Ceterum nomen יהוה [YHWH] Cabaliste veteres ita scribere soliti sunt, ut tres priores litere maiori figura, ultimum ה [He] mi nori scriberetur: ille quidem trium hypostaseon, hec vero hominis Christi indices. Preceptum erat, ne quis illud pronunciaret, quam pervenisset in domum suam : & propterea ab angelis tantum pronunciari posse afferebant, atque a beatis mentibus. Et Christianorum non pauci Iudaicam secuti superstitionem illud pronunciare non audebant. Primus seculo nostro hac superstitione mentes liberavit Sebastianus Castellio, qui in Bibliis suis Iove nomen passim usurpavit. Nam cum in domo nostra, que est Ecclesia, simus, libere etiam Dei nomen efferre possumus, cum nobis filium suum unigenitum in redemptionem dederit.
Moreover, the ancient Kabbalists were accustomed to write the name יהוה [YHWH] in such a way that the first three letters were written with a larger figure, and the last ה [he] with a smaller one: the former indeed being indicators of the three Hypostases, but the latter of the man Christ. It was a rule that no one should pronounce it until he had arrived in his own house; and for that reason, they asserted that it could be pronounced only by angels and by blessed spirits. And not a few Christians, following Jewish superstition, did not dare to pronounce it. Sebastian Castellio was the first in our age to free minds from this superstition, who in his Bibles used the name Jova [i.e., a form of Jehovah] throughout. For since we are in our house, which is the Church, we are able to utter the name of God freely, seeing that He has given us His only begotten Son for redemption.
Επιπλέον, οι αρχαίοι Καββαλιστές συνήθιζαν να γράφουν το όνομα יהוה [ΓΧΒΧ] με τέτοιο τρόπο, ώστε τα τρία πρώτα γράμματα να γράφονται με μεγαλύτερο σχήμα, ενώ το τελευταίο ה [χε] με μικρότερο: τα μεν πρώτα, βεβαίως, ως δείκτες των τριών υποστάσεων, το δε δεύτερο του ανθρώπου Χριστού. Υπήρχε η εντολή να μην το προφέρει κανείς παρά μόνο όταν είχε φτάσει στο σπίτι του· και γι' αυτό ισχυρίζονταν ότι μπορούσε να προφερθεί μόνο από αγγέλους και από ευλογημένες διάνοιες. Και ουκ ολίγοι Χριστιανοί, ακολουθώντας την ιουδαϊκή δεισιδαιμονία, δεν τολμούσαν να το προφέρουν. Πρώτος στην εποχή μας που απελευθέρωσε διανοητικά [ανθρώπους] από αυτή τη δεισιδαιμονία ήταν ο Σεμπαστιάν Καστελιόν, ο οποίος στις Βίβλους του χρησιμοποίησε παντού το όνομα Ιοβά [δηλ. μορφή του Ιεχωβά]. Διότι, εφόσον βρισκόμαστε στο σπίτι μας, που είναι Εκκλησία, μπορούμε ελεύθερα να προφέρουμε το όνομα του Θεού, καθότι μας έδωσε τον μονογενή Του Γιο για τη λύτρωση.
* Theodor Zwinger,
Theatrvm Vitae Hvmanae. 13, Iustitiam religiosam,
Basel 1571,
p. 1921.
Στέφανος Κατσάρκας,
Σεβαστιανός Καστελιόν: Μια μεγάλη ξεχασμένη μορφή
της θρησκευτικής Μεταρρύθμισης
%20col.%202.png)
Sample pages (Genesis & Exodus)
from Castellion's Bible translation in Latin. /
Δείγματα σελίδων (Γένεση & Έξοδος)
από τη μετάφραση της Αγίας Γραφής του Καστελιόν στα Λατινικά.
Biblia sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis interpretatione,
eiusque postrema recognitione (ed. 1556 & 1726).
Santes Pagnino
Michael Servetus
Casiodoro de Reina ***
Martin Luther
2 comments:
Your argument presupposes that Castellio’s 16th-century decision to use Iova (“Jehovah”) in his Latin Bible translation has probative value for the textual or theological practice of the early Church. It does not.
Castellio lived 1,500 years after the New Testament was written, 1,300 years after the last patristic controversies over Scripture, and over a millennium after the Christian manuscript tradition was already fixed with κύριος and θεός as its normative divine designations. He is not restoring an earlier Christian usage; he is introducing a humanist innovation based on Renaissance-era philology and personal theological judgment.
A sixteenth-century translator cannot “restore” something unless he can demonstrate—on manuscript grounds—that it was once there. Castellio does not, and cannot, do this. His work is therefore interpretive, not text-critical, and certainly not authoritative for reconstructing apostolic usage.
You describe Castellio as freeing Christianity from a supposed Jewish superstition by “using the name of God freely.” This description is misleading.
Castellio did not discover ancient manuscripts containing Iova or Jehovah. He simply chose to vocalize יהוה in Latin, following a convention already known in medieval scholarship. The form Iova / Jehovah itself is not ancient Hebrew; it is a late hybrid, formed by combining the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of ’ădōnāy. Castellio himself inherited this form; he did not recover it from antiquity.
Thus, Castellio’s practice does not demonstrate an original or suppressed Christian tradition. It demonstrates that a Reformation-era translator felt free to override both Jewish and patristic restraint in favor of his own theological instincts. That is not restoration; it is innovation.
Your text approvingly repeats Castellio’s polemical language about “Jewish superstition,” implying that avoidance of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton was an irrational corruption later adopted by Christians. This framing is historically false.
The reverential avoidance of pronouncing יהוה predates Christianity and is already reflected in Second Temple Judaism, including the qere/ketiv tradition, synagogue lection practice, and the Septuagint’s use of κύριος. This was not superstition born of fear, but a theologically motivated practice grounded in reverence (cf. Exod 20:7).
More importantly, the New Testament authors themselves wrote within this Jewish environment. They did not merely tolerate the practice; they participated in it, writing κύριος where the Hebrew text had יהוה, and doing so without apology or explanation. To dismiss this as superstition is to accuse the apostles themselves of theological error—an implication your argument never confronts.
You quote Castellio as saying that because Christians are now “in the house, which is the Church,” they may freely pronounce the divine name. This claim assumes that the absence of the Tetragrammaton in Christian usage was merely a matter of fear or prohibition.
But that assumption is precisely what must be demonstrated—and it is not.
The Christian manuscript tradition does not show fear-driven avoidance; it shows consistent, reverential substitution using κύριος, embedded within the nomina sacra system. This system did not single out the divine name for suppression; it elevated multiple sacred words, including God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Spirit, and others. Castellio’s rhetoric ignores this entirely.
If Christians avoided the Tetragrammaton out of superstition, why did they also abbreviate Jesus as ΙΣ? Why abbreviate Christ as ΧΣ? Why mark these words with an overline? Castellio’s framework cannot explain this data, because it is built on a false premise.
You cite Castellio’s claim that Kabbalists interpreted the letters of יהוה as symbols of hypostases, even associating the final he with “the man Christ.” This is not an argument for restoring the divine name; it is a speculative, non-biblical allegory, foreign to both Jewish exegesis and apostolic teaching.
Ironically, this very passage undermines Jehovah’s Witness theology, not supports it. Castellio is comfortable reading Trinitarian meaning into יהוה itself—something your movement explicitly rejects. You cannot selectively appropriate Castellio’s enthusiasm for pronouncing the Name while ignoring his willingness to read Christological and hypostatic meaning into it.
At most, Castellio demonstrates that an individual translator, operating outside ecclesial consensus, can choose to vocalize the divine name in a receptor language. He does not demonstrate:
• that the Tetragrammaton was ever present in the Greek New Testament,
• that it was later removed,
• that Christians suppressed it out of fear,
• or that restoring Jehovah reflects apostolic intent.
Your appeal to Castellio therefore commits a category error: you treat a Reformation-era translational preference as if it were evidence for early Christian textual history.
In conclusion, you invoke Castellio as a heroic restorer of God’s name, but the historical record does not support your conclusion. Castellio did not recover a lost Christian practice; he introduced a novel one. He did not expose a conspiracy; he rejected a long-standing Jewish and Christian reverential convention. He did not correct the apostolic witness; he acted independently of it.
Most decisively, the authority of Scripture lies in the texts as they were written and transmitted, not in the personal convictions of later translators—however sincere or rhetorically compelling they may be.
If Castellio proves anything, it is not that Christianity suppressed God’s name, but that individual translators can project their theology onto the text. Ironically, that is precisely the charge often leveled—rightly—against the modern insertion of Jehovah into the New Testament.
And on that point, Castellio is not your ally; he is your warning.
Post a Comment