The Etymology of “Yahweh”

This is an educational dive into the way modern Christianity has been infiltrated and influenced by non-Christian parties, in this particular case, by a pair of Enlightenment-era etymologists.

Have you ever heard someone refer to God as “Yahweh”? That’s just the English for His revealed name in the OT, right? That must mean it’s the ancient Christian practice!

Let’s look at the genealogy of this one, because it is wild. N.b. this thread is not about “the secret name of God,” or YHWH, or Jehovah, or vowel pointing, or any other such debate. It is solely focused how & when the six letters “Yahweh” came into common use in English.

A friend asked this week whether a CPH commentary that insists on translating Lord as “Yahweh” is subversive. My first instinct was “yes, absolutely.” But what do I know? So I turned next to Google Ngrams, which searches over 8M books going back centuries. Ngrams shows just what I imagined: the term was invented in the last two centuries, and took off in popularity very recently. Neither of these are what you want to see when you’re considering sound doctrine. An unchanging God does not engender fickle beliefs.

Ngrams also lets you drill down to any date range to see precisely which hits are represented on the graph. After some spelunking, metadata errors, lots more googling, and hours of reading original source material, here is how we were tricked into saying “Yahweh”.

For thousands of years, there has been debate over the pronunciation of “YHWH”–the name “I am” which God gave Himself from the burning bush in Exodus 3. Written Hebrew of course has no vowels, so with only the text, there are numerous possibilities for any consonant set. “Jehovah” itself is one such made-up word, which deliberately transposes the vowel sounds from “Adonai” onto the consonants in “YHWH”. While the intention at the time was pious, it is highly relevant that no such thing was done in Jesus’ day.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) is the Old Testament that was commonly used in Jesus’ day. Hebrew was already a dead language in the 1st century, meaning it was no longer spoken conversationally and most couldn’t read it. Jesus quotes the LXX, as does the NT hundreds of times.

So it is relevant how the LXX treats the YHWH “I am”. What we find is that the word is simply and naturally translated “ego eimi”–”I am”. The 4th century Latin Vulgate also faithfully translates it simply as “ego sum”. Zero interest in it as a proper name, vs. a declaration.

This fact is crucial to the question because it ties directly to Christ’s Divinity. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was I am” He said ego eimi, and the jews tried to murder Him on the spot for blasphemy. He didn’t use some special Hebrew utterance, but “I am”–God’s Name.

For over 14 centuries, every Christian believed that God’s revealed name to Moses was “I am”.

I’m neither a theologian nor an etymologist. But I am an exemplaragnitorian with a respectable track record for correctly sniffing out both bullshit and sulfur. And all the fake Hebrewisms that some Christians like to sling around with pious abandon have always struck me as redolent of both, so it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest to learn that “Yahweh” is an Enlightenment-era construction.

UPDATE: a thematically-related article that takes the position that the use of “Yahweh” is dishonest.

Over the last generation, most American clerics have switched to pronouncing the divine name as Yahweh. I want to make the case that this is dishonest at several levels. First, few can even give a cogent summary of the reasons why Yahweh is to be preferred to Jehovah even though willing to disrupt the tradition over it. I am confident of this because even at the august Westminster Seminary, I caught three professors in the Hebrew OT department out of class and asked why we should say Yahweh. Two of them waved me off to “look it up.” The third, the only one to have an earned PhD from Harvard, said that Jehovah was an entirely possible way the tetragrammaton was pronounced; he used Yahweh as a disruptive mechanism, to shake people out of their comfort zone.

DISCUSS ON SG

The End of a Naval Era

After 80 years, the United States Navy is no longer the dominant naval power on Earth.

Moscow and Beijing conducted large-scale naval drills in the Sea of Japan this week, Russia’s Pacific Fleet announced in a statement to journalists on Sunday. The three-day exercise involved a wide range of activities, including joint firing drills, a simulated naval battle, and air defense training.

The ‘North/Cooperation-2023’ exercise was held over July 20-23, the fleet’s press service said. It involved two Russian anti-submarine war frigates and two Chinese destroyers, as well as a pair of both Russian corvettes and Chinese guard ships alongside a number of support vessels, the statement said.

A total of 30 aircraft from both nations also took part in the drills, the fleet said, adding that this included anti-submarine planes and helicopters, interceptors and other maritime aircraft, the fleet said. The two nations’ naval groups took part in some 20 combat exercises during the drills, it added.

The drills were aimed at “strengthening the naval cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China as well as maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region,” the statement said.

This is significant because it is a signal that the Russians and Chinese are now confident that their combined naval power rivals that of the USA. I expect it will not be too long now before China announces that the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits are off-limits, dares the USN to challenge the ban, and the USN subsequently backs down after mumbling some meaningless phrases about “the freedom of the seas”.

How can we be so certain that China is now a greater sea power than the USA? After all, while the USN has fewer ships than the PLN, it has the advantage of more experience, better quality ships, and more of the aircraft carriers that have been the heart of all naval power since 1941. The reason is twofold. First, as we’ve seen in Ukraine, air power is now vulnerable to air defense systems to a much greater extent than before. Any air strike from a carrier against a first-tier military target is likely to lose more than half the planes it launches.

Second, and more important, China can rapidly replace its naval losses in the event of a war. The USA cannot. In fact, China’s shipbuilding advantage over the USA now exceeds the historical advantage that the USA enjoyed over Japan in WWII by a considerable margin.

A U.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China’s shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This underscores longstanding concerns about the U.S. Navy’s ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as sustain its forces afloat, in any future high-end conflict.

The most eye-catching component of the slide is a depiction of the relative Chinese and U.S. shipbuilding capacity expressed in terms of gross tonnage. The graphic shows that China’s shipyards have a capacity of around 23,250,000 million tons versus less than 100,000 tons in the United States. That is at least an astonishing 232 times greater than the United States.

Consider the implications of this massive capacity delta in light of the historic difference between US and Japanese manufacturing between 1942 and 1945.

Shipping Tonnage Produced, 1942 to 1945

—————-1942———-1943————1944———-1945

USA—–6,252,300—15,153,000—14,580,000—8,804,900

Japan——511,100—-1,023,000——1,929,200—–626,300

delta——-1223%——–1481%————757%——-1406%

Speaking of aircraft carriers, Japan was only able to build 9 carriers over the course of the war, some of which were never launched, while the US launched 120, many of which were surplus to requirements.

Aircraft produced, 1942 to 1945

———–1942——-1943——-1944——-1945

USA—-47,800—–85,900—–96,300—–46,000

Japan—8,900—–16,700—–28,200—–11,100

delta—–537%——-514%——-342%——-414%

And while it is theoretically possible for the US to signficantly expand its industrial capacity in order to reduce its disadvantage, the political, ideological, and demographic realities render that improbable to the point of total impossibility. The US corpocracy’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equality is actively reducing its current capabilities, which means there is no way it can reasonably be expected to expand them successfully.

I’d always thought that the end of US naval dominance would be the consequence of a Sicilian Expedition that resulted in the unexpected sinking of one or more aircraft carriers. But thanks to Ukraine and the offshoring of US industrial capacity, we appear to have passed that historical point in relative peace and without any fireworks.

DISCUSS ON SG

It’s Not About the Economics

In which we see, once more, that those who believe material elements, such as greed or individual ambition, are the primary driver of all human action, have no capacity for understanding or anticipating future events.

Economic logic provides that the U.S. (and European) economy would be better off by avoiding a conflict with Russia and China. But, as Micheal Hudson explains, this now gets overwritten by national security preferences which have remarkable conseqences:

Instead of isolating Russia and China and making them dependent on U.S. economic control, U.S. unipolar diplomacy has isolated itself and its NATO satellites from the rest of the world – the Global Majority that is growing while NATO economies are rushing ahead along their Road to Deindustrialization. The remarkable thing is that while NATO warns of the “risk” of trade with Russia and China, it does not see its loss of industrial viability and economic sovereignty to the United States as a risk.

This is not what the “economic interpretation of history” would have forecast. Governments are expected to support their economy’s leading business interests. So we are brought back to the question of whether economic factors will determine the shape of world trade, investment and diplomacy. Is it really possible to create a set of post-economic NATO economies whose members will come to look much like the rapidly depopulating and de-industrializing Baltic states and post-Soviet Ukraine?

This would be a strange kind of “national security” indeed. In economic terms it seems that the U.S. and European strategy of self-isolation from the rest of the world is so massive and far-reaching an error that its effects are the equivalent of a world war.

The question is really why the U.S. is doing this harm to itself instead of following Brzezinski’s and Kissinger’s advice. As Yves Smith says in her preface to Hudson’s piece, it is a quite bizarre spectacle:

One of the subthemes of the latest offering from Michael Hudson on the bizarre spectacle of the US escalating against China is puzzlement that the West is not operating in its best interest. Lambert has been chewing over this conundrum too. Perhaps it’s that they really do believe their propaganda, and still don’t recognize that the military and economic clout of the US/EU bloc on a relative basis isn’t anywhere near substantial enough for them to push the rest of the world around. But you think their self-delusion would have started to crack with the failure in their efforts to pressure many countries, such as India and South Africa, to side with the US and condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and now with the supposedly superior US/NATO war machine not performing too well.

Another possibility is the so-called Iron Law of Institutions, that individuals and interests are operating to maximize their own position, with little/no concern to the impact on the system.

I have come to the conclusion that the main actors in this game, the Bindens, Blinkens, Sullivans and their bipartisan supporters, are driven by a blind ideology that has dismissed or replaced global realities with wishful thinking.

The failure of their sanctions against Russia should have demonstrated to them that the real word is by far not the one in which they believe to be living. They however are now repeating their errors by waging a similar war against China.

The U.S. Wars Against Russia And China Have No Economic Logic Attached To Them, 22 July 2023

It’s fascinating how the material mind reaches out in every direction but the correct one. But Sherlock Holmes had it backwards. Once you have eliminated all of the probabilities, the appropriate action is to conclude that what you hitherto believed to be impossible may be the truth.

DISCUSS ON SG

Putin Warns Poland and NATO

When the NATO leaders are calling the President of Russia “mad” and “crazy”, they are clearly engaged in emotional projection. Compare the difference between the mastery of the historical aspects of the current situation by Putin with the media histrionics and the disjointed ramblings of the unelected US figurehead, Biden. It’s also clear that Putin knows who Russia’s real enemies are.

Both the Europeans and European elites see that support for Ukraine is, in fact, a dead end, an empty, endless waste of money and effort, and in fact, serving someone else’s interests, which are far from European: the interests of the overseas global hegemon, which benefits from the weakening of Europe. The endless prolongation of the Ukrainian conflict is also beneficial to it.

Judging by the actual state of affairs, this is exactly what today’s US ruling elites are doing. Anyways, this is the logic they follow. It is largely questionable whether such a policy is in line with the American people’s true, vital interests; this is a rhetorical question, and it is up to them to decide.

However, massive efforts are being taken to stoke the fire of war – including by exploiting the ambitions of certain East European leaders, who have long turned their hatred for Russia and Russophobia into their key export commodity and a tool of their domestic policy. And now they want to capitalise on the Ukrainian tragedy.

In this regard, I cannot refrain from commenting on what has just been said and on media reports that have come out about plans to establish some sort of the so-called Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian unit. This is not about a group of mercenaries – there are plenty of them there and they are being destroyed – but about a well-organised, equipped regular military unit to be used for operations in Ukraine, including to allegedly ensure the security of today’s Western Ukraine – actually, to call things by their true name, for the subsequent occupation of these territories. The outlook is clear: in the event Polish forces enter, say, Lvov or other Ukrainian territories, they will stay there, and they will stay there for good.

And we will actually see nothing new. Just to remind you, following WWI, after the defeat of Germany and its allies, Polish units occupied Lvov and adjacent territories that had been part of Austria-Hungary.

With its actions incited by the West, Poland took advantage of the tragedy of the Civil War in Russia and annexed certain historical Russian provinces. In dire straits, our country had to sign the Treaty of Riga in 1921 and recognise the annexation of its territories.

Even earlier, back in 1920, Poland captured part of Lithuania – the Vilnius region, a territory surrounding the present-day Vilnius. So they claimed that they fought together with the Lithuanians against so-called Russian imperialism, but then immediately snatched a piece of land from their neighbour as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

As is well known, Poland also took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia following the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938, by fully occupying Cieszyn Silesia.

In the 1920-1930s, Poland’s Eastern Borderlands (Kresy) – a territory that comprises present-day Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and part of Lithuania – witnessed a tough policy of Polonisation and assimilation of local residents, with efforts to suppress local culture and Orthodoxy.

I would also like to remind you what Poland’s aggressive policy led to. It led to the national tragedy of 1939, when Poland’s Western allies threw it to the German wolf, the German miliary machine. Poland actually lost its independence and statehood, which were only restored thanks in a large measure to the Soviet Union. It was also thanks to the Soviet Union and thanks to Stalin’s position that Poland acquired substantial territory in the west, German territory. It is a fact that Poland’s western lands are a gift from Stalin.

Have our Warsaw friends forgotten this? We will remind them.

Today we see that the regime in Kiev is ready to go to any length to save its treacherous hide and to prolong its existence. They do not care for the people of Ukraine or Ukrainian sovereignty or national interests.

They are ready to sell anything, including people and land, just like their ideological forefathers led by Petlyura, who signed the so-called secret conventions with Poland in 1920 under which they ceded Galicia and Western Volhynia to Poland in return for military support. Traitors like them are ready now to open the gate to their foreign handlers and to sell Ukraine again.

As for the Polish leaders, they probably hope to form a coalition under the NATO umbrella in order to directly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine and to bite off as much as possible, to “regain,” as they see it, their historical territories, that is, modern-day Western Ukraine.

Meeting with permanent members of the Security Council, 21 July 2023

This is one of Putin’s most important speeches since he called out “the Empire of Lies” and when he announced the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. It’s both a warning to the ambitious Polish leadership and an explanation of why the Russian military is increasing its activity; it will not be a surprise to any student of Russian military history if the Russians begin twin offensives once the Ukrainian counteroffensive is definitively over. It’s also a definitive marker of the NATO-Russian war entering a new and more dangerous phase.

Putin has openly called his shots since 2014. He’s given this enemies the opportunity to back down and avoid conflict. He’s also carried through with his threats. And he’s clearly promising the Poles that if they intervene to prop up the Kiev regime – even if their primary interest is to take former Polish land in Western Ukraine – Russia will take Stalin’s gift of the former German territories away from them.

While the Poles hate and fear Russia, one hopes that they will still have enough sense and self-interest to take this warning seriously. What profit it a Pole to gain Lvov for only to lose both it and Danzig?

DISCUSS ON SG

The Appetizer Ate Them

I’ve been reading the memoirs of Giorgy Zhukov, the Soviet general who was part of the Supreme Command Staff of the Soviet Union during WWII. I’ll put up more posts in the future about some of the notes and observations I’ve made while reading them, but this article by Big Serge points to something I keep noticing again and again, which is the similarity between the false assumptions of the Nazi command staff and the false assumptions of the NATO command staff.

We must strongly note (for this is of great importance) that in early 1942, much of Wehrmacht leadership still believed that the war with the Soviet Union was a sort of appetizer, which would be won as a preliminary condition for waging a global war with the Anglo-Americans. The land war in the east, in other words, was something that needed to be resolved so that Germany could be freed to wage a full strategic defense of Europe by land, sea, and air – using the resources of the defeated Soviet Union to power this long war effort.

This, of course, demonstrates that Germany was asking the wrong questions and thinking about the wrong problems. They were concerned with bringing a resolution in the east so they could move on to the (as they saw it) bigger problem of contesting Anglo-American global hegemony. They did not yet seem to realize that they were being defeated outright in the east. So eager were they to move on to the main course, they did not see that the appetizer was eating them.

As I have repeatedly stated, WWIII appears to be a remake of WWII, only with the USA playing the part of Germany, Europe playing the part of Italy, the UK and the Commonwealth playing the part of Japan. Russia is the Soviet Union, while China is the USA.

And like the Nazis before them, NATO is asking the wrong questions and thinking about the wrong problems. They’re already trying to pivot to war with China while they are losing the war with Russia.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why Your Grocery Bill is Rising

Russia abrogated the Black Sea grain deal and reimposed its naval blockade of Ukraine after the West – shockingly and totally unexpectedly – again failed to live up to its responsibilities under the treaty.

The Russian military issued a new navigational warning for the Black Sea on Wednesday, declaring certain areas in its international waters to be “temporarily unsafe” for vessels. Apart from that, the military advised seafarers against attempting to reach Ukraine’s ports, stating that all vessels heading there will be treated as potential carriers of war goods starting from Thursday.

Therefore, the flag state of a ship attempting to reach the Ukrainian Black Sea ports will be deemed as “taking part in the Ukrainian conflict on the side of the Kiev regime,” the Russian Defense ministry said in a statement.

The military said it also declared certain areas in the international waters of the Black Sea to be “temporarily unsafe” for navigation. The areas are located in the north-west and south-east of the waterway, the military noted, adding that all the necessary navigational warnings have already been published as required under existing procedures.

“With the termination of the Black Sea Initiative and the abolition of the maritime humanitarian corridor, from 00:00 Moscow time on July 20, 2023, all ships en route to Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea will be considered potential carriers of military cargo,” the military insisted.

The new restrictions de-facto re-impose the Russian naval blockade on Ukraine, lifted under the so-called Black Sea grain deal in July 2022. The agreement, signed with mediation by the UN and Türkiye, enabled the safe shipment of Ukrainian grain through Black Sea corridors amid the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. Moscow withdrew from the deal on Monday, citing the West’s failure to keep any of the promises made to Russia under the agreement, including re-enabling exports of grain and fertilizers from the country.

The Russians followed the announcement with a series of missile strikes on Odessa and other Black Sea port facilities, as well as a warning that ships would no longer be allowed to freely transit the Black Sea.

Footage circulating online shows massive explosions in the vicinity of Odessa, including at its Black Sea ports. Ukrainian officials have claimed the strikes also inflicted damage on civilian infrastructure, with the city’s mayor, Gennadiy Trukhanov, saying the attack was the largest since the beginning of hostilities. He described last night in the city as “terrible.”

The cancellation of the grain deal is expected to contribute to rising food prices, especially in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, according to the IMF, but will likely have a knock-on impact in Europe and North America as well.

As I mentioned on a recent Darkstream, we appear to be entering a new and more dangerous phase of the NATO-Russian war.

DISCUSS ON SG

Success in Clown World

Never forget that this is what passes for success in Clown World.

Funding History: The Athletic raised $139.5 million via five funding rounds beginning in 2017.

  • Seed Funding: $2.3 million led by Courtside Ventures
  • Series A: $5.4 million led by Courtside Ventures
  • Series B: $20 million led by Evolution Media
  • Series C: $40 million co-led by Founders Fund & Bedrock Capital
  • C1 round investment: $22 million led by Founders Fund
  • Series D: $50 million led by Bedrock Capital

Operating Losses: The Athletic lost $121 million in just four years.

  • 2019: $54 million
  • 2020: $41 million
  • 2021: $55 million
  • 2022: $36 million

In January 2022, The New York Times paid $550 million for The Athletic.

All “success” in Clown World is manufactured, fake, and usually gay. Don’t chase it. You’d have to be retarded to chase it. Chase the Good, the Beautiful, and the True instead.

DISCUSS ON SG