Jehovah or Yahweh?

Moses and the Burning Bush

“Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel … and they ask me, “What is his name?” what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”’”

Exodus 3:13–14

Few things distinguish Jehovah’s Witnesses more sharply than the name they carry. For the Watchtower, using the name Jehovah — rather than the title “Lord” — is very nearly the mark of true worship. And on the central instinct they are right: God has a personal name, revealed in Scripture some seven thousand times, and it is a real loss when a bare title quietly replaces it.

But there is a difficulty the Watchtower’s own scholars acknowledge. “Jehovah” is not, in fact, the way the name was ever pronounced in ancient Hebrew. It is a later hybrid form — the four consonants of the name read together with the borrowed vowels of another word — and the more accurate reconstruction, as even the Watchtower admits, is “Yahweh.” So the question is not whether God has a name (he does), but how that name is best honored.

Let’s look at the four Hebrew letters, where “Jehovah” actually came from, and the reverence the Name is owed, and ask … Is making a particular English form of the Name the badge of true religion the way to honor it — or is the Name best hallowed as the apostles themselves hallowed it?

I invite your engagement with me on these questions. You may leave comments below, but please be sure to read our policy on commenting before doing so.

Watchtower View

Jump to the Catholic View ↓

Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that God has a personal name — the Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters YHWH — and that this name must be known, used, and declared. In English they render it Jehovah, and they regard the restoration of the divine name to its rightful place, including in their own Christian Greek Scriptures, as a defining mark of true worship that distinguishes them from the churches of “Christendom.”

What They Affirm

God has a personal name, used some 7,000 times. Witnesses point out, correctly, that the Tetragrammaton appears nearly seven thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures — far more often than any title — and that God himself commands his people to call on and declare his name: “I am Jehovah. That is my name” (Isa. 42:8); “Give thanks to Jehovah! Call on his name” (Isa. 12:4). Jesus taught his followers to pray “let your name be sanctified” (Matt. 6:9) and said of the Father, “I have made your name known to them” (John 17:26). To replace this name everywhere with the title “Lord,” they argue, is to obscure something God meant to be known.1

The name means “He Causes to Become.” The Watchtower teaches that the name, built on a form of the Hebrew verb “to become,” identifies God as the One who progressively fulfills his promises and unfailingly realizes his purposes — a meaning, they say, only the true God could bear.2

“Jehovah” is retained for its familiarity. The Watchtower openly acknowledges that the original pronunciation is uncertain and that “Hebrew scholars generally favor ‘Yahweh’ as the most likely pronunciation.” It keeps the form “Jehovah,” it explains, not because that form is more accurate, but because it “has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have” — it has been “naturalized” into English for centuries. Using some form of the name, they say, matters more than settling its exact vowels.3

Those who avoid the name “strain out the gnat.” The Watchtower turns the pronunciation objection back on its critics: those who make much of the “correct” pronunciation, yet then call God only “Lord” or “God,” “strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel” (Matt. 23:24) — fussing over vowels while abandoning the name itself.4

Endnotes
  1. On the frequency and importance of the divine name, see “Who Is Jehovah?” (jw.org) and the Insight on the Scriptures article “Jehovah”: the Tetragrammaton “appears almost 7,000 times in the original ‘Old Testament’”; cited texts include Isaiah 42:8; 12:4; Joel 2:32; Malachi 3:16; Romans 10:13. ↩
  2. On the meaning “He Causes to Become,” see the brochure The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever and Insight on the Scriptures, “Jehovah”: the name is “a form of a Hebrew verb … meaning ‘to become,’ and actually signifies ‘He Causes to Become.’” ↩
  3. On familiarity as the reason for retaining “Jehovah,” see Insight on the Scriptures, “Jehovah” (“Hebrew scholars generally favor ‘Yahweh’ as the most likely pronunciation”; “‘Jehovah’ is the best known English pronunciation … although ‘Yahweh’ is favored by most Hebrew scholars”), and the brochure The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever (“Jehovah … has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have”). ↩
  4. The “gnat … camel” argument appears in the Watchtower article “‘Yahweh’ or ‘Jehovah’?” (Watchtower Online Library), applying Matthew 23:24 to those who debate pronunciation while declining to use the name at all. ↩

Catholic View

The Catholic Church agrees that God revealed a personal name, that it appears some seven thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that it is to be held holy. What she denies is that the English form Jehovah is that name, or that using it marks out the one true religion. The form arose from a medieval misreading of a Jewish reverence device, and on this the Watchtower’s own reference works do not disagree.

Where “Jehovah” Came From

After the exile the Jewish people came to regard the divine name as too holy to pronounce: reading the Scriptures aloud and coming to YHWH, they said Adonai, “my Lord” — reverence, not forgetfulness. When the Masoretes later added vowel signs, they wrote the consonants of the Name with the vowels of Adonai (in the great codices usually a reduced set, which is why the account is a simplification), a standing cue to the eye meaning “say Adonai” — the qere perpetuum of the standard Hebrew grammars, disputed by no one. Later Christian readers, not understanding the device, did the one thing it was designed to prevent — read the consonants of one word with the vowels of another — and “Yehowah,” through Latin, became “Jehovah.” No ancient Israelite ever called God “Jehovah,” because the form did not yet exist; the Revised Standard Version’s translators judged that it “does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.”

Why Scholars Say “Yahweh”

If “Jehovah” is a hybrid, what was the original? Certainty is impossible, but three independent lines of evidence converge. The grammar: the name is built on the verb “to be,” and its first-person form at the burning bush, ’ehyeh (Ex. 3:14), supports the vowel pattern of the yah-weh family. The abbreviations: the short form is Yah, preserved in “Hallelu-jah” and in the hundreds of Hebrew names ending in -yah or -yahu — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah. And the ancient witnesses: Greek-speaking Fathers who still heard the name transcribed it Iaoue (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.6) and Iabe (Theodoret). All three point to “Yahweh,” and none to “Jehovah.”

The same grammar answers the Watchtower’s account of the name’s meaning, “He Causes to Become.” That reading requires a causative form of the verb that the Hebrew Bible nowhere attests for “to be” (BDB, s.vv. hayah, hawah) — at most a scholarly reconstruction from names outside the Bible — and it is not how God glosses His own name. At the bush He says “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex. 3:14): not a maker of becomings but the One who simply is — the meaning the Septuagint heard, the meaning Jesus took up in “before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58).

The Watchtower’s Own Admission

Here is the point that deserves a Witness’s pause: on all of this the Watchtower does not disagree. Insight on the Scriptures, under “Jehovah,” states that Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh,” and the Society’s literature keeps “Jehovah” on the ground of centuries of familiarity, not correctness. That is a reasonable ground for a translator’s convention — and a fatal one for a badge of true worship. If the form is retained because it is familiar rather than because it is right, it cannot also be the divinely required mark of the one true religion. One cannot say in the reference book that the scholars are probably correct that it is really Yahweh, and say at the door that you must call Him Jehovah.

The Name the Apostles Wrote

The fact that ought to weigh most heavily is this. The inspired authors of the New Testament wrote neither “Jehovah” nor “Yahweh.” Where they quote the most sacred YHWH texts of the Old Testament, they write Kyrios, “Lord” — and not one of the thousands of surviving Greek manuscripts contains the Tetragrammaton in any form. Some pre-Christian Jewish copies of the Greek Old Testament did keep the Name in Hebrew letters or as Iaō — the Society’s appendix leans on them — but they are Jewish copies of the Old Testament; the Christian Septuagint tradition writes Kyrios, and the question here is what the apostles wrote. The New World Translation’s appendix replies that the Name was in the originals and copyists removed it. But a change of that size, across every book and every copying line, would leave a seam — manuscripts reading one way while others read the other, as at every genuinely disputed verse. There is no seam: no manuscript, no fragment, no variant, no Father quoting a New Testament verse with the Name in it. A restoration with nothing to restore from is not a restoration; it is a revision — examined verse by verse on the New World Translation page.

That is remarkable for a movement which makes the name the center of its identity. The apostles knew the Name, and Christ said He had made the Father’s name known (John 17:26). Yet under inspiration they handed it on as “Lord,” and the New Testament’s characteristic name for God is not the Tetragrammaton at all but Father. Asked to teach His disciples to pray, Christ does not give them four letters to vocalize: “pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name” (Matt. 6:9). The name is hallowed, and it is hallowed in the mouth of a child saying “Father.”

Reverence, Not Superstition

The deepest difference is not about spelling but about reverence. The Watchtower tells the story of the Jews ceasing to pronounce the Name as superstition that hid it; but the practice was awe — a way of taking seriously the commandment against taking the name of the Lord in vain (Ex. 20:7). The Watchtower answers that those who fuss over “Yahweh” versus “Jehovah” and then call God merely “Lord” strain out the gnat and gulp down the camel (Matt. 23:24) — but the charge lands more naturally the other way. To take a hybrid form coined by accident in the Middle Ages, and make that exact form the test of belonging to the true religion, is to strain at a vowel-point while letting the weightier matters go: the reverence the Name commands, the Lord the Name reveals, and the Father to whom the Son gives access.

The Reply in Brief

The Watchtower is right that God has a personal name and right that it should be honored; it is wrong about the form, and wrong to make the form a test. Psalm 83:18, quoted at the doorstep as proof of the restored name, is the mail carrier’s reading again: the address correct, the household unknown. What decides the matter is not the lexicon but the apostles: writing under the same Spirit who gave the Name at the bush, they rendered it “Lord” and taught the Church to say “Father.” A requirement they did not impose cannot be the mark of the religion they founded.

This is the short answer. The full treatment adds the history of the Tetragrammaton in the manuscripts, the Septuagint evidence and what the Qumran fragments show, the New World Translation’s insertion of “Jehovah” into the New Testament at 237 places and the reasoning offered for it, the meaning of the Name as subsistent being and as covenant fidelity, the 2008 directive on the Name in Catholic liturgy, and full documentation for everything asserted here. It is available as a Word document at the end of this page.

Summary

Questions to Answer
  • The Society’s own Insight book grants that scholars favor “Yahweh,” and keeps “Jehovah” only out of familiarity. How can a form its reference works call probably wrong be the mark of true worship?
  • No manuscript of the New Testament contains the name “Jehovah.” If the apostles wrote it, where is one copy that has it — and why does the Society insert it 237 times where none does?
  • Where the apostles quote the Old Testament’s YHWH texts, they write “Lord” (Kyrios). Why does the Society correct the inspired writers?
  • Jesus taught His disciples to pray “Our Father,” and the New Testament’s own name for God is Father. Why is a vowel-pointing made the test of belonging to God?

These are the questions the Society’s own texts raise, and they deserve answers.

Jehovah’s Witnesses make the divine name, rendered “Jehovah,” very nearly the badge of true religion. On the central instinct they are right. God has a personal name, it appears some 7,000 times, and a bare title should not simply erase it. The question at issue is narrower: whether “Jehovah” is the name or a late and inaccurate form of it, and whether insisting on that form makes sense of the way the Name is treated in Scripture itself.

What everyone agrees on. God’s name is the Tetragrammaton, the four consonants YHWH. Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels, so the consonants are certain while the original pronunciation is not.

“Jehovah” is a hybrid form. After the exile Jews reverently stopped pronouncing the Name, saying Adonai (“Lord”) instead. The Masoretes later wrote the consonants YHWH with the vowels of Adonai as a cue to say “Adonai,” never intending the two to be read together. Christian readers who missed the device combined them anyway, producing “Yehowah” and then “Jehovah”: the consonants of one word wearing the vowels of another. The New Catholic Encyclopedia calls it “a false form of the divine name Yahweh,” and the RSV translators called it a form that “does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.”

Scholars say “Yahweh,” and so does the Watchtower. The grammar points that way, given the link to ’ehyeh, “I am,” in Exodus 3:14, as do the short form Yah in “Hallelu-jah,” the -yah and -yahu names, and the early Greek transcriptions Iaoue and Iabe. The Watchtower’s own Insight admits that “Hebrew scholars generally favor ‘Yahweh’ as the most likely pronunciation,” and that it keeps “Jehovah” only “because of people’s familiarity with it.”

Familiar is not the same as required. Retaining a traditional spelling for familiarity is perfectly reasonable, and the Jesuit Paul Joüon did the same. The difficulty is saying in the reference book that it is really Yahweh and saying at the door that one must call Him Jehovah. A form admitted to be kept for familiarity cannot also be the divinely required mark of the one true faith.

The reverence the Name is owed. The Jewish practice of saying “Lord” for YHWH was reverence rather than superstition. The Septuagint as Christians received it renders the Name Kyrios, “Lord” (some early Jewish copies kept the Hebrew letters), and in 2008 the Catholic Church deliberately returned to that ancient reverence, directing that the Tetragrammaton not be pronounced in the liturgy but rendered “Lord.” Speaking the Name carefully honors it rather than hiding it.

The name the apostles wrote. This is the decisive point. The inspired New Testament authors wrote neither “Jehovah” nor “Yahweh.” Where they quote even the most sacred YHWH texts they write Kyrios, “Lord,” and no surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament contains the Tetragrammaton. The New Testament’s characteristic name for God is not the four letters at all but Father: “Our Father … hallowed be thy name” (Matt. 6:9). To require a medieval hybrid is to require what the apostles themselves did not.

The real “gnat and camel.” The Watchtower says that critics who debate pronunciation while saying “Lord” are straining at a gnat (Matt. 23:24). The charge fits the other direction better. Making a hybrid form, coined by medieval accident, the test of true worship strains at a vowel-point while neglecting weightier matters: the reverence the Name commands, and the Lord the Name reveals.

In short: the Catholic both honors the Name and guards it, “I AM WHO I AM” (Exod. 3:14). The most faithful way to honor it is less to win an argument about its vowels than to know and reverence the One who bears it, the God who made His name known at last not in four letters but in a Son: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). See also the New World Translation page on the insertion of “Jehovah” into the New Testament.

For a more complete essay on this topic, download Jehovah or Yahweh? (.docx) or (.pdf)

Next: What Is the Soul?