"STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF APPROVED"
A SCHOLARLY/LITERARY SITE FOR TODAY'S CONTEMPORARY HEBREW OF THE HOUSE OF JACOB.
Is 'Ahayah' the Sacred Name of the Creator?
In these latter times there are many believers who now grasp the importance of knowing the Name of the Almighty Father. Unfortunately, His Name cannot be found in the Holy Scriptures; at least, not in any of the English translations. What one finds are the words 'LORD', and 'Lord', 'GOD', 'God', 'Lord God' and 'Lord'. The words 'LORD' and 'Lord' are merely titles, titles that can be applied to any man of social prominence in his community. None of them are worthy or befitting the Supreme Creator of the universe. Also, the word 'GOD/God' does not apply, as the pronunciation is that of 'Gad' (prn. gawd), a Mesopotamian deity of fortune. Given this information, the true seeker is often stumped. What is the Name of the Almighty Creator?
This is the question Moses asked Him (Ex. 3:13) when he was commanded to return to Egypt and deliver the descendants of Jacob out of bondage. The Almighty answered:
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."
There are many who read this verse and automatically assume that His Name is 'I AM THAT I AM' or 'I AM'. In the Hebrew text the wording is 'AHAYAH ASHER AHAYAH'. Many peoplel mistakenly believe that the Name of the Almighty is 'Ahayah'. This translation was placed in the Hebrew text by the Masoretes, a group of Kaorite scholars who had control of the sacred scrolls for many centures. 'AHAYAH ASHER AHAYAH' is a 'modern' translation. A more accurate and ancient translation is 'HAYAH HUW HAWAH' (Allen, 2004, pg. 42).
The more modern translation does not express, nor
provide an accurate description of what the Almighty
was saying to Moses. The words
'Ahayah Asher Ahayah' simply means 'I am That I am' -
nothing more. Once can legitimately argue that the
first clause implies both present and past existence;
if someone is here today, in the present, then, clearly,
s/he was here yesterday, or in the past. Yet the second
clause is simply repeating the first clause. It is circular.
Nothing more is conveyed through this translation.
However, the ancient transltion expresses far more
about the Almighty and what He said to Moses.
Both Hebrew words (Ahayah and Hayah) imply present and past existence. Yet, 'Hayah' means 'to occur, come to pass, be, a strong statement about the presence of the person, used for strong statements (emotion), a state of being' ( Strong, 2001, pg. 68 Hebrew/Aramaic Dictionary). Where the second clause in the more modern translation simply repeats the first clause, the ancient translation of the secondn clause, 'Hawah' is more significant and carries deeper nuances. 'Hawah' means 'to breath, to be (in the sense of existence)' (ibid, pg. 67).
In comparison to the first and more commonly used translation, the ancient translation says much more. It s peaks of the esssence or characteristics that the Almighty was sharing about Himself to Moses. The phrases 'asher' and 'huw' are conjunctions that are used interchangeably throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Both words mean 'that', 'this', 'which (is)' and 'who'. The ancient translation of 'I AM THAT I AM' speaks of a living, breathing, self-existing being that is 'to be' (hawah) in the future, i.e. forever. Again, the more modern translation does not imply this; it is simply two declarative clauses joined by a conjunction.
In all English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, the word 'LORD' replaces the actual Name of the Almighty. The four Hebrew consonants that it replaces are YHWH (Hebrew pron. yohd, hey, wah, hey). If viewed as an abbreviation, then one can easily see that those letters abbreviate the ancient translation 'Hayah Huw Hawah'. The more modern translation (Ahayah Asher Ahayah) only carries two of the consonants, the Y and H. Again, the ancient translation speaks of the totality of the Almighty, that He has always been, tht He is and that He will always be here, living and breathing. He is the past, the present and the future; all that existed, exists and will exist is and will be because of Him and/or through Him. There is a pure and completeness conveyed in the ancient translation.
When viewed from this perspective, one discovers that though the Masoretes and/or other individuals removed His Name, they were not entirely successful. When we translate certain verses back into Hebrew from English and try using both the more modern and the ancienten translation of the declaration ( I AM THAT I AM), only one of them, the latter, is sufficient. The Book of Revelations carries verses that s peak of heavenly beings worshipping and praising the Almighty before HIs throne. John recorded their praises, many of which proclaim Him and/or His Power to exist in the same manner in which it is rendered in Exodus chapter three.
"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus" (Rev. 16:5)
"Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned" (Rev. 11:17)
"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Rev. 4:8)
Which of the two translations are more appropriate if one were to translate the underlined words back into Hebrew? The two words 'Ahayah' and 'Hayah' mean 'I Am', therefore, both can be used for the description 'which was, and is', (Rev. 4:8). Yet, the last part 'is to come'? The more modern translation does not work, as it has no word that can be used to speak of a future existence. The more ancient translation, however, uses the word 'hawah', which does denote contiinuity, or a future. Again, 'Ahayah' does not. This 'test' can be applied to all of the examples, and the more ancient translation proves to be the best-fit for all of them.
There are those who might excuse this 'test', citing the popular belief that the Book of Revelations was written in Greek, and that translating bits or portions back into Hebrew makes no sense. It shosuld be noted that this Book was actually originally penned in Hebrew, and the Greek translation was used in subsequent copies. The Book of Revelations is a Hebrew work, writtenby a Hebrew prophet (Bullinger, 1935, pg. 3). As such, using Hebrew translations of English passages and testing them against a Hebrew original is only fiting. In pointing out the Hebraic authenticity of the apocalyptic visions, Bullinger quotes Prof. Godet's observations on the Hebraic characteristics of Revelations:
"The only serious objection that can be urged against the authenticity of the Apocalypse lies in the difference which is observable between its style, and that of the fourth Gospel. The latter is free from Aramaic expressions, the former is saturated with them ... the Apocalypse bears from one end of it to the other, the character of a Hebrew prophecy"
Bullinger and Godet are not alone in this observation. Stuart (1845, pg. 191-210) succinctly lists and comments on several poetic characteristics in John's Apocalypse that are found in all of the Hebrew prophecies, noting that
"The Revelation of John is indeed oriental, and not an occidental performance. It is specially adapted, as we should naturally expect, to the taste of oriental readers. But why should we not make all due allowance for this? Isaiah is oriental too; but who in all the West, or in any other region, has reached the sublimity and beauty of his strains?"
Keeping these erudite observations in mind, one should not be opposed to 'testing' the validity of the more modern translation (Ahayah Asher Ahayah) by 're-translating' these passages. In conclusion, it becomes apparent that it cannot be used to provide an accurate reading of the passages in Revelations. The more ancient translation (Hayah Huw Hawah) passes the test, succinctly rendering the praise and honor being given to the Supreme Being seated on the throne. Also, one can easily recognize the abbreviation for the four sacred consonants, YHWH in the former, and not in the latter. This makes very clear that 'Ahayah' is NOT the Sacred Name of the Almighty Creator. His Name is Yahuwah.
References
Moses, S. (1845). A Commentary on the Apocalypse. Andover, New York.
