A17- Did Jesus never pronounce the divine name or did he rather use the title "Lord" (Adonay) ?

When he read the text of Isaiah in a loud voice (Luc 4:16-20) he met this Name (In the translation of C Tresmontant (Catholic) one reads the name yhwh. In that of A. Chouraqui (Jewish) IhvH and in that of J.N. Darby (Protestant) *Lord, that is to say Jehovah according to the note on Matthew 1:20, (broken link: http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/sacredname.html). As he vigorously opposed against human traditions it is very unlikely that he accepted this one. Furthermore, there was no prohibition about the use of the Name at this epoch and the vocalization was still known because it has been used in the Temple until 70 CE for the blessing of the Yom-Kippur.

A18- Did early Christians pronounce the divine name ?

The trial of Stephen is a good example to prove that early Christians pronounced the Name. First of all Stephen was accused of blasphemous sayings and thus was brought before the Sanhedrin (Ac 6:11,12). Stephen was considered to be a blasphemer, because he was accused of apostasy (Ac 6:14), which charge he attempted to refute. His argumentation should have exonerated him, but in his defense he quoted the episode of the burning bush (Ex 3:1-15) with the revelation of the Name (Ac 7:30-33) which led him to use the divine name three times (Ac 7:31,33,49). On the other hand, refusing to name God could have convinced the audience that Stephen implicitly recognized that he spoke blasphemous sayings. The fact of using the divine name was not reprehensible in itself, because prohibition on its use would appear only by the middle of the second century, but to use it when on trial for blasphemy before the final verdict meant execution by stoning (Sanhedrin 7:5), which indeed occurred (Ac 7:58). A few Judeo-Christians were executed in this ‘legal’ way (Ac 26:10). There were not simply vigilante killings because of two reasons, first, it was an official (and not a popular) trial, secondly, Saul, who was a legal expert, approved of Stephen's execution (Ac 22:20). Some Bible scholars propose the idea that it was the last sentence about Jesus, which condemned Stephen. This is impossible for two reasons. The first is that the proceedings were dealing with blasphemy against the Name and not the charge of apostasy which would have only entailed a prison sentence (Ac 8:3; 22:4) and exclusion from the synagogue (Jn 12:42), not capital punishment. Secondly, the prohibition on the use of the name of Jesus did exist (Ac 4:18; 5:28), but the penalty in that case was flogging (Ac 5:40) not death. This penalty was often applied (Mt 10:17; Ac 22:19) on Christians of Jewish origin but not on Christians of heathen origin.

The crime of blasphemy is clearly codified in the Law of Moses and the culprit was to be stoned to death outside the camp (Lv 24:14-16). For example, this procedure was unjustly applied to execute Naboth (1K 21:13,14). The chief priests tried to apply this charge against Jesus, but several elements made their plan fail. First of all the false witnesses did not agree among themselves (Mt 26:59,60), and secondly the charge of blasphemous sayings was a matter of interpretation.

In order for that charge to be valid the accused person must have cursed God's name, with two conditions, that is to blaspheme God and to use his name, or more rarely to directly blaspheme God's name. Apostasy being considered as blasphemous sayings, could entail the death penalty (Jn 10:33) if the accused person also used God's name before the final verdict of the court (Sanhedrin56a, 7:5). In this particular case, Jesus did not so use the divine Name and he demonstrated that the charge of blasphemous sayings was untrue (Jn 10:31-39). In the time of Jesus there existed blasphemous sayings and blasphemy against God (Mt 12:31). If blasphemous sayings (generally apostasy) were proved, the accused person was excluded and cursed by the community. It was this threat which hung over the Jews who became Christian (Jn 9:22; 12:42). They did not risk death, but rather exclusion or excommunication (Ac 8:1). However, to satisfy the Jewish religious leaders, the civil authorities did put some Christians of Jewish origin to death (Jn 16:2) on vague charges of sedition (Ac 12:1-3; 19:40; 24:5) or disturbing public order (Ac 16:20; 17:6).

While the trial of Jesus is the most famous, certain elements appear contradictory as to the motive for his condemnation and the procedure followed by the authorities. To understand these difficulties we must remember that the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, was a body officially recognized by the occupying power and endowed with competence in judicial and administrative matters and in legal exegesis, existing as a single institution under the presidency of the High Priest (After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Sanhedrin ceased to exist in its previous form). The Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus was restricted to the eleven toparchies of Judaea proper. It consequently had no judicial authority at all over Jesus whilst he remained in Galilee. He came directly under its jurisdiction only in Judaea (Lk 23:7). In a sense, of course, the Sanhedrin exercised such moral jurisdiction over all the Jewish communities throughout the world (Ac 9:2: 22:5: 26:12), and in that sense over Galilee too. The Sanhedrin judged civil and religious crimes, but it had authority only over Jewish citizens and being under the Roman authority, the execution of its judgments had to be overseen by these authorities (Ac 22:30). For example, the Talmud of Jerusalem (Sanhedrin18a) tells us that 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, that is in 30 CE, the Romans had deprived the Jews of capital punishment. With the trial of Jesus taking place in 33 CE, the Jews could indeed tell Pilate that they could not put Jesus to death (Jn 18:31). However, this limitation concerned only civil crimes, because the Romans did not want to take charge of religious crimes (Ac 18:14-16; 23:29; 25:19). Moreover, Pilate pointed out that he had full authority to judge civil crimes (Jn 19:10) yet, he did not want to judge a religious crime (Jn 18:31) even though this crime was punishable by death (Jn 19:7). With reference to Judaea, Josephus states explicitly that the emperor delegated to Coponius, Judaea's first Roman prefect (from 6 to 9 CE), the power to rule on his behalf, and exercise his authority, including the right to inflict capital punishment (The Jewish WarII:117). In Jewish law the only religious crimes which were punishable by death, at this time, were profanation of the Temple (Nb 4:15) and blasphemy against God's name (Lv 24:16), which explains why the chief priests tried at first to condemn Jesus on these grounds (Mc 14:55). For example, in a extract from a letter to Agrippa I(-10 to 44), Philo asserted that entry into the Holy of Holies by a Jew, even a priest, or even the High Priest when not expressly ordered, constituted a crime punishable by ‘death without appeal’. Literary and epigraphic evidence indicate that a non-Jew, even if a Roman citizen, was to be put to death if apprehended in the inner Temple court (The Jewish War VI:126).

The chief priests who wanted to eliminate Jesus (Mt 26:4) tried to put him to death (Mt 26:59) by using the only charge which allowed for capital punishment (Jn 19:7), the charge of blasphemy (Mt 26:65). Since there had obviously been no direct blasphemy against God, in order for that charge to work it was also necessary that Jesus use the divine name before the final verdict, which he did not do, using substitutes such as Power (Mt 26:64), Above (Jn 19:11), God (Mk 15:34). So, the charge remained potential -“He is liable to death” but could not become actual -“he is condemned to death”, because, although the high priest ripped his outer garments, he asked «What is your opinion?» (Mt 26:65-66). Furthermore the high priest alone ripped his garments proving that the other members of the Sanhedrin did not fully agree. Having failed, the chief priests then changed the charge of blasphemy (religious crime), into a crime of lese-majesty (civil crime), but for this, the approval of Roman authorities was necessary (Lk 23:1,2). This charge of crimen laesae majestiswas perfectly understood by Pilate, but he did not retain it (Lk 23:13,14). The law called lex Julia majestis promulgated in 48 BCE recognized as a crime any activity against the sovereign power of Rome. Finally, Pilate accepted unwillingly to execute Jesus but simply to restore law and order and to protect his career (Lk 23:22-24). It was mainly for this last reason that Christians of pagan origin would be put to death. Roman historian Tacitus, wrote that to silence rumors about the fire of Rome in 64 CE, Nero put to death Christians who were already the object of popular hatred (The Annals XV, XLIV). Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia around 111 CE, expressed his perplexity over the absence of any legal motive for the execution of Christians (Letters of Pliny X:96,3-5; 97,1).

The Romans easily accepted new religions with the express condition (at the risk of death) that they be licit i.e. authorized by the State according to the ancient law called lex superstitio illicita. At the beginning of our era, since Christians were mainly of Jewish origin, the Romans did not easily distinguish between the two groups. The Jewish religion being a licit religion, the Judeo-Christian should have been able to use the divine name without risk of being pursued for blasphemy by the Roman authorities. Whereas it was legal for a Roman to become Jewish, the law on superstitions was nevertheless invoked to condemn Judeo-Christians (Ac 16:21).

This charge seems paradoxical, because it was possible only if a new god had been introduced, but certain philosophers believed this was the case in hearing talk about Jesus (Ac 17:18). A second possibility is that, as in the first century, since the Romans knew that the Jews worshiped a god who was not named, the use of a name unknown to them, would have led to belief in the introduction of a new religion (Ac 18:13). For that reason, Paul carefully avoided using the Tetragram, in his defense, but preferred substitutes such as God, Lord of the heaven and earth, the Divine Being (Ac 17:21-31). The proconsul Gallio considered that a quarrel on names (Ac 18:15) did not come from the law on superstitions, but from the Jewish law alone. Theoretically, the law on superstitions could apply to the Jews or to the Judeo-Christians only if they mentioned the divine name, a god unknown to the Romans. However even in that case, the penalty was not necessarily death but expulsion. For example, historian Valerius Maximus relates that around 139 BCE Praetor Cornelius Hispalus sent back Jews who had tried to convert Romans to the worship of Jova Sabaoth (Sabazi Jovi). However, under pressure from the crowd which hated Christians, historian Suetonius wrote «that punishments were inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition» (The Lives of Caesars -Nero, XVI, 2).

The procedure followed in the trial of Paul was still the same. The Jews, around 58 CE, wanted to eliminate Paul (Ac 22:22) who was then brought before the Sanhedrin (Ac 22:30). However, knowing perfectly well what had happened to Stephen (Ac 22:20) and knowing that in any case the crowd would molest him (Ac 21:31,35) after his judgment, Paul skillfully transformed a likely charge of sedition, profanation of the Temple (Ac 21:28) and apostasy (Ac 21:21) into a charge concerning different faiths (Ac 23:6), which definitively held up his trial. (A few years before, around 50 CE, a Roman soldier who heedlessly tore up a Torah scroll was put to death for profanation of the Temple by Procurator Cumanus (The Jewish War II:231)). It would seem that Paul in a previous trial had not acted as skillfully, since he was indeed stoned and left for dead outside the city (Ac 14:19). There is no record in the Scriptures of James' death. The secular historian Josephus, however, says that during the interval between the death of Governor Festus, about 62 CE, and the arrival of his successor Albinus, the high priest Ananus (Ananias), «conveyed the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus (Ga 1:19) who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned» (Jewish Antiquities XX: 200). The stoning of James, a Christian of Jewish origin, appears to be the last to be recorded.

A19- Does the New Testament give us a new teaching because it shows that God has changed his name YHWH to "Lord" for Christians ?

Most of the early Christians were (until 70 CE) Jews and this change has never be explicitly explained in the Bible. The early Christians used and copied the Septuagint and it is interesting to note that among all the copies which have been found (less than 10) dated before 150 CE, none has the name "Lord" (Kyrios in Greek). Before 150 CE only one piece of the Gospel has been found (with no dispute, it is the P52 dated of 125 CE) and it is an exception because there is no nomina sacra in it (holy names, this process consisted to change a name, mainly the Tetragram, by its abbreviation). The rabbi Tarphon related, between 90 and 130, the problem of the destruction of heretic (christian) writings with the Tetragram. The substitution of the Tetragram was not uniform because numerous copyists preferred the word "God" (Theos in Greek) instead of "Lord". Lastly, the apostle John, who was a Jew, still used the name Yah, in 96 CE, when he wrote his book of the Revelation in which he used the Hebrew expression Allelu-ia that is "Praise Yah" (Rev 19:1-6), not "Praise the Lord", that is Allelu-Adonay.

Usually, Adonay was used as the main substitute (but not as the permanent substitute) in the Palestinian liturgy (Sotah 40b; 7,6) and sometimes Elohim (Damascus Document XV,1). For example, in the oldest text of Isaiah (from 150 to 100 BCE) found at Qumrân (1Qa), sixteen times 'Adonay' took of the Tetragram. In daily life many occasional substitute (the Heavens, Father, the Almighty, the blessed One, Power, the Name, etc.) were used as seen in the Talmud or in the New Testament. The only exception seems to have been in greetings, since the Talmud (Berakot 63a; 9,9) noted that the divine name was to be used in this case, however this was likely the name Yah (Berakot 9,1). During the period which preceded the destruction of the Temple, the Talmud (Sotah 7,6; Tamid 33b) makes it clear that occasional substitutes of the Names were used in Palestinian liturgy. These substitutes were numerous, as one can notice in the literature of this time (2M 1:24,25; 15:3; Si 23:4; 50:14-19). some of them, used as proper names, are exceptionally found in the Septuagint or in the New Testament like : God (Theos), Iaô (Fouad 266), Sabaôth (1S 1:3; Rm 9:29; Jm 5:4), etc.

A20- Is "Lord" (Kyrios) the name of God in the Greek Scriptures ?

The papyrus P52 is dated 125 CE, and contains the verse of John 18:31-33. Owing to the shape of this piece of sheet (red part) it is possible to reconstruct the whole codex to which it belonged (around 130 pages of 18 lines per page with an average of 33 characters per line, and 29/30 on the verso).


(John 18:31-33)

[Above was originally entered using inaccessible font that does not map accurately to Roman. Shorter passage below has been recovered as best as I can, although I do not know Greek -- Stan Jones, author of Lifespurpose website.]

In the papyrus P90 dated 150 CE which contains the verses of John 18:36-19:7, the name of Jesus is this time shortened into JS according to the process of nomina sacra, like the word Kurios (Lord) which is written KS. So, when the sacred name was absent the word ‘Lord’ had to be written without abbreviation. For example, in this codex the verse of John 12:38 have appeared:


(John 12:38)

However this part of the gospel of John quoted a verse from the book of Isaiah and in all the Septuagints of this period (before 150 CE) there are none with the name Kurios (Lord) instead of the Tetragram. For example:



(Isaiah 53:1 [LXX])

There are only two ways to explain this modification, where the Tetragram was exchanged by the word ‘Lord’. Either the Christians changed this name after 150 CE(more exactly between 70 and 135) because they did not understand it anymore, or they changed it before 150 CE (more exactly before the previous period) for theological reasons but without there being any archaeological witnesses. The first explanation seems more logical because if the Christians (Judeo-Christians) had changed this name during the first century (before 70 CE) this teaching would have been seen in the NT especially among a Jewish environment, what is never the case. For example, Jesus should have said «I have made you known to them under your new name ‘Lord’» but as a Jew he said nothing new on this very important matter (John 17:6, 26). It should be remembered that the book of John (who was a Jew) was written around 98 CE and he kept the short name Yah rather than Lord in his book of Revelation (Rv 19:1-6) when he wrote the Hebrew word Allelu-ia instead of Allelu-adonai. Even in 129 CE, Aquila who was a Christian converted to Judaism kept in his translation of the Septuagint the Tetragram embedded in a Greek text. It is interesting to note that Rabbi Tarphon (Shabbat 116a), between 90 and 130 CE, related the problem of the destruction of heretical (Christian) texts that contained the Tetragram.

Dan Jaffé, a Jewish scholar (Ph.D at Bar-Ilan University, teaching at the present time at the Institut d'études et de culture juives of Aix-en-Provence), published a new study entitled le judaïsme et l'avénement du christianisme (Cerf, 2005). In his chapter about the books of minim he explained that the Hebrew name guilyonim came from the Greek word euaggelion "Gospel". The Gospel was used by the Christians from Jewish origin, called Judeo-Christians. Professor Jaffé published several new old Jewish manuscripts (Tosefta Sabbath XIII,5; Sifre Nasso 16; Sabbath XVI,1,15c in the Talmud of Jerusalem; Korah 1 in the Midrash Tanhuma; Sabbath 116a in the Babylonian Talmud) which were not censored by catholic authorities. It clearly appears according to these manuscripts that the name of God was written in the Gospel.

Thus, between 70 and 135 CE, the Christian copyists (most of them were heathens who had become Christians, furthermore they were strongly influenced by some antic Trinitarian philosophies, see http://www.socinian.org/Numenius2.html) simplified the ‘strange’ writing YHWH [KURIOU] into a ‘sacred name’ , consequently the expression KURIOS YHWH [O THEOS] became o , and KURIOU IESOU XRISTOU became in the same way . In time, many other sacred names appeared. However, Symmachus still used the Tetragram written in Paleo-Hebrew in his Greek translation (165 CE), and according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History VI:17), he was an Ebionite, that is a Judeo-Christian, who also wrote a comment on the book of Matthew.

The replacement of YHWH may explain the inexplicable number of errors leading to confusion between the terms ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ in the Gospel. As we have seen, the expression Kurios YHWH posed a difficult problem for the translators of the Septuagint. This expression is much rarer in the Gospels; on the other hand, the title ‘Lord’ (Kurios) is frequently applied to Jesus, which could lead to confusion with the other ‘Lord’, the translation of YHWH. So, some copyists, to avoid this confusion, preferred to translate YHWH by ‘God’ (Theos) or simply to omit this name, as noted in the following passages: Lk 1:68; Ac 2:17; 6:7; 7:37; 10:33; 12:24; 13:5,44,48; 15:40; 19:20; 20:28; Rm 14:4; Col 3:13,16; 2 Tm 2:14; Jm 3:9; Jude 5; Rv 18:8. The list of variants is considerable for these few verses. Why did translators stumbled over the reading or understanding of such simple and well known words as ‘God’ and ‘Lord’? Some specialists admit that several times ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ took the place of YHWH. These replacements were done early, since after the second century of our era no more traces of the writing and pronunciation of the Name are found, except among a few Christian scholars. Paradoxically, a Christian reader might even believe that the God of the Bible was called Sabaôth, because this name is found in the expression Lord Sabaôth (Κυριων Σαβαόθ) in Romans 9:29 and in James 5:4.

Finally those who would like to keep the Jewish tradition, which appeared only from the third century BCE, by replacing the divine name with YHWH (not pronounced) should act in the same way with the name of Jesus replacing it with JS as was done during the three first centuries of Christianity!

A21- Did the Jews use the name Jehovah in their Bible translations ?

The Jews at present use the term Adonay, Lord, Eternal, and so forth,in their translations of the Bible; on the other hand, some museums in Israel use the name Yahve (or Yahweh ), but religious authorities favor the name Ye.ho.va. Additionally non-superstitious Jewish translators always favored the name Jehovah in their translations of the Bible. On the other hand one can noted there is no Jewish translation of the Bible with Yahweh.

Immanuel TremelliusLatin1579Jehova
Baruch SpinozaLatin1670Jehova*
Samuel CahenFrench1836Iehovah
Alexander HarkavyEnglish1936Jehovah**
Joseph Magil (see below)English1910Jehovah
Rabbi L. Goldschmidt (see below)German1925Yehovah

*(Bible partly translated) Ex 6:2;3; Ex 15:11; 18:11; Is 58:14; Jr 9:24; 22:16; Ezk 20:26

**Gn 22:14 Ex 6:3; 17:15; Jg 6:24; Ps 83:18; Is 12:2

Deuteronomy 6:4

Left : Joseph Magil - Magil's Linear School Bible (1910 reprint) 1899 New York, Ed. J. Magil's Publishing Co.
Right : Rabbi Lazarus Goldschmidt - Die heiligen Bücher des alten Bundes übertragen durch Vol. 1 (The Holy Books of the Old Covenant, translated by Berlin, Ed. Rosenthal & Co. 1925)

A22- Do the Jews have some good reasons not to use the Name?

They agree themselves there is no biblical prohibition, furthermore the Talmud gives valuables information because they know that before the second century CE the high priest used this Name inside the Temple and before the priesthood of Simon the Just (before 200 BCE) Jews were able to use this Name with no restriction. It is written in the Encyclopædia Judaica (second edition, Keler 1973, volume 7 page 679) «If the divine name YHWH is avoided to be pronounced it is (...) because of a wrong comprehension of the third commandment (Ex.20:7; Deut.5:11) as it meant “you must not take up the name of YHWH in vain”, when it meant “you do not swear falsely by the name of YHWH your God”», furthermore the Rabbi A. Cohen in his book Le Talmud (Payot edition 1991, pages 69,70) wrote that «this habit appeared progressively but in the past the use of the Tetragram was absolutely not prohibited. However, in the former times of the rabbinical period it was only pronounced inside the Temple», the Rabbi A. Marmorstein adds in his book The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God that this interdiction was partially observed from the third century BCE until the third century CE.

A23- Did early Muslims use and pronounce the supreme name?

Severi of Antioch (465-538) who lived in Syria, used the form IÔA (Ιωα) in a chain of commentaries on the Gospel of John chapter eight (Jn 8:58), explaining that it was the Hebrew name of God. Commenting one of the work of Severi of Antioch, the famous scholar James of Edessa (633-708) specified near 675 in his commentary, that the copyists of the Septuagint (at his time) was shared between two attitudes to write the divine name Adonay, either to keep it in the text under the form Π Ι Π Ι(1) (corresponding to the Hebrew name YHYH as he mentioned), or to translate it by Kurios and to write it in the margin of the manuscript. Therefore, these famous scholars of Syriac tongue knew the name of God.
1note, these are the Greek letters "P I P I", which look most like the Hebrew letters, but sound completely different.

In the Arabic Bible of Yefet ben ‘Eli (920-1010), which appeared around 960CE, the Tetragram was (seldom) punctuated Yahwah in the Arabic text (Yahuwah in some other editions). According to the book entitled The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation of Meira Polliack, the name יוי ע (2) was used by Yefet ben ‘Eli.
2"ywy ay" in Gertoux's document, tagged as "Hebraica" font; what he meant was unclear.

Psalm 92:8,9 in Yefet ben ‘Eli's Bible

In the work entitled Codices hebraicis litteris exarati quo tempore scripti fueriut exhibentes written by Colette Sirat, the Babylonian manuscript 9 of a Codex dated 953/4 (page 82 plate 27) has the Tetragram punctuated in the Tyberian system יֲהוָה. This exceptional punctuation comes from the qere ’aDoNaY (אֲדנָי) which can also be found in some old manuscripts punctuated in the Babylonian system as the manuscript B15_1 of Cambridge. However all the other manuscripts of the 12th century and before, are only punctuated with the Aramaic qere SheMa’ (שְׁמָא) which can be found (that is the vowels e, a), for example, in the B.H.S. (Despite the tetragrammaton is punctuated YeHWaH (יְהוָה) it is always vocalized Adonay by the Jews). It is possible, seeing the country (Irak) and the time (10th century), that this seldom Babylonian vocalization YaHoWaH could influenced in time the vocalization Yahuwah of the modern Arabic versions (Fares Chidiaq & William Watts -The Holy Bible London, 1857 (Yahuwah in Ex 6:3, 6, 8, etc.) The Dominican Fathers -The Dominican Bible Iraq, 1875 (Yahuwah footnote of Ex 3:14 and Yahwah in footnote of Ex 6:3)]. In a surprising way, several Imans of this time as Abu-l-Qâsim-al-Junayd (?-910), Fahr ad-Din Râzî (1149-1209), etc., mentioned in their writings that the supreme name of God was Yâ Huwa (O He), not Allah (Ibn ‘Ata’ Allâh - Traité sur le nom ALLÂH (traduit par Maurice Glotton) Paris, Les Deux Océans 1981 pp.145-147). A follower of al-Junayd, the Soufi Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallâj (857-922) asserted : “Here are the words of which sense seemed ambiguous. Know that temples hold by His Yâ-Huwah and that bodies are being moved by His Yâ-Sîn. Now Hû and Sîn are two roads which end into the knowledge of the original point.” (L. Massignon - Akhbar al-Hallâj Paris 1975 Ed. Vrin p. 113 de la traduction française, p. 26 du texte arabe). Yâ-Sîn is a reference to the Sura 36 and Yâ-huwah wrote y‘hwh in Arabic, makes reference to the Hebrew Tetragram. Al-Hallâj was rejected as madman by his teacher, al-Junayd, and died crucified in Bagdad as a heretic.

The below manuscript, found at Muraba'at and dated 10th century CE (P. Benoit, J.T. Milik, R. de Vaux - Les grottes de Murabbaât Oxford 1961 Ed. Clarendon Press pp. 286-290) has probably been written by a mystic Muslim (that is a Soufi) and this text seems to be linked with some events involving the famous Soufi Al-Hallâj.

Yâh Huwa

The use of the _expression yah yah yah huwa huwa huwa (literally, "Oh Oh Oh, He He He!") is a magic way of pronouncing the divine name. At the present time, the whirling dervishes (Soufi Muslims) use to sing many times the _expression yah hu', yah hu', yah hu' in order to get ecstasy (R.A. Nicholson -Studies in Islamic Mysticism 1921 Cambridge p. 96/ I. Goldziher -Die Richtungen der Islamischen Koranauslegung 1952 Leiden pp.260-2)

A24- Is the doubt about its pronunciation the main reason which prevents the use of the Name and Is the use of the Tetragram really important, or is it just a question of taste?

The pronunciation of the name Jesus is widely accepted in spite of its genuine pronunciation Yeshua’. On the other hand the beginning of the name Yehow-ah is in agreement with all the other theophoric names (Yehô-natan, Yehô-zabad, Yehô-hanan, etc.). In actual fact the main reason which prevents the pronunciation of the Name is above all affective, that is to say that one who does not love another person also does not use his name. For example, when Jesus spoke with Satan (Mt 4:1-11) he systematically used the Name (In the translation of C Tresmontant (Catholic) one reads the name "yhwh". In that of A. Chouraqui (Jewish) "IhvH" and in that of J.N. Darby (Protestant) "*Lord", [that is to say, Jehovah, according to the note on Matthew 1:20,] http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/sacredname.html ), but Satan only used the anonymous title "God". In his book Proverbs of the Jewish Wisdom, Victor Malka explains that, according to the Jewish popular wisdom only the names of those who are not loved are forgotten, therefore the name of God cannot be forgotten. In addition, «only the very name of the wicked ones will rot» (Prov 10:7).

In the Bible, refusing to mention the name of a god means refusing to worship this god (Ex 23:13) and that is why Satan incited the Israelites, by means of the prophets of Baal, not to use the Name (Jer 23:27). In actual fact refusing to use the Name means refusing to be saved (Rom 10:13 quoting Joel 2:32).

Go back to start questions