Re[2]: YHWH vs. Yahweh

[p***@SIL.ORG]

Shalom!

Thanks for the explanations in your other E-mail.

You asked:

This is so interesting for me. Can you recommend any good books or web
sites for me to learn about this?

Well, all of what I wrote is at least implicit in standard Hebrew
grammar books like Gesenius-Kautsch-Cowley, but you would have to wade
through a lot of irrelevance to find this. Any tips from others on a
good but simple guide to Hebrew orthography and pronunciation?

Then you wrote:

Yes, but does the name "YAH + WH" mean much grammatically? I always found
it more logical, since Hebrew names have numerical values and theological
synonymity with concepts and teachings, that 'YAHU' or 'YAHUWAH' packed
much more meaning than an empty 'YAHWEH.' One means 'Oh he WHo is' and the
other one individualy, means "Be And" or "Exist ANd" or some other
strange definition, since "YAH" in hebrew means "be, exist, is" "WEH" in
modern hebrew means "AND." Does that make much sense?

Sorry, I'm afraid you just can't do this with Hebrew words any more
than with English ones. For example (off the top of my head), "father"
does not mean "fat" + "her" - it did not originally mean a pregnant
woman! Your Hebrew examples seem to me just as far-fetched, especially
taking a FINAL waw as meaning "and" as the conjunction is always at
the beginning of a word. The numerical values were assigned long after
the Hebrew Bible was written.

Peter Kirk

[p***@SIL.ORG]

If YHWH pronounced Yahweh is like the hiphil imperfect of the root HWH
(where the final H is a mater for an original Y rather than the real
voiced H found in roots like GBH "be high"), then what would the
shortened jussive form of this be? I think it would be YFHW. (yahu).
(YAH:WEH is shortened to YAH:W: as regularly with final H verbs; but
then as usual these forms become disyllabic by analogy with segolate
nouns, so YAH:W: becomes YFHW. with stress on first syllable by analogy
with &FXW. (saHu) "swimming" for &AX:W:)

This helps in explaining why Yahweh becomes -yahu with penultimate
stress when used as a suffix and therefore shortened.

Peter Kirk

[Rolf Furuli]

Post by p***@SIL.ORG
If YHWH pronounced Yahweh is like the hiphil imperfect of the root HWH
(where the final H is a mater for an original Y rather than the real
voiced H found in roots like GBH "be high"), then what would the
shortened jussive form of this be? I think it would be YFHW. (yahu).
(YAH:WEH is shortened to YAH:W: as regularly with final H verbs; but
then as usual these forms become disyllabic by analogy with segolate
nouns, so YAH:W: becomes YFHW. with stress on first syllable by analogy
with &FXW. (saHu) "swimming" for &AX:W:)
This helps in explaining why Yahweh becomes -yahu with penultimate
stress when used as a suffix and therefore shortened.
Peter Kirk

Dear Peter,

It was not my intention to enter this discussion, but what you wrote above
needs some comment.

As a matter of fact, we *know* next to nothing about the old pronunciation
and meaning of YHWH. It has correctly been stated in this thread that
"Jehovah" is an artificial construction based on the masoretic punctuation,
and that "Yahweh" is late and artificial as well. This does not rule out,
however, that king David, pronounced the name, either close to "Jehovah" or
to "Yahweh". The many names in the Bible beginning with "Jeho/u opt for
something closer to "Jehovah", and the abbreviation "yah" and a similar
ending in many names opt for something closer to "Yahweh". The Elephantine
papyri are open for either YEHU/O or YAHU/O. But the correct pronunciation
we do not know!

I am surprised, however, that nobody has brought Aramaic into the
discussion (or at least an older dialect of Hebrew), because HYH is Hebrew
while HWH is Aramaic. A hiphil form of the Hebrew HYH is not attested, but
if one existed, would it not be YA:HAYE or YAHYE (compare )EHYE in Ex 3:14)
rather than YA:HAWE or YAHWE? In Daniel 5:12 we find a haphel form of HWH
written as YE:HAHA:WE, and an aphel form could have been YAHWE. Jussiv in
Aramaic is expressed by elision of the final N and is, except that, similar
to imperfect. I therefore find your suggestions above about a Hebrew
jussive meaning speculative.

The number of syllables and whether waw is a consonant or a vowel may be
discussed, but as long as we do not know the language/dialect, and the
particular root and its meaning we are groping in the dark.



Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo

[yahua'sef]

Post by p***@SIL.ORG
Sorry, I'm afraid you just can't do this with Hebrew words any more
than with English ones. For example (off the top of my head), "father"
does not mean "fat" + "her" - it did not originally mean a pregnant
woman! Your Hebrew examples seem to me just as far-fetched, especially

Is everyone really that cynical? Take a look at some of the
prophets(Nevi'um) or angels and their names:

DaniEL (or DanaUL), ZecharYahu, Zef'nYahu, YechezekEL, YermiYahu,
YeshaYahu (Isaiah), Jo'El, Eli'Yahu, Yahu'shua,Mika'El, Rapha'El, Uri'El
Samu'El, etc.etc. Do you mean to tell me that seperating these names into
individual parts and name of God included in their name - would render NO
MEANING at all? Of course they all mean something!

Yahu'shua = YAHU is salvation
Dani'el = God is my judge
Joel = YAHU is God
Samu'EL = His name is YAHU

So why would YAHU(YHWH) be any different? Can you offer any explanation
besides one that is completely centered around linguistics and proper
Hebrew grammar? Why are my conclusions about YHWH discounted by everyone
will openly admit that the names for some of these prophets, acorind got
Blue Letter Bible, ALL BEAR some meaning when broken down into their
individual parts?


Shalom Alaekhem

[p***@SIL.ORG]

I discovered by chance that the following is not quite being fair to
Joseph or whatever he is called. I was surprised to find the form
BIYHOWS"P at Psalm 81:6, apparently from a theophoric variant Y:HOWS"P
of the regular YOWS"P. (GKC 53q treats this as a variant form of
hiphil, but I am not convinced). So we have a similar variation to
that we recently discussed between Y:HOW$W.A( and Y"$W.A(, though with
a different vowel. So it is at least possible that Y:HOWS"P was
original and YOWS"P a contraction of it. In fact the original might
have been Y:HOWYOS"P (as in the explanation in Genesis 30:23), by
analogy with Y:HOWYFKIYN, another theophoric name with a hiphil
jussive, or perhaps Y:HOWHOSIYP, by analogy with other Yeho- names
which are mostly followed by a "perfect" form - both of these forms
would naturally be shortened to Y:HOWS"P and then further to YOWS"P.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: YHWH vs. Yahweh
Author: ***@historian.net at internet
Date: 27/04/1999 23:48


yahua'sef wrote:
<snip>

There is much that can be corrected here but I will have to get to it
when I
return (going fishing). I will address "Joseph" since that is my name.
the JO- of Joseph is NOT a theophoric and therefore not "YAHU-sef."
ywsf is the fut. of ysf (to add or augment) and therefore "Let him add."

Jack
--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
***@historian.net

http://www.historian.net

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: ***@sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-***@franklin.oit.unc.edu.

[yahua'sef]

Post by p***@SIL.ORG
I discovered by chance that the following is not quite being fair to
Joseph or whatever he is called. I was surprised to find the form

SHalom Peter Kirk.

I don't mean to sound rude, but could you please explain what you wrote in
...layman's terms? I am very interested to know what exactly you found
here!

Shalom.

Wondell M. Rachman

Post by p***@SIL.ORG
BIYHOWS"P at Psalm 81:6, apparently from a theophoric variant Y:HOWS"P
of the regular YOWS"P. (GKC 53q treats this as a variant form of
hiphil, but I am not convinced). So we have a similar variation to
that we recently discussed between Y:HOW$W.A( and Y"$W.A(, though with
a different vowel. So it is at least possible that Y:HOWS"P was
original and YOWS"P a contraction of it. In fact the original might
have been Y:HOWYOS"P (as in the explanation in Genesis 30:23), by
analogy with Y:HOWYFKIYN, another theophoric name with a hiphil
jussive, or perhaps Y:HOWHOSIYP, by analogy with other Yeho- names
which are mostly followed by a "perfect" form - both of these forms
would naturally be shortened to Y:HOWS"P and then further to YOWS"P.
Peter Kirk
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: YHWH vs. Yahweh
Date: 27/04/1999 23:48
<snip>
There is much that can be corrected here but I will have to get to it
when I
return (going fishing). I will address "Joseph" since that is my name.
the JO- of Joseph is NOT a theophoric and therefore not "YAHU-sef."
ywsf is the fut. of ysf (to add or augment) and therefore "Let him add."
Jack
--
______________________________________________
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
Jack Kilmon
http://www.historian.net
---
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
---
To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')

[Jim West]

Post by yahua'sef
I don't mean to sound rude, but could you please explain what you wrote in
...layman's terms? I am very interested to know what exactly you found
here!

er, um, I don't want to appear rude either, or unkind, but you have been
arguing with folk about the etymology of Yahweh and yet you don't have use
of the standard grammar of the language of the Hebrew Bible? If you were
arguing about something familiar to you, it seems to me that you would have
at hand those very basic tools of research.

Post by yahua'sef

Post by p***@SIL.ORG
BIYHOWS"P at Psalm 81:6, apparently from a theophoric variant Y:HOWS"P
of the regular YOWS"P. (GKC 53q treats this as a variant form of
hiphil, but I am not convinced). So we have a similar variation to
that we recently discussed between Y:HOW$W.A( and Y"$W.A(, though with
a different vowel. So it is at least possible that Y:HOWS"P was
original and YOWS"P a contraction of it. In fact the original might
have been Y:HOWYOS"P (as in the explanation in Genesis 30:23), by
analogy with Y:HOWYFKIYN, another theophoric name with a hiphil
jussive, or perhaps Y:HOWHOSIYP, by analogy with other Yeho- names
which are mostly followed by a "perfect" form - both of these forms
would naturally be shortened to Y:HOWS"P and then further to YOWS"P.
Peter Kirk

Peter here is addressing Jack's earlier comment about theophoric (divine)
elements in names found in the Hebrew Bible. i.e., Joseph. Peter has found
evidence that suggests that Joseph may indeed be a theophoric.

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Petros Baptist Church- Pastor
Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible

fax- 978-231-5986
email- ***@highland.net
web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

[yahua'sef]

Post by Jim West
er, um, I don't want to appear rude either, or unkind, but you have been
arguing with folk about the etymology of Yahweh and yet you don't have use
of the standard grammar of the language of the Hebrew Bible? If you were
arguing about something familiar to you, it seems to me that you would have
at hand those very basic tools of research.

Hello sir. I just did not understand some of the signs and symbols he
employed in his message, such as--->

--> BIYHOWS"P

and --> GKC 53q

and --> Y:HOW$W.A( and Y"$W.A(,

ad infinitum.

Post by Jim West
Jim West, ThD
Petros Baptist Church- Pastor
Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible

Of course, it is not always the presumptive belief that "Pastors" would be
kind, gentle, helpful, and understanding in their messages. Rather, no
distinction should be made between one of cloth and one who is not.

"Regards" to you as well.

Shalom.

[Jim West]

Post by yahua'sef
Hello sir. I just did not understand some of the signs and symbols he
employed in his message, such as--->

That was just my point. How can you argue about etymology when a simple
transliteration scheme is beyond your experience?

Post by yahua'sef
--> BIYHOWS"P
and --> GKC 53q

or when you are unfamiliar with the standard grammar of Biblical Hebrew,
Gesenius, Cowley, Kautszch... paragraph 53 subparagraph q.

Post by yahua'sef
and --> Y:HOW$W.A( and Y"$W.A(,

transliteration- again.

Post by yahua'sef
ad infinitum.

not really- the message was quite short.

Post by yahua'sef
Of course, it is not always the presumptive belief that "Pastors" would be
kind, gentle, helpful, and understanding in their messages. Rather, no
distinction should be made between one of cloth and one who is not.

Huh? If you are suggesting that I was not being kind or gentle you are
correct. If you are suggesting that I was not trying to be helpful you are
wrong. My point, put far too bluntly, is this: please know a little bit
about something before you presume to argue the facts. Please. No one is
benefitted by having to explain over and over again things that folk should
know if they have done any work in a field at all. Since the purpose of
this list is the discussion of Biblical Hebrew I really dont think its too
much to ask that those participating know at least the basics. Do you
think that is too much to ask?

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Petros Baptist Church- Pastor
Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible

fax- 978-231-5986
email- ***@highland.net
web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

[yahua'sef]

Post by Jim West
know if they have done any work in a field at all. Since the purpose of
this list is the discussion of Biblical Hebrew I really dont think its too
much to ask that those participating know at least the basics. Do you
think that is too much to ask?

Does the serious scholarly discussion of Biblical Hebrew entail lifting
your nose and wagging your finger at other people who may not be as learnt
as you in the field? I would hope that the rest of the people on this
list, and there are some very kind and helpful ones, would not cross over
into this kind of Biblical-elitism. Funny that you protest denouncing
another persons belief system on this forum, but will openly
criticize/denounce me for not being able to keep up with the some of the
messages because I have not learnt the same way you have, or have been
taught the way you have.

Would you like it if I apologized for not being as intelligent as others
here, pastor?

Wondell M. Rachman

[p***@SIL.ORG]

How can this HE be a mater lectionis? Normally HE is a ML only at the
end of a word. And here, in the consonantal form BYHWSP, if the HE is
a ML we have two ML's for one vowel - is that known elsewhere? Or are
you suggesting an original pronunciation B:YAW:S"P ?

As for the shortened forms being post-exilic, the evidence is not so
simple. It is in the case of the shortening of Yehoshua to Yeshua, but
not in other cases. Looking at the evidence, it seems that some names
e.g. Yehoash, Yehoram were regularly but not always shortened in both
earlier books (Kings) and in later books (Chronicles), but others e.g.
Yehoshafat were rarely if ever shortened, and still others e.g. Yoav
were always shortened. Oddly enough, in Chronicles Yehoash is always
shortened but Yehoram is rarely shortened. So it is not safe to argue
from dating concerning the shortening of any particular name. The name
Yehosef may, like Yehoash, have been a name which, for unknown
reasons, was often shortened in pre-exilic times and always shortened
later; and the Pentateuchal editors may have chosen one form for
consistency. There are only two occurrences in Samuel-Kings to check
with, so we cannot be sure that the form Yehosef was not in regular
use at that time.

As for the dating of Psalm 81, why do you put it so late? Surely the
northern references make most sense if it originated in northern
Israel before its destruction. In that case it may well predate the
final form of Genesis.

Here is some of the evidence for various YEHO-/YO- variant names:

BOOK Penta- Joshua Samuel Chron Prophets Psalms
teuch Judges Kings Ezr/Neh

Yehosef - - - - - 1
Yosef 187 14 2 9 9 4

Yehoahaz - - 15 5 -
Yoahaz - - 1 3 -

Yehoash - - 17 - -
Yoash - 9 19 17 2

Yehonatan - 1 69 9 3
Yonatan - - 31 10 1

Yehoram - - 15 13 -
Yoram - - 16 4 -

Yehoshua 27 174 4 1 11
Yeshua - - - 30 -

Yehoshafat - - 39 43 2
Yoshafat - - - 2 -

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: YHWH vs. Yahweh
Author: ***@historian.net at internet
Date: 02/05/1999 02:06

Post by p***@SIL.ORG
I discovered by chance that the following is not quite being fair to
Joseph or whatever he is called. I was surprised to find the form
BIYHOWS"P at Psalm 81:6, apparently from a theophoric variant Y:HOWS"P
of the regular YOWS"P. (GKC 53q treats this as a variant form of
hiphil, but I am not convinced).

I am not so sure...or the possibility that the he is a ML.

Post by p***@SIL.ORG
So we have a similar variation to
that we recently discussed between Y:HOW$W.A( and Y"$W.A(, though with
a different vowel. So it is at least possible that Y:HOWS"P was
original and YOWS"P a contraction of it. In fact the original might
have been Y:HOWYOS"P (as in the explanation in Genesis 30:23), by
analogy with Y:HOWYFKIYN, another theophoric name with a hiphil
jussive, or perhaps Y:HOWHOSIYP, by analogy with other Yeho- names
which are mostly followed by a "perfect" form - both of these forms
would naturally be shortened to Y:HOWS"P and then further to YOWS"P.

The practice of truncation of theophorics appears to be a post-exilic
practice yet "Joseph" in Genesis is ywsf (Let him add). Psalm 81
postdates
Genesis and may be as late as 150 BCE...hence I would look for some
other purpose for the heh in Psalm 81:6.

Jack
--
______________________________________________

taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

Jack Kilmon
***@historian.net

http://www.historian.net