no more Yahweh

[NetNuncio]

Devout Jews avoid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (Y----h) out of respect for God’s Holy Name, usually substituting another name like Adonai. I am very glad that the Vatican has addressed this issue. Granted, the Name is not pronounceable, and earlier, less-accurate versions (such as Jehovah) were more commonly used in the past, but the Name of God should always be held in the highest esteem.

Not to mention that the Tetragrammaton has no pronunciation. Any attempt to pronounce it, therefor, is not a proper pronunciation.

 

[DaveBj]

Not to mention that the Tetragrammaton has no pronunciation. Any attempt to pronounce it, therefor, is not a proper pronunciation.

That’s not necessarily true. There is a pronunciation, only it has been forgotten. If you get enough people guessing, someone would hit it right, only no one would know when he/she did. “Jahweh” (German “j” = “y”, German “w” = “v”, “a” as in “father,” “e” as in “wet” (only with the tongue a little higher), and both “h’s” pronounced is the best scholarly reconstruction, and I believe it’s very close, if not exactly on the money.

As I pointed out in another thread, if mispronunciation of divine names is a problem, then we’re all in deep doo-doo every time we say “dzhee-zus”.

DaveBj

 

[Digitonomy]

The prudent thing for the publshing house to have done was to…pull down the questionable music until such time as the songs were either rewritten or deleted.

Another reason for OCP to retain the music on their website occurred to me this weekend when I heard the carillon at a Catholic church playing “Sing a New Song.” The music is not just used for singing by a choir or congregations, it is also sometimes played simply as instrumental music.

It might have been prudent to put a note about the “Yahweh” letter on the webpage of each affected song, so that those thinking of downloading it would be aware, if for whatever reason the proper channels of notification had failed to reach them.

It is a bit unfortunate the CDW hatched this ruling without any prior warning, with only the standard 90 days for it to go into effect. It’s even more unfortunate that the bishops have failed to get the message out about the ruling. I suppose some of that can be traced to a failure in Rome to have public relations and implementation carefully planned out, in the way that say the new GIRM, or Summorum Pontificum, or the new liturgy translation have been. This is apparently not seen as having quite the importance of those documents.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s not necessarily true. There is a pronunciation, only it has been forgotten. If you get enough people guessing, someone would hit it right, only no one would know when he/she did. “Jahweh” (German “j” = “y”, German “w” = “v”, “a” as in “father,” “e” as in “wet” (only with the tongue a little higher), and both “h’s” pronounced is the best scholarly reconstruction, and I believe it’s very close, if not exactly on the money.

As I pointed out in another thread, if mispronunciation of divine names is a problem, then we’re all in deep doo-doo every time we say “dzhee-zus”.

DaveBj

Actually, the only one who could utter the name was the priest and this was done only once a year. Jesus could utter it because that was His name and it belonged to Him. Furthermore, he is our High Priest.

Therefore, the Holy See is only restating what has been held for centuries. Incidentally, the whole “Yahweh” usage didn’t crop up until the late 1960s-70s, when the Joan Baez-style songs were written. I suspect that the word was used in lieu of using the more doctrinally, scripturally and liturgically appropriate word “Fathe.”

 

[benedictgal]

Another reason for OCP to retain the music on their website occurred to me this weekend when I heard the carillon at a Catholic church playing “Sing a New Song.” The music is not just used for singing by a choir or congregations, it is also sometimes played simply as instrumental music.

It might have been prudent to put a note about the “Yahweh” letter on the webpage of each affected song, so that those thinking of downloading it would be aware, if for whatever reason the proper channels of notification had failed to reach them.

It is a bit unfortunate the CDW hatched this ruling without any prior warning, with only the standard 90 days for it to go into effect. It’s even more unfortunate that the bishops have failed to get the message out about the ruling. I suppose some of that can be traced to a failure in Rome to have public relations and implementation carefully planned out, in the way that say the new GIRM, or Summorum Pontificum, or the new liturgy translation have been. This is apparently not seen as having quite the importance of those documents.

I would respectfully caution you against accusing the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments of hatching anything. The truth is that this issue popped up seven years ago in the document Liturgicam Authenticam, the document that the Church mandated be used as the guideline for liturgical translation. This is the same document that has provided the guiding principle for the translations of the Roman Missal.

LA says, in part:

) in accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.

This section was referenced in the letter sent by Francis Cardinal Arinze. Therefore, if the provision already existed seven years ago, how can you say that the CDWDS hatched this idea?

 

[Digitonomy]

The truth is that this issue popped up seven years ago in the document Liturgicam Authenticam, the document that the Church mandated be used as the guideline for liturgical translation.

LA says, in part…

This section was referenced in the letter sent by Francis Cardinal Arinze. Therefore, if the provision already existed seven years ago, how can you say that the CDWDS hatched this idea?

As you mention, Liturgicam Authenticam was intended as a guideline for liturgical translation. So it was intended to apply to those liturgical texts to be translated from Latin, or from biblical languages, as the case may be. It was not intended to regulate the content of homilies or hymns. In fact, the document uses these examples to show that while their composition may be looser and more explanatory, and may stem from other vernacular sources, this approach must not be applied to translations of liturgical texts. Clearly hymns and homilies are not the target of Liturgicam Authenticam.

While one may argue that it might be appropriate to extend one or another guideline from Liturgicam Authenticam to hymns, that was not an idea expressed in LA itself.

 

[benedictgal]

As you mention, Liturgicam Authenticam was intended as a guideline for liturgical translation. So it was intended to apply to those liturgical texts to be translated from Latin, or from biblical languages, as the case may be. It was not intended to regulate the content of homilies or hymns. In fact, the document uses these examples to show that while their composition may be looser and more explanatory, and may stem from other vernacular sources, this approach must not be applied to translations of liturgical texts. Clearly hymns and homilies are not the target of Liturgicam Authenticam.

While one may argue that it might be appropriate to extend one or another guideline from Liturgicam Authenticam to hymns, that was not an idea expressed in LA itself.

Actually, the prototype for Sing a New Song, the USCCB document, took its cue from Liturgicam Authenticam. In fact, LA calls for authentic translation even for songs used in the liturgy.

As I noted in my previous post, the fact that Francis Cardinal Arinze referenced LA in his letter means that music was also on the list covered under LA. Therefore, one cannot say that OCP was blindsided with this ruling when LA has been in place for nearly seven years.

 

[Digitonomy]

Actually, the prototype for Sing a New Song, the USCCB document, took its cue from Liturgicam Authenticam.

Sing to the Lord does not appear to include any mention of Yahweh, YHWH, the tetragrammaton, or the Name of the Lord. Since it took its cue from Liturgiam Authenticam, I would suggest that’s a further indication that the use of “Yahweh” in hymns was not understood to be a problem.

benedictgal:

In fact, LA calls for authentic translation even for songs used in the liturgy.

As I read it, LA calls for authentic translation for songs used in liturgical texts, and appears to warn against using the less strict standards of normal hymns as a basis for rendering sung liturgical texts (such as the Psalm, or the Gloria):

1. A great part of the liturgical texts are composed with the intention of their being sung by the priest celebrant, the deacon, the cantor, the people, or the choir. For this reason, the texts should be translated in a manner that is suitable for being set to music. Still, in preparing the musical accompaniment, full account must be taken of the authority of the text itself. Whether it be a question of the texts of Sacred Scripture or of those taken from the Liturgy and already duly confirmed, paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place.[39]

benedictgal:

the fact that Francis Cardinal Arinze referenced LA in his letter means that music was also on the list covered under LA.

This is something of an ex post facto argument. The fact that Cardinal Arinze referenced LA in his letter does not mean anyone else interpreted LA with the meaning Arinze apparently supposes it had.

 

[benedictgal]

Sing to the Lord does not appear to include any mention of Yahweh, YHWH, the tetragrammaton, or the Name of the Lord. Since it took its cue from Liturgiam Authenticam, I would suggest that’s a further indication that the use of “Yahweh” in hymns was not understood to be a problem. As I read it, LA calls for authentic translation for songs used in liturgical texts, and appears to warn against using the less strict standards of normal hymns as a basis for rendering sung liturgical texts (such as the Psalm, or the Gloria): This is something of an ex post facto argument. The fact that Cardinal Arinze referenced LA in his letter does not mean anyone else interpreted LA with the meaning Arinze apparently supposes it had.

Arinze wasn’t opining off the cuff when he wrote this letter. He was speaking as the Prefect. That’s a totally different take on things.

 

[DaveBj]

Actually, the only one who could utter the name was the priest and this was done only once a year. Jesus could utter it because that was His name and it belonged to Him. Furthermore, he is our High Priest.

Therefore, the Holy See is only restating what has been held for centuries. Incidentally, the whole “Yahweh” usage didn’t crop up until the late 1960s-70s, when the Joan Baez-style songs were written. I suspect that the word was used in lieu of using the more doctrinally, scripturally and liturgically appropriate word “Fathe.”

Someone is going to have to provide some documentation about the High Priest saying it, and then only on Yom Kippur. Old Testament usage indicates that anyone could say it in the pre-exilic days. The substitution of “Adonai” for “JHVH” was after the Exile, according to everything authoritative that I’ve read.

As for Jesus pronouncing JHVH, there’s no evidence that he ever did, and I’m not sure what you meant by that statement. My point was that if mispronunciations are a sin, then we are in big trouble when we pronounce the Name of the Savior as “Dzhee-zus,” because that is not how His actual name is pronounced.

DaveBj

 

[benedictgal]

Someone is going to have to provide some documentation about the High Priest saying it, and then only on Yom Kippur. Old Testament usage indicates that anyone could say it in the pre-exilic days. The substitution of “Adonai” for “JHVH” was after the Exile, according to everything authoritative that I’ve read.

As for Jesus pronouncing JHVH, there’s no evidence that he ever did, and I’m not sure what you meant by that statement. My point was that if mispronunciations are a sin, then we are in big trouble when we pronounce the Name of the Savior as “Dzhee-zus,” because that is not how His actual name is pronounced.

DaveBj

If you re-read what you quoted from my post, you will note that Jesus “could have” uttered it. I never said he did. Furthermore, if the Holy See has already made the declaration, even going back to Liturgicam Authenticam, why challenge it?

This declaration, made with the approval of the Holy Father, shouldn’t be challenged, but, obeyed.

 

[DaveBj]

If you re-read what you quoted from my post, you will note that Jesus “could have” uttered it. I never said he did.

Sorry. My bad.

[QUOTEFurthermore, if the Holy See has already made the declaration, even going back to Liturgicam Authenticam, why challenge it?

This declaration, made with the approval of the Holy Father, shouldn’t be challenged, but, obeyed.
[/QUOTE]

I have no intention of challenging it or disobeying it, given that it is intended to not offend the Jews in their current practice, and that it is only aimed at public Catholic worship. My only point on this issue is that banning the public pronunciation of ha-Shem is based on a Jewish tradition which, like many other human (and some Catholic) traditions (note the small t), goes way beyond what was originally intended.

DaveBj

 

[chosen_people]

Certainly more important then trying to pronounce a name never intended to be pronounced which at best can be an unverifiable guessing game is the understanding of the basis for the name of God. It is made up of the Hebrew verbs “was” “is” “will be” signifying that God was is and always will be eternal.

 

[Digitonomy]

I have no intention of challenging it or disobeying it, given… that it is only aimed at public Catholic worship.

That is what appears to be the case from the CDW letter. However, a few years ago when the CDW’s Liturgiam Authenticam addressed the issue, it appeared that it applied only to liturgical texts, not to homilies, or separate hymns, or individual prayers of the faithful.

There seems to be a bit of what military analysts call “mission creep” here. **benedictgal **among others thinks the new directive applies to songs outside of public Catholic worship, and there are certainly reasons (discussed above, around post #13) to consider that possibility.

 

[benedictgal]

That is what appears to be the case from the CDW letter. However, a few years ago when the CDW’s Liturgiam Authenticam addressed the issue, it appeared that it applied only to liturgical texts, not to homilies, or separate hymns, or individual prayers of the faithful.

There seems to be a bit of what military analysts call “mission creep” here. **benedictgal **among others thinks the new directive applies to songs outside of public Catholic worship, and there are certainly reasons (discussed above, around post #13) to consider that possibility.

I draw your attention to the final paragraph in the letter the USCCB Chairman for the Committee on Divine Worship wrote concerning the issue:

This instruction from the Congregation provides also an opportunity to offer catechesis for the faithful as an encouragement to show reverence for the Name of God in daily life, emphasizing the power of language as an act of devotion and worship.

Here, he clearly goes beyond the bounds of the liturgiy and extends this matter to daily life, devotion and worship.

 

[DaveBj]

Certainly more important then trying to pronounce a name never intended to be pronounced which at best can be an unverifiable guessing game is the understanding of the basis for the name of God. It is made up of the Hebrew verbs “was” “is” “will be” signifying that God was is and always will be eternal.

It is clear from the Torah that the Name was, in fact, intended to be pronounced, used as a basis for oaths, etc. It wasn’t until the return from the Babylonian Exile that the Jewish religious leaders, in reaction to the punishment of the Exile, decided that use of the Name “in vain” included any pronunciation of it at all (except once a year, by the High Priest).

For what it’s worth, and to preclude anyone’s thinking wrongly of me, the only time I use the Name is in scholarly contexts like this thread.

DaveBj