In arguing against the use of Jehovah, sacred namers [those preferring Yahweh] claim that this name was unknown in Biblical times. They insist that the name Jehovah is a recent invention, concocted in the 1500s by a Catholic priest. They quote well-known Biblical writers and editors who support this view. One sacred name publication states,

In the introduction to The Emphasized Bible, editor Joseph Rotherham writes, ‘The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520 when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety’ (pp. 24-25) (The Mistaken J, p. 17).

Sacred namers [Yahweh preferred] believe that they have the real facts concerning the name Jehovah because a number of sources support this view. Among these
sources are the Jewish Encyclopedia, which states,

The reading Jehovah is a comparatively recent invention. Jehovah is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo the 10th’s confessor, Peter Galatin (De Arcanis Catholic Veritates 1518, Folio XLIII) who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius Drusius. Van de Driesche, who lived between 1550 and 1616, was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of Jehovah, and this view has been taken since his days. (vol. 7, s.v. “Jehovah”).

Is it true that the name Jehovah was invented by a Catholic priest named Galatin or Galatinus? Or is this view of scholars itself an invention? Let us examine other historical and Biblical sources to shed more light on the subject.

Who was Galatinus?

The real name of Peter Galatin, or Petrus Galatinus, was Pietro Colonna Galatino. Here is a brief summary of his life and work as stated in the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Galatino, Pietro Colonna [alias Petrus Galatinus], Friar Minor, philosopher, theologian, Orientalist; b. at Galatia (now Cajazzo) in Aplia; d. at Rome, soon after 1539; received the habit as early as 1480, studied Oriental languages in Rome and was appointed lector at the convent of Ara Coelie; he also held the office of provincial in the province of Bari, and that of penitentiary under Leo X. Galatino wrote his chief work ‘De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis’, at the request of the pope, the emperor, and other dignitaries, in 1516, at which time, owing mainly to John Reuchlin’s ‘Augenspiegel’, the famous controversy on the authority of the Jewish writings was assuming a very menacing aspect. Galatino took up Reuchlin’s defence. Resolved to combat the Jews on their own ground, he turned the Cabbala against them and sought to convince them that their own books yielded ample proof of the truth of the Christian religion, hence their opposition to it should be branded as obstinacy. He gave his work the form of a dialogue. The two conflicting Christian parties were represented by Capnio (Reuchlin) and the Inquisitor Hochstraten, O.P. In conciliatory terms, Galatino responded to the queries and suggestions of the former and refuted the objection of the latter. He had borrowed largely from the ‘Pugio Fidei’ of the Dominican Raymond Martini, remodeling, however, the material and supplementing it with copious quotations from the ‘Zohar’ and the ‘Gale Razayya’ (1912 ed., s.v. “Galatino”).

Now that we have learned more about Galatinus, let us look at the assertion that he invented the name Jehovah. If Galatinus had invented the name, Jehovah would not have been known before his time. Yet it is a historical fact that the name Jehovah was known and used centuries before Galatinus finished his De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis. Notice:

But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant (e.g. Cajetan [Tommaso de Vio Gaetani, died August 7, 1547, alias Cajetan Toledo–best known for his dealings with Luther; see Kingdon, Execution of Justice in England and Defense of English Catholics, p. 144] and Theodore de Beze [a great Reformation scholar], are perfectly familiar with the word [Jehovah]. Galatinus himself (‘Arcana cathol. veritatis’, I, Bari, 1516, a, p. 77) represents the form as known and received in his time. Besides, Drusius (loc. cit., 351) discovered it in Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the ‘Pugio fidei’ [Dagger of Faith] of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745). Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin. (Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1912 ed., s.v. “Jehovah”).

Historical records clearly demonstrate that the name Jehovah was known centuries before the time of Galatinus. How, then, did the myth develop that Galatinus invented the name? Let’s take a closer look at this claim as presented in the Jewish Encyclopedia: “The reading Jehovah is a comparatively recent invention. Jehovah is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo the 10th’s confessor, Peter Galatin (De Arcanis Catholic Veritates 1518, Folio XLIII) who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius Drusius. Van de Driesche, who lived between 1550 and 1616, was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of Jehovah, and this view has been taken since his days” (vol. 7, s.v. “Jehovah”).

In this article, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that a man named Van de Driesche was the first to link the name Jehovah to the works of Galatinus. But at the same time, the use of Jehovah was supported by a man named “Fagius Drusius.” Who were these men, and what shaped their views?

When we delve into historical records of the time, we find that the Jewish Encyclopedia has mistakenly combined the names “Fagius” and “Drusius,” and that these names actually belong to two different men. The man who was known by the Latin name Paulus Fagius was the German scholar Paul Buechelin. The man known as Drusius, also known as Van Der Driesche, was the Dutch theologian Johann Clemens. Both men lived in the 1500s, but Fagius died a year before the birth of Drusius. Let us examine the lives of these two men to learn the circumstances that shaped their opposing views of the name Jehovah.

Fagius
Paulus Fagius
Paul Buechelin
(1504-1549)

As the Encyclopaedia Judaica relates, Fagius, whose real name was Paul Buechelin, was a professor of Hebrew who had studied under the great Elijah Levita. Notice:

Fagius, Paulus (Paul Buechelin; 1504-1549), Hebraist. Born at Rheinzabern, in the Palatinate, Germany, he was a professor of Hebrew first at Strasbourg and later at Cambridge. He learned Hebrew from Elijah Levita, whom he invited to supervise the Hebrew press he established in Isny (Bavaria). He translated the following Hebrew books into Latin: Elijah Levita’s Tishbi (Isny, 1541; Basle, 1557) and Meturgeman (Isny, 1542); the Talmud tractate Avot (Isny, 1541). He edited a Hebrew version of the book of Tobit with a Latin translation (Isny, 1542); the Alphabet of Ben Sira (Isny, 1542), and David Kimhi’s commentary to Psalms 110 (Constance, 1544). He edited several chapters of Targum Onkelos (Strasbourg, 1546) and wrote an exegetic treatise on the first four chapters of Genesis, (‘Exegesis sive expositio dictionum hebraicarum literalis in quatuor captiula Geneseos,’ Isny, 1542). He was the author of an elementary Hebrew grammar (Constance, 1543) and of two books, Liber Fidei seu Veritatis and Parvus Tractulus, in which he endeavored, with reference to Jewish sources, to prove the truth of Christianity. He began the republication of a revised edition of the concordance Me’ir Nativ. After his migration to England, where he died, this work was completed by Reuchlin (Basle, 1556). (vol. 6, s.v. “Fagius”).

“Bibliography: L. Geiger, Das Studium der hebraeischen Sprache in Deutschland (1870), 66; Steinschneider, Cat. Bod. 977, no. 5048 3080, no. 9397; idem, in: JEJ, 4 (1882), 57-67; idem in ZHB, 2(1897), 149 50, no. 178; Perles, Beitraege, index; M. Stern, Urkundliche Beitraege ueber die Stellung der Paepste zu den Juden (1893), no. 159” (vol. 6, s.v. “Fagius”).

We find additional information about the life and work of Fagius, or Beuchelin, in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, which states that he also studied under the renowned Reuchlin. Fagius was a “German theologian; b. at Rheinzabern (9 m. s.e. of Landau), Rhenish Bavaria, 1504; d. at Cambridge, England. Nov. 13, 1549. He studied at Heidelberg (1515) and at Strasburg (1522), where Capito [Johann Reuchlin] taught him Hebrew; he became rector of the school at Isny, 1527; was a student of theology at Strasburg, 1535; returned as Evangelical pastor to Isny, 1537; and became pupil in Hebrew of Elias Levita; he succeeded Capito as pastor and theological professor in Strasburg, 1542. Violently opposed to the Interim when it was introduced (1549), he accepted Cranmer’s invitation to come to England and became a professor of Hebrew at Cambridge and soon died of a fever. Under Queen Mary his and Butzer’s bones were exhumed and burned (Feb. 6, 1557) and their university honors were taken from them; but Queen Elizabeth ordered that the university formally restore to them their honors (July 22, 1560)” (vol. IV, s.v. “Fagius”).

The Fagius of history was the German Hebraist Paul Buechelin, a Reformation scholar and a Protestant theologian! Buechelin was one of the leading Hebrew scholars of his generation, having studied under the greatest Christian Hebraist of all, Johann Reuchlin. He had also studied Hebrew under the greatest of all the Sephardic Hebraists, Elias or Elijah Levita. Beuchelin’s expertise in Biblical Hebrew was acknowledged by all
Protestant scholars of his day and his qualifications are still unquestioned by the scholarly community today.

Based on the teaching he had received from the learned Reuchlin and the great Elias Levita, Buechelin–or Fagius–supported the use of Jehovah as the true pronunciation of the Hebrew name JHVH. No one could convince this leading Protestant scholar that the name Jehovah was invented, because he had been taught by the most knowledgeable Hebrew scholars of his day. He was thoroughly familiar with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the pronunciation of every consonant and vowel marking. His expert knowledge of the Hebrew language formed a solid basis for his use of the name Jehovah as a legitimate pronunciation of the divine name.

Historical records confirm that the man known as Fagius–in reality, Paul Buechelin, leading German scholar and professor of Hebrew–was eminently qualified to evaluate the legitimacy of the name Jehovah. However, soon after the death of Fagius, another man came on the scene, promoting a very different view of Jehovah. This man, known by the Latin name Drusius, was none other than the Dutch theologian Johann Clemens– also known as Van Der Driesche. As quoted earlier in an article from The Jewish Encyclopedia, it was Van Der Driesche who first claimed that the name Jehovah was invented by Galatinus.

Was this view of the name Jehovah based on unbiased scholarship and careful consideration of the historical facts, or was it the result of outside influences and glossing over the records of history? Let us investigate the life of Van Der Driesche, or Drusius, to find the answer.

Drusius
Van Der Driesche
Johann Clemens
(1550-1616)

The Encyclopaedia Judaica states the following: “Drusius (Van Der Driesche), Johann Clemens (1550-1616). Dutch theologian, Hebraist, and Bible scholar. A native of Oudenarde (East Flanders), he was professor of oriental languages at Oxford (from 1572) and later in Leiden, Ghent, and Francker. Drusius wrote several books on Hebrew grammer, including Alphabetum ebraicum vetus (1587) and Grammatica linguae sanctae nova (1612). Nomenclator Eliae Levitae, a book on Elijah Levita’s works (1652), was written in collaboration with his son Johann and many other scholars. He wrote several works on biblical exegesis” (vol. 6, s.v. “Drusius”). Note: Either the editors of the Encyclopaedia Judaica erred in their dates, or Drusius worked on his book on Elijah Levita’s works posthumously. Drusius died in 1616.

Concerning Drusius’ works on Biblical exegesis, The New Schaff-Herzog comments, “When a committee was organized in 1596 for the preparation of a new Dutch version of the Bible, Drusius was made a member upon the recommendation of Arminius and Uytenbogaert; but subsequently the committee was obliged to dissolve. In 1600 Drusius was commissioned by the States General to annotate difficult passages of the Old Testament, to which task he devoted himself with great industry, but had often to hear reproaches of tardy progress. He was also attacked by theologians of other opinions for being a friend of Arminius and Uytenbogaert….in [t]his age of stormy conflicts he passed for an undecided man because, having applied himself with all his might to the advancement of Biblical science, in connection with his investigations he could not admit dogmatic definitions as authoritative. He repeatedly appeals to the ‘judgment of the Church catholic’ against particular churches and ecclesiastical factions, by which he will not suffer himself to be restricted in his scholarly activity. Only a small portion of his notes on the Old Testament appeared in his lifetime; the rest were published by Amama and others, 1617-36. He also wrote comments on the New Testament, containing especially elucidations from the Talmud and rabbinical sources (Francker, 1612; 2d ed., 1616). His collective works were issued by Amama (10 vol, Arnheim and Amsterdam, 1622-36). Lists of Drusius’s numerous writings are to be found in Meursius, Vriemoet, and Niceron. In the Critica sacra his annotations stand after those of Munster, Fagius, Vatablus, Castalio, and Clarius; they rank among the most important in the great compilation” (vol. IV, s.v. “Drusius”).

These reports of Drusius’ life and work make it clear that Drusius was not noted for good scholarship. It is recorded that he was “tardy” in his scholarship, “could not admit dogmatic definitions as authoritative,” repeatedly appealed “to the judgment of the Church catholic” even though he was Protestant, and elucidated the New Testament from Talmudic and rabbinic sources. These facts indicate that Drusius was influenced by both Catholic and rabbinic opinions in forming his conclusions. Further evidence of Drusius’ poor scholarship can be found in his own words, published on page 351 of his article in the Critici Sacri, admitting that he had discovered the name Jehovah in the work of Salvagus de Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century–a full 200 years before Galatinus! Porchetus’ work, entitled Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos (Porchetus’ Victory Against the Ungodly Hebrews), was published in 1303.

Drusius had apparently forgotten his own discovery in Porchetus’ work when shortly before his death he published his view that the name Jehovah was invented by Galatinus. As an old man with a failing memory, he unwittingly set into motion a myth–a false notion that was perpetuated by scholars down through the centuries and is now accepted by many as a historical fact.

As quoted earlier in this article, two other men of Drusius’ era publicly opposed the name Jehovah, claiming that it was “against grammatical and historical propriety.” They are identified as “Le Mercier” and “L. Capellus.” Capellus, or Louis Cappel, was able to convince the scholarly world of his day to accept the myth that Jehovah was an invented name. Let us examine the historical records to see how this was accomplished.

L. Capellus
Ludovicus Capellus
Louis Cappel
(1585-1658)

The Encyclopedia Britannica states the following: “Latin Ludovicus Capellus (b. Oct. 15, 1585, St. Elier, Fr.–d. 1658), French Huguenot theologian and Hebrew scholar. Cappel studied theology at Sedan and Saumur, both in France, and Arabic at the University of Oxford, where he spent two years. In 1613 he accepted the chair of Hebrew at Saumur, and in 1633 he became a professor of theology there. Cappel’s important Critica Sacra (1634) met with such theological opposition that he was not able to print it until 1650, at Paris, and then only with the aid of a son who had turned Roman Catholic. The various readings in the Old Testament text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text, as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack on the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter as was the opposition, however, it was not long before HIS RESULTS WERE ACCEPTED BY SCHOLARS” (s.v. “Cappel, Louis”).

As this article reveals, Cappel’s publication Critica Sacra was instrumental in convincing scholars of his day that the Masoretic text was defective, and that other ancient manuscripts were more accurate. This was, of course, an attack on the King James Bible, which had been published only two decades earlier. Cappel was initially opposed by the Protestant community of France but, with Catholic support, eventually overcame all opposition. With the acceptance of his views, the King James Version was discredited, and the seeds of higher criticism were sown.

Cappel’s rejection of the Masoretic text as the most accurate of the ancient manuscripts was the basis for his opposition to the name Jehovah. Cappel rejected the true pronunciation of the divine name JHVH as preserved in the Masoretic text and turned instead to corrupted manuscripts that used other pronunciations of the divine name. Let us not forget that it was Pope Leo X (Giovanni De Medici) who sponsored the first rabbinic Bible (1516/17) compiled by Rabbi Felix Pratensis. Rabbi Pratensis had converted to Catholicism, becoming an Augustinian Hermit. Pope Clement VII sponsored the second rabbinic Bible (1523/24), compiled by Rabbi Jacob ben Chayyim. Rabbi Chayyim “converted” to Catholicism before his death. It was to these corrupt texts that Cappel appealed when he labeled the Masoretic text of Ben Asher, used for the King James Version, as “untenable.”

Cappel’s publication Critica Sacra, accepted by scholars in 1650 as “gospel truth,” was used forty-eight years later in a British encyclopedic work entitled Critici Sacri to reinforce the myth begun by Drusius–that the name Jehovah had been invented by Galatinus. Notice:

Article ‘Tetragrammaton,’ 8-10, in ‘Critici Sacri,’ published Amsterdam, 1698, I, p. ii col. 339-42. On page 344 of ‘Critici Sacri’ Drusius ‘…represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the word Jehovah, and Fagius as its propagator in the world of scholars and commentators’ (Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1912 ed., s.v. “Jehovah”).

The Critici Sacri, which laid the groundwork for higher criticism, was produced in England. It is described as “a thesaurus of Bible aniquities and exegesis, undertaken as an appendage to Walton’s Polyglot at the instigation and expense of Cornelius Bee, a London bookseller, and prepared under the direction of John Pearson, archdeacon of Surrey (afterward bishop of Chester); Anthony Scatergood, canon of Lincoln; Francis Gouldman, rector of South Ockendon, Exxex and Richard Pearson, fellow of King’s College (brother of John). The full title is Critici Sacri: sive doctissimorum virorum in SS. Biblia annatationes et tractatus (9 vols, London, 1660). The work combines the labors of many of the best English and continental scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was reprinted twice at Frankfort, and a new edition, augmented and provided with index, appeared at Amsterdam in nine volumes, 1698. The Thesaurus theologico-philologicus sive sylloge dissertationum elegantiorum ad selectora et illustriora Veteris et Novi Testamenti loca, a theologis Protestantibus in Germania separatim diversis temporibus conscriptarum (2 vols., folio, 1701-02) and the Thesaurus novus theologico-philologicus (2 vols., 1732), both works edited by Theodor Hase and Conrad Iken, constitute a supplement. The Synopsis criticorum of Matthew Poole (q.v.) is an abridgment of the original work with additional matter. For contents of the Critici Sacri consult James Daling, Cyclopaedia Bibliographies (London, 1854), 815-826” (The New SchaffHerzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. III, s.v. “Critici Sacri”).

Through the Critici Sacri and other influential publications, most of the scholarly community was convinced to accept the myth that Jehovah was an invented name. This myth was perpetuated by quoting the words of one scholar in particular–a German scholar named Bottcher.

Bottcher
1866

It was Bottcher who stated in 1866 that “…the pronunciation of Jehovah was unknown until 1520 when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus as against grammatical and historic propriety.” Bottcher apparently got this information from the Critica Sacra of Cappel or the Critici Sacri of Bee. Bottcher was the conduit through which this myth passed into the works of Brown, Driver and Briggs and Joseph Bryant Rotherham. The following quote, taken off the Internet, illustrates how Bottcher’s words were passed down through later publications.

The Oxford Gesenius
1892-1900

Notice how Bottcher’s words, as quoted in The Oxford Gesenius, are being used by sacred namers today to argue against the legitimacy of Jehovah:

First as to age, the pronunciation of Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus as against grammatical and historic propriety (Oxford Gesenius, pg. 218)” (Yahweh is the Undeniable Name, http://www.techline.com/~wtaylor/name.html, April, 1997).

The reference should be to The Oxford Gesenius and not Oxford Gesenius. (Once a mistake enters the information pipeline, it seems to flow along without challenge.) The Oxford Gesenius first appeared in a series during the years from 1892-1900. The complete set, with additions and corrections, was republished in 1906 by Brown, Driver, and Briggs.

Gesenius-Buhl
1899
Handworterbuch
13th ed p. 311

A German scholar named Buhl, who served as editor of The Oxford Gesenius, helped to perpetuate the myth concerning the name Jehovah. Buhl apparently adopted his view that Jehovah was invented in the 1500s from the Critici Sacri. “It has been maintained by some recent scholars [Jewish included] that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520 (cf. Hastings, ‘Dictionary of the Bible’, II, 1899, p. 199; Gesenius-Buhl, ‘Handworterbuch’, 13th ed., 1899, p. 311). Drusius (loc. cit., 344) represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the word Jehovah, and Fagius as its propagator in the world of scholars and commentators” (Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1912 ed., s.v. “Jehovah”).

James Hastings
1899

At this same time, James Hastings began to publish his Dictionary of the Bible, which also perpetuates the myth that Jehovah was invented by Galatinus.

Hastings appears to have referenced the same source as Buhl. “It has been maintained by some recent scholars [Jewish included] that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520 (cf. Hastings, ‘Dictionary of the Bible’, II, 1899, p. 199; Gesenius-Buhl, ‘Handworterbuch’, 13th ed., 1899, p. 311). Drusius (loc. cit., 344) represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the word Jehovah, and Fagius as its propagator in the world of scholars and commentators” (Ibid.).

Joseph Bryant Rotherham
1902
The Emphasized Bible

Three years after the myth concerning Jehovah appeared in The Oxford Gesenius, Joseph Rotherham published this same myth in his Emphasized Bible. On page 24 of his Introduction to the Emphasized Bible, Rotherham quotes the words of Bottcher. He writes, “Why not in the form ‘Jehovah’? It is, and may still be freely employed to assist through a period of transition. But is it not hallowed and endeared by many a beautiful hymn and many a pious memory? Without doubt; and therefore it is with reluctance that it is here declined. But why is it not accepted? There it is–familiar, acceptable, ready for adoption. The reason is, that it is too heavily burdened with merited condemnation–as modern, as a compromise, as a ‘mongrel’ word, ‘hybrid,’ ‘fantastic,’ ‘monstrous.’ The facts have only to be known to justify this verdict, and to vindicate the propriety of not employing it in a new and independent translation. What are the facts? And first as to age. ‘The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety.’ ” Footnote b lists Rotherham’s source as “Oxford Gesenius, p. 218.”

Sacred namers have accepted Rotherham’s writings as accurate and authoritative without ever investigating the source of his information. Consequently, they firmly believe that the myth created by Drusius and spread by Capellus is a historical fact. As quoted previously, one sacred names publication uses Rotherham’s quote of Bottcher’s words to promote the mythology concerning Jehovah: “In the introduction to The Emphasized Bible, editor Joseph Rotherham writes, ‘The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety’ (pp. 24-25)” (The Mistaken J, p. 17).

Brown Driver and Briggs
1906

Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

Six years after The Oxford Gesenius was published, Brown, Driver, and Briggs published an expanded edition, which they entitled Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. In their article on Jehovah, they also quote the words of the German scholar Bottcher: ” ‘The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520 when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against
grammatical and historical propriety’ (cf. Bo 88)” (BDB p. 218).

The Jewish Encyclopedia
1907

One year later, The Jewish Encyclopedia published the same myth, but their article inaccurately links the names of Fagius and Drusius. (Drusius was actually Van de Driesche, whose name also appears in the article.) “The reading Jehovah is a comparatively recent invention. Jehovah is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo the 10th’s confessor, Peter Galatin (De Arcanis Catholic Veritates 1518, Folio XLIII) who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius Drusius. Van de Driesche, who lived between 1550 and 1616, was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of Jehovah, and THIS VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN SINCE HIS DAYS” (vol. 7, s.v. “Jehovah”).

Conclusion

The scholarly community today has inherited a myth from the past. Historical records bear ample evidence that the name Jehovah was not invented by Galatinus. [The statement still commonly repeated that it originated with Petrus Galatinus (1518) is erroneous; “Jehova” occurs in manuscripts at least as early as the 14th century. (1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jehova)] The pronunciation of the divine name JHVH as Jehovah was used by European scholars as early as the 10th century A.D. This fact confirms that the vowel points of JHVH were accepted as a legitimate part of the Hebrew text during this period of history. The pronunciation of JHVH as Jehovah predates Galatinus, Tyndale, Reuchlin and Buechelin (Fagius) to the time when the Levitical families began migrating to Spain from Palestine with their pointed Masoretic Texts. These texts had been consistently pointed since the 400’s A.D. There is no historical evidence to support the claim that the Masoretes had falsified the vowel points in the text.

When the Ben Asher text was finally sealed by 980 A.D. and the work of the Masoretes became the standard Hebrew text for all time, the divine name JHVH was pointed to be pronounced Jehovah. When Fagius, or Buechelin, supported the name Jehovah, he was following the vowel markings that he had learned from the Hebrew text of Ben Asher. When Tyndale translated JHVH to be pronounced as Jehovah, he was following the vowel markings that he had learned from the Hebrew text of Ben Asher.

Contrary to the claims of sacred namers, the name Jehovah was not invented by Galatinus. The records of history testify to all who are willing to examine them that Jehovah is the true pronunciation of the divine name JHVH. This document was used by permission from the Christian Biblical Church of God Website at: http://www.cbcg.org/ (By © Carl D. Franklin December 9, 1997) Some small tweaking and a couple additional thoughts were added by Edward D. Andrews in square [ … ] brackets.

[Of course, to a degree stereotyping and profiling are wrong when it comes to people. “In social psychology, a stereotype is an over-generalized belief about a particular category of people. Stereotypes are generalized because one assumes that the stereotype is true for each individual person in the category.” (Wikipedia) Profiling is extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies. Therein lies the problem, stereotyping in a broad sense holds more true than not because there is some truth to the generalization. I want to stereotype the modern-day scholarship from the early 1700s to the present for their taking Christianity blindly into the pits of biblical criticism of all sorts. Really, while the seeds were laid throughout the 1700s and 1800s, modern-day biblical criticism blossomed from about 1880 into the mid-1900s. In the last 70-years, it has been an all-consuming, raging fire. Just as you can boil an animal alive because of turning the head up so slow that they do not realize they are being cooked, so too, Christians have been slowly consumed by the destructive fire of biblical criticism. Read slowly. (1) Higher criticism gave us the subjective historical-critical method of biblical interpretation over the objective grammatical-historical method. (2) Biblical criticism has given us the interpretive translation where the translation committee determines what God meant in place of the literal Bible of what God said. (3) Biblical criticism has moved the goalpost in textual criticism from the textual scholar attempting to ascertain the original working of the original text, to simply getting back to the earliest reading possible. (4) In the late 1800s and the 1900s, biblical scholars began to use the form Yahweh in place of Jehovah, which has been the preferred pronunciation for 700 years. While this is no evidence at all really, it certainly raises suspicion over the great switch of the divine names by modern-day Bible scholars.]