Dr. Nehemiah Gordon claims proof the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton YHWH can be found in over 90+ copies of the OT and in the writings of Jewish Scholars, that "Yahweh" is from pagan sources:
In this video published on January 25, 2018, Hebrew scholar, Nehemia Gordon discusses manuscript evidence for the pronunciation of the personal name of YHVH with his team of researchers. Gordon and his team have been searching ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Tanakh (OT) that go back to the ninth century A.D. After searching through thousands of ancient manuscripts and visually looking for the Hebrew letters Y-H-V-H, they have found 1015 instances where the Jewish sages have filled in the vowel points of these four letters for the name of Elohim so that it reads Yehovah. To date, they have not found a single instance where Y-H-V-H has been written as Yahweh. At 41:40 in the video, Gordon and Keith Johnson discuss this fact. Gordon has put together a data base listing the places in the Bible where the name Yehovah occurs along with the name of the ancient manuscript in which Yehovah is found. -https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/2018/02/06/yehovah-found-1015-times/[/URL]
Bible scholar Nehemia Gordon on the Name of God, evidence from Hebrew manuscripts, vav or waw, origin of yahweh, meaning of hovah, yahuah theory, Jesus Zeus
www.nehemiaswall.com
The claim made by Dr. Nehemia Gordon—that the pronunciation “Yehovah” is the true and original vocalization of the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) based on over 1,000 manuscript instances of this form—is not supported by the historical and linguistic consensus of Jewish and Semitic scholarship. The claim rests upon a misunderstanding of the function of vowel points in the Masoretic Text and a disregard for the linguistic development of Hebrew and the documented practice of scribal tradition.
First, it must be clarified that the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH) is written without vowels in the original Hebrew Bible. The vowel points found in the Masoretic manuscripts are not the original vowels of the divine name but are artificial diacritical marks added centuries later to guide pronunciation, often inserted to avoid pronouncing the name altogether.
The pronunciation “Yehovah” arises from the deliberate insertion of the vowel points for “Adonai” (אֲדֹנָי) or “Elohim” (אֱלֹהִים) into the consonants Y-H-W-H. This hybrid form was a scribal device to remind the reader to substitute “Adonai” or “Elohim” instead of attempting to vocalize the divine name, which was considered too sacred to pronounce aloud. This is confirmed by leading scholars such as Wilhelm Gesenius (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar § 16 n. 2), who explains that the vowels in “Jehovah” are not the original vowels of the divine name, but those of a qere perpetuum substitution.
Furthermore, Dr. Gordon’s methodology is flawed because he treats these Masoretic forms as original rather than as editorial conventions. His team’s discovery of over a thousand instances of “Yehovah” with vowel points is not surprising, given that Masoretes systematically pointed the Tetragrammaton with the vowels of “Adonai” to avoid utterance of the name. These forms date no earlier than the 9th century A.D., well after the original vocalization of the divine name was lost.
On the contrary, the pronunciation “Yahweh” finds support from early Greek transliterations and from patristic sources. The Greek forms Ἰαβέ (Iabe) and Ἰαουέ (Iaoue) were preserved by Theodoret (5th century), Epiphanius (4th century), and Clement of Alexandria (2nd–3rd century), who recorded Jewish pronunciation traditions well before the vowel system of the Masoretes was developed. These forms reflect a two-syllable pronunciation with an initial Ya- and a final -weh, closely matching “Yahweh.”
Linguistically, the form “Yahweh” aligns with the morphology of Hebrew theophoric names (such as Yesha‘yahu, Yirmeyahu) and with the Hebrew verbal root הוה / היה (“to be”). Most scholars believe “Yahweh” derives from the causative imperfect form yahwī or yahweh, meaning “He causes to be,” consistent with the explanation given in Exodus 3:14, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (“I AM that I AM”).
Gordon’s additional claim that “Yahweh” comes from pagan sources is likewise inaccurate. There is no credible evidence that the form “Yahweh” was derived from pagan deity names. On the contrary, the tetragrammaton was uniquely Israelite and stood in stark contrast to the polytheism of surrounding cultures. The claim of a pagan origin is speculative and does not appear in any serious academic linguistic or epigraphic work.
So-in short--
The vowel points under יהוה producing “Yehovah” were never intended as the original pronunciation, but rather a protective mechanism by Jewish scribes to prevent vocalization of the name.
The form “Yahweh” fits Hebrew linguistic morphology and reflects the meaning of the divine name in Exodus 3:14.
The accusation that “Yahweh” is pagan lacks evidence and ignores the uniqueness of the Tetragrammaton in ancient Israelite religion.
For these reasons, while Dr. Gordon’s research may be sincere, the evidence he presents does not support “Yehovah” as the original pronunciation, nor does it invalidate “Yahweh” as the most likely reconstruction based on philology, history, and the witness of Second Temple and early Christian sources.
J.
