http://www.bible-researcher.com/tetragrammaton.html
Interesting article on the fairly recent, short-lived attempt to put "Jehovah" into the English Bible. In 1880-1, the Americans associated with the English Revised Version tried to insert this for the Divine Name. The English scholars demurred, and carried the day. But the 1901 American Standard Version succeeded.
Here's where it gets interesting. Later versions of the ASV dropped this practice.
Quote:
Although the American Revision (which came to be known as the American Standard Version) was appreciated and used by many Bible students in America, it never acquired real popularity, and its use of “Jehovah” was probably its most unpopular feature. During the twentieth century two different revisions of the American Standard Version were done (the Revised Standard Version in 1952 and the New American Standard Bible in 1971) and both returned to the traditional rendering. The Preface of the Revised Standard Version explains:
"A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word Lord (or in certain cases God) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. 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” (or Elohim meaning “God”). The ancient Greek translators substituted the work 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. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."
|
So the Divine Name was removed from common usage by the Christian era, and the writers of the New Testament followed suit. Where the OT is quoted, the LXX "Kurios" is used. Jesus said, "I have given them Your name" and "keep them in Your name", obviously meaning the ineffable Divine Name, but the NT doesn't write it out (!!!). So who is callowly following "the traditions of men" here? The writers of the NT? Are we really that deranged, to suppose this? Or have we perhaps not thought our argument sufficiently through, here?
Therein lies the danger when only one person is allowed to think critically: people make mistakes; we all do. Even Bible translators can make mistakes. But in the counsel of many is safety. And this critical safeguard is nowhere evident with the LSM and their oeuvre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It is my understanding that the English language alone employs the hard "j" sound, (Compare the English "John" to the Spanish "Juan.") which My own surname picked up this hard "j" sound, as it was anglicized when my paternal grandfather passed through Ellis Island. It is my opinion that the real incentive for the continued use of the name "Jehovah," rather than Yahweh, is the dependence of the English language on the hard "j" sound.
|
Agreed - I don't think it's vain, in and of itself, to say "Jehovah", or write it out. But it's probably vain to presume that this is the 'correct' or 'authorized' version, English or otherwise, any more than "Yeh-shua" is preferred to "Jee-zus". Or vice-versa.
One other interesting point. The article above mentioned that if a child calls their father by his proper name - i.e. "George" - this is disrespectful, and demeaning the relationship. The child's use of "Dad" or "Pop" or "Father" indicates the special relationship. Jesus didn't use "Yah-Weh" or "Yeh-ho-Vah" but "Father" and "Lord". Should we follow Jesus, or LSM's convention?
Vote early. Vote often.