases reach people that us “yahwists” have previously offended in some way.

Sven
Sven
1 year ago

“For those who believe this was a scribal error, it’s important to realize that Jewish scribes were ultra-meticulous. After copying a text, scribes would painstakingly review the script for any errors. The thought that a scribe would overlook numerous instances of the same mistake is unthinkable.” Then by your claims in this article, neither the Lenningrad or Aleppo Codixes should exist because they contain mismatches to where the name Y’hovah is presented with the full vowels as a mistake that can’t have happened. There are 6 place where the cholam is used in the Aleppo Codex and there are 17… Read more »

brian
10 months ago

Hebrew word for “back” gav, is spelled both as gimel bet and as gimel vav, impossible if vav was pronounced as waw as claimed repeatedly above. Vav was pronounced as a v.Also, pointless to “hide: the pronunciation with the vowels for adonai, then change those vowels to fit grammar rules, lol. Especially when the entire point of the MT was to preserve pronunciation, not hide it. Rabbis acknowledge that, in this world, it is written YHVH, but pronounced adonai, but in the world to come it will be read as it is written, with vowels SHACHAK, or vowels for le-olam.… Read more »

FrustratedResesrcher
FrustratedResesrcher
7 months ago

Once again, someone who knows the traditions of a people better than the people know their own tradition…

NOBODY in Isreal pronounces God’s name as Yahweh.

Eric L
Eric L
4 months ago

YRM, God bless you for your longsuffering patience in trying to firmly and gently answer – with ancient texts, sourced scholarship, and common sense – the ignorance of so many of your commenters.

I pray you do not grow weary in doing good.

Jesse J. VanDeCreek / "Sheshbatzzar"
Jesse J. VanDeCreek / "Sheshbatzzar"
Reply to  Eric L
2 months ago

People without knowledge spend hours and lives arguing what they do not know.
Easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff, is to set a Torah before them and say:
‘Please read aloud this text.’ 99.9% are unable to read even a single sentence.
Waste of time arguing with puffed up fools.

I read and pronounce The NAME consistent with pronunciation of all the rest of the words in the text.