Why does anyone EVER use the "J" sound when translating YHWH?

by sabastious 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    If you look up the Tetragrammaton in Strong's Concordance you will see that they use the phonetic spelling of "Yeh-ho-vaw" but if you scroll down to the bottom of that link you will see this:

    J ehovah, the Lord

    From hayah; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God -- Jehovah, the Lord. Compare Yahh, Yhovih.

    see HEBREW hayah

    see HEBREW Yahh

    see HEBREW Yhovih

    They don't give any explanation as to why they insert the english J sound instead of the Y, it's simply there. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the pronunciation of YHWH as "Jehovah"

    The origins for the composite term Jehovah, came from early English translators who transposed the vowels from Adonai to the Tetragrammaton, and read the word literally so that the Y in YHWH, was pronounced as a J in English, and the W as a V. Taking the spellings at face value may have been as a result of not knowing about the Q're perpetuum , thus resulting in the term "Jehovah" and its spelling variants. The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: "Jehovah (Yahweh), the proper name of God in the Old Testament." Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come into being. Modern scholars recognize Jehovah to be "grammatically impossible" (Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol VII, p. 8).

    Since the J sound is grammatically impossible why do SO many alleged credible sources (like Strong's) use the name at all? Here is an article that goes into further detail on the matter . The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:

    The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols ( J,l ) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.

    Even in the hit movie Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade the name is used with scholarly authority as the main character is supposed to be a scholar and a professor of history.

    Professor Henry Jones: The Word of God.
    Marcus Brody: No, Henry. Try not to talk.
    Professor Henry Jones: The Name of God.
    Indiana Jones: The Name of God... Jehovah.
    Professor Henry Jones: But in the Latin alphabet, "Jehovah" begins with an "I".
    Indiana Jones: J-...
    [he steps on the "J" and almost falls to his death; he scrambles back up]
    Indiana Jones: Oh, *idiot*! In Latin Jehovah begins with an "I"!

    So the question is why is this name (Jehovah) EVER used? It seemed to be just a fad, but somehow worked it's way into being considered scholarly by many.

    -Sab

  • kepler
    kepler

    Well, how about this: Is YHWH pronounced with an English J as in Jerome or Jersey City?

    A number of names in the Bible, whether described in Hebrew or Greek, transliterated into English we have come to assume started with a J:

    Joshua, Jesus, Jeremiah, Jerusalem....

    Yet if I look at the rendering in contemporary Hebrew or Greek, these names are phonetically transliterated as starting with Y. Germanic languages use a J as Y: Ja, Jawohl, Johannes, Jaroslavl,... If I look up among proper names in the Pocket Oxford Greek Dictionary, one finds the English Jehovah under the Iota - Iota epsilon chi omega beta alpha. Among the names starting with iota are Jacob, James, Jehovah, Jeremiah, Jerome, Jesus, Job, Joseph and Judas. Ditto for Hebrew Jeremiah and Job begin with the Yod.

    There's nothing magical about the sound of J. Evidently, if there is anything at all to this, including at Watchtower printing offices, which appears to take this into account in other languages, it's simply the way people who speak English are supposed to pronounce the name.

    The prophets when they come back before or after Armageddon will be instructed to speak in accordance with this convention, of course.

    Here's another way to look at it: When was the earliest organizational adoption of this idea? Did Russell speak of it at all in his books? How long was Rutherford around before he noticed the significance (?) of it at all?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Modern scholars recognize Jehovah to be "grammatically impossible"

    The J just sounded better to interpreters in conjunction with their own language.

    Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (ca. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but some hold there is evidence that the Jehovah form of the Tetragrammaton may have been in use in Semitic and Greek phonetic texts and artifacts from Late Antiquity. [5] [6] Others say that it is the pronunciation Yahweh that is testified in both Christian and pagan texts of the early Christian era. [5] [8] [9] [10] [11]

    Karaite Jews, [12] as proponents of the rendering Jehovah, state that although the original pronunciation of ???? has been obscured by disuse of the spoken name according to oral Rabbinic law, well-established English transliterations of other Hebrew personal names are accepted in normal usage, such as Joshua, Isaiah or Jesus, for which the original pronunciations may be unknown. [12] They also point out that "the English form Jehovah is quite simply an Anglicized form of Y e hovah," [12] and preserves the four Hebrew consonants "YHVH" (with the introduction of the "J" sound in English). [12] [13] [14] Some argue that Jehovah is preferable to Yahweh, based on their conclusion that the Tetragrammaton was likely tri-syllabic originally, and that modern forms should therefore also have three syllables. [15]

    According to a Jewish tradition developed during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the Tetragrammaton is written but not pronounced. When read, substitute terms replace the divine name where ??????? appears in the text. It is widely assumed, as proposed by the 19th-century Hebrew scholar Gesenius, that the vowels of the substitutes of the name—Adonai (Lord) and Elohim (God)—were inserted by the Masoretes to indicate that these substitutes were to be used. [16] When ???? precedes or follows Adonai, the Masoretes placed the vowel points of Elohim into the Tetragrammaton, producing a different vocalization of the Tetragrammaton ??????? , which was read as Elohim. [17] Based on this reasoning, the form ??????? (Jehovah) has been characterized by some as a "hybrid form", [5] [18] and even "a philological impossibility". [19]

    Early modern translators disregarded the practice of reading Adonai (or its equivalents in Greek and Latin, Κ?ριος and Dominus) [20] in place of the Tetragrammaton and instead combined the four Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton with the vowel points that, except in synagogue scrolls, accompanied them, resulting in the form Jehovah. [21] This form, which first took effect in works dated 1278 and 1303, was adopted in Tyndale's and some other Protestant translations of the Bible. [22] In the 1611 King James Version, Jehovah occurred seven times. [23] In the 1901 American Standard Version the form "Je-ho’vah" became the regular English rendering of the Hebrew ???? , all throughout, in preference to the previously dominant "the L ORD ", which is generally used in the King James Version. [24] It is also used in Christian hymns such as the 1771 hymn, "Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah". [25]

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    There's nothing magical about the sound of J. Evidently, if there is anything at all to this, including at Watchtower printing offices, which appears to take this into account in other languages, it's simply the way people who speak English are supposed to pronounce the name.

    Why are they "supposed" to prenounce it with a J when Strong's concordance says it's phonetically pronounced with a Y sound (Yeh-ho-vaw). That's what I dont get. For example check out the word "Yah" ( ???? ) in the concordance. Again it says it's prenounced "Yah", but when you scroll down it replaces the Y with the J again making Jah. Why? It seems like a contradiction to say it's pronounced "Yah" and then spell it without a Y sound.

    Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (ca. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but some hold there is evidence that the Jehovah form of the Tetragrammaton may have been in use in Semitic and Greek phonetic texts and artifacts from Late Antiquity. Others say that it is the pronunciation Yahweh that is testified in both Christian and pagan texts of the early Christian era.

    So according to this information some scholars even today hold to the theory that YHWH should rightly be prenounced as the Witnesses prenounce it. Even this picture I found of the ancient hebrew alphabet has the "Y" sound being translated into Latin as a "J" and an "I."

    Thanks for any answers in advance.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    Interestingly there is a numeric connection to the ancient hebrew "y,ee" sound and the modern english J. They are both the 10th letter in their perspective alphabets. I'm not sure if that means anything.

    -Sab

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    When scholars say "Jehovah" is impossible, they are referring to the vowels, not the consonants.

    JHVH is simply a Latinization of YHWH. It goes to the roots of the English language. Part of the Society's argument is that "Jehovah" is consistant with the spelling of other names in English Bibles. As far as the consonants are concerned, that argument has merit. The big debate is about which vowels should be included and whether 2 of them or 3.

  • hamsterbait
    hamsterbait

    The letter J originally did not exist in early latin.

    I (pronounced Y ) was the first letter. V was pronounced as U so IEHOVAH in latin was originally pronounced

    Ye hoo ah (very near to what has been suggested: "Yehwah"). Even today W is called "double U" meaning two V s - one after the other. (one soft one hard: OOH-UH)

    Over time pronunciation changed, and so I started being written with a little tail as J to remind people it was pronounced like a Y.

    (It still is in the Germanic languages). English pronunciation has changed tremendously over the last 1000 years. So although the spelling in modern english now gives us a very different sound for the name, it was not pronounced like that originally.

    In english texts from the 15th and 16 century U and V are often used interchangably, as are I and J so it is by no means certain that the modern pronunciation was yet in use.

    However it should be emphasised that the WTBTS did not invent either the spelling or the modern pronunciation.

    IEHOVAH is in the Latin Vulgate.

    HB

  • kepler
    kepler

    Bobcat, Hamsterbait, Sabastious..

    My pronunciation or discussion was hindered by having my tongue in my cheek. Growing up within the Yahweh tradition, I am sceptical of arguments to the contrary. Or at least willing to drag my feet in behalf of the Y pronunciation.

    I am inclined to think that Jehovah and JHVH are the "anglicizations" of the YHWH and Yahweh. Following some of your arguments above, I've seen enough Latin script employing a V instead of a U for words or expressions such as DEVS EX MACHINA. And auf deutsch a Volkswagen is pronounced more like "Folkzvagon". I suspect that those Germanic conventions have been around for at least as long as Luther's Bible, correct me if I am wrong. While it was mentioned that English has transformed greatly over a 1000 years, in western Europe Bible translations into vernaculars occurred rather late; more toward the mid-millenium. But I would be interested to hear of accounts of earlier works. We have Luther and Tyndale working independently in Germany and England. Erasmus, prior to Luther did not so much translate as critique the Latin Bible.

    Quoting from the Wikipedia on Tyndale Bible

    "The chain of events that led to the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament possibly began in 1522, the year Tyndale acquired a copy of Martin Luther’s German New Testament. Inspired by Luther’s work, Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text "compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older and more authoritative than the Latin Vulgate" of St. Jerome (A.D. c.340-420), the only translation authorized by the Roman Cathlic Church."

    My point here? While it is acknowledged that the Tyndale Bible is not highlighted the same way as the KJV in the English speaking public's mind, it is a significant point in bringing the Bible into the English language. But like many intellectual concepts in English, there is a transformation from a foreign source. I believe that there is something of the same going on here.

    Even within the last 100 years, how did Americans spell composer Pyotr Chajkovskij's name generations ago? The way they learned from German or French sources. And as a result - until corrected - one would try to anglicize the German based phonetic spelling. In the 1950s, you would probably look his name up under T.

    Another example. When I had a US map to examine in fourth grade, if anyone asked me the name of that California city nearby San Francisco, I would pronounce it "San Jossie".

    Some other problems.

    "Chaikovskiy" etc. is a recent example of changes in text conventions. But centuries ago the idiosyncracies of spelling were remarkable too. We know when early Bibles were printed, but when were the dictionaries compiled that governed their conventions?

    Claims for the antiquity of the text and the events described in the OT where the name is introduced far exceed the age of the medium in which it is written. Whether we assign a presumed date for the Exodus around 1200 BC or 1500 BC ( like the WTS), were someone to write this story they would be limited to Egyptian hieroglyphics or Akkadian cuneiform. I doubt that either were employed; we certainly have no record of it. But if there were a delay in commiting to script a story based on oral tradition, then even at best we would be nailing down an intermediate form.

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    Kepler & Hamsterbait:

    I stand corrected. Anglicised, rather than Latinized. Thank you. I appreciate the improvement in understanding.

    Question: If "IEHOVAH" is in the Vulgate, why do they say that "Jehovah" is a 13th century(?) invention? To me it would seem easy to recognize "Jehovah" as being merely an anglican transliteration of "IEHOVAH." Also, it would seem like researchers would be looking in the Vulgate era for reasons why E, O, and A were used as vowels. (Or do they already?)

    Also, I'm gonna try pronouncing "J" and "V" with "tongue in cheek." See what kinda sound I get :-)

    Take Care

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    The reason why I made this thread was because the Watchtower taught me as a kid that the name Jehovah was the correct way to say God's name. I want to dispel that. They taught me that it was SO correct that it identified the Watchtower as the one true religion because they used the name the most. Constantly, I was reminded that the theme of the Bible was in essence the vindication of Jehovah's actual name. We held the only standard that counted. The more I look into the subject of the Watchtower's pronunciation of YHWH the more I am convinced that it's a profound decpetion, one that actually stems beyond the Watchtower.

    Wikipedia says that Latin is "an Italic language originally spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome." Rome had a chief deity that was called Jupiter:

    In ancient Roman religion and myth, Jupiter ( Latin : Iuppiter) or Jove is the king of the gods and the god of sky and thunder . Jupiter was the chief deity of Roman state religion throughout the Republican and Imperial eras, until the Empire came under Christian rule. In Roman mythology, he negotiates with Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, to establish principles of Roman religion such as sacrifice.

    So you could call Jupiter the "Jehovah" of ancient Rome. The empire that allegedly crucified the Son of God. The Watchtower says that God's official name required restoration into the modern world. They say a group of Jews had the name removed from the original manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures effectively hiding the true name of God. First off with that theory, if the Jews say that the Tetragrammaton shouldn't be prenounced I would tend to just default to their opinion since they were the ones that wrote the Torah which is the originator of the word. Secondly, how could it be possible that God was powerless to stop a group of rogue Jews? If such a deed was committed it would most certainly be done in the name of Satan and therefore that would mean God is powerless to malevolent forces. The Watchtower's explanation reeks of deception.

    The J seems to me to be a reference to the Roman Chief God Jupiter which would make sense that such a fact would need to be concealed if you wanted to come across as a Christian group. As a side note it could be said that the Nazi's were interested in bringing back the Roman Empire as well:

    Nazi archaeology refers to the movement led by various Nazi leaders, archaeologists, and other scholars, such as Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, to research the German past in order to strengthen nationalism. This movement, which set out to bring the glory of the Roman Empire back to Germany, was based on ideas of Tacitus' Germania.

    So why did the Jews say the Tetragrammaton was not to be prenounced? The answer might be in the etymology of the Tetragrammaton itself. Here is the Tetragrammaton word from Strongs:

    It states the phonetic spelling as "yeh-ho-vaw." The language is read from right to left so the "Yod" character is the first one which is where they are getting the "Yeh" sound in their phonetics, but where are they getting the "ho-vaw" from? There is a word in the Hebrew Scriptures that is prenounced "ho-vaw", but it's only found 3 times.

    As you can see in this word the Hebrew letters and their Masorete vowel points are identical to Tetragrammaton, but the "Yod" character is not present. This word is located in only two scriptures in the Hebrew Bible. First, in Isaiah:

    vs 11: Disaster(ho-vaw) will come upon you,
    and you will not know how to conjure it away.
    A calamity will fall upon you
    that you cannot ward off with a ransom;
    a catastrophe you cannot foresee
    will suddenly come upon you.

    And Ezekiel:

    vs 26: Calamity (ho-vaw) upon calamity (ho-vah) will come,
    and rumor upon rumor.
    They will go searching for a vision from the prophet,
    priestly instruction in the law will cease,
    the counsel of the elders will come to an end.

    Both instances show judgement of sin with ruin, disaster suffering and calamity. The Strong's definition says that this word "ho-vah" means "ruin", but given the context of which they are found in the Hebrew Bible the connotation, to me, is certainly one of bringing justice to ones deserving pain and suffering.

    Now the Watchtower says that Jews "took Jehovah" out of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or whatever, but it appears the opposite is true. They had a very good reason to make sure we had manuscripts that lacked the name. Why? Because that name is connected to the old world of pain and suffering which is NOT Christ-like. Frankly to put YHWH into a book like the Book of Revlation is an extreme form of heresy because it's ignoring the change in direction that happened with the advent of Christ. We are supposed to beat our swords into plowshears and the Tetragrammaton is a word from a world of chaos and war. Something that is passing away.

    The chinese have an old proverb that goes "before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be chaos." If such is true the farther we go back in time the more chaotic we are and the further we go in time the more brilliant we become. You could say that YHWH is Chaos and Christ is Order. You don't worship Chaos because it's only a temporary thing, but since Chaos is a necessary evil, it's going to want to live forever and need vanquishing.

    The context in Isaiah where "ho-vaw" is located is very telling:

    vs 10: You have trusted in your wickedness
    and have said, ‘No one sees me.
    Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you
    when you say to yourself,
    ‘I am, and there is none besides me.’

    Evolution proves that Chaos created the world that we live in, but that world passes away, we know it does. The Watchtower wants to say that things are getting worse, but like the verse says "we can see you."

    -Sab

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit