JEHOVAH, the God of Israel. The pronunciation "Jehovah" is an error resulting among Christians from combining the con sonants Yhwh (Jhvh) with the vowels of 'adhondy, "Lord," which the Jews in reading the Scriptures substituted for the sacred name, commonly called the tetragrammaton as containing four consonants. It is first found in manuscripts of Martini's Pugio Fidei (1278), belonging to the 14th century; and Galatinus (1518) is found arguing against abbreviating it to "Jova," on the analogy of the Latin Jovis (as proved by G. F. Moore).
This avoidance of the tetragrammaton, due primarily to an over-rigid interpretation of certain passages in the Old Testament (e.g., Lev. xxiv. 15-23; cf. Exod. xx. 7), may have arisen from various motives: a feeling that a proper name for God implies the existence of other gods, the fear lest the sacred name should be mispronounced or otherwise profaned, and the desire to pre vent its abuse in magical practices. If this hope was the reason, secrecy had the opposite effect; for the tetragrammaton be came the greatest name in both Jewish and heathen spells and miraculous efficacy was attributed to mere utterance of it. Several centuries before the Christian era the tetragrammaton ceased to be commonly used. Some later writers in the Old Testament pre vailingly or exclusively employed 'elOhim, "God," which editors in some parts uniformly substituted for Yhwh ; various periphrases also took its place, such as "the Most High," "the God of Heaven" and "the King of Heaven" in Daniel, or simply "Heaven" in I. Maccabees. The oldest Greek versions and the books written in Greek, e.g., Wisdom and II. and III. Maccabees, replaced Yhwh by Kbpcos, "Lord." The name was still pronounced only in the priestly benediction (Num. vi. 27) after the daily sacrifice in the temple, although a substitute was used in the synagogues, and by the high priest in his prayers and benediction on the Day of Atonement. The Rabbinic tradition that after the death of Sim eon the Just (fl. 290 B.c.) it was no longer pronounced even on these occasions, is contradicted by the well-attested statement that in the last generations before the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 7o) it was uttered so low that the sounds were lost in the chant of the priest. After that event the liturgical use of the name ceased, but the tradition was perpetuated iri the Rabbinic schools ; it continued also to be employed by healers, exorcists and magicians, and is found on many magical papyri. It is asserted by Philo that only priests might pronounce it and by Josephus that those who knew it were forbidden to divulge it. Finally the Samaritans shared the scruples of the Jews, except that they used it in judicial oaths.
The early Christian scholars therefore easily learnt the true pronunciation. Clement of Alexandria (d. 212) gives Timm or '16.ovat (or in one manuscript 16.ov), Origen (d. and Epiphanius (d. 404) "Ict,0€ (or lave in one manuscript) ; Theodoret (d. 457) says that the Samaritans pronounced it "Iafie (or "Iaga) and the Jews Ma (if the text is rightly restored) . This direct testimony is supplemented by "Ia13€ or "Ia0a or even lawobne in Greek magical texts and by Yeiwe in an Ethiopic charm. Clearly a form like Yahweh underlies all these translitera tions except Ma, which represents 'ehyeh or, in the Babylonian punctuation, 'ahyah, "I am," a verbal form sometimes used as the Divine name (Exod. 14). Diodorus Siculus (ist century B.c.) and Macrobius (5th century A.D. ), in giving lace, which agrees with lao in Jerome (d. 420), reflect Vali; and Porphyry (fl. with 'IEbu.) goes back to lieho—as found in proper names.
In spite of this testimony, modern scholars have differed widely as to the true pronunciation of the name. Thus Scaliger (1598) inclined to Yahweh or Y ehweh and Genebrardus (I600) proposed Ihue (cf. Heb. yihyeh, "he becomes") or lahue. Mercerus (d. 157o) suggested Yeheweh (cf. Heb. 'ehyeh, "I am"), Arias Mon tanus (1527-98) Jeveh, and Brinton (1899) Jahva. Other schol ars were led astray by supposing that '16.o.) or lao represented the tetragrammaton; thus Drusius (c. 1604) argued for Jahvah, Beller mann (1818) for Y eihoh, and Sayce (1894) for Yandvah. The arguments, however, of a succession of learned scholars from the end of the 15th to the beginning of the 19th century gradually prevailed; the support of Eichorn (1793) and the conversion of Gesenius (1786-1842) and Ewald (1803-75), who at first fa voured Yahwoh and Y ehovah respectively, to Yahweh ensured the general acceptance of that form, although Yahwoh still finds occa sional adherents.
The form Yahweh, in which the first h is voiced and the accent falls on the second syllable, is of the type of such a place-name as Yabhneh (Eng. "Jabneh"), which is properly the imperfect tense of a verb and means "he causeth to build"; the alternative Yabhneel (Eng. "Jabneel"), meaning "God causes to build," shows that the implied subject in the abbreviated form is God. While, however, it is universally admitted that Yahweh is a verbal form, its precise sense is uncertain.
Firstly, it is disputed whether it is the intransitive or the causa tive theme ; the former would be expected to take i in the first syllable, although this i was probably a originally, while the latter takes a invariably. Secondly, the root from which it is derived is open to doubt. The writer of the priestly narrative, who regards it as intransitive, identifies it with yihyeh, "he is" or "becomes," "he will be" or "become," when (having changed the third into the first person to suit the context) he explains it by the phrase 'EHYEH 'fisher 'EHYEH (Exod. 14) ; this can be trans lated "I am that I am" or more exactly "I am wont to be that which I am wont to be" or "I will be that which I will be." The first implies that Yahweh's nature can be defined only by itself or that, while he is, as opposed to non-existent heathen deities, he exists not simply in an abstract sense but actively, ever manifesting himself under fresh aspects (Oehler) ; the second means that he will be with Israel in future afflictions as in the present oppression (Rashi) or that he will show himself to Israel under the manifold attributes of goodness and so on (Davidson), or that he will be it, viz., the performer of his promises (Ewald). The interpretation 6 6i; "he who is," of the Alexandrian version, in implying metaphysically the assertion of this absolute being, is incorrect; for hayah, "became" or "was," denotes being phe nomenally, not essentially or ontologically.
Although the general idea connected with the tetragrammaton by the priestly writer, and after him by the Israelites, was obvi ously that of a being who both is and manifests his being, the possibility cannot be excluded that he intended to attach to it a theological sense totally different from its original meaning. It was already recognized in the middle ages that formally it might have a causative meaning (Aaron ben Elijah). Consequently it has been translated "he causes to be," and this has been variously interpreted as signifying that he creates or gives life (Gesenius) in the sense that he is the giver either of existence (Schrader) or of life and deliverance (Kuenen), that he calls into existence the events of history (Lagarde), or that he brings to pass, viz., per forms his promises (Le Clerc).
The intransitive interpretation agrees with Hebrew tradition but is open to certain objections : that (I) i would be expected in place of a in the first syllable, and (2) the correct form is heiyah, not hawdh, "was" in biblical Hebrew. Both can be easily ex plained: (I) the a may be an archaism, of which there are traces in the Old Testament ; (2) the form hawah is found sporadically in biblical Hebrew and, being customary in the neighbouring dia lects, especially Aramaic, may once have been normal in Hebrew. The causative interpretation, apart from the doubt about w for y, is liable to far more serious objections: that (I) hayeih, though used of a fulfilment of a definite promise or prediction, can hardly be abstractly so employed with no indication of the promise, and (2) the causative theme of heiyah is found in no Semitic language, except late Syriac, but is replaced by that of some other root. Those, therefore, who still regard it as causative refer it to hawah, found once in Hebrew in the form hawd', "fell"; they interpret this as "he causes to fall," sc. the rain (Robertson Smith; cf. Arab. haway, "fell"), or "he overthrows," sc. with lightning
(Green; cf. Arab. 'ahway, "overthrew" and Heb. hOwah or hawwah "destruction"). But, even though Yahweh was often de picted as a storm-god, the fact that the Heb. hawa', "fell," is late and rare renders this explanation highly improbable. Even less likely are the attempts to explain it either as "he falls" like a meteoric stone or "he blows" (Wellhausen ; cf. Arab. haway, "fell" and "blew"), on the grounds that his worship originated among the Kenites or Midianites or other tribes to the south of Palestine and that several places sacred to him, e.g., Horeb, Sinai and Kadesh, lay in northern Arabia, or as "he loves" (Gardner; cf. Arab, haway, "loved"). Such Arabizing interpretations are a priori doubtful, and the traditional Hebrew explanation is in itself as reasonable as anything else hitherto proposed.
Outside the Old Testament Yhwh occurs only on the Moabite Stone (c. 85o B.c.) ; the usual form is Yh or Yhw, occurring in unvocalized texts of the 5th and 4th centuries B.c. These forms appear in the Old Testament sporadically as the independent Yak and regularly as Yak- or Yahil- at the end and -Y eho or at the beginning of proper names. Elsewhere the initial and final forms in composition respectively are Yw- and -Yw in the 9th, Yh- and -Yhw in the 7th, Yhw- and -Yhh in the 6th, Yh- and -Yhw or -Y' in the 5th century B.C. ; thereafter most of these forms seem to have been used indiscriminately. In Assyrian and Babylo nian texts, which alone give the contemporary vocalization, the tetragrammaton appears in transcribed Hebrew names as Ya- in the 9th, Yau- and -You or -Ya in the 8th, and Yalz12- and -Kama (for -Ydwa) in the 5th century B.C. These point to Yd as the original pronunciation, in which case the final consonant was merely an orthographic device to avoid a final vowel ; similarly, the medial h in Ya(h)w and Ya(h)h must have served merely to mark the a long. Afterwards, this h came incorrectly to be pro nounced, as the hard h in Ydltii- and the Biblical Y eho- and -Viihfc show. The forms Yeho- and Yo-, which arise out of Y ehau- and Yau- respectively owing to a similar mispronuncia tion of the orthographic w and the change of aw or au into /3 according to Hebrew practice, were fully established by the 3rd century B.C., since o has replaced a almost always in the Septua gint.
It was formerly held that Yak and similar forms were abbrevi ations of Yahweh. The arguments, however, against this view are overwhelming : (I) the short. forms show that ya was the essential syllable, although on this theory it would be merely a prefix; (2) the inscriptions and papyri, as well as proper names, show that Yh or Yhw, not Yahweh, was the extra-biblical form; (3) it is a priori improbable that a name held so sacred as Yahweh would be commonly abbreviated; (4) no other Semitic race ever shortened the names of its gods; (5) the endeavour to assign an abstract meaning to a divine name bears the impress of a later period of theological reflection. It has, therefore, been suggested, as Greek speculation shows, that Yahweh comes from an original Yahw, afterwards vocaliied Yahil, either by adding a questionable ending -ay become -eh (Grimme) or an -h like the Arabic vocative -dh (Lukyn Williams and Burkitt) or else by assimilation to yihyeh, "he is" (van Hoonacker). This last sug gestion is probably correct ; but, even so, it fails to account for Ydh as well as Y Oki& It is, however, not impossible that the primi tive form was simply Yd, which Hebrew orthography required to be written Ydw or Ydh; later, when w was not thought sufficient to indicate the long vowel, h was inserted, giving rise to Ya(h)w, which came to be mispronounced Vail (on the false analogy of sahw developed into saldi, "swimming"). This development ex plains the presence of a and w, where i and y would be expected if Yahweh were connected with the substantive verb ; for pri marily they belonged to the primitive Ya(hw), but secondarily the recollection of the archaic a in the imperfect tense and of the North-Palestinian and Aramaic hawah = kayak, "became," aided their retention.
At the Exodus the national unity of the Hebrews was enforced by the worship of one national God, and the adoption of the pre eminent God of the patriarchs together with the alteration of his name from the meaningless Yci to the significant Yahweh re inforced the new idea. The transition, which was effected by a prolongation of the ejaculation natural in moments of emotion or excitement, may have been a gradual process; but its assimila tion to and explanation by a simple verb was an act of inspiration. This new name, though at first widely known, as the Moabite Stone shows, was soon considered too sacred for daily use and confined to the Scriptures, while the older form persisted in pro fane use. On this theory there is no essential discrepancy between the statement that in the days of Enosh men began "to call upon the name of Yahweh" (Gen. iv. 26) and God's assertion that in the time of the patriarchs "by my name Yahweh I was not known" (Exod. vi. 3) ; for the writer or compiler of the first passage sub stituted the later Yahweh where strict history required Yoh, while in the second he was right to the extent that God was known not as Yahweh but as Yah before the Exodus.