Is it true the name "Jehovah" is in Catholic Bible?

Greetings friends,

Recently I came across to this video clip telling that the word “Jehovah” is found in the Catholic Bible, while most of the discussions in this forum are saying it is not the name of God! Please could someone clear up this claim.

Beside, while I watched it for couple minutes I could find that there was a movement of the bibles, which happens at the 00:50 seconds. Am I right?

In Christ

The Latin pronunciation of the letter I/J as a consonant sound was [j], the ‘y’ sound of the English word ‘you’. This changed in descendent languages into various stronger consonants, including at one point in French [dʒ], the ‘j’ sound of the word ‘juice’, and this was the sound the letter came to be used for in English. Thus the English pronunciation of the older form Jehovah has this ‘j’ sound, following the English pronunciation of its Latin spelling. In order to preserve the Latin (and approximate Hebrew) pronunciation of Jahweh, however, the English spelling was changed to Yahweh.

Later, Christian Europeans who did not know about the Q’re perpetuum custom took these spellings at face value, producing the form “Jehovah” and spelling variants of it. The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: “Jehovah (Yahweh), the proper name of God in the Old Testament.” Had they known about the Q’re perpetuum, the term “Jehovah” may have never come into being.[42] For more information, see the page Jehovah. Contemporary scholars recognise Jehovah to be “grammatically impossible” (Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol VII, p. 8).

So the jehova you’re probably thinking of is the wrong version used today by Jehova Witnesses and other non-denominational groups. These articles should clear up any problems you have with pronunciations and origins. Just remember that latin and english pronunciations are different :smiley:

God Bless!

Which translation? It doesn’t appear in the RSV at all. The only appearance in the NAB is in a footnote where it says that “Jehovah” arose from a false pronunciation of the name of the Lord.

I’m not sure what relevance there is in answering this question. do you have a bet going, or something?

I think it DID appear in the first Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version, but the second version was issued to take out the name “Yaweh” and replace it with “LORD”

again, I “think” it was Benedict XVI who ordered this. If you read the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth he brings up this subject explicitly, and says it should not be used, in accordance with tradition.

Now, there’s some theology in that, somewhere, and I’m not a theologian. You can use the word Jehovah, if you want, because it ain’t the name of God, as a previous post indicated.
At worst it’s a bad translation, at best it spares using the most intimate Name of the Divine, the name which most closely attaches to His compassionate and merciful nature.

In the Catholic Bible it is either Lord or Yahweh . It is Jehovah in the KJ Bible

If you didnt catch the articles i posted, the name Jehova is pronounce Yahweh in Latin. When you put french and english translations with out changing the way the word looks you get Jehova (with J as in juice) when it should be Yahweh in English

…as I understand it the Name of God, “Yahweh” is derived from the tetragrammaton: YHWH–for some reason (beyond my comprehension) Protestants adopted the term “Jehovah” which is a derivative (composite) of YHWH + Adonai:

The oldest known inscription of the tetragrammaton dates to 840 BC, on the Mesha Stele. It bears the earliest certain extra-biblical reference to the Israelite god Yahweh.[6]

The most widely accepted pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is Yahweh. Genebrardus suggested the pronunciation Jahve based on Theodoret’s assertion that the Samaritans used the pronunciation Iabe. For the Jews, however, it was forbidden to pronounce or even write in full, the Tetragrammaton.[3]

The origins for the composite term Jehovah, came from early English translators who transposed the vowels from Adonai to the Tetragrammaton, and read the word literally so that the Y in YHWH, was pronounced as a J in English, and the W as a V.[1] Taking the spellings at face value may have been as a result of not knowing about the Q’re perpetuum, thus resulting in the term “Jehovah” and its spelling variants. The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states: “Jehovah (Yahweh), the proper name of God in the Old Testament.” Had they known about the Q’re perpetuum, the term “Jehovah” may have never come into being.[12] Modern scholars recognize Jehovah to be “grammatically impossible” (Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol VII, p. 8).

(Above excerpts are found at:

…is there a Catholic Bible that includes the term “Jehovah” instead of “Yahweh?” …I won’t put it past the pragmatists and liberals in the Fold! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!


…sorry… I forgot:

Welcome to the forum!

Maran atha!


Have any of you looked at the video? It references a SPANISH Bible–and by the looks of it, not a new one. I’m not an expert on Spanish, but it may be possible that this translation was using the word “Yahweh” (like the NJB does) but because of the peculiarities of Spanish spelling or pronunciation, it had to be rendered “Jehova” (in a modern Spanish Bible the verses they cited render the same word SENOR–or LORD). The Jehovahs Witnesses are good at deriving dopey conclusions from things like this and making a big deal about it.

The term “Jehovah” or “Jehova” has never appeared in an English Catholic version.

Nope, transliterating Yhwh into Iehova(h) was not a Protestant idea. They merely inherited it.

…is there a Catholic Bible that includes the term “Jehovah” instead of “Yahweh?” …I won’t put it past the pragmatists and liberals in the Fold! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!


Nope, in English at least. The 1609 Douai OT uses Adonai in at least two instances (Exodus 6:3; Judith 16:16) and uses “(our) Lord” (following the Vulgate Dominus) in all others. “I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Iacob, in God Almightie: and my name ADONAI I did not shew them. (Margin: Adonai is not the name here vttered to Moyses but is redde in place of the vnknowen name.)” The Challoner version has a more lengthy note:

My name Adonai: The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existent being, Ex. 3. 14, which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put the points or vowels, which belong to the name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name Jehovah, unknown to all the ancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse, is now quite lost.

That being said: the way the Name is transcribed in Greek sources (mainly from gnostic works, magical formulae and a few Church Fathers) are interesting. Ἰαῶ (Iaō) is by far the commonest (cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica I 94.2: “Among the Jews Moses referred his laws to the god who is invoked as Iaō;” the Septuagint text of Leviticus found in Qumran (4QPapLXXLev[sup]b[/sup] aka 4Q120), which renders the Name as ιαω), alongside other similar transliterations like Ἰαοὺ (Iaou), Iaho, Ἰαβέ or Ἰαβαί (Iabe, Iabai - both pronounced yah-veh). But there are also transcriptions like Ιεου (Ieou), Ιευώ (Ieuō), and even Ιεωά (Ieōa) or ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ (Ieēōoua - also happens to be the seven vowels of the Greek alphabet arranged in a row).

The first author to actually use Iehova was the 13th century Catalan Dominican author and polemicist Ramón Martí in the work Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos (The Dagger of Faith against the Moors and Jews). Incidentally, he also uses Yohoua at the same work. A Carthusian monk named Porchetus (who was highly influenced by Martí) used both Iehova and Yohouah in Victoria Porcheti adversos impios Hebraeos (Porchetus’ Victory Against the Impious Hebrews), written around 1303. Nicholas of Cusa also used Iehoua, as did Pope Leo X’s confessor Pietro Galatino (De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis, 1518).

Wow, that last one is hard to say! Where does it appear?

I’ve come upon it from Charles William King’s work The Gnostics and their Remains (1887) via Wikipedia.

Diod. Sic. (i. 94) records that the Godhead was named by Moses IAΩ, and hence came the word Jovis. Clem. Alex. says, the Tetragrammaton, the mystic Name, is pronounced IAOY, meaning, “He that is and shall be.” Theodoret states that the same four letters of the Holy Name were pronounced by the Samaritans as IABE (Javé); by the Jews, IAΩ. Jerome (Psalm viii.), “The Name of the Lord amongst the Hebrews is of four letters, Jod, He, Vau, He, which is properly the Name of God, and may be read as IAHO (Jaho), and is held by the Jews for ineffable.” The author of the treatise ‘On Interpretation’ says, “the Egyptians express the name of the Supreme Being by the seven Greek vowels ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ;” which sufficiently explains their so frequent occurrence upon the talismans under consideration.

In true 19th century fashion, King performs what admittedly would now be considered to be a bit of mental gymnastics by connecting the Jewish idea of the Ineffable Name to the Egyptians, all the while purporting that the Egyptians got it from the Indians. :rolleyes:

Nigh-unreadable ‘names of power’ is really a common feature of some gnosticisms and Greco-Roman popular magic. try reading through the Books of Jeu and see if your tongue doesn’t get twisted. :shrug:

And again when they take my soul to the place of all the ranks of Jachthanabas,
the great and powerful Archon,
who is full of anger, the successor of the Archon of the outer darkness, the place in which all forms change,
who is powerful,
who is spread out upon the way of the Midst,
who carries off the souls by theft:

when they take my soul to that place
it will give to them the mystery of their fear which is AWHPNEUPSAZPA

And now you know what Jesus meant when He said that one must not babble like the pagans when praying. :stuck_out_tongue:

Thank you very much for that link, and hooray for the eccentricities of C19th dilletante “scholarship”! James Bruce, at least, did manage to be very helpful.

I have read some earlier Greek magical texts, but they transliterate Egyptian expressions, not Hebrew ones, and so this tongue-twister was new. In mediaeval magical inscriptions, I have also seen some odd Kethib-Qere issues, including some recopied invocational circles ringed with various Divine Names amongst which is found TETRAGRAMMATON (sic).

And now you know what Jesus meant when He said that one must not babble like the pagans when praying. :stuck_out_tongue:

I am afraid that I tend to think of all of this sort of logocentric magic when I run into ‘Word of Faith’ Protestants: I keep waiting for one of them to say that they have Solomon’s Ring, which is bad of me, I know. :whistle:

…just saw the clip; and it is there… my question is, who commissioned that Bible?

It could well be that the Bishop/s who commissioned that Bible (if it is a Catholic Bible–I did not see any information dealing with its origin and print or any “imprimatur” notations) did not have in place an editing body that supervised the project or that the people involved in the printing, including the Bishop/s, were laxed and liberal Catholics that play into that universal ecumenism where Catholics embrace and accept everything in the name of brotherhood and peace…

…as for the Spanish translation of Yahweh… there are two ways of spelling it: Yahveh and Yave–the root does not change!

Maran atha!


Thanks for the clarification!

…as pedestrian as I am I still do not see how the rendering Jehova is more correct than Yahweh since it is said that in order to render YHWH as Jehova an additional name had to be combined onto the tetragrammaton–I liken this reasoning to “highly favored” or “favored one” instead of “full of Grace.”

While it is true that langues do temd tp morph, I wonder how the original pronounciation of the tetragrammaton would sound closer to Jehovah than to Yahweh as the letters which have been “transliterated?” show a deep afinity to Yahweh?

I have always wondered how the pronounciation of the Hebrew term for “I Am” or “I’m the one who Am” would differ between present day Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew?

Maran atha!


Who says that “Jehova” is more correct?

Hebrew’s lack of written vowels and V/W mixing, combined with the I/J and U/V mixing of Early Modern English’s free spelling caused much of the variation in English. Tyndale’s Bible (1540) uses “Iehouah”, whereas Milton’s Paradise Lost uses “Jehovah” (7.602), i.e. exchanging I for J and U for W. Alexander Pope and then Byron followed Milton’s spelling, fairly effectively canonizing that one.

I liken this reasoning to “highly favored” or “favored one” instead of “full of Grace.”

In addition to the usual issues of the obfuscations brought about via Catholic-Protestant polemics, it depends upon whether one is translating from the Greek κεχαριτωμενη (“having been highly favoured”) or the Latin plena gratia (“full of grace”). They both work, just from different sources.

Catholic Bibles are mostly on-line so it is a simple matter to check it yourself. I did and didn’t find “Jehovah” in it.

You also have to remember that the letters J and W did not originally exist. :wink:

Didn’t the pope say that we shouldn’t use translations of the bible that have Jehovah in them?

Wasn’t that why they changed the Jerusalem bible in the UK so that everytime Jehovah was mentioned in scripture that “THE LORD” was substituted for Jehovah?

Was that because “Jehovah” was uncertain or was it because “Jehovah” was offensive to the Jews and Pope Benedict didn’t want Catholic translations to be offensive to our Jewish bretheren?

I’m just asking these questions–I don’t know the answer to them–correct me if what I am saying or asking is wrong.

I’m not aware of any such statements to that effect (I’m likely to be wrong on this one though). I do know that using ‘Yahweh’ in the context of the liturgy was discouraged as being inappropriate.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit