The Movement for Reform Judaism

One of the most difficult and hence controversial issues for any new prayerbook is the decision about how to translate the name of God, the ‘tetragrammaton’ or four-lettered name God, ‘yod’, ‘hey’, ‘vav’, ‘hey’, YHWH. Just to recap the problem.   The name itself seems to be a mixed verbal form based on the Hebrew verb hayah, to be.   (The first two letters suggest an imperfect grammatical form, but the second to fourth letters suggest a participle!) The Bible introduces the name through a famous phrase. When Moses asked God for God’s name at the burning bush he receives the reply:  ehyeh asher ehyeh, which is actually untranslatable. Ehyeh is the imperfect form of the verb, but the imperfect usually refers to ‘incomplete actions’, whether they have happened in the past or are yet to happen in the future.   But it also stands for all the modalities, hence by itself ehyeh could mean:  I am, I will be, I should be, I could be, I might be etc.  Put two of them together linked by the conjunction asher, then ‘I am that I am’ is only one of the myriad combinations of meaning that are possible.   Moreover in its context, it seems that it is meant to be deliberately unrevealing. Moses asks for God’s name, but ‘knowing’ or ‘owning’ the name of a god in the Ancient Near East meant one could have some degree of control of the god. Israel’s God is not prepared to be so limited, so the answer is effectively saying ‘I am a law unto Myself.’! However as a concession to Moses’ practical needs the name YHWH is introduced two verses later.

The rabbinic tradition from the earliest period has insisted that the name not be said aloud at all, but instead another word should be substituted for it when spoken. They chose the word ‘adonai’, made up of the four consonants ‘alef’, ‘dalet’, ‘nun’ and ‘yod’, which derives from the noun ‘adon’, meaning master, or ‘lord’.   In this form the word appears a number of times as yet another name for God, alongside words like ‘Elohim’, Shaddai (Almighty), El Elyon (Most High God) etc. The actual form ‘adonai’ sounds like the plural ‘my lords’, but the unusual vocalisation of the final vowel letter with a ‘kamats’ instead of a ‘patach’ creates this unique term.

So how do you translate YHWH? Do you translate the substitute consonantal form as ‘Lord’ as has been done for centuries?   If so there is a powerful masculine overtone to the term that feels out of place today, perpetuating mediaeval images of male power and authority.   Moreover that deliberate vowel change in the Hebrew, to give the word a unique sense, is lost. So some have suggested not to translate it at all and simply use the word ‘Adonai’ in the English.   But that makes it into a proper noun, a name,  e.g. ‘Adonai said’, just like ‘Baal said’, which contradicts the message given to Moses at the burning bush.   Some traditional prayerbooks have replaced it with the word ‘HaShem’, literally ‘the name’ which raises similar problems.

An entirely different approach is to go back to what is perceived as being the meaning of the word YHWH  itself, which leads to two directions.   If it is about ‘being’, ‘existence’, then a philosophical approach leads to the idea of God as a timeless presence, hence the German translation ‘der Ewige’, and in English, ‘the Eternal’, which is used in some American prayerbooks and in our own Pilgrim Festival book.  However this raised grammatical questions in English. Is the word ‘Eternal;’ an adjective (in which case one solution is to add the word ‘One’ each time it appears) or a noun that can stand alone?   But grammar apart and more seriously, it feels very abstract and technical, hardly conducive to intimacy and prayer.

A different approach entirely was adopted by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig in their German translation of the Bible, understanding the name to refer to God’s ‘immanence’, immediacy, presence, nearness to us.   Rather than supply a name for God they replaced the name with YOU (DU) or HE (ER), capitalised, as appropriate to the context.   However this solution breaks down today where we are conscious of gender-based language – unless we can use SHE in an equal number of cases.   (My Bible teacher at Leo Baeck College, Dr Ellen Littmann pointed out that when Rabbi Dr Leo Baeck wrote his first book, ‘The Essence of Judaism’, the used ‘Der Ewige’ throughout. However in his book, ‘This People Israel’, written in Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, he changed to ‘He who is’, the God who is present in suffering, using the Buber-Rosenzweig form.  

A more radical proposal came from the American Reconstructionist Movement. The editors did a pilot volume in which whenever YHWH appeared they would write YAH with a line beneath it, and under the line, one of the qualities attributed to God. In including these attributes, all different aspects of the divine name, they were following an old Sephardi practice, and they argued that YAH is an ancient name for God – preserved in the word ‘Hallelu – yah’. However in the final version they dropped ‘YAH’, but retained the different names and attributes of God appropriate to the context, written in capital letters.   Behind this practice lies the rabbinic tradition that the two principal names of God, YHWH  and Elohim (God) reflect two different divine qualities: the former is used to indicate God’s qualities of mercy and compassion, while the latter refers to God’s quality of strict justice, the two existing in tension with each other in the governance of the world. In the RSGB Festival Prayerbook we experimented with this approach, translating the name as Creator, Teacher or other term as appropriate,   But also using ‘Eternal’, especially where Biblical texts were quoted. Sometimes we simply used the word ‘God’ for either Hebrew term.

One further problem arises where, especially in Psalms, the verse having mentioned God goes on to talk of ‘His people’, ‘His holy place’ etc. which once again raises gender issues for those sensitive to the issue. One solution has been to use ‘who’ or ‘whose’ where possible, which sometimes works comfortably but is sometimes clumsy, especially if the word order of a sentence becomes contorted. A final, desperate, ploy of many translations has simply been to forget about translating literally and turn the third person singular references to God into the second person and instead of speaking about God, address God as ‘You’.

So where does that leave us? The short answer is in a kind of no-man’s (no-person’s) land where no single solution is likely to satisfy everyone, but some suggestions are more upsetting than others. But it may be that different solutions are needed for different passages, and that we have to live with a degree of complexity. For example, when the consonantal form of Adonai is used, as in the closing hymn, ‘Ein keloheinu’, then Lord is the appropriate term as divine power is one of the themes. However whenever a text spells out God’s loyalty to the people of Israel throughout the generations, the word ‘Eternal’ may best fit. Where some divine quality is appropriate then the translation may match that.   Where ‘God’ best fits the  rhythm of the English, then the distinction between YHWH and Elohim may simply be ignored in the translation.

Thus it must be admitted that there are places where what is offered in the English is closer to an interpretation than a simple translation, as has always been the case where different translation problems arise. Nevertheless it may be better in the long run to recognise and live with the problem rather than try for a single word – be it Lord, Adonay , Eternal or other suggestion -  to fit every situation.

'Forms of Prayer' will be published in May 2008. If you haven't yet ordered your copy, please contact your synagogue office. The siddur is also available to people who are not members of synagogues. To place your order, please call 0208 349 9484 or click here to buy on-line.