Is giving God the erroneous name of Jehovah anthropomorphic in essence?

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Jehovah Witnesses constantly castigate Catholics, in particular, in thier Watchtower magazines for being pagan idolaters. However it has often occured to me that by giving God the erroneous name of Jehovah they are in essence displaying a tendency toward anthropomorphism or projecting humane emotions upon a non humane being or in this case emotions of the creature on the uncreated being. And that this proccess ultimately devolves into a theology of Dualism, which is every where displayed in thier propaganda, and constitutes a very real form of Idolatory. Both of which are incompatable with true religion and the authentic worship of the one true God.

 

[edward_george]

It’s not really anthropomorphic in the sense that calling God “Jehovah” doesn’t bestow any human characteristics upon our image of God. To anthropomorphize God would be to make God seem human, i.e. to talk about him in human terms in a way that is not simply analogous to human activity, but equal to it. Calling God “Jehovah” is more like something linguistically incorrect, but it doesn’t really have anything to say about God’s attributes. In order to see if it anthropomorphizes God, ask yourself–what exactly is “Jehovahness?” How exactly is being called “Jehovah” something like a human quality? How do humans display “Jehovahness?” I’d chalk it up to a simple (albeit persistent) translational/transliterational error, not one of anthropomorphization. Improperly anthropomorphizing God would be to say, for example, that God has emotions in a human sense (not simply analogously, i.e. describing the activity of God in terms of human emotion), or that God could sin, or that God deliberates on making choices.

-ACEGC

 

[Theophorus]

Jehovah Witnesses constantly castigate Catholics, in particular, in thier Watchtower magazines for being pagan idolaters. However it has often occured to me that by giving God the erroneous name of Jehovah they are in essence displaying a tendency toward anthropomorphism or projecting humane emotions upon a non humane being or in this case emotions of the creature on the uncreated being. And that this proccess ultimately devolves into a theology of Dualism, which is every where displayed in thier propaganda, and constitutes a very real form of Idolatory. Both of which are incompatable with true religion and the authentic worship of the one true God.

I don’t think so, I reckon its simply an over emphasises linguistical mistake rather than anthropomorphism, but it does seem to get thrown about like a talisman/magic word at times. Although the few JWs I’ve spoken to do seem to betray a post enlightenment, semi-materialistic understanding of God the Father which this over-emphasis doesn’t help.

 

[ltwin]

As far as I’m aware, “Jehovah” is a botched reconstruction of the tetragrammaton or proper name of God----YHWH, which most linguists today say is pronounced “Yahweh.”

I don’t think it anthropomorphizes God. I think its just the case that at the time the Jehovah’s witnesses got started, people thought that the tetragrammaton was pronounced "Jehovah.’

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Jehovah Witnesses constantly castigate Catholics, in particular, in thier Watchtower magazines for being pagan idolaters. However it has often occured to me that by giving God the erroneous name of Jehovah they are in essence displaying a tendency toward anthropomorphism or projecting humane emotions upon a non humane being or in this case emotions of the creature on the uncreated being. And that this proccess ultimately devolves into a theology of Dualism, which is every where displayed in thier propaganda, and constitutes a very real form of Idolatory. Both of which are incompatable with true religion and the authentic worship of the one true God.

In the words of God Himself when Moses enquired about the name and authority for the ‘Ten Commandments’ - ‘I AM that which I AM’.

-Or to put it in the words of the Bard of Avon - 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet … '.

God’s nature/reality is not usurped by any particular name - the important thing is that what you call ‘Him’ is done so with reverence.

 

[cheezey]

In the words of God Himself when Moses enquired about the name and authority for the ‘Ten Commandments’ - ‘I AM that which I AM’.

-Or to put it in the words of the Bard of Avon - 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet … '.

God’s nature/reality is not usurped by any particular name - the important thing is that what you call ‘Him’ is done so with reverence.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

As others have said “Jehovah” is just an attempted reconstruction of the tetragrammaton, one that Catholic authors occasionally used a hundred years ago too though we now realize it was in error.

The more interesting question, at least to me, is therefore whether it is appropriate to use the tetragrammaton itself, whichever reconstruction we accept as the correct one. Our confidence in Jesus and our veneration of his name above every other name probably mean that in principle we can use it, but there are arguments against actually doing this.

Sheer tradition is one, since we have always replaced it with titles like “the LORD” in Old Testament translations and such. But this tradition is probably with good reason. The original name that God revealed to Moses was more a refusal to give a name to uncreated Being, as though he were an anthropomorphic storm-god, than an actual personal name. This etymology however is not obvious for English-speakers. The name thus loses its profound meaning and begins to sound like we are giving God an ordinary personal name. It becomes something close to deciding God’s name is Bill and addressing him as such.

Still another concern is the scruples of the Jews about this issue. In the spirit of St. Paul’s instructions on diet, we should not create such unnecessary scandals for others.

 

[adf417]

I do see the anthropomorphism state espoused when the JW is in a proselytizing or apologetics frame of mind. If you listen to their reasoning to the importance of the use of “Jehovah”, above common scripture passages, you can notice the anthropomorphizing.

It would go something like this…“Don’t you think God wants us to know and use his personal name? After all you wouldn’t want me to address you by your title would you?”

This is one of the most powerful usages of their apologetics in getting people in touch with their own inner most feelings, applying it to God’s feelings, and tying it back to their personal understanding…What a powerful tool!

Peace!!!

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Thank you every one who has replied. Very interesting.
I suppose my point is. That by applying a man made created name to God, even though it is a mistaken translitteration of the sacred tetragramaton, at it’s core it is an attempt to reduce God to the humane level, as stated in the reply by adf417. This can be seen in some of the witnesses older litterature when they stated that God lived in the Paladian Constilation, i.e. God needs a home and place of residence just like us.
Also the logical conclusion to this is an attempt to bring God down to humane understanding rather than humanes raising themselves and understanding towards God. The most obviouse result of this proccess is the interpritation of scripture in a purely rational, humane way.
Also remember that Idolatry does not nessacerily require a graven image, at it’s core it is applying humane attributes to God.

Thoughts please.

 

[edward_george]

Thank you every one who has replied. Very interesting.
I suppose my point is. That by applying a man made created name to God, even though it is a mistaken translitteration of the sacred tetragramaton, at it’s core it is an attempt to reduce God to the humane level, as stated in the reply by adf417. This can be seen in some of the witnesses older litterature when they stated that God lived in the Paladian Constilation, i.e. God needs a home and place of residence just like us.
Also the logical conclusion to this is an attempt to bring God down to humane understanding rather than humanes raising themselves and understanding towards God. The most obviouse result of this proccess is the interpritation of scripture in a purely rational, humane way.
Also remember that Idolatry does not nessacerily require a graven image, at it’s core it is applying humane attributes to God.

Thoughts please.

All names we give God are man-made names for God; even the Tetragrammaton is not pronounceable (the pronunciation was lost because it was never spoken, and even when it is written out in Hebrew with the vowel points on it, it is written so as to be intentionally misspelled so that the reader will know not to pronounce it out loud). You should look up what St. Thomas Aquinas means by “analogy of being” (analogia entis). It’s basically how we can use human terms to speak of God analogously, without diminishing God’s divinity. Ultimately it’s a fruit of the Incarnation; since God created all things, all things are good and can lead us back to God, and since God walked among us and renewed creation, that creation can be a sign of God. All aspects of that creation can be a sign of God–whether it is the word “God” or the Blessed Eucharist itself (which is both sign and He who is signified). If we deny that earthly things can get us to God, we lapse into a vision of a God who is so transcendent that he couldn’t possibly have anything to do with us, and we fall into either faithlessness or fundamentalism.

-ACEGC

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Thank you edward george.
I agree with your points entirely. With respect to the tetragramatron I have read that amongst the many interpritations one that has gained a lot of support is that it is the first or third person singular of the hebrew verb “To Be” thus it has two aspects one is to give God a name which makes God more accessable to us and at the same time it describes God’s uncreated, eternal and singular exsistance.
This aspect sets the Tetragramton apart from all other names for God or gods such as Zeus, Thor or Jehovah and I guess my point is, that by rendering the tetragramaton into any other form diminishes it’s original meaning and starts us down the anthropomorphic path.

Thoughts please.

 

[edward_george]

Thank you edward george.
I agree with your points entirely. With respect to the tetragramatron I have read that amongst the many interpritations one that has gained a lot of support is that it is the first or third person singular of the hebrew verb “To Be” thus it has two aspects one is to give God a name which makes God more accessable to us and at the same time it describes God’s uncreated, eternal and singular exsistance.
This aspect sets the Tetragramton apart from all other names for God or gods such as Zeus, Thor or Jehovah and I guess my point is, that by rendering the tetragramaton into any other form diminishes it’s original meaning and starts us down the anthropomorphic path.

Thoughts please.

Again, you have to maintain a balance between over-anthropomorphizing God and denying that analogous terms can even be used to speak of God at all. Also, as for the etymology of the tetragrammaton, there are several different interpretations. Some scholars reject the idea that it means “being itself,” since that’s reading a more Hellenistic concept into a Semitic text, a concept that would have been unfamiliar to the ancient near east. I’ll have to dig up some notes, I wrote a paper on the Hebrew text of Exodus 3, 14 a while back.

-ACEGC

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Thanks edward george,
That would be great if you could dig up some notes from your paper on Exodus 3:14 and share them. I have also read that the Tetragramatron is actualy a shortend form of what was probably something like “I or He who causes to be” or “Brings into exsistance”.

While we are on the subject I often say to Jehovahs Witnesses that if we call God Jehovah by the same reasoning we may as well call him Bruce although I admit this is unkind, is it unfair?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I do see the anthropomorphism state espoused when the JW is in a proselytizing or apologetics frame of mind. If you listen to their reasoning to the importance of the use of “Jehovah”, above common scripture passages, you can notice the anthropomorphizing.

It would go something like this…“Don’t you think God wants us to know and use his personal name? After all you wouldn’t want me to address you by your title would you?”

This is one of the most powerful usages of their apologetics in getting people in touch with their own inner most feelings, applying it to God’s feelings, and tying it back to their personal understanding…What a powerful tool!

Peace!!!

I agree, to a lot of people it is a powerful argument.

However, I don’t think the tetragrammaton is a name at all, so it can’t be used in the same way the false gods have names, like Zeus or Jupiter, etc. To try to use it so brings God down to their level, and our human level.

And since “Jehovah” is known to be a made up corruption, and in view of the fact we really don’t know how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, how can we possibly use God’s name? It would be like your telling someone your name, and later they come and say they have forgotten what you told them and they have made up another name, “Charlie”, and they will call you that. Would you approve? The same with calling God “Jehovah”. This does away with the Witnesses’ argument.

Ask a Witness, how can a word made up in the middle ages by a Catholic monk possibly be God’s name?

 

[edward_george]

I agree, to a lot of people it is a powerful argument.

However, I don’t think the tetragrammaton is a name at all, so it can’t be used in the same way the false gods have names, like Zeus or Jupiter, etc. To try to use it so brings God down to their level, and our human level.

And since “Jehovah” is known to be a made up corruption, and in view of the fact we really don’t know how to pronounce the tetragrammaton, how can we possibly use God’s name? It would be like your telling someone your name, and later they come and say they have forgotten what you told them and they have made up another name, “Charlie”, and they will call you that. Would you approve? The same with calling God “Jehovah”. This does away with the Witnesses’ argument.

Ask a Witness, how can a word made up in the middle ages by a Catholic monk possibly be God’s name?

It’s not a “word made up in the middle ages,” it’s an attempt to pronounce the tetragrammaton in German.

-ACEGC

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Mackbrislawn.
That is my exact point. It is one thing to do something in ignorance and quite another to do it in the light of full understanding and then make that error a dogma of faith and insist that others should do it also. And to get back to my original post, to my way of thinking it is the continuing of insisting upon this erroneous name for God in full understanding of theerror that makes it anthropomorphic.

 

[edward_george]

Mackbrislawn.
That is my exact point. It is one thing to do something in ignorance and quite another to do it in the light of full understanding and then make that error a dogma of faith and insist that others should do it also. And to get back to my original post, to my way of thinking it is the continuing of insisting upon this erroneous name for God in full understanding of theerror that makes it anthropomorphic.

I don’t think calling God “Jehovah” anthropomorphizes God, for the reasons I discussed earlier–if “Jehovahness” was a human quality, you’d have a point. I see why you’re saying what you’re saying, i.e. that giving God a personal name like that somehow over-familiarizes him, and thus causes us to anthropomorphize him. But this doesn’t have to be the case. Any human term we use for God runs this risk, the key is remembering that words are not an end of themselves, something to trap God in, but rather are a means of getting to God. When we use terms by analogy to describe God, that is, use natural-order realities to talk about supernatural-order ones, then our words become signs which lead us beyond themselves, to God.

-ACEGC

 

[mackbrislawn]

It’s not a “word made up in the middle ages,” it’s an attempt to pronounce the tetragrammaton in German.

-ACEGC

I hadn’t heard that explanation, unless you are facetious. There is no J sound in German, so the way we say it in English would not be the way a German would say it.

However, the word did have its beginnings in the middle ages by a Catholic monk, maybe he was German.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Jews of Jesus’ day did not say the name, and if they did not say it, why should we? I understand the Jews today do not say it either, so out of respect to them, maybe we shouldn’t either. Also, for whatever reason, the pope has said we shouldn’t.

 

[edward_george]

I hadn’t heard that explanation, unless you are facetious. There is no J sound in German, so the way we say it in English would not be the way a German would say it.

However, the word did have its beginnings in the middle ages by a Catholic monk, maybe he was German.

The “J” in German is pronounced like a “Y.”

-ACEGC