af. Daniel 8:11 sn The prince of the army may refer to God (cf. “whose sanctuary” later in the verse) or to the angel Michael (cf. 12:1).

ag. Daniel 8:11 tn Or perhaps “and by him,” referring to Antiochus rather than to God.

ah. Daniel 8:11 sn Here the sanctuary is a reference to the temple of God in Jerusalem.

ai. Daniel 8:12 tc The present translation reads וּצְבָאָהּ נִתַּן (uts^evaʾah nittan, “and its army was given”) for the MT וְצָבָא תִּנָּתֵן (v^etsavaʾ tinnaten, “and an army was being given/will be given”). The context suggests a perfect rather than an imperfect verb.

aj. Daniel 8:12 tn Heb “in (the course of) rebellion.” The meaning of the phrase is difficult to determine. It could mean “due to rebellion,” referring to the failures of the Jews, but this is not likely since it is not a point made elsewhere in the book. The phrase more probably refers to the rebellion against God and the atrocities against the Jews epitomized by Antiochus.

ak. Daniel 8:12 tc Two medieval Hebrew mss and the LXX have a passive verb here: “truth was hurled to the ground” (cf. NIV, NCV, TEV).

al. Daniel 8:12 sn Truth here probably refers to the Torah. According to 1 Macc 1:56, Antiochus initiated destruction of the sacred books of the Jews.

am. Daniel 8:12 tn Heb “it acted and prospered.”

an. Daniel 8:13 sn The holy one referred to here is presumably an angel (cf. 4:13 [10AT], 23 [20AT]).

ao. Daniel 8:14 sn The language of evenings and mornings is reminiscent of the creation account in Genesis 1. Since “evening and morning” is the equivalent of a day, the reference here would be to 2,300 days. However, some interpreters understand the reference to be to the evening sacrifice and the morning sacrifice, in which case the reference would be to only 1,150 days. Either way, the event that marked the commencement of this period is unclear. The event that marked the conclusion of the period was the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem following the atrocious and sacrilegious acts that Antiochus implemented. This took place on December 25, 165 b.c. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah each year commemorates this victory.

ap. Daniel 8:14 tn Heb “will be vindicated” or “will be justified.” This is the only occurrence of this verb in the Niphal in the OT. English versions interpret it as “cleansed” (KJV, ASV), “restored” (NASB, TEV, NLT), or “reconsecrated” (NIV). (NET Bible)

11. It magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host. Note the progression, ‘magnified himself’ (4), ‘magnified himself exceedingly’ (8), until pride showed its ultimate goal in defying the Prince of both stars and monarchs, their Creator and God. This defiance took the form of a sacrilegious attack on the temple such as had taken place once already under Nebuchadrezzar. The continual burnt offering (Heb. tāmîd): ‘the continual’ is a technical term referring to the daily sacrifices, morning and evening, prescribed in Exodus 29:38–42. By the one word the whole sacrificial system is implied. The place of his sanctuary was overthrown represents a fair translation of the writer’s enigmatic style, with its ambiguous pronouns and prepositions. The word ‘place’ (mākôn) is reserved for God’s abode (cf. 1 Kgs 8:30, ‘heaven thy dwelling place’; 2 Chr. 6:2, the temple). An attack on the place set aside for worship of God is tantamount to an attack on God himself.

12. The obscurity of the first part of this verse is noted in the margin of rsv, and has puzzled translators from early times. The grammar is difficult and the sense hard to establish. The host was given over to it (Heb. ‘a host’ or army) seems to mean that the horn gained military support⁴ against (rather than together with) the daily sacrifices through transgression, on account of the transgression of God’s people. By a slight change of pointing and by redividing the consonants it is possible to translate ‘hosts he delivered up’, but then a verb needs to be supplied: [‘It rose up against] the continual burnt offering …’

Truth (God’s truth, that is) was cast down to the ground or, as we might say, ‘dragged in the mud’, and yet the horn not only went on with his plans but prospered.

13. In his vision the seer overheard the dialogue of two holy ones (see note on 4:10) asking not why this should be, which calls in question God’s moral ordering of events, but how long (cf. Ps. 6:3; Isa. 6:11; Zech. 1:12), which presupposes that God is limiting the triumph of evil. The rest of the verse summarizes what has gone before, though the trampling of host as well as sanctuary seems to add a further detail.

14. And he said to him is logical, and follows the ancient versions, but the Hebrew ‘to me’ may be the original. The seer was asking the same question. The answer is given in terms of the evening and morning sacrifices which would never be offered (verse 11: cf. Gen. 1:5) and by dividing this number by two the number of days can be arrived at, namely 1, 150, during which the sanctuary will be desecrated. This is less than three and a half years (cf. 7:25), a relatively short time, after which the sanctuary shall be restored, or ‘vindicated’ (Montgomery). (Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 23, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978], 175–176)

The Seleucids, 321–150 bc. Seleucus I, a Macedonian commander in Alexander’s army, took control of the province of Babylon in 321 bc; his dynasty ruled until 60 bc. The diagram includes those Seleucids who correspond to the king of the north in 11:5–39.

This horn progressed to such an extent that it affected heaven, much as the influence and power of Nebuchadnezzar had reached a point where it touched heaven (4:22 [19]) with its great arrogance. God decided to respond at that point and become involved. The heavenly armies, the heavenly beings, and the stars (8:10) refer to fierce opponents engaged in conflict both on earth and in heaven. Both earthly and heavenly realms suffer at the hands of this “small horn.” This is the genius of apocalyptic language and narrative. It reveals and ties together (earthly) history and (heavenly, spiritual) metahistory. “The glorious land” is none other than Israel (cf. 11:16, 41), God’s place of beauty reflecting the beauty of heaven. This small horn challenged God, the Commander of heaven’s army (8:11) by attacking the commanders and armies of his holy people on earth and by taking away their place of worship and daily expression of praise and worship of their God. Defeat for God’s people on earth is defeat for God’s forces in heaven. In all of this, the small horn (8:9) is like the little horn of chapter 7.

The Temple was not destroyed but cast down—that is, its function was interrupted (8:11) for a period of time. Antiochus IV did all of this (according to 1 Macc 1:41–64; 2 Macc 6:1–17; 9:1–10:9) to try to unify his kingdom as one people, with one religion, a Hellenistic cult. He saw a chance to combine the Seleucid (Syria) and Ptolemaic (Egypt) realms; others in the fourth empire of Daniel would have schemes even more grandiose (Green 2007:128). The actions of Antiochus IV parallel the themes of chapter 3 of Daniel in many ways, for there, an abominable idol was set up by the king, and everyone was forced to worship it. It is difficult to decipher 8:12; the NLT has a viable rendering (see note). Accepting this rendering, the army that was restrained is to be understood as both the earthly forces of the holy people Israel and their supportive cast in heaven. The small horn’s sin is specifically the removal of the daily sacrifice (8:11). Since the small horn succeeded, the truth of God’s law, true worship, and the proper expression of praise to God were under vicious attack, to the extent that the holy Scriptures were torn up and burned when they could be found (1 Macc 1:56–57).

Another possible rendering of 8:12 (see note) indicates that “an army was given over,” that is, permitted to be defeated for the time being during this rebellion. The rebellion, not only consisting of the actions of the small horn, would then also indicate the failure of some of God’s own people to keep his covenant. Subsequently, his wrath is poured out upon them (cf. Longman 1999:204; Collins 1993:335).

Verses 13–14 reveal that God is sovereign over all. The answer to the question of 8:13 translates into 1,115 days. The fact that two heavenly beings do the calculating makes the answer certain. During this time the Jews, the holy people, were compelled to “depart from the laws of their fathers, and to cease living by the laws of God,” and even to pollute the Temple (2 Macc 6:1–6). These events on earth brought about actions in the heavenly realm and vice versa, for God’s holy place and holy people on earth were being threatened and defiled. This period of time amounts to about three years or a little more (see note on 8:14), depending upon whether a 360-day year or a 365-day year is in mind.

Apocalyptic timing gives parameters of time that do not have to be worked out with mathematical precision. The times set by God to complete his goals are real, but are not intended to be worked out in detail so that his people can arrogantly predict the timing and events of history. They are markers of assurance and to be observed from the perspective of faith. God’s sovereignty orchestrates his plans according to his purposes. Accordingly, history records that Antiochus polluted the Temple in December (15th of Kislev), 167 bc, offering unclean sacrifices on it on the 25th of Kislev. It was cleansed and rededicated in December (25th of Kislev) three years later (cf. 1 Macc 1:54; 4:52–53; 2 Macc 10:5). (Hanukkah continues to commemorate this event; cf. John 10:22.) God had set a time when he would rescue and bring an end to the evil machinations of Antiochus IV. The word used to describe the restoration of the Temple in Daniel indicates not that it was to be rebuilt, but “set right”—i.e., made functional again. (Exactly why it must be set right will yet be revealed in 11:31; cf. 9:27.) Hence, the Temple was not physically destroyed (see note on 8:11). It is also significant to note that God’s people were not delivered en masse from this time of oppression until the end; that is, the end that extends far beyond the time of Antiochus IV. (Eugene Carpenter, “Daniel,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel & Daniel, ed. Philip W. Comfort, vol. 9 [Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2010], 413–414)

8:11 Although the “Prince” has been identified by some as the high priest Onias III, who was assassinated in 170 b.c., v. 25 calls this person the “Prince of princes,” a title that refers to God. Montgomery rightly contends, with the majority of scholars, that the “Prince” in v. 11 “can be none other than God.” Moreover, the language of this verse indicates that the Prince is no mere man.

Not only would the “horn” consider himself the Prince’s equal; he would also set himself “against” the Prince (an alternate translation of the Heb.). He felt that he and his Greek gods were above Yahweh, and he blatantly attacked Yahweh and his worshipers. For example, Antiochus insisted that the Jews refrain from following the Jewish religious laws (diet, circumcision, Sabbaths, and feasts); he desecrated Yahweh’s temple; he required allegiance to himself and the Greek gods rather than to Yahweh; and he showed disrespect to Yahweh by persecuting his followers (cf. 1 Macc 1:41–50). These were blatant offenses not only against the saints but against their God, “the Prince of the host.”

The “daily sacrifice” (Heb tāmîd, “continuity,” offerings made continually) refers to those morning and evening sacrifices the priests offered each day on behalf of the nation (cf. Exod 29:38–41; Num 28:3–8). Young argues that tāmîd is not limited to the daily sacrifices but denotes “all that is of continual, i.e., constant, permanent, use in the Temple services.” But the term is merely an abbreviated form of ʿōlat tāmîd, “a continual burnt offering” (Exod 29:42), which specifically designates the daily sacrifices. In either case the point is that temple worship would cease. In 167 b.c. Antiochus issued the order that the regular ceremonial observances to Yahweh were forbidden, and thus sacrifices ceased being offered to him (cf. 1 Macc 1:44–45).

“The place of his sanctuary” could refer to Jerusalem, but more likely it is the temple itself. “Brought low” does not mean that the temple was destroyed but that it would be desecrated (cf. 1 Macc 1:20–23, 47, 54; 2 Macc 6:2–5).

8:12 “Because of rebellion” (Heb. pešaʿ, also “revolt,” “transgression”) may allude to the sins of the Jewish people themselves that brought about divine judgment in the form of Antiochus’s persecutions, the particular acts of sin perpetrated upon Israel by Antiochus,³¹ or both. Probably the first alternative is correct because the books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees report that many in Israel were not faithful to their God and even adopted the idolatrous Greek religion (cf. 1 Macc 1:11–15, 43). These sins would have brought about God’s chastening in order to purify the nation.

During the three horrible years specifically in view (167–164 b.c.), the Jewish people (“the host of the saints”) were “given over” to Antiochus (the little horn) in the sense that the Syrian-Greek tyrant controlled Palestine and was able to persecute its citizens. The “daily sacrifice” would be terminated by Antiochus (cf. v. 11).

“It [the little horn, Antiochus] prospered in everything it did” reads literally, “And it acted and prospered.” The NIV’s rendering is possible, but these clauses may also mean that Antiochus would “act as he pleases and prosper” (cf. NASB). The latter understanding of the passage well describes Antiochus’s actions. For a time he held absolute power over Palestine and was successful in his military and political endeavors.

The evil dictator threw “truth … to the ground” (cf. Ezek 19:12) by repressing the true teachings (religion) of Yahweh and attempting to destroy the Hebrew Scriptures, which embodied the true religion. According to 1 Macc 1:56–57: “The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Where the book of the covenant was found in the possession of any one, or if any one adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death.” The satanically inspired king was endeavoring to rid the world of the Word of God as tyrants have attempted to do many times since. But as Jehoiakim discovered, one who tries to destroy the truth of God will find that he has only destroyed himself (Jer 36:20–31; cf. Dan 8:25).

8:13 Without introduction two heavenly beings suddenly appeared on the scene. Daniel “heard” an angel (“a holy one”) “speaking” (to another angel). A second angel (“holy one”) said to the one who was speaking, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled?”

The angel’s question is, How long would temple worship cease and the persecution of the saints described in Daniel’s vision continue? No services would be held in the temple because it would be defiled by Antiochus, and idols would be set up in the temple precincts. “The rebellion that causes desolation” likely alludes to the Zeus statue (or altar) set up by Antiochus in the temple and designated in 11:31 “the abomination that causes desolation.” The angel desired to know the duration of this period of desolation. Here it is demonstrated that angels are deeply interested in the affairs of God’s people.

8:14 The question also was asked for Daniel’s sake, since the answer was given to Daniel rather than the angel. Daniel was told that the desolation would last “2,300 evenings and mornings.” Most scholars believe that 2,300 evenings and mornings involve only a total of 1,150 days, since the 1,150 evening and 1,150 morning sacrifices (which would not be offered) equal a total of 2,300.³³ This method of calculation results in a period that was a little more than three years. In December 167 Antiochus set up an altar (and possibly a statue) to Zeus in the temple (1 Macc 1:54), and Judas Maccabeus rededicated the temple on December 14, 164 b.c. (1 Macc 4:52). According to the three-year view, the beginning date would be sometime near the setting up of this altar to Zeus, and the termination date would be the rededication of the temple; 1,150 days before December 14, 164 b.c. would fall in September/ October (Tishri) 167 b.c., whereas the altar to Zeus was set up one month and fifteen days later in December 167. Either the date is to be taken as a close approximation or, as Archer suggests, the daily sacrifice may have been abolished even before the altar was erected, a suggestion that is plausible.

On the other hand, Keil argues quite convincingly that the 2,300 evenings and mornings represent a total of 2,300 days, and many scholars follow this view.³⁶ First, Keil points out that in the Hebrew text the phrase is literally “until evening morning, 2,300.” He then demonstrates that in Old Testament usage an evening and morning specified a day (e.g., Gen 1). Second, he shows that when the Hebrews wished to make a distinction between the two parts of a day, the number of both was given, for example, “forty days and forty nights” (Gen 7:4, 12). Third, Keil correctly observes that appeal to Dan 7:25 and 9:27 to support a period of three and one-half years here is not valid since these passages do not describe the activities of Antiochus IV. Neither does Dan 12:11–12 speak of Antiochus (see discussion at 12:11–12).

S. J. Schwantes presents additional problems with the 1,150-day view. (1) “Daily sacrifice” (tāmîd) does not appear in v. 14 at all. It is found in 8:13 and is simply assumed to be the meaning of the “evenings and mornings” in this verse. (2) The term encompassed both sacrifices offered in the morning and evening (cf. Exod 29:38–42). The word tāmîd, therefore, represents one entity, not two. Thus “2,300 evenings and mornings” denotes 2,300 days with both a morning and an evening offering. (3) When the two daily sacrifices of the tāmîd are specified, the order in the Old Testament is always morning and evening, never evening and morning. Therefore Schwantes concludes with Keil that the expression reflects usage in Gen 1 and must represent 2,300 full days.

The case for the 2,300-day view seems conclusive, indicating that the period in view covered six years and almost four months. December 164 (the reconsecration of the sanctuary) is the termination date given in the text, thus the 2,300 days began in the fall of 170 b.c. Something significant must have occurred at that time that marked the beginning of the persecution, and such an event did take place. In 170 b.c. Onias III (a former high priest) was murdered at the urging of the wicked high priest Menelaus, whom Antiochus had appointed to that position for a bribe. From this point trouble between Antiochus’s administration and the Jews began to brew (cf. 2 Macc 4:7–50). In 169 b.c. Antiochus looted the temple and murdered some of the Jewish people (cf. 1 Macc 1:20–28). The altar to Zeus was not set up until 167 b.c., but the persecution had been going on long before that event. According to the 2,300-day view, therefore, the whole persecution period (the time that the saints “will be trampled underfoot”) was involved, not just the span from the cessation of the sacrifice and the desecration of the sanctuary until the rededication of the temple.⁴¹

Verse 14 concludes by stating that after this period of persecution, the temple would be “reconsecrated.” Just over three years after the altar to Zeus was set up, Judas Maccabeus cleansed and rededicated the temple on December 14, 164 b.c. (cf. 1 Macc 4:52). Today the Jews celebrate the Feast of Hanukkah (“dedication”) to commemorate this momentous event (cf. John 10:22). (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 226–230)

FURTHER READING

A Justification of the Translation of Dan. 9:24-27 in the KJV

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 1

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 2

MORE ON DANIEL’S MESSIANIC TIMELINE

MESSIANIC TIMELINE OF DANIEL REVISITED AGAIN

Jesus as the God of Gods Revisited

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

CHRIST & THE SCAPEGOAT

Some experts think that the correct pronunciation of these letters is Yahweh/Yahveh. Others think it is actually Yehowah/Yahovah or some related form, since they believe that the sacred name consists of three, not two, syllables. Yet there are still others who believe that it is best to enunciate the name as Yah and Yaho/Yahu.

Take, for instance, the late protestant historian Philip Schaff who did not think that Yehowah/Yahovah etc., were/are correct forms or pronunciation of the sacred name. Rather, he felt that Yahwehis the most likely manner of pronouncing it.

Here’s what this noted historian had this to say in respect to the pronunciation of the Divine Name:

The Massoretic Form.

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, that the form Yehowah does not reproduce the original pronunciation. 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 iota 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 Kurios, “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 YHWH 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 preposition 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 YHWH 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).

2. The Original Pronunciation.

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 proper names, those in which the divine name is the first element and those in which it is the last element. In Ex. 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 u 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 lao, Yaho, Yaou, Yahouai, 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] ‘Aia'” (the latter form representing the ‘ehyeh, “I will be,” of Ex. iii. 14). The Samaritan pronunciation doubtless depends upon a living tradition.* (Philip Schaff, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume XII: Trench – Zwingli https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc12/htm/ii.xxviii.ii.htm; bold emphasis mine)

EARLY CHURCH ON THE DIVINE NAME

Schaff was correct in respect to what the early church writer Theodoret (c. 393) stated in regards to the Samaritan pronunciation of the sacred name:

What is the meaning of “My name ‘Lord’ I did not make known to them”?^a

This conveys the great honor and kindness with which God treated Moses. Declaring, “I am who am,”^b he disclosed to Moses the name he had never revealed to the patriarchs. Among the Hebrews this is known as the unspoken name; they are forbidden to utter it aloud. It is written in four consonants, and so they speak of it as the “Tetragrammaton.” This name was also inscribed on a plate of gold worn on the forehead of the high priest and bound to his head with a fillet.^c The Samariatans call it “Iabe,” the Jews “Ia” (kalousi de auto samareitai men ‘Iabe, ioudaioi de ‘Ia.). (Theodoret of Cyrus, The Questions on the Octateuch, English translation with introduction and commentary by Robert C. Hill [Catholic University of America Press, 2007], Volume 1. On Genesis and Exodus, The Questions on Exodus, Question XV, pp. 250-251; bold emphasis mine)

And:

Theodoret wrote in Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium:

to de Saddai, ton hikanon kai dynaton semainei to de Aia ton onta. Touto kai anekphonton en gar Hebraious. Samareitai de ‘Iabai auto legousin, agnountes ten tou rhematos dynamin.

Now Saddai signifies Him who is sufficient and able, but Aia His who is. This was also not to be uttered among the Hebrews. But the Samaritans call it Iabai, not knowing the force of the expression. (Migne P. G. lxxxiii c. 460)

Yet it is interesting to note that Origen, who wrote much earlier, listed the magical names of God employed by certain heretical groups, including those names borrowed from the Scriptures. Yet he does not mention Iabe being one of them:

Chapter 32

The supposed great learning of Celsus, which is composed, however, rather of curious trifles and silly talk than anything else, has made us touch upon these topics, from a wish to show to every one who peruses his treatise and our reply, that we have no lack of information on those subjects, from which he takes occasion to calumniate the Christians, who neither are acquainted with, nor concern themselves about, such matters. For we, too, desired both to learn and set forth these things, in order that sorcerers might not, under pretext of knowing more than we, delude those who are easily carried away by the glitter of names. And I could have given many more illustrations to show that we are acquainted with the opinions of these deluders, and that we disown them, as being alien to ours, and impious, and not in harmony with the doctrines of true Christians, of which we are ready to make confession even to the death. It must be noticed, too, that those who have drawn up this array of fictions, have, from neither understanding magic, nor discriminating the meaning of holy Scripture, thrown everything into confusion; seeing that they have borrowed from magic the names of Ialdabaoth, and Astaphæus, and Horæus, and from the Hebrew Scriptures him who is termed in Hebrew Iao or Jah, and Sabaoth, and Adonæus, and Eloæus. Now the names taken from the Scriptures are names of one and the same God; which, not being understood by the enemies of God, as even themselves acknowledge, led to their imagining that Iao was a different God, and Sabaoth another, and Adonæus, whom the Scriptures term Adonai, a third besides, and that Eloæus, whom the prophets name in Hebrew Eloi, was also different. (Origen, Contra Celsus, BOOK VI; bold emphasis mine)

Whatever the case, Theodoret furnishes proof that the Samaritans did indeed pronounce the sacred name as Iabe/Iaboi.

SAMARITANS WORSHIPED ZEUS/JUPITER

Yet this brings up a problem, one which has been noted by other authors/scholars writing on the subject of the pronunciation of the sacred name.

These authorities believe that Yahweh is an incorrect pronunciation of the Divine Name and some of them even argue that it actually stems from the Samaritan corruption of the Tetragrammaton.

According to these individuals, the name Yahweh actually originates from the term Jupiter, which is the Latin name for Zeus. They base this on ancient traditions, which claim that the Samaritans dedicated their temple in Mount Gerizim to the god worshiped by Antiochus Epiphanes IV, in order to avoid being persecuted like the Jews. They even went as far as to deny having any physical affinities with the Jews, pretending to be Sidonians instead!

Note what the canonical book of Maccabees states regarding the Samaritan temple:

“Not long after this, the king sent an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their fathers and cease to live by the laws of God, and also to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and call it the temple of Olympian Zeus, and to call the one in Geri′zim the temple of Zeus the Friend of Strangers, as did the people who dwelt in that place.” 2 Maccabees 6:1-2 RSV

[b] 6:2 Olympian Zeus: equated with the Syrian Baal Shamen (“the lord of the heavens”), a term which the Jews mockingly rendered as shiqqus shomem, “desolating abomination” (Dn 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Mc 1:54). New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE; emphasis mine)

And here’s what the first century AD Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote in respect to a letter that Samaritans allegedly wrote to the pagan tyrant Antiochus:

5. When the Samaritans saw the Jews under these sufferings, they no longer confessed that they were of their kindred: nor that the temple on mount Gerizzim belonged to almighty God. This was according to their nature: as we have already shewn. And they now said, that they were a colony of Medes and Persians. And indeed they were a colony of theirs. So they sent ambassadors to Antiochus, and an epistle; whose contents are these.

“To King Antiochus, the god, Epiphanes: a memorial from the Sidonians, who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent plagues,²¹ and as following a certain ancient superstition, had a custom of observing that day which by the Jews is called the sabbath. (26) And when they had erected a temple at the mountain called Gerizzim, though without a name, they offered upon it the proper sacrifices. Now upon the just treatment of these wicked Jews; those that manage thy affairs, supposing that we were of kin to them, and practised as they do, make us liable to the same accusations: although we be originally Sidonians: as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech thee, our benefactor and saviour, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for; since we are aliens from their nation, and from their customs: but let our temple, which at present hath no name at all, be named The temple of Jupiter Hellenius. If this were once done, we should be no longer disturbed; but should be more intent on our own occupation with quietness; and so bring in a greater revenue to thee.”

When the Samaritans had petitioned for this, the King sent them back the following answer, in an epistle: “King Antiochus, to Nicanor. The Sidonians, who live at Shechem, have sent me the memorial enclosed. When therefore we were advising with our friends about it, the messengers sent by them represented to us, that they are no way concerned with accusations which belong to the Jews: but chose to live after the customs of the Greeks. Accordingly we declare them free from such accusations: and order that, agreeably to their petition, their temple be named The temple of Jupiter Hellenius.” (27) He also sent the like epistle to Apollonius, the governor of that part of the country. In the forty sixth year, and the eighteenth day of the month Hecatombeon. (28) (Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, Chapter 5. How, upon the quarrels of the Jews one against another about the High Priesthood, Antiochus made an expedition against Jerusalem; took the city, and pillaged the temple, and distressed the Jews. As also, how many of the Jews forsook the laws of their country: and how the Samaritans followed the customs of the Greeks; and named their temple at mount Gerizzim, the temple of Jupiter Hellenius.)

I provide another rendering of Josephus’ statements:

5. When the Samaritans saw the Jews under these sufferings, they no longer confessed that they were of their kindred, nor that the temple on Mount Gerizzim belonged to Almighty God. This was according to their nature, as we have already shown. And they now said that they were a colony of Medes and Persians; and indeed they were a colony of theirs. So they sent ambassadors to Antiochus, and an epistle, whose contents are these:

“To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians, who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent plagues, and as following a certain ancient superstition, had a custom of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sabbath.¹⁸ And when they had erected a temple at the mountain called Gerrizzim, though without a name, they offered upon it the proper sacrifices. Now, upon the just treatment of these wicked Jews, those that manage their affairs, supposing that we were of kin to them, and practiced as they do, make us liable to the same accusations, although we be originally Sidonians, as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech thee, our benefactor and Savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for, since we are aliens from their nation, and from their customs; but let our temple, which at present hath no name at all be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. If this were once done, we should be no longer disturbed, but should be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to thee.”

When the Samaritans had petitioned for this, the king sent them back the following answer, in an epistle: “King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians, who live at Shechem, have sent me the memorial enclosed. When therefore we were advising with our friends about it, the messengers sent by them represented to us that they are no way concerned with accusations which belong to the Jews, but choose to live after the customs of the Greeks. Accordingly, we declare them free from such accusations, and order that, agreeable to their petition, their temple be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius.” He also sent the like epistle to Apollonius, the governor of that part of the country, in the forty-sixth year, and the eighteenth day of the month Hecatorabeom.

18 [This allegation of the Samaritans is remarkable, that though they were not Jews, yet did they, from ancient times, observe the Sabbath day, and, as they elsewhere pretend, the Sabbatic year also, Antiq. B. XI. ch. 8. sect. 6.] (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, CHAPTER 5. How, Upon The Quarrels One Against Another About The High Priesthood Antiochus Made An Expedition Against Jerusalem, Took The City And Pillaged The Temples. And Distressed The Jews’ As Also How Many Of The Jews Forsook The Laws Of Their Country; And How The Samaritans Followed The Customs Of The Greeks And Named Their Temple At Mount Gerizzim The Temple Of Jupiter Hellenius.)

JUPITER/ZEUS/JOVE

This is where it gets rather interesting. The Romans called Zeus Jupiter. What makes the name Jupiter interesting is that it is derived Dyeus Pater, meaning “father daylight,” “sky-father.”

Now the latinized form of Jupiter is actually Jove, as the following reference attests:

The Latin form of Jupiter’s name is jove:

Jupiter, also known as Jove, is the god of sky and thunder, as well as the king of gods in Ancient Roman Mythology. Jupiter is the top god of the Roman pantheon. Jupiter was considered the chief deity of Roman state religion during the Republican and Imperial eras until Christianity became the dominant religion.

Zeus is Jupiter’s equivalent in Greek Mythology. The two share the same features and characteristics.

Due to Jupiter’s popularity, the Romans named the largest planet in the solar system after him.

Attributes

Jupiter is depicted with a beard and long hair. His other attributes include scepter, eagle, cornucopia, aegis, ram, and lion.

Jupiter, the Planet

The ancient Babylonians were the first known people to record their sightings of the planet Jupiter. The Babylonians’ recordings date back to the seventh century BC. It was initially named after Jupiter, the king of the Roman gods. To the Greeks, the planet represented Zeus, their god of thunder, while the Mesopotamians saw Jupiter as their god, Marduk.

Zeus

Jupiter and Zeus are equivalents in ancient mythology. They share the same traits and characteristics.

The Greek god Zeus was the top Olympian god in the Greek pantheon. After he took credit for rescuing his brothers and sisters from their father Cronus, Zeus became king of heaven and gave his brothers, Poseidon and Hades, the sea and the underworld, respectively, for their domains.

Zeus was the husband of Hera, but he had many affairs with other goddesses, mortal women, and female animals. Zeus mated with, among others, Aegina, Alcmena, Calliope, Cassiopeia, Demeter, Dione, Europa, Io, Leda, Leto, Mnemosyne, Niobe, and Semele.

He is king on Mount Olympus, the home of the Greek gods. He is also credited as the father of Greek heroes and the ancestor of many other Greeks. Zeus mated with many mortals and goddesses but is married to his sister Hera (Juno).

Zeus is the son of the Titans Cronus and Rhea. He is the brother of his wife Hera, his other sisters Demeter and Hestia, and his brothers Hades, Poseidon.

Etymology of Zeus and Jupiter

The root of both “Zeus” and “Jupiter” is in a proto-Indo-European word for the often personified concepts of “day/light/sky”.

Zeus Abducts Mortals

There are many myths about Zeus. Some involve demanding acceptable conduct of others, whether human or divine. Zeus was enraged with the behavior of Prometheus. The titan had tricked Zeus into taking the non-meat portion of the original sacrifice so that mankind could enjoy the food. In response, the king of the gods deprived mankind of the use of fire so they wouldn’t be able to enjoy the ​book they’d been granted, but Prometheus found a way around this, and stole some of the gods’ fire by hiding it in a stalk of fennel and then giving it to mankind. Zeus punished Prometheus with having his liver pecked out every day.

But Zeus himself misbehaves—at least according to human standards. It is tempting to say that his primary occupation is that of a seducer. In order to seduce, he sometimes changed his shape into that of an animal or bird.

When he impregnated Leda, he appeared as a swan [see Leda and the Swan].

When he abducted Ganymede, he appeared as an eagle in order to take Ganymede to the home of the gods where he would replace Hebe as cupbearer; and when Zeus carried off Europa, he appeared as a tempting white bull—although why the Mediterranean women were so enamored of bulls is beyond the imaginative capacities of this urban-dweller—setting in motion the quest of Cadmus and the settling of Thebes. The hunt for Europa provides one mythological version of the introduction of letters to Greece.

The Olympic Games were initially held to honor Zeus. (Profile of the Roman God Jupiter – ThoughtCo)

Ironically, some have gone as far as to link Jove with the name Jehovah!

Jove is the older name the Romans had for the god Jupiter (which derives from an alteration of Jovis pater, father Jove). Jupiter was the Roman god of the sky, the sovereign deity who had powers over both gods and men (he was later identified with the Greek Zeus). If you got on his wrong side, he started chucking thunderbolts at you. There was a temple to him on the Capitol in Rome.

From medieval times, Jove has been used in English as a poetical way of referring to Jupiter. It has also been linked to Jehovah, a form of the Hebrew name of God used in some translations of the Bible. By Jove was a mild oath, an exclamation that indicated surprise or gave emphasis to some comment, which dates from the sixteenth century. It was originally a neat way of calling on a higher power without using the blasphemous by God. Shakespeare used it in Love’s Labours Lost in 1588: “By Jove, I always took three threes for nine”.

It’s a very British expression (as indeed is your haven’t a clue and your reference to I know a man who can, a current advertising slogan from the Automobile Association). It’s usually associated with bluff and hearty males from the nineteenth and early twentieth century, which seems to have been its heyday. As in J M Barrie’s The Admirable Crichton: “By Jove! I say, John, what an observant beggar he is”. I really thought it had vanished from the world of words, though a quick look around shows quite a number of examples. However, these mostly seem to be used jokingly, or in reference to earlier times.

By Joe is a wonderful variation, only possible in a period in which knowledge of classical matters is all but extinct. But then, as Ogden Nash said, anyone can make a mistake:

Even Jupiter, ruler of gods and men;

All the time he was going around with Io,

he pronounced it Ten. (By Jove – World Wide Words)

And this is what one renowned Hebrew lexicographer stated (even though it is claimed that he later retracted this view):

To give my own opinion [This opinion Gesenius afterwards THOROUGHLY retracted; see Thes. and Amer. trans. in voc.: he calls such comparisons and derivations, ‘‘waste of time and labour;” would that he had learned how irreverent a mode this was of treating such subjects!], I suppose this word to be one of the most remote antiquity, perhaps of the same origin as Jovis, Jupiter, and transferred from the Egyptians to the Hebrews [What an idea! God himself revealed this as his own name; the Israelites could never have received it from the Egyptians]; (compare what has been said above, as to the use of this name on the Egyptian gems [but these gems are not of the most remote antiquity; they are the work of heretics of the second and third centuries]), and then so inflected by the Hebrews, that it might appear, both in form and origin, to be Phoenicio-Shemitic… (Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures: Translated with Additions and Corrections from the Author’s Thesaurus and Other Works, by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, p. CCCXX XVII [337]; bold emphasis mine)

To be clear, it isn’t the name Jehovah which Jove is linked to, but rather the term Yahweh.

The reason why some see a connection with Jove and Jehovah is because the form jove would be pronounced as ˈjɔwɛ (yowe). This is because Latin has no “J.” The pronunciation of J is “Y.” And the short Latin “o” is also pronounced as the “aw” sound, as in “off” or “awe.”

In Roman Latin, the v is pronounced w, making the Roman Latin pronunciation of jove and Yahweh virtually identical.

j as in yet.

ɔ as in fort.

w as in wit.

ɛ as in ben.

In other words, the Latin word for Jupiter would most likely be transliterated into Greek as Ιαβε (Iabe), which some believe is correctly pronounced as Yahweh!

Due to this alleged connection with Zeus, there are some Christians who think that Yahweh is an inappropriate name to use for the true God. They prefer to use Jehovah instead.

The issue gets a bit more complicated since other writers think that the Samaritans actually knew the correct pronunciation and that they were not referring to Jupiter when they employed that particular form of the sacred name.

Here’s what one author writes in this respect:

Ancient writers were not negligent in preserving for us the correct pronunciation of the entire sacred name. Despite Jewish and Roman Church prohibitions against its use, the vocalization of the complete name was revealed and is preserved by a few. Clement of Alexandria (second century C.E.), for instance, tells his readers that the sacred name was pronounced ‘Iaoue, and ‘Iaouai,⁸⁵ both words which approximate the sound Yah-oo-ay.   In various Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri it appears most frequently as Iaooune, but is also found written Iaoouni, Iaoouen, Iaooue, and Iaoouea (all approximating “Yah-ou-ay”).⁸⁶ It should not go unnoticed that these writers use only Greek vowels to represent the sacred name, again demonstrating that we are dealing with four Hebrew vowels.

Origen (early third century C.E.) gives the Greek form ‘Iae (Yah-ay).⁸⁷ YHH (Yah-ay) is also found in the Elephantine Papyri.⁸⁸ This form seems built upon the notion that YH (Yah) and YHW (Yahu) were synonymous. Therefore, YHH was thought to equal YHWH. It was understood in Hebrew that YH (Yah) carried the value of YHW (Yahu).⁸⁹ Nevertheless, when it was transliterated into Greek, as it was by Origen, the value was lost. Yet both the first and last part of the sacred name (i.e. “Yah” and “ay”) were retained. The old Ethiopian Apocrypha writings, recorded by the French historian Basset, retains the sound Yahoue.⁹⁰ 

The vocalization of the sacred name was also preserved among the ancient Samaritans. The non-Israelite Samaritans, during the latter part of the eighth and early seventh centuries B.C.E., were forced by the Assyrian empire to settle into what was then known as part of Israel. In the process of events the Samaritans came to adopt the Jewish religion as their own.⁹¹ Under domination by the Jews, the Samaritans also came to adopt the ineffable name doctrine.⁹² Yet the pronunciation was still revealed by textual evidence. For example, in Samaritan poetry we find that YHWH rhymes with words having similar endings and sounds as we find with Yah-oo-ay.⁹³    

Some minor confusion has arisen because Theodoret, supported by Epiphanius, states that the Samaritans of that day (fifth century C.E.) pronounced the sacred name ‘IaBai and ‘IaBe (Greek text), Jahve in Latin.⁹⁴ Epiphanius ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect.⁹⁵ In English letters these words would be transliterated as “Yabay” and “Yabe” (or “Yabeh”). It is also known that the ancient Greek Beta (the text being first composed in Greek and then later translated into Latin) carried the value of the Latin v and not the English b.⁹⁶ For example, the Latin name for the famous Gothic tribe that ravaged Europe during the later fourth and early fifth centuries C.E. is Vandali.⁹⁷ Yet in Greek texts, such as that written by Procopius, the name Vandali is rendered (Bandilous).⁹⁸ Because of this detail some have contended that the third letter of YHWH (i.e. waw) should be rendered as a “v.” They propose that the name should therefore be vocalized as Yahveh, Yahva, Yahve, Jahveh, or some other like form.  

The suggestion that the third letter of the sacred name should be read as a “v” is an error for two reasons. First, the Latin v is not equivalent with the English letter “v.” Harper’s Latin Dictionary, for example, informs us:⁹⁹

The sound of V seems to have been the same with that of English initial W…. V has the closest affinity to the vowel u, and hence, in the course of composition and inflection, it often passed into the latter.

The connection between the Latin v and the initial English “w” (as in the word wet), which is also the early English and Germanic letter “w,” is further attested to by the above example, the name Vandali, which in Old Germanic Wandal, and in Old Anglo-Saxon Wendil. In the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues, the Latin v was understood to mean uu or u, hence our present name for the letter “w,” i.e. “double u.” The modern letter “W” was originally formed by placing two Latin v letters together (vv = w). Webster’s New World Dictionary makes the following comments about the letter “W”:¹⁰⁰

1. the twenty-third letter of the English alphabet: its sound was represented by Anglo-Saxon manuscripts by uu or u until 900 A.D., then by (wen) borrowed from the runic alphabet, or sometimes by wu, v, wo, vo, uo, or o. In the 11th century a ligatured VV or vv was introduced by Norman scribes to replace the wen. 2. the sound of W or w: in English, it is a lip-rounded tongue-back semivowel like a quickly cut-off oo at the beginning of words; concluding a diphthong it is a u-glide. Before r, as in wrist, and in some words, as answer, sword, two, it is silent.

This fact that the Greek Beta and Latin v, which come across into English as the early Anglo-Saxon “w,” are in fact vowel consonants and like the Hebrew waw stand for a “double u” or oo sound. This conclusion is further verified by a variant text reading belonging to Epiphanius. Here we find the Greek terms ‘IaBe and ‘IaBai are rendered into Latin as IAUE,¹⁰¹ once again demonstrating the “u” value of “Beta.”

The second reason that the form of Yahveh or its variants are in error is due to the fact that the four Hebrew letters which make up the sacred name are all pronounced as vowels.¹⁰² If the Hebrew scribes believed that the third letter of the sacred name was pronounced as an English consonant “v” they would have use the Hebrew letter bet instead of waw. For example, the word nun gimel bet (N-g-b) is often transliterated into English and vocalized by the Jews as “Negev.”¹⁰³ Since bet is not used and the English “v” is a consonant, the form YHVH (Yahveh) or its variants are improper. These details also lead us to mention a caution about the English form of the sacred name YHWH (Yahweh). The “w” must not be sounded as a hard consonant “w” but as a vowel “double u.”

The attempt to transliterate the sacred name from ancient Samaritan language into Greek resulted in the forms ‘IaBe and ‘IaBai, which is understood to mean Yah-oo-ay since the Greek Beta has the value of an English “double u.” This fact is further supported by the Samaritan priesthood, which for centuries continued to pass on the early pronunciation of the sacred name to its succeeding High Priests. That the Samaritans knew the correct pronunciation of the sacred name is confirmed by the Jews of the Middle Ages. In the Gemara Yerusalemi Sanhedrin, for example, we are told:¹⁰⁴ 

The following persons have no portion in the world to come: Abba Saul says: the same applies to him who pronounces the name (Yahweh) according to the letters. Rabbi Manna has said: Like the Samaritans do when taking an oath.

If the Samaritans had not known the correct pronunciation there would have been no cause for the Jewish rabbis, who prohibited utterance of the sacred name, to condemn them.

In the Third Epistle of the Samaritans to Ludolf, 1689 C.E., the Samaritans still claimed knowledge of the true pronunciation.¹⁰⁵ Subsequent to this, we have a letter from the Samaritan High Priest to Silvestre de Sacy in 1820. Written in Arabic, this document contains a formula of benediction which gives the sacred name as “(Yah-oo-ay).”¹⁰⁶ It is also recorded that the son of the Samaritan High Priest while he was at the Holy City of Jerusalem in 1904 / 05, pronounced the name YHW as “Yah-oo” and the complete sacred name YHWH as “Yah-oo-ay.”¹⁰⁷ 

G. J. Thierry concludes from this evidence:¹⁰⁸

But: the Samaritans have preserved the old pronunciation of God’s name, which the Jews too had used in older times, but which they have dropped. So Yabai and Yabe probably maintain the old Israelite tradition which the Jews themselves lost.

It therefore is manifest that the ancient Samaritan form of the sacred name revealed, with the Greek letters (‘IaBe and ‘IaBai), rather than creating a new variant, actually agrees with other ancient sources and with proper Hebrew vocalization of the four sacred letters as vowels. (R. Clover, The Sacred Name [Qadesh La Yahweh Press, Fourth Edition, 2018], pp. 109-112; bold emphasis mine)

With the foregoing in view, the readers can see the major difficulties and challenges that surround the correct pronouncement of the sacred name.

For instance, is the name Yahweh a corruption of the Latinized form of Zeus, i.e., Jove, which was introduced by the Samaritans who sought to appease the pagan tyrant Antiochus in order to escape persecution?

In other words, by claiming that their temple in Mt. Gerizim was consecrated to the worship of Yahweh (Gr. Iabe), were they trying to confuse Antiochus into thinking that they were honoring his god Jove, i.e., Zeus?

Moreover, is Yahowah/Yehowah the correct pronunciation of the Tetragammaton?

Afterall, both the Greek (Iabe) and Latin forms (Yahve/IAUE) of the Divine Name, correspond to the form Yahooah, making the pronunciation Yahowah/Yehowah. This is due to the fact the Greek letter beta was translated as “v” in Latin, which in English corresponds to “u,” double o (“oo”), or even “w” (which literally means “double u”), and not v.  

We may never know the answers to these questions and must, therefore, proceed with caution and humility, lest we anger the Lord of glory by delving into matters to deep for our finite, tainted minds to handle and/or comprehend, and thereby sin against the one true God revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.

We all do well to heed the warnings and exhortations of the God-breathed Scriptures:

“You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not [a]leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Deuteronomy 29:29 LSB