Kindest Regards, mee!
The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible. In this he included the name of God, usually spelled Iehouah, in several verses,
Genesis 15:2; Exodus 6:3; 15:3; 17:16; 23:17; 33:19; 34:23; Deuteronomy 3:24. Tyndale also included God’s name in Ezekiel 18:23 and 36:23, in his translations that were added at the end of The New Testament, Antwerp, 1534.
and in a note in this edition he wrote: "Iehovah is God’s name . . . Moreover as oft as thou seist LORD in great letters (except there be any error in the printing) it is in Hebrew Iehovah." From this the practice arose of using Jehovah’s name in just a few verses and writing "LORD" or "GOD" in most other places where the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text.
In 1611 what became the most widely used English translation, the Authorized Version, was published. In this, the name appeared four times in the main text. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) "Jah," a poetic abbreviation of the name, appeared in Psalm 68:4. And the name appeared in full in place-names such as "Jehovah-jireh." (Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24) However, following the example of Tyndale, the translators in most instances substituted "LORD" or "GOD" for God’s name. But if God’s name could appear in four verses, why could it not appear in all the other thousands of verses that contain it in the original Hebrew?
The Tyndale Bible predates the KJV by some number of years, enough that it was the Bible of choice for awhile amongst English Christians. Did you notice you are actually reinforcing what I pointed to, that "Jehovah" / "Iehovah" is an English corruption of the Hebrew Name of the Most High? ("The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530") Note please that you also reinforce what I said about the letter "j," which didn't come along until about 1555 AD.
Allow me to posit an example to further the literary complications. How does one pronounce the name "Jan?" In America, we instinctively pronounce it to rhyme with "can," as a shortened form of the female name Janet or Janice. However, in certain Northern European countries the name "Jan" is a male name that is pronounced more like "yawn." Add the Celtic twist of Ian. And what we end up with
properly translated into American English is the name "John." However, we cannot say definitively that a name spelled by this example is in fact to be translated as "John" without first considering linguistic and cultural context. For all we can know, not being linguists and dependent upon what *real* linguists tell us, it may even be a shortened form of "
janitor" or some such. I jest, but only to make the point.
The Tetragrammaton begins with a Hebrew letter yod. A word that begins with a "y" shouldn't by proper English linguistic construction be pronounced as a "j." A j is a j, a y is a y, and an i is an i.
Of course, it is probably just as well to continue using the English corruption of the Name and maintain a semblance of innocence, rather than risk fool heartedly breaking the Command not to vainly utter the name (or cause others to). I am no rabbi or preacher, but this is how I understand this issue. There is a bit of a difference though, in suggesting that the corrupted name is
the one and only name, which any student of Bible translation would see right through as not being correct. Jehovah is
a Name of the Most High, but it is merely another appointed by humans. Jehovah is not
the Name of the Most High.
Dondi brought up an excellent point (Thanks Dondi!). "Which does bring up the question, should we be using the original pronounciation of God and Jesus in our praise and worship, or is it enough that we understand the concept behind the names we are familiar in our own language?" We (protestants) have a number of denominations among us who claim to be taking themselves back to the foundational or fundamental aspects of the faith...but how can this be when something as patently simple as properly pronouncing a name is overlooked? I have raised this issue before, even among those who use another corrupted form of the Name (which I will not repeat because it does head a bit closer to the forbidden zone). Always the same response, that it doesn't matter except when it does matter...denominational interpretation. Depends who is behind the pulpit. Lord help you if you actually dare to read and cipher the text yourself! I stand by the idiom "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander." If one is going to insist upon names being properly pronounced, then one must be consistent and pronounce
all names precisely in their original tongue. Alternately, I think one should lay off the heavy handed rhetoric and accept that most names (if not all, included that of the Most High) are transliterations at best once one leaves the confines of the native languages. Jesus was Yashua (proper English translation "Joshua"). Mary was Miriam. Joseph was something like Yosef. James was Yacob. I have seen John spelled Iohannen, which might be Latin. And on and on and on.
So, how much stock are we to put into "intent." I think G-d responds to those who beseech Him in a polite and respectful manner, because He understands what and where that person is at and coming from. I don't think G-d will fault a person for not knowing His actual Name, nor fault a person for calling on a corrupted Name they believe fervently to be His. Likewise considering the Intercessor most Christians know as Jesus, even if that might not actually be His real name.
If one is willing to preach "unforgiving exactitude," then one better be prepared to be met with unforgiving judgment when the time comes. If one can be a bit more flexible, and allow that others might see things just a tad differently, then with what judgment we mete so shall we be judged...in other words we might have a bit of wiggle room on those things we might be just a tad off from "exactitude." We can be forgiven those things we didn't quite fully grasp, such as translational error.
There was one more point worth developing, I think it was JosephM who raised it, about appealing to the Most High as "Father." If the purpose of calling G-d by His Name is to draw oneself closer to the Divine, how can one get any closer (as Jesus showed by example) then to "draw near to the Father?" If one approaches G-d with the respect due to a loved and cherished parent, how can one possibly go wrong? That is about as intimate with the Divine as one can hope for in this existence.
