Incommunicable Name, by Joseph B. Rotherham
![]() |
Alfons Morales on Unsplash |
(From
the Introduction section of The Emphasised Bible, A New Translation, by
Joseph Bryant Rotherham, Published 1902, London {Public Domain}).
CHAPTER
IV.
THE
INCOMMUNICABLE NAME.
As it might appear premature, at the outset of
this chapter, to spell out that Divine Name which some regard as not only
incommunicable but unpronounceable, it will be considerate to begin the present
investigations by the aid of circumlocution and abbreviation, especially as no
inconvenience will be occasioned thereby. The Tetragrammaton, or name of
four letters (in allusion to the four letters Y H W H), is a technical term
frequently employed by scholars, and will here, for a little, serve a useful
purpose. Besides employing this term, we can reverently speak of “The Name,” or
can set down the first letter only, “Y,” in the same way as critics are wont to
use the Hebrew letter yod as the intitial of the Divine Name intended.
This understood, we can intelligibly proceed. Our very first sub-division will
indicate the serious turn which this inquiry necessarily takes.
I.—THE
NAME SUPPRESSED.
A. The
Fact.
It is willingly admitted
that the suppression has not been absolute; at least so far as Hebrew and
English are concerned. The Name, in its four essential letters, was reverently
transcribed by the Hebrew copyist, and therefore was necessarily placed before
the eye of the Hebrew reader. The latter, however, was instructed not to
pronounce it, but to utter instead a less sacred name— ADONAY or ELOHIM. In
this way The Name was not suffered to reach the ear of the listener. To that
degree it was suppressed. The Septuagint, or ancient Greek version, made the
concealment complete by regularly substituting Kurios; as the Vulgate,
in like manner, employed Dominus; both Kurios and Dominus
having at the same time their own proper service to render as correctly
answering to the Hebrew Adonay, confessedly meaning “Lord.” The English
versions do nearly the same thing, in rendering The Name as LORD, and
occasionally GOD; these terms also having their own rightful office to fill as
fitly representing the Hebrew titles Adonay and Elohim and El.
So that the Tetragrammaton is nearly hidden in our public English
versions. Not quite. To those who can note the difference between “LORD” and
“Lord” and between “GOD” and “God,” and can remember that the former (printed
with SMALL CAPITALS) do while the latter do not stand for The
Name—to such an intimation of the difference is conveyed. But although the
READER who looks carefully at his book can see the distinction, yet the mere
READER remains completely in the dark respecting it, inasmuch as there is no
difference whatever in sound between “LORD” and “Lord” or “GOD” and “God.” It
hence follows that in nearly all the occurrences of The Name (some 7,000
throughout the Old Testament) the especial Name of God is absolutely withheld
from all who simply hear the Bible read. “Nearly all,” for there are about half
a dozen instances in the A.V., and a few more in the R.V., in which this
concealment does not take place. In other words there are these very few places
in which the Tetragrammaton appears as “Jehovah”; and although it may be
asked, “What are they among so many?” still their presence has an argumentative
value. If it was wrong to unveil the Tetragrammaton at all, then why do
it in these instances? If, on the other hand, it was right to let
it be seen in these cases, then why not in all? With the exceptions explained, however,
it remains true to say, that in our public versions the one especial Name of
God is suppressed, wholly concealed from the listening ear, almost as
completely hidden from the hastening or uncritical eye.
B.
The Immediate Consequences of
the Suppression.
These
are—
(i.)
Partly literary,
though more than that. Reference is here made to the confusion into which many
things are thrown through this abnormal state of things. “Baal” is “lord” and
so is “Adon” (Adonay)—that is unfortunate; but why add to the embarrassment by
rendering Y H W H (and Y H, the shorter form) also as “Lord”? Worst of all is
the confusion when “Y” and Adonay occur together, as they do many times in the
Book of Ezekiel. Inasmuch as to say, “LORD LORD” for “Adonay Y,” was too
grotesque and misleading (positively false to the ear), the new device had to be
resorted to of rendering this combination by “LORD GOD”—“GOD” in this case, and
not “Lord” at all, standing for The Name. Even Y H (the shorter form) and Y H W
H (the full form) of the Tetragrammaton,
coming together, {As in Is. xii. 2; and xxvi. 4}
caused a dilemma; though in these instances, the acuteness of the trouble
compelled the adoption of a partial remedy, and “the LORD JEHOVAH” is the
result. “Confusion,” then, is a term not a whit too strong to apply to these
varying devices. No wonder that even intelligent and educated people are
continually forgetting what they have heard or read concerning so involved a
matter.
(ii.)
Partly practical.
Is it too much to assume that The Name has about it something very grand or
very gracious, or at least something very mysterious? Whichever conclusion is
received, the question arises whether there is not something essentially
presumptuous, however little intended, in substituting for it one of the
commonest of titles, seeing that there are on earth “lords many,” and the
master of the humblest slave is his “lord”? There is surely nothing very grand
or gracious or mysterious in that! It is therefore the most natural presumption
that the suppression of The Name has entailed on the reader, and especially
upon the hearer, irreparable loss.
C.
The Reason for
the Suppression.
The
motive was good—let that be assumed. It was to safeguard the Divine Majesty in
the minds of men. It was to prevent the inconsiderate mention of Him before
whom seraphs veil their faces—though even so it is very difficult to see how
one name should occasion irreverence and another not. Why not, then, leave Him
altogether unnamed? Why not fear to allude to Him by any title that could
definitely refer to Him? The passages commonly cited as furnishing good reason
for the suppression surely cannot mean what is thus attributed to them, since
there is a wide distinction between not taking His Name in vain, and not taking
His Name into our lips at all, even for prayer or praise. In a word, the motive
is respected; but the reverence is misapplied—the reason given is seen to be
invalid.
II.—THE
NAME RESTORED.
A.
Why?
1.
Because its suppression was a mistake. So grave a mistake cannot be corrected
too soon. An unwarrantable liberty has been taken; the path of humility is to
retrace our steps.
2.
Because thereby serious evil may be averted. Men are saying to-day that “Y” was
a mere tribal name, and are suggesting that “Y” Himself was but a local deity.
As against this, only let The Name be boldly and uniformly printed, and the
humblest Sunday School teacher will be able to show the groundlessness of the
assertion.
3.
Because solid advantage may be counted upon as certain to follow the
restoration. Even if the meaning of The Name should not disclose itself, the
word itself would gradually gather about it the fitting associations—and that
would be a gain; and if the true significance of the Tetragrammaton
should be brought to light, there would be
a trained constituency to whom appeal could be made—and that would be a yet
greater gain.
A
PLAUSIBLE OBJECTION ANSWERED.— A plausible argument in favour of leaving The
Name veiled, as it is now, may be based upon its concealment by the Septuagint.
The plea takes the following form. The Septuagint conceals the Tetragrammaton
under the common title Kurios,
“Lord.” Jesus used that version as it stood, notably in citing Psalm cx. 1. {See
Mat. xxii. 41–45}. Therefore what was good enough for Him
should be good enough for us. Answer
First: Jesus Christ was not a scribe or literary
critic: His mission was much higher. Answer
Second: Jesus had to plead his Messiahship at the
bar of the Scriptures as then current; and any criticism by Him of the nation’s
Sacred Documents might have placed a needless obstacle in the people’s path. We
thus conclude that the objection may and should be set aside as inconclusive,
and so fall back on the reasons given why the Divine Name should be suffered
uniformly to appear.
B.
In What Form?
1.
Why not in the form “Jehovah”?
Is that not euphonious? It is, without question. Is it not widely used? It is,
and may still be freely employed to assist through a period of transition. But
it is not hallowed and endeared by many a beautiful hymn and many a pious
memory? Without doubt; and therefore it is with reluctance that it is here
declined. But why is it not accepted? There it is—familiar, acceptable, ready
for adoption. The reason is, that it is too heavily burdened with merited
critical condemnation—as modern, as a compromise, as a “mongrel” word,
“hybrid,” “fantastic,” “monstrous.” The facts have only to be known to justify
this verdict, and to vindicate the propriety of not employing it in a new and
independent translation. What are the facts? And first as to age. “The
pronunciation Jehovah was
unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by
Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical
propriety.” {Oxford Gesenius, p. 218}. Next, as to
formation. “Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah
which is merely a combination of the sacred
Tetragrammaton and the vowels
in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for J H V H, because they
shrank from pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two
passages, Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 16…To give the name J H V H the vowels of
the word for Lord (Heb. Adonai) and pronounce it Jehovah
is about as hybrid a combination as it
would be to spell the name Germany with
the vowels in the name Portugal—viz.,
Gormuna. The monstrous
combination Jehovah is
not older than about 1520 A.D.” From this we may gather that the Jewish scribes
are not responsible for the “hybrid” combination. They intentionally wrote
alien vowels—not for
combination with the sacred consonants, but for the purpose of cautioning the
Jewish reader to enunciate a totally different word, viz., some other familiar
name of the Most High.
2.
The form “Yahweh”
is here adopted as practically the best. The only competing form would be
“Yehweh,” differing, it will be observed, only in a single vowel—“e” for “a” in
the first syllable. But even this difference vanishes on examination. It is
true the “Yehweh” is intended to suggest the derivation of the noun from the
simple (Kal)
conjugation of the verb, and that some scholars take “Yahweh” as indicating a
formation from the causative (Hiphil)
conjugation; but, since other scholars (presumably because of the aspirate h)
regard “Yahweh” itself as consistent with a Kal
formation, thereby leaving us free to
accept the spelling “Yahweh” without prejudging the question of the precise
line of derivation from the admitted root hâyâh,
we may very well accept the spelling now widely preferred by scholars, and
write the name—“Yahweh.”
3.
The exact pronunciation claims
a word to itself. “The true pronunciation seems to have been Yahwè (or Iahway,
the initial I=y, as in Iachimo). The final e
should be pronounced like the French ê, or
the English e in
there, and the first
h sounded as an aspirate. The
accent should be on the final syllable.” {Professor Paul
Haupt. General Editor of “The Polychrome Bible,” in the Book of Psalms, pp.
163, 164}. This statement gives rise to a question
of rhythm, which is sure sooner or later to make itself felt. We are so used to
the three syllables of the form “Jehovah,” with its delightfully varied vowels,
that we shrink back dismayed in anticipation of the disturbing effect on our
Psalmody of the substitution of Yahwehʹ
for Jehóvah. Our apprehensions may be
dismissed. The readjustment is mainly the business of our hymn-writers; and if
it should prove literally true, that “new mercies” shall “new songs” demand,
which shall enshrine a new accent in a new rhythm, then we may rest assured
that sanctified genius and enthusiasm will prove equal to the occasion. The
Translator of THE EMPHASISED BIBLE has in his own humble province recast a good
many lines in his rendering of “The Psalms” in consideration of the modified
rhythm now required. As for the rest, it may with confidence be counted upon
that increasing familiarisation and the silent growth of hallowed memories will
ultimately render thrice welcome what was at first so strange.
III.—THE
NAME EXPLAINED.
1.
It certainly appears to be explained in Exodus iii. 14. It does not follow that
the statements there made are rightly understood; nor can any compelling reason
be assigned why a translator should be ready to expound everything which he has
to represent in English. Nevertheless, the correct rendering of the above
passage is so connected with the meaning of The Name, that, were it not for
special reasons, the attempt now to be made might not have provoked the charge
of presumption. As it is, the reproach of rashness cannot easily be escaped.
2.
Confessedly it is very discouraging to find the editor of the Polychrome Bible
declaring bluntly: “The meaning of J H V H is uncertain.” {P.
B., Psalms, p. 164. For an encouraging contrast, see the explanation offered by
Dr. A. B. Davidson, quoted, post,
in the Note on Exo. iii. 14}. That it is uncertain
would appear to be the natural conclusion deducible from the varieties of
meaning summed up in the Oxford Gesenius under the name “Yahweh.” {O.G.,
218}.
3.
As against this discouragement it may be considered whether the Old Testament
does not strongly embolden us to hope that greater success and greater
unanimity may yet be attained. Is not a hidden name almost a contradiction in
terms? Does not “name” in the Bible very widely imply revelation? Men’s
names are throughout the Scriptures fraught
with significance, enshrining historical incidents, biographical reminiscences,
and so forth; and why should the Name of the Ever-Blessed be an exception to
this rule? Does not the Almighty Himself employ this Name of His as though it
had in it some self-evident force and fitness to reveal His nature and unfold
His ways? His Name is continually adduced by Himself as His reason for He does
and what He commands: “For I am Yahweh.” Israel and the nations are placed
under discipline, says the Divine Speaker, “that they may know that I am
Yahweh.” Is it not probable, then, that His Name was intended to be understood?
Thus encouraged, we proceed; only requesting that the exposition which follows
may be regarded as—
4.
An Individual Opinion respectfully submitted.
(a)
The conclusion formed may be thus expressed: The Name itself signifies, “He who
becometh”; and the formula {Exo. iii. 14}
by which that significance is sustained and which is rendered in the Authorised
Version “I am that I am,” expresses the sense, “I will become whatsoever I
please”; or, as more exactly indicating the idiom involved, “I will become
whatsoever I may become.” We amplify the “may,” and more freely suggest the
natural latitude which the idiom claims, by saying: “Whatsoever I will, may, or
can become.”
(b)
The reasons for this conclusion are two: FIRST, that it gives the simplest,
most obvious, most direct force to the derivation of The Name itself, as
generally admitted. Yahweh is
almost always regarded as the third person, singular, masculine, imperfect
tense, from the root hawah,
an old form of the root hayah.
The one meaning of hawah is
“become.” {O.G., 217} So that
the force of yahweh thus
derived, as a verb, would be “He will become”; or, as expressive of use and
wont, “He becometh.” Then, passing into use as a noun, it is—“He who becometh,”
“The Becoming One.” That is precisely how any other Hebrew name would be formed
and would yield up its inherent significance. Thus viewed, its human-like simplicity
would be its great recommendation. If the Eternal would speak to man so as to be
understood, we seem compelled to expect that He will speak after the manner of
men. And if after the manner of men He pleases to take and bear a Name, it
would seem the very perfection of condescension that His Name should be formed
after the manner of men’s names. SECOND, the sense of the formula given above
is very simply and idiomatically obtained. The formula itself is ’ehyeh
’asher
’ehyeh,
in which it should be noted that the verb ’ehyeh,
“I will become,” runs forward into a reduplication of itself; for it is that
which constitutes the idiom. As a mere repetition, the assertion would be
unmeaning. To escape this we must resort to mystery or imagination or—idiom.
How if the mystery itself is imaginary; and where is imagination to end? how is
it to be reduced to any trusty significance? Would it not be more humble and
childlike to be prepared to find that the All-wise and All-loving is simply
addressing us in an idiom of our own? We have many such idiomatic formulæ even
in English: “I will speak what I will speak,” and the like. Only,
after the manner of our tongue, we avoid the semblance of meaningless
repetition by emphasising the auxiliary verb: “I will speak what I will
speak”—my mind is made up; or “I will speak
what I can,
may, must
speak”—according to need and opportunity.
Now, in Hebrew, the future (imperfect, or incipient) tense (the one used here)
is freely employed to express mood;
in other words, to convey those nicer shades of thought which in English are
conveyed by such helping words as “will,” “can,” “may,” “could,” “would,”
“might,” “must.” The only question is whether we can assure ourselves that we
are not acting fancifully in resorting to that principle of interpretation in
important statement before us. Have we any examples of such an idiom finding
place where, as in Exo. iii. 14, a word is folded back upon itself? As a matter
of fact, we have in the Old Testament at least three examples in which the
recognition of this simple idiom brings out an excellent sense, and in which
the Authorised Version leads the way (followed by the Revised) in so expressing
the sense.
EXAMPLE
I.—1 Samuel xxiii. 13, A.V. and R.V.: “And they went withersoever they could go.”
Heb.: “wayyithhalleku ba’asher
yithhallaku.” Freely: “And they wandered wheresoever
they could, would, or might wander.” The repetition is there, and the idiom,
and the clear sense of it.
EXAMPLE
II.—2 Samuel xv. 20, A.V. and R.V.: “Seeing I go whither I may.” Heb.: “wa’ani
hôlêk ʻal
’asher
’ani hôlêk.”
Lit.: “And (or seeing) I am going whither I am going.” Again the repetition,
again the idiom, again the fit sense thereby conveyed.
EXAMPLE
III.—2 Kings viii. 1, A.V. and R.V.: “And sojourn wheresoever thou canst
sojourn.” Heb.: “weguri ba’asher thaguri.”
In the first passage the auxiliary is “could”; in the second, “may”; in the
third, “canst.” Idiom is recognised in all, and through it the meaning is
seized and well expressed.
We
thus gain all needful countenance for the idiomatic explication of Exo. iii.
14:
I
will become whatsoever I will—may—can—become.
The only difficulty is to suggest the
suitable latitude, without multiplying words and without violating any known
characteristic of the Speaker. Perhaps the best word on this momentous occasion
is: “what I please,” since we know that the Divine resources are infinite, and
that God will please to become to His people only what is wisest and best. Thus
viewed, the formula becomes a most gracious promise; the Divine capacity of
adaptation to any circumstances, any difficulties, any necessities that may
arise, becomes a veritable bank of faith to such as love God and keep His
commandments. The formula is a promise, the promise is concentrated in a Name. The
Name is at once a revelation, a memorial, a pledge. To this Name, God will ever
be faithful; of it He will never be ashamed; by it He may ever be truthfully
proclaimed and gratefully praised.
||This||
is my name to times age-abiding,
And ||this||
my memorial to generation after generation.
{Exo. iii. 15}
Praise ye YahËŽ
For goodʹ
is Yahweh,
Sing praises to
his name,
For it is
sweet. {Ps. cxxxv. 3}
Praise YahwehËŽ
all ye nations,
Laud himËŽ
all ye tribes of men;
For his
lovingkindness hath prevailed over usËŽ
And the
faithfulness of Yahweh is to times age-abiding.
Praise ye Yah. {Ps.
cxvii. Cp. Jer. xxxii. 27}
5. Whether the foregoing explanation is ever likely to be generally
accepted or not, one thing appears to be more and more certain the more
evidence is considered, that the name Yahweh has some inherent meaning of great
force and graciousness; at the very least a significance of sufficient peculiarity
to make it more fitting to be employed on some occasions than on others. This conclusion,
which on its own merits will scarcely be denied, invests the matter with a
literary interest which it will be fair not to forget. It may deliver the most
open-minded critic from a too ready resort to documentary hypotheses to account
for the presence or absence of The Name in or from some verses, sections, and
books. The use of previous documents may go some way to account for the
appearance and disappearance of that Name; but internal fitness to be avoided
or employed may be an equally feasible explanation. Leaving aside the
interesting question whether the sudden appearance of the name Yahweh in
combination with Elohim in Genesis ii. may not owe its presence to the tenour
of the new section which commences at verse 4, in view of Man’s coming upon the
scene, there are some examples of the presence and absence of The Name to which
any documentary hypothesis would appear to be altogether alien. For instance,
is it not indicative of what we may call changed moral atmosphere the prologue
of the Book of Job (chapters i. and ii.) and the epilogue (chapters xxxviii.–xlii.)
should be replete with the especially gracious proper name “Y,” whereas
throughout the whole of the doubting, questioning, arguing portion of the Book
The Name should occur only once, chapter xii. 9, and then with uncertain attestation?
It appears to be equally indicative of a most delicate sense of fitness, that,
whereas The Name is employed on an average nearly once in each of the
eight-versed sections of Psalm cxix.— a Psalm pervaded by the atmosphere of
sustained communion with Yahweh—the one exception, in which a less sacred
divine name is used is the single instance in which the Psalmist’s mind comes
into contact with the colder air of disloyalty to the Gracious Being whom he
himself delighted to worship:— “Depart from meËŽ ye evil-doers,— That I may observe the commandments of my God.” {Ps. cxix. 115}. It is with a feeling of
lively satisfaction that the materials for judgment concerning all such peculiarities
of sacred usage are now clearly set forth in the pages of THE EMPHASISED BIBLE.
Comments
Post a Comment