supposed Christian hybridization creation of Jehovah - the key blunder in Yahweh pseudo-scholarship

Steven Avery

The Creator's Name

“supposed Christian hybridization creation of Jehovah - The key blunder in Yahweh pseudo-scholarship.”


Current emphasis is on the Adonai theories -

From our perspective, there are two closely related theories.

1) the vowels of Adonai are placed with the tetragram.

2) the vowels are modified from the natural Yehovah to a gibberishy form as a reminder to say Adonai

Similar with Elohim vowels to avert reading Adonai Adonai.


We show a lot of evidence debunking (1), however also accepting the similar (2). Decisively explaining the vowel “facts on the ground” are a challenge for any side in the debate.


The Key Blunder is Falsely Claiming that Yehovah/Jehovah is Christian and not Hebraic

None of this involves the key blunder in modern “Yahweh” scholarship. The key blunder is that Yehovah arose as a Christian hybridization of combining of masking vowels with tetragram letters. This is the blunder that opens the door for wild guess reconstructions.

One curious aspect is that since the cholem is generally missing, why would this supposedly errant reconstruction include the cholem. However, we can bypass this aspect.

Also we will bypass the difficulties involving the theory of masking an unknown name!


There are at least three clear refutations of the blunder theory of Christian hybridization creation of Yehovah.

1) theophoric names

this has been pointed out from at least the 1600s, maybe earlier. Drach in the 1800s French is another example. Those who attack Yehovah have never had a response.

(The closest to an attempt is “semantic shift” from an early or proto-Hebrew, which claims all the Masoretic names are wrong, an unbeliever’s playground. In this case Gerard Gertoux actually gave a nice refutation by looking at the corresponding Greek.)

2) the Masoretic mss.

They fit best the theory of the full vowels being Yehovah, with the cholem usually dropped. This has utilized the research of the last few years, with Nehemia leading the way. Alternate theories are far weaker.

3) the Hebraic writings

mostly rabbinic, including karaite. We now have indisputable proof that the Hebrew tradition affirms knowledge of the specific vowels of Yehovah, with many of the writings having a layer of secrecy and veiled explanation.

Nehemia has dug up at least 15 (!) supporting references. Most all totally unreferenced in previous tetragram scholarship.

This fits with the references that show the vowels being included with knowledge of Hebrew as a living language in Tiberias/Galilee and specific early c. 900 AD
references that a solid Karaite segment was pronouncing the name.


(My understanding is that the other vowel pointing systems provide another corroborating evidence, however that can be bypassed for now.)

Thus the Christian hybridization theory is scholastically absurd, and is simply a residue of earlier weak scholarship, still repeated today in ignorance.


And I encourage understanding the fundamental blunder, and placing the Adonai vowels discussion more as an auxiliary study, in the overall understanding.


Steven Avery

examples of scholars with the blunder

Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century (2016)
Robert John Wilkinson

The variety of usages (and others may he found) has caused some considerable confusion in accounts of the Massorctic vocalization of the Tetragrammaton. What is important for our consideration of the early modern users of the Massoretic Bible first printed in Venice is its usage. Those encountering the Tetragrammaton in previous manuscripts (and they were not many) would naturally have seen the form characteristic of the manuscript in question.108

If this is so, it is most difficult to resist the usual explanation of the name Jehova(h) as the consonants of yhwh vocalized with the vowels of ’adonai. Such a mistaken reading naturally arose among Christians unfamiliar with the conventions of Massoretic scribal practice and Jewish liturgical propriety. But it was hardly an error that needed to be invented, rather an inevitable mistake lying in wait for the ignorant.109 We may therefore doubt that the first time the form Jehova(h) is attested is necessarily the first time it was used.110

The footnotes are interesting, because Wilkinson does not grapple with the question of masking a supposedly unknown name. In fact, he seems to imply that Jehovah was known. Anyway, we plan to return to all this to fill it out more completely.