O YHWH, our Lord, how majestic is your name
in all the earth! –Psalm 8:1

The personal name of God is Yahweh. It is a foreign name, quite un-English, and so unlike the good Anglo-Saxon word ‘God.’ For that reason, if perhaps for no other, the name Yahweh must be preserved—lest it should ever be imagined that God is an Englishman. He is a foreigner now to every race on earth. The very awkwardness of addressing a God whose name is not native to one’s language in itself alerts us to the alienness of Yahweh to every god created in our own image. –David Clines^[1]

YHWH, the God of armies,
YHWH is his name of renown. –Hosea 12:5

When one wants to know someone, the first question is: “What is your name?” Nevertheless, some refuse to apply the obvious to God.  –Gérard Gertoux^[2]

Introduction

The Old Testament uses a personal name for God, often called the Tetragrammaton. In Hebrew it is יהוה, and commonly rendered as “Jehovah,” “YHWH,” or “Yahweh.” Yet many modern translations replace this name with a title: “the LORD.” This choice carries inevitable consequences. Removing or hiding the divine name in translation is not a trivial stylistic decision, but a substantial alteration, affecting thousands of occurrences. One of the reasons translations have done this is that, after the Hebrew Bible was written, a Jewish tradition arose, forbidding the vocalization of God’s name. The history of Bible translation reflects the triumph of this tradition.

Generally, the goal of Bible translation is fidelity to the source text, conveying what the authors actually wrote. In the case of names, the usual practice is to transliterate them, preserving an approximation of the proper name in the target language, using that language’s phonetic inventory. This is done for all names in the Bible (David, Jerusalem, Sarah, etc.), except for the divine name. From the standpoint of historical and textual accuracy, no other feature of the biblical text has received the same systematic concealment. The result is that many English readers do not even realize God has a personal name. Generations have come and gone hearing “the LORD” as if it were God’s actual name. And I was no exception.

Growing up, I believed that the name of God was “the LORD.” As I got older, at some point I began to realize that when I saw “LORD” in caps, that meant it represented the special, divine name of God revealed to Moses. This seemed strange and confusing to me—adding a level of complexity to understanding a Bible that was already difficult for a teenager to understand. I don’t remember when it was that I first heard the name Yahweh pronounced, but when I went to seminary, I quickly realized that it was an accepted pronunciation and spelling for God’s name, especially in academic circles. Commentaries used it regularly, and professors assured me that it was a reasonable approximation of its original pronunciation.

Interestingly, most of what I learned about the divine name was in passing during seminary. There was no course dedicated to it, no class that devoted even an hour to discuss it, nor any book recommended or required on the topic. Yet as I dig deeper into this issue, I realize that there is enough to build an entire semester of studies around the name of God.

My research for this book arose out of two practical needs. As my wife and I began creating Aleph with Beth (a video course that teaches Hebrew through communicative, comprehensible input^[3]), we came to the point where we needed to introduce the divine name. So, we had to decide how we would pronounce it in the videos, well-aware of the long-standing ban on its vocalization observed by many Jews for centuries—and often adopted by Christians. Also, as a Bible translation consultant, the question of how to render the divine name is inevitable, making it an important issue to grasp in order to adequately advise translation teams. I saw a clear need for a comprehensive treatment of the divine name that served translators with everything required to make an informed decision. This book is an opportunity to explore this vast field of study, evaluate the evidence, guide translators, and aid others in reevaluating preconceptions they may have about the matter.

In his book on Ancient Near Eastern worldview, Walton writes, “Ancient cultures considered something to exist when it had a name and a function…. [The name] is the god’s identity and frames the god’s ‘existence.’”^[4] And the impulse to name things and people is prominent across cultures today. This reality highlights the importance of careful and meticulous deliberation regarding the translation and pronunciation of God’s name. As one Bible dictionary remarks, “In the scriptures there is the closest possible relationship between a person and his name, the two being practically equivalent, so that to remove the name is to extinguish the person. To forget God’s name is to depart from him.”^[5]

Historical Summary

As already mentioned, the vocalization of the divine name has been a taboo in much of Jewish tradition. This post-exilic shift is often explained to have been motivated by a combination of reverence, fear of profanation, and evolving interpretations of the commandment in Exodus 20:7. It became customary to substitute Adonai (“Lord”) or HaShem (“the Name”) when reading Scripture aloud. This convention was reflected in the Masoretic vocalization of the biblical text, where the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) was pointed with the vowels of Adonai or Elohim to cue the reader to say the substitute title rather than articulate the divine name. Some rabbinic literature emphasized that to say God’s name constituted a serious transgression. As a result, the precise pronunciation of the name was gradually lost or at least obscured in public tradition.

In this book we trace the detailed history of how the divine name was used and ceased to be used. We look at how different languages and versions of the Bible have dealt with the question of how to render God’s name. We evaluate the taboo on saying God’s name out of reverence, as well as discuss why the New Testament authors did not write God’s name. And we seek to answer the question: How do Bible translators decide whether they should render it the Lord or something like Yahweh? But the first, most important question we consider is: What is God’s revealed desire regarding the use and preservation of his name?

---

What Does God Want Us to Do with His Name?

Literature on the divine name often overlooks one simple question: what is God’s desire concerning his name? History and traditions fade in comparison to this question. And the Bible indeed reveals what God wants with explicit clarity. Thus, we begin with his instruction revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:15 to frame everything else in this book:

“Say this to the people of Israel, ‘YHWH (יהוה), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.”

Let’s look at this verse in detail.

A Key Word—Zekher 

In Hebrew the last sentence of Exodus 3:15 reads:

זֶה־שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר

Literally: “This (is) my name forever, and this (is) my memorial [or remembrance/mention] to generation generation.”^[6] If you have studied some Hebrew, you may know that the verb root זָכַר (zakhar) usually refers to the act of remembering. The key noun in this phrase (memorial) is from the same root, so it is sometimes translated as remembrance. Let’s study this word closely to understand what God is saying about his name.

The entry for the noun זֵכֶר (zekher) in Holladay’s Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament reads as follows: “זֵכֶר: 1. mention (of a name) Dt 32:26^[7];  2. solemn naming or address of God Ex 3:15.” A handful of other passages allude to Exodus 3:15 by pairing God’s name with this word זֵכֶר “mention/remembrance.”  Isaiah 26:8 says: “O YHWH, …your name and remembrance (וּלְזִכְרְךָ) are the desire of our soul.” The opposite of this remembrance is the grave, where YHWH’s name is not heard. Thus, the psalmist, after addressing YHWH by name, says, “For in death there is no remembrance of you (זִכְרֶךָ); in Sheol who will give you praise?” (Ps 6:5; see also Ecc 9:5). Hosea picks up on Exodus 3:15 as well when he writes, “YHWH, the God of armies, YHWH is his memorial name (זִכְרוֹ)” (Hos 12:5).^[8] 

The psalmist also picks up the same theme: “Your name, O YHWH, is everlasting, your remembrance, (זִכְרְךָ) O YHWH, throughout all generations” (Ps 135:13). English versions use a wide variety of glosses for זִכְרְךָ in this psalm: NASB “your remembrance,” KJV “your memorial,” NET “your reputation,” NIV “your renown,” NLT “your fame.” What is clear is that this verse is a restatement or summary of God’s revelation of his name in Exodus, and it would be helpful to English readers to maintain the connection by translating זֵכֶר consistently in both places.

One of the senses of זכר (the verbal root of the noun זֵכֶר) in the BDB lexicon is as follows: “remember, with implied mention of, obj. יהוה.” They give an example of this from Jeremiah:

“If I say, ‘I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,’ (וְלֹא־אֲדַבֵּר עוֹד בִּשְׁמוֹ לֹא־אֶזְכְּרֶנּוּ) there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot” (Jer 20:9).

Craigie comments:

As a result of the derision and mocking (v 7) and the reproach and derision (a different word than v 7) (v 8), Jeremiah had decided no longer to proclaim the word…. The word זכר, here translated “mention,” most often means to “remember,” “recall,” or even “commemorate” (17:4). Certainly Jeremiah is not proposing to disremember Yahweh, to forget, as do the people. In this instance, the verb must have the connotation of mentioning. That connotation fits well with the parallel half-line, refusing to speak in Yahweh’s name.^[9]

Returning to Exodus 3:15, some versions like the NET Bible and KJV translate זִכְרִי (zikhri) as “my memorial,” but as we’ve seen from the above discussion and examples, the word in context can be understood as implying the speaking of the name, since things that remain unspoken are usually lost (particularly in oral cultures). Thus, the NIV translates: “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.”

In light of the biblical evidence, the answer to the question becomes clear: God intends for his name to be spoken and remembered. The use of זֵכֶר (zekher) in Exodus 3:15 and related passages suggests not only cognitive recall but verbal mention. As we will see, this is reinforced throughout Scripture, where God’s name is invoked in worship, vows, and public declarations. Scripture encourages the active transmission of the divine name across generations. In order to highlight this distinction, we turn next to the express desire of God concerning the names of other gods.

Other Gods’ Names

In Exodus 23:13 we find a hiphil form of the verb זכר used to prohibit the mentioning (and hence remembering) of the names of false deities: “and the names of other gods you shall not mention (תַזְכִּירוּ) nor shall they be heard upon your lips.” The NIV takes a different approach and translates “Do not invoke the names of other gods,” probably because it is obvious that YHWH and the prophets themselves speak the names (or titles) of other gods throughout the Hebrew scriptures, but not with the purpose of invoking them. The point of the verse is that God’s name is the only one worthy to be on people’s lips, and thus remembered and made famous. Other gods are not allowed to compete with him in this arena.

In the same vein, Joshua says, “and the names of their gods you shall not mention (לֹא־תַזְכִּירוּ), nor shall you swear by them, nor shall you serve them, nor shall you bow down to them” (Josh 23:7). In other words, a unilateral agreement of silence when it comes to the names of the gods is a way of forgetting and belittling them, which will help the Israelites avoid swearing by them and serving them.

Instructions Concerning Vows

So, the question then becomes, by whose name should they swear? Scripture speaks clearly to this question in Deuteronomy 6:13: “It is YHWH your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear.” Again: “You shall fear YHWH your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear” (Deut 10:20). Jeremiah, as a faithful Torah student, reiterates the importance of this: “And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, ‘As YHWH lives,’ even as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built up in the midst of my people” (Jer 12:16). This is a surprising promise to restore the other nations along with Judah, if they will learn the ways of YHWH’s people. Thus, swearing by YHWH’s name constitutes an important mark of those who belong to and follow him. Conversely, it would seem that God places no value on avoiding the use of his name out of reverence, or to avoid the risk of blasphemy. In fact, to avoid using the name of YHWH to make a vow would be to go against his explicit wishes.

Many people in the Hebrew Bible conform to YHWH’s desire that his name be used to take an oath. Boaz says to Ruth, “as YHWH lives, I will redeem you” (Ruth 3:13). The people say to Saul, “Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel? Far from it! As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground” (1 Sam. 14:45). Even Saul says of David, “As YHWH lives, he shall not be put to death” (1 Sam. 19:6). Elijah says, “As YHWH, the God of Israel, lives, before whom I stand, there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word” (1 Ki. 17:1). Micaiah says, “As YHWH lives, what my God says, that I will speak” (2 Chr. 18:13).

Greetings & Other Contexts

Worth noting is the fact that righteous men used the name in formulaic greetings. If the use of the divine name had been considered inappropriate or forbidden, one would expect the righteous figures of ancient Israel, as depicted in the Tanakh, to avoid its use. However, the text presents the name being spoken regularly, including in ordinary social interactions. For example, Ruth 2:4 recounts Boaz greeting his laborers with the words, “May YHWH be with you,” to which they respond, “May YHWH bless you,” indicating the name’s presence in routine discourse among the faithful.

Although there is no consensus among commentators and opinions about how casual or formulaic this greeting was are admittedly speculative, what is clear is that the divine name is being used in a non-religious context as a kind of greeting. The context gives more weight to the idea that this was a standard greeting like “Good morning!” It also points to the fact that the name was not considered too sacred to pronounce in everyday interactions.

Another verse that seems to corroborate Boaz’s greeting also comes from the time of the Judges. The messenger of YHWH appears to Gideon and says, “YHWH is with you, O mighty man of valor” (Jdg 6:12). This, as will be seen later, was considered by many throughout the history of Jewish interpretation as a legitimate use of YHWH’s name in a greeting parallel to the one we see in Ruth.

Furthermore, it is important to observe how Eli instructs young Samuel to address God in 1 Samuel 3:9: “Eli said to Samuel, “Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, ‘Speak, YHWH, for your servant hears.’” It’s striking that a priest of God tells a little boy to call God by his name directly. One would think that if ancient Israelites had a strong custom of showing respect to God by addressing him only by “my Lord,” then Eli would have instructed Samuel to do so, but he did not.

One might object that Eli was not a particularly good priest, and that Samuel did not end up using God’s name when he answered YHWH (v 10: “Speak, for your servant hears.”), but that would be speculation. In light of the use of God’s name by other righteous people like Boaz and Elijah, the most compelling answer is that Eli is simply in keeping with a good tradition, and not giving Samuel bad advice. Given God’s heart towards children displayed throughout Scripture, we might expect him to welcome them to call him by name.

The Contrast with Other Gods

YHWH made himself unique among the gods of the nations by revealing his own personal name. All the other gods around the Hebrews were called by titles or elements of creation that they ruled over or represented. Examples include Baal (Lord), Dagon (probably grain), and Molech (ruler מלך, with the vowels of shame בֹּשֶׁת substituted). Even Satan is a title (hasatan, “the adversary”). Herein lies a striking contrast: history taken the title hasatan and made it into a name, Satan, but God’s name has been demoted to a title.

While the etymology of some gods like Asherah remains mysterious, the pattern seems to be clear: pagan gods did not have personal names.^[10] This makes sense in light of the fact that they were not intended to be related to on a personal level. Pagan gods were not there to have a familiar relationship with, as a father with his son or husband with his wife, but rather to be manipulated in order to get the good life. Thus, I might suggest that we lose this striking contrast between the pagan gods and Yahweh^[11] when we avoid using the personal name he revealed and only use a title. By only translating “Lord” in the Old Testament, we may be unintentionally blinding the reader to this particular uniqueness of the one true God. Does this consequently condemn what the NT writers did? Not at all, as will be seen later on.

“Taking God’s Name in Vain”

It is common to raise the issue of the third commandment at this point. Someone may say, “Sure, God wants his name to be remembered, but he doesn’t want us to take his name in vain, so we should be careful not to use it lest we unintentionally break that commandment.”  Unfortunately, this command in Exodus 20:7 has been misunderstood for centuries. Here is how one English translation reads: “You shall not take (לֹא תִשָּׂא) the name of the LORD your God, in vain (לַשָּׁוְא), for the LORD will not hold guiltless one who takes his name in vain.”

Carmen Joy Imes provides the following helpful clarification about how we should understand this command. She argues essentially that it is forbidding the Israelites to misrepresent Yahweh. Thus, the idea that has come to be popularized as “taking God’s name in vain” really has to do with misrepresenting God’s character:

I’ve asked a lot of people what they think this verse means (we’ll call it the “Name Command”). Most people assume that the Name Command teaches that we’re not supposed to use God’s name as a swear word (as in the flippant, “Oh, my God!” or the harsher “God dammit”). Instead, we should use it reverently. I agree that we should honor God’s name by using it reverently, but I do not think swear words are the problem that the Name Command seeks to address….

The Name Command says nothing about oaths or cursing. In fact, there are no speech-related words at all. Translated simply, it says, “You shall not bear the name of Yahweh, your God, in vain.” Perhaps this is why I’ve been able to count 23 distinctly different interpretations of the Name Command. It seems like an odd statement—how does one “bear” God’s name? It’s no wonder that interpreters have often gone to other passages (either inside or outside of the Bible) hoping for clarification. Most assume that “bear the name” is short-hand for something like “bear the name on your lips,” which would be to say the name, or “lift your hand to the name,” which would mean to swear an oath.

But there’s a much simpler explanation. We miss it because it involves a metaphor that’s unfamiliar to us. Shortly after the giving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, God gave instructions to Moses regarding the construction of the tabernacle, which will house the two stone tablets, and the official vestments of the high priest, who will officiate. The article of clothing that is of central importance to Aaron’s position as high priest is a cloth chest apron studded with 12 precious stones. These stones are to be inscribed, each with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Yahweh instructs Aaron to “bear the names of the sons of Israel” whenever he enters the sacred tent (Exodus 28:12, 29). Aaron literally bears their names. He carries them on his person as he goes about his official duties. He serves as the people’s authorized representative before God. He also bears Yahweh’s name on his forehead, setting him apart as God’s representative to the people.

As special as he is, Aaron is a visual model of what the entire covenant community is called to be and do. At Sinai, Yahweh selected Israel as his treasured possession, kingdom of priests, and holy nation (Exodus 19:5-6). All three titles designate Israel as Yahweh’s official representative, set apart to mediate his blessing to all nations. By selecting the Israelites, Yahweh has claimed them as his own, in effect, branding them with his name as a claim of ownership. Because they bear his name, they are charged to represent him well. That is, they must not bear that name in vain. This goes far beyond oaths or pronunciation of God’s name. It extends to their behavior in every area of life. In everything, they represent him. They are his public relations department. The nations are watching the Israelites to find out what Yahweh is like.

Not convinced yet? Look at Aaron’s blessing in Numbers 6:24-27. After Aaron’s ordination as high priest (where he was clothed with the special garments) and the consecration of the tabernacle and people, his first official act was to pronounce this blessing over the people (see Leviticus 9:22). It’s very likely that you’ve heard the blessing before. It’s often used in churches and synagogues:

“May Yahweh bless you and keep you;
May Yahweh smile on you and be gracious to you;
May Yahweh show you his favor and give you peace.”

But have you ever read the following verse? “So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”

You see? It’s quite explicit. God put his name on the Israelites as a claim of ownership. They wore an invisible tattoo. They were not to bear it in vain.^[12] 

The name command is further elucidated by passages like Isaiah 44:5, which reads, “This one will say, ‘I am Yahweh’s,’ another will call on the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, ‘Yahweh’s,’ and name himself by the name of Israel.”^[13] Deuteronomy 28:9–10 also serves to connect belonging to Yahweh and bearing his name: “Yahweh will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of Yahweh your God and walk in his ways. And all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of Yahweh [i.e. bear Yahweh’s name], and they shall be afraid of you.”^[14]

In conclusion, in spite of the opinions of many throughout history, the name command of Exodus 20:7 does not imply in any way that the name of God should not be pronounced as he revealed it. Rather, it requires that those who claim to be associated with the one true God, Yahweh, must not bring reproach on his reputation and character through their actions and words.

Conclusion

God clearly wants his personal name to be remembered forever. And the best way to remember his name is to do what David and other biblical writers did: use his name freely, especially in prayer, praise, vows, and in retelling his marvelous works throughout history. No passage in Scripture forbids the use of God’s name, which is why it is used nearly 7,000 times by the biblical authors. So how did we lose God’s name in many traditions and Bible translations? We’ll treat this question in the next chapter.

---

The Beginning of the End for Saying God’s Name

It’s important to recognize right up front that we simply do not know with absolute certainty how God’s name was originally pronounced. The common English pronunciation of Yahweh is an educated guess, and there are many other probable candidates such as Yahu, Yaho, and Yahuwah, but we’ll never know for sure how it sounded when God spoke it to Moses.

Two key things prevent us from knowing: (1) Hebrew was written without vowels for many centuries, so we’re left with only four consonants: YHWH, and (2) people started avoiding the pronunciation of God’s name long before Hebrew began to be written with vowels. And when the Hebrew Bible was finally written with vowels, artificial vowels were inserted into the spelling of God’s name in order to keep people from pronouncing it. So, in this chapter we’ll try to understand why—why did the Israelites go from swearing by Yahweh’s name, using it in prayer, song, and greetings to forbidding its use altogether?

Clues from the Bible

In the book of Amos God himself gives us a clue as to what might have motivated this historical change of attitude towards his name. This book goes back at least to the 8th century B.C., and thus represents the oldest evidence of what might have caused the shift. Amos warns the people of the coming exile and destruction that will punish their pride and their oppression of the poor and needy. As he describes the horrors of Yahweh’s imminent judgment, he says something interesting. “And if the relative who comes to carry the bodies out of the house to burn them asks anyone who might be hiding there, ‘Is anyone else with you?’ and he says, “No,” then he will go on to say, ‘Hush! We must not mention the name of Yahweh’” (Amos 6:10). Stuart comments on the last part of the verse:

The point would seem to be that after the awful slaughter wrought by Yahweh, the few harried, terrified survivors will not be able to stand any further miseries and so will want to avoid “mention” (הזכיר) of Yahweh. Since the speaker already uses Yahweh’s name, the issue cannot be prohibition of mere oral formulation, but must concern calling on Yahweh (cf. הזכיר in Isa 48:1) in prayers of lamentation or the like. Yahweh will have become foe, not friend. Survivors will want him to stay away, not come back.^[15]

Thus, there exists the possibility that some Hebrews were so traumatized by what happened under Yahweh’s judgment that they preferred not to talk about him anymore. This trauma could have easily developed into never mentioning his name for fear that they might somehow run the risk of falling under a similar judgment. This trauma-induced fear could have then evolved into the substitution of titles for God’s name, which the Jews later attributed to reverence or respect.

Gertoux observes that after the return from exile even the prophets avoided using the Name with non-Jews:

For example, Daniel used the Tetragram (Dn 1:2 9:2-20) but he used several substitutes with non-Jews: God in the heavens (Dn 2:28), Revealer of secrets (Dn 2:29), God of heaven (Dn 2:37,44), the Most High (Dn 4:17,24,32), the heavens (Dn 4:26). In the same way Ezra (-498?-398?) and Nehemiah used the Tetragram with the Jews (Ezr 3:10,11 8:28,29; Ne 4:14 8:9) but they used several substitutes with non-Jews: God (Ezr 5:17), the great God (Ezr 5:8), God of the heavens (Ezr 5:12; Ne 2:4,20), God of the heavens and the earth (Ezr 5:11). Furthermore, these non-Jews no longer used the Tetragram in their answers to the prophets. Cyrus was probably the last (just after 539 BCE) who used the name Jehovah (Ezr 1:2). In the book of Esther there is no Tetragram, but the last book (Malachi) written for the Jews, contains it.^[16]

During the intertestamental period the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, and an interesting thing happened in the translation of Leviticus 24:16. The original Hebrew reads:

וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם־יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת

“The one who blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death.”

The Greek, on the other hand, reads:

ὀνομάζων δὲ τὸ ὀνομα κυρίου θανάτῳ θανατοὐσθω.

“The one who names the name of the Lord will surely be put to death.”^[17]

Note that the act of blaspheming is translated into Greek here as the simple act of naming. According to the critical edition of Leviticus, the manuscript tradition is unanimous without variation, so the form of the text is sure.^[18] In order to understand what may have happened, we must look carefully at the verb נקב and take into account relevant phrases in verses 11 and 15, which read respectively:

the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name, and cursed.

וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן־הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת־הַשֵּׁם וַיְקַלֵּל

καὶ ἐπονομάσας ὁ υἱὸς τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς Ισραηλίτιδος τὸ ὄνομα κατηράσατο

Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.

אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי־יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ

αὐτούς ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐὰν καταράσηται θεόν ἀμαρτίαν λήμψεται

According to HALOT נקב can mean 1) to bore through, 2) to fix, establish, 3) to denote, curse, or slander. The last option, “slander,” is only attested in this chapter (Leviticus 24), while at the same time the meaning “to curse” comes through clearly in Job 3:8 and Proverbs 11:26. Imes provides helpful commentary on the use of נקב when she writes:

First, the Akkadian cognate, naqabu, is undoubtedly negative (‘to deflower, rape’). Second, v.16 clearly employs the qal active participle of נקב, making its reappearance in v. 11 more probable. Most likely נקב is euphemistic for open disparagement of YHWH (cf. Job 2:9), since the unambiguously negative קלל is never paired directly with ‘YHWH’ in the Hebrew Bible (though note LXX 1 Sam 3:13). This may also explain the narrator’s avoidance of the name ‘YHWH’ in his statement of the offense (vv. 11, 16). The meaning ofנֹקֵב שֵׁם  in the present context is clarified in v. 15, which announces the oracular judgment based on this case: anyone who ‘disparages his God’ (יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו) is guilty.^[19]

The LXX translators may have rendered נקב in Leviticus 24:16 as “to name” for any of the following reasons:

1. In a spirit of piety, they could not bring themselves to translate “curse/blaspheme/slander” directly connected to the divine name, so they used circumlocution to generalize or soften the phrase.
2. They simply misunderstood the Hebrew verb.
3. They allowed a belief about pronouncing the divine name to influence their translation.

In De Vita Mosis (On the Life of Moses), Book II, section 203, Philo of Alexandria quotes a paraphrastic reading of this verse as “Whoever curses God shall be guilty of sin, and whoever names the name of the Lord shall die.” He then praises Moses for this declaration, saying, “Well done, O all-wise man! You alone have drunk of the cup of unalloyed wisdom. You have seen that it was worse to name God than even to curse him.” Philo’s comments reflect broader Alexandrian and Second Temple Jewish views. The Name was seen as a bearer of divine presence. Naming God, therefore, transgressed the metaphysical divide between creature and Creator.

Because of the LXX’s (and Philo’s) influence on post-exilic Judaism and the early Church, this reading and interpretation likely led to the proliferation of sentiments against the pronunciation of the Name, including the total ban that came later in rabbinic tradition (institutionalized in the early 2nd century A.D.). If an anti-pronunciation belief was already prevalent during the time of the translation, then it may have served to strengthen that belief.

Gertoux writes:

As might be expected, this innovation influenced Jewish worship. Indeed, the Septuagint forbade Greek-speaking Jews to pronounce the Name, while Hebrew-speaking Jews could continue to use it—creating a paradoxical situation for bilingual Jews. The Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 39b) indicates that, in practice, the use of a substitute for the Tetragrammaton became widespread in Israel at this time, except inside the Temple in Jerusalem. The rapid sequence of these events is easily explained by the swift expansion of Hellenism in Israel, which had already led to a decline in worship, as confirmed by various Jewish historical books (1 Maccabees 1:11–15, 41–57; 2 Maccabees 4:14; 6:6). The prohibition on pronouncing the Name in Greek affected the majority of the Jewish population, which subsequently adopted this custom.^[20]

Making God’s People Forget His Name

In light of the contrast between YHWH and other gods, and his desire expressed in Exodus 3:15, we find something interesting and potentially relevant in the book of Jeremiah. The passage in context reads as follows from chapter 23:

23 “Am I only a God nearby,” declares YHWH, “and not a God far away?” 24 “Can a man hide in secret places where I cannot see him?” declares YHWH. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares YHWH. 25 “I have heard the sayings of the prophets who prophesy lies in my name: ‘I had a dream! I had a dream!’ 26 How long will this continue in the hearts of these prophets who prophesy falsehood, these prophets of the delusion of their own minds? 27 They suppose the dreams that they tell one another will make my people forget my name, just as their fathers forgot my name through the worship of Baal (Jer 23:23-27).

The end of verse 27 reads as follows in Hebrew:

  כַּאֲשֶׁ֙ר שָׁכְח֧וּ אֲבוֹתָ֛ם אֶת־שְׁמִ֖י בַּבָּֽעַל

In this verse we find some unique elements. First, it is the only place in the Hebrew Bible that uses a hiphil form of the verb שׁכח (shakhaḥ): לְהַשְׁכִּ֤יחַ (to forget). Second, it is the only place that speaks of forgetting God’s name or any name. Normally, this verb takes God himself (יהוה) as the direct object to describe the forsaking of YHWH (e.g. Deut 8:14, 19, Judg 3:7, 1 Sam 12:9, Isa 51:13, etc.). But here God chose instead to mention his name as the direct object—twice. Based on the usage of שׁכח across the OT it would have been more expected or consistent to simply say “their fathers forgot me.”

Historically, this verse has been interpreted in two primary ways. First, “name” is taken figuratively to refer to God’s character or person, and “forget” is likewise taken figuratively to describe the action of abandoning God (and worshiping Baal instead).

The second way this has been interpreted is in a more literal sense. It links the fading or loss of God’s name with a drift into false worship, erasing God’s character and truth through replacing his name with Baal’s name (Baal means “Lord”). This line of reasoning comes from Jewish tradition. There are two midrash commentaries that mention this verse. The first reads as follows:

And so you find that Israel did everything that he had said to them in the days of the judges, as stated (in Jud. 10:6): Again the children of Israel did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals and the Astartes. So also Jeroboam, as stated (in I Kings 12:28–29): So the king took counsel and made two calves of gold […] Then he set one in Bethel and the other he {set} [put] in Dan. Moreover, he did not allow Israel to go up to Jerusalem. Instead he said: These are your Gods, O Israel. So also Ahab sinned and made Israel sin more than all the wicked ones who came before him. (I Kings 16:30:) And Ahab [ben Omri] did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than all who [had come] before him. You yourself know that he sold himself to idolatrous worship, as stated (in I Kings 21:25): [Indeed there was no one] like Ahab who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord. He also made them forget the name of the Holy One. How? He blotted out the references [to the Divine Name] and wrote in their place, e.g., “And Baal spoke,” “In the beginning Baal,” “And Baal said.” And for all the whole Torah he did likewise. That is what the prophet says (in Jer. 23:27): The ones who intend to make My people forget My name.^[21]

This commentary highlights a pattern of idolatry in Israel, culminating in a deliberate attempt to erase God’s name. Most notably, Ahab is said to have replaced God’s name in sacred texts with that of Baal.

The second commentary comes from the book of Ruth:

There are three matters that the earthly court decreed and the supernal court agreed with them, and these are: To greet another with the name of God, the Scroll of Esther, and tithes. Greeting others, from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “That think to cause My people to forget My name” (Jeremiah 23:27). When did they think to do so? It was during the days of Atalyahu [Athaliah]. The Rabbis say: It was during the days of Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya [Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego]. Rabbi Ḥananya said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon: It was during the days of Mordekhai and Esther. But Boaz and his court had arisen and instituted to greet another with the name of God, as it is stated: “Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and he said to the reapers: May the Lord be with you.” Likewise, the angel said to Gideon: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12).^[22]

Let’s unpack the specific historical periods mentioned in this commentary, wherein the name of God was perceived to be under threat. First, “the days of Atalyahu” refers to the reign of the Judean queen Athaliah (2 Kings 11; 2 Chron 22–23), who, following the death of her son Ahaziah, seized power and initiated a campaign to destroy the Davidic line. She was a descendant of Ahab and Jezebel, and is associated with the promotion of Baal worship and the suppression of the worship of the God of Israel. Her reign represents a moment when Israelite religious identity was at risk, and the public invocation of God’s name may have been marginalized or suppressed.

Similarly, “the days of Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya” (better known by their Babylonian names, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) reflects a time during the Babylonian exile when the Jewish people faced cultural and religious pressure to abandon their faith and forget the name of their God. Under King Nebuchadnezzar, idol worship was mandated by royal decree (Dan 3), and refusal to comply resulted in persecution. This period is emblematic of the danger of enforced assimilation and the suppression of divine worship in exile. Interestingly, the divine name appears exactly seven times in the book of Daniel, all in chapter 9 from the pen of Daniel. Perhaps in part this serves to symbolize the complete and precarious preservation of God’s name in a foreign land.

Finally, the reference to “Mordekhai and Esther” identifies yet another period in Jewish history when God’s name seemed to be in danger of being forgotten or suppressed. Esther is the only book in the Hebrew Bible in which the name of God is entirely absent, a fact that has troubled many readers throughout history. Rabbinic tradition was acutely aware of this absence and interpreted it in different ways, perhaps reflecting a historical moment when God’s presence was hidden and the true worship of YHWH was stifled.

Clues from outside the Bible

The Babylonian Talmud offers another explanation, but not as ancient as Amos or the LXX:

The [Seleucid] Greeks decreed that the name of Elohim may not be spoken aloud; but when the Hasmoneans grew in strength and defeated them they decreed that the name of Elohim be used even in contracts… when the Rabbis heard about this they said, ‘Tomorrow this person will pay his debt and the contract will be thrown on a garbage heap’ so they forbade its use in contracts.^[23]

So according to this Talmud account, the prohibition to use the name of Yahweh began as one of the anti-Torah decrees enacted by the Seleucid Greek tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes around 168 B.C. This was part of his plan to convert the Jews to Greeks. But when Judas Maccabeus defeated the Greeks, he restored the use of the divine name and established a law “requiring the use of the name of יהוה in contracts so that every Jew would regain the habit of using the divine name. But the Rabbis were opposed to this decree and banned the use of the name in contracts.”^[24]

Of the three primary Jewish religious groups described by Josephus in the centuries before Christ (Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes), only the Sadducees defended the use of the divine name and required its use in contracts. The Qumran community (thought by many to be Essenes) stood strictly against the mention of Yahweh’s name in their community rulebook:

Anyone who speaks aloud the M[ost] Holy Name of Elohim, [whether in… ] cursing or frivolously or as a blurt in time of trial or for any other reason, or while he is reading the book or praying, is to be expelled, never again to return to the body of the community.^[25] 

The wider context of this prohibition does not give any reason, whether out of reverence or respect. Note that the prohibition does not limit itself to using Yahweh’s name in cursing, but even in prayer or any other reason. This blanket prohibition ironically ignores the teaching of the very Hebrew scriptures the Qumran community is famous for preserving.

Although the origin of many of the manuscripts from the Judean desert remains a mystery, we do know that some of the scribes chose to write the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew script (which the average person could not read, since it had fallen into disuse in the 3rd century B.C.), even though they wrote the rest in Aramaic square script.

Other scrolls from the Judean desert have four black dots • • • • in place of יהוה.^[26] So one might read something like, “And • • • • spoke to Moses, saying….” Was this a precaution to ensure that no one might mistakenly pronounce the name, following the Essene rulebook? We’ll never know.

Later writings in the Mishnah from the 3rd century A.D. describe the developing attitude of Jewish teaching on the issue of pronouncing Yahweh’s name: “The following have no portion in the world to come: … one who pronounces the divine name as it is written.”^[27] 

The rabbinic text Yoma 39b describes when the divine name was finally completely silenced. The death of Simon the Righteous (aka Simeon the Just) marked the end of a period of divine favor evident in the temple wherein miraculous phenomena ceased, such as the crimson wool on the scapegoat turning white, the western lamp of the menorah burning continuously, and fire requiring minimal wood. In recognition of this loss, and because the priests no longer deemed themselves worthy, they discontinued pronunciation of the Name in the priestly blessing.

Gertoux argues that ancient philosophers also had a significant influence towards the ultimate loss of the Name:

Surprisingly, philosophers and religious teachers have been the most damaging opponents of the Name. They were strongly influenced by several works of Plato (-427–347) wherein he explained that no name could perfectly designate God, furthermore: «to have a name implies an older person who gave you this name, therefore God has no name» (Timaios 28b,c; Kratylos 400d; Parmenides 142a). Incredibly, in time these arguments influenced Bible teaching about the divine Name. For example, Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the first century, had a good biblical knowledge and knew that the Tetragram was the divine name pronounced inside the temple.… However, in the same work, paradoxically, he explains, commenting on Exodus 3:14 from the LXX translation, that God has no name of his own (De Vita Mosis I:75)!

Justin (100–165), a Christian philosopher, is another example of this insidious opposition to the Name. Like Philo, Justin often commented in his works that it was impossible for man to name God, and once more his main argument came from Timaios, a work of Plato (Apologies II.6.1).^[28]

Clues from the Septuagint

The majority tradition of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX or Old Greek) used κύριος (kurios) in place of the divine name. The great Christian manuscripts Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus all have κύριος in place of יהוה. What motivated this? Some scholars have suggested that this was a strategy used by authorities to facilitate the Hellenizing of Jews. By suppressing the special name of God and using kurios it made it more universal and easier to harmonize with the emperors and gods of the Greco-Roman world.^[29] Baudissin argued that the later practice of the Masoretes (of marking YHWH with alternate vowels) arose from the precedent set by the LXX.^[30] “He held this primarily because he did not consider kurios to be merely a pious way of avoiding articulation of the Tetragrammaton, but a distinct Semitic divine name (‘adon) used instead.”^[31]

Another question we must ask is whether rendering יהוה as κύριος was the practice of the first translators or earliest copyists of the LXX. This may help us confirm the antiquity of the Jewish practice of substitution. In other words, was the practice of avoiding the Name already established at the time when the LXX was first translated, or was it something imposed upon later editions?

Some Greek manuscripts of the OT have been discovered to differ from the standard of using κύριος for the Name, especially amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. One scroll containing the second half of Deuteronomy, dated from the middle of the 1st century B.C. contains no evidence of κύριος at all. Instead, the scribe left large spaces where the divine name would have occurred, marked the gaps with a dot on each side, and then inserted the Name in Hebrew between the dots. One space was left blank. This may indicate that the first scribe was not able or allowed to write the Name in Hebrew, and thus left it for another.^[32] 

The Nahal Hever scroll fragments of the Minor Prophets (8Hev XII gr), dated from about 50 B.C. to 50 A.D. have the divine name written in Paleo-Hebrew script in 28 places.

This same archaic script can be found in twelve Hebrew manuscripts of Leviticus and Job from the Dead Sea, and it is used consistently throughout those manuscripts.^[34] 

Another interesting piece of evidence from Qumran is 4QpapLXXLevb dated to the 1st century B.C., which renders iaô in the place of the Name, instead of kurios. Frank Shaw argues that this manuscript represents an ancient contention over the pronunciation or avoidance of the Name, and that its use did not die out as early as some have proposed.^[35] Whether this constitutes evidence for the original translation practice of the first LXX translators remains speculation.

Returning to the Nahal Hever fragments’ use of Paleo-Hebrew, some have thought that this marks out the divine name as something too holy to be pronounced. One scholar, Albert Pietersma, argued that writing YHWH in Hebrew within Greek texts reflects a later scribal habit. This archaizing tendency on the part of scribes was also something the Essene community seems to have valued. In other words, Pietersma showed that it was probably indicative of some dissatisfaction with how previous manuscripts had rendered יהוה as κύριος. He pointed out that in the Hebrew text we find ליהוה (‘to YHWH’) hundreds of times, and this is rendered in later LXX manuscripts as κυρίῳ (‘Lord’ in the dative case). An example of this is found in Genesis 4:3 where Cain brought the fruit of the ground as an “offering/sacrifice to YHWH”:

מִנְחָה לַיהוה

Θυσίαν τῷ κυρίῳ|

Pietersma’s argument could be summarized by the following question: If the earliest LXX manuscripts had rendered the divine name in Hebrew letters, without the inseparable preposition (e.g. Θυσίαν יהוה), how would later revisers have known to insert kurios in the dative case? In other words, how would later revisers know when there was a lamed preposition attached to the Name?^[36] This argument is challenged, however, by two realities. First, in many, if not all, instances, the context would make it obvious to the scribe which grammatical case kurios would need to be in. Second, there exists the solution of inserting the dative article τῷ before the Name written in Hebrew, which is evidenced in the manuscript 8HevXIIgr.

Further evidence of τῷ preceding the Name in Hebrew occurs in 4QLXXLevb at Leviticus 3:11, 14, and 4:3. Wilkinson writes:

The usage of these manuscripts has weakened Pietersma’s argument because kurioi (dative) could be a substitution for either iaô or the Tetragrammaton with the dative article toi. The article in Zechariah 9:1 of the Scroll of the Minor Prophets was perhaps inserted, as otherwise there would be no indication of case of the Tetragrammaton, and it might also be representing l. … Perkins, “Kurios,” accepts Pietersma’s argument that since the translator uses the genitive article and sometimes the dative article to represent lyhwh, a “kurios surrogator” would be more likely to be consistent in his rendering rather than choosing now one, now the other. M. Rosel also defends an original kurios, noting that although yhwh is usually translated by kurios and ʾelohim by theos, there are several places in the Greek Exodus where kurios renders ʾelohim and 41 cases where theos does so for yhwh. The majority of these cases seem textually quite firm. Given that there is no evidence that the translators’ Vorlage was different from our Massoretic text, if the original translator wrote iaô or a Hebrew Tetragrammaton, then we must suppose an improbable variation from a reviser choosing between kurios or theos. More probably, the original translator used the word he thought fit at the time. Rosel also considers that the Greek translation of Leviticus 24:16 ordaining death for one who “names the name of the Lord” [the LXX rendering] argues for the use of kurios there, because a translator using iaô or a Hebrew Tetragrammaton would violate the command (assuming naming also means writing) [see Martin Rosel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2001), 411–428].^[37] 

Pietersma maintained that the original translators wrote kurios without the article in Greek because they regarded it as a proper name—an idea we will return to later when we consider the question of the NT authors’ perception of kurios.^[38] By contrast, Emanuel Tov explained the absence of the article as evidence of a mechanical scribal replacement of ιαω (iaô) by κύριος performed by Christians. He concluded that ιαω “represents the earliest attested stage in the history of the LXX translation, when the name of God was represented by its transliteration, just like any other personal name in the LXX.”^[39]

Church father Origen commented that the “most accurate” LXX manuscripts had the Name in ancient Hebrew letters, but it is not guaranteed that he had access to the earliest manuscripts, and it’s probable that he was referring to the revised text of Aquila, which came later.^[40] Patrick Skehan presented an attempt to place the different LXX renderings of the Name in chronological order as follows:^[41]

1. ιαω
2. Hebrew square script
3. Paleo-Hebrew script
4. κυριος

Wilkinson concludes that, “given the paucity of evidence and challenge of dating the material with precision, it may be better to hold that different conventions were held by different groups—perhaps at the same time. We should further allow for the possibility of different practices in different books: in some of the prophets, kurios may definitely appear to have been the original, but this need not have been so in other books.”^[42] He goes on to write:

An original Septuagint transliteration of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton as iao gains plausibility from other early uses of this name. Diodorus of Sicily I.29.2 (1st century a.d.) states that Moses referred his laws to “the god called Iaô.” Iaô, we shall later see, may also be found in patristic authors and the magical papyri. Varro (116–27 b.c.) tells us that the Jewish god is called iao in the Chaldean mysteries. It is also reminiscent in its pronunciation of the form of the Tetragrammaton found in the Elephantine papyri yhw…. Dioscorides Pedanius (40–90 a.d.) in his Peri Painonias 11.2 cries, “Be with me Lord (kurios) God Iaô, Iaô.” The Alexandrian grammarian Aelius Herodianus (180–250 a.d.), writing on orthography (Peri Orthographias), begs, “May I heal you by Iaô.” Much later, the 5th-century grammarian Hesychius, also from Alexandria, in his Lexicon (1212) explains the name Ozeias (Hosea) as “Strength of Iao” (ischus iaô).^[43] 

Origen also presents more evidence for iaô in his commentary on John 1:1 by glossing the name ieremias as meteorismos iao (“exultation of Iao”).^[44] More occurrences of iaô can be found in Codex Machalianus (Q):

As a marginal note in Ezekiel 1:2 where iôakeim is defined as iaô etoimasmos (“Iao has prepared”)

As a marginal note in Ezekiel 11:1 where banaiou is interpreted as oidodomê ê oikos iaô (“building or house of Iao”).

Thus, another chronology of the LXX rendering might be as follows:

1. ιαω
2. κυριος
3. Hebrew square script / Paleo-Hebrew script

This is because of the later tendency to hebraize as demonstrated by Aquila’s revisions, which used the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew script instead of kurios.^[45] 

This was very likely a reactionary archaizing brought about by conflict between Christians and Jews. It seems that even though the Name was written in Paleo-Hebrew, it was intended to be pronounced as kurios when read aloud. This is evident from one place in the Aquila fragments where there was no room to write “in the House of YHWH,” so the scribe rendered the Name with a nomen sacrum as KU with a macron over the U, representing κυρίου.^[46]

Other evidence of hebraizing is found when PIPI (PIPI) occurs in some manuscripts, using Greek letters to approximate the appearance of the divine name in Hebrew. Taylor’s Hexaplaric fragments show that Aquila, Symmachus, and the LXX column have ΠΙΠΙ where YHWH would be in Hebrew.^[47] Origen wrote in a letter to Marcella that “Those who do not understand [the divine name] generally read it as ΠΙΠΙ (pipi) on account of the similarity of the letters to those found in Greek books.”^[48] Again, Origen remarked that “the Tetragrammaton is read adonai as a proper noun, but amongst the Greeks kurios is said.”^[49]

During the period when the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) was produced (2nd century B.C.) there is evidence of an aversion to pronouncing the Name, even while dictating Scripture for the sake of copying. For instance, Isaiah 3:17 has adonai where YHWH should be, and 3:18 has YHWH where adonai should be. If the scribe were only hearing adonai in the dictation (because the reader was avoiding pronouncing YHWH), then this kind of confusion is to be expected. In both cases someone corrected his mistake in the space above each word. Further evidence of this mistake can be found in 6:11, 7:14, 9:7, and 21:16.^[50] This, along with other evidence, demonstrates that the Name was pronounced as adonai long before the Masoretic tradition.

What remains in question is whether it is probable that kurios came first in the LXX tradition. Vasileiadis offers a helpful summary of how the debate has progressed over the years:

The original Greek translation of the divine name has proved to be a heavily debated subject. A constantly great amount of scholarly effort has been put in this question, especially as a result of more recent discoveries that challenged previously long-held assumptions. More specifically, W. G. von Baudissin (1929) maintained that right from its origins the LXX had rendered the Tetragrammaton by κύριος, and that in no case was this latter a mere substitute for an earlier αδωναι. Based on more recent evidence that had became available, P. Kahle (1960) supported that the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in the OG [Old Greek] and it was the Christians who later replaced it with κύριος. S. Jellicoe (1968) concurred with Kahle. H. Stegemann (1969/1978) argued that Ιαω /i.a.o/ was used in the original LXX. G. Howard (1977/1992) suggested that κύριος was not used in the pre-Christian OG. P. W. Skehan (1980) proposed that there had been a textual development concerning the divine name in this order: Ιαω, the Tetragrammaton in square Hebrew characters, the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew characters and, finally, κύριος. M. Hengel (1989) offered a similar scheme for the use of κύριος for the divine name in the LXX tradition. Evolving R. Hanhart’s position (1978/1986/1999), A. Pietersma (1984) regarded κύριος as the original Greek rendering of the Tetragrammaton in the OG text. This view was supported later by J.W. Wevers (2005) and M. Rosel (2007). Moreover, Rosel argued against the Ιαω being the original LXX rendering of the Tetragrammaton. G. Gertoux (2002) proposed that the replacement of the Tetragrammaton by אדני was gradual between 300 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. and that Ιαω was an Aramaic substitute for the Tetragrammaton used from 200 B.C.E. until the middle of the second century C.E., at a time when the scribal practice of the nomina sacra appeared. K. De Troyer (2008) argued that θεός was the original rendering of the Tetragrammaton in Greek and only later κύριος became the standard rendering following the more extensive use of אדני; obviously some Jews read Ιαω in their Greek Bible at least until the first century B.C.E. L. Perkins (2008) suggested that Ιαω was a secondary change to the original κύριος. G. D. Kilpatrick (1985), E. Tov (1998/2004/2008), J. Joosten (2011), and A. Meyer (2014) concluded that Pietersma’s arguments are unconvincing. More particularly, Tov has supported that the original translators used a pronounceable form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (like Ιαω), which was later replaced by κύριος, while Greek recensions replaced it with transliterations in Paleo-Hebrew or square Hebrew characters. R. Furuli (2011), after comparing the various proposals, argued that κύριος did not replace the Tetragrammaton before the Common Era and the LXX autographs included the Tetragrammaton in some form of Ιαω. Truly, the hard evidence available supports this latter thesis.^[51]

In the end, the matter remains unsettled, leaving us mainly to speculate as to what the earliest LXX translators did with the divine name. For the purposes of this book, it is not necessary to reach a definite conclusion on this point, but rather acknowledge the complexity, and that we can be fairly certain that the inhibition for pronouncing God’s name came before Christianity. Perhaps there was controversy or confusion amongst LXX translators and revisers regarding what to do with the divine name, as well as a special interest in it. As we have seen, there appears to have been tension around this issue during the Maccabean uprising, which may have contributed to the muddiness. Another possibility suggested tentatively by Wilkinson is that the Greek reading of Leviticus 24:16 marks a watershed moment that may have initiated the progressive replacement of ιαω (iaô) by κύριος in LXX manuscripts.

Again, the evidence seems to point to a hesitancy around the use of YHWH that preceded the work of Christian scribes. At the same time, it should be admitted that we cannot know for sure that the divine name was standardized in its rendering during the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Another question that remains is whether the Old Greek manuscripts that contain ιαω in place of the divine name were genuinely rendering what they thought was the original pronunciation, or some kind of abbreviation or circumlocution to protect its sanctity. Vasileiadis again comments on this:

It has been suggested that this form of the divine name was: (a) an approximate vocalic transliteration of the original four-letter יהוה as /y..ho.w/ having the final ה dropped as being inaudible, (b) a literal transliteration of the late three-letter divine name יהו (/y..ho/ or /y..hu/) and thus only “part of the Tetragrammaton” (and, also, later on as the reborrowing term, יאו) or (c) a translational equivalent that originated or was “fueled” from other semantic domains. The last two cases would allow the use of Ιαω as a substitute name in place of the fully spelled Tetragrammaton, aiming to “protect” the sacredness of the complete name.^[52]

Clues from the Elohistic Psalter

In his article on “The Elohistic Psalter and the Writing of Divine Names at Qumran,” Ben-Dov begins with the statement, “The biography of God in the Hebrew Bible unfolds as a story of gradual distancing.”^[53] He observes that one symptom of this may be found in part of the book of Psalms, particularly Books 2 and 3 (chapters 42-89). As can be seen in the chart below of the distribution of YHWH and Elohim (God) across the psalms, there is a marked drop in the use of YHWH in these two books. This has come to be known as the Elohistic Psalter (EP).

Book	1 (1–41)	2 (42–72)	3 (73–83; 84–89)	4 (90–106)	5 (107–150)	Total
YHWH	278	32	13; 31	105	236	695
Elohim	49	198	47; 16	24	31	365

In the EP one finds some unexpected choices regarding the name of God, in contexts where the use of Elohim appears awkward or forced. For example, Psalm 50:7 modifies the familiar opening of the Decalogue from “I am YHWH your God” to the unusual “I am God your God,” a phrase that may have sounded distinctly unnatural to ancient Israelite ears.

Ben-Dov believes that this scribal tendency (although not universal or consistent) may have begun as early as the Persian period^[54], significantly predating any Greek cultural influence. If this is so, it seems to fit well with the theory put forward earlier about Amos 6:10. Ultimately, the EP is mysterious, and any attempt to attribute motive is speculative. But the topic bears mentioning for the sake of providing the reader with potentially relevant evidence.

The Early Church and the Divine Name

While pre-Christian manuscripts demonstrate a range of ways for rendering YHWH, Christian Greek manuscripts are uniform in their use of kurios, and none have been found with the Name written in Paleo-Hebrew, square script, or as ΠΙΠΙ. Instead, early Christian manuscripts used a set of abbreviations known as the nomina sacra. These abbreviations have a horizontal line above them as a signal that they are not complete names. Examples include theos, kurios, christos, and iesous. Others that occasionally appear in abbreviated form: pneuma, anthropos, stauros, pater, huios soter, meter, ouranos, Israel, daveid, and hierousalem. We have no evidence that these words were considered ineffable or unpronounceable. Neither do we have evidence that this abbreviation was born out of Jewish tradition. For the first three centuries A.D. it appears to be an exclusively Christian practice.^[55]

What should be mentioned is that the New Testament writings, such as Paul’s letters and Revelation (cf. Rev 1:3) were intended to be read aloud. Because of the long tradition of inhibition regarding the divine name, it is doubtful that a mixed community of Jews would tolerate the pronunciation of the Name. Also, we do not have any unambiguous testimony from rabbis that Christians read the Name aloud.

Conclusion

In the end, the evidence suggests that the silencing of God’s name was not the result of a single decree, translation choice, or theological argument, but rather the cumulative effect of centuries of sin, shifting attitudes, traumatic historical events, and cultural influences. What began, perhaps, as a temporary reluctance in times of judgment gradually hardened into a formalized avoidance.

---

The New Testament Use of “Lord”

 Any discussion regarding the pronunciation of the divine name must address the issue of the use of κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) by the New Testament. The fact that the NT never uses God’s personal name as revealed in the Old Testament, or even an approximation of it, is crucial.^[56] John Milton expressed perplexity over this issue when he wrote:

If that name be so acceptable to God, that he has always chosen to consider it as sacred and peculiar to himself alone, why has he uniformly disused it in the New Testament, which contains the most important fulfilment of his prophecies; retaining only the name of Lord, which had always been common to him with angels and men? If, lastly, any name whatever can be so pleasing to God, why has he exhibited himself to us in the gospel without any proper name at all?^[57]

Indeed, why did the NT authors choose to do this? Was it because they thought God’s name was too sacred to write out in Greek transliteration and feared that God might strike them down if they did so? Or, had its pronunciation already been forgotten to history? Were they afraid that the Jews might be angry about it? Or, was it some other reason(s)? The writers never tell us why. Nevertheless, what follows is an honest attempt to grapple with the issue.

Gertoux offers what may be part of the puzzle’s solution:

Jesus (and also his disciples) used this name cautiously, and to avoid being judged as a blasphemer during his trial he respected the judicial prohibition (Sanhedrin 56a 7,5) not to pronounce the Name before the final judgement. For this reason, during this trial many substitutes were used such as; «the living God, power (Mt 26:63,64), the Blessed One (Mk 14:61)», hence, from his trial up until his death, Jesus did not use the divine Name.

This problem affected the early Christians of Jewish origin because they were regarded by the Jews as apostates (Dt 13:10) and therefore as blasphemers deserving of death (Ac 26:10). This penalty was executed if they pronounced the Name before the final verdict…. Outside Israel, the situation was not any easier because of a law on superstitions (Lex superstitio illicita) which involved the death penalty for introducing a new unauthorized deity. [Nobody will have different or new gods, neither will they worship unknown private gods, unless they have a public authorization]. For example, Socrates (470-399) was put to death because of this law. Of course, the apostle Paul knew this law (Ac 16:21, 17:18, 18:13) and therefore, he avoided using the Tetragram in his speeches, preferring substitutes such as “deities, God, Lord of heaven and earth, the Divine Being” (Ac 17:21-32).^[58]

Because the NT authors knew their Hebrew Bible better than we do, it is unlikely that they were ignorant of God’s desire expressed in Exodus 3:15, the way David and the prophets freely spoke to God, calling him by name, and other passages we looked at in the first part of this book. So, it seems unlikely that they considered God’s name too sacred to use in transliteration.

It should be understood that the Septuagint became the standard for Jewish communities that were forgetting Hebrew in the midst of a world increasingly dominated by other languages like Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. The NT writers quoted from it extensively, and it was a beloved text to the early Church. In fact, it came to be considered more authoritative than the Hebrew original by influential leaders like St. Augustine. He resisted any translation into Latin from the Hebrew, and encouraged Jerome to use only the Septuagint as the basis for his translation, in order to preserve the unity of the Church around the Greek Bible.^[59] 

When a text is used as a standard for centuries like the Septuagint was, many things become ingrained in tradition. Thus, it is highly probable that the title kurios in Greek came to be treated as a proper name, even though it’s not technically or lexically accurate to call it a name. (A modern example of a proper name would be “Bob,” and his title is “Mr. President”.) If a community treats a title like a proper name for long enough, it will inevitably begin to feel like a proper name. Subsequent generations will continue to use it, not because they believe it’s wrong to pronounce the actual name, but simply because it feels like God’s name.

This has happened in English with the title “the Lord.” Many generations have grown used to hearing and reading “the Lord” as God’s name, and they no longer recognize it as a title. Part of the reason for this is that the use of “lord” outside of the Bible has diminished. English speakers understand it vaguely as a remnant of our distant past that comes up in Victorian novels and historical movies, but it is no longer a word used in daily life outside of the Bible. Because of this, and because we constantly hear God addressed as “Lord,” and see “the Lord” in places where only a proper name would make sense in Scripture, we naturally and subconsciously internalize it as a proper name. Tradition and language shift have changed our mental categories, and now “the Lord” occupies the space of a proper name. If the average English-speaking Christian sits down to parse and analyze “the Lord,” they will admit that it is a title with the definite article. But in their own internal lexical inventory, “the Lord” is a name.

An everyday example of this phenomenon can be seen in the word “butterfly.” Upon close analysis, the average person will notice (sometimes for the first time) that it can be divided into “butter” and “fly.” Yet no English speaker thinks of butter or flies when they say or read the word “butterfly.” It has been assimilated into a different category and lexical space.

In a similar way, in accordance with the perception of “the Lord” in modern English-speaking Christian circles, we could just as well write it as a unified proper name “Thelord.” That would more accurately represent how it is perceived and treated.

This has happened in other languages. I spoke about this matter with Brazilian students who are used to hearing and reading the divine name rendered as “the Lord” in Portuguese. They said that they don’t think of it as a title, but rather as a name. And thus, to change it in a translation would feel like God’s familiar, personal name had been changed, and subsequently alienate readers.

It is important to point out that this reason for retaining “the Lord” in a translation is different from showing “reverence” or avoiding the misuse of God’s name, which stems from a misunderstanding of one of the Ten Commandments (more on this later).

An example from my personal life may help illustrate how names can rapidly become deeply entrenched in our perception of an individual. A friend of mine, upon turning sixty, decided that he wanted people to call him Michael instead of Mike. (He had realized at some point that Michael is a Hebrew name, and the suffix –el is the word for God. Thus, he wanted to put God back into his name.) When he told me this, I dutifully began to address him as Michael, but it didn’t feel natural, and it took a conscious effort to remember to do so. I suspect that other people struggled or refused to change the way they had called him for decades, because after two years he told me not to worry about calling him Michael anymore. The new version of his name had failed to catch on, so he gave up.

This anecdote has an obvious, lesser-to-greater application in this discussion of changing the tradition of God’s name. If it was so difficult merely to change the name of a man to the complete version of the same name after decades, how much more difficult would it be to change the name of God to a name that sounds completely different—after centuries! It would create a massive stumbling block and distraction for the apostles who were busy trying to fight other battles.^[60] 

Therefore, it is plausible that the New Testament authors upheld the tradition of kurios as a centuries-old tradition that people were accustomed to using to refer to God in a personal way. Since they were trying to communicate clearly to a wide range of listeners, some of whom didn’t speak Hebrew and were already familiar with calling the God of Israel kurios, they kept it as a convention for avoiding confusion in their message.^[61].

At the same time, the NT writers were interested in heralding a new covenant in which a new name came to be exalted: Jesus. In Philippians 2:9-11 Paul writes: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Gordon Fee provides the following helpful comments on verse 9 in this passage:

What does Paul intend by “the name that is above every name”? Here the options are basically two, “Jesus” or “Lord.” On the one hand, there is much to be said for “the name” to refer to his earthly name “Jesus.” That, after all, is what is picked up in the next phrase, “at the name of Jesus.” If so, then Paul does not mean that he has now been given that name, but that in highly exalting him, God has bestowed on the name of Jesus a significance that excels all other names. Moreover, “Jesus” is in fact a name, whereas “Lord” could be argued to be a title.

On the other hand, most believe that the bestowing on him of the name “Lord,” as the equivalent of Yahweh, is how Jesus has been exalted to the highest place. Indeed, were it not for the phrase “at the name of Jesus” in the next clause, this would be the universal point of view. In favor of it is the second part of the result clause (v. 11), that every tongue will confess that “the Lord is Jesus Christ.” But what favors it the most is the clear “intertextuality” that is in process here. The twofold result clause that makes up our vv. 10 and 11 is a direct borrowing of language from Isa 45:23, where Yahweh (the Lord) says that “before me (the Lord) every knee shall bow and every tongue will swear (LXX, confess)” that “in the Lord alone are righteousness and strength.” This emphasis on Yahweh, “the Lord,” as the one unto whom all shall give obeisance, seems to certify that what Paul has in mind is none other than the name, Yahweh itself, but in its Greek form of “the Lord,” which has now been “given” to Jesus.^[62]

Therefore, I agree with Fee that “the name that is above every name” is Yahweh. Paul may have also been thinking of Psalm 148:13: “Let them praise the name of YHWH, for his name alone is exalted.” This essentially says that YHWH is a name above all other names (see a similar statement in Ps 8:1).

There may be another layer of significance in Philippians 2:9-11 as well: the name Jesus, יֵשׁוּעַ, “Yeshua” is a late, shortened form of the name Joshua, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, which means “Yahweh is salvation.”^[63] The divine name is historically embedded within Jesus’ name, which speaks of his deliverance. Although Matthew does not mention the theophoric element in the meaning of Jesus’ name directly, he does write, “for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21).

The divine name within Jesus’ name would have been evident to those who understood Hebrew, but the vast majority of non-Jews the New Testament authors were trying to reach were more familiar with Greek, so kurios served as a better way to show the relationship between Jesus/Yeshua and Yahweh.

There is a striking statement from Jesus in the High Priestly Prayer worth mentioning. “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world” (John 17:6). Most likely this is a typical use of “name” to represent the whole person and their character (e.g. John 1:12), but there may also be an allusion to the fact that Jesus has accomplished what God began at the burning bush, as well as on Mount Sinai (Ex 34). In the same passage Jesus also prays for his disciples: “Holy Father, keep them in your name” (John 17:11). Then later he prays: “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them” (v 26).^[64] Here it may be possible to see an implication that Jesus’ name is now being promoted in the place of YHWH.^[65]

Both Jesus and the apostles had a desire to communicate and remove stumbling blocks from getting their message across.^[66] An example of Jesus doing this appears in Mark 12:30 when he is answering one of the scribes. He quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 in saying, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’” But the verse in Deuteronomy actually says: “You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”^[67] Jesus adds “with all your mind” to the command, even though it isn’t there in Hebrew. He does so because the heart, in the ancient Hebrew worldview, was also the seat of thought. For the Old Testament writers there did not exist the later dichotomy of mind vs. heart. This dichotomy had become part of first century culture because of Greek influence, so Jesus speaks to them in a way that they can understand more clearly. This shows his desire to adapt even the quotation of Scripture for the sake of clarity. Therefore, it would not be surprising if he adapted to the use of Adonai, “Lord,” for the sake of removing stumbling blocks from the ears of his listeners.

NT Episodes where the Name May Have Been Vocalized

At the same time, it is purely conjecture to say that Jesus and the apostles always used kurios or adonai. The NT writers may have rendered YHWH uniformly as kurios in order to harmonize their writings with the Septuagint, whether or not they heard Jesus or the apostles say YHWH.

For example, the angel Gabriel greets Mary by saying, “The Lord is with you!” (ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ, Luke 1:28). This salutation is virtually identical to the one Boaz used when he greeted the harvesters (Ruth 2:4). It would be hard to believe that a heavenly messenger like Gabriel would observe the Jewish taboo on pronouncing God’s name, so it is reasonable to believe that he simply articulated it in Hebrew.

Similarly, in Luke 1:11, an angel appears to Zechariah in the temple next to the altar of incense. This angel speaks of “the Lord” (κύριος) twice: “he will be great before the Lord” and “he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God.” Would it make sense for this supernatural being to avoid saying God’s actual name while standing in the holy temple, delivering an important message to a priest? It stretches credulity. And it is equally unlikely that the angel spoke to Zechariah in Greek, although that is the language in which Luke recorded the event.

A similar situation arises in Matthew 4, when Jesus is alone in the wilderness for forty days. Satan tempts him, and he responds by quoting Deuteronomy 8:3: “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (στόματος θεοῦ, Matt 4:4). The Hebrew original does not say “mouth of God” but rather “mouth of YHWH” (פִֽי־יְהוָ֖ה). Is it likely that Jesus, when confronting the Devil, chose to speak Greek and avoid vocalizing the divine name in the verse he quoted? Probably not. It’s most likely that he would have spoken Hebrew or Aramaic, and pronounced God’s name as it stands in Hebrew. Is it impossible that he spoke in Greek to Satan and chose to quote the Septuagint, which uses the word “God”? No, but it seems much more plausible that the harmonizing with the Septuagint came later in the recording of the Matthew’s Gospel or in scribal adaptation. In addition, if the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, as several Christian writers from antiquity affirm, then the probability of the divine name being recorded as spoken by Jesus increases.^[68]

Intertestamental Hyperlinks

It seems that Martin Luther understood that the New Testament authors upheld this tradition of using kurios so that people could “draw the strong conclusion that Christ is the true God,”^[69] by associating Christ the kurios with the kurios of the Old Testament instead of having two different proper names Yahweh and Yeshua. In other words, the Septuagint’s use of kurios was paving the way for a seamless, convenient, intelligible way to connect Jesus with Yahweh. The ability to use the same title for both Yahweh and Jesus throughout the New Testament made the overlap natural and more apparent to a Greek-speaking world. It facilitated a high Christology, and effortlessly infused the statement “Jesus is Lord” (Rom 10:9) with a double meaning.

One example comes from Peter: “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (1 Pet 3:15). Michaels provides a helpful commentary:

Peter continues his midrash of Isa 8:13^[70], substituting τὸν Χριστόν for the αὐτόν of the LXX (κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε, “the Lord himself you must revere”). It is possible to read τὸν Χριστόν as appositional to κύριον (“the Lord Christ”), or the other way around (“Christ the Lord”). Or τὸν Χριστόν might be the direct object of ἁγιάσατε, with κύριον as predicate accusative (“Christ as Lord”). Peter’s understanding of κύριος as primarily a designation of Jesus Christ was seen earlier in 2:3, as well as in the substitution of κυρίου for τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν in 1:25 (citing Isa 40:8).^[71]

Consider again how this convention of using kurios for a double meaning made Paul’s teaching possible in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Just as Jesus saw himself all throughout the Hebrew Bible (Luke 24:44), and just as the apostles consistently identified Jesus with Yahweh through allusion and direct quotation of Old Testament passages, the use of kurios allowed early Christians to see and hear that continuity between the testaments, identifying Christ as the God of Israel with a hyperlink across covenants. It enabled them to read about “the Lord” in the Septuagint and think of Jesus Christ.

So, it would seem that the apostles saw a few advantages in using kurios/Lord in place of God’s name: (1) it preserved an old tradition spread by the loved and respected Septuagint; (2) it most probably treated kurios as a name; (3) it may have served to make extra clear that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Israel.

The kurios convention enabled rich statements like Paul’s in Romans 10:13: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’” (quoting Joel 2:32). Moo comments on this exact quotation of the Septuagint by saying, “In the OT, of course, the one on whom people called for salvation was Yahweh; Paul reflects the high view of Christ common among the early church by identifying this one with Jesus Christ, the Lord.”^[72]

Does this mean that the NT writers ignored God’s desire in Exodus 3:15? Not at all. Since they were Jews and could read the scriptures in Hebrew, they were probably satisfied that God’s name was preserved there, in its natural habitat. They weren’t trying to publish a new translation of the Old Testament at the time. If they had, they may have made some different decisions than the original translators had concerning God’s name. Likewise, if they had written the New Testament in Hebrew, they probably would have used YHWH for God’s name. As Casiodoro de Reina wrote in the preface to his 1569 Spanish translation,

Someone could argue to us here that neither Christ nor the Apostles in their writings made amends for this error [of obscuring the divine name], etc. To this we answer, that they were never in charge of making versions, or correcting the facts, but attentive to a greater and more central matter, which was the announcement of the advent of the Messiah, and of his glorious Kingdom. They used the common version, which was then in use, which seems to have been that of the Seventy [the Septuagint], because they had plenty of it for their main purpose.

In the end, it’s important to approach this issue with humility. Not everyone will agree with my hypothesis. No matter what someone believes about the New Testament’s use of kurios, all conclusions terminate in speculation. We have no explanation from the authors or other writers of antiquity. There is an increasing number of people who believe that the solution is simple: they claim that many of the books, especially the gospels, were initially composed in Hebrew using YHWH. So, to this topic we will turn.

Was the New Testament Originally Composed in Hebrew?

Multiple Church Fathers claimed that portions of the New Testament were originally written in Hebrew, and thus contained the divine name. Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60–130 A.D.) wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”^[73] Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 130–202 A.D.) said, “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.”^[74] And Jerome of Stridon (ca. 347–420 A.D.) claimed that: “Matthew … composed a gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.”^[75] Eusebius records this about Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 A.D.): “The Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew language, but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.”^[76] But there is no physical evidence for any of these claims.

Claude Tresmontant changed his mind about the academic consensus regarding the NT’s original language after much study, and wrote the following:

The more I studied the Old Testament the more I began to recognize the Hebraic phraseology behind the Greek of each of the four gospels. Eventually I arrived at the conclusions that I have tried to set forth in this book…. all four of the gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.^[77]

Mainstream New Testament scholarship has largely rejected Tresmontant’s thesis due to a lack of manuscript evidence for Hebrew originals. The earliest known Gospel manuscripts are in Greek, and the linguistic phenomena he pointed to are often explained as Septuagintal influence or common Semitisms in Jewish-Greek writing. Critics argue that his linguistic arguments rely too heavily on retroversion (translating Greek back into hypothetical Hebrew forms) and on assumptions about first-century textual transmission that are hard to verify.

James R. Edwards, in The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, offers a revisionist account of Gospel origins that aligns in some respects with the views of Tresmontant, particularly regarding Semitic origins and early Gospel formation. However, Edwards stays within more textually cautious boundaries. He writes:

It was fairly common, after all, in a bilingual culture like first-century Palestine and the early Christian centuries that followed for an author to make a first draft of a work in his native language and later to translate the work – and usually expand it in the process – into a second language.^[78]

For example, in the preface to The Jewish War (Bellum Judaicum 1.1–3), Josephus says:

I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the upper Barbarians.

The wisdom book of Ben Sira was also originally written in Hebrew, and then later translated into Greek by Ben Sira’s grandson around 132 B.C. The prologue to the Greek version says: “You are invited to read it with favor and attention and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly.”

It should be noted that the ancient world was far more linguistically fluid than is often assumed, particularly within the cultural intersections of the eastern Mediterranean. This multilingual environment fostered a dynamic literary ecosystem in which authors, scribes, and translators were well-accustomed to operating across language boundaries.

In such settings, authors had to navigate concerns that often overlapped. First, if they wanted to communicate, they needed to consider the vernacular speech (the everyday language of their local communities, such as Aramaic or Hebrew) to ensure accessibility. Second, they contended with literary prestige, as Greek remained the dominant language of philosophy, historiography, and administrative discourse across the Roman Empire. Writing in Greek afforded one’s work legitimacy and reach.

Whatever the case may be, Gertoux remarks: “It is interesting to note that Rabbi Tarphon (Shabbat 116a), between 90 and 130 relates the problem of the destruction of heretical (Christian) texts containing the Tetragram.”^[79] This is a reference to the question as to what should be done with Christian manuscripts that contain the divine name. Should they be burned whole? Or should the divine name be cut out of them before burning?

Why Modern Scholarship Rejects a Hebrew NT

As already mentioned, modern scholarship largely rejects the patristic claim that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew. This position is not rooted in a disregard for early church testimony, but in the absence of corroborating manuscript and linguistic evidence. Moreover, there are no citations from such a Semitic Matthew in the early Christian corpus that can be verified as stemming from a text different from the canonical Greek version. As Raymond E. Brown notes, there is no concrete evidence that any Father quoting a Hebrew Matthew had access to a document from the apostolic era.^[80]

In addition to the lack of physical evidence, the Greek text of Matthew itself strongly suggests it was composed in Greek rather than translated. The language of the Gospel is fluid and idiomatic, displaying none of the awkwardness or structural traces typically found in translations from Semitic originals. It incorporates sophisticated rhetorical features, frequent Septuagintal quotations, and wordplays that function only in Greek. Donald Hagner observes that Matthew’s Greek does not resemble translation Greek, but rather an original composition shaped for Greek-speaking audiences.^[81]

Another problem lies in the ambiguity of the patristic statements themselves. The phrase “in the Hebrew dialect” could just as easily refer to Aramaic or to a Hebraic style of Greek, rather than a distinct Hebrew document. Craig Evans emphasizes that the terminology of the Fathers may refer to style, idiom, or intended audience, not necessarily to language of composition.^[82] Further complicating matters is the historical distance between the Fathers and the apostolic period. Even Jerome, who claimed to have seen a Hebrew Matthew, admits uncertainty about its authenticity and may have encountered a variant of the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews used by Ebionite sects, rather than a first-century text.^[83]

Finally, there may have been apologetic motivations that shaped the tradition. By rooting Matthew in a Hebrew original, early Christian writers could assert both apostolic authorship and Jewish origins for the Gospel, more effectively defending the faith in debates with Jews. James Edwards notes that such a tradition likely served to bolster Matthew’s authority.^[84] Thus, while patristic testimony remains historically significant, it is not considered decisive in light of textual, linguistic, and historical-critical analysis.

Ideas for Modern Versions

This then raises the question as to whether modern publishers should carry on the tradition of the LXX for the sake of communicating Christ’s identity as Yahweh by rendering YHWH as “LORD” in the OT. I would argue that it is unnecessary for a few reasons. First, if you search for the word אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) in the OT, there are over 700 occurrences, and over 400 of them refer to God. Although this is not as many occurrences as “YHWH,” it is substantial and memorable.

Consider a verse like Jeremiah 32:17 that reads as follows in the ESV: “Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you.” “Lord GOD” is how many translations choose to render אֲדֹנַי יְהוִה (“Adonai Yahweh”) in Hebrew. This stems from the tradition of the Masoretes who pointed יהוה with the vowels forאֱלֹהִים  (God) in order to avoid the redundancy of saying “Lord Lord.” The Masoretes (and many English translators following suit) do this about 280 times in the OT.

A better solution would be to translate אֲדֹנַי יְהוִה as “Lord Yahweh,” since it would be more accurate (the word “God” is not in the text in these cases) and less confusing. At the same time the title/name Lord would be preserved as a hyperlink to Lord in the NT. Such a rendering does not undermine or detract from the linking of Yahweh and Jesus, rather it enhances the connection. Now a reader of the NT will mentally link the statement “Jesus is Lord” with hundreds of verses where God is called “Lord,” and simultaneously be able to link Jesus with the divine name. The overlap the apostles enjoyed would be preserved while still honoring God’s desire in Exodus 3:15.

A crucial detail is often overlooked in Bible translations: that of allowing the reader the ultimate freedom to decide how to say God’s name. But this must be an informed decision. No Hebrew version of the OT replaces the divine name with something else and keeps the reader in the dark as to what is actually in the original text (other than the artificial vowels). Instead, it falls upon the reader to choose what to pronounce when encountering the four letters יהוה. Even Hebrew prayer books still print God’s actual name יהוה (but instruct the reader to use a substitute like “Adonai” when praying). Translations of the Bible can do the same. An English translation can faithfully transliterate “Yahweh” or some other compelling approximation, and then leave it to the reader to say “the LORD” when reading aloud. If a reader decides that they need to use circumlocution for reverence or because of a liturgical rule held by their faith community, they can simply do what the Jews do: see the actual divine name with their eyes, but articulate something different with their mouth. This is not complicated, and has been done by Jews for millennia. It preserves historical accuracy and makes translations of the OT more transparent to the original. The reader is informed and reminded of the truth that God has a name, while given the freedom to pronounce it or substitute a title. But when the Name is completely obscured in the main text, the average reader’s freedom is essentially taken away, since ignorance of the underlying reality precludes this freedom. Most people either do not read the one footnote or preface explaining what is behind “LORD,” or they simply do not remember it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the New Testament authors probably used kurios because it ended up being a naming convention that helped identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. Modern Bible publishers should feel at liberty to break with the Septuagint’s tradition, since the title “Lord” naturally occurs so many times in the Hebrew Bible in reference to Yahweh. Moreover, contemporary translations would do well to give readers the same necessary information that Jewish readers have in Hebrew to make an informed decision regarding pronunciation.

---

The Early Church & Late Antiquity

Was the NT unique in its use of kurios, and what did people do with the divine name after the NT? As we will see, pronunciation continued to be avoided by some, while others sought to recover its original pronunciation or use it in various ways. The first example comes from the early Jewish-Christian work Didache. It is a brief, anonymous early Christian treatise written in Koine Greek, dated by modern scholars to the first century, where the “holy name” is mentioned but left unwritten. Also, the substitute “Lord” is used.

St. Jerome left his own impact regarding the Name in his work de Decem Dei Nominibus, “The Ten Divine Names.” The ten names he wrote about were: El, Eloim, Eloe, Sabaoth, Elion, Ieje aser Ieje, adonai, Ia, Iao, and Saddai. This idea of ten names of God also appears in an anonymous Greek treatise on the subject first found in Origen’s comments on Psalm 2 (PG XII.1104), where the divine name is rendered as Iae.^[85] As it turns out, all the forms of the divine name we find in the writings of the church fathers are also found in the Greek magical papyri.^[86]

From the testimony of Irenaeus in the 2nd century A.D. in Against Heresies we find that the Gnostics referred to God as Iaoth, a compound of YHWH with “Sabaoth.” Clement also wrote about the divine name, saying, “The mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum^[87] was accessible is called Iaou…” (Stromata V. 6:34). He also wrote that Christ was the Tetragrammaton worn on the high priest’s turban (Stromata V. 38:6-7).

An important piece of evidence comes from Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393-460) who wrote a work called Question 15 on Exodus 7. Therein he commented on YHWH: “The Samaritans call it Iabe whilst the Jews call it Ia.”^[88] It has been commonly assumed that the Samaritan pronunciation “reflected the sound of the word undistorted by Jewish inhibitions against vocalization and was thus strong evidence for the original vocalization being Yahweh, which was (and is) defended … by morphological arguments.”^[89] At the same time, Nicolas Fuller (1557-1626) rejected Iabe as an obvious error in the transmission of Theodoret’s text, while others have found evidence for Iabe and Iaba in the magical papyri, which may have been of Samaritan origin. Another possibility is that Iabe is simply a rendering of the Samaritan title Yafeh “The Beautiful,” used of God. In the end it is difficult to know exactly how free Samaritans were in their pronunciation of the divine name.^[90]

Around the time of Origen (185-254), we begin to see attitudes and beliefs about the divine name (and Hebrew names in general) evolve farther away from biblical roots and venture into the bizarre. Origen believed that names point to the deepest nature of objects, Hebrew was the language of Creation, and that Hebrew names lose their efficacy when translated. He also preferred the essentialist interpretation of language developed by the Stoics (Against Celsus 1.24), which emphasizes the superiority of Hebrew names above all names from other languages. This idea eventually grew into a belief that Hebrew names had power to work exorcisms, miracles, and wonders.^[91] He wrote, “These [Hebrew] names accordingly when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain daemons who can only do certain things.”^[92]

Justin Martyr (d. 165), a philosopher converted to Christianity and apologist against Judaism, had other theories about the name of God. He rejected the capacity of human language to define God, and claimed that God has no proper name: “He accepts those only who imitate the excellence which resides in him—temperance and justice and philanthropy and as many virtues as are particular to a God who is called by no proper name” (Apol. I.10). He argued that Greek gods cannot be regarded as gods because they have proper names, since the action of naming implies a master who names and a slave who is named (Apol. sec. 6). This view spread throughout the Gnostics and even up into the Reformation.^[93]

Clement of Alexandria, born around the middle of the 2nd century A.D., argued in a similar way as Justin Martyr. As another converted philosopher, he wrote,

God is without form and nameless. Though we ascribe names, they are not to be taken in their strict meaning; when we call him One, Good, Mind, Existence, Father, God, Creator, Lord, we are not conferring a name on him. Being unable to do more, we use these appellations of honour, in order that our thought may have something to rest on and not wander at random…. It remains that the Unknown be apprehended by divine grace and the Word proceeding from him (Stromata 5.12).

Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in the 2nd century, believed and taught that the Son was the one speaking to Moses in Exodus 3:14. “For it is the Son who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Thus through the Son who is in the Father and has the Father in himself, He who is has been revealed” (Adversus Haereses, 3.6.2, emphasis added).

Eusebius of Caesarea offers another perspective on the use of the divine name when he writes:

The combination of the seven vowels contains the enunciation of one forbidden name, which the Hebrews indicate by four letters and apply to the supreme power of God, having received the tradition, they say, from father to son that this is something unutterable and forbidden to the multitude. And one of the wise Greeks, having learned this, I know not whence, hinted it obscurely in verse, saying as follows:

Seven vowels tell my name…the mighty God,
The Everlasting Father of mankind:
The immortal lyre am I, that guides the world
And leads the music of the arching spheres.^[94]

By the time we get to St. Augustine we find his opinion contrary to others like Irenaeus regarding the angel in Exodus 3:14. He believed that it was a created angel impersonating God, through whom God spoke.

At this point it is important to highlight the impact of the work of pseudo-Dionysius on later Christian thought about the divine name. Around the beginning of the sixth century, he produced a unified corpus of four Greek works: The Divine Names, The Mystical Theology, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and The Celestial Hierarchy. 

Received as the work of the Apostle Paul’s first Athenian convert (Acts 17:34), whom tradition considered both the first bishop of Athens and a martyr, the works achieved a status only just inferior to the canon of Scripture itself. Pseudo-Dionysius was later frequently assimilated to the Kabbalah. The Mystical Theology was put into English in the 14th century by the author of the Cloud of Unknowing as Hid Divinity. The rich paradoxical language of the works, their rare or innovative vocabulary, and their rambling syntax almost demand the extensive exegetical attention they have received as successive ages have groped for their mystical insights.^[95] In essence, regarding God’s name, Dionysus believed that “the Theologians praise Him by every name and as the Nameless One.”^[96]

As already mentioned, the divine name played a significant role in Gnostic circles and magical texts. The magical use of the Name abounded in the centuries leading up to the Reformation, especially in places away from the control of religious authorities. In the great magical papyrus of Paris (PGM IV) there are instructions for making a phylactery containing the names iaeô and iaô. Then an incantation follows: “I conjure by the god of the Hebrews, Jesus, Iabe, Iaê…” (PGM IV 3019-2024).^[97] Another Coptic magic text also identifies Christ with the divine name: “Iao, Iao, Christ Pantocrator” (XLIII.83).^[98] 

Later Jewish traditions like Toledoth Jesu accused Jesus himself of using the divine name for sorcery, since use of the Name was extensive in second-temple Judaism magic. Bernardius De Moor (18th century) describes this issue as follows:

That the Magical Virtue of this Name was demonstrated in Moses and Christ in particular, is an intolerable blasphemy of the Jews…. with respect to Christ, while we attempt to prove His Deity against the Jews with an argument taken from His miraculous works; the Jews are not able peremptorily to deny Christ’s miracles, but they say that those were accomplished through the correct pronunciation of the Name יהוה/Jehovah, which Christ alone at that time knew. But Christ had learned it, entering the Temple sometimes, where He read that Name inscribed on an אֶבֶן שַׁתִּייָה, or Foundation Stone; and, so that He might not again forget these letters with the rest of the Jews, He wrote them on parchment, and cut the flesh of His thigh, and implanted it there, and immediately, with the Name expressed, the skin coagulated: and, when He had gone outside of the city, with the flesh divided again, He brought out the writing; and, when He had properly assessed the characters, He grasped the Name, by the enunciation of which He then wrought stupendous miracles…. But the frivolities of this sort of the Jews are deservedly rejected as superstitious and blasphemous.^[99]

Mixed in with all this was the use of the names of angels (probably the most important book of Jewish magic, Book of Mysteries, has about 700 angel names) and new combinations of the letters YHWH or substitutes for it.^[100] In Josephus there are also echoes of a Jewish magical mindset:

In a context of healing Josephus mentions the importance of not disclosing angel names (War 2.142); in Jubilees, Noah is given special healing knowledge by angels (10:10–17; 48:10); in Enoch, the watchers under Azazel teach humanity the secret of roots and plants, and Raphael is responsible for human illness and wounds (40.9). On the other hand, one finds a physician might also cure—using the name of God. See Yom. 3.7 (40d).^[101]

Most of the Greek magical papyri come from around the 4th century A.D., and possibly are older. They contain evidence of a kind of pagan syncretism, wherein divine names are listed liberally. Even the names of Hebrew biblical patriarchs occur frequently, along with titles for God. Origen, in his anti-Gnostic work Contra Celsum, explains some of the situation around these pagan texts:

One must know that those who composed these things neither understood the magical texts nor grasped the meaning of divine Scripture, but mixed everything up. From magic they took Ialdabaoth and Astraphaios and Horaios, while from Hebrew Scripture they took Iao (also called Ia by the Hebrews) and Sabaoth and adonaios and Eloaios. Now the names which they took from Scripture are epithets of the One and Only God, but these enemies of God did not understand this, as they themselves admit, and thought that Iao was one god, Sabaoth another and a third besides this was adonaios (whom Scripture calls adonai) and yet another was Eloaios (whom the prophets call in Hebrew Eloai) (6.32).

We also have evidence of a Spaniard named Priscillian who was accused of making use of an amulet bearing the Tetragrammaton for magical purposes.^[102] 

Rabbinic Texts

There was much lore surrounding the Name in rabbinic texts. It “was considered to be endued with incomparable power.”^[103]

The use of the name in sealing the Abyss in creation is mentioned…in Hekhalot Rabbati 23 and in bMakkot 11a, where a shard with the name written on it is thrown into the Abyss to hold back the waters which threaten the world. bBerachot 55a attributes to Rav the idea that Bezalel, the builder of the tabernacle, knew how to combine the letters by which heaven and earth were created. Genesis 2:4 and Isaiah 26:4 are interpreted as proof that one letter of the divine name was used to create the world, and another was used for the world to come (Pesikta Rabbati 21)…. Knowledge of the name was once widespread, but due to corruption of human society it was continually restricted until after the death of Simon the Righteous (bYoma 39b, jYoma 40d). The death of Simon the Righteous (identified by Christians as Simeon, the old priest in the Temple who blessed baby Jesus) will occur frequently in Christian histories of the use of the name. The name was diminished: after the destruction of Temple it consisted of two letters (bEr. 18b). The present state of the world is such that prayers are not heard because they do not contain the name (Midrash Psalms 91.8)—a situation to be remedied in the world to come.

Use of the Tetragrammaton was not, however, confined to creation. Solomon had a ring with a divine name on it to subdue the demon Ashmodei (bGit. 68b). Moses used it to kill the Egyptian (Exodus Rabba on 2.14; PdeRK 19). “What did the sea behold? It beheld the divine name graven on Aaron’s staff and fled.” The name also enabled Solomon to fly (bSanh 95a). A woman used the divine name to ascend to heaven and God turned her into a star. The Tetragrammaton was used to animate lifeless images. Abraham created living souls by this method (Genesis Rabba 39, sec. 14). Scholem compares this to the creation of a homunculus by Simon Magus in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (II.26) and to later golem stories. Jeroboam’s golden calf was animated by the name which was placed in its mouth (bSota 47a). Nebuchadnezzar made an image live either by placing the high priest’s breast plate with the name on it into the image’s mouth or by writing the name on its forehead. Daniel removed the name by kissing it, and the image became lifeless again (Song of Songs Rabbah 7.9). Two rabbis created a calf using the name (bSanh 65b/67b).^[104]

In addition to Jewish lore, the 10th century prayer book of Saadia Gaon shows how the divine name was sometimes used in devotion:

As far as Your glorious name is concerned…You have concealed it from the majority of the people; it has only been handed down to anyone who is modest, humble, God-fearing, slow to anger and not seeking his own interests. In each generation You have disclosed something from its secret.^[105] 

Rabbis also devised other complex substitutes for the divine name, both to avoid pronouncing it exactly and also to access its power. Some of these names had twelve, forty-two, and seventy-two letters, and only were revealed to those considered worthy and who could be trusted to maintain their secrecy.^[106]

The Talmud contains much more lore about the divine name, including a story about a gold tablet inscribed with the ineffable name that Moses used to raise the metal coffin of Joseph from the bottom of the Nile, where the Egyptians had sunk it (Melkita on Exodus 13:18). It also teaches that God used the 72-letter version of his name to defend Israel.

An Age of Chaos & Ignorance

The point of all this is that the divine name entered into a time of chaotic use in late antiquity, which followed in the Middle Ages. Many people had no idea what it was or meant, but it was useful for superstitious purposes. Pagans, Jews, and Christians were using the divine name in various forms in amulets, curses, and exorcisms, and this usually meant that it was pronounced aloud in some way. By the time of the Middle Ages, the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek in Christendom was scarce, illiteracy was common, but the Bible still was the most studied book. Most laity would not have had any knowledge of the Bible except for what they heard from the preaching of the clergy.^[107] 

The development of the name “Jehovah” or “Iehoua” was a mistake waiting to happen. The convention of the Masoretes for pointing the four letters YHWH with the vowels of either the Hebrew adonai (אֲדֹנָי) or elohim (אֱלֹהִים) was not known to everyone, and became less and less understood by Christians. Rampant antisemitism (the Jews were often seen in Europe as the very incarnation of evil) and attacks on Jewish literature (such as the Talmud, which was declared heretical in 1240 and burned by the thousands) that raged in the Middle Ages also played a part in keeping the knowledge of Hebrew at a minimum.

One man in particular, Pietro Galatino (1460-1540), is credited with the first significant influence towards the use of “Iehoua.” Gertoux writes:

In order to clear up the variants of pronunciation of the Tetragram, Pietro Galatino dedicated a good part of his work entitled De Arcanis Catholice Ueritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth), published in 1518, to explaining the (Hebraic) reasons for this pronunciation. First, he quoted profusely from the book of Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed, especially chapters 60–64 of the first part, as a reminder that the Tetragram is the proper name of God and that it can be pronounced according to its letters. However, he demonstrated that the pronunciation Ioua, accepted in his time, was inaccurate and he gave the reasons why. He explained for example that the proper name Iuda, written יהדה (YWDH), was an abbreviation of the name Iehuda written יהודה (YHWDH). All Hebrew proper names beginning in YHW- [יהו] are moreover always vocalized Ieh-. Consequently, if the Tetragram was really pronounced Ioua it would have been written in Hebrew יהו (YWH), which was never the case. So, because the Tetragram is written יהוה  (YHWH), one should hear the letter H inside the Name. He concluded that, because this name is pronounced according to its letters, the best transcription was the form I-eh-ou-a (Iehoua), rather than the form I-ou-a used for example by Agostino Justiniani, a friend of Pico della Mirandola, in his polyglot translation of Psalms published in 1516.^[108]

Due to the widespread ignorance of Hebrew, people like Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) indulged in imagining that each letter of the Name represented “a stage on the path to salvation and a way in which God is with us.”^[109] This era was also marked by many misspellings of the Tetragrammaton, such as ylya. Even the popes tried their hand at creative interpretation of the Name. Pope Innocent III (1199-1216, who became pope at 37 years of age) saw the Name as a revelation of the mystery of the Trinity. His spelling of the Name was IEVE, which he later misspelled again in his De Sacro Altaris where he interpreted it as “the principle of the passion of life.”^[110]

Finally, the chaotic variety of different pronunciations throughout the early centuries A.D. can be seen in the appendix of Vasileiadis’s article on the Name,^[111] which presents an exhaustive, systematic list of each Greek transcription or transliteration of the Tetragrammaton from antiquity to the present, the earliest date each was identified, and the corresponding references or sources. Sifting through these six pages of ways it has been rendered shows that it simply cannot be concluded that there was ever a universally “correct” way of spelling or pronouncing YHWH in Greek. The variety is vast.

---

Jewish Tradition & Variation

Contradictory Rabbinic Teaching

There is a historical thread of rabbinic commentary that does not agree with the stereotypical aversion of many Jews to saying God’s name. Consider the following sequence of developments from Jewish commentary on Boaz’s greeting and Judges 6:12, beginning with Berakhot 9:5:

When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever [lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world]. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2: And it also says, “The Lord is with you, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [this means] “They have violated your teaching. It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.”^[112]

This passage reflects a rabbinic response to theological challenges posed by sectarian groups. Abraham Geiger believed that this sect was the Zadokites, who advocated that the divine name should be replaced by אלהים (“God”) or שמא (“the name” in Aramaic).^[113] In response, the sages (probably the Pharisees) instituted the continued use of the divine name.

The first sentence can be confusing. When it says “they decreed,” it refers not to the sectarians, but to the rabbis, i.e., the sages who were responding to the sectarians. This is a classic case in rabbinic Hebrew (and English translation) where the pronoun “they” shifts its referent. The passage begins by describing what the sectarians did, and then shifts to describe what the rabbis did in response. Here is the sentence again, rephrased for clarity:

When the sectarians distorted doctrine by claiming there is only one world, the sages responded by instituting the recitation of the phrase “from the end of the world to the end of the world,” to emphasize God’s eternal reign.

This kind of pronoun ambiguity is common in rabbinic texts, which often rely on context and familiarity with rabbinic interpretive logic to disambiguate.

In sum, the passage mandates and justifies the practice of invoking God’s name in everyday greetings, using the biblical precedents of Boaz’s greeting to his workers (Ruth 2:4) and the angel’s greeting to Gideon (Judg 6:12). It also seems to insinuate that the rabbis endorsed vocalizing God’s name as way of counteracting heretical tendencies.

The Talmud then comments on the above commentary (Berakhot 9:5):

The Sages also instituted that one should greet another in the name of God, i.e., one should mention God’s name in his greeting, as it is stated: “And presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters, The Lord is with you, and they said to him, May the Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4). And it says: “And the angel of God appeared to him and said to him, God is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12). And it says: “And despise not your mother when she is old” (Proverbs 23:22), i.e., one must not neglect customs which he inherits. And lest you say that mentioning God’s name is prohibited, it says: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah” (Psalms 119:126), i.e., it is occasionally necessary to negate biblical precepts in order to perform God’s will, and greeting another is certainly God’s will.^[114]

Berakhot 63a:7-8 (from the Babylonian Talmud) then offers further commentary on the issue:

The Gemara^[115] explains: And if you say: Boaz said this on his own, and it proves nothing with regard to normative practice, come and hear a proof from the verse: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12). And if you say that it was an angel who said this to Gideon, that perhaps this verse was the angel informing Gideon that the Lord is with him, but it is not the standard formula of a greeting, come and hear proof from the verse: “And despise not your mother when she is old” (Proverbs 23:22); the customs of the nation’s elders are an adequate source from which to derive halakha.^[116]

This passage addresses the question of whether certain forms of greeting that invoke God’ name are valid precedents for normative (legal) practice. Initially, the text anticipates a possible objection: that Boaz’s use of this phrase was personal and not intended as a binding example. To counter this, the Gemara cites another biblical instance (Judges 6:12) where an angel greets Gideon with similar language, suggesting that invoking God’s name in greetings may have broader support.

However, the Gemara then considers a second objection: the angel’s greeting might not reflect human practice, and thus cannot be a halakhic precedent. To resolve this, it appeals to Proverbs 23:22, interpreting “do not despise your mother when she is old” as a principle that gives weight to the customs of earlier generations. In doing so, it establishes that long-standing communal or ancestral customs, like invoking God in greetings, are legitimate.

After the above comes further commentary (Makkot^[117]):

Why was the proof from Boaz’s statement to the harvesters insufficient? The Gemara explains: And if you would say: It is Boaz who did so on his own, and from Heaven they did not agree with him; come and hear proof, and it says: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor.” The angel greeted Gideon with the name of God, indicating that there is agreement in Heaven that this is an acceptable form of greeting.^[118]

Finally, a modern Jewish commentary on the discussion reads as follows:

The sages also decreed that it was permitted, and even worthy, to greet one’s fellow human being by using the name of God, as did Boaz and the other reapers. Usually decrees are meant to change a prior practice. Here the historical background is slightly unclear. My guess is that earlier generations thought that it was improper to use God’s name in greeting a mere human being. In contrast, according to the sages, since human beings were created in the image of God, there is a little bit of divine in every human being. In a sense then, greeting one’s fellow human being by using God’s name is like greeting God by using God’s name. Hence it is not only permitted, it is encouraged.^[119]

For these reasons and others, some Jews actively pronounce the divine name as “Yahweh” or some other approximation. For example, Dr. Dennis Prager, an observant Jew and Hebrew Bible scholar, openly says “Yahweh.”^[120]

Strangely, however, the typical practice and overwhelming culture around the divine name in Israel today is one completely contrary to what their own Jewish commentaries conclude. Many contemporary Jewish authorities attempt to resolve the contradiction by saying that the ancient enactment was contextual, not a perpetual obligation. For example, Rav Hillel ben Shlomo notes that the Talmud’s wording “התקינו” (“they instituted”) can be understood as a permission rather than a binding law. The ordinances about greeting were not normative to be enforced at all times.^[121] 

Others emphasize nuance in the later prohibition. As Rabbi Noam Dvir-Meizeles explains, technically there was never a biblical ban on speaking God’s name respectfully, but later sages broadly forbade idle mention out of reverence.^[122] By definition, using the divine name in blessing or petition is not careless or irreverent, and some poskim (authoritative Jewish legal scholars) acknowledge that it is allowed in a fitting context in principle. However, the accepted custom became to avoid it entirely, even in liturgy. Thus, modern authorities often say that while it is not absolutely impossible to use the Name when needed, virtually all pious practice errs on the side of caution.

Karaite Judaism

The rise of the Karaite movement in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D. marked a significant challenge to Rabbinic Judaism. Founded by Anan ben David, the Karaites rejected the authority of the oral Torah, which includes the Mishnah and Talmud, asserting that only the written Torah (Tanakh) was divinely inspired and authoritative. This stance directly opposed the Rabbinic tradition, which holds that the oral Law was also given to Moses at Sinai and is essential for interpreting the written scriptures. The Karaites’ emphasis on personal interpretation of the scriptures led to diverse practices and interpretations. Their departure from Rabbinic tradition also meant that they were not bound by the ban on pronouncing the divine name. An ancient contingent of Karaite Jews condemned this man-made tradition, saying that those who insist on avoiding the pronunciation of God’s name should be considered unbelievers. Jacob al-Qirqisani documented this in his seminal work Kitāb al-Anwār wal-Marāqib (The Book of Lights and Watchtowers), composed circa 937:

Some of the Karaites of Khorasan ignore ketiv and qere and read only what is written. Some of them do so in the case of the Name which is written Yod He and maintain that he who reads it as Aleph Daleth [adonai] is an unbeliever.^[123] 

One modern-day Karaite put it this way:

This whole argument on whether to pronounce or not to pronounce the ONLY NAME of the Mighty One of Israel (יהוה) is entirely academic and superfluous, for the simple reason that Israel is COMMANDED to INVOKE His Name and SWEAR in and by the Name. The children of Israel have NO CHOICE in the matter.^[124]

Karaite writings published by scholar Leon Nemoy document one passionate sermon (once attributed to al-Kumisi) where the author urges each person to re-examine Scripture on this matter, implying that the traditional substitution practice lacks clear biblical basis.^[125]

Today, perhaps the most vocal Karaite advocate for pronouncing God’s name is Nehemia Gordon. He believes the efficacy and authenticity of blessings and prayer are enhanced by using YHWH as written, rather than a substitute. Gordon is openly critical of the long-standing silence around the Name. His 2012 book Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence seeks to break the taboo.

In Gordon’s view, substituting titles for God’s name can be seen as disrespectful because it shows a disregard for God’s introduction of himself. Gordon and like-minded Karaites feel that God gave his name to be known and used, and that substituting it with “Lord” or “Hashem” risks diminishing the personal, covenantal aspect of Israel’s relationship with God.

Orthodox Judaism

In Orthodox (Rabbinic) Judaism, the perspective on the divine name is essentially the reverse of the Karaite view mentioned above. They can be offended by attempted pronunciations of YHWH, even in reverential, liturgical, or academic contexts. “Although the prohibition on pronunciation applies only to the four-letter Name, Jews customarily do not pronounce any of God’s many Names except in prayer or study. The usual practice is to substitute letters or syllables, so that adonai becomes Adoshem or Ha–Shem, Elohaynu and Elohim become Elokaynu and Elokim, etc.”^[126] Orthodoxy considers it forbidden to utter the Name except in the Temple or Messianic age. To this day, Orthodox prayer books print יהוה but instruct the reader to say “Adonai.” A contemporary rabbi, Rabbi Ruben, notes that scholarly guesses like “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” are halachically insignificant “gibberish” with no sanctity in Jewish law.^[127] From the Orthodox standpoint, the true pronunciation of YHWH is purposefully not used until a future time, so using substitutes is proper and pious, and to venture to pronounce it is disrespectful.

This Orthodox taboo can make the issue of pronouncing the divine name an emotional and personal one, even volatile.^[128] Dr. Jan Verbruggen offers an example:

I once attended a conference that was trying to bridge the gap between Jews and Evangelical Christians. One of the speakers, a well-known Evangelical scholar, went on eloquently about his topic, all the while pronouncing the divine name as ‘Yahweh.’ As he did, I noticed that some of the Jewish scholars present were so appalled that they were physically shaking.^[129]

Always Offensive

It is important to note that whether one pronounces some approximation of YHWH or not, someone from the Jewish community will be offended or feel disrespected. In other words, a Karaite Jew like Nehemiah Gordon will be offended if you don’t vocalize the Name, and an Orthodox Jew will be offended if you do vocalize the Name. Then there may be a large contingent of liberal Jews who don’t care either way. But one cannot please all the Jews on this matter.

Christians, when considering this question of Jewish offense, may do well to consider several questions: Is the pronunciation of God’s name a worse offense to Jews than the claim that Jesus is God? Would we be comfortable denying the divinity and authority of Jesus in order to avoid offending Jews? And if the answer is no, then are we bound to avoid offending them regarding God’s name?

It is possible to show our Jewish friends how much we love, reverence, and honor God by actually using his name, as the biblical authors did. It does not seem unreasonable to think that we might use such an opportunity to model obedience to God’s wishes in Exodus 3:15. The Jews are not the only people entitled to show their reverence for God (which they have chosen to do by not saying his name). Christians also have the right to show reverence for God in a way that they find accords with his Word.

It should be equally valid and worthy of respect if a Christian chooses to read God’s Word, follow it, and honor his desire that we use his name as he has revealed it so that it be remembered throughout all generations. We are the foreigners who are called to join ourselves to him and “love the name of Yahweh” (Isa 56:6). If we are to “love his name” (Ps 69:36) but decide to obscure it before men or in translations of the Hebrew Bible, we would do well to offer robust, assiduously biblical reasons why.

At the same time, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:9, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” Each Christian must decide how to apply this 1 Corinthians 8 to the issue of vocalizing the Name in the presence of Orthodox Jews. Perhaps this could be interpreted as a situation where a follower of Christ should refrain from “causing someone to fall” because of their “weak conscience” and lack of the same knowledge. Others may conclude that this does not apply because Paul is talking specifically of being considerate of weaker brothers/sisters in Christ.

Common Sense Honor

Jews sometimes argue that any common sense of honor precludes addressing God by his name. The argument goes that any child who addresses his father by his personal name instead of “Father” is disrespectful. So, logically, we should be outraged if a child of God speaks to God using his name, just as we would if a child did so to his human father. This argument is compelling because most cultures share this emotional reaction to a child calling his father by his name instead of by a title. Most people can empathize with the horror one might feel at such a show of disrespect.

This, however, is merely an emotional and culturally-bound argument, ignoring the biblical precepts and practice presented in chapter one. The way we address God must conform to Scripture’s model representing God’s own explicit desires, not to man’s cultural propensities.

Inconsistency

Given the standard taboo against pronouncing the divine name, it is striking that one of the most commonly used expressions in Jewish worship,  הַלְלוּ יָהּ(hallelu-Yah, “hallelujah” in English), contains the Name in abbreviated form (יָהּ). This phrase, found extensively in the Psalms and embedded in synagogue liturgy and song, literally means “Praise Yah,” with Yah being a shortened version of YHWH. That it is both spoken and sung without reluctance presents a notable contradiction in the broader Jewish condemnation of vocalizing the Name. If it is too sacred to pronounce, then it stands to reason that its derivatives would be treated with similar caution. Yet hallelu-Yah appears exempt from this concern.

Attempts to resolve this inconsistency by suggesting that Yah is somehow less sacred are not convincing. The sanctity of the divine name is rooted not merely in its form but in what it signifies: the self-revealed identity of God. Indeed, Exodus 3:15 does not distinguish between long and short forms. If Yah is part of that revealed name, then its widespread use undercuts the logic of silencing YHWH in full. This contradiction invites renewed reflection on whether an absolute silencing of God’s name truly honors him.

The inconsistency becomes more pronounced when one considers the widespread and uncontroversial use of theophoric names within Jewish tradition. Names such as  יְשַׁעְיָהוּ (Yeshayahu, Isaiah),  יִרְמְיָהוּ(Yirmeyahu, Jeremiah), and אֵלִיָּהוּ (Eliyahu, Elijah) all contain the same -Yahu suffix, which is another abbreviated form of the Name. There are many theophoric names, incorporating a variety of shortened forms of God’s name. These are all spoken freely by Jews in Hebrew, and there is no prohibition against giving children these names or mentioning them in everyday contexts. This regular and casual utterance of shortened forms of the Name embedded in proper names seems to undermine the rationale for banning the full name from reverent speech.

Mutual Respect

There is room for growth in mutual respect between Jews and Christians on this matter. The overwhelming example of the patriarchs and prophets using God’s name freely and openly ought to give the Jews pause before they react negatively to a Christian choosing to imitate those righteous men of old. Caustic reactions to the use of God’s name are unwarranted, unnecessary, and disrespectful towards those who seek to follow God and conscience. Just as many Christians respect (without a show of outrage) the choice of a Jew not to pronounce God’s name, Jews are invited to respect the choice of a Christian to pronounce God’s name. Love and honor should compel us to persuade Jews to think clearly, biblically, and honestly about this matter from every angle.

---

Reverence

In my experience I have observed a widespread lack of consistent, clear thinking regarding the issue of reverence and the divine name. The mainstream opinion often states that all avoidance of saying God’s name aloud stems from a profound reverence and respect. This is usually the reason given for the substitution of kurios in the NT and the absence of any transliteration of YHWH in modern versions of the OT. However, if this is indeed the case, in order to be consistent, Christians should use only titles for Jesus and never pronounce his name. Nor should it ever be rendered in transliterated form in any Bible translation.

If Christians fail to show the same “reverence” to Jesus that they show to Yahweh by way of avoiding his name, they imply a belief that the second person of the Trinity is less in dignity and not worthy of equal honor. They inadvertently demote Jesus as inferior. This practice unwittingly echoes of the heresies of Arianism, Adoptionism, Ebionism, Socianism, and Unitarianism. If it is so important to show reverence to Yahweh by obscuring his name with a title, why has this not been normalized with the name of Jesus? What does this inconsistency communicate to Christians and the unbelieving world? It would seem to run contrary to a high Christology (John 1:1, 14, 20:28, Col 1:15-17, 2:9, Heb 1:3, 8, Phil 2:6-7, Titus 2:13, Rev 1:17-18, etc.).

In addition, this inconsistency creates a false division between the testaments, implying that the God of the Old Testament is distant, less personal, and less relational than the Savior of the New Testament who we can call by his actual name. This notion is a false and harmful division that misrepresents the unified character of God throughout Scripture. The God of the Old Testament is deeply personal, intimate, and relational with his people. He walks with Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen 3:8), speaks face to face with Moses “as a man speaks to his friend” (Ex 33:11), and reveals the tender compassion of his heart in many passages like Hosea 11:8–9, Isaiah 49:15-16, 62:5, and Psalm 103:13-14. Any attempt to separate the character of God between testaments ignores the continuity of his love and personal involvement with his people from beginning to end.

One might argue that the use of nomina sacra^[130] in NT manuscripts indicates that early Christians treated the name of Jesus in the same way Jews treated the divine name. Scholars believe that there were several overlapping reasons for the use of these abbreviated forms of different names: reverence, Christian identity, theological emphasis, and economy of space. Nomina sacra abbreviations were extremely prominent. By the time of the earliest Christian codices, their use was standardized and widespread. They are found in all major NT manuscripts, including 𝔓46, 𝔓66, 𝔓75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.

Although there must have been a motivation of reverence for the nomina sacra, there is no evidence that early Christians avoided pronouncing the words/names represented by them. These abbreviations were visual reverence markers, not oral substitutes. They were still pronounced in full when read aloud. And though these words were obscured by an abbreviation, they were not replaced with a title or other euphemism.^[131] Also, non-divine words and names were given the same treatment, such as “David,” “mother” (of Jesus), and “Israel.” Finally, we have no evidence that the nomina sacra were used by the apostles when initially composing the gospels and epistles.

Modern Bible versions are inconsistent when they impose upon the reader a substitute title for Yahweh in the OT, but then render the name “Jesus” in full in the NT. There are no extant early manuscripts that fully write out the name of Jesus, but rather use the sacred abbreviation “ΙΣ” (IS) with a line over it. Thus, consistency would require modern versions to always render the name of Jesus with something like “JS.” Christ would also need to appear as “CT” (in Greek: ΧΣ with a line over it), etc.

---

The Impact of Marcionism

Some may argue that the explicit desire of Yahweh concerning his name in Exodus 3:15, along with the rest of the Old Testament witness and use of the Name, is irrelevant in light of the New Testament. Since the NT writers seemed to affirm the taboo on saying or transliterating the name, then we must discard any OT instruction on the use of the Name and ignore the many examples of its use. The avoidance of the Name in the NT is indeed ubiquitous.^[132] Therefore, should we make the decision easier by letting the NT’s silence and avoidance trump the OT? This approach is deceptively and enticingly simple.

In order to understand the roots and complexities of the tendency to downplay or dismiss the OT, particularly in Christian praxis, we need to examine its historical roots. From the earliest centuries, Christians wrestled with how much of the Old Testament’s worship practices carried over into the New Covenant. The most extreme approach was taken by Marcion in the 2nd century: he rejected the Old Testament and its God as incompatible with the loving Father revealed by Jesus. Marcion “threw away the Old Testament” and edited the New to fit his preferences, for which the Church Fathers universally condemned him as a heretic.^[133] 

Mainstream early Christians did not go so far; they affirmed the Old Testament as Scripture. Yet, even while retaining the Old Testament in their bibles, they often set aside or re-interpreted its worship directives as foreshadowings now fulfilled in Christ. In other words, many things explicitly commanded in Old Testament worship were considered no longer binding unless the New Testament explicitly continued them.

 An example is the use of musical instruments in worship. The Old Testament (especially Psalms) repeatedly enjoins praising God with lyres, cymbals, trumpets, and more. However, the early church was strikingly unanimous and vehement in excluding instruments from Christian gatherings.^[134] Church fathers saw instrumental music as part of the old ceremonial system—a “shadow” or “rudiment” suited for an earlier age of God’s people. Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.), for instance, urged believers to “leave the pipe…flute…trumpet…harp…drum…to those trained for war” or to those who worship idols, and not to bring such instruments into Christian praise.^[135]

 Other fathers echoed this sentiment, such as Eusebius of Caesarea,^[136] Nicetas of Remesiana,^[137] Basil,^[138] Gregory of Nazianzus,^[139] Tertullian, Novation, and Origen.^[140] To the Church Fathers, instrumental music belonged to the childhood era of God’s people and was set aside now that Christ had brought a mature form of worship in Spirit and truth.

 It’s important to note that this early Christian aversion to instruments was not born of a low view of the Old Testament, but of a theological conviction: they believed those commands were “only necessary to help forward a people, as yet weak and rude in knowledge,” as John Calvin later summarized the patristic view.^[141] Thus, absent a New Testament mandate, instruments were regarded as non-essential or even undesirable in Christian worship. This mentality may be similar to what motivates the continued avoidance of God’s name today in the Church.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, questions of Old vs. New Covenant practice resurfaced. The Reformers were dedicated to Scripture alone as the guide for worship, but they disagreed on how much Old Testament worship forms should carry over. Many in the Reformed tradition espoused what came to be called the Regulative Principle of Worship: only what Scripture (especially the New Testament) explicitly commands or exemplifies is permitted in corporate worship. Early reformers tended to associate the use of musical instruments with the ceremonial laws of the temple, which Christ abrogated in the New Covenant.

In his commentary on the Psalms, Calvin acknowledged that David’s use of harps and lyres was appropriate “under the law” as a “training” for God’s people, but he concluded emphatically that “they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving.” Instruments, Calvin says, are “banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spirit.”^[142] He warned that to reintroduce instrumental music would be as incongruous as bringing back incense, ceremonial lamps, and other shadows of the law. The New Testament’s silence about instruments was interpreted as intentional and binding. Calvin even remarked that using instruments in praise was a sign of spiritual immaturity, “childish elements” suited for Israel’s infancy, but unfitting now that “the Church has reached full age” in the gospel era.^[143]

Calvin’s stance was influential, but not all Protestants agreed with this strict view. Lutherans and Anglicans generally adopted a more “normative” principle: whatever is not forbidden in Scripture is allowed in worship, so long as it edifies.  

The American Restoration Movement of the 19th century provides a case study in the results of these dueling principles. The movement split into the non-instrumental Churches of Christ and the instrumental Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The core issue was how to interpret NT silence on instruments.

The position barring instruments is relevant because those who continue to do so may also tend to speak out against the pronunciation of God’s name.^[144] This example from the Churches of Christ shows how “arguments from silence” versus “arguments from general biblical principles” can lead to institutional splits among those equally devoted to Scripture.

Returning to the main point of this excursus on musical instruments, underlying these worship controversies is a larger theological question: What is the Old Testament’s authority for Christians? On one end of the spectrum is the view (often associated with Dispensationalism) that no Old Testament law or practice is binding unless reaffirmed in the New Testament.^[145] This approach effectively nullifies large portions of the Old Testament in the Christian life.

On the other hand, Covenant Theology (typical of Reformed churches) has traditionally taken the opposite stance: everything in the Old Testament continues unless the New Testament revokes or fulfills it. They assume continuity of moral law, rather than discontinuity, except where we are clearly told otherwise.

Progressive Covenantalism offers a mediating framework between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism by emphasizing the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan through the biblical covenants, each interpreted in its historical and canonical context. It affirms one unified people of God, views Christ as the fulfillment (not merely the mediator) of all previous covenants, and interprets the law through the lens of the New Covenant rather than maintaining a static moral core. This approach avoids both the rigid continuity of covenant theology and the sharp discontinuities of dispensationalism, presenting a Christ-centered vision of Scripture’s unified yet progressively revealed storyline.

 The tension between continuity and discontinuity with the Old Testament has played out in many areas besides music, such as with tithing, sabbath observance, and use of images of Christ or incense in worship. The danger of an extreme discontinuity approach is that one can start to see the Old Testament as almost irrelevant or as a lower revelation.

By and large, the mainstream of church history (including Protestant history) has affirmed that the Old Testament, read in the light of Christ, remains precious and instructive for Christians. “All Scripture,” Paul reminds us, “is God-breathed and profitable” (2 Tim 3:16). And at the time he wrote, “Scripture” primarily referred to the Old Testament. Yet, the question of which commands or practices from the Old Testament should be obeyed or emulated continues to engender confusion around what to do with the divine name.

The challenge is neither to discard the Old Testament nor mechanically reenact it. While the New Testament writers used “Lord” in their context, they neither condemned nor forbade the use of the divine name. As the apostle Paul taught, the stories and commands of the Old Testament were “written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 10:11). God’s explicit desire in Exodus 3:15 should not be lightly dismissed.

---

Divine Name Supersessionism

Somewhat related to Marcionite propensities is the idea of supersessionism. Also known as “replacement theology,” it is the belief that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s redemptive plan. In this view, the covenant promises made to the Jewish people in the Old Testament are seen as either fulfilled in Christ or transferred to the Church, such that ethnic or national Israel no longer has a unique or enduring role in salvation history. For centuries this was the de facto view of Christians, but the 20th century saw a largescale rejection of it.

Regardless of one’s position on the matter, it presents a useful parallel for one approach to the divine name—the claim that the name of Jesus has completely replaced the name of Yahweh. There are different spectrums of this view. One variety was delivered by Hellmut Rosin in 1956 in his book The Lord is God: The Translation of the Divine Names and the Missionary Calling of the Church, published by the Netherlands Bible Society. Rosin’s theological background is unclear, and the reception of the book was not documented, but it may be instructive to address some of his arguments here.

First, he argues from Acts 4:12 that the Church must only proclaim the name of Jesus Christ because “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” He interprets this to imply that the name of Yahweh must never be proclaimed by Christians.

What the name YHWH once meant to the people of the Old Covenant when it still was the war-cry of the armies of Israel, now the name ‘Jesus Christ’ means to the people of the New Covenant: As those were called by the name of YHWH (Is. 43:7), these are called by the name of Jesus Christ (James 2:7). And as the former called ‘in the name of’ YHWH, the latter ask ‘in the name of’ Jesus. Just as unthinkable as it is that in the Old Covenant the great and holy name YHWH would have tolerated any other divine proper name besides itself, it is impossible for the congregation of the New Covenant to seek and find God’s revelation—the testimony of which are both Testaments!—in another name as well as in the name of Jesus Christ. Whatever may be the reason that from a certain moment the name YHWH was not pronounced any longer—it had to grow silent before the name of Jesus could take over the function of the NAME.^[146]

Rosin points out that in 1621 the Synod of Dort decided that the replacement of YHWH with a title was taught by the Holy Spirit himself because of the example set by the New Testament authors.^[147] Similarly, in 1901 the British and Foreign Bible Society resolved to recommend that all of its missionary Bible translators emulate the practice of the NT writers in reference to the Sacred Name.^[148] He writes,

That congregation which is really living in the Old Testament—not in the way of the Old Covenant but in the way of the New!—will therefore take little delight in the restoring of that other “personal name” to its place in the “sacred text”. The piety which led to the reanimation of this name is not convincing because of its odour of romanticism and legalism. Those four letters also kill, “but the Spirit giveth life”. (Cp. 2 Cor. 3:6ff.)^[149]

When Rosin comments on Exodus 3, he explains that the “people’s call for a name which Moses foresees resembles the same people’s call for a king with which Samuel reluctantly will comply. Here and there the motives of the people’s desire are wrong: ‘that we also may be like all the nations’ (1 Sam. 8:20). Here and there the demand is at the same time rejected and accepted, condemned and justified.”^[150] Thus he claims to know the motivation behind the request for a name, and paints the use of YHWH throughout the OT as an evil concession.

Evaluation

Rosin’s approach to the divine name, though situated within a broader theological tradition that emphasizes the centrality of Jesus Christ, ultimately fails to do justice to the complexity and integrity of the biblical witness. His argument that the name of Yahweh has been entirely and necessarily supplanted by the name of Jesus rests on a series of interpretive leaps that overlook the continuity and complementarity of God’s self-revelation across the testaments. While it is true that Acts 4:12 proclaims salvation in no other name than Jesus Christ, this does not logically entail the erasure of Yahweh’s name, which remains integral to the identity and mission of Jesus himself (cf. Matt 1:21; John 17:6, 26). Jesus does not replace Yahweh; rather, he reveals and embodies him (John 1:18; Heb 1:1–3).

Any theological framework that treats the name Yahweh as a relic to be discarded betrays the enduring testimony of Scripture, where God himself affirms, “This is my name forever” (Ex 3:15). The assertion that Israel’s call for God’s name was rooted in idolatrous motives, akin to the demand for a king in 1 Samuel 8, both misreads Exodus 3 based on pure speculation and imposes a suspicion on God’s self-revelation that Scripture does not support.

Rosin’s invocation of the Synod of Dort and the policies of 20th-century Bible societies reflects deceptively simplistic ecclesiastical trends, not timeless mandates and precedents set by the OT itself. Respect for apostolic silence should not obscure the broader biblical narrative in which God commends the use of his name and honors those who call upon it.

In sum, while the Church rightly exalts the name of Jesus, it need not do so at the expense of Yahweh’s name. Such an approach risks theological reductionism and a severing of the deep biblical roots in which Christian faith is grounded. A faithful theology must hold together what Scripture holds together: the name of Jesus and the name of Yahweh in harmonious continuity, not antagonistic succession.

---

Historical Accuracy

Replacing God’s name with a title can be seen as a form of historical revisionism, since it alters a fundamental aspect of the original text of Scripture. Simply put, translations that use “LORD” obscure the factual reality that the God of Israel was known and addressed by a personal name. This distorts the contours of redemptive history.

The translation of the divine name is not merely an academic or sectarian concern; it strikes at the heart of how faithfully we transmit the biblical message. Historical accuracy in Bible translation is paramount, because the theology, history, and literary art of Scripture are all intertwined with its very words. Removing or altering a recurrent word like יהוה has a domino effect on interpretation. When that word is the personal name of God, the stakes are even higher.

By restoring the Name in translation, we align our bibles more closely with the primary sources and acknowledge that the original authors chose to use God’s name under inspiration, and corrects a kind of historical revisionism that retroactively imposes later norms onto ancient texts. Good translation seeks to let the text speak in its own voice.

Yahweh is the central name of old covenant redemptive history, which culminates in Jesus (whose very name, Yeshua, means “Yahweh saves”). Many prophecies about the knowledge of God’s name (e.g. “My name will be great among the nations,” [Mal 1:11]) take on new significance when we realize this is not just speaking of God’s generic honor, but specifically the spread of Yahweh’s identity beyond Israel. In a sense, translating YHWH can be seen as part of the fulfillment of those prophecies—making God’s name known among the nations through the Bible. Conversely, to deliberately omit it could be viewed as keeping the nations from fully knowing that name.

Finally, accuracy about the Name is a matter of honesty and honor in scholarship and faith. Academically, one would decry any translation of a classical text that systematically removed a key term or replaced proper names with others. A translation of Homer that always replaced “Odysseus” with “the King” would be deemed unacceptable. To quote Casiodoro de Reina:

Another obligation of the one who makes profession of translating divine Scripture is to give it in its entirety. Nor are we here determined to take question with anyone on this matter; nor compel anyone to pronounce this name, if Judaic superstition seems better to him than the godly freedom of the Old Testament Prophets and pious: he can pass over it when he reads, or instead, pronounce “Lord,” as the Jews do; as long as you confess, that in translating it, we have not gone beyond our duty.

Our translation philosophy would do well to be guided by what God valued in the text’s own setting. If God emphasized his name, do we have the authority to obscure it? The divine name is part of the fabric of the Bible’s narrative and message, and restoring it can be seen as an act of fidelity to the text and the God who inspired it. Far from diminishing reverence, we let God speak as he originally did, we safeguard historical truth, and we enrich the church’s understanding of the God of Israel.

---

Traditions & Transitions from the Reformation to the Present

The Reformers

After the LXX and NT, Latin versions like the Vulgate followed the title substitution tradition and used Dominus (Lord) for every occurrence of Yahweh (יהוה) or adonai (אֲדֹנָי). (This practice remains the rule for all Roman Catholic liturgy to the present day.^[151] See the appendices for more on the Roman Catholic perspective.) Then, during the Reformation, Luther wrote the following:

That they [the Jews] now allege the name Iehouah to be unpronounceable, they do not know what they are talking about (…) if it can be written with pen and ink, why should it not be spoken, which is much better than being written with pen and ink? Why do they not also call it unwriteable, unreadable or unthinkable? All things considered, there is something foul.^[152]

Nevertheless, with vacillation that was destined to characterize Christians for centuries to follow, Luther still chose to reflect this “foul” practice of the Jews in his German translation. He gave the following reasons in the preface to the Old Testament:

Whoever reads this Bible should also know that I have been careful to write the name of God which the Jews call “Tetragrammaton” in capital letters thus, LORD [HERR], and the other name which they call adonai only half in capital letters thus, LOrd [HErr]. For among all the names of God, these two alone are applied in the Scriptures to the real, true God; while the others are often ascribed to angels and saints. I have done this in order that readers can thereby draw the strong conclusion that Christ is true God.^[153]

Ironically, a Jewish tradition around the Name ended up being used by the New Testament and Luther to create the ultimate offense to the Jews: Jesus is God.

When John Calvin translated the Psalms into French he used Iehoua. He explained his decision as follows:

It would be tedious to recount the various opinions as to the name “Iehoua.” It is certainly a foul superstition of the Jews that they dare not speak, or write it, but substitute the name “adonai;” nor do I any more approve of their teaching, who say that it is ineffable, because it is not written according to grammatical rule. Without controversy, it is derived from the word היה or הוה and therefore it is rightly said by learned commentators to be the essential name of God, whereas others are, as it were, epithets. Since, then, nothing is more peculiar to God than eternity, He is called Iehoua, because He has existence from Himself, and sustains all things by His secret inspiration. Nor do I agree with the grammarians, who will not have it pronounced, because its inflection is irregular; because its etymology, of which all confess that God is the author, is more to me than an hundred rules.^[154]

The Wycliffe version of the Bible in English used “the Lord,” as did Tyndale’s unfinished translation of the Old Testament, but in a few places, like Exodus 6:3, he rendered “Iehouah.” This set a precedent for all early Protestant bibles, except Coverdale’s translation (1535). In 1557 the name “Iehouah” appeared in a dictionary for the first time. The King James Bible added the nuance of printing “LORD” in all caps when it represented YHWH, except in four places (Exo 6:3, Ps 83:18, Isa 12:2; 26:4) where the translators felt the need to render it as a proper name, and in these places the name “Iehouah” appeared in the first printing (spelled as “Jehovah” in later editions).

Casiodoro de Reina, the translator of the most famous Spanish version of the Bible, took particular interest in rendering the divine name faithfully, and avoiding the substitution of a title. Born in 1520, at the age of 37 he became a monk and then came into contact with Lutheranism, which led him to join the Protestant Reformation. Because of the Spanish Inquisition, he and a dozen other monks fled the country, and he ended up in Geneva for a time. After rejecting the rigid atmosphere of Calvin’s Geneva, Reina spent his exile in other places such as London, Antwerp, Frankfurt, Orléans and Bergerac, in all of which he continued to work on a translation of the Bible into Spanish. In the prologue to the 1569 publication of his work, he wrote the following:

We have retained the name (Iehová), not without serious reasons. First of all, because wherever it will be found in our version, it is in the Hebrew text, and it seemed to us that we could not leave it, nor change it for another without infidelity and singular sacrilege against the law of God, in which it is commanded “Do not take away from it, or add to it” (Dt. 4.4 and Pr. 30.5)…. Adding to the Law of God and his Word is, it is understood, when to the commandments, or constitutions of God, reckless men add their traditions, so, either they undo the commandment of God, or they add greater severity to it by superstition…. So in what has been used up to now about this name: it is expressly to remove and add, both in the act of removing the name (Iehová), and to put (Lord, or God) in its place… which does not matter little. It also seemed to us that this mutation cannot be made without contravening God’s advice, and in a certain way wanting to amend it, as if He had done wrong all the times that his Spirit in Scripture declared this name, and it was to be another. And it is true, that not without particular and very serious advice, God revealed it to the world, and wanted his servants to know and invoke him; it would be a reckless thing to abandon it, and reckless superstition to neglect it, on the pretext of reverence. And to better see this as well, it will not be out of purpose to show where this superstition about this holy name has come from….

The modern rabbis…(not understanding the intent of the Law), gave this superstition to the people, making it illicit to pronounce or declare the holy name, not seeing that, in addition to the fact that the intent of the Law was clear, on the occasion of the blasphemer, after that Law, it was pronounced by Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, Deborah, Gideon, Samuel, David, and all the prophets and pious Kings; and finally it was very sweet in the mouths of all the people, who sang it in Psalms and praises, as it appears throughout the discourse of the Holy History. So from the superstition of the modern Rabbis came this law directed by the devil to—under the pretext of reverence—bury, and put into oblivion his holy name, with which alone He wanted to be differentiated from all other gods.… We say modern Rabbis, not because they are those of our time, but those who came after the prophets, ignorant of the divine Law, and setters of new traditions…. See now if it is right for this superstition to continue, or to cease, God having given better understanding; and that the Christian people know him and adore him in Christ by the same name, with which he made himself known to the fathers, and they knew him and invoked him, and by which, he promised through his prophets, that he would make himself known to people, to invoke him. This one will say (says Isaiah) I am Jehovah’s; the other will be called by the name of Jacob; the other will write with his hand, “Jehovah’s.”

Someone could argue to us here that neither Christ nor the Apostles in their writings made amends for this error, etc. To this we answer, that they were never in charge of making versions, or correcting the facts, but attentive to a greater and more central matter, which was the announcement of the advent of the Messiah, and of his glorious Kingdom. They used the common version, which was then in use, which seems to have been that of the Seventy [the Septuagint], because they had plenty of it for their main purpose.

Another obligation of the one who makes profession of translating divine Scripture is to give it in its entirety. Nor are we here determined to take question with anyone on this matter; nor compel anyone to pronounce this name, if Judaic superstition seems better to him than the godly freedom of the Old Testament Prophets and pious: he can pass over it when he reads, or instead, pronounce “Lord,” as the Jews do; as long as you confess, that in translating it, we have not gone beyond our duty.^[155]

In his defense of retaining the divine name Iehová, Casiodoro de Reina insists that substituting “Lord” or “God” in its place amounts to sacrilege, violating the command not to add to or take away from God’s Word. He attributes the suppression of the Name to later rabbinic superstition, contrasting it with the testimony of the prophets, kings, and people of Israel who invoked it freely in worship. For Reina, the Christian translator is bound to render Scripture “in its entirety”; while readers may choose whether to pronounce the Name, fidelity to the Hebrew text demands its preservation in translation, so that God’s people may know him as he revealed himself.

Modern Translations

Protestant Indecision

By the nineteenth century German scholars began to point out that the name “Jehovah” was a mistaken pronunciation, but many scholarly works in England continued to use “Jehovah.” English Christians did not see the necessity to produce an altered version of the Bible. Matthew Arnold reflects this attitude in the following:

The English version has created certain sentiments in the reader’s mind, and these sentiments must not be disturbed, if the new version is to have the power of the old. Surely this consideration should rule the corrector in determining whether or not he should put Jehovah where the old version puts Lord. Mr. Cheyne, the recent translator of Isaiah— … Mr. Cheyne’s object is simply scientific, to render the original with exactness. But how the Four Friends … can have permitted themselves to substitute Jehovah for Lord passes one’s comprehension. Probably because they were following Ewald; but his object is scientific. [When one] considers what the name in question represents to English Christians, what the Psalms are to them, what a place the expression The Lord fills in the Psalms and in the English Bible generally, what feelings and memories are entwined with it, and what the force of sentiment is,—[anyone who] considers all this, would [never] allow himself, in a version of the Psalms meant for popular use, to abandon the established expression The Lord in order to substitute for it Jehovah. Jehovah is in any case a bad substitute for it, because to the English reader it does not carry its own meaning with it, and has even, which is fatal, a mythological sound. The Eternal, which one of the French versions uses, is far preferable. The Eternal is in itself, no doubt, a better rendering of Jehovah than The Lord. In disquisition and criticism, where it is important to keep as near as we can to the exact sense of words, The Eternal may be introduced with advantage; and whoever has heard Jewish schoolchildren use it, as they do, in repeating the Commandments in English, cannot but have been struck and satisfied with the effect of the rendering. In his own private use of the Bible, any one may, if he will, change The Lord into The Eternal. But at present, for the general reader of the Bible or of extracts from it, The Lord is surely an expression consecrated. The meaning which it in itself carries is a meaning not at variance with the original name, even though it may be possible to render this original name more adequately. But, besides the contents which a term carries in itself, we must consider the contents with which men, in long and reverential use, have filled it; and therefore we say that any literary corrector of the English Bible does well at present to retain The Lord, because of the sentiments this expression has created in the English reader’s mind, and has left firmly fixed there.^[156]

It wasn’t until the 1880s that “Yahweh” became a more frequently used pronunciation among scholars and students. Then, in 1901, American scholars prepared their own edition of the Revised Version (a revision of the KJV) for publication in the USA, which came to be known as the American Standard Version (ASV). In this version they decided to use “Jehovah” consistently. Even though they were aware that Jehovah was not an accurate pronunciation, they believed it would be received better because it was still more well-known than Yahweh. They explained in their Preface:

The change first recommended in the Appendix [of the English Revised Version] — that which substitutes “Jehovah” for “LORD” and “GOD” — is one which will be unwelcome to many, because of the frequency and familiarity of the terms displaced. But the American Revisers, after a careful consideration were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern missionaries. This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people; — not merely the abstractly “Eternal One” of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of those who are in trouble. This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.^[157]

Benjamin B. Warfield, who was influential at the time of the publication, expressed his own strong approval of the ASV:

We cannot understand how there can be any difference of opinion as to the rightness of this step. This is the Lord’s personal name, by which He has elected to be known by His people: the loss suffered by transmuting it into His descriptive title seems to us immense. To be sure there are disputes as to the true form of the name, and nobody supposes that “Jehovah” is that true form. But it has the value of the true form to the English reader; and it would be mere pedantry to substitute for it Yahweh or any of the other forms now used with more or less inaccuracy by scholastic writers. We account it no small gain for the English reader of the Old Testament that he will for the first time in his popular version meet statedly with “Jehovah” and learn all that “Jehovah” has been to and done for His people.^[158]

Regardless of Warfield’s opinion, the public had a harder time accepting the change. As the Princeton Seminary Bulletin later remarked, “However correct this practice might be in scholarly theory—for the word in Hebrew is indeed a proper name, not a title—it was disastrous from the point of view of the liturgical, homiletical, and devotional use of the Bible, and was almost universally disliked.”^[159] Thus, when it came time to revise the ASV, the committee decided to revert to using “the LORD” instead of Jehovah. The resulting RSV was published in 1952. The preface explains the decision:

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 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. 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.^[160]

This would not be the last time modern versions flipflopped on the divine name. The editors of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004) used “Yahweh” (albeit inconsistently), and then decided to reverse their decision only five years later with the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) revision.^[161] What follows is their own full explanation from their website:

In the Old Testament, God gives his personal name more than 6,000 times. Known as the Tetragrammaton, the name is YHWH in the Hebrew text. It cannot be pronounced unless vowels are added. Traditionally, English Bible translations have chosen not to supply vowels in order to make YHWH pronounceable; they simply render this name as a title (Lord). This practice shows sensitivity to some who believe that to call God by his personal name is too informal. There is also debate as to which vowels should be added to YHWH to make it pronounceable. The HCSB broke with tradition and rendered YHWH as “Yahweh” 656 times in the Old Testament. The intent was to share with the reader God’s personal name in contexts where God was referring to his name. Four considerations led the CSB Translation Oversight Committee to depart from the HCSB practice and come into alignment with other English translations.

First, the HCSB was inconsistent by rendering YHWH as “Yahweh” in only 656 of 6,000+ occurrences of YHWH. In many cases, a single verse contains multiple occurrences of YHWH in the Hebrew. As an example of inconsistency, the HCSB in Job 1:21 read: “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Praise the name of Yahweh.” Verses like this raised the question: what criteria did HCSB follow in choosing between “Yahweh” and “Lord”? Criteria were stated in the HCSB Introduction, but many readers felt that the approach should be fully consistent, rendering YHWH as “Yahweh” every time or else returning to the traditional “Lord.”^[162]

Second, full consistency in rendering YHWH as “Yahweh” would overwhelm the reader.^[163] As an example, Numbers 9:23 would read as follows if HCSB had been fully consistent in its use of “Yahweh.” “They camped at Yahweh’s command, and they set out at Yahweh’s command. They carried out Yahweh’s requirement according to Yahweh’s command through Moses.”

Third, consistent feedback from readers showed that the unfamiliarity of “Yahweh” was an obstacle to reading the HCSB. For example, many reported that they felt “Yahweh” was an innovation, and they misunderstood the intent behind using the formal name of God. A translation that values accuracy and readability was thereby limited by a translation choice that did not provide clarity to the reader.^[164] 

Fourth, when quoting Old Testament texts that include an occurrence of YHWH, the New Testament renders YHWH with the word kurios, which is a title (Lord) rather than a personal name.^[165] With this precedent in hand, most English translators have chosen to render YHWH as “Lord” rather than “Yahweh.” For these reasons, CSB is in line with the majority of English translations in its rendering of YHWH as “Lord.” In places where God introduces or emphasizes his covenant name, CSB has a footnote, saying, “Lit Yahweh.”^[166] 

To date, few mainstream English bibles are committed to translating God’s name as a name. One is the Legacy Standard Version (2021), which is a revision of the NASB. The revisers write: “The effect of revealing God’s name is His distinction from other gods and His expression of intimacy with the nation of Israel. Such a dynamic is a prevalent characteristic of the Scriptures.”

The Lexham English Bible (2012) by Faithife uses “Yahweh,” but provides no comment on the decision. The Literal Standard Version (2020) by Covenant Press, which was a major revision of Young’s Literal Translation (1862), took a middle-of-the-road approach. Based on the uncertainty surrounding the exact pronunciation of the divine name, and out of respect for different traditions, they simply rendered it as “YHWH.”

The World English Bible (public domain, 2020) uses “Yahweh” consistently. Its preface briefly remarks on that fact as follows:

The Classic World English Bible translates God’s Proper Name in the Old Testament as “Yahweh.” All other editions of the World English Bible translate the same name as “LORD” (all capital letters), or when used with “Lord” (mixed case, translated from “Adonai”), GOD. There are solid translational arguments for both traditions.^[167]

Roman Catholic Indecision

In 1966 The New Jerusalem Bible was released by Roman Catholic scholars in England with purpose of replicating what was done with the French La Bible de Jérusalem (1956) regarding the divine name (they translated it as “Yahvé”). The NJB was the first Roman Catholic version of the Bible in English to be based on the original languages rather than the Latin Vulgate.^[168] The committee decided to use Yahweh consistently throughout the translation, even though Catholic tradition would prohibit its use for the public reading of Scripture and liturgy on that basis alone. In the foreword the editor does not go into detail as to their philosophy behind the decision, but he does offer some comments:

The Psalms present a special problem for translators since, unlike other parts of the Bible, the psalter is not only a book to be read but a collection of verse which is sung or chanted. Moreover, many of them are so familiar in their sixteenth century form that any change may seem to be an impertinence. Nevertheless, here too the first duty of a translator is to convey as clearly as he can what the original author wrote. He should not try to inject a rhetorical quality and an orotundity of cadence which belong more truly to the first Elizabethan age in England than to the Hebrew originals. He must avoid the pure bathos of prosy flatness, of course, but he will be aware that there is no longer an accepted ‘poetic language’ which can be used to give artificial dignity to plain statements. It would certainly be dangerous to give the form of the translation precedence over the meaning.

It is in the Psalms especially that the use of the divine name Yahweh (accented on the second syllable) may seem unacceptable—though indeed the still stranger form Yah is in constant use in the acclamation Hallelu-Yah (Praise Yah!). It is not without hesitation that this accurate form has been used, and no doubt those who may care to use this translation of the Psalms can substitute the traditional ‘the Lord’. On the other hand, this would be to lose much of the flavour and meaning of the originals. For example, to say, ‘The Lord is God’ is surely a tautology, as to say ‘Yahweh is God’ is not.^[169]

Its successor, The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), upheld the use of Yahweh, and it continues to be a popular version used by Roman Catholics, although still not allowed for Mass, etc. But in 2019 the tide turned, and The Revised New Jerusalem Bible changed Yahweh to “the LORD.” The editor Henry Wansbrough explains why in the foreword:

Soon after his election as Pope, Benedict XVI was approached by the Chief Rabbi of Rome who said that the use of a possible vocalization of the divine name was offensive to Jews. Pope Benedict submitted the matter to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and we recommended the use of ‘LORD’, with small capitals, for YHWH, a suggestion which the Pope accepted.^[170]

In reality, for the Pope to capitulate fully to such a request on the basis of possible offense would also require him to remove much of the New Testament, since such large portions of it scandalize the Jews, especially Jesus’ teaching and identification with God. Paul was well aware of what he was doing when he said: “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews” (1 Cor 1:23).

Surprisingly, the foreword makes no mention of the NJB not being suitable for liturgical use. From an outside perspective it seems that the motivation to sell more bibles would be a powerful one; the change from Yahweh to the LORD now allows the RNJB to compete with the NRSV for use in church. It may be that this was a motivation for the change, but not a sufficiently “spiritual” one to mention in the foreword. The reason mentioned (of honoring Jewish preference) sounds much more politically correct than the ambition to make more money.

The financial dimensions of Bible publishing, particularly regarding the rendering of the divine name, are often neglected in public discourse, yet they warrant serious consideration. In the modern landscape of commercial Bible production, economic interests inevitably influence translation decisions. When a publisher has invested substantial resources in producing a Bible (through marketing, licensing, editing, typesetting, and distribution) it becomes imperative, from a business standpoint, to protect and recoup that investment. Consequently, decisions that may appear theological or textual on the surface are often entangled with economic expediency.

While there may be various justifications presented, ranging from tradition to readability or theological sensitivity, the underlying financial motive is rarely, if ever, disclosed. Including the divine name in a way that deviates from popular expectations or ecclesiastical norms can be perceived as risky, potentially alienating customers and reducing sales. It would be naïve to assume that maintaining broad market appeal never takes precedence over linguistic or theological precision. In a market dominated by large publishing houses, many of which are subsidiaries of secular media conglomerates, the drive for profitability cannot be overlooked.^[171] 

History shows us how the winds of market forces, fickle human opinions, ignorance, speculation, and tradition can toss modern versions to and fro regarding the translation of God’s name. Will contemporary translations like the Legacy Standard Bible suddenly change course as others have done? My hope is that Bible publishers rise to the task of taking a clear, systematic, robustly biblical stand on what they are going to do with the divine name and why. It is not an issue that can be resolved in a few paragraphs of a version’s preface. Rather, it calls for a decision based solidly on Scripture’s teaching that leaves no stone unturned, documented exhaustively, and open to the public. Casiodoro de Reina’s prologue discussion, quoted in chapter 3, stands unmatched as an example and helpful model.

Sacred Name Bibles

It should be recognized that there exists a fast-growing phenomenon of bibles that render God’s name in ways that strive to preserve its historicity, many with the same kind of archaizing tendencies of the Essenes. Peter Unseth is one of the few scholars who has spent time analyzing these versions and the theology driving them. He writes,

Since 1960, over a dozen translations of the Bible have been produced in English with the explicit goal of restoring the original Hebrew forms of the divine names, consistently using forms such as “Yahweh” and “Yeshua” in both the Old and New Testaments (in contrast to ASV’s use of “Jehovah” in the Old Testament alone).^[172]

This is something that was birthed out of the Sacred Name Movement (SNM), which began within the Church of God (Seventh-Day Adventists), and was spread by Clarence Orvil Dodd in the 1930s through his magazine called The Faith. This movement claims to seek to conform Christianity to its “Hebrew roots” in practice, belief, and worship. The Assembly of Yahweh was the first religious organization in the SNM, formed in Holt, Michigan in the 1930s. SNM adherents also generally keep many of the Old Testament laws and ceremonies such as the Seventh-day Sabbath, Torah festivals, and kashrut food laws. They also reject the Trinity as an unbiblical doctrine, and consider Christmas and Easter pagan holidays.^[173] 

The first Sacred Name Bible was published by Angelo Traina in 1963, called the Holy Name Bible. Unseth provides a list of some other Sacred Name Bible versions that followed Traina’s version:

1. Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (ROSNB), Missionary Dispensary Bible Research, 1st ed. 1976, 5th ed. 1977.
2. The Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition, Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel, PA, 1981.
3. Ebionite (portions), 1985, 1986. http://ebionite.org.
4. The Scriptures, Institute for Scripture Research, South Africa, 2d ed. 1998.
5. Restored Name King James Version, 1998. http://www.eliyah.com/Scripture/.
6. Zikarown Say’fer (a.k.a. Sacred Scriptures, Family of Yah Edition), James Meyer, 2000. http://www.wordofyah.org/scriptures/.
7. The Word of Yahweh, Assembly of Yahweh, 2d ed. 2003.
8. Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition, Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky, 2003; 3d ed., 2006.
9. Hebraic-Roots Version, James Trimm, Institute for Scripture Research, 2004.
10. Sacred Name King James Bible, by John Hurt, 2005.
11. THE HEBREW BIBLE: The Old Testament, KJV, Holy Name & Divine Titles Edition, 2006. http://www.israelect.com.
12. Natural Israelite Bible, English Version (NIBEV), 2006. http://www.yahsheua.com/natural_israelite_bible.htm.
13. The Besorah, Pamela Stanford, Urchinsea Designs, 2008.
14. Human Instruction Manual (HIM), Nazarite.net.
15. Halleluyah Scriptures, Halleluyah Scriptures.com.
16. exeGeses companion BIBLE, Herbert Jahn.
17. Transparent English Bible (underway, only small portion available).
18. Paleo Name Version (portions only), Todd Effren. http://www.torahzone.net/.
19. Aramaic English New Testament, Andrew Roth, Netzari Press.

The preface to The Word of Yahweh explains:

The prime objective in producing this new edition of the scriptures was a desire to accurately represent the most sacred names of our Father and His Son. It has been the tradition of most translators to substitute more common, familiar terms such as lord and god, in place of the very names inspired from Yahweh Himself. We believe this is a grave injustice. Not only does this substitution steal from the richness and fullness of the original languages, but probably directly breaks the third commandment we read in Exodus 20:7.

The personal name of the Heavenly Father, Yahweh, was inspired into the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament nearly 7000 times. This includes 134 instances where the Masoretic scribes admittedly changed Yahweh to the more common Hebrew adonai. In all instances where Lord, or God was substituted for the Sacred Name in the English text we have properly inserted Yahweh…. Because there is no accurate translation of elohim we have transliterated that title into the English. As for adonai, sovereign or master serves as an adequate translation in most cases.^[174] 

It should be noted that their accusation of breaking the third commandment would logically apply to the New Testament writers, and nowhere in the preface do they address that issue. They do, however, claim that “In recent years many scholars have proposed that there are Semitic originals underlying the Greek text of much of the New Testament.”^[175] However, they do not substantiate that claim.

This preface also does not explain why “Yahweh” is the correct pronunciation of the divine name, nor does it explain why there is no accurate translation of elohim—a nonsensical claim if no supporting argument is given. Finally, when reading the entire preface, it seems to be the case that, because they do not believe in the Trinity, they speak of Jesus as distinct from Yahweh. Thus, in their mind, Yahweh is Jesus’ father, and Jesus is not God, although he is the savior of the world.

The following is a sampling of how some of these versions render YHWH in Deuteronomy 6:4:

The Besorah                        

The Scriptures                         יהוה

ROSNB                                 YAHVAH

Word of Yahweh                        Yahweh

Sacred Name KJV                        YHVH

NIBEV                                Yahweh

exeGeses companion BIBLE        Yah Veh

None of these bibles are published by mainstream publishers, and much of the theology driving them is troubling.

Those who produce and use Sacred Name Bibles are not theologically uniform, but there are several theological distinctives that frequently reoccur. They are united in their belief in the vital importance of using Hebraic forms of sacred names. Additionally, most of them observe a seventh-day Sabbath and the Feast of Tabernacles, celebrate the new moon, and do not eat pork. Some stress the exact form of sacred names so much as to say that those “who worship JEHOVAH and JESUS or whatever you choose to call him, they will have the Mark of the Beast.” Also, “We find salvation in only one name: the sacred name Yahweh. It is not found by uttering the name ‘Jesus Christ’ or even its original Hebrew form ‘Yahushua ha-messiah.’” Many of their websites claim that the name “Jesus” is derived from the name for the god “Zeus” and “Christ” is from “Krishna,” but without credible evidence or scholarly support.^[176]

It should also be noted that, as already seen in one example, the general consensus among the proponents of this movement is that the NT was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Those who have a penchant for hebraizing or judaizing Christianity tend to gravitate towards the theory of significant portions of the NT originally having been composed in Hebrew, even though it relies heavily on speculation.^[177]

Unseth adds that the proponents of Sacred Name bibles see the present Greek text of the New Testament “as a translation and as flawed in not having preserved the Hebraic forms of names, particularly sacred names. Therefore, they believe it appropriate to insert/restore Semitic-based names in their translations of the New Testament. They believe that the use of Hebrew-based sacred names is for all people, not just Jews, and for all time.”^[178]

Sacred Name versions have muddied the waters around discussions of the tetragrammaton, and have created a cultish association with those who would strive to think assiduously about the implications of Exodus 3:15 and other biblical evidence. This could potentially lead to objections to rendering the divine name as Yahweh or an approximation of Yahweh in translation, since it might inadvertently lend credence to an imbalanced and unhelpful movement. Cults have historically caused orthodox protestants to react strongly to their errors and throw out any good that they might have had along with the bad. Unfortunately, there may be a tendency for some to ignore careful thinking about the divine name simply because they assume such thinking is always and only associated with groups like the SNM or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Preferences of Cult Versions

English Unitarian Joseph Priestly (1733–1804) wanted to use “Jehovah” in a new Bible translation explicitly to obscure any verbal connections between God and Jesus, and maintain a sharp distinction between the two. He proposed the following rule for producing a new version: “In the Old Testament, let the word Jehovah be rendered by Jehovah, and also the word κύριος in the New, in passages in which there is an allusion to the Old, or where it may be proper to distinguish God from Christ.”^[179] Although his version was never published, the Arians published a version using his rule in 1952.

Later, the Jehovah’s Witnesses published their New World Translation, which “uses the name Jehovah to translate κύριος in many places, so as to prevent anyone from identifying Christ with God.”^[180] They have also eagerly embraced George Howard’s 1977 work on “The Tetragram and the New Testament” to support their position. Howard proposed that κύριος as a title for Yahweh or as a translation of the tetragrammaton is found only in later Christian copies of the Septuagint.^[181] Thus the Jehovah’s Witnesses incorporate this as part of their arsenal of proofs that all the references to the ‘Lord’ in the NT refer to God and not Jesus.

---

Translating YHWH around the World

A 1992 United Bible Societies study group identified six broad options for translating the divine name which continue to frame the discussion:

1. transliterate the name (adapting “Yahweh” or an established form like “Jehovah”)
2. substitute a title such as the equivalent of “Lord” (following Septuagint and NT practice of using kurios)
3. translate the meaning of YHWH (e.g. “Eternal One”)
4. use a culture-specific name for the Supreme Being
5. render YHWH the same way as the generic word for “God”
6. employ a combination of these strategies^[182]

In practice, modern Bible translators have employed all of the above methods in various languages, balancing linguistic constraints and cultural context. This chapter examines the way many other languages besides English have rendered YHWH.

East Asia

Chinese

For over a century, Chinese Bible translations have predominantly used a phonetic transliteration for YHWH, rendered as 耶和華 (Yēhéhuá). This form became firmly established through the influential Chinese Union Version (CUV, early 20th century) and is now deeply ingrained in Chinese Christian vocabulary. The historical dominance of this rendering means that attempts to introduce an alternative like 雅威 (Yáwēi) have met with resistance and have not gained traction. This strong tradition demonstrates how a foreign transliteration can be embraced and become completely familiar.^[183]

Japanese

Japanese Bible translators have generally followed the tradition of using an equivalent title rather than a direct name. In most Japanese translations, YHWH is rendered as 主 (shu), meaning “Lord.” To convey that this term represents God’s personal name and not just a generic title, some editions use special formatting, such as printing 主 in bold type or distinct font.

It’s worth noting that while mainstream Japanese versions do not use a phonetic “Yahweh” rendering, certain groups do: for instance, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Japanese Bible uses エホバ (Ehoba). However, such usages are rare outside those circles.^[184]

Korean

Korean Bible translation exhibits a mix of the transliteration and title-substitution approaches, with historical and denominational differences. The common Protestant Korean Bible (such as the 1910 and 1961 revisions) renders YHWH as 여호와 (Yeohowa), which was borrowed from the Chinese 耶和華, and entered Korean Christian vocabulary over a century ago. As a result, 여호와 became the standard way to refer to the God of Israel in Korean churches, used in hymns, prayers, and sermons.

In the mid-20th century, some scholars and Catholic translators preferred using a form closer to Yahweh (야훼). The Korean Catholic Bible (1977) used 야훼 for a period, but this departure was not widely embraced among laity, and recent Catholic editions have reverted to titles (such as 주, “Lord”) or have footnoted 야훼. Today, most Korean Protestant translations still use 여호와, preserving the familiar tradition. Like Chinese Christians with Yehehua, Korean Christians have largely internalized Yeohowa as the name of God.

South Asia

Hindi, Bengali, Nepali (Indic Languages)

In the major languages of South Asia, there has been an evolution in how YHWH is rendered, reflecting a shift from early transliterations to later use of indigenous titles with explanatory qualifiers. Hindi, Bengali, and Nepali at first followed the pattern set by 19th-century missionaries of transliterating the name “Jehovah.” Early Bible translations in these languages often used forms like यहोवा (Yahova) to represent YHWH. However, by the late 20th century, translation teams moved towards using meaningful titles in the local languages, partly to avoid an unfamiliar foreign word and partly to connect with indigenous concepts of God.^[185] In modern Hindi Bibles, YHWH is most commonly rendered as प्रभु (Prabhu), which simply means “Lord.” Prabhu is a common title used for human lords or even deities like Krishna.

Bengali translators took a slightly different approach by adding an adjective to “Lord.” In contemporary Bengali bibles, YHWH is rendered সদাপ্রভু (Shodaprabhu), which means “Eternal Lord.” Here Prabhu (Lord) is combined with shada (always/eternal), conveying the sense that this Lord is ever-existing. It also helps to distinguish YHWH from other lords.^[186] 

Earlier Bengali versions had used যেহোভা (Jehoba) or similar spellings for Jehovah, but this has fallen out of favor. Today, Bengali Christians encountering সদাপ্রভু understand it as the specific name of God in the Old Testament, and its use is pervasive in prayers and songs.^[187]

Nepali, likewise, has transitioned to an indigenous construct. The common rendering for YHWH in Nepali is परमप्रभु (Paramaprabhu), meaning “Supreme Lord.” Prabhu (Lord) appears again, with parama- denoting supremacy or “utmost.” The term Paramaprabhu does not normally appear in secular contexts; it is coined to identify the God of the Bible as the highest Lord above all. This choice was solidified in Nepali Bible revisions in the late 20th century, replacing earlier usage of यहोवा (Yahova). Translators in Nepali likely wanted to avoid confusion with Jehovah’s Witnesses and also to resonate with local Hindu/Buddhist-influenced concepts where Parameshwar (Supreme God) and similar terms are understood.^[188]

The South Asian experience underscores a general trend: many early translations by Western missionaries favored “Jehovah,” but later indigenous revisions moved toward native terms or titles. This shift aligns with the broader idea that using local names or titles for God enhances receptivity and avoids portraying God as foreign.

Other South Asian Languages

In languages like Urdu and Punjabi, which have heavy Islamic cultural influence, the strategy has typically been to avoid any newly coined name and use a title. For Urdu (spoken in Pakistan and India), translators employ خداوند (Khodavand), meaning “Lord” or “master.” This is actually a Persian-origin word (Urdu being heavily Persianized). The choice of Khodavand for YHWH follows the precedent of Arabic and Persian Christian usage. In a number of languages across South Asia and the Middle East, “Lord” is the preferred equivalent for YHWH. For example, Khodavand is consistently used in Persian (Farsi), Pashto, and Sindhi bibles.^[189] 

Notably, older Malay translations (1912, 1988) once broke this pattern by using Allah for YHWH, but this proved controversial and was later corrected to align with the historic practice. In Malay/Indonesian the settled usage is Tuhan (Lord) for YHWH and Allah for God, a practice restored in revisions by the 1990s.^[190]

The Indonesian Bible Society’s standard version, Alkitab Terjemahan Baru, prints YHWH as TUHAN (in all caps) and Elohim as Allah. This mirrors the English LORD/God distinction using loanwords familiar to Muslims.^[191]

Southeast Asia and the Pacific

Southeast Asia (Philippines and Malaysia)

In the Philippines, the predominant practice is to translate YHWH as “Lord” in the local languages. For instance, the Cebuano and Hiligaynon Bibles use Ginoo (Lord). A cultural rationale influenced this decision: in Cebuano, the word yawa means “devil” or “Satan.” The transliteration “Yahweh,” if read aloud incautiously, could sound like yawa.^[192]

The Tagalog (Filipino) Bible similarly uses Panginoon (Lord). Panginoon is a formal Tagalog word also used for God in Catholic mass. Early 20th-century Tagalog translations under American Protestant influence did experiment with Jehová (from Spanish) in a few places, but this was never widespread.

Papua New Guinea and Pacific Islands

Across Melanesia and the Pacific, translators have experimented with a remarkable variety of renderings for YHWH, tailoring the name to fit local languages and cultures. Papua New Guinea (PNG) alone, with its hundreds of languages, provides a microcosm of nearly every approach. In a survey of 31 PNG translations, Phil King found teams considering the full range of the six options mentioned above. The most common solutions in the Pacific have been either (a) using an existing indigenous name for the High God, or (b) using a descriptive title or phrase that conveys God’s character (often eternity or supremacy).^[193] But others have opted for typical titles like “chief, master, father,” sometimes combined with words implying greatness. Here are some examples:

• Bola: BAKOVI DAGI (“BIG MAN”)
• Sinaugoro: VEREGAUKA (“BIG ONE”)
• Kamano: RA ANUMAZA (“BIG STRONG”)
• Dedua: KEBU (“LORD”)
• Nukna: TÁWI (“BIG ONE”)
• Gizrra: LOD (“LORD”)
• Ubir: BADA (“BIG MAN/CHIEF”)
• Mailu: GUBINA (“MASTER”)^[194]

The Guhu-Samane translation uses Qoberoba (“respected elder who is forever”). And the Weri language, rather than either transliterating or using a common title, coined Aniak Tupup, which translates to “Man of the Holy House.” The rationale was to maintain Jewish practice (not uttering the Name) by using “another vernacular phrase that signals that a ‘taboo’ name is being referred to.”^[195]

Nico Daams has documented the decision-making process for the Kapingamarangi translation in the Pacific Islands. The committee opted for Yihowah. This choice was influenced by the existing use of Jiowa in local hymns.

Joseph Hong has documented other renderings in the South Pacific Islands:

• Fiji: Jiova
• Tonga: Jihova, Sihova
• Samoa: Ieova
• Kiribati: Iehova
• Tuvalu: Ieova
• Rotuma: Jihova
• Cook Islands: Iehova
• Tahiti: Iehova^[196]

In the Warlpiri Aboriginal language (central Australia), translators rendered YHWH as Kaatu Jukurrarnu, meaning “God of timelessness” or “the Eternal God.” Here Kaatu is a loanword for God and Jukurrarnu is derived from Jukurrpa, a concept in Warlpiri meaning “dreaming” or “eternal dream-time”—essentially the mythic time of creation in Aboriginal cosmology.^[197]

Africa

Africa presents a variety of approaches to YHWH, shaped by both missionary legacy and pre-Christian concepts of God. Broadly, African Bible translations have oscillated between using traditional divine names, generic titles, and transliterations, often depending on whether a given ethnic group had a well-known supreme being in their cosmology and on the theological input of early translators.

West Africa

In Ghana, early Bible translation was spearheaded by missionaries in the 19th and early 20th centuries (such as the Basel Mission in Akan/Twi, and others in Ewe and Ga), and these translators often introduced the form Yehowa into the local languages. In the Ewe OT, there was eventually a shift from Yehowa to Yawɛ, but there was stiff opposition from some circles that preferred Yehowa.^[198] 

The Nzema Bible (1998) of Ghana uses a meaning-based name: Ɛdɛnkɛma, which means “The Eternal (One) who Possesses Great Power and Upholds Everything.” In the Nzema church Ɛdɛnkɛma has reportedly been accepted, though it required explanation.^[199]

The standard Yoruba Bible, translated in the late 1800s by Anglican missionaries and revised in the early 1900s, uses Oluwa for YHWH, which means “Lord/Master.”^[200] Some newer Yoruba translations or literature have cautiously introduced Olodumare (the traditional name for the Supreme God in Yoruba religion) in certain contexts, but the majority Bible text still says Oluwa.

Moving further west, in languages like Igbo (Nigeria) and Efik or Ibibio, the missionaries often used the local names for God. Igbo had Chineke (Creator God) and Chukwu (Great Spirit) as names for God traditionally, and the Igbo Union Version Bible uses Onyenweayi (our Lord/Master) or Ọkachukwu in certain places for YHWH.

In the Efik Bible (one of the earliest African translations, 1860s Nigeria), Scottish translators mainly used Abasi for YHWH (the local name for the supreme being), and sometimes employed Obong (Lord), or the phrase Abasi Owo (God Person). Many of these decisions were made case by case. In 1947 the Bible was revised and began using Jehovah consistently.

One anecdote comes from the Ruund language of the Democratic Republic of Congo. In the 1950s, missionary translator Anna Lerbak realized that the name Jehovah in the early Ruund Bible was not connecting with villagers because it felt meaningless or confusing to them. Local pastors suggested using Chinawej, an expression people used as a response of affirmation or agreement, similar to saying “Yes indeed” or “that’s right.” It carried a connotation of approval and truth. Lerbak proceeded to replace Jehovah with Chinawej in a sample passage (a Psalm) and read it to them. She writes,

The response was about like this: “That is it, now people will understand, that is how Chinawej is. The Jews call God ‘Jehovah’, we call Him Chinawej, it is the same God, but we know Him as Chinawej as the Jews know Him as ‘Jehovah’”. They often call God Chinawej in prayer, it seems to indicate warmth and intimacy.^[201]

Francophone and North-Central Africa

In many African languages influenced by French Protestant missions, the legacy of Louis Segond’s Bible is evident. Segond’s French Bible (1910) famously rendered YHWH as l’Éternel (“the Eternal”) throughout the Old Testament. L’Éternel then became a standard in French Protestant usage (though recent revisions of the Segond have moved away from it, and French Catholics always used le Seigneur, “the Lord”). During the 20th century, African translators in French-speaking countries often adapted this idea into their own languages. Rather than transliterate Yahweh or use an unrelated local term, they translated the concept “Eternal One” or “Ever-Living God.” For example, the Obolo translation (Nigeria) renders YHWH as Okumugwem, meaning “The Ever-Living One.” In Chadian and Cameroonian languages that had Swiss or French missionaries, we see many examples of this kind of decision. All of the following renderings of YHWH mean “the Eternal One” or something very similar:

• Nancere (Nandjere) uses Kumuekerteri 
• Ngambay uses Njesigənea̰
• Sar (Sara language) uses Kɔ́ɔ̄ɓē
• Mbay uses Bïraþe 
• Kim uses Bage ɗiŋnedin 
• Lélé uses Gojɛnɛkirɛkindiy

Each of these languages took local roots, often words for “remain, last, not die, eternal,” and fashioned a title for God.^[202]

In the first Swahili Bible (published 1890s, predominantly by Anglican missionaries), YHWH was translated as Bwana (“Lord”). In Ethiopia and Eritrea, the classical Ge’ez Bible and its descendants in Amharic and Tigrinya have a unique practice: they use the word Igziabher for YHWH, meaning “Lord of a nation/region” or more generally “Sovereign.”^[203]

The discussion about YHWH in Africa is often tied to the debate of whether pre-colonial names for God can be equated with the God of the Bible. Most translators have concluded yes. There is a post-colonial trend to retreat from foreign-sounding names in favor of local ones.^[204]

Europe

European languages generally follow either the “Lord” substitution tradition or, in a few notable cases, a special equivalent like “The Eternal.” None use a direct transliteration of the Hebrew in normal practice, with the exception of some modern scholarly or sectarian translations.

Spanish: For generations, “Jehová” was the standard rendering of YHWH in Spanish Protestant Bibles. From the Reina-Valera Antigua up through the influential 1909 and 1960 Reina-Valera editions, the text consistently reads Jehová in nearly every occurrence of the Tetragrammaton. The 1960 Reina-Valera revision, while retaining “Jehová” in the text, acknowledged in its footnotes the scholarly consensus that the original Hebrew pronunciation was likely Yavé.

The choice of Jehová was often theologically motivated by a desire to present God’s personal name rather than a title. Early Protestant translators saw the use of “Lord” as a Jewish or Catholic convention that they were not obligated to follow; some viewed restoring the name as a matter of fidelity to the Hebrew text and the principle of sola Scriptura. However, Jehová’s prevalence began declining in the late 20th century as both scholarship and ecumenical considerations prompted new translations to reconsider how best to render YHWH.

Notably, even within the Reina-Valera lineage, recent revisions have moved away from Jehová. The Reina Valera Contemporánea (2011), produced under the auspices of the American Bible Society, chose to render YHWH as el Señor (“the Lord”).

In the late 20th century, as new Spanish Bible projects aimed to serve broad audiences, Señor became the choice of compromise. The Nueva Versión Internacional (1999) opts for SEÑOR instead of Jehová. The United Bible Societies’ Dios Habla Hoy (DHH, also known as the “Versión Popular”) uses Señor as well. According to Cetina, the rationale was twofold: (1) to respect a diverse readership, that is, people of various church traditions for whom Jehová might carry different connotations, and (2) to maintain consistency with the New Testament and liturgical practice.^[205] Another dynamic translation, the Traducción en Lenguaje Actual (2003), goes a step further by often using Dios (“God”) where the Hebrew has YHWH.

The use of Yahvé emerged prominently in the mid-20th century, largely driven by Catholic biblical scholarship. As academic consensus grew that the original pronunciation of YHWH was likely Yahweh, some translators felt it appropriate to restore this in the text for clarity and educational value.

Mid-20th-century Catholicism was experiencing a renewal in biblical studies and a push for people to read scripture directly. Restoring the divine name as Yahvé/Yavé in Catholic Bibles was part of a broader move toward modern, source-conscious translations that would set themselves apart from older, “stiff” versions and also distinguish Catholic Bibles from Protestant Jehová usage. These versions often came with copious footnotes and introductions explaining the meaning of Yahvé and the history of the name.^[206]

Outside the Catholic sphere, a few Spanish Protestant or independent translations have also chosen to use the reconstructed name. For example, La Biblia Textual (BTX, by Sociedad Bíblica Iberoamericana, 3rd ed. 2015) takes a unique literal approach: it prints “YHVH” (the four-letter Hebrew name in Latin characters) directly in the text, preserving the tetragrammaton form without vowels. This method underscores the translators’ conviction about fidelity to the original form, leaving pronunciation to the reader. Another example, though less mainstream, is the Messianic Jewish “Biblia Kadosh” in Spanish, which uses “YAHWEH” explicitly.

Portuguese: The story in Portuguese-speaking lands runs a parallel course to the Spanish, with its own unique developments. We find a spectrum of renderings: Jeová, Senhor (“Lord”), and forms like Javé or Iahweh. Over time, the dominant choice has shifted from Jeová in early Protestant bibles to Senhor in many modern editions, with some scholarly Catholic translations using Javé/Iahweh.

In the Portuguese tradition, the use of Jeová can be traced to the very first complete Bible translation: the work of João Ferreira de Almeida in the 17th century. Almeida, a Protestant minister, began translating from the original languages and his work was posthumously completed and published in 1819. In this classic Almeida Bible, YHWH was rendered JEHOVAH uniformly throughout the Old Testament.^[207] Over time, however, the tide turned towards SENHOR and revisions of the Almeida Bible began to minimize the use of Jeová (only 312 occurrences in a 1995 update).

Another important early version was the Tradução Brasileira (1917), produced by Brazilian scholars with an eye toward a more modern Portuguese style. The TB took a firm stance in favor of the divine name: it represents YHWH in every case as Jehovah (1917 spelling) or updated Jeová (2010 reprint). This made TB something of an outlier in the 20th century, as many other translations were moving away from Jeová. Nevertheless, TB (sometimes called the “Bíblia Tira-Teima”) was valued for study because it preserved this proper name consistently, and it saw a reprint in 2010 due to continued interest.^[208]

The Almeida Revista e Atualizada (ARA), a flagship Brazilian revision published in 1959, made a clear decision to render YHWH as Senhor throughout. This choice was pivotal because ARA became a highly popular Bible among Brazilian Protestants for decades. As a result of ARA’s influence, later Almeida family versions continued the Senhor usage. The Almeida Século 21 and the Nova Almeida Atualizada (2017) likewise use Senhor. In many of these, Jeová survives only in compound names or a few famous verses. It should also be mentioned that a Portuguese version called O Nome de Deus Bíblia (2000s) used Yahweh consistently throughout, but has not become mainstream.

German: Almost all German Bible translations render YHWH as der HERR (the Lord), often in small caps or spaced lettering to indicate the special usage. This goes back to Luther’s Bible (1534), where Luther used HERR following the Latin Dominus. An exception in German is the early 20th-century Schlachter-Bibel (1905), which occasionally inserted Jehova in the text (e.g., Exodus 6:3) but this was not continued in its revisions.

The most famous departure from the norm is the translation by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig (completed 1961). Being a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into German, Buber-Rosenzweig sought to avoid the generic Herr which they felt obscured the Name. In Exodus 3:15 they translate YHWH as Ich bin da (“I am there/I am present”) to echo “I am that I am.” In all other instances, they do not use a noun at all, but rather pronouns in small caps – referring to God as ER (He), IHN (Him), SEIN (His) in places where the original says YHWH. For example, Psalm 23 in Buber’s version starts ER ist mein Hirte (HE is my Shepherd). Outside of this translation, however, German readers encounter der HERR and understand it as God’s covenant name, much as English readers do with LORD. Footnotes in many German bibles (like the Zurich or the Elberfelder) might explain: HERR (in Kapitälchen) steht für den Gottesnamen JHWH.^[209]

French: French Protestant Bibles from the 19th–20th centuries (Ostervald, Segond) consistently used “l’Éternel,” as already mentioned. This tradition was so strong that even many hymns and common parlance among French Protestants use Éternel as a name for God. However, in recent decades, ecumenical translations like the Bible en français courant (1987) and the Nouvelle Segond have moved away from Éternel back to le SEIGNEUR (“the Lord”), aligning with Catholic practice.

Overall, French readers are very familiar with l’Éternel from older Bibles (a phrase which also entered many African languages as mentioned) but newer generations using current translations will see Seigneur.

Dutch & Nordic Languages: The Dutch Statenvertaling (State’s Translation, 1637) used HEERE (archaic spelling of Heer, “Lord”). Modern Dutch translations continue with “de HEER” for YHWH. No Dutch Bible uses Jahweh in the text. Danish and Swedish historically followed Luther’s example, using HERREN (“the Lord”).^[210]

Welsh: The Welsh Bible uses ARGLWYDD (“Lord”) for YHWH. This legacy derives from the William Morgan Bible (1588) and remains the standard in Welsh churches.^[211]

Russian and Eastern Europe: The Russian Synodal Bible, like Church Slavonic before it, uses Господь (Gospod’, “Lord”) for YHWH. This is standard in all Slavic languages influenced by the Orthodox tradition (Ukrainian: Hospod’, Bulgarian: Gospod, Serbian: Gospod, etc.). Russian has a few Sacred Name versions by minority groups using Iegova (Jehovah), but they are not mainstream.

Greek: Modern Greek translations, such as the Biblos of the Greek Evangelical Church, unsurprisingly uphold the LXX tradition of substituting Κύριος (Kurios, Lord) for YHWH.

The Hebrew New Testament

On a slightly different note, let us look at a particularly interesting case of translating the New Testament into modern Hebrew. The Bible Society in Israel describes the dilemma they faced in this work regarding the divine name:

In the Hebrew translation of the New Testament it was necessary to decide at each appearance of kurios whether to render adonai or יהוה or something else. In the case of quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures the decision is simple enough. In a passage such as Matthew 22:44, the modern Hebrew New Testament returns to the original of Psalm 110:1 and reads, “ne’um yhvh (by tradition read as adonai) le’adoni,” where English translations have rendered, “The Lord said to my Lord.”

Notice in the above example that Matthew is quoting words which Jesus spoke to an audience. Would Jesus or anyone else in the New Testament have actually pronounced the Divine Name? The answer must be no. However, the translators felt justified in leaving the original wording of the Psalm, even though Jesus would have spoken the words “ne’um adonai ladoni,” substituting adonai for the tetragrammaton. In this case they were copying from the original Psalm rather than quoting the actual words which came out of Jesus’ mouth.

Other instances where God is spoken of in direct speech are in the words of Elizabeth, Mary and Zechariah in Luke 1:28, 46, 68. In all of these cases the first edition of the modern Hebrew New Testament used יהוה to translate kurios, although the three speakers would have said adonai, as will the modern reader.

The Septuagint translators, who tended to be fairly literal in their translating, had been faced with the converse problem: how could they distinguish between adonai and יהוה in their Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible? The solution they generally seem to have settled on was to render adonai as ho kurios (the Lord), and יהוה as simply kurios without the definite article. This was done without distinction as to whether the passage was direct speech or narrative. The Septuagint was translated over a period of several generations, and this rule was not followed consistently by its various translators. ^[212]

It is interesting to note that the Greek of the New Testament also has both forms, kurios and ho kurios, sometimes even coming side by side (e.g., Lk. 1:9, 11; 1:25, 28, 32; 1:45, 46). To make things more complicated, the form of kurios without the definite article is occasionally used of Jesus, as in Luke 2:11 (“…is born [a] savior, who is Messiah, [the] Lord”).

The first edition of the United Bible Societies’ Hebrew New Testament, with a few exceptions, had used the Septuagint practice as a guideline by rendering ho kurios as adonai, and kurios without the definite article as YHVH. However some members of the editorial committee called this into question. First of all, the distinction would not be clear to modern readers to whom it might seem strange to find the tetragrammaton being used in direct speech. Secondly, modern Israeli readers will say adonai when they encounter יהוה in the text.

To aid in making the decision, we asked a number of Israelis with a good academic command of Hebrew whether the translation should maintain yhvh or substitute instead an abbreviation such as יָהּ or י, both of which are common in Hebrew literature and are read as adonai or ha-shem, “the name.” Opinions were divided, although most were in favor of maintaining יהוה, except in direct speech. Some of these argued that to use יָהּ or י would give the impression that the New Testament is just another secular book with less sanctity than the Hebrew Bible.

Those who argued against using יהוה said that it has simply never been done in texts other than the Hebrew Bible, from ancient times until today. Additionally, they said, more Israelis would be likely to read the New Testament if it did not contain the divine name. The first of these objections is contrary to the evidence: the divine name is found in non-biblical material in the Dead Sea Scrolls and especially in the Temple Scroll. The second objection is not at all certain. Those Israelis who are interested in reading the New Testament probably will not be put off by the appearance of the tetragrammaton. Those who refuse to read the New Testament do so because of objections to Jesus and Paul and the history of “Christian” treatment of Jews; changing יהוה to יָהּ or  י will make no difference to them.

It was decided to abandon the Septuagint’s solution and treat each case on its own merits. Each one of the more than 300 occurrences of kurios in the New Testament had to be checked in its context. Where direct speech was involved, it could be translated by ha’adon, the Lord, adonai, or even elohim, God, as the Septuagint translators themselves had sometimes done (in the reverse direction, of course). The one exception to this is where the speaker is quoting a verse from the Hebrew Bible which includes the tetragrammaton. In these cases, as in the example from Matthew 22:44 cited above, the original יהוה has been maintained. In narrative sections יהוה has been left in the translation in almost every case. Some of the cases in the Gospels are in fact stock phrases in which the divine name of God is normal. Among these are malak יהוה, the angel of the Lord, yom יהוה, the day of the Lord, yad יהוה, the hand of the Lord, and kevod יהוה, the glory of the Lord. Here the Hebrew New Testament has preserved the familiar phrase.

In some places it needs a decision bordering on the theological to determine how to translate kurios. What should be done, for example, in a situation like Luke 19:31, 34: “You shall say ‘The Lord needs it.’”? Was the owner to understand that the Lord needed the colt or that the LORD needed it? In the modern Hebrew translation it would be possible to render kurios as either ha’adon, the Lord or as adonai, the Lord. English translations generally do not have to make such a decision because they use the distinctive Lord only in the Hebrew Scriptures. The modern Hebrew translators decided to use ha’adon, leaving open the interpretation that Jesus, the disciples’ master, needed the colt. Translation sometimes unavoidably involves interpretation, and in this case the interpretation could have gone either way.

Or, to take a similar example, how are we to understand the words of Jesus in Mark 5:19: “Go home to your family and tell them what ho kurios has done for you”? The first Hebrew New Testament edition used יהוה, but it need not have been so unequivocal since Jesus would not have pronounced the divine name.^[213] It is clear that Jesus said either adonai or ha’adon. To render kurios here as adonai would lose the ambiguity. It is better to stay with ha’adon, which could have been understood by the newly-healed demoniac (as well as by today’s readers) to refer either to the Lord or to Jesus. Judging from verse 20, the ex-demoniac may have understood the latter, because he went out to proclaim in the Decapolis “how much Jesus had done for him.”

As a general rule it was decided that the modern Hebrew New Testament would stay with adon (“Lord”) or adonai (“Lord”) for kurios rather than use יהוה. The exceptions to this are those quotations from the Hebrew Bible in which יהוה appears in the original. Other minor exceptions also can be found in places where the context seemed to demand using יהוה (for example, Rev. 19:6).^[214]

Foreignization

Throughout this global survey there arose occasional situations where people complained that a name like Yahweh or Jehovah sounded too foreign in their language. Thus, the topic of foreignization vs. domestication in Bible translation should be addressed. I have written about this at length elsewhere.^[215]  While maintaining the Bible’s foreignness can present a barrier to understanding, it can also be a gateway to a deeper, richer, and more meaningful engagement with this ancient and sacred text.

The question as to whether a particular translation will be a foreignizing or domesticating one is not a binary decision; it is far more complex. In the end, a faithful translation of the Bible will retain some foreign element categories, because to completely eliminate them inevitably leads to significant distortion, causing substantial harm to the text’s integrity. In other words, stripping the text of all its foreignness invariably results in a significant loss of its original essence, authenticity, and meaning. Translation teams should be more aware of the different categories and subcategories of foreignness that they will encounter (idiomatic, geographic, intertextual, cultural, literary or stylistic, temporal or historic, theological, legal, linguistic, symbolic), and decide which ones can and must be domesticated for their language and culture. At the same time, they should recognize the elements that cannot be domesticated, and embrace that limitation with consistency, preparing footnotes or teaching their people well so that they are able to navigate the biblical text without serious hindrance.

While titles (such as Lord) can often be domesticated, it is rare to find a Bible where every name has been domesticated. All of the names in our English bibles are foreign. We are used to many of them because of centuries of tradition, but there are still many that remain strange, such as Nebuchadnezzar. An English speaker might complain that this name makes the Bible feel foreign to him, and so refuse to read it. Should we then replace the Babylonian king’s name with “Bob” or “Chad”? And if not, why should we treat an evil ruler’s name with dignity by preserving it, but not extend that same respect to our Creator’s name (and instead obscure it with a title)?

Just as it’s not reasonable to expect a Russian to speak, think, and act like a Mexican, it’s not reasonable to expect the Bible to be something it’s not. We must ultimately embrace it as something that did not come out of our time and culture. Even its nature as a divine revelation is unique and foreign, so it is best if we accept and welcome its foreignness at a certain level.

In the end, the incarnation of the living Word gives us a helpful model for thinking about the spectrum of foreignization. Christ is the translation of Yahweh for mankind to learn what he is like. This involved taking on the flesh, language, and culture of the target people to a certain extent. He ate very much like they did, dressed the same, used the same weights and measures, spoke with the same accent, and used familiar idioms and imagery from the common way of life.  But it’s important to highlight that this was not total. There were many things he chose not to become. He did not choose to become a Pharisee, nor did he choose to parrot the same things the teachers of the law were saying, nor did he adhere to certain common traditions of the time. He was purposefully unclear and cryptic at times. He did not shrink back from the foreignness of what he said in John 6 about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which alienated nearly all of his followers at the time. And of course he did not hesitate to offend on multiple fronts. So even though he fit within their culture at a certain level, he was foreign at other levels. And that foreignness was due to the fact that he was the unique Son and Word of God, and the King of the world through whom all things were created and are sustained.

In the same way, the Bible can be translated to fit within a culture at a certain level, using familiar idioms and weights and measures, etc. But it must also stand out as something utterly unique, offensive or strange or cryptic at times, handed down to us from a world utterly unlike our own in different ways. The application of this calls for wisdom, and the more we meditate on the one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3), the more we will be able to create translations that faithfully communicate in ways that honor the Lord who translated the untranslatable into human form.

Conclusion

Across the linguistic and cultural spectrum, the translation of YHWH has rarely been guided by a deep understanding of the complexities of the decision. Simplistic ideas such as supposed “reverence” and localization have led to decisions that impacted generations and left local believers with entrenched traditions, for better or for worse. The work of Casiodoro de Reina stands virtually alone in his careful assessment and argumentation for the use of an actual name, carefully weighing all of the issues involved in the critical choice. For the vast number of languages that have chosen to obscure the Name with a title, any respect for God’s desire expressed in Exodus 3:15 has been essentially absent. Few, if any, have paused to ask the question, “What does our Creator want regarding his name?” Once again, it behooves us to listen to him: “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘Yahweh (יהוה), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” This clear personal desire that he be remembered throughout all generations as יהוה stands in stark contrast with many global traditions, which have seldom been justified appropriately.

In some (perhaps many) cultures the best way to remember someone is by speaking of them by name. Conversely, when someone wants to forget the existence of a person (because of wrong they did, or shame they brought upon the family) they seek to silence anyone who would speak their name.

In the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Christians regularly partake “in remembrance” of Jesus. In the same vein, one question that should echo throughout this discussion is: How can God’s children remember him throughout all generations as יהוה if they seldom, if ever, hear or say his name, or read it in their translation of the Hebrew Bible? In the midst of the mass of confusion, misplaced fear, and mistaken reverence surrounding the divine name there is something wonderfully helpful in this simple, lucid, specific desire expressed by God himself in Exodus 3.

---

The Evidence for “Yahweh”

How did scholars end up with the generally acknowledged pronunciation “Yahweh”? Let’s begin with several pieces of evidence that the Anchor Bible Dictionary points out, some of which have already been discussed at length:

The longer of the two reduced suffixing forms of the divine name, yāh and yāhû, indicates that the name probably had the phonetic shape /yahw-/ with a final vowel. The vowel is supplied on the basis of the observation that the name derives from a verbal root hwy, which would require the final vowel /ē/; this inference is confirmed by the element yahwı̄ occurring in names in the Amorite language (see TDOT 5: 512; the relevance of the Amorite names is challenged by Knauf 1984: 467). In the Aramaic letters from Elephantine in Egypt (ca. 400 B.C.; ANET, 491–92), the divine name occurs in the spelling yhw, probably with the vocalization /yahû/ (TDOT 5: 505). Instances of the divine name written in Greek letters, such as Iao (equivalent to “Yaho”), Iabe (known to the Samaritans, Theodoret [4th century A.D.], and Epiphanius), Iaoue, Iaouai (Clement of Alexandria [3d century]), and Iae also favor the form “Yahweh” (NWDB, 453).^[216]

Contracted Forms of the Name

To understand how scholars arrive at “Yahweh” as the most common hypothesis for the original pronunciation, we need to look carefully at all the contracted forms of the Name. First, we need to show that these are indeed shortened forms of the full name of God.

Yah

The meaning of yah has not been unanimously recognized throughout history. There have been rabbis who insist that it means something like, “Ouch! Enough!” In Bereishit Rabbah 91:1 Rabbi Pinchas teaches that yah is simply what a man cries out in his pain: “yah, yah, enough, enough!” In Pesachim 117a:5^[217] we read, “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of the word halleluya? It means praise Him [halleluhu] with many praises [hillulim]. According to this opinion, the ya at the end of the word is a superlative, not a divine name.” These rabbis offer no proof for these assertions, and seem to ignore the fact that theophoric names were common in the Ancient Near East (e.g. Daniel 4:8), and in the biblical text their meaning is often explicitly explained (e.g. 2 Chron 26:5-15). It would be awkward to take these teachings and try to interpret many of the theophoric names in the OT through their lens. For example, עֲזַרְיָה (2 Kings 14:21) would then mean either “enough helps” or “exceedingly helps” or “he helps exceedingly,” instead of “Yahweh helps.” In Psalm 113:1 the psalmist makes it crystal clear what הַלְלוּ יָהּ means by explaining or unpacking it clearly in the next line:

הַלְלוּ יָהּ הַלְלוּ עַבְדֵי יְהוָה הַלְלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם יְהוָה׃

Notice how the commandהַלְלוּ יָהּ  “Praise Yah” is equated with הַלְלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם יְהוָה׃ “Praise the name of YHWH.” Psalm 94:7 also shows via clear parallelism that יָהּ is a shortened form of God’s name: “and they say, ‘Yah does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive.’” (וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא יִרְאֶה־יָּהּ וְלֹא־יָבִין אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב׃        )

Finally, Psalm 68:5 shows unquestionably that יָהּ is a name: “Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides through the deserts; in Yah his name (בְּיָהּ שְׁמוֹ) exult before him!”^[218] 

Yahu

Since we have now shown that yah is a shortened form of God’s name, this leads to the evidence that yahu is also a shortened form, because yah and yahu are interchanged in theophoric names. In 2 Kings 1:12 the name Elijah appears as אֵלִיָּהוּ, and only two verses later it appears as אֵלִיָּה (which means “my God is Yah”). There are many instances of this free interchange with names like Jeremiah, Zedekiah, Zechariah, Nethaniah, Hezekiah, and others.

Yeho

Now that we have shown that yahu is a shortened form of God’s name, we can demonstrate that yeho is another shortened form within compound theophoric names. For example, in 2 Chronicles 21:2 we have two names that mean the same thing, but use yeho and yahu to distinguish the names of father and son: “He had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat (יְהוֹשָׁפָט): Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariah, Michael, and Shephatiah (וּשְׁפַטְיָהוּ); all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.” Notice that both names are based on the root שָׁפָט. Both names mean “YHWH has judged,” but the first one uses the prefix יְהוֹ to specify YHWH as the subject, and the second uses the suffix יָהוּ to do the same. Other examples of names switching between yahu (יָהוּ) and yeho (יְהוֹ) are:

נְתַנְיָהוּ  → יְהוֹנָתָן

זְבַדְיָהוּ  → יְהוֹזָבָד

Further examples can be found of this same interchange in the OT. Observe that yeho comes at the beginning of a compound name, and yahu is used at the end. This accounts for the vowel changes. In Hebrew the first syllables of a long word tend to experience vowel reduction because the accent usually falls at the end of the word. This is why yeho begins with a shewa instead of a full vowel like יָהוּ.

Yo

In the OT we see that יְהוֺ often contracts to יוֹ, which is not unexpected, since ה is a weak letter and shewa represents a reduced vowel. In places like Ezra 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 26:3 we see the longer form of the name יְהוֹחָנָן, while in Nehemiah 12:22 the name appears shortened: יוֹחָנָן (both meaning “Yahweh is gracious”). There are other compound theophoric names that occur in both forms (long and contracted), such as Jonathan. The BDB lexicon will list both forms of the name under the same entry: יְהוֹנָתָן,יוֹנָתָן (the two different forms occur within the same book: 1 Samuel 13:2 and 14:6, both meaning “Yahweh has given”). Some other names that do this are Joash (יוֹאָשׁ), Joram (יוֹרָם), and Jehonadab (יְהוֹנָדָב). Therefore, יוֹ does not tell us what the first vowel in the divine name was, since it is a contraction of יְהוֺ.

Ye

What do we make of the theophoric name Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ) with a ye prefix? It’s clear that יֵשׁוּעַ is another way of spelling Joshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) from the following two passages:

Ex 33:11 “Joshua the son of Nun” (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן)
Neh 8:17 “Jeshua the son of Nun” (יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן־נוּן)

The shift from יְהוֹשֻׁעַ to יֵשׁוּעַ came from the Babylonian captivity’s Aramaic influence on the Hebrew language, and thus in the post-exilic books we find the spelling יֵשׁוּעַ to be common. There appears to be an interchange between the o and ei vowels after the exile. An example of this interchange can be found by comparing Song of Songs 4:8 in the Leningrad Codex (which uses Tiberian vowel pointing) and the Berlin Codex (which uses Babylonian vowel pointing). Here the word for leopards is pointed as נְמֵרִים in the former, and the equivalent of נְמֹרִים in the latter (with the distinct Babylonian pointing). So, it makes sense to readיֵשׁוּעַ  as a more contracted, post-exilic form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. Although יְהוֹשֻׁעַ occurs eleven times in Haggai and Zechariah, which are post-exilic books, it can be explained either as an intentional archaism used by the author, or simply free variation as we have seen with יְהוֺ and יוֹ.

Thus, we can conclude that all of these contractions are used in place of the full divine name.

How יָה Supplies the First Part of the Name

Qamets and pataḥ regularly interchange in biblical Hebrew. A qamets will often shorten to a pataḥ in a pretonic syllable. For example, in Psalm 99:2 you have the verb רָם which then gets shortened to pataḥ when used in a name: רַמְיָה in Ezra 10:25. So the original vowel in יהוה according to a Masoretic reconstruction would be a pataḥ: יַהְוֶה.

The Root of the Name

In order for the rest of the argument for the pronunciation “Yahweh” יַהְוֶה to work, one has to demonstrate that the root of God’s name has its origins in the verb היה. If we take another look at Exodus 3:14-15 we see a threefold repetition of the first person common singular (1CS) imperfect form of היה, which is אֶהְיֶה. Typically, a threefold repetition in Hebrew within the same verse is a call to pay close attention to what is repeated, as something crucial and central to what is being discussed. In context, the central topic is God’s identity or personal name. So, one could argue from the context that אֶהְיֶה is key to the root of the divine name:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃

וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כֹּה־תֹאמַר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם זֶה־שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר׃

God said to Moses, “I will be (אֶהְיֶה) who I will be (אֶהְיֶה).” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I will be (אֶהְיֶה) has sent me to you.’”

God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.”

Choosing a name explicitly for its meaning, based on a verb and/or noun, is not without precedent in the OT. An example of a name explicitly being chosen for its meaning, which is derived from a verbal root comes from Genesis 3:20, which reads as follows:

וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ חַוָּה כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה אֵם כָּל־חָי׃          

The man called his wife’s name Eve (חַוָּה), because she was the mother of all living (חָי).

But why does חַוָּה have a vav instead of a yod if it is based on the root חיה? In Archaic Hebrew ו was sometimes replaced by י in Classical/Standard Hebrew. For example, the Archaic Hebrew root ושׁב* later became ישׁב, which is evidenced by the Hiphil form הושׁיב where the old ו reemerges.^[219] Names also have a tendency to preserve archaic forms, so it would not be unreasonable to expect the archaic root חוה to reemerge in Eve’s name. “Evidence from Ugaritic and Phoenician suggest another ancient word ‘to live,’ ḥwy from which ḥawwâ could be derived. If this is the case, then the name itself is either borrowed or is an ancient traditional name.”^[220]

Following the same pattern, if God’s name is based on the verbal root היה, then it would specifically be based on the 3MS form יִהְיֶה “he will be.” This then becomes יַהְוֶה (the preformative vowel historically was pataḥ instead of hireq; more on that later). But why is it the 3MS imperfect form of היה instead of the 1CS form that was repeated three times in Exodus 3:14? Since God is talking about himself, he uses the first person form of the verb to introduce the meaning; and since it would be awkward to refer to someone else using the first person conjugation, he bases his eternal name on the third person form “he will be.”

If we grant this argument and premise, then based on the root we know that the final ה is a vowel letter and not a guttural (as in names like שְׁלֹמֹה, שַׂמְלָה, מְנַשֶּׁה), which eliminates the possibility of there being yet another vowel at the end of the Name’s pronunciation. There are two primary reasons for this:

1. The Masoretes did not point the final ה in היה with a mappiq, which would signal that it should be read as a guttural. Verbs that originally ended in ה reflect the guttural character of the ה with a mappiq.^[221]
2. III-he verbs were historically III-yod and III-waw verbs, so the historic root היה would have been הוי. These consonants “fell away either through elision or were retained as vowel indicators before consonantal suffixes.”^[222] This historic yod emerges in the 2MS conjugation הָיִיתָ in places like Gen 17:4, Num 10:31, Deut 16:15, and many others.

Reymond describes the development of III-he qal imperfect verbs as follows (using the verb בנה, ‘to build’):

*yabniyu » *yibnē » yibne^[223]

Notice that the historic prefix had an ‘a’ vowel instead of an ‘i’ as it became later in Standard Hebrew. Names tend to preserve archaic morphology.^[224] Thus we can deduce that the name was יַהְוֶה and not יִהְיֶה. Again, this argument depends entirely on the assumption that the Name is derived from the root היה or הוה. In addition, if there were any other vowel below the yod in the Name, it would be difficult to explain how it contracted to יָהוּ.

---

The Lack of Evidence for “Yahweh”

As can be seen so far, the evidence for “Yahweh” as the historic pronunciation is not overwhelming. Austin Surls, in his excellent dissertation Making Sense of the Divine Name in Exodus argues that there is more hard evidence for “Yahu” than “Yahweh.” He writes:

Though the form “Yahweh” has taken hold as the consensus view in scholarly circles, it is based on very little hard evidence. Most agree that an etymological-grammatical connection between אֶהְיֶה and יהוה suggests that יהוה should be vocalized as a third-person yiqtol form of היה. Scholars have substantiated this by rightly appealing to the form Ἰαβέ in Origen, Theodoret and Epiphanius, but wrongly to the form Ἰαουέ in Clement of Alexandria. However, the etymological-grammatical connection is not sensitive to the form of explicit naming wordplays and misunderstands the function of proper names used in them. Furthermore, the Greek evidence is far too late to make substantive claims about the original Hebrew form of this ancient name. The form Ἰαβέ is never ascribed to Jewish practice in the extant sources, but only to Samaritans and pagans.

Though always a minority view, the claim that “Yahu” was the original form has much to commend it. The presence of a consistent three-lettered affix on theophoric names constitutes its earliest witness. It is remarkable that the written form יהו occurs on a jar in the southern Negev (ca. 800 BCE) while יהו also occurs on Elephantine Island about 400 years later. Furthermore, the vast quantity, early date, and wide geographic distribution of the Greek form Ἰάω predominates over the consensus form (see Table 5 and Figures 2 and 3 below).

Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this form is original, because even the earliest evidence for the form “Yahu” is not early enough to verify this claim. This form cannot account for the final he of the Tetragrammaton, and the waw probably did not function as a vowel letter originally. The original form probably had a consonantal waw, a final he that was consonantal, and was perhaps followed by a short vowel that was never written down. The vocalization of יהוה would probably have been longer than “Yahu,” but phonetically similar––perhaps it was simplified when appended to theophoric names. The antiquity of the name and the weak consonants on which it is built makes it unlikely that we will discover its original form or vocalization. The following are possible: “Yahwahu,” “Yahawhu,” “Yahuwah,” or “Yehwahu.”

If this hypothesis is correct, then the divine name resembles the majority of proper names in the Pentateuch’s explicit naming wordplays in that most do not correspond to a precise verbal or nominal form. Furthermore, the name יהוה appears to be etymologically opaque. Such a personal name makes direct reference to the name-bearer without adding any sense (descriptive meaning) to its reference. Such a name must gather its sense from the biblical narrative rather than from a supposed etymology.

The divine name יהוה is explained in Exodus 3:13–15 (via assonance) in order to anticipate YHWH’s powerful intervention and subsequent acts of salvation on behalf of his people. The phrase אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶר אֶהְיֶה does not describe YHWH’s essence or character, but defers such a statement for a later time. The divine “self-naming” does nothing more than answer Moses’ question, while letting the future reveal what sense Israel should ascribe to the name. YHWH offered his name as a peg on which to hang descriptions of all that he was about to do, be, and say.^[225]

Surls’ dissertation compelling, and it is true that there is not as much evidence for the pronunciation “Yahweh” as one would hope for such a widespread academic convention.

Based on the constraints of singing ancient psalm melodies, Gertoux makes a compelling argument for a three-syllable divine name:

Even though we do not know the exact cantillation of the biblical texts, we do know, for example, that the Psalms were sung to ancient melodies known at that time—melodies which are indicated in the superscriptions (Psalms 9, 22, 45, 46, 59, 60, 69, 75, 80, 81, 84, 120–134). We also know that these songs, inaugurated under David’s administration, were sung at least until 70 CE (cf. Matt. 26:30; James 5:13). After the disappearance of the Temple, and eventually the Hebrew language itself, these melodies were probably lost.

Logically, if the divine Name was replaced by a substitute beginning around the third century BCE, and if the Psalms were sung from the tenth century BCE until the first century CE, we can conclude that, in order not to modify the melody, they chose a substitute with the same syllabic structure as the Name. The two substitutes used (a-do-nay and e-lo-him) each have an identical syllabic structure of two and a half syllables (½, 1, 1), exactly the same as that of the divine name Ye-ho-wah.^[226]

Nevertheless, since an accurate reconstruction of YHWH will always be speculative, I am satisfied with the convention of “Yahweh” because it is a name (not a title), it communicates to many people and has been accepted widely, and it accounts for the contracted forms like יָה and others in theophoric names and elsewhere (e.g. hallelu-yah, “praise Yah[weh]).

---

Evidence for “Yehovah/Yehowah”?

Nehemiah Gordon

Nehemiah Gordon is one of the most famously outspoken proponents of the pronunciation “Yehovah.” He argues that the Masoretes did not point YHWH with the vowels of Adonai, but rather were preserving the secret, correct pronunciation of God’s name.

Unpacking all of Gordon’s “scholarly sleight of hand” and dubious claims reaches beyond the scope of this book, but the reader should know that he is (whether intentionally or unintentionally) suppressing evidence and presenting questionable ideas to support his speculations. For those interested in exploring his errors and misinformation in minute detail with clear examples, evidence, and explanations, see the video series by “Hebrew Gospels.”^[227]

The Evidence for Substitute Vowels

The Problem of  אדני יהוה

If YHWH’s vowels genuinely represented “Yehovah,” phrases like “Adonai Yehovah” would pose no issue. However, the manuscripts consistently show scribes replacing YHWH’s normal vowels (those of Adonai) with the vowels of Elohim when YHWH appears adjacent to Adonai. The intention was to avoid the redundancy of saying “Lord Lord,” and English translations typically render the phrase as “Lord GOD.” This practice, observed in all major manuscripts, is one of many pieces of evidence that the normal vowels on YHWH were understood by the scribes to be those of Adonai.

The First Vowel

A common point of misunderstanding concerns the initial vowel under the first consonant in each of the words אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) and יְהוָה (YHWH). Adonai begins with the compound shewa ḥăṭēph pataḥ and YHWH begins with a simple shewa. So, does that prove that YHWH was not pointed with the vowels of Adonai? No.

The word אֲדֹנָי begins with the letter aleph, a guttural consonant. In Tiberian vocalization, guttural consonants often require a ḥăṭēph vowel (one of the compound shewa forms) because gutturals cannot take a simple vocal shewa in initial position. Hence, the aleph in אֲדֹנָי takes a ḥăṭēph pataḥ, which is a reduced vowel that blends a shewa with the short pataḥ sound. This results in the pronunciation adonai.

The letter yod, by contrast, is not a guttural and can take a simple vocal shewa. When the vowel signs of אֲדֹנָי were adapted for use with יהוה, the initial ḥăṭēph pataḥ could not be applied directly to the yod because ḥăṭēph vowels only occur with guttural letters (א, ה, ח, ע, sometimes ר). The closest approximation the Masoretes could use, according to their own system of pointing rules, was a simple shewa under the yod: יְהוָה. This form does not reflect an original pronunciation of YHWH but an orthographic compromise to signal the reading of אֲדֹנָי.

Thus, the divergence in the first vowel between Adonai and YHWH stems from phonological constraints in the Tiberian reading tradition, not from differing original pronunciations.

The Omission of the Ḥolem in Some Manuscripts

In many Masoretic manuscripts, especially Leningrad and Aleppo, the full set of Adonai vowels (ḥăṭēph pataḥ, ḥolem, and qamets) is not preserved in most instances of the Tetragrammaton. Most notably, the ḥolem (also called cholam), which is the middle vowel (o) in אֲדֹנָי, is often missing in יְהוָה. Jason Hare explains:

There are about 435 instances of the word אֲדֹנָי ăḏōnāy in the Hebrew Bible that refer to God, of which 371 are extant in the Aleppo Codex [because some of the manuscript was lost]. The Masoretes did two things to remind us that these are referring to God and that we must elevate our thinking when we encounter them: (1) they changed the normal first-person personal suffix from patach to qamats (going from אֲדֹנַי to אֲדֹנָי); and, (2) they removed the cholam from the word (going finally from אֲדֹנָי to אֲדנָי). If you check the Aleppo Codex, you will see that 97% of extant instances of the word are missing the cholam, in the same way that the name יְהוָה is missing the cholam.

Mr. Gordon has yet to address the fact that the cholam is missing not only from the Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic Bible, but also from אֲדֹנָי (consistently in the Aleppo Codex) and from יְהוִה (consistently in the Leningrad Codex, whereas the Aleppo Codex leaves the cholam on יְהוִֹה in all instances [since it never removes it from אֱלֹהִים ʾĕlōhîm])….

The word אדני can be pointed (vocalized) three different ways in Hebrew. First, it can be from the singular form אָדוֹן āḏōn “lord” with a first-person singular personal suffix, looking like אֲדֹנִיʾăḏōnî and meaning “my lord.” Second, it can be from the plural form אֲדֹנִים ʾăḏōnîm “lords” with a first-person singular personal suffix, looking like אֲדֹנַי ʾăḏōnay (with a short a [patach] in the last syllable) and meaning “my lords.” Third, it can be from the plural form of אֲדֹנִים ʾăḏōnîm “lords” used as a plural of majesty, with an altered first-person singular personal suffix, looking like אֲדֹנָי ʾăḏōnāy (with a long ā [qamats] in the last syllable).

The form אֲדֹנָי (with the qamats) is reserved for referring to God. Gesenius says, under the entry אָדוֹן, that “the lengthened form םָ [his shorthand referring to the qamats vowel, using the mem as a placeholder] has been put by the grammarians, so as to distinguish it from אֲדֹנַי ‘my lords,’” even though both forms are pronounced the same.^[228]

In addition, we can examine the vowels of  אֱלֹהִים(Elohim) when placed on the name YHWH: יֱהוִה. Most agree that “Yehovih” is a non-name. In the Leningrad Codex, British Museum 4445, Cairo Codex, and Sassoon 1053, the ḥolem is consistently missing from יהוה when it takes the vowels of Elohim. This suggests that the ḥolem was omitted to prevent the accidental pronunciation of a gibberish name, like “Yehovih,” by those focusing solely on the vowel points.

Furthermore, other manuscripts, such as the Damascus Crown, generally show the ḥolem not missing on יהוה, whether it carries Adonai or Elohim vowels. In manuscripts with Babylonian pointing (like the Petersburg Codex and Berlin Codex) יהוה typically has no vowels when intended to be pronounced as Adonai. This may be because the pronunciation was widely known and no help was needed. However, when יהוה is intended to be pronounced as Elohim in these manuscripts, substitute vowels (including the Babylonian equivalent of ḥolem) are provided. This inconsistency across manuscript traditions further supports the fact that these are indeed vowel substitutions.^[229]

Inseparable Prepositions & Vav

Another strong internal piece of evidence that the vowels of יהוה in the Masoretic Text were not intended to reflect its original pronunciation, but rather the qere reading אֲדֹנָי, comes from the behavior of inseparable prepositions—particularly בְּ, כְּ, and לְ—when affixed to the divine name. The phonological rules governing these prepositions reveal that the pointing of YHWH was substitutional, not phonemic.

In biblical Hebrew, when a preposition ending in shewa is placed before a word that begins with a vocal shewa, Hebrew phonotactics^[230] forbid two shewas in sequence. To prevent this, the vowel under the preposition is changed to a ḥireq. This is a well-attested rule and forms a core part of Hebrew phonology and morphology.^[231] For example:

בְּ + שְׁמִי → בִּשְׁמִי

If the divine name truly began with a vocal shewa, then inseparable prepositions should be pointed with ḥireq to avoid a prohibited shewa-shewa sequence. But what we find in the Masoretic Text is different:

לַיהוָה, בַיהוָה, כַיהוָה

The vowel under each preposition is pataḥ, not ḥireq, which is not the expected adjustment before a yod + vocal shewa. Instead, this is precisely the adjustment one would make before a word beginning with a composite shewa (i.e. a ḥăṭēph vowel), especially under a guttural consonant. The qere reading of יהוה is אֲדֹנָי, which begins with aleph + ḥăṭēph pataḥ. When a preposition precedes a word beginning with a ḥăṭēph vowel under a guttural, the preposition normally adopts the corresponding short vowel; in this case, pataḥ. This rule explains the pointing that we find in the MT.

Construction	Morphological Explanation
לַיהוָה	לְ + אֲדֹנָי → לַאֲדֹנָי
בַּיהוָה	בְּ + אֲדֹנָי → בַּאֲדֹנָי
כַּיהוָה	כְּ + אֲדֹנָי → כַּאֲדֹנָי

This pattern is not explainable if the Masoretes intendedיְהוָה  to be read according to its own pointing. A yod + vocal shewa does not cause a preposition to take pataḥ; it causes it to take ḥireq.

We observe the same phonological behavior when attaching the vav conjunction (ו “and”) to a word. Vav functions similarly to inseparable prepositions as a proclitic. Hebrew grammar dictates that when it precedes a word that begins with a vocal shewa, it normally assumes a ḥireq to avoid the disallowed sequence of two shewas. Conversely, when vav attaches to a word starting with a ḥăṭeph vowel, as found in אֲדֹנָי, it takes the corresponding short vowel, typically a pataḥ. When vav is prefixed to the Name, it consistently appears with pataḥ (e.g., וַיהוָה in Ex 10:13) rather than ḥireq, paralleling the expected form וַאֲדֹנָי. This is not what would be expected if “Yehovah” were the actual pronunciation.

The morphophonological mismatch between what the prepositions and vav should show if יְהוָה were pronounced Yehowah/Yehovah, and what we actually see in Masoretic texts, proves that the pointing reflects the substitute reading אֲדֹנָי, not the pronunciation of יהוה itself.

Justin van Rensburg has exhaustively studied the pointing tradition of יהוה in the most important Masoretic manuscripts: Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex, Cairo Codex, Sassoon Codex, Damascus Crown, British Library Oriental 4445, and Petersburg Codex. His conclusion is that all the evidence points to the use of “dummy vowels” by the Masoretes, and that they were never intended to represent the true pronunciation of the Name. The following further proofs come from his series on the issue.

The Rapheh Line

Nehemia Gordon’s presents an argument that centers on the Evr. II B-52 manuscript (a Hebrew Masoretic fragment housed in the Russian National Library) where the divine name is marked with a rapheh over the final he. A rapheh is a horizontal line typically used in Tiberian tradition to indicate, among other things, that a he or aleph should be read as silent letters. Gordon posits that this rapheh over the final he affirms the authenticity of the “Yehovah” vocalization, arguing that if Adonai (ending in a vocal yod) were the intended reading, there would be no reason to suppress the he with a rapheh. However, this argument unravels because the same manuscript also exhibits the rapheh over YHWH when Elohim’s vowels are employed (e.g. Deut 3:24 in the same manuscript). According to Gordon’s own logic, the rapheh would then prove that the definitive pronunciation of YHWH is both “Yehovah” and “Yehovih.” Moreover, the use of the rapheh is inconsistent in the manuscript; it was an idiosyncratic scribal notation.

The Min Preposition

The Hebrew preposition מִן (min, “from”) can function either as an independent word or as an inseparable prefix directly attached to the noun it governs. When used inseparably, Hebrew phonotactic constraints require vowel adjustments to avoid disallowed sequences. For example, when מִן precedes a noun beginning with a yod + vocal shewa, such as יְהוּדָה (Yehudah, “Judah”), the nun assimilates to the following consonant, the prefix is vocalized as מִ- with ḥireq, yielding מִיהוּדָה (miyhudah, “from Judah”). In contrast, when מִן is prefixed to a word starting with a guttural consonant (which cannot take a dagesh) the nun is elided, and the vowel under the mem shifts to tsere (compensatory lengthening). For example:

אִישׁ  + מִן 🡪 מֵאִישׁ  (“from a man”)

When we apply these rules to אֲדֹנָי we yield מֵאֲדֹנָי (“from Adonai”). And in all pointed occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic tradition where the preposition מִן is attached, manuscripts uniformly display a tsere under the mem:  מֵיְהוָה. This is indicative of מֵאֲדֹנָי. If the vowels on the Name were the true vowels, we would expect מִיהוָה with a ḥireq under the mem when attaching the מִן preposition.

The Relative Particle שׁ

In Biblical Hebrew, the relative particle שׁ (“who, which, or that”) functions as an inseparable prefix. When שׁ is affixed to a word, the following consonant receives a dagesh ḥazaq (doubling dot) unless it is a guttural letter like aleph.

Critically, when שׁ precedes יהוה, the yod does not receive a dagesh in the Masoretic manuscripts, even though under rules governing yod + shewa it would if “Yehovah” were a real name. For example, in Psalm 144:15 we find  שֶׁיֲהוָהwithout the dagesh in the yod. This is simply because the Masoretes pointed the word as though it were שֶׁ plus אֲדֹנָי. If we look at Psalm 123:2 we can see an example of what happens when this particle is prefixed to a word that actually begins with yod: שֶׁיְּחָנֵּנוּ. The dagesh is present. This consistent pointing across manuscripts once again confirms that the Masoretic system is reflecting the phonology of Adonai, not a vocalized form of the divine name such as “Yehovah.”

Interaction with Begadkephat Consonants

This evidence concerns the phonological behavior of the Begadkephat consonants—ב, ג, ד, כ, פ, ת—when they follow the Tetragrammaton under the influence of a conjunctive accent. In Tiberian Hebrew, the spirantization rule dictates that a Begadkephat letter appears in its “soft” (spirant) form (without a dagesh lene) when it begins an open syllable following a word that ends in an open syllable. Conversely, it appears in its “hard” (plosive) form, marked by a dagesh lene, when it follows a closed syllable. If YHWH were truly vocalized “Yehovah,” the final syllable (-vah) would be open, predicting a soft form (without a dagesh) in any following Begadkephat letter under conjunctive linkage.

The Masoretic evidence (Num 32:2, Ps 37:5, 2 Sam 24:15, Isa 49:7, Ps 35:5, Ezek 24:14, Ps 18:21, etc.) tells a different story. In manuscripts where YHWH bears a conjunctive accent and is immediately followed by a Begadkephat letter, that letter consistently carries a dagesh lene, indicating a hard (plosive) articulation. This distribution matches the phonological expectation for a closed final syllable—precisely what occurs in אֲדֹנָי, where the final syllable ends with a consonant.

Tiberian Pronunciation

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the vowels found under the Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic Text (including the ḥolem) were in fact intended to preserve the original vocalization of the divine name, the Tiberian Hebrew phonological system would have rendered that combination not as Yehovah/Yehowah but rather as Yahovah. Geoffrey Khan writes,

The vocal shewa in Tiberian Hebrew is generally realized as a short vowel with a quality similar to that of pataḥ, i.e., [a]. When it occurs after a yod at the beginning of a word, it forms a syllable pronounced [ja-]. This is attested in numerous early sources and corroborated by the pronunciation traditions of the Jewish reading communities.^[232]

The form Yehovah (or Jehovah, using Latinized orthography) assumes that the shewa under the yod is equivalent to a short [e] or schwa [ə], rendering [jehoˈva]. This reading violates the known phonetics of vocal shewa in the Tiberian tradition. Therefore, Yehovah is not a valid representation of what the Tiberian Masoretes would have pronounced (or the pronunciation they were trying to preserve), even if one granted that the vowels in יְהֹוָה were intended as original.

---

Objections

We Don’t Have an Audio Recording of Moses

One objection to the pronunciation of the divine name (יהוה) is that the exact pronunciation has been lost.^[233] Since there is no unanimous agreement as to how it should be pronounced, it is better to avoid saying it at all.

My response to this begins with the name of Jesus. Do we actually pronounce Jesus as the biblical authors did? Let’s start with English. Almost no sounds in the English pronunciation correspond with the Greek pronunciation of Ἰησοῦς (depending on the reconstructed pronunciation system). Furthermore, the Greek pronunciation has very little in common with the Hebrew pronunciation it’s based on. In spite of this glaring lack of phonetic authenticity in English, we use it constantly in the world of English-speaking Christianity, without a second thought. This is certainly not because we do not respect the name of Jesus. Neither is this because every other language in the world pronounces Jesus as we do.

The same can be said of many names in the Bible, such as Eve, which we pronounce in a way that is a far cry from how it probably sounded in early and later Hebrew. Nevertheless, that disconnect and inaccuracy do not make us hesitate to pronounce that name, and many others.

Another answer to the objection is that people who have lived abroad are used to having their names mispronounced in various ways. My wife’s name is Bethany, but Latin American Spanish does not have the “th” sound in its phonetic inventory. Neither are Spanish speakers readily able to pronounce the “a” in her name as it sounds in English. So, they inevitably end up pronouncing it as BEH-tah-nee. Others prefer to use the Spanish equivalent of the name, which is Betania because the English pronunciation is too hard or confusing.

In the case with my own name, Andrew, there are some people in Spanish-speaking countries who attempt to pronounce it as close to the English as possible, but they end up saying Ahn-DREY-u, which has changed the sound rather drastically. Then there are others who simply call me (as I prefer) by the equivalent Spanish name, Andrés. Using the same logic as this argument against pronouncing the divine name, I ought to insist on non-English speakers addressing me exclusively with a title such as consultant or sir, or simply man. However, I am able to appreciate and navigate the reality of having my name rendered differently and, in one sense, inaccurately. Therefore, how much more must Jesus be able to bear the changes in the pronunciation of his name all over the world and throughout history! Jesus and Yahweh are the same God (e.g. Jn 8:58), therefore, if God accepts a variety of pronunciations of Jesus, he will accept various pronunciations of Yahweh.

It should also be observed that in Exodus 3 “God is expressing his desire that all people everywhere come to use this name for him. In God’s omniscience, he would have known that speakers of different languages would have to pronounce his name according to the phonetics of those languages. Nevertheless, God still indicated that this was the name by which he wanted everyone to know him.”^[234]

In conclusion, the objection to pronouncing YHWH because we cannot be 100% certain of how it was originally pronounced is not a valid objection, nor is it consistent with our treatment of other biblical names, especially the name of Jesus who is Yahweh himself. In order to be consistent with our willingness to pronounce Jesus’ name in many different ways all over the world, we must consider calling Yahweh by a name, no matter what it is. It does not matter whether it be Jehovah or Yao or Yahweh or another approximation; it simply needs to be a name (with some historic and linguistic merit) instead of a title. As Maimonides argued, true worship is more important than correct pronunciation.^[235]

“Yahweh” is Historically Artificial

A related objection to the one above is that Yahweh is an artificial reconstruction based on historical phonology. In a special edition video from “Daily Dose of Hebrew,” Dr. Mark Futato explains why he does not believe that “Yahweh” is a correct reconstructed pronunciation:

Yahweh is a modern scholarly reconstruction of the divine name. Yahweh presumes that the divine name is a hiphil imperfect third person masculine singular from הוה. The Yah is no doubt correct. We have clear evidence for this in a number of forms. One example is hallelu-yah. …Yah is a short form for the divine name as Mike is short for Michael or John is short for Jonathan, or Liz is short for Elizabeth. The –weh, however, is doubtful in my opinion and in the opinion of other Old Testament scholars.

The waw preserves an early form, before syllable-initial waws became yod…. The original הוה became היה….which represents the shift from the syllable-initial waw to yod. The segol he presumes a later form, when the original final yod was dropped and only a vowel was left, written with a he. If you’ve learned your 3-he verbs, you know that most of them originally ended with a yod. That yod was dropped, and all we had left was a vowel, and that vowel ends up getting written with a he…. Before 900 B.C., the final he would have been a consonant, because before 900 B.C. there were no vowels represented in Hebrew writing at all. So the true original הוי eventually became היה. What’s the point? The point is that –weh is a mixture of early and late elements. The waw as the second root letter presumes a very early form; the he at the end presumes a much later form. And this mixture of early and late forms just makes no sense. And so I’m not one who would vote on a translation committee for using Yahweh in translation.^[236]

Futato bases his claims on The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which implies that YHWH would have most likely been pronounced as “Yahawaha” around the time of Moses, but they admit this is pure speculation:

Actually, there is a problem with the pronunciation “Yahweh.” It is a strange combination of old and late elements. The first extra-Biblical occurrence of the name is in the Moabite Stone of about 850 b.c. At that time vowel letters were just beginning to be used in Hebrew. If YHWH represents a spelling earlier than 900 b.c. (as would seem likely), the final “h” should have been pronounced. The pronunciation Yahweh assumes the ending of a lamed-he verb, but these verbs in Moses’ day ended in a “y” (cf. for bānâ the Ug. impf. ybny). So the ending “eh” is a late form. But in Hebrew in late times a “w’” that began a word or syllable changed to “y” (as in the pe-waw verbs and the verb hāyâ itself). So the “w” of Yahweh represents a pre-mosaic pronunciation but the final “eh” represents probably a post-davidic form.

In view of these problems it may be best simply to say that YHWH does not come from the verb hāwâ (presumably hawaya in its early form) at all. There are many places in the ot where it is now recognized that the parallel of a name and its meaning is not necessarily etymological. For instance, I Sam 1:20 probably does not mean that the name Samuel is derived from the verb šāmaʿ “to hear.” Genesis 11:9 does not mean that Babel comes from the verb bālal “confusion” but only that the two words sound somewhat alike. Likewise Jacob is said to mean both “heel” (Gen 25:26) and “supplanter” (Gen 27:36). There are many other examples of this device which is to be taken as a paranomasia, a play on words, rather than as an etymology. Therefore we may well hold that YHWH does not come from the verb hāwâ which is cited in the first person ʾehyeh “I will be,” but is an old word of unknown origin which sounded something like what the verb hāwâ sounded in Moses’ day. In this case we do not know what the pronunciation was; we can only speculate. However, if the word were spelled with four letters in Moses’ day, we would expect it to have had more than two syllables, for at that period there were no vowel letters. All the letters were sounded.

At the end of the ot period the Elephantine papyri write the word YHW to be read either yāhû (as in names like Shemayahu) or yāhô (as in names like Jehozadek). The pronunciation yāhô would be favored by the later Greek form iaō found in Qumran Greek fragments (2nd or 1st centuries b.c.) and in Gnostic materials of the first Christian centuries. Theodoret in the fourth century a.d. states that the Samaritans pronounced it iabe. Clement of Alexandria (early 3d century a.d.) vocalized it as iaoue. These are quite late witnesses and seem to contradict the much earlier Jewish witness of Elephantine and the name elements, none of which end in “eh.”^[237]

Futato and the TWOT are arguing that YHWH would have originally had four syllables instead of two. Yet I find Futato’s conclusion inconsistent: YHWH should not be pronounced, and no approximation of it should be used in a translation. If he knows a better way of pronouncing it based on historical morphology, why doesn’t he use it?

It seems to boil down to this: Futato thinks that “Yahweh” is wrong, but he also realizes that any other suggestion would be speculation (albeit closer to the mark than Yahweh in his mind). He understands that we don’t know the exact pronunciation of a word at the time of Moses because there were no recording devices. Thus, his conclusion is that we should not try to pronounce it or render it in translation.

In the end, as already argued in the previous section, it doesn’t matter if “Yahweh” turns out to be slightly or drastically different from the original pronunciation at Sinai. What matters is how we seek to understand, obey, and honor God’s explicit desire in Exodus 3:15.

It Spoils the Literary Effect

Similar to the objection of the CSB committee, Michael D. Marlowe, the editor of bible-researcher.com voices the following complaint about the Jerusalem Bible’s use of Yahweh: “The Hebrew tetragrammaton or divine name (represented as ‘Lord’ in the New Testament) is everywhere rendered ‘Yahweh,’ which spoils the literary effect of many passages, especially in the Psalms.”^[238]

My response to this objection is simple: literary effect is subjective, and thus should not be given as a significant argument for or against the use of Yahweh. Gleason Archer expresses the exact opposite opinion about the same Jerusalem Bible in the following:

The avowed purpose of these translators is to abandon all traditional Bible-English and to produce a completely new rendering on the basis of contemporary English vocabulary and usage. This pursuit of modernity has not gone to the extremes of the New English Bible, nor is it a mere Phillips paraphrase. Actually it often displays a real vitality which is refreshingly original, and lends a heightened impact to the thought of the ancient author. Very striking is the abandonment of the traditional “LORD” for the Tetragrammaton, and also the traditional “Jehovah,” in favor of the historical pronunciation, “Yahweh.” The RSV, the NEB and most other modern translations have shied away from this, but it looks and sounds very well (to this reviewer, at least) in this work, and it may serve to encourage future translators to follow suit.^[239]

---

Conclusion

Barry Webb in the introduction to his translation and commentary on Judges provides a model for how to deal with this issue both humbly and honestly. He writes:

There is admittedly something rather presumptuous about scholars (especially Christian ones) deciding to use the personal name of God (in reality their own hypothetical version of it) when those who transmitted the text to us as Holy Scripture refrained from doing so. Nevertheless I have chosen to render the Tetragrammaton as Yahweh, mainly because of the intensely personal way in which God is depicted in the Judges narrative—as a character interacting with other characters and manifesting all the angst involved in being in a committed relationship with people who are again and again unfaithful to him. A descriptive title such as Lord seemed to me to throw the emphasis too much on one dimension of this relationship at the expense of others, and therefore to be much less suited to the drama involved than the personal Name. I hope that Jewish readers will forgive my impertinence.^[240]

This book set out to answer two primary questions:

1. Would it be better for translations of the Hebrew Bible to use some approximation of Yahweh, or a title like “the Lord?”
2. When teaching and reading Hebrew today outside of Israel, would it be better to pronounce his name as some approximation like Yahweh, or say adonai (Lord)?

I have done my best to consider carefully the two primary criteria (Exodus 3:15 and the NT’s use of kurios, Lord) and answer objections. My response to question one would be to use some approximation of Yahweh, for the following main reasons:

1. It honors God’s desire in Exodus 3:15.
2. It does not undermine the purpose of the NT writers in using kurios to highlight Jesus’ divinity and identification as Yahweh himself, since the title adonai is used hundreds of times in the OT, which would serve to accomplish what the NT writers wanted while at the same time maintain its familiar sound for those who hold dear the tradition of translations using the title “Lord.”
3. Many OT verses sound awkward when a title is rendered where a name is expected.

My position in the English-speaking world would be specifically to encourage the use of the name Yahweh, not because we can be sure that Moses pronounced it that way on Mount Sinai, but rather because it has gained the widest acceptance in the pulpit and academic writing, just as we continue to use our pronunciation of Jesus in English although it is a far cry from its original pronunciation both in Hebrew and Greek.

In the rest of the world where people do not speak English, who have different phonetic inventories, I would encourage the choice of a name that approximates YHWH, rather than a title, if the community will accept it.^[241] This decision should ultimately fall to the language community, but only after meticulous deliberation and a thorough understanding of the matters presented in this book, as well as their cultural context. Furthermore, they should be able to justify their decision in light of the two primary criteria (Exodus 3:15 and the NT use of kurios) and clearly articulate their decision to others.

Regarding question two: one should try to pronounce some approximation of Yahweh when teaching and reading Hebrew.

---

Appendices

A Short Selection of Verses where a Title Substitute Is Awkward/Inadequate for YHWH

Genesis 4:26

וּלְשֵׁ֤ת גַּם־הוּא֙ יֻלַּד־בֵּ֔ן וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ אֱנ֑וֹשׁ אָ֣ז הוּחַ֔ל לִקְרֹ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה׃

Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of Yahweh.

Exodus 5:2

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֔ה מִ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶשְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹל֔וֹ לְשַׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לֹ֤א יָדַ֙עְתִּי֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֔ה וְגַ֥ם אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֹ֥א אֲשַׁלֵּֽחַ׃

Pharaoh said, “Who is Yahweh, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know Yahweh and I will not let Israel go.”

Exodus 6:3

וָאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֖ב בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם׃

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, and by my name Yahweh did I not make myself known to them?

Exodus 15:3

 יְהוָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ מִלְחָמָ֑ה יְהוָ֖ה שְׁמֽוֹ׃

Yahweh is a warrior; Yahweh is his name.

2 Samuel 6:2

וַיָּ֣קָם׀ וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ דָּוִ֗ד וְכָל־הָעָם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתּ֔וֹ מִֽבַּעֲלֵ֖י יְהוּדָ֑ה לְהַעֲל֣וֹת מִשָּׁ֗ם אֵ֚ת אֲר֣וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָ֣א שֵׁ֗ם שֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֧ה צְבָא֛וֹת יֹשֵׁ֥ב הַכְּרֻבִ֖ים עָלָֽיו׃

He and all his men went to Baalah in Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of Yahweh of armies, who is enthroned between the cherubim on the ark.

Psalm 83:19

וְֽיֵדְע֗וּ כִּֽי־אַתָּ֬ה שִׁמְךָ֣ יְהוָ֣ה לְבַדֶּ֑ךָ עֶ֜לְי֗וֹן עַל־כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Let them know that you, whose name is Yahweh—that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 135:13

יְ֭הוָה שִׁמְךָ֣ לְעוֹלָ֑ם יְ֜הוָ֗ה זִכְרְךָ֥ לְדֹר־וָדֹֽר׃

Your name, O Yahweh, endures forever, your renown, O Yahweh, through all generations.

Isaiah 26:13

יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ בְּעָל֥וּנוּ אֲדֹנִ֖ים זֽוּלָתֶ֑ךָ לְבַד־בְּךָ֖ נַזְכִּ֥יר שְׁמֶֽךָ׃

O Yahweh our God, other lords besides you have ruled over us, but your name alone we bring to remembrance.

Isaiah 42:8

אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה ה֣וּא שְׁמִ֑י וּכְבוֹדִי֙ לְאַחֵ֣ר לֹֽא־אֶתֵּ֔ן וּתְהִלָּתִ֖י לַפְּסִילִֽים׃

I am Yahweh; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

Hosea 12:6

וַֽיהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י הַצְּבָא֑וֹת יְהוָ֖ה זִכְרֽוֹ׃

Yahweh the God of armies, Yahweh is his name of renown!

---

Yahweh & the Trinity

When discussing Yahweh in redemptive history, it is not always clear in people’s minds whether Yahweh should be viewed as God the Father, or the Godhead. Across the sweep of Christian tradition (Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern) there is a remarkable continuity in understanding Yahweh as the one Trinity, as highlighted in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one!”  In light of Christ, Christians read that oneness as a unity of three co-eternal Persons. The Father is Yahweh, the Son is Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit is Yahweh. The OT predominantly refers to “Yahweh” without clarification of person, but in certain passages the persons of the Godhead are seen in conversation or collaboration, allowing later interpreters to perceive a plurality. The Son of God appears sometimes as a divine messenger, spoken of as “the messenger of Yahweh” (e.g. Gen 16, Ex 3, Judg 6).^[242] The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is the “Spirit of Yahweh” (e.g. Isa 63:10, Hag 2:5).

As B. B. Warfield noted,

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. ^[243] 

When we turn on the bright light of the New Testament, what meets our gaze is the familiar Yahweh of Israel, now clearly understood as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

---

The Enigma of Exodus 6:3

Exodus 6:3 presents a persistent interpretive challenge that has long puzzled biblical scholars and translators. This verse, as commonly rendered in English translations, states: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.” The last part reads as follows in Hebrew:   וּשְׁמִי יְהוָה לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם׃. Literally, this reads: “And my name Yahweh I was not known to them.” Notice that in Hebrew there is no preposition, so the translations that have something like “by my name” are assuming that the preposition in the preceding phrase also applies here elliptically.

This declaration appears to stand in direct contradiction to numerous passages in the book of Genesis, where the patriarchs evidently knew and invoked the name Yahweh. For instance, Abraham “called on the name of Yahweh” in Genesis 13:4. Genesis 15:6 records that Abraham “believed in Yahweh.” Abraham’s servant, seeking a wife for Isaac, “worshiped Yahweh” and declared, “Blessed be Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham” in Genesis 24:26–27. Isaac similarly acknowledged Yahweh in Genesis 26:22, and Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28:13 features Yahweh standing above him, declaring, “I am Yahweh, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac.” There are approximately 165 uses of the name Yahweh in Genesis, with around 52 occurring in direct speech, indicating it was not merely a retrospective narrative insertion but actively used by the people themselves before the time of Moses. Furthermore, God introduces himself to Abraham in Genesis 15:7 with these words: “I am Yahweh, who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans.”

Given this extensive evidence, the traditional reading of Exodus 6:3 creates a significant theological and literary incoherence. Logically, if God intended to establish trust with Moses and the Israelites, it would be counterintuitive to begin by claiming a “new” name unknown to their forefathers. Instead, it would be logical to say: “I’m Yahweh, the God your ancestors knew, and that’s why you can trust me, and that’s why the people I’m going to rescue can also trust you as my representative.” Name recognition is important when you’re trying to establish trust. Moses and the people need reassurance that this is really the same God that their fathers had known, and that he is about to keep his promises to them.

Scholarly attempts to resolve this tension have often resulted in strained interpretations. But a simple and elegant solution is offered by Dr. Dwayne Garrett in his 2014 commentary on Exodus. Garrett proposes a different translation of this part of Exodus 6:3 as follows: “But my name is Yahweh. Did I not make myself known to them?”^[244] This translation reinterprets the problematic clause as a rhetorical question, rather than a negative statement.

Hebrew questions are typically indicated by a ה (he) prefix when there is no interrogative pronoun. But the interrogative he is not necessary here, since the context of the first phrase makes it clear that God did indeed reveal himself to the patriarchs. We find rhetorical questions without the interrogative he in several other passages: Jonah 4:11, Lamentations 3:38, and 1 Samuel 20:9.

Jonah 4:11: “and should not I pity Nineveh?”
וַֽאֲנִי֙ לֹ֣א אָח֔וּס עַל־נִינְוֵ֖ה הָעִ֣יר הַגְּדוֹלָ֑ה

Lamentations 3:38: “is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”
מִפִּ֤י עֶלְיוֹן֙ לֹ֣א תֵצֵ֔א הָרָע֖וֹת וְהַטּֽוֹב׃

1 Samuel 20:9: “would I not tell you?”
וְלֹ֥א אֹתָ֖הּ אַגִּ֥יד לָֽךְ׃

The context of these passages demands that they be understood as rhetorical questions, and thus all versions translate them as questions even though they have no question marker in Hebrew.

Therefore, it is linguistically defensible to translate Exodus 6:3 as a question, and it solves an imposing apparent contradiction and dilemma. Unfortunately, most translations do not footnote this possibility. At one point the NIV had a footnote, but removed it in later editions.  

Garret is not alone in this solution. The Faithlife Study Bible comments: “The verse could be translated: ‘I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El-Shaddai. And my name is Yahweh; did I not make myself known to them?’”^[245] K.A. Kitchen supports this reading, as well as Douglas Stuart in his New American Commentary^[246] Francis Anderson, in The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, also argues for this interpretation/translation, stating that it “solves an old problem” and emphasizes what God has done, not what he did not do.^[247] Finally, the only English translation that puts this rendering in the main text is the International Standard Version, which reads: “and did I not reveal to them my name ‘LORD’”?

---

A Roman Catholic Perspective

Antonius Lupus writes:

First, we must recognize that there is no law, canonical or Divine, that forbids usage of the Divine Name even in its most proper pronunciation outside of liturgical events. Thus, one can find many Bibles, devotionals, texts, and such which have the Divine Name printed or used in such a way that expects verbal expression. The Church, being the New Israel, tolerates this practice and really doesn’t speak one way or the other, but simply asserts that the custom of the substitutionary reverence of the Name be respected. Private devotion however is a different matter. Theologically speaking, one can justify quite easily a Christian’s ability (or even right, in some sense) to verbalize the Divine Name. We are literally sons and daughters of God; we know God through the intimacy of Jesus Christ; God dwells within us, and so on. Usage of the Divine Name also can provide an intimacy with God and a sense of deepened identity with the Old Covenant, which has been continued and fulfilled in the New.

Second, it is clear that compromises can be made with the Divine Name so as to keep the usage close but imperfect out of respect for the Name. The pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is very precise and follows a form of Hebrew that is no longer spoken natively. Thus, one can easily “garble” the true pronunciations whilst keeping the general structure. Some examples include: “Yaveh,” “Iahveh,” “Yahvé,” “Yah,” “Jahveh,” “Jah,” “Iabe,” “Yao,” and so on. One can also use a device founded by our Jewish ancestors which inserts different vowels into the tetragrammaton creating new names (which are, by nature, titles) such as: “Jehovah,” “Yehowah,” “Yahoveh,” “Yiyeh,” “Jehoveh,” and more.

Third, we must recognize that the Name of God is found more fully in Christ than in the tetragrammaton. The name “Jesus” is derived from the Hebrew “Yehoshua” (meaning: “YHWH saves”). It was shortened in the mid to late Old Covenant to “Yeshua” which is the Hebrew/Aramaic form of Our Lord’s Name. Thus, anytime the Name of Jesus is mentioned, the Divine Name is included by the nature of the Hebraic formula as “Yeh,” “Yah,” and “Yoh” all form linguistically equivalent expressions of the Name: “Iahveh.” This truth reminds us that the Name of Jesus is far more exalted and worthy of reverence than even the Divine Name in the New Covenant. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

CCC, 2666: But the one name that contains everything is the one that the Son of God received in his incarnation: JESUS. The divine name may not be spoken by human lips, but by assuming our humanity The Word of God hands it over to us and we can invoke it: “Jesus,” “YHWH saves.” The name “Jesus” contains all: God and man and the whole economy of creation and salvation. To pray “Jesus” is to invoke him and to call him within us. His name is the only one that contains the presence it signifies. Jesus is the Risen One, and whoever invokes the name of Jesus is welcoming the Son of God who loved him and who gave himself up for him.

So I would say that a Christian is free to use the Divine Name (preferably in a compromised form) during his or her private devotions; especially if it is invoked in silence. Any utterance however must be accompanied by all due reverence, honor, and sense of the sacred. Any usage of the Divine Name or titles and words related to it (God, Lord, etc.) which are used disrespectfully or even frivolously is a sin against the Second Commandment. That being said, I encourage instead an increased usage and sense of reverence be cultivated in the Name of “JESUS,” as the Catechism states above. In the Name “JESUS” we receive all that was and is and will be the power of the Divine Name, YHWH, and also the very Presence of Christ in our hearts. I personally pray with the usage: “Iahveh” to God, especially on important or momentous occasions, however I strive to follow the Catechism’s teaching and rely more on the Name of Christ than the Divine Name as it was used in the Old Covenant.

I submit everything I have said, written, or implied to the judgment and correction of Holy Mother Church; most especially the Holy Roman Church under whose care I have been placed by God. Anything here that contradicts the teaching of Holy Mother Church in any way is null, void, and downright incorrect and should be seen as such.^[248]

---

Bibliography^[249]

Archer, Gleason. “The Old Testament of The Jerusalem Bible.” Westminster         Theological Journal vol. 33 (May 1971): 191-194.

Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: A History. New York: Cambridge,         2008.

Burkitt, F. Grawford. Fragments of the Book of Kings According to the         Translation of Aquila. Cambridge: University Press, 1897.

Chadwick, Henry. Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the         Early Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.

Clines, David. “Yahweh and the God of Christian Theology.” Theology vol.        83, no 695 (Sage: 1980): 323-330.

Craigie, Peter C. Jeremiah 1–25. Vol. 26 in Word Biblical Commentary.         Dallas: Word, 1991.

Daams, Nico. “Translating YHWH.” Journal of Translation vol. 1, no. 1         (2005): 47-55.

Dentan, Robert C. “The Story of the New Revised Standard Version.”         Princeton Seminary Bulletin vol 11, no. 3 (Nov 1990), 211-223.

Dillon, J. M. “The Magical Power of Names in Origen and Later Platonism.”         In Origeniana Tertia. Edited by Richard. P. C. Hanson and Henri         Crouzel. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1985: 188-207.         

Edwards, James R. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic        Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Ekem, John David K. “The Rendering of the Divine Name YHWH in Some         Ghanaian Bible Translation Projects.” The Bible Translator vol. 56,         no. 2 (2005): 71-76.

Futato, Mark. “Divine Name.” Daily Dose of Hebrew. Last Modified Oct 10,         2015. http://dailydoseofhebrew.com/special-editions/divine-name.

Gordon, Nehemia. “Ban on the Divine Name.” Grafted-In Ministries.         Accessed June 22, 2020.         http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/ban.html.

Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the         Problem of Its Canon. Trans. Mark E. Biddle. New York: T&T         Clark, 2002.

Imes, Carmen Joy. Bearing YHWH’s Name at Sinai: A Re-Examination of the         Name Command of the Decalogue. Bulletin for Biblical Research         Supplement Series 19. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018.

__________. “Top Ten Myths about the Ten Commandments (Part 3).”         Chastened Intuitions. Last Modified May 23, 2018.         https://carmenjoyimes.blogspot.com/2018/05/shattered-top-ten-        myths-about-ten.html.

Jones, Alexander ed. The Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

King, Phil. “Perspectives on Translating YHWH in Papua New Guinea.”         Academia.edu. Last modified Aug 2014.         https://www.academia.edu/7781444/Perspectives_on_Translating_Y        HWH_in_Papua_New_Guinea.

Luther, Martin. Word and Sacrament I. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann, E.         Theodore Bahmann, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Abdel Ross Wentz, Robert         H. Fischer, Martin E. Lehmann. Vol. 35 in Luther’s Works.         Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999.

Marlowe, Michael. “יהוה: The Translation of the Tetragrammaton.” Bible         Research. Last Modified Sept 2011. http://www.bible-        researcher.com/tetragrammaton.html.

__________. “The Jerusalem Bible (1966).” Bible Research. Accessed May 6,         2020. http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerusalem-bible.html.

Michaels, J. Ramsey, 1 Peter. Vol. 49 in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas:         Word, 1998.

Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary         on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Moomo, David “Translating YHWH into African languages.” Scriptura vol.         88 (2005): 151-60.

Payne, J. Barton.”יהוה” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.         Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K.         Waltke. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999: 211.

Priestly, Joseph. “Rules of Translating for A Plan to Procure a Continually         Improving Translation of the Scriptures.” In The Theological and         Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Priestley. Edited by John T. Rutt.         Vol. 17. London: G. Smallfield, 1820.

Rai, Benjamin. “What Is His Name? Translation of Divine Names in Some         Major North Indian Languages.” The Bible Translator vol 43, no. 4         (1992): 443-46.

Rosel, Martin. “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the         Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch.” Journal for the Study         of the Old Testament vol. 31 (2001): 411–428.

Rosin, Helmut. The Lord Is God: The Translation of the Divine Names and         the Missionary Calling of the Church. Amsterdam: Netherlands Bible         Society, 1956.

Roukema, Riemer. “Jesus and the Divine Name in the Gospel of John.” In         Revelation of the Name: Perspective from Judaism, the Pagan         Graeco-Roman World, and Early        Christianity. Edited by George         H. van Kooten. Leiden: Brill, 2006: 207-223.

Shaw, Frank. “The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iaô.” PhD         dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 2002.

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. Vol. 31 in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas:         Word, 1987.

Surls, Austin D. “Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus:         From Etymology to Literary Onomastics.” PhD dissertation,         Wheaton College, 2015.

Taylor, Charles. Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-        Schechter Collection: Including a Fragment of the Twenty-Second         Psalm According to Origen’s Hexapla. Cambridge: University Press,         1900.

Tov, Emanuel. “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert.” In The Bible as a         Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. Edited         by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: Oak Knoll, 2002:         337-352.

Thompson, Henry O. “Yahweh.” In Vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary.         Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1996:         1011-1012.

Unseth, Peter. “Sacred Name Bible Translations in English: A Fast-Growing         Phenomenon.” Bible Translator vol. 62, no. 3: 185-194.

Vasileiadis, Pavlos D. “Aspects of Rendering the Sacred Tetragrammton in         Greek.” Open Theology vol. 1 (2014): 56-88.

Verbruggen, Jan. “Pronouncing the Divine Name.” Transformed: Living the         Gospel in an Everyday World. Last Modified Dec 9, 2013.         https://transformedblog.westernseminary.edu/2013/12/09/pronouncin        g-the-divine-name/.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament:         Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible Baker         Publishing Group. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,         2018.

Wansbrough, Dom Henry. The Revised New Jerusalem Bible. New York:         Penguin Random         House, 2019.

Warfield, Benjamin B. “Review of the American Standard Version”.         Presbyterian and Reformed Review vol. 13 (1902), 646.

Webb, Barry. The Book of Judges. New International Commentary on the Old         Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Wevers, J.W. “The Rendering of the Tetragram in the Psalter and the         Pentateuch: A Comparative Study.” In The Old Greek Psalter Studies         in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by Robert J.V. Hiebert et al.         Sheffield: Bloomsbury, 2001: 21-35.

Wilkinson, Robert. Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew         Name of God — From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century.         Leiden: Brill, 2015.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Andrew Case grew up on the mission field in Oaxaca, Mexico, and is a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Canada Institute of Linguistics. He serves as a Bible translation consultant, and he and his wife Bethany strive to teach biblical Hebrew to the global Church through their YouTube channel Aleph with Beth and their website freehebrew.online. The music he writes is available on major platforms. He also produces the podcast Working for the Word. Visit hismagnificence.com to find out more.

OTHER BOOKS BY ANDREW CASE

• Cristina of Aspen Aisle
• Evangeline of Sky Valley
• Abolish the Jesus Trade: Spread the Joy of Freely Giving
• Praying the Bible Together
• Water of the Word: Intercession for Her
• Prayers of an Excellent Wife
• Praying the Light
• Setting Their Hope in GOD:
  Biblical Intercession for Your Children

---