JEHOVAH (rwr), the proper and incommuni cable name of the Most High God. As usually known, these are the points appropriate to 4J1N, and are affixed to Mr14 in order that in reading, the former may be substituted for the latter, so as to avoid the utterance of the peculiar name of God, which to the Jews appears irreverent.* For the same reason, where these two words occur together, the latter is pointed riih, that it may be pronounced as cm-.15,,,. In consequence of this usage, the proper pronunciation of r11714 has been entirely lost from traditionary recollection, and can be recovered with probability only from etymo logical research.
1. Etymology of the word.—Passing over some fantastic and baseless conjectures on this head, we go at once to the passage in which we have what was undoubtedly regarded by the ancient Hebrews as the etymon of the word, Exod. 14. In reply to the request of Moses that God would announce to him his name, God said unto Moses, I am that I am (71.4;yA ;rt..) ; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto tire chifdren of Israel, .1 am hath sent me unto you.' Again, in ch. vi. 2, we read, And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I atn Jehovah (r11114).' According to this the word must be referred to the substantive verb Mil, of which the earlier form was Mil ; and of this mro would be the regular form of the third person sing. masc. of the future. In this case the punctuation would regularly be ;-3).rr Yzh'veh, or rilro Yeheveh ; and such is regarded by some as the—original and proper pronunciation of the word. This etymology preserves the connection between the peculiar name of God and the name by which He told Moses He would be made known to the Israelites ; and it falls in with the representation of Scripture that to be is the special characteristic of God (Ps. Cii. 12, 26, 27 ; Is. xliii. 13 ; Rev. iv. 8, etc.) On this hypothesis also can be best accounted for the abbreviated forms of the word found in proper names, 'Iry and r14; the 4 becomes 4 as in N1r14 for Nr14 (Eccles. xi. 3), and after the elision of the He the Vau may easily assume the 0 sound ; so also from is formed r14, as in the apocopate form 4174, and this in composition comes i14., as in 11%94 (Fiirst, H. W.B. in verb.) Gesenius and Ewald prefer to punctuate and pro nounce the word rnri, Yahvelz ; but the only reason apparently that can be produced for this is that Eptphanius gives 'Tape as the Hebrew name for God, and Theodoret (Quasi. in Exod. xv.), says that so the word was pronounced by the Samaritans ; to which much importance cannot be attached, as we do not know what were the means of information possessed by these writers, as they partially contradict each other, and as other writers who have sought to express the Hebrew word in Greek letters have given it otherwise, ex. gr., lam;
(Clemens Alex., Straw. v. p. 666), 'Iev(O (Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Prop. Evangel. i. 9, 21), 'Ia6; (Diodor. Sic. i. 94 ; Porphyr. [quoting Sanchoniatho] ap. Theodoreti Cur. Gray. Affect. ii. 28. 15, p. 77, ed. Gaisford ; Origen, ad. .7ohan. ; Euseb., Dem. Evang. x. p. 494, ed. Colon. 1688). Jerome gives it also (on Ps. viii. 2) as Yaho, for which we should probably read yahvo. Irenus (adv. Haer.ii. 353) writes it 7aoth, where Knobel suggests that the in the Greck text probably was meant to represent the Heb. n. These varieties have given ground for other modes of pointing and pronounc ing the original word besides those above given. Thus several prefer Min' Yahvah, where the hard sound of the Kamets, as usually pronounced by the Jews, passes into that of Cholem, and the word becomes Yah'voh, the form given by Jerome, and which Fiirst regards as the form re presented by the 'fem.; of Porphyry (probably pronounced Yevo), as the Irv, would become 'Icy.
We are precluded from attaching much importance to these Greek representations of the Hebrew word, not only by the reasons above assigned, but by the consideration that it is by no means certain that the word was pronounced by all the Shemitic peoples alike, or that it was the same word which they have all sought to represent. Probably the 'Imo of Diodorus Siculus and others is rather n' than rim+, and 'Iagg may have been the Samaritan pronunciation, while that of the Jews was dif ferent, as indeed Theodoret (/oc. cit.) attests ; or it may have been, as Knobel suggests, an unhebraic form given to the word from some confusion of tbe Hebrew name for God with the Phcenician God lath (see Mover's Phonizier, p. 539, ff.) If we hold fast the derivation of the word from MN we can adopt only a form such as may be legitimately obtained from this stem. Now, neither MT, Yah veh, nor rim+ Yahvah, meets this test. The same objection applies to ;rim Yahvoh, which Capellus suggests. The suggestion of Mercer and Cornelius a Lapide that we should point and read n'In4 is not exposed to this objection ; but it is to the objection that from this we could not get such an abbreviated form as the frequently recurring V14 in words like lrOri (Hilkiah), etc. Some have even sought to defend the common punctuation as that proper to the word ; but that this is utterly untenable has been fully shewn by the writers whose treatises are collected by Reland ; the fact that when 4ritt and Mr occur together the latter has the points belonging to Elohirn is sufficient to refute it. Usage, however, has established a prerogative for the pronunciation "ehavah, and it would be pedantic now to employ any other (Reland, Decas Exercitationum ',hiking/car= de vera pronuntiatione nominis yehova, 1707).