|
by
Chris Koster
edited by Wilhelm Wolfaardt
We have always stood amazed and
often critical at the denominations for being bound to their
traditional doctrines, for their unwillingness to accept
more light. In many cases, this rejection of new light is
done for the sake of unity, and in the case of individuals,
having the fear of being excommunicated or disturbing the
unity of the assembly, loving the praise of men more than
the praise of Elohim (Yoch. 12:42-43). Nobody wants to be
out in the desert, all by himself. But this attitude of not
accepting new light is in direct contrast with Scripture,
for we read in Prov 4:18, "But the path of the righteous
is like the light of dawn, that shines brighter and brighter
until the full day". (NASB). This passage is confirmed
in Rev 22:11, "... and the righteous, let him do
righteousness still, and the holy, let him be hallowed
still," (Marshall translation of Nestle Text). This word
still (Greek: eti) is often rendered in the KJV as
more or further, and has been translated in the
sense of increase in Rev 22:11 in at lest five
different translations.
As True Worshippers, we owe it to
Him, who loved us first, Who has purchased our redemption,
to walk in the light as He reveals it to us from time to
time. When we first met Him and accepted Him as our only
Saviour, our only Leader, and our only Teacher, He said:
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear
them now." (Yoch. 16:12). He is the only One that brings
more and more light in our lives, for He is our Light. If He
brings more light into our lives, let us then walk therein.
"But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we
have fellowship one with another," (1 Yoch. 1:7). We
need that fellowship!
Here in South Africa, as in the
United States, differences have cropped up as to the correct
transliteration of the Name. These differences have been the
cause of an increasing amount of embarrassment and disunity.
And this has compelled us to go right back and start our
search all over again. We should not only believe in our
Saviour, but we should believe His Word, His Promise in Yoch.
17:26, "... and I ... will make it (Thy Name) known; that
the (agape) love wherewith Thou didst love Me may be in
them, and I in them." (NASB). Are we seeking His agape
love? Are we seeking this wonderful unity that He prayed for
in Yoch. 17? Are we seeing the Fruit of the Light (Eph 5:9
NASB) i.e. goodness and righteousness and truth, in the Body
of Messiah? If not, shall we not return to the Light of the
world, and ask Him to let his light shine in his Body, even
the light of the true Name, so that the agape love and the
unity will become a reality in us?
The Grote Winkler Prins Encyclopedie,
under the title "Jahwe" (the Dutch transliteration of
Yahweh), says that the uncertainty as to the true
pronunciation of the Name constantly causes embarrassment to
Bible translators. This uncertainty as to the true
pronunciation of the Name, although not always admitted, has
been a major cause for sincere Bible scholars to remain
satisfied with the traditional substitute for the Name, even
although we might think that they have just been obstinate
by not accepting that which we proclaim. Although we are
seemingly content with the Name Yahweh, our elders to admit
that we are not 100% sure. Some professor of Hebrew stated
that we are 99½% sure of the correctness of the form
Yahweh. Many brethren and Hebrew scholars have expressed
their openness to further light. But a truth that is only
99½% correct cannot be the truth! If it is not 100% correct,
it is a marred truth.
And we, like most of us, after
ascertaining that the form Jehovah was incorrect,
were content with the form Yahweh. But because of the
little bit of uncertainty as to the 100% correctness, it
left a gap, even though small, for the enemy to enter in and
sow dissension and strife. The result was doubt, insecurity,
embarrassment, dismay and discouragement. We need the Unity,
we need the Love, therefore we need the Truth about His
Name. And only our Saviour can reveal it! Let us open our
minds to new evidence and search for more light.
From the evidence that was revealed
to us, we came to the conclusion that the correctness of the
form Yahweh is not 99½%, but only 75%. Josephus, in
his Wars of the Jews, Book 5, chapter 5, 7, was quite
clear in stating that the Name "consists of four vowels."
Why then do we, who freely quote this statement of Josephus,
accept the form Yahweh, which contains a consonant,
W? In our search we discovered that this form Yahweh,
originated right back in the year 1567. In G.H. Parke-Taylor's
book Yahweh: The Divine Name In The Bible, p. 79, we
read that Genebrardus, in 1567, was the first to suggest the
pronunciation, Jahve, largely on the strength of
Theodoret's assertion that the Samaritans used the
pronunciation Iabe, subsequent to the time when
pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was stopped by the Jews.
Bible scholars1 who made a study of the
Tetragrammaton, concluded that the Samaritans were wrong
with their rendering, Iabe, and Dr M Reisel states
that the form Iabe is of no value. The form Iabe
is of course inconsistent with Josephus' statement that the
Name consists of four vowels. We can thus see how the form
Yahweh started on the basis of an erroneous form,
Iabe. In 1815 Prof. Wilhelm Gesenius further promoted
the form Yahweh, and this is how we have accepted it,
and this has become a tradition amongst us.
Let us analyse the Tetragrammaton,
יהוה
י
(yud) a vowel, is equivalent to the Greek I
and to the English Y. That is accepted by
everybody.
ה
(hey) used as the second and fourth vowel. It is
ah in the second letter of the Name, as
is accepted by most scholars. But in the fourth
letter of the Name it is eh, equal to the
Greek e, which is pronounced as the e in
met, because of the Greek transliteration
of the Name by Clement and in the Papyri2.
ו
(vav) the third letter, a vowel, according to
Josephus, and rendered ou in the Greek
transliteration Iaoue, and should therefore be
rendered as U (pronounced oo) in
the English, because the Greek ou is pronounced
oo.
In other words, adhering to the
directive of Josephus, the Name consists of four vowels,
Y,
H,
W,
H
and has been transliterated by Clement as Iaoue =
I-a-ou-e,
pronounced I-A-OO-E, transliterated into English as
Y-AH-U-EH (and not Y-AH-W-EH).
In our search, we found that
Clement's form Iaoue was supported by a form
Iawouhe
(Iaooueêh), which was frequently found in the Papyri2.
The reason why we were inclined to consider this form Iaoue
and the other Greek form is this: We realised that both the
Jews and the Greeks were guilty of using a surrogate title
instead of the Name. But whenever the Greeks did use the
Name, they had no motivation to disguise the Name, as
the Talmudic Jews were determined to do. We found that many
eminent scholars, such as Field in his preface to
Origen's Hexapla, state that the
W (waw)
has the vowel sound of a u. Apart form the influence
of the erroneous form Iabe, two other factors
contributed to the confusion as to the
W. The
first is the well known erroneous pronunciation of the waw (W),
which developed among the Ashkenazic Jews on the continent
of Europe. The second is the earlier inconsistency of the
Latin u and v. These were used
interchangeably, and only lately have they decided to use
the u consistently as the vowel and the v as
the consonant. (See any encyclopaedia on "u" and "v').
But the confusion and deception
originated much further back with the Jews who were
instructed in the Talmud to hide the Name3 and
were determined that the Name must be kept secret4.
This was done by substituting the Name, as we all know, but
also by disguising it. Arnold, in his excellent Article
The Divine Name in Exodus 3:14, J.B.L. vol. xxiv (1905),
p. 144 quotes Tamid vii.2, "In the sanctuary they
were accustomed to pronounce the Name as it is written; in
the town BY DISGUISING IT." (capitals mine). This admission
by the Jews came as an important disclosure as to their
modus operandi. In other words, these Jews were determined
to substitute the Name, and also to disguise it (apparently
they were usually too scared to delete and substitute it
completely in the Scriptures). This explained to us why the
Lamsa Aramaic Bible renders Exodus 3:14 as AHIAH whereas the
Massoretes vowel-pointed it to become ehyeh. This
also explained to us why the early Greeks transliterated the
Name as AIA (Gesenuis and many scholars concluded that the
Greeks found this from 2 Mosh. 3:14 and because many
scholars mistakenly thought that ehyeh (ahyah) was
His Name at some stage). We further discovered that the
Murasu tests6 from the 5th Century B.C.E.
rendered the Yahwistic names starting with Yahu-
instead of the Massoretic vowel-pointed Jeho-, e.g.
Yahuzabad, instead of Jehozabad and Yahunatanu,
instead of Jehonathan. And this finding caused us to propose
that the vowel-pointing e o a under the Name, was
done for the purpose of disguising, and not for the
purpose of substituting the Name with Adonai, as has
always been held. (We were never quite happy with the
conflicting explanations as to why the e o a
differed from the vowels of Adonai).
In our study of the Hebrew in the
O.T., we saw that 30 of the O.T. prophets' Yahwistic names
ended with -yahu instead of the commonly translated
-yah (or -iah). In fact, the ending -yahu
outnumbered the ending -yah about 7:3. This finding
disturbed us but also intrigued us. And when we found the
evidence of the Murasu texts, as stated above, we started to
see a clear picture of how the truth of the
W, as a
u, was an important
revelation as to the correct form. It became obvious to us,
that these first three letters of the Name, which were
incorporated into the names of these prophets and others in
the O.T., were an important clue as to the true
pronunciation of the Name. (In the Hebrew text the 49
appearances of the short form YAH, is rendered correctly as
such in the Massoretic Text). Further, we found that
scholars were intrigued with the few appearances of ani
Hu (I am He) in Yesh. 41:4, 43:10, 43:13, 43:25, 46:4
and 48:12. G.H. Parke-Taylor Yahweh: The Divine Name In
The Bible pp.70-78, states that "the personal pronoun
Hu is virtually a surrogate for the divine Name". He
also quotes P. Harner who sees ani Hu as an
abbreviation of ani YHWH. We also read of the so
called Trigrammaton, a shorter form of the Tetragrammaton,
which is spelt WHY,
which appears in the Elephant-papyri and in Mishnah
Succah IV 57, transliterated as Yahu.
All this evidence gives us firstly a clear indication of the
pronunciation of the third letter of the full Name,
W, as "u"
(oo), and secondly, that the W
should not be omitted, neither lose its precision, neither
be neglected nor argued away. This becomes very important in
the full rendering of our Messiah's Name, which up to now,
has suffered injustice by our traditional Yahshua (as
the result of the Septaugint's incorrect shorted form
Joshua).
Further support came when we read in
Dr M Reisel's book, in three places8, that the
Frenchman Basset, in 1896, proclaimed the French
transliteration of the Name: YAHOUE (the French 'ou" also
being pronounced as "oo"), because of evidence found in the
Ethiopian Apocrypha. Do we remember the Ethiopian in Acts
8:27-39 who carried the Glad Tidings back to Ethiopia, and
Ethiopia calling themselves a chosen people, keeping the
Sabbath up to the 17th Century, when Western "Christians"
talked them out of keeping the Sabbath, and Haile Selassie
being called: The Lion of Judah?
And the last two confirmatory
witnesses finally convinced us;
- In Grande Encyclopedie,
under Jehovah, we read: "Yahveh ... the
pronunciation is probably more exactly reproduced by
writing YAHOUEH.
- The Oxford English
Dictionary under Jehovah, reads: "It is
now held that the original name was IaHUeH".
Unfortunately, it then continues and tries to deduct
Jahveh or Yahweh from this admission that "It is
now held that the original name was IaHUeH".
To summarise our documentary
evidence :
- Josephus's statement that
the Name consists of four vowels, therefore W is
incorrect.
- The evidence that the Jews
changed ahyah into ehyeh, and Yahu-
(in names) into Yeho-, in order to disguise the Name.
- The Old Testament's
prophets' names ending with -yahu in c. 70%
of cases.
- The incorrect rendering of
Yahweh which started with the Samaritan's
erroneous form Iabe.
- The scholars drawing our
attention to the proposition that they make, vix the
Hu (He) being a shortened surrogate of the
Name, virtually an equivalent, thereby enhancing our
conviction that the "u" is an integral and
not-to-be-deleted part of the Name.
- Clement's transliteration
of the Name Iaoue
(pronounced: Yahueh with the "eh" pronounced "e' as
in "met") which is strongly supported by other Greek
papyri's form Iawouhe.
- The evidence of the
Ethiopian Apocrypha, reported by Basset: YAHOUE.
- The confirmation of Grande Encyclopedie: YAH OU EH.
- The startling conclusion
of The Oxford English Dictionary: IaH U eH.
Now that we have assurance of the
Father's Name, we can easily find the Saviour's Name. All
authorities, without exception, agree that Jesus was
not the original Name. Most of these authorities render the
original Name as Jehoshua or Yehoshua. But
after the evidence we found, we can now for certain declare
His Name as YAHUSHUA, because of the Scriptural proof we
find in Yoch. 17:11 and 12 in all the translations, except
for the KJV which used the less accurate Textus Receptus.
This revelation from authoritative
sources was a confirmation of what the Spirit revealed to
some of our brethren and sisters many years ago. We realised
how we have resisted the guidance of the Ruach ha Qodesh,
who revealed the Name Yahushua through a young little sister
and her elder brother in 1942, speaking in tongues, here in
South Africa. Later the Name Yahueh (Yahuweh) was revealed
to another set-apart sister in the same house.
Finally, we would like to witness as
to the wonderful way in which Yahuweh has blessed the
proclaiming of this Truth. All the brethren who heard it
here in South Africa have hitherto accepted it in a sweet
spirit, which has seldom been experienced before. And now,
for the first time can we look at the Hebrew spelling of the
Name of the Father, and the Name of the Son, and KNOW that
He has made His Father's Name known to us! We now have the
peace of mind that we no longer need to argue away or
suppress any jot or title from His Name, or His Son's Name.
The veil that has disguised it, has been taken away. The
veil that has blurred it, has been taken away!
1. Dr M. Reisel The
Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., pp. 56- 58.
2. a) ibid. pp. 36-37
b) B. Alfrink O.T.S.,
1948, PP. 45-46.
c) F.G. Kenyon Greek
Papyri in the British Museum London 1893 I. 80 no. 46,
469 ff.
3. Pesahim 50a.
4. Kiddushin 71a.
5. Arnold The Divine
Name in Ex. 3:14 J.B.L., vol. XXIV (1905).
6. a) Driver, Z.A.W.
XLVI (1928) p. 12.
b) Stolper, American
Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin (1976).
c) Reisel, The
Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., p. 43.
d) Coogan, West Semitic
Personal names in Murasu Documents.
7. Reisel , The
Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., p. 60.
8. ibid. p. 38, p. 40, p.
74.
9. Eerdmans O.T.S.
(1948) p. 22.
|
