They not only claim that its uncertain pronunciation justifies such a course but also hold that the supremacy and uniqueness of the true God make unnecessary his having a particular name.
Such a view receives no support from the inspired Scriptures, either those of pre-Christian times or those of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile (607-537 B. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B. E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek (God) for the Tetragrammaton. So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: “It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah.
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the of Deuteronomy, listed as P. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party . .—these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements.
Additionally the historical value of the Mishnaic traditions is questionable, as we have seen.
There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second centuries C. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance of the use of the divine name.
He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.” It was applied alike to the true God and to such pagan gods as Zeus and Hermes (Roman Jupiter and Mercury).
(Compare Ac -15.) Presenting the true situation are Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him.” The belief in numerous gods, which makes essential that the true God be distinguished from such, has continued even into this 21st century.
At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton).Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh.Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa,” “Yahuah,” or “Yehuah.” Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation.Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known.Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak.