THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
of Spain and Portugal, 5 vols., ib. 1832 (the best general treatment of the subject); F. X. von Havemann, F'rancisco Ximenes, Gottingen, 1848; W. Irving, Chronicles of the Conquest of Granada (accessible in editions of the Works, e.g., New York, 1902-03); W. H. Prescott, Hist. of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella (a classic; constantly republished in cheap form); E. F. A. Rosseuw-St.- Hilaire, Hist. d’Espagne, vol. vi., Paris, 1852; C. Navarro y Rodrigo, El Cardenal Cisneros, Madrid, 1869; W. Maurenbrecher, Studien und Skizzen, pp. 114 sqq., Leipsic, 1874; W. Ulrich, Ximenes der grosse Kardinal und Reichsverweser
Spaniens, Langensalza, 1883; F. J. Simonet, El Cardenal Ximenez de Cisneros y los manuscritos ardbigo-granadinos, Granada, 1885; H. C. Lea, Chapters from the Religious Hist. of Spain, Philadelphia, 1890; idem, Hist. of the Inquisition of Spain, passim, 4 vols., New York, 1906-07; idem, The Inquisition in the Spanish Dependencies, ib. 1908; ‘Huidobro, Hist. del Cardenal Fray Fr. Jiménez de Cisnergs, Santander, 1901; Pastor, Popes, vols. v.-viii.
XYSTUS. See Srxrus (pope). \
‘
se
YAHBALAHA, yda-bal’/a-ha (YABHALLAHA), Ill.. Nestorian patriarch 1281-1317. The name (=Deusdedit, Theodore) is not uncommon among the Syrians and was borne by the eighteenth and the seventy-seventh patriarchs of Antioch (c. 489 and 1233). The best known of the name, however, is Yahbalaha III., with whom Bar Hebrieus closes his church history. He was a Uigurian monk, born near Peking, and died Noy. 13, 1317. He started on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, but when he came to Bagdad remained there with the Patriarch Denha, who made him metropolitan of China because of his relations with the khan of the Mongols. For the same reason he succeeded Denha as patriarch, though he was poor in Syriac learning. His companion from China, Rabban Sauma, was sent by Khan Argun in 1287-88 to Rome, Paris, and London. The original description of this embassy, ed. P. Bedjan, was published at Paris, 1888 (better ed., 1895), and has been translated by J. B. Chabot (in Revue de lV’ orient latin, i.—1i1., and separately, Paris, 1895). A translation into modern Syriac appeared at Urumiah in the periodical Zahrire de Bahra, Oct., 1885-—May, 1886. EK. NESTLE.
Brsuiocrapuy: I. H. Hall, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1886, pp. clxxxi. sqq.; idem, in Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 1886, pp. cxxv.—cxxix.; Lamy, in Mémoires of the Academie royale de Belgique, 1889, 223-243; R. Duval, in JA, 8th ser., xiii. 313-354; W. Wright, Short Hist. of Syriac Literature, London, 1894; R. Hilgenfeld, Jabalahe III., Catholict Nestoriani vita ex Slive Mossulani libro, Leipsic, 1896; R. Gottheil, in Hebraica, xiii (1897), 222-223, 227-229; R. Duval, Littérature syriaque, Paris, 1899; Supplement & Vhist. du patriarche Mar Jabalaha et du moine Rabban Cauna, Paris, 1900. Older sources are O. Raynaldus, Annales ecclesiastici for year 1304, vol. xiv., vols. xiii—xxi., Cologne, 1694-1727; J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, iii. 2, pp. 129 saq., Rome, 1719-28; Gregory Bar Hebreeus, Chronicon ecclestasticum, ii. 471.
YAHWEH, ya’wé. I. The Pronunciation. The Massoretic Form (§ 1). The Original Pronunciation (§ 2). II. Meaning and Derivation. The Etymological Meaning (§ 1). Other Origins Proposed (§ 2). Was Yahweh a Kenite Deity ? (§ 3). Was he God of the Leah Tribes ? (§ 4).
The Hebrew Yuwu (the tetragrammaton) denotes in the Old Testament the proper name of the God of Israel. Jews regard it as expressing not merely the name but the essence of God.
IL The Pronunciation: In the Massoretic text the usual form would give the pronunciation Yehowah, or Yehowih when the word Adhonai, “ my(?) Lord,’’ precedes. The second form shows the vowels
of Elohim, ‘‘God’’: the first form has a close relation to the pronunciation of Adhonai (see JEHOvaH). It is demonstrable, however,
1. The that the form Yehowah does not re- Massoretic produce the original pronunciation. Form. Theodoret (c. 450) showed that in his time the Jews did not pronounce the
name and already called it the tetragrammaton (cf. F. Field, Hexapla,i. 90, on Ex.vi.3, London, 1871). Similarly Jerome, Origen, and the translators of the Bible before Origen found the tetragrammaton in their manuscripts, even in the Greek translations, where the name was represented by the capital letters zota and pi, closely resembling the Hebrew yodh and he. Origen seems to have transferred the Hebrew quadriliteral in his column of transliterated Hebrew and a later hand rendered it into the Greek iota and pi, and this transference seems to have been the custom of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Philo gives the first sure case of a translation of the name by the Greek Kurtos, ‘‘ Lord.’”’ These and other indications suggest that the Jewish custom of not pronouncing the name (Jerome calls it ‘‘ the ineffable ’’) is very old, and this custom still obtained when the Massoretes affixed the pointing to the text; it is not probable that these scholars intended to imply that they were giving the correct pronunciation. The pronunciation indicated by “‘ Jehovah” (J being pronounced as Y) has been traced as far back as Wessel (d. 1489), who used Johavah and Jehovah, and Petrus Galatinus, confessor of Leo X. (1513-21; see JEHOVAH). Beside the two facts, that the Massoretes would not be likely to disregard the custom regarding the nonpronunciation of the name, and the variation in the pointing given above, a third fact appears in the forms which YHwu takes when following a preposition. In this case the form resulting shows that the pronunciation is based on a fundamental form beginning with an aleph pointed with an a-vowel and not on one beginning with the sound ye. Further, the pointing of the succeeding word often indicates the pronunciation of a word ending not with the consonant he (a mere vowel sign) but with a full consonant, and the abbreviations yahu or yah in many proper names, as well as the form Yah, do not lead back to a pronunciation represented by Yehowah (or Jehovah). Did the form Yahowah anywhere occur, there could be no possible doubt that the two forms actually occurring represent the pronunciation of Elohim and Adhonai in place of the tetragrammaton. But the case is almost as cogent, in view of the treatment of the word with prefixed preposi-
tion and of the habit of the Massoretes when a word to be pronounced was written in the margin. And it is demonstrable that not only in the time of the Massoretes, but as early as the time of Jesus, it was the custom to pronounce Adhonai where Yuwu occurred, a custom then so fast rooted that it must have been much older; indeed, the Septuagint appears to have used Kurios and later purists to have substituted the Greek quadriliteral. Moreover, the form Yehowah occasions no difficulty in view of the Babylonian Jewish custom of letting shewa represent hateph pathah, while Yehowih is probably a later form introduced to avoid a double reading “‘ Adhonai Adhonai,” when this form immediately preceded the tetragrammaton. The form was never pronounced Yehowah (Jehovah).
The earliest testimony as to the original pronunciation of the name comes from the Assyrian pronunciation of the Hebrew in such proper names as Hezekiah, which is so given as to represent yahu. From the Old Testament itself the evidence comes
from Ex. iii., and from two classes of 2. The proper names, those in which the di- Original vine name is the first element and those Pronuncia- in which it is the last element. In Ex. tion. iii. it is clear that the narrator connects the name with the verb hayah, “to be,” or its variant hawah. The Hebrew names Yehonathan or Yonathan (Jonathan) and Hizkiyahu or Hiskiyah (Hezekiah) are fairly representative of names compounded with the divine name, and the Assyrian pronunciation indicates the correctness of the Massoretic pointing given Hezekiah’s name. This shows clearly and decisively the pronunciation “Yah” for the first syllable. For the final syllable the analogy of verbal forms ending in weh and their shortening (by dropping of the final consonant and its vowel) into wu renders it exceedingly probable that the original pronunciation was ‘‘ weh.’’ This is strengthened by the common process of rendering yhw by yo when the middle h is dropped (cf. Yonathan above). Such a conclusion, giving “‘ Yahweh” as the pronunciation of the name, is confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers and gentile writers, where the forms Jao, Yaho, Yaou, Yahouat, and Yaoue appear. Especially important is the statement of Theodoret in relation to Ex. vi., when he says: ‘ the Samaritans call it [the tetragrammaton] ‘ Yabe,’ the Jews [call it] ‘Aza’ ”’ (the latter form representing the ’ehyeh, “I will be,” of Ex. iti. 14). The Samaritan pronunciation doubtless depends upon a living tradition.*
* Note should be taken, however, of the recent very decided trend toward a belief that the original pronunciation was Yahu. This rests partly upon the forms employed in Hebrew compound names, illustrated in the text (which do not necessarily imply that the element Yahu or Yaho in such names was an abbreviation). The supposition here is that the Hebrew Waw was vocal and not consonantal (as it often becomes in conjugation). Corroboration is found in the preference in Gnostic gems for the form Jao or Iaou, and similar forms. For examples of these consult the literature under Gyosttcts, especially the work of King, to which add A. F, Gori, Thesaurus gemmarum astriferarum, Florence, 1570; A. Capello, Prodromus iconicus sculptilium gemmarum, Venice, 1702; J. M. A. Chabouillet, Catalogue général... des camées et pierres gravés de la bibliothéque impériale, Paris, 1858; also R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i, 628-629, 2d ed., Leipsic, 1912.—G. W. G.