Is "YHWH" a big blow to Sola Scriptura?

[WesleyF]

Sola Scriptura is a popular doctrine among non-Catholic Christians (and you will hear varying definitions of it depending on whom you're speaking to) and the essence of it seems that scripture is the only rule of faith for the Christian.

Given that, I suppose that the name of God, "YHWH", as written in the Old Testament, should pose a big problem to those who hold this position. After all, the Bible doesn't tell us how to pronounce "YHWH". The Hebrew in the Bible was written with consonants only, and therefore only the vowels of God's name ("YHWH") are known.

Doesn't this imply then that to correctly pronounce God's name, the Jews, and by extension, Christians, would need an authority outside of scripture to do so? Wouldn't that destroy sola scriptura and instead affirm the necessity of oral tradition?

[DavidFilmer]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

Wouldn't that destroy sola scriptura and instead affirm the necessity of oral tradition?

It might, on the other hand, contest the necessity of oral tradition. After all, nobody really knows for sure how the tetragrammaton was properly pronounced. Modern linguistic scholarship has attempted to discern the pronunciation based on other phonetic conventions - but these results are, at best, an educated guess (and are certainly not the product of oral tradition).

It is interesting that oral tradition has failed to preserve the proper pronunciation of the tetragrammaton. The Jews have a much stronger affinity for oral tradition than Western Europeans, who insist on writing everything down. Why did oral tradition fail the Jews? Maybe because their oral tradition does not enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit? I'm just sayin'....

[Catholic Dude]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

Sola Scriptura is a popular doctrine among non-Catholic Christians (and you will hear varying definitions of it depending on whom you're speaking to) and the essence of it seems that scripture is the only rule of faith for the Christian.

Given that, I suppose that the name of God, "YHWH", as written in the Old Testament, should pose a big problem to those who hold this position. After all, the Bible doesn't tell us how to pronounce "YHWH". The Hebrew in the Bible was written with consonants only, and therefore only the vowels of God's name ("YHWH") are known.

Doesn't this imply then that to correctly pronounce God's name, the Jews, and by extension, Christians, would need an authority outside of scripture to do so? Wouldn't that destroy sola scriptura and instead affirm the necessity of oral tradition?

A more powerful argument would be the "replacing" of YHWH with "Lord" by the Jews. The Bible nowhere says to do this, yet this is what happened "suddenly" and all Christians and Jews have accepted this as legitimate.

The JWs protest that this 'replacement' was a perversion of Scripture and an abomination, but they are stuck answering how the OT and NT was preserved this whole time and all Jews and Christians saw the 'replacement' as perfectly legitimate.

Your argument could work only in so far as forcing the Protestant to say "The pronunciation of God's name is not essential!" Catholic tradition tells us that this is indeed non essential, but going by Scripture alone that is somewhat a funny thing to say.

[Dave Noonan]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

Sola Scriptura is a popular doctrine among non-Catholic Christians (and you will hear varying definitions of it depending on whom you're speaking to) and the essence of it seems that scripture is the only rule of faith for the Christian.

Given that, I suppose that the name of God, "YHWH", as written in the Old Testament, should pose a big problem to those who hold this position. After all, the Bible doesn't tell us how to pronounce "YHWH". The Hebrew in the Bible was written with consonants only, and therefore only the vowels of God's name ("YHWH") are known.

Doesn't this imply then that to correctly pronounce God's name, the Jews, and by extension, Christians, would need an authority outside of scripture to do so? Wouldn't that destroy sola scriptura and instead affirm the necessity of oral tradition?

You can also prove the pronunciation linguistically, which would be going around both sola scriptura and oral tradition.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

Sola Scriptura is a popular doctrine among non-Catholic Christians (and you will hear varying definitions of it depending on whom you're speaking to) and the essence of it seems that scripture is the only rule of faith for the Christian.

Given that, I suppose that the name of God, "YHWH", as written in the Old Testament, should pose a big problem to those who hold this position. After all, the Bible doesn't tell us how to pronounce "YHWH". The Hebrew in the Bible was written with consonants only, and therefore only the vowels of God's name ("YHWH") are known.

Doesn't this imply then that to correctly pronounce God's name, the Jews, and by extension, Christians, would need an authority outside of scripture to do so? Wouldn't that destroy sola scriptura and instead affirm the necessity of oral tradition?

Is there something doctrinal in how the name is pronounced?

Jon

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

Sola Scriptura is a popular doctrine among non-Catholic Christians (and you will hear varying definitions of it depending on whom you're speaking to) and the essence of it seems that scripture is the only rule of faith for the Christian.

Not exactly. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the only infallible rule of Christian faith and practice. But you're right that you might hear different definitions depending on whom you talk to, given the state of confusion that exists among many evangelicals nowadays.

Given that, I suppose that the name of God, "YHWH", as written in the Old Testament, should pose a big problem to those who hold this position. After all, the Bible doesn't tell us how to pronounce "YHWH". The Hebrew in the Bible was written with consonants only, and therefore only the vowels of God's name ("YHWH") are known.

Doesn't this imply then that to correctly pronounce God's name, the Jews, and by extension, Christians, would need an authority outside of scripture to do so? Wouldn't that destroy sola scriptura and instead affirm the necessity of oral tradition?

No, because SS does not say that it's wrong to go outside the Bible to learn about the Bible. That would be a direct contradiction of Ephesians 4, which states that God gave pastors and teachers to the church so that Christians would grow in the faith and be equipped (my paraphrase).

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Is there something doctrinal in how the name is pronounced?

Jon

No.

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

You can also prove the pronunciation linguistically, which would be going around both sola scriptura and oral tradition.

How? I haven't heard a good argument for this.

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by Catholic Dude

A more powerful argument would be the "replacing" of YHWH with "Lord" by the Jews. The Bible nowhere says to do this, yet this is what happened "suddenly" and all Christians and Jews have accepted this as legitimate.

What do you mean by "suddenly"? I thought that LORD was what they had in the original manuscripts.

[Dave Noonan]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

How? I haven't heard a good argument for this.

I will look up some references for you, but it may take me until the end of the week. By using comparative Semitics, linguists have been able to come pretty close.

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by Koineman

Not exactly. Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the only infallible rule of Christian faith and practice.

If such is the case, how could we know infallibly whether we are pronouncing God's name correctly?

I have heard some Christians argue sola scriptura by saying that scripture is sufficient for "every good work" (2 Tim 3:17). To them I would ask, "Is scripture sufficient to call on the name of the Lord?" If not, then they do have a problem.

[Dave Noonan]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

What do you mean by "suddenly"? I thought that LORD was what they had in the original manuscripts.

The oldest Hebrew texts utilize the letters yod-hey-vav-hey approximately equal to 'y" "h" "w/v" (or potentially a long "o" vowel) and a final vowel that is probably "ah" or "ey". Anyway the name of Israel's God is not LORD in the Hebrew texts of the Bible.

LORD doesn't come into play until Hebrew texts are translated into Greek (Kyrios) which probably reflects the reading tradition of the time (Adon/Adonai; "Lord" or "my Lord.")

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

The oldest Hebrew texts utilize the letters yod-hey-vav-hey approximately equal to 'y" "h" "w/v" (or potentially a long "o" vowel) and a final vowel that is probably "ah" or "ey".

See, that's what I am talking about. How can we know with certainty?

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

If such is the case, how could we know infallibly whether we are pronouncing God's name correctly?

Good point. I suppose we'd have to rely on linguistics: We know how to pronounce God's name because of Hebrew grammar. Yes, since that's outside the Bible, according to Sola Scriptura, it's not infallible.

I have heard some Christians argue sola scriptura by saying that scripture is sufficient for "every good work" (2 Tim 3:17). To them I would ask, "Is scripture sufficient to call on the name of the Lord?" If not, then they do have a problem.

Another good point. I'm not sure I am totally with you on it, though. It seems like you're saying that if we use a fallible source to interpret an infallible text, then that proves that the text is not sufficient. It's possible for something to be the only infallible authority even if we need something fallible to understand it.

Here's an analogy: If a foreigner comes to the U.S. and doesn't speak a word of English, he will need someone to translate the laws of the land to him. So he asks a friend who is a lawyer to translate those laws. His friend is not a legislator, so he has no authority to make laws at all, but he knows English well and is able to give him a solid, accurate translation that conveys the letter of the law. Does that mean that the law he is translating is not sufficient?

Still, you are making a good point that warrants more thought.

[Tarpeian Rock]

Isn't this matter really a question of linguistics and not theology?