what is His Name - if you know? 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 least 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 99% 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 99% 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 99%, 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, הוהי
Y a
vowel, is equivalent to the Greek I and to the English Y. That is
accepted by everybody.
H 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.
W 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
(Iaooue�h), 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 Shemoth / Exo. 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;
1. In Grande Encyclopedie,
under Jehovah, we read: "Yahveh ... the
pronunciation is probably more exactly reproduced by writing YAHOUEH.
2. 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 :
1. Josephus's statement that the
Name consists of four vowels, therefore W is incorrect.
2. The evidence that the Jews
changed ahyah into ehyeh,
and Yahu- (in names) into Yeho-,
in order to disguise the Name.
3. The Old Testament's prophets'
names ending with -yahu in c. 70% of cases.
4. The incorrect rendering of Yahweh
which started with the Samaritan's erroneous form Iabe.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The evidence of the Ethiopian
Apocrypha, reported by Basset: YAHOUE.
8. The confirmation of Grande Encyclopedie: YAHOUEH.
9. The startling conclusion of The
Oxford English Dictionary: IaHUeH.
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.