Jehova is in the Catholic Encyclopedia

[J1Priest]

newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

I did not read all of the article but it says,
“Jehovah (Yahweh)
The proper name of God in the Old Testament;”

and
“The Fathers and the Rabbinic writers agree in representing Jehovah as an ineffable name.”

It seems as though the Cath Enc. is “defending” or “supporting” the Name “Jehovah”. (and i just realllly dislike that)

any thoughts?

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, but it seems to acknowledge that the word is recently developed.

It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520 (cf. Hastings, “Dictionary of the Bible”, II, 1899, p. 199: Gesenius-Buhl, “Handwörterbuch”, 13th ed., 1899, p. 311). Drusius (loc. cit., 344) represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the wordJehovah, and Fagius as it propagator in the world of scholars and commentators. But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant (e.g. Cajetan and Théodore de Bèze), are perfectly familiar with the word. Galatinus himself (“Areana cathol. veritatis”, I, Bari, 1516, a, p. 77) represents the form asknown and received in his time. Besides, Drusius (loc. cit., 351) discovered it in Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the “Pugio fidei” of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745). Probably the introduction of the nameJehovah antedates even R. Martin.
No wonder then that this form has been regarded as the true pronunciation of the Divine name by such scholars as Michaelis (“Supplementa ad lexica hebraica”, I, 1792, p. 524), Drach (loc. cit., I, 469-98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache, 327), and others.

• Jehovah is composed of the abbreviated forms of the imperfect, the participle, and the perfect of the Hebrew verb “to be” (ye=yehi; ho=howeh; wa=hawah). According to this explanation, the meaning of Jehovah would be “he who will be, is, and has been”. But such a word-formation has no analogy in the Hebrew language.
• The abbreviated form Jeho supposes the full form Jehovah. But the form Jehovah cannot account for the abbreviations Jahu and Jah, while the abbreviation Jeho may be derived from another word.
• The Divine name is said to be paraphrased in Apocalypse 1:4, and 4:8, by the expression ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos, in which ho erchomenos is regard as equivalent to ho eromenos, “the one that will be”; but it really means “the coming one”, so that after the coming of the Lord, Apocalypse 11:17, retains only ho on kai ho en.
• the comparison of Jehovah with the Latin Jupiter, Jovis. But it wholly neglects the fuller forms of the Latin names Diespiter, Diovis. Any connection of Jehovah with the Egyptian Divine name consisting of the seven Greek vowels has been rejected by Hengstenberg (Beitrage zur Einleiung ins Alte Testament, II, 204 sqq.) and Tholuck (Vermischte Schriften, I, 349 sqq.).

 

[Hellisreal]

Do not dislike the ones who use that name,

Learn more about them and learn how to show them Christ

Much Love,

Hell

newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

I did not read all of the article but it says,
“Jehovah (Yahweh)
The proper name of God in the Old Testament;”

and
“The Fathers and the Rabbinic writers agree in representing Jehovah as an ineffable name.”

It seems as though the Cath Enc. is “defending” or “supporting” the Name “Jehovah”. (and i just realllly dislike that)

any thoughts?

 

[Manfred]

Yes, but it seems to acknowledge that the word is recently developed.

I found your quote difficult to read and interpret.

The Introduction to the (Protestant) RSV sides with “Yahweh”, not “Jehovah”, though it uses neither in its text. The KJV and especially the ASV used “Jehovah” in the Old Testament. Both the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible actually use “Yahweh” in the Old Testament.

 

[mgrfin]

newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

I did not read all of the article but it says,
“Jehovah (Yahweh)
The proper name of God in the Old Testament;”

and
“The Fathers and the Rabbinic writers agree in representing Jehovah as an ineffable name.”

It seems as though the Cath Enc. is “defending” or “supporting” the Name “Jehovah”. (and i just realllly dislike that)

any thoughts?

If I remember my Scriptural learning, the name of God in the Old Testament is Jaweh. But since this name is so sacred, the Hebrews never pronounced it. Instead, they used the word Adonai. Jehoval is a conjunction of Jaweh and Adonai.

Some biblical scholars help us out here!!!

 

[BibleSteve]

Why is that I never hear anyone concerned over all these others Bible names that are based on the divine name, with the preface of “Jeho-“ But, when it comes to the divine name as Jeho-vah, out comes the critics. If Jehovah isn’t appropriate for the English pronunciation of God’s name, then all these other Bible names will need to be changed to be consistent.

Jeho-addah
Jeho-addan
Jeho-addin
Jeho-ahaz
Jeho-ash
Jeho-anah
Jeho-ichin
Jeho-oiada
Jeho-akim
Jeho-nadab
Jeho-nathan
Jeho-shabeath

 

[NotWorthy]

I found your quote difficult to read and interpret.

The Introduction to the (Protestant) RSV sides with “Yahweh”, not “Jehovah”, though it uses neither in its text. The KJV and especially the ASV used “Jehovah” in the Old Testament. Both the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible actually use “Yahweh” in the Old Testament.

I don’t know either. I simply clipped from the same Catholic Encyclopedia that the OP used. It seemed he was complaining that the word Jehovah is recognized by the CE. I was simply showing that the CE itself indicated that it was a man-made word, not even known by the ancient Jews.

 

[BibleSteve]

I was simply showing that the CE itself indicated that it was a man-made word, not even known by the ancient Jews.

Was the name “Jesus” used by the Jews?

Were any of these “Jeho-xxxx” names used by the Jews?

No, they weren’t. But, few complain about these because they are English equivalents.

 

[cascherman]

what is the basis for disliking the name ‘Jehovah’? I’ll be honest I have never heard of any problem over the name, protestant or catholic.

granted its not the tetragrammaton spelled out exactly and pronounced exactly, but it is just about as good as we can have, is it not?

I don’t think personal dislike is basis enough for arguing against something, in my opinion. I don’t like the fact that there is a chance I may not have the full faith necessary for salvation, but can I ‘off’ that fact if I dont like it?

is this what you are saying?

But then again, I found this on wikipedia (i know, i know its not all that reliable)
“Later, Christian Europeans who did not know about the Q’re perpetuum custom took these spellings at face value, producing the form “Jehovah” and spelling variants of it.”: %between%

 

[NotWorthy]

Was the name “Jesus” used by the Jews?

Were any of these “Jeho-xxxx” names used by the Jews?

No, they weren’t. But, few complain about these because they are English equivalents.

Have I made a single complaint about the word?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

But…but…in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, they say that “Jehovah” is the Latin name for God! Surely you can’t be calling Indy’s biblical scholarship into question!



Peace,
Dante

 

[1ke]

any thoughts?

It’s an encyclopedia, not a catechism. There are all sorts of articles in there. This article is giving a linguistic breakdown of this particular title and it’s historical origins. I don’t understand your concern.

 

[mgrfin]

Some one asked if the name “Jesus” was used by the Jews.

I always thought that “Joshua” was the equivalent of “Jesus”.

 

[Manfred]

… the OP was complaining that the word Jehovah is recognized by the CE. I was simply showing that the CE itself indicated that it was a man-made word, not even known by the ancient Jews.

Good for you for deciphering all those parenthetical, obscure references in the CE!

I much prefer the explanation given by the translators of the RSV in their Preface to the 1971 edition:

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 work 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.

 

[BibleSteve]

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.

The real reason is because people complained about being unfamiliar and uncomfortable about the name Jehovah.

In my opinion, these two reasons were cop outs.

1. Yes, the Hebrews didn’t say “Jehovah”… neither did they say “Jesus” or any other name derived from the Divine Name (i.e. Jeho-xxxx), or any other name that begain with the letter “J” as in the list provided about. If they want to argue that only Yah-weh is acceptable, then they must change all the Jeho-xxxx names to Yah-xxxx, and start calling Jesus by the name Yeshua.
2. The nation of Israel was surrounded by nations who worshipped false gods. Each and every one of them had names. The true God also had a name that distinguished him from all the other pagan gods… (Psa 83:18; Mal 3:16)

 

[Manfred]

The real reason is because people complained about being unfamiliar and uncomfortable about the name Jehovah.

In my opinion, these two reasons were cop outs.

1. Yes, the Hebrews didn’t say “Jehovah”… neither did they say “Jesus” or any other name derived from the Divine Name (i.e. Jeho-xxxx), or any other name that begain with the letter “J” as in the list provided about. If they want to argue that only Yah-weh is acceptable, then they must change all the Jeho-xxxx names to Yah-xxxx, and start calling Jesus by the name Yeshua.
2. The nation of Israel was surrounded by nations who worshipped false gods. Each and every one of them had names. The true God also had a name that distinguished him from all the other pagan gods… (Psa 83:18; Mal 3:16)

More than likely, none of the other names of the form “Jeho-xxxx” is correct, either, but our concern here is with the name of the Divine Himself. Even as far back as the 50s when I was in Catholic grammar school, we never used the name “Jehovah”, except in reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the 60s that we became familiar with the name “Yahweh”.

To the OP: as I mention here, I have no recollection of Catholics’ actually using the name “Jehovah” to call on the LORD. But when reading from the Jerusalem or New Jerusalem Bible, wherein the name “Yahweh” is used, I personally have no issue with that.

 

[lak611]

I found your quote difficult to read and interpret.

The Introduction to the (Protestant) RSV sides with “Yahweh”, not “Jehovah”, though it uses neither in its text. The KJV and especially the ASV used “Jehovah” in the Old Testament. Both the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible actually use “Yahweh” in the Old Testament.

There is no use of “Jehovah” in the NKJV, even though the NKJV uses the same manuscripts as the KJV. In the verses that use “Jehovah” in the KJV, the NKJV renders the Name as “LORD” or “YAH, the LORD”.

 

[lak611]

The KJV used “Jehovah” in the Old Testament.

The KJV only used “Jehovah” in four verses:

(Exo 6:3 KJV) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

(Psa 83:18 KJV) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

(Isa 12:2 KJV) Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

(Isa 26:4 KJV) Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

 

[lak611]

The ASV used “Jehovah” in the Old Testament.

The ASV used Jehovah in 5822 verses. I did a search using e-Sword.