[b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

[David P Donnelly]

While taking a quick look at the document:
"Issues in the Representation of Pointed Hebrew in Unicode (3rd draft)",
on Peter Kirk’s web site,
http://www.qaya.org/
I discovered that at Genesis 3:14 in the BHS,
the Tetragrammaton is shown just as it is shown in Hebrew word #3068,
of James Strong's Concordance.
Loading Image...
At Ezekiel 12:25 [in the BHS Text],
a variant of this form is found,
which looks almost identical to Hebrew word #3068,
until you examine it under a magnifying glass.
Under a magnifying glass,
it can be observed that there is a diamond shaped cantillation mark,
[Revia ??]
not a holem,
above the waw/vav
At Exodus 6:3 [in the BHS Text]
another variant of YHWH is found,
in which no holem is found above the waw/vav,
yet there is a qamets under the waw/vav,
and a simple shewa under the yod.
I have chosen only to present the above three variants,
while ignoring the variants of YHWH found in the BHS Text,
when YHWH immediately follows Adonay,
or
when YHWH immediately precedes Adonay.
The question I am asking is:
Are there any Hebrew scholars who have examined the Leningrad Codex,
and believe that the Leningrad Codex has been tampered with,
at any of the above three mentioned variants?
Dave Donnelly

[Peter Kirk]

Post by David P Donnelly
"Issues in the Representation of Pointed Hebrew in Unicode (3rd draft)",
on Peter Kirk’s web site,
http://www.qaya.org/
I discovered that at Genesis 3:14 in the BHS,
the Tetragrammaton is shown just as it is shown in Hebrew word #3068,
of James Strong's Concordance.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/hebrewword3068.jpg
At Ezekiel 12:25 [in the BHS Text],
a variant of this form is found,
which looks almost identical to Hebrew word #3068,
until you examine it under a magnifying glass.
Under a magnifying glass,
it can be observed that there is a diamond shaped cantillation mark,
[Revia ??]
not a holem,
above the waw/vav

This is indeed a Revia.

Post by David P Donnelly
At Exodus 6:3 [in the BHS Text]
another variant of YHWH is found,
in which no holem is found above the waw/vav,
yet there is a qamets under the waw/vav,
and a simple shewa under the yod.

This is the commonest version, occurring several thousand times with
various accents.

Post by David P Donnelly
I have chosen only to present the above three variants,
while ignoring the variants of YHWH found in the BHS Text,
when YHWH immediately follows Adonay,
or
when YHWH immediately precedes Adonay.
Are there any Hebrew scholars who have examined the Leningrad Codex,
and believe that the Leningrad Codex has been tampered with,
at any of the above three mentioned variants?
Dave Donnelly

[David P Donnelly]

Peter Kirk says:
It is highly improbable that L has been tampered with in any systematic
way.
Why would you suggest that?
Remember that there are a number of other MSS of comparable date which
usually read the same.
Dave says:

Maybe I should ask the question in a different manner.

The Ben Chayyim Hebrew text preserves the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew
Word #3068 form,
[yod-simple shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
over 6000 times.

You mentioned previously that this Hebrew word #3068 form was only found
44 times in the BHS.


http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/software/mac/online.bible/BHS-BHM.Rea
d_Me.txt
The following information was found at the link above,
under the heading below:
INTRODUCTION TO THE HEBREW BIBLE PROPER
Because of the presence or absence of the so-called "vowel letters"
(consonants used to indicate vowels)
in unpointed MSS, however,
the consonantal Hebrew text as found in the Masoretic manuscripts
splits into two unique but complementary traditions:
that of Ben Asher (circa centuries 9-10 CE)
and that of Ben Chayyim (circa centuries 13-14 CE).
Peter,

Could you help me to understand how Ben Chayyim ends up creating a Hebrew
Text
in which the Tetragrammaton is found over 6000 times,
in the Hebrew word #3068 form.

Are there any extant M.T.'s between 1010 A.D. and 1525 A.D.
in which the Tetragrammaton is preserved over 6000 times in the Hebrew
word #3068 form?

Peter,

You mentioned:
But it seems clear that by the time that the Aleppo codex was written,
some time before L,
the traditional way of writing the divine name was already more or less
fixed
and has not been changed since.
Certainly Ben Chayyim has changed the writing of the divine name.
Did Ben Chayyim corrupt the Hebrew Text?

Dave Donnelly



Dave

Post by David P Donnelly

Post by David P Donnelly
"Issues in the Representation of Pointed Hebrew in Unicode (3rd

draft)",

Post by David P Donnelly
on Peter Kirk’s web site,
http://www.qaya.org/
I discovered that at Genesis 3:14 in the BHS,
the Tetragrammaton is shown just as it is shown in Hebrew word

#3068,

Post by David P Donnelly
of James Strong's Concordance.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/hebrewword3068.jpg
At Ezekiel 12:25 [in the BHS Text],
a variant of this form is found,
which looks almost identical to Hebrew word #3068,
until you examine it under a magnifying glass.
Under a magnifying glass,
it can be observed that there is a diamond shaped cantillation

mark,

Post by David P Donnelly
[Revia ??]
not a holem,
above the waw/vav

This is indeed a Revia.

Post by David P Donnelly
At Exodus 6:3 [in the BHS Text]
another variant of YHWH is found,
in which no holem is found above the waw/vav,
yet there is a qamets under the waw/vav,
and a simple shewa under the yod.

This is the commonest version, occurring several thousand times with
various accents.

Post by David P Donnelly
I have chosen only to present the above three variants,
while ignoring the variants of YHWH found in the BHS Text,
when YHWH immediately follows Adonay,
or
when YHWH immediately precedes Adonay.
Are there any Hebrew scholars who have examined the Leningrad

Codex,

Post by David P Donnelly
and believe that the Leningrad Codex has been tampered with,
at any of the above three mentioned variants?
Dave Donnelly

[Peter Kirk]

Post by David P Donnelly
It is highly improbable that L has been tampered with in any
systematic way.
Why would you suggest that?
Remember that there are a number of other MSS of comparable date which
usually read the same.
Maybe I should ask the question in a different manner.
The Ben Chayyim Hebrew text preserves the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew
Word #3068 form,
[yod-simple shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
over 6000 times.
You mentioned previously that this Hebrew word #3068 form was only
found 44 times in the BHS.
_http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/software/mac/online.bible/BHS-BHM.Read_Me.txt_
The following information was found at the link above,
INTRODUCTION TO THE HEBREW BIBLE PROPER
Because of the presence or absence of the so-called "vowel letters"
(consonants used to indicate vowels)
in unpointed MSS, however,
the consonantal Hebrew text as found in the Masoretic manuscripts
that of Ben Asher (circa centuries 9-10 CE)
and that of Ben Chayyim (circa centuries 13-14 CE).
Peter,
Could you help me to understand how Ben Chayyim ends up creating
a Hebrew Text
in which the Tetragrammaton is found over 6000 times,
in the Hebrew word #3068 form.
Are there any extant M.T.'s between 1010 A.D. and 1525 A.D.
in which the Tetragrammaton is preserved over 6000 times in the Hebrew
word #3068 form?

I don't know. I know that the oldest MSS don't usually write the holem
on the divine name.

Post by David P Donnelly
Peter,
But it seems clear that by the time that the Aleppo codex was written,
some time before L,
the traditional way of writing the divine name was already more or
less fixed
and has not been changed since.
Certainly Ben Chayyim has changed the writing of the divine name.
Did Ben Chayyim corrupt the Hebrew Text?

Well, it seems that Ben Chayyim did follow a changed tradition. Whether
that is corruption or improvement is a value judgment. I am not an
expert on this.

Post by David P Donnelly
Dave Donnelly
Dave

[B***@aol.com]

***@juno.com references a website
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/software/mac/online.bible/BHS-BHM.Read_Me.txt
which includes the following statement:

"Because of the presence or absence of the so-called "vowel
letters" (consonants used to indicate vowels) in unpointed MSS,
however, the consonantal Hebrew text as found in the Masoretic
manuscripts splits into two unique but complementary traditions:
that of Ben Asher (circa centuries 9-10 CE) and that of Ben
Chayyim (circa centuries 13-14 CE)."

This makes no sense to me. AFAIK there is no such thing as a "tradition" of
Ben Chayyim. There were two Massoretic traditions: that of Ben Asher and that
of Ben Naftali, the former being generally accepted as authoritative.

The only "Ben Chayyim" I know of who might be relevant is Jacob Ben Chayyim
ibn Adoniyah, who edited the Rabbinic Bible of 1525. This was considered the
definitive edition (textus receptus) and the basis of the first two editions of
BHS's predecessor, the BHK. Ben Chayyim was the first to collate a large
number of manuscripts and massoretic volumes in order to create what he
considered the best possible representation of the Massoretic Text (which of course
meant according to the tradition of Ben Asher) together with massoretic
marginalia. (Norman Snaith, however, suggests that the consonantal text of the first
Rabbinic Bible, 1517 edited by Felix Pratensis, is closer to the authentic Ben
Asher tradition). Unfortunately he did not provide footnotes or
bibiliography, so we do not know which specific manuscripts and volumes he used.

Can anyone clarify whether this website has some arcane information the rest
of us do not? or is it simply mistaken?

For more details, see: Jacob Ben Chajim Ibn Adonijah's Introduction to the
Rabbinic Bible ... and the Massoreth ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita... (by
Christian D. Ginsbug, 1867, reprinted 1968 with a Prolegomenon by Norman H. Snaith,
The Library of Biblical Studies, ed. by Harry M. Orlinsky, Ktav.)

[David P Donnelly]

Bearpecs at aol.com says:
The only "Ben Chayyim" I know of who might be relevant
is Jacob Ben Chayyim ibn Adoniyah, who edited the Rabbinic Bible of 1525.


This was considered the definitive edition (textus receptus)
and the basis of the first two editions of BHS's predecessor, the BHK.

Ben Chayyim was the first to collate a large number of manuscripts and
massoretic volumes
in order to create what he considered the best possible representation of
the Massoretic Text
(which of course meant according to the tradition of Ben Asher)
together with massoretic marginalia.

(Norman Snaith, however, suggests that the consonantal text of the first
Rabbinic Bible, 1517
edited by Felix Pratensis, is closer to the authentic Ben Asher
tradition).

Unfortunately he did not provide footnotes or bibiliography,
so we do not know which specific manuscripts and volumes he used.

Can anyone clarify whether this website has some arcane information the
rest
of us do not? or is it simply mistaken?
Dave says:

Bearpecs at aol.com says that the Rabbinic Bible of 1525.
[e.g. the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text]:
was considered the definitive edition (textus receptus)
and the basis of the first two editions of BHS's predecessor, the BHK."
The Jewish people must have been aware that the Rabbinic Bible of 1525,
preserved God's name as "Yehovah"
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-gamets-he]
over 6000 times.

The Jewish people of that day did not appear to see this as a problem.



Previously, however,
The Rabbinic Bible of 1517 had not received the approval of the Jewish
people.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/loc/Great.html

The following information is found at the link above:
In 1516, a wealthy Venetian, Daniel Bomberg who had been born in Antwerp,

was granted the privilege of publishing Hebrew books in that city.
Among the first he published was a folio edition of the entire Bible with
the leading commentaries,
Mikraot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible), which came off the press in 1516-17.
Pope Leo's imprimatur was sought and granted,
and Felix Pratensis, a monk born a Jew, was its editor.
Bomberg published the edition because of growing interest in the Hebrew
language
and the Bible among learned Christians.
As a good businessman,
he quickly perceived that there was a substantial market for Hebrew texts
among the Jews of Italy,
whose numbers had been increased by an influx of Spanish and Portuguese
Jewish exiles.
The commentaries of Rashi, Kimhi, Nahmanides, and Gersonides attracted
the Jewish clientele,
but the editorship by an apostate and the blessing of the Pope made Jews
avoid the edition,
so Bomberg quickly published a quarto edition, without any mention of
either editor or sponsor.
Six years later in 1524, his second Rabbinic (i.e., with commentaries)
Bible appeared.
This time Bomberg emphasized that his printers were pious Jews, as was
his scholarly editor.
In time more than two hundred Hebrew books came off the Bomberg press,
volumes of singular scholarly merit and typographical excellence.
A fuzzy photo of the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text is shown followed by the
following text:
The first Rabbinic Bible, i.e., the biblical text accompanied by a number
of commentaries,
was published by the greatest of Hebrew printers in the sixteenth
century, Daniel Bomberg,
a Christian from Antwerp,
who set up his Hebrew press in Venice in 1515 and published some 230
works.

Published in 1517 and edited by the apostate Felix Pratensis who
dedicated it to Pope Leo X,
it apparently did not attract the anticipated Jewish audience,
hence a new edition, seven years later, edited by Jacob ben Hayim,
who wisely chose to print the Masoretic text.

The latter edition became the standard for all future printings of the
Hebrew Bible.
It is opened to the end of the Book of Samuel and the first verses of the
Book of Kings (Hebraic Section, Library of Congress Photo).
Dave Donnelly

[Charles David Isbell]

David Donnelly wrote: "The Jewish people must have been aware that the
Rabbinic Bible of 1525, preserved God's name as "Yehovah"
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-gamets-he] over 6000 times."

I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the sacred
name of God is to be pronounced Jehovah. I have two responses. [1] Knock
yourself out. You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your deity any
way you wish.

[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people." We have NEVER used
that pronunciation, and it was not a Jew who made the childish error of
reading Ktiv consonants with Qere vowels.

Charles David Isbell

[David P Donnelly]

Charles David Isbell says:
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred name of God
is to be pronounced Jehovah.

I have two responses.
[1] Knock yourself out.
You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your deity any way you
wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people."
We have NEVER used that pronunciation,
and it was not a Jew who made the childish error of reading Ktiv
consonants with Qere vowels.
Dave says:

In my particulat situation,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.

I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
[e.g. the KJV]
is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.

Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..

It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.

It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.

Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 times,
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.

I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.

Dave Donnelly



On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:58:00 -0500 "Charles David Isbell"

Post by Charles David Isbell
David Donnelly wrote: "The Jewish people must have been aware that
the
Rabbinic Bible of 1525, preserved God's name as "Yehovah"
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-gamets-he] over 6000 times."
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred
name of God is to be pronounced Jehovah. I have two responses. [1]
Knock
yourself out. You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your
deity any
way you wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people." We have
NEVER used
that pronunciation, and it was not a Jew who made the childish error
of
reading Ktiv consonants with Qere vowels.
Charles David Isbell

[Jason Hare]

David,

I think it might be wise for you to understand from the beginning the
purpose and scope of B-Hebrew. This is a forum for discussion of the text of
the Hebrew Bible (HB). We have participants from all different perspectives:
Jews, Christians, Atheists, Faith-Disinterested, and many others. We have
discussed the Tetragrammaton on several occasions (which you can search out
in our archives). We are, as a group, not interested in propagation of
theological perspectives. We discuss the text based on Hebrew from an
educated perspective.

Please, do not think that you have come here with something new. We are
weathered in respect to the Hebrew Bible. We have heard most all arguments
that you could present. And we all have our own perspectives. However, you
will surely find no support for the idea that "Yehovah" or "Jehovah" or
"Yahweh" or whatever name you choose to be "God's" is absolute without
contestation. If your interest is to find support for a "Sacred Name"
position, you will surely not find it here (or in any decent scholarly
work).

As far as your personal beliefs go, I have to agree with Charles: "Knock
yourself out." If you want to believe in "sacred knowledge" propaganda, go
for it. However, if you gather a deeper knowledge of the HB and of the
morphology/structure of the Hebrew language, you will surely not hold such
silly positions any longer. That's my hope for you--that you will get beyond
yourself in your study of such a great subject as Hebrew.

Best regards,
Jason Hare


----- Original Message -----
From: "David P Donnelly" <***@juno.com>
To: <***@cox.net>
Cc: <b-***@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

Post by Charles David Isbell
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred name of God
is to be pronounced Jehovah.
I have two responses.
[1] Knock yourself out.
You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your deity any way you
wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people."
We have NEVER used that pronunciation,
and it was not a Jew who made the childish error of reading Ktiv
consonants with Qere vowels.
In my particulat situation,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
[e.g. the KJV]
is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 times,
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.
Dave Donnelly

[Dave Washburn]

Post by Liz Fried
David,
I think it might be wise for you to understand from the beginning the
purpose and scope of B-Hebrew. This is a forum for discussion of the text
of the Hebrew Bible (HB). We have participants from all different
perspectives: Jews, Christians, Atheists, Faith-Disinterested, and many
others. We have discussed the Tetragrammaton on several occasions (which
you can search out in our archives). We are, as a group, not interested in
propagation of theological perspectives. We discuss the text based on
Hebrew from an educated perspective.
Please, do not think that you have come here with something new. We are
weathered in respect to the Hebrew Bible. We have heard most all arguments
that you could present. And we all have our own perspectives. However, you
will surely find no support for the idea that "Yehovah" or "Jehovah" or
"Yahweh" or whatever name you choose to be "God's" is absolute without
contestation. If your interest is to find support for a "Sacred Name"
position, you will surely not find it here (or in any decent scholarly
work).

Umm, excuse me for jumping in, but that wasn't what he said. He said he was
trying to understand it. To my knowledge, David has not given any statement
of "belief" to date on this subject. He has been trying to ask questions.
The short answer, David, is that it was not meant to be pronounced with the
four consonants YHWH. The vowels around it were meant to indicate that the
reader should substitute "adonai" in those places. The Name with those
vowels wasn't supposed to be pronounced at all; it was later (and I believe,
primarily Christian) readers and translators who made the mistake of
combining the consonants with the substitute vowels and came up with the
whole "Jehovah" thing. So to answer your question, "how should it be
pronounced as it appears in that particular edition," the answer is, "it
shouldn't."

[Pastor Mark Eddy]

One more answer to your post, from a slightly different perspective:
----- Original Message -----

Post by David P Donnelly
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.

Just because can be pronounced does not mean that it was ever intended to be pronounced. So you ought not

Post by David P Donnelly
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.

It "could be" pronounced this way. And it "is" pronounced this way by some people who don't understand the
Massoretic substitution of the word Adonai for YHWH as they read the biblical text.

Post by David P Donnelly
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 times,
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.

I think the question is, what do you mean by "the 'it is written' form of God's Hebrew name"? When the
divine name was first written, it had no vowels. The Dead Sea scrolls have no vowels points. Some of the
scrolls even write the name YHWH in ancient Hebrew script while the rest of the text is written in what we
now call Hebrew script. The copyists were preserving the divine name just as they saw it in the old
script, while they were converting the rest of the text to "modern" script. Some later pointed Hebrew
manuscripts refrain from adding vowel points to YHWH, even though the vowels had been added to every other
word. So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no vowels. The vowels were added later, by
people who did not pronounce the divine name. You can see pictures of these older manuscripts in Ernst
Wuerthwein's book _The Text of the Old Testament_, a standard textbook for textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible. It is clearly documented that the original Hebrew text was written without vowels. So we cannot
refer to an original pronunciation of YHWH. We can only refer to the Massoretic pointing of the NAME, and
we know that they pronounced it "Adonai."

Post by David P Donnelly
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.

This is not just a belief but an historically accurate description.

If you wish to discuss the pronunciation of the divine name based on the names of biblical people which
incorporated that name, you may find some support for the pronunciation Yehovah. See names such as
Jeho-shua, Jeho-nathan, Jeho-iada, etc. Someone else has already suggested a different possibliity,
people's names that end in "jahu" or just "yah." These would suggest a different pronunciation for the
divine name.

Mark Eddy

[Dave Washburn]

Post by Jason Hare
----- Original Message -----

Post by David P Donnelly
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.

Just because can be pronounced does not mean that it was ever intended to
be pronounced. So you ought not

Post by David P Donnelly
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.

It "could be" pronounced this way. And it "is" pronounced this way by some
people who don't understand the Massoretic substitution of the word Adonai
for YHWH as they read the biblical text.

Post by David P Donnelly
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 times,
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.

I think the question is, what do you mean by "the 'it is written' form of
God's Hebrew name"? When the divine name was first written, it had no
vowels. The Dead Sea scrolls have no vowels points. Some of the scrolls
even write the name YHWH in ancient Hebrew script while the rest of the
text is written in what we now call Hebrew script.

[snip]
Still other DSS substitute four dots for the Name. That should tell us
something, as well.

[Jason Hare]

Post by David P Donnelly
In my particulat situation,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
[e.g. the KJV]
is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.

Well, I guess I'll just throw out a couple more comments. I didn't notice
before (I guess I'm just not used to dealing with the English side of this)
that when Dave said that he was trying to "understand the 'it is written'
form of God's Hebrew name," he was saying that he was trying to grasp the
meaning of the KTYB, the [k'tiv] of the text. Sometimes these things just
slip by you. LOL

Secondly, I was unaware that the KJV was translated from the Ben Chayyim
text. Is that significantly different from our MT as presented in the Stone
Chumash or in BHS? I have both of them (and several others), so I guess I'm
just wondering if Ben Chayyim is something that I would have to get as a
separate representation of the textual tradition.

Beyond that, does anyone else pull from this excerpt above that he is more
interested with the Tetragrammaton than with anything else to do with Hebrew
study? What about the rest of the text? And what is up with the KJV
reference?

I'm just a bit concerned. I have always looked up to B-Hebrew's level of
intensity in study. Since I signed on (over three years ago) I have always
considered the opinions of these valued scholars to be of high worth...
especially when a discussion is carried to the end and the pieces have come
down. Generally, great answers can be found within the settled findings. It
just bothers me when someone with an obvious theological bend is trying to
divert the list from its great height and pull us down so that we argue on a
child's level over things that have been settled for centuries.

This is one of those issues. Why is this brought up over-and-over? Can we
not just refer him to the archives and move on? We should not have to
explain this ten times in one thread (as has happened this time)! If Dave
were interested in studying Hebrew, he would study Hebrew. However, he has
already demonstrated (by referencing Strong and by his complete lack of
concern for what ANYONE has said to him about this issue) that he is not
interested in studying Hebrew except to further his understanding of this
one word. And surely his motivations behind that are akin to any other
person who wants to sound "studied" and "authoritative" on a subject of
which he/she is completely ignorant.

I have ranted, and surely placed myself in disrepute with some on the list.
I think I will take a few days off.

I just have to say that my annoyance is out of extreme love for the
scholarly drive of this list and for the great participants that we have. So
many of you encourage me daily without even knowing it. I'm sorry to be so
contrary. I just think you should be aware that you are being had (which
many of you probably already see).

L'shanah tovah,
Jason Hare

[Liz Fried]

Dear David,
I'd go with yahoweh myself, or maybe yahuweh.
Forget the vov, it's a wow.
Liz

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Fri, September 26, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred name of God
is to be pronounced Jehovah.
I have two responses.
[1] Knock yourself out.
You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your deity any way you
wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people."
We have NEVER used that pronunciation,
and it was not a Jew who made the childish error of reading Ktiv
consonants with Qere vowels.
In my particulat situation,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
[e.g. the KJV]
is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 times,
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.
Dave Donnelly
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:58:00 -0500 "Charles David Isbell"

Post by Charles David Isbell
David Donnelly wrote: "The Jewish people must have been aware that
the
Rabbinic Bible of 1525, preserved God's name as "Yehovah"
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-gamets-he] over 6000 times."
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred
name of God is to be pronounced Jehovah. I have two responses. [1]
Knock
yourself out. You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your
deity any
way you wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people." We have
NEVER used
that pronunciation, and it was not a Jew who made the childish error
of
reading Ktiv consonants with Qere vowels.
Charles David Isbell

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Richard Burks]

Liz et al.

The issue with trying to pronounce "the name" is the same as it always has
been. Each and every letter in it has weakness. Therefore the vowel pattern
would take on some changes based on each letter in "the name".

Perhaps I misunderstood Charles' comment ... But the Jews [at least Moses
and others with whom God spoke directly with the "thus saith the ..."
comments knew the proper pronunciation. [ wouldn't you think?]

Liz doesn't it depend on which tradition of pronunciation you listen to as
to whether the waw is pronounced with a w or v sound?

Just some thoughts

Regards,

Bill Burks

Post by Liz Fried
Dear David,
I'd go with yahoweh myself, or maybe yahuweh.
Forget the vov, it's a wow.
Liz

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Fri, September 26, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred name of God
is to be pronounced Jehovah.
I have two responses.
[1] Knock yourself out.
You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your deity any way you
wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people."
We have NEVER used that pronunciation,
and it was not a Jew who made the childish error of reading Ktiv
consonants with Qere vowels.
In my particulat situation,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
[e.g. the KJV]
is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 times,
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.
Dave Donnelly
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:58:00 -0500 "Charles David Isbell"

Post by Charles David Isbell
David Donnelly wrote: "The Jewish people must have been aware that
the
Rabbinic Bible of 1525, preserved God's name as "Yehovah"
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-gamets-he] over 6000 times."
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred
name of God is to be pronounced Jehovah. I have two responses. [1]
Knock
yourself out. You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your
deity any
way you wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people." We have
NEVER used
that pronunciation, and it was not a Jew who made the childish error
of
reading Ktiv consonants with Qere vowels.
Charles David Isbell

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Liz Fried]

Post by Richard Burks
Liz et al.
The issue with trying to pronounce "the name" is the same as it always has
been. Each and every letter in it has weakness. Therefore the
vowel pattern
would take on some changes based on each letter in "the name".
Perhaps I misunderstood Charles' comment ... But the Jews [at least Moses
and others with whom God spoke directly with the "thus saith the ..."
comments knew the proper pronunciation. [ wouldn't you think?]

Absolutely. According to the text, David would swear "as YHWH lives"
all the time, pronouncing the name.

Post by Richard Burks
Liz doesn't it depend on which tradition of pronunciation you listen to as
to whether the waw is pronounced with a w or v sound?

Not if you're trying to get at the pronounciation of the ancient text.
According to my teacher, Charles Krahmolkov, the vov is a Germanization
of the wow.

Another way to get at the pronounciation may be through the theophorics at
the end of names, e.g. Eliyahu. My god is Yahu, which makes me think
that this is how it was pronounced. YHW is the name of the Jewish
god at Elephantine. The heh at the end may just be to lenghthen the last
vowel.
Yahuu.
Best
Liz

Post by Richard Burks
Just some thoughts
Regards,
Bill Burks

Post by Liz Fried
Dear David,
I'd go with yahoweh myself, or maybe yahuweh.
Forget the vov, it's a wow.
Liz

-----Original Message-----

P Donnelly

Post by Liz Fried

Sent: Fri, September 26, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred name of God
is to be pronounced Jehovah.
I have two responses.
[1] Knock yourself out.
You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your deity any way you
wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people."
We have NEVER used that pronunciation,
and it was not a Jew who made the childish error of reading Ktiv
consonants with Qere vowels.
In my particulat situation,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's

Hebrew name,

Post by Liz Fried

as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
[e.g. the KJV]
is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's

Hebrew name,

Post by Liz Fried

[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 times,
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.
Dave Donnelly
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:58:00 -0500 "Charles David Isbell"

Post by Charles David Isbell
David Donnelly wrote: "The Jewish people must have been aware that
the
Rabbinic Bible of 1525, preserved God's name as "Yehovah"
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-gamets-he] over 6000 times."
I am aware that some on this list need to believe fervently that the
sacred
name of God is to be pronounced Jehovah. I have two responses. [1]
Knock
yourself out. You have my blessing to pronounce the name of your
deity any
way you wish.
[2] Kindly stop trying to speak for "the Jewish people." We have
NEVER used
that pronunciation, and it was not a Jew who made the childish error
of
reading Ktiv consonants with Qere vowels.
Charles David Isbell

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[B***@aol.com]

I've long lost track of who said what, but somewhere along the line someone

Post by David P Donnelly
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.

That is not correct. Belief has nothing to do with it. And the 'name' you
write is NOT one that Jews (I don't know which other "sources" are intended)
avoid pronouncing.

If there is such a thing as "an 'it is written' form of God's Hebrew name",
that would be Y.H.W.H. [I have placed the periods between the letters only to
avoid actually writing that four-letter name itself because it is customary
for Jews to avoid writing that name unnecessarily.] Jews do not have a
contiguous tradition of how to pronounce that name. It has nothing to do with
"belief". We truly don't know how it was actually pronounced. Until the middle
ages, texts of the Hebrew Bible contained only the consonantal text, without
vowels.

There are a number of words in the Hebrew Bible which were in practice not
pronounced as you might expect them to be based on the text. The Massoretes
noted in the margins of the text what the correct reading was (based on a
contiguous tradition). This is called "qeri" [read], and the consonantal text is
called the "ketiv" ["wriiten"] For example, in Deut 29:22, the word written
WCBYYM, is pronounced utxboyim, as if it were written WCBWYM. There are also
several words which are so commonly pronounced differently from what one might
expect that the Massoretes did not bother noting them. For example, the word
written HW) (which would normally be pronounced hu, meaning "he") is often
pronounced hi, meaning "she". This is called a perpetual qeri. Another example of
perpetual qeri is the four-letter name of God written as above, but
pronounced "A-donai", meaning "my Lord" (my hyphen is there only to avoid actually
writing that referential name.)

When the Massoretes added vowels to the consonantal text, in cases of qeri
and ketiv they added the letters of the ketiv to the consonantal text of the
qeri. Thus, in the example above, they added the vowels of utzboyim (WCBWYM) to
the text of WCBYYM. There was never any idea of pronouncing the word with the
consonants of WCBYYM and the vowels of WCBWYM. There is no such word. The
vowels do, however, remind the reader that they are to pronounce the text as
utzboyim, i.e. as if it were written WCBWYM instead of WCBYYM. Belief has
nothing to do with it.

Thus, we do not know how the four-letter name was pronounced, but we do not
that it was NOT pronounced Yehova, Yehowa, or Jehovah.

(Notice that I am perfectly comfortable writing those words. The scholarly
reconstruction of the pronunciation of the four letter name, with vowels, "a"
"shewa" and "e", however is one I avoid writing because it might very well be
the correct pronunciation. If there is ever a scholarly proof that that
reconstruction is incorrect I could stop refraining from it.)

[Karl Randolph]

Further evidence that the word was not supposed to be pronounced is that it has different vowels, those from )LHYM in verses such as Genesis 15:2, 8 and in verses like Exodus 34:23 I don’t know which word the vowels are from. If YHWH were meant to be pronounced with the most common vowels, the vowels would have remained constant throughout, and examples as these show that they did not.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----

Post by Dave Washburn
The short answer, David, is that it was not meant to be pronounced with the
four consonants YHWH. The vowels around it were meant to indicate that the
reader should substitute "adonai" in those places. The Name with those
vowels wasn't supposed to be pronounced at all; it was later (and I believe,
primarily Christian) readers and translators who made the mistake of
combining the consonants with the substitute vowels and came up with the
whole "Jehovah" thing. So to answer your question, "how should it be
pronounced as it appears in that particular edition," the answer is, "it
shouldn't."
--
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"God does a lot of things in the Psalms
that He can't get away with in systematic theology."

[David P Donnelly]

Mark Eddy says:
So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no vowels.
Dave says:

Concerning this "it is written" form of God's name that has no vowels,
God says in the last sentence of Exodus 3:15:
: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
It would seem that you possibly believe that this 4-letter Hebrew name
without vowels
is God's name forever.

Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]

Dave Donnelly

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:18:01 -0500 "Pastor Mark Eddy"

Post by Jason Hare
----- Original Message -----

Post by David P Donnelly
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.

Just because can be pronounced does not mean that it was ever
intended to be pronounced. So you ought not

Post by David P Donnelly
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.

It "could be" pronounced this way. And it "is" pronounced this way
by some people who don't understand the
Massoretic substitution of the word Adonai for YHWH as they read the
biblical text.

Post by David P Donnelly
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew

name,

Post by David P Donnelly
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000

times,

Post by David P Donnelly
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.

I think the question is, what do you mean by "the 'it is written'
form of God's Hebrew name"? When the
divine name was first written, it had no vowels. The Dead Sea
scrolls have no vowels points. Some of the
scrolls even write the name YHWH in ancient Hebrew script while the
rest of the text is written in what we
now call Hebrew script. The copyists were preserving the divine name
just as they saw it in the old
script, while they were converting the rest of the text to "modern"
script. Some later pointed Hebrew
manuscripts refrain from adding vowel points to YHWH, even though
the vowels had been added to every other
word. So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no
vowels. The vowels were added later, by
people who did not pronounce the divine name. You can see pictures
of these older manuscripts in Ernst
Wuerthwein's book _The Text of the Old Testament_, a standard
textbook for textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible. It is clearly documented that the original Hebrew text was
written without vowels. So we cannot
refer to an original pronunciation of YHWH. We can only refer to the
Massoretic pointing of the NAME, and
we know that they pronounced it "Adonai."

Post by David P Donnelly
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.

This is not just a belief but an historically accurate description.
If you wish to discuss the pronunciation of the divine name based on
the names of biblical people which
incorporated that name, you may find some support for the
pronunciation Yehovah. See names such as
Jeho-shua, Jeho-nathan, Jeho-iada, etc. Someone else has already
suggested a different possibliity,
people's names that end in "jahu" or just "yah." These would suggest
a different pronunciation for the
divine name.
Mark Eddy

[Peter Kirk]

Post by David P Donnelly
...
Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]
Dave Donnelly

In my scholarly opinion, rather than belief, this is already happening.
What is probably the original pronunciation is well known, and some
people pray to God using that name. I don't suggest this has any special
significance.

[Jason Hare]

Post by David P Donnelly
So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no vowels.
Concerning this "it is written" form of God's name that has no vowels,
: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
It would seem that you possibly believe that this 4-letter Hebrew name
without vowels
is God's name forever.
Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]
Dave Donnelly

All I have to say is that I was not /off/ in my assumption that Dave was
trying to corner us with Sacred Name propaganda. So, I will sit back down
now. Point is made.

Jason

[Dave Washburn]

Post by Jason Hare

Post by David P Donnelly
So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no vowels.
Concerning this "it is written" form of God's name that has no vowels,
: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
It would seem that you possibly believe that this 4-letter Hebrew name
without vowels
is God's name forever.
Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]
Dave Donnelly

All I have to say is that I was not /off/ in my assumption that Dave was
trying to corner us with Sacred Name propaganda. So, I will sit back down
now. Point is made.

Agreed. I stand corrected.

[David P Donnelly]

Jason Hare says:
All I have to say is that I was not /off/ in my assumption that Dave
was trying to corner us with Sacred Name propaganda.

So, I will sit back down now.

Point is made.
Dave Donnelly

I am not a member of what is commonly called a Sacred name ministry,
although I have been affected by their teachings.

I am not sure that this discussion board wants to hear what ministry a
person is associated with?

I did think that how YHWH was pronounced has been discussed on the
b-hebrew Archives,
and could be discussed at the present time.

Dave Donnelly

Post by B***@aol.com

Post by David P Donnelly
So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no vowels.
Concerning this "it is written" form of God's name that has no

vowels,

Post by David P Donnelly
: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all

generations.

Post by David P Donnelly
It would seem that you possibly believe that this 4-letter Hebrew

name

Post by David P Donnelly
without vowels
is God's name forever.
Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]
Dave Donnelly

All I have to say is that I was not /off/ in my assumption that Dave
was
trying to corner us with Sacred Name propaganda. So, I will sit back
down
now. Point is made.
Jason

[David P Donnelly]

Peter Kirk said:
In my scholarly opinion,
rather than belief,
this is already happening.

What is probably the original pronunciation is well known,
and some people pray to God using that name.

I don't suggest this has any special significance.
Dave asks Peter Kirk:

Are you allowed to make known
"what is probably the original pronunciation" of YHWH,
on this discussion board?

Dave Donnelly

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by David P Donnelly
...
Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]
Dave Donnelly

In my scholarly opinion, rather than belief, this is already
happening.
What is probably the original pronunciation is well known, and some
people pray to God using that name. I don't suggest this has any
special
significance.
--
Peter Kirk
http://www.qaya.org/

[Dave Washburn]

Post by Peter Kirk
In my scholarly opinion,
rather than belief,
this is already happening.
What is probably the original pronunciation is well known,
and some people pray to God using that name.
I don't suggest this has any special significance.
Are you allowed to make known
"what is probably the original pronunciation" of YHWH,
on this discussion board?

Peter can answer for himself, of course, but I would think that a look at most
any scholarly or semi-scholarly work of the last 50 years would make the
answer rather obvious...

Furthermore, pronunciation is pretty unimportant, especially wrt names. My
daughter's name is Naomi, and you would be amazed at how many people can't
get it right. But she knows who they are talking to because contextual
factors, both linguistic and environmental, make it clear that she is the
referent. If a 20-year-old college student can sort that out, I suspect that
the Almighty can as well :-) For that matter, my last name is Washburn, but
my father, for his entire life, pronounced it "Warshburn." I have a friend
named John; if he moved to Mexico he would probably be called Juan, while if
he moved to Russia he'd be called Ivan. Same name, varying pronunciation, no
loss of referent. Your comment that you have been "influenced" by the
sacred-name movement says a lot, and I don't mind being the first to tell you
that you have been persuaded to major on something very, very minor. If I
may be forgiven for waxing theological for a moment, God doesn't care what
you call Him; all He cares is that He hears from you once in a while! ;-)

Try moving on to something important; here, that would be something related to
the Hebrew language.

[Peter Kirk]

... I have a friend
named John; if he moved to Mexico he would probably be called Juan, while if
he moved to Russia he'd be called Ivan. ...

Not true, actually. I know of several Americans and Brits called John
who have lived in Russia and other Russian speaking countries. They are
never called Ivan. No one ever tried to call me Pyotr. It is not a
Russian custom to Russianise names of foreign men, though oddly they do
tend to do it with women's names which are similar to common Russian
ones e.g. Cathy becomes Katya.

... Same name, varying pronunciation, no
loss of referent. Your comment that you have been "influenced" by the
sacred-name movement says a lot, and I don't mind being the first to tell you
that you have been persuaded to major on something very, very minor. If I
may be forgiven for waxing theological for a moment, God doesn't care what
you call Him; all He cares is that He hears from you once in a while! ;-)

Agreed!

[B. M. Rocine]

Dear List:

The thread has deteriorated into ad hoc criticism, exhausted most matters of
liguistic concern, and broadened beyond the scope of our list mission.
Let's end the thread.

_havah nelekh! _

To other matters!
A return to collegial tone!

Thank you for your cooperation.

Bryan
b-hebrew co-chair

B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766

[B. M. Rocine]

B-Haveray,

We will allow an answer to Liz recent points about the pronunciation of the
tetragrammaton, shown here. Keep it on track, folks!

Bryan

Dear Dave et.al.,
I pronounce the name Yahweh when I teach
largely because scholars have for the most
part decided that this is how it was pronounced.
As Peter says, it's based on the Greek where it was
written IAOUE. However, several things have always
bothered me about this. 1) it doesn't conform to any of
the theophoric names that we have, 2) it doesn't conform
to what we know from Elephantine, and 3) the Greeks, to
my knowledge, do not have an aspirated H in the middle of
their words, so that sound if there could not have been expressed.
herefore, it doesn't make sense to me that Yah-weh is correct.
Liz

[f***@online.no]

Dear Liz,

The things that bother you are real, because Yahweh is an artificial
construction which has absolutely no basis in old Hebrew sources. It
is reported by some Church fathers that the Samaritans used a
pronunciation close to Yahweh, but there are no Hebrew sources
pointing in this direction.

An important argument against Yahweh is that it has just two
syllables, whereas the evidence from theophoric Hebrew names in the
Tanakh points in the direction of three syllables. There are so many
names beginning with YEHU (YAHU?) suggesting that this was the
pronunciation of the first two syllables. The forms YHW (YAHU or
YAHO ) from Elephantine may very well represent the first two
syllables of an apocopated form.

We realize that the Masoretic pointing (E-A, E-O-A, E-I) do not tell
us anything about the original pronunciation of YHWH. However, few
realize that the opposite is true as well. There is no reason to
believe that the Masoretes knew how YHWH originally was pronounced,
so their borrowing the vowels of )LHYM and )DNY in no way rules out
that these vowels were used in the original pronunciation.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli

Post by B. M. Rocine
B-Haveray,
We will allow an answer to Liz recent points about the pronunciation of the
tetragrammaton, shown here. Keep it on track, folks!
Bryan
Dear Dave et.al.,
I pronounce the name Yahweh when I teach
largely because scholars have for the most
part decided that this is how it was pronounced.
As Peter says, it's based on the Greek where it was
written IAOUE. However, several things have always
bothered me about this. 1) it doesn't conform to any of
the theophoric names that we have, 2) it doesn't conform
to what we know from Elephantine, and 3) the Greeks, to
my knowledge, do not have an aspirated H in the middle of
their words, so that sound if there could not have been expressed.
herefore, it doesn't make sense to me that Yah-weh is correct.
Liz

[Dave Washburn]

Post by Peter Kirk

... I have a friend
named John; if he moved to Mexico he would probably be called Juan, while
if he moved to Russia he'd be called Ivan. ...

Not true, actually. I know of several Americans and Brits called John
who have lived in Russia and other Russian speaking countries. They are
never called Ivan. No one ever tried to call me Pyotr. It is not a
Russian custom to Russianise names of foreign men, though oddly they do
tend to do it with women's names which are similar to common Russian
ones e.g. Cathy becomes Katya.

Okay, I overstated. What I meant was, diachronically they're all the same
name (John, Juan, Ivan, and I'll even throw in French Jean and German
Johann). My Russian example actually came from a snippet of a Tom Clancy
novel, but the point remains the same: how a name is pronounced is largely a
matter of culture and native language, and how one pronounces YHWH - or
whether one does - really doesn't matter. Like Liz, I tend to go with Yahweh
myself for the sake of convenience.

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Dave Washburn

Post by Peter Kirk

... I have a friend
named John; if he moved to Mexico he would probably be called Juan, while
if he moved to Russia he'd be called Ivan. ...

Not true, actually. I know of several Americans and Brits called John
who have lived in Russia and other Russian speaking countries. They are
never called Ivan. No one ever tried to call me Pyotr. It is not a
Russian custom to Russianise names of foreign men, though oddly they do
tend to do it with women's names which are similar to common Russian
ones e.g. Cathy becomes Katya.

Okay, I overstated. What I meant was, diachronically they're all the same
name (John, Juan, Ivan, and I'll even throw in French Jean and German
Johann). ...

And how about Anglicised Hebrew Jehohanan (e.g. Neh 12:13) while you are
at it? For actually this illustrates what can happen to the divine name,
as part of a longer name, in various languages.

Post by Dave Washburn
... My Russian example actually came from a snippet of a Tom Clancy
novel, ...

I can't often fault Tom Clancy, but I had noted before that the way his
Russian character gives Russian names and patronymics to Americans, even
while speaking English, is either a sign of a very special close
affection or else plain wrong.

Post by Dave Washburn
... but the point remains the same: how a name is pronounced is largely a
matter of culture and native language, and how one pronounces YHWH - or
whether one does - really doesn't matter. Like Liz, I tend to go with Yahweh
myself for the sake of convenience.

Agreed.

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Peter Kirk
In my scholarly opinion,
rather than belief,
this is already happening.
What is probably the original pronunciation is well known,
and some people pray to God using that name.
I don't suggest this has any special significance.
Are you allowed to make known
"what is probably the original pronunciation" of YHWH,
on this discussion board?
Dave Donnelly

Well, out of respect for those who prefer not to see it written too
explicitly, I will just say that I would point it with
patah-sheva-segol. That seems to be the majority scholarly opinion,
based for example on a Greek rendering IAOUE - in which OU,
omicron-upsilon, is a digraph pronounced like English "oo" or sometimes
more like "w" (cf. French "oui" which is pronounced rather like English
"we").

[David P Donnelly]

Jason Hare says:
If Dave were interested in studying Hebrew,
he would study Hebrew.

However, he has already demonstrated

(by referencing Strong and by his complete lack of
concern for what ANYONE has said to him about this issue)

that he is not interested in studying Hebrew
except to further his understanding of this one word.
Dave says:

I am definitely primarily interested in studying the variants of YHWH.

I was not aware that I was displaying a:
"complete lack of concern for what ANYONE has said to him about this
issue"

I invite criticism on this issue.
I hope the line is not too long.

In my own mind,
I have been trying to abide by the rules of Respectful Discourse on this
b-Hebrew discussion boards.
Some members have advised me privately of b-Hebrew protocol.
The following are b-Hebrew guidelines I am aware of:
Debate that forces particular faith or doctrinal perspectives onto a
reading of the text
is not appropriate subject matter for this forum.
Proselytizing
("seeking to convert someone to a certain religious faith")
is also not appropriate.
Naturally, each of us will share our own understanding
from our own perspective,
but this should not be done
with the goal of changing other participants.
Dave Donnelly

Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Sat Sep 27 15:13:03 EDT 2003

Post by David P Donnelly
In my particulat situation,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew

name,

Post by David P Donnelly
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
I realize that Masoretic texts disagree with other Masoretic texts,
but the Old Testament of the English Bible that I use,
[e.g. the KJV]
is translated from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.

Well, I guess I'll just throw out a couple more comments. I didn't notice
before (I guess I'm just not used to dealing with the English side of
this)
that when Dave said that he was trying to "understand the 'it is written'
form of God's Hebrew name," he was saying that he was trying to grasp the
meaning of the KTYB, the [k'tiv] of the text. Sometimes these things just
slip by you. LOL

Secondly, I was unaware that the KJV was translated from the Ben Chayyim
text. Is that significantly different from our MT as presented in the
Stone
Chumash or in BHS? I have both of them (and several others), so I guess
I'm
just wondering if Ben Chayyim is something that I would have to get as a
separate representation of the textual tradition.

Beyond that, does anyone else pull from this excerpt above that he is
more
interested with the Tetragrammaton than with anything else to do with
Hebrew
study? What about the rest of the text? And what is up with the KJV
reference?

I'm just a bit concerned. I have always looked up to B-Hebrew's level of
intensity in study. Since I signed on (over three years ago) I have
always
considered the opinions of these valued scholars to be of high worth...
especially when a discussion is carried to the end and the pieces have
come
down. Generally, great answers can be found within the settled findings.
It
just bothers me when someone with an obvious theological bend is trying
to
divert the list from its great height and pull us down so that we argue
on a
child's level over things that have been settled for centuries.

This is one of those issues. Why is this brought up over-and-over? Can we
not just refer him to the archives and move on? We should not have to
explain this ten times in one thread (as has happened this time)! If Dave
were interested in studying Hebrew, he would study Hebrew. However, he
has
already demonstrated (by referencing Strong and by his complete lack of
concern for what ANYONE has said to him about this issue) that he is not
interested in studying Hebrew except to further his understanding of this
one word. And surely his motivations behind that are akin to any other
person who wants to sound "studied" and "authoritative" on a subject of
which he/she is completely ignorant.

I have ranted, and surely placed myself in disrepute with some on the
list.
I think I will take a few days off.

I just have to say that my annoyance is out of extreme love for the
scholarly drive of this list and for the great participants that we have.
So
many of you encourage me daily without even knowing it. I'm sorry to be
so
contrary. I just think you should be aware that you are being had (which
many of you probably already see).

L'shanah tovah,
Jason Hare

[Liz Fried]

Dear Dave et.al.,
I pronounce the name Yahweh when I teach
largely because scholars have for the most
part decided that this is how it was pronounced.
As Peter says, it's based on the Greek where it was
written IAOUE. However, several things have always
bothered me about this. 1) it doesn't conform to any of
the theophoric names that we have, 2) it doesn't conform
to what we know from Elephantine, and 3) the Greeks, to
my knowledge, do not have an aspirated H in the middle of
their words, so that sound if there could not have been expressed.
herefore, it doesn't make sense to me that Yah-weh is correct.
Liz

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sat, September 27, 2003 5:15 PM
To: David P Donnelly
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

Post by Peter Kirk
In my scholarly opinion,
rather than belief,
this is already happening.
What is probably the original pronunciation is well known,
and some people pray to God using that name.
I don't suggest this has any special significance.
Are you allowed to make known
"what is probably the original pronunciation" of YHWH,
on this discussion board?
Dave Donnelly

Well, out of respect for those who prefer not to see it written too
explicitly, I will just say that I would point it with
patah-sheva-segol. That seems to be the majority scholarly opinion,
based for example on a Greek rendering IAOUE - in which OU,
omicron-upsilon, is a digraph pronounced like English "oo" or sometimes
more like "w" (cf. French "oui" which is pronounced rather like English
"we").
--
Peter Kirk
http://www.qaya.org/
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Liz Fried
Dear Dave et.al.,
I pronounce the name Yahweh when I teach
largely because scholars have for the most
part decided that this is how it was pronounced.
As Peter says, it's based on the Greek where it was
written IAOUE. However, several things have always
bothered me about this. 1) it doesn't conform to any of
the theophoric names that we have, 2) it doesn't conform
to what we know from Elephantine, and 3) the Greeks, to
my knowledge, do not have an aspirated H in the middle of
their words, so that sound if there could not have been expressed.
herefore, it doesn't make sense to me that Yah-weh is correct.
Liz

Indeed the Greeks didn't have an aspirated H in the middle of words. Nor
for that matter do English speakers - do your students pronounce that
first H in the form you teach them? The second H should of course be
silent anyway, with the pointing I gave. So, if a Greek speaker had
heard the this pronunciation, complete with aspiration in the middle,
how do you think they would have transliterated it? There is actually
plenty of evidence from LXX for how they did transliterate Hebrew names
whose Hebrew pronunciation is not in dispute. Just one example, Hebrew
)AH:ARON > Greek AARWN illustrates that it was normal for medial he
simply to be dropped, with no attempt to represent e.g. by chi.

[Liz Fried]

. If I

Post by Dave Washburn

Post by Dave Washburn
may be forgiven for waxing theological for a moment, God doesn't

care what

Post by Dave Washburn
you call Him; all He cares is that He hears from you once in a while! ;-)

Agreed!

Dear Peter and Dave, et. al.
This is something that I absolutely do not agree with!
My daughter married a Hindu, and said to me that there
is only one god, therefore, what does it matter if you call
him Shiva or Yahweh? Nope.
These are different gods. You can tell that they are
different gods. One way you can tell is that they have different names.
Names are important.
Best,
Liz

Post by Dave Washburn
--
Peter Kirk
http://www.qaya.org/
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Dave Washburn
. If I

Post by Dave Washburn

Post by Dave Washburn
may be forgiven for waxing theological for a moment, God doesn't

care what

Post by Dave Washburn
you call Him; all He cares is that He hears from you once in a while! ;-)

Agreed!

Dear Peter and Dave, et. al.
This is something that I absolutely do not agree with!
My daughter married a Hindu, and said to me that there
is only one god, therefore, what does it matter if you call
him Shiva or Yahweh? Nope.
These are different gods. You can tell that they are
different gods. One way you can tell is that they have different names.
Names are important.
Best,
Liz

Don't confuse the form of the name with the identity of the addressee. I
might use the same name to address Dave Washburn and David Donnelly, but
that doesn't imply that I think they are the same person. When yet
another David addressed 'ELOHIM in some of the psalms, he was not
addressing Baal or Chemosh, but others might have used the same words in
address to the latter two. When I pray "Dear God,...", I am not
addressing Shiva, but your son-in-law might address Shiva with the same
words. I'm sure YHWH, and Shiva if he exists, know which of them is
being addressed without us having to use different names.

[Dave Washburn]

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Dave Washburn
. If I

Post by Dave Washburn

Post by Dave Washburn
may be forgiven for waxing theological for a moment, God doesn't

care what

Post by Dave Washburn
you call Him; all He cares is that He hears from you once in a while! ;-)

Agreed!

Dear Peter and Dave, et. al.
This is something that I absolutely do not agree with!
My daughter married a Hindu, and said to me that there
is only one god, therefore, what does it matter if you call
him Shiva or Yahweh? Nope.
These are different gods. You can tell that they are
different gods. One way you can tell is that they have different names.
Names are important.
Best,
Liz

Don't confuse the form of the name with the identity of the addressee. I
might use the same name to address Dave Washburn and David Donnelly, but
that doesn't imply that I think they are the same person. When yet
another David addressed 'ELOHIM in some of the psalms, he was not
addressing Baal or Chemosh, but others might have used the same words in
address to the latter two. When I pray "Dear God,...", I am not
addressing Shiva, but your son-in-law might address Shiva with the same
words. I'm sure YHWH, and Shiva if he exists, know which of them is
being addressed without us having to use different names.

Precisely. My point was that referent is everything. If Peter points at me
and calls me "Hey, you," what matters is to whom he is calling, not what he
calls me.

[Trevor Peterson]

Post by Liz Fried
3) the Greeks, to
my knowledge, do not have an aspirated H in the middle of
their words, so that sound if there could not have been expressed.
herefore, it doesn't make sense to me that Yah-weh is correct. Liz

Maybe I'm just missing your point here, but I don't see how this
assertion says much. Greek renders a name like avraham as ABRAAM. I
don't know what that says about how a Greek speaker would have
pronounced the name, but as a matter of transliteration, medial /h/ is
simply dropped. So if the Greek writing was an attempt to represent the
sound of the Hebrew name, that is precisely the form I would expect. You
might not get the /h/ directly from the Greek spelling, but if you have
the Hebrew consonants to compare, or even if you suspect that the Greek
word is transliterating Hebrew, there's good reason to expect that a /h/
belongs between the two vowel sounds.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

[Philip]

I think it good to attempt to discover the 'correct' pronounciation of the
tetragrammaton, whatever the 'correct' pronounciation is;

I however think that God would not be too offended if we got is
less-than-correct.

There has been a whole lot of literature, study, debates etc. over the
years, decades, centuries about the correct pronounciation of the
tetragrammaton:

IN simple terms, if the tetragrammaton is supposed to be the third person
singular of the Hebrew verb 'to be' i.e. HWH, then the pointing of YHWH
should be fairly obvious and hence the pronounciation.

Philip Engmann.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-***@lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-***@lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of David P Donnelly
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 6:37 PM
To: ***@adams.net
Cc: b-***@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text


Mark Eddy says:
So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no vowels.
Dave says:

Concerning this "it is written" form of God's name that has no vowels,
God says in the last sentence of Exodus 3:15:
: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
It would seem that you possibly believe that this 4-letter Hebrew name
without vowels
is God's name forever.

Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]

Dave Donnelly

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:18:01 -0500 "Pastor Mark Eddy"

Post by Jason Hare
----- Original Message -----

Post by David P Donnelly
Yehovah
[yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
is a Hebrew form of God's name
that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
and in the Leningrad Codex..
It appears to be a Hebrew form,
that is pronounceable.

Just because can be pronounced does not mean that it was ever
intended to be pronounced. So you ought not

Post by David P Donnelly
It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.

It "could be" pronounced this way. And it "is" pronounced this way
by some people who don't understand the
Massoretic substitution of the word Adonai for YHWH as they read the
biblical text.

Post by David P Donnelly
Thus to be redundant,
I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew

name,

Post by David P Donnelly
[e.g. Yehovah]
as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000

times,

Post by David P Donnelly
and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.

I think the question is, what do you mean by "the 'it is written'
form of God's Hebrew name"? When the
divine name was first written, it had no vowels. The Dead Sea
scrolls have no vowels points. Some of the
scrolls even write the name YHWH in ancient Hebrew script while the
rest of the text is written in what we
now call Hebrew script. The copyists were preserving the divine name
just as they saw it in the old
script, while they were converting the rest of the text to "modern"
script. Some later pointed Hebrew
manuscripts refrain from adding vowel points to YHWH, even though
the vowels had been added to every other
word. So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no
vowels. The vowels were added later, by
people who did not pronounce the divine name. You can see pictures
of these older manuscripts in Ernst
Wuerthwein's book _The Text of the Old Testament_, a standard
textbook for textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible. It is clearly documented that the original Hebrew text was
written without vowels. So we cannot
refer to an original pronunciation of YHWH. We can only refer to the
Massoretic pointing of the NAME, and
we know that they pronounced it "Adonai."

Post by David P Donnelly
I am aware that many sources do not believe that
this "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
[e.g. Yehovah]
was meant to be pronounced.

This is not just a belief but an historically accurate description.
If you wish to discuss the pronunciation of the divine name based on
the names of biblical people which
incorporated that name, you may find some support for the
pronunciation Yehovah. See names such as
Jeho-shua, Jeho-nathan, Jeho-iada, etc. Someone else has already
suggested a different possibliity,
people's names that end in "jahu" or just "yah." These would suggest
a different pronunciation for the
divine name.
Mark Eddy

[Liz Fried]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sat, September 27, 2003 6:01 PM
To: Liz Fried
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

Post by Liz Fried
Dear Dave et.al.,
I pronounce the name Yahweh when I teach
largely because scholars have for the most
part decided that this is how it was pronounced.
As Peter says, it's based on the Greek where it was
written IAOUE. However, several things have always
bothered me about this. 1) it doesn't conform to any of
the theophoric names that we have, 2) it doesn't conform
to what we know from Elephantine, and 3) the Greeks, to
my knowledge, do not have an aspirated H in the middle of
their words, so that sound if there could not have been expressed.
herefore, it doesn't make sense to me that Yah-weh is correct.
Liz

Indeed the Greeks didn't have an aspirated H in the middle of words. Nor
for that matter do English speakers - do your students pronounce that
first H in the form you teach them? The second H should of course be
silent anyway, with the pointing I gave. So, if a Greek speaker had
heard the this pronunciation, complete with aspiration in the middle,
how do you think they would have transliterated it? There is actually
plenty of evidence from LXX for how they did transliterate Hebrew names
whose Hebrew pronunciation is not in dispute. Just one example, Hebrew
)AH:ARON > Greek AARWN illustrates that it was normal for medial he
simply to be dropped, with no attempt to represent e.g. by chi.
--
Peter Kirk

Exactly so. So based on the Greek transliteration we ought to feel
free to add an aspirated H at the beginning of a sylable in the middle
of the word (a HU or HO), which we never do. So I'm not convinced
that YAHUAH or YAHOAH is so off-based.
Liz

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Liz Fried

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sat, September 27, 2003 6:01 PM
To: Liz Fried
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

Post by Liz Fried
Dear Dave et.al.,
I pronounce the name Yahweh when I teach
largely because scholars have for the most
part decided that this is how it was pronounced.
As Peter says, it's based on the Greek where it was
written IAOUE. However, several things have always
bothered me about this. 1) it doesn't conform to any of
the theophoric names that we have, 2) it doesn't conform
to what we know from Elephantine, and 3) the Greeks, to
my knowledge, do not have an aspirated H in the middle of
their words, so that sound if there could not have been expressed.
herefore, it doesn't make sense to me that Yah-weh is correct.
Liz

Indeed the Greeks didn't have an aspirated H in the middle of words. Nor
for that matter do English speakers - do your students pronounce that
first H in the form you teach them? The second H should of course be
silent anyway, with the pointing I gave. So, if a Greek speaker had
heard the this pronunciation, complete with aspiration in the middle,
how do you think they would have transliterated it? There is actually
plenty of evidence from LXX for how they did transliterate Hebrew names
whose Hebrew pronunciation is not in dispute. Just one example, Hebrew
)AH:ARON > Greek AARWN illustrates that it was normal for medial he
simply to be dropped, with no attempt to represent e.g. by chi.
--
Peter Kirk

Exactly so. So based on the Greek transliteration we ought to feel
free to add an aspirated H at the beginning of a sylable in the middle
of the word (a HU or HO), which we never do. So I'm not convinced
that YAHUAH or YAHOAH is so off-based.
Liz

Add H, yes, but why U or O? After all, the Hebrew basis of Greek ABRAAM
and AARWN is not Avrahoam or Ahuaron. Maybe Greek IAOUE might be more
like Yahue, but in Greek it would not be well-defined whether this was
two syllables yah-we or three syllables ya-hu-e. To go back to Hebrew,
if the vav is used as evidence for a central U or O vowel it cannot be
reused as a consonant, but I supposed the pronunciation could be
something like ya-hu-he, or even ya-huah with a furtive patah before he
with mappiq. So maybe your conclusion is not so off-based, but not
because HU or HO is dropped.

[Liz Fried]

Post by Dave Washburn

Post by Liz Fried

Post by Peter Kirk

Post by Dave Washburn
you call Him; all He cares is that He hears from you once in a

while! ;-)

Post by Liz Fried

Post by Peter Kirk
Agreed!

Dear Peter and Dave, et. al.
This is something that I absolutely do not agree with!
My daughter married a Hindu, and said to me that there
is only one god, therefore, what does it matter if you call
him Shiva or Yahweh? Nope.
These are different gods. You can tell that they are
different gods. One way you can tell is that they have different names.
Names are important.
Best,
Liz

Don't confuse the form of the name with the identity of the addressee. I
might use the same name to address Dave Washburn and David Donnelly, but
that doesn't imply that I think they are the same person. When yet
another David addressed 'ELOHIM in some of the psalms, he was not
addressing Baal or Chemosh, but others might have used the same words in
address to the latter two. When I pray "Dear God,...", I am not
addressing Shiva, but your son-in-law might address Shiva with the same
words. I'm sure YHWH, and Shiva if he exists, know which of them is
being addressed without us having to use different names.
--
Peter Kirk
http://www.qaya.org/

Yes, you're right of course.
liz

[Trevor Peterson]

Post by Liz Fried
Exactly so. So based on the Greek transliteration we ought to
feel free to add an aspirated H at the beginning of a sylable
in the middle of the word (a HU or HO), which we never do. So
I'm not convinced that YAHUAH or YAHOAH is so off-based. Liz

Maybe the problem is that you're using the wrong sound in your
explanation. If the Greek transliteration is IAOUE, and both sides are
saying that Greek would drop the /h/ from the writing, that gets us as
far as supposing a form like IA(h)OUE. The way I would progress from
there is to think of forms like OUAI and consider that OU seems to be
the closest thing Greek has to a /w/. Since initial I+vowel is a rather
standard transliteration in Hebrew names starting with yod, we end up
with /yahw/E.

Now, picking up from the common elements of the argument (/yah/OUE), you
seem to be suggesting that we suppose the vav also drops out of the
transliteration (like the he), leaving nothing but I representing
initial yod and the vowels of the name--/yah/OU(w)E--which gives us
something like /yahuw/E.* We know (from separate examples that Peter and
I cited) that /h/ typically drops out of Greek transliterations. But I
can't think offhand of the normal behavior of /w/. More to the point, I
don't know what normally happens when /uw/ is transliterated into Greek.
I would expect the separate sounds to each appear as OU, but I don't
know what they would do together. Does anyone know?

*--At least, I assume that is what you mean. The other possibility I can
see is that the O is taken as the vowel and the U as the consonant, but
I'd be pretty suspicious of that approach. OU is a diphthong in Greek,
and I don't think anyone would have found a transliteration helpful that
violated the rule.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

[Jack Kilmon]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Peterson" <***@cua.edu>
To: <b-***@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 5:39 AM
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

Post by Trevor Peterson

Post by Liz Fried
Exactly so. So based on the Greek transliteration we ought to
feel free to add an aspirated H at the beginning of a sylable
in the middle of the word (a HU or HO), which we never do. So
I'm not convinced that YAHUAH or YAHOAH is so off-based. Liz

Maybe the problem is that you're using the wrong sound in your
explanation. If the Greek transliteration is IAOUE, and both sides are
saying that Greek would drop the /h/ from the writing, that gets us as
far as supposing a form like IA(h)OUE. The way I would progress from
there is to think of forms like OUAI and consider that OU seems to be
the closest thing Greek has to a /w/. Since initial I+vowel is a rather
standard transliteration in Hebrew names starting with yod, we end up
with /yahw/E.

Isn't it possible that yhwh is just what it is, the hiph'il of hwh taken
from a TITLE phrase as a hypocoristicon of EL, ala Albright and Cross? A
title like "El causes something to come into being". I believe so because
it is a formula seen throughout the ANE, like kheper khepera kheperu from
Egypt.

Sometimes I see all this NAME of God stuff as a big joke played on us by
history or, indeed, history's God. My sense of the collective Pentateuch is
that the SOUND of God's voice gives existence to something when he CALLS it
much like a baby did not become a person until its NAME $m was called out by
the father. In Genesis 1:5 wayqara elohym l'owr yom w'lachoshek qara
layileh and in Genesis 1:8 wayqara elohym laraqiya shemayim.....hence
everything that was called into existence with a NAME $m was SHEMAYIM. Now
EL was not CALLED into existence, was he? Was he created? If HE was not
created, why would he have a name? He would just BE as he so told Moses in
the narrative. The NAME is $m and all that is named is $mym and what we
HEAR is $m( and $m also means what is existing because it is THERE $m and
unless God was created by being named..he has no name. l) $m.

My two cents...uh...shekels.

Jack

Jack

[Liz Fried]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sun, September 28, 2003 6:39 AM
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

Post by Liz Fried
Exactly so. So based on the Greek transliteration we ought to
feel free to add an aspirated H at the beginning of a sylable
in the middle of the word (a HU or HO), which we never do. So
I'm not convinced that YAHUAH or YAHOAH is so off-based. Liz

Maybe the problem is that you're using the wrong sound in your
explanation. If the Greek transliteration is IAOUE, and both sides are
saying that Greek would drop the /h/ from the writing, that gets us as
far as supposing a form like IA(h)OUE. The way I would progress from
there is to think of forms like OUAI and consider that OU seems to be
the closest thing Greek has to a /w/. Since initial I+vowel is a rather
standard transliteration in Hebrew names starting with yod, we end up
with /yahw/E.
Now, picking up from the common elements of the argument (/yah/OUE), you
seem to be suggesting that we suppose the vav also drops out of the
transliteration (like the he), leaving nothing but I representing
initial yod and the vowels of the name--/yah/OU(w)E--which gives us
something like /yahuw/E.* We know (from separate examples that Peter and
I cited) that /h/ typically drops out of Greek transliterations. But I
can't think offhand of the normal behavior of /w/. More to the point, I
don't know what normally happens when /uw/ is transliterated into Greek.
I would expect the separate sounds to each appear as OU, but I don't
know what they would do together. Does anyone know?

This is exactly the problem, isn't it? The Greek transliteration OU is
customarily
read as the consonant W in the word Yahweh, but it could equally be read as
the long ooo sound.
Now if you have an aspirated h in the middle of the word which had been
dropped,
and the OU as ooo, then the new reading of the Greek would be ya hu eh.
This would be consistent with both the Greek, the theophoric names that we
have,
and with the spelling of the name at Elephantine.
The only question is whether the Hebrew W serves as both a vowel and as a
consonant
in YHWH, or if only one or the other. In my opinion, it serves only as a
vowel based on
the theophoric names. But maybe going from the /hu/ to the /eh/ forces a
slight /w/ before the /eh/ since otherwise you'd need a glottal stop between
the syllables, wouldn't you, and wouldn't that require an aleph?
If so, that would lead you naturally to Yahuweh, with the accent on the hu.
Liz

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Trevor Peterson]

Post by Liz Fried
The Greek
transliteration OU is customarily read as the consonant W in
the word Yahweh, but it could equally be read as the long ooo
sound.

But if it is /u/, then what is the next consonant? In Hebrew, you can't
have two vowels in a row. Maybe we could suggest that it is both /u/ and
/w/, but I can't think of an example where we get that combination. (I
seem to remember getting a yod-dagesh representing a mater followed by a
consonantal yod, but not with vav.) If that's not possible, then it
seems to me that we don't have a valid form (unless the h starts the
next syllable, but who's suggesting that?).

Post by Liz Fried
Now if you have an aspirated h in the middle of the
word which had been dropped, and the OU as ooo, then the new
reading of the Greek would be ya hu eh.

Which again is an impossible reading from the Hebrew side of things.
There has to be a consonant between hu and eh. If vav is a vowel, you
don't have one.

Post by Liz Fried
This would be
consistent with both the Greek, the theophoric names that we
have, and with the spelling of the name at Elephantine. The
only question is whether the Hebrew W serves as both a vowel
and as a consonant in YHWH,

Which may not be possible.

Post by Liz Fried
or if only one or the other. In
my opinion, it serves only as a vowel based on the
theophoric names.

But the theophoric element doesn't have the problem of the last
syllable, which is a problem if the vav is a vowel only.

Post by Liz Fried
But maybe going from the /hu/ to the /eh/
forces a slight /w/ before the /eh/ since otherwise you'd
need a glottal stop between the syllables, wouldn't you, and
wouldn't that require an aleph?

Yes, it would. But if the vowels are separated by palatalization, we
should get a vav in Hebrew. So either way, there would need to be a
consonant here. If the vav is not it, then we don't have one.

Post by Liz Fried
If so, that would lead you
naturally to Yahuweh, with the accent on the hu.

And to highlight the problem, according to your analysis, the four
Hebrew letters would appear as follows in caps: YaHUweH. As I say, I
think that is impossible for Hebrew.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Trevor Peterson

Post by Liz Fried
The Greek
transliteration OU is customarily read as the consonant W in
the word Yahweh, but it could equally be read as the long ooo
sound.

But if it is /u/, then what is the next consonant? In Hebrew, you can't
have two vowels in a row. Maybe we could suggest that it is both /u/ and
/w/, but I can't think of an example where we get that combination. (I
seem to remember getting a yod-dagesh representing a mater followed by a
consonantal yod, but not with vav.) If that's not possible, then it
seems to me that we don't have a valid form (unless the h starts the
next syllable, but who's suggesting that?).

Well, I can think of two possibly relevant examples. One is the rather
odd form QWH (1Ki 10:28) or QW) (2Ch 1:16) which is represented in
English translations as Kue, although pointed with sheva and tsere. The
other is in fact an exception to the two vowels in a row rule, which I
already mentioned, that we could have a furtive patah before he with mappiq.

[Liz Fried]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sun, September 28, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Variants of YHWH in the BHS Text

Post by Liz Fried
The Greek
transliteration OU is customarily read as the consonant W in
the word Yahweh, but it could equally be read as the long ooo
sound.

But if it is /u/, then what is the next consonant? In Hebrew, you can't
have two vowels in a row. Maybe we could suggest that it is both /u/ and
/w/, but I can't think of an example where we get that combination. (I
seem to remember getting a yod-dagesh representing a mater followed by a
consonantal yod, but not with vav.) If that's not possible, then it
seems to me that we don't have a valid form (unless the h starts the
next syllable, but who's suggesting that?).

OK, The point is only to stick an aspirated h in the middle
of the Greek word. Doesn't Greek represent the w with an upsilon?
How do you pronounce uios (son) -- weos?
Liz

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Liz Fried
OK, The point is only to stick an aspirated h in the middle
of the Greek word. Doesn't Greek represent the w with an upsilon?
How do you pronounce uios (son) -- weos?
Liz

Yes, more or less, but only before iota. Greek upsilon alone is
pronounce like French u or German u umlaut. And upsilon - iota is
probably pronounced with this sound rather than a straight u sound,
which is always omicron - upsilon cf. French ou. The closest we get in
English to Greek upsilon alone is probably in the word "hue", at least
as some pronounce it with a rather whistling sound. Not a Hebrew sound
at all.

[Liz Fried]

Post by Peter Kirk
Add H, yes, but why U or O? After all, the Hebrew basis of Greek ABRAAM
and AARWN is not Avrahoam or Ahuaron. Maybe Greek IAOUE might be more
like Yahue, but in Greek it would not be well-defined whether this was
two syllables yah-we or three syllables ya-hu-e. To go back to Hebrew,
if the vav is used as evidence for a central U or O vowel it cannot be
reused as a consonant, but I supposed the pronunciation could be
something like ya-hu-he, or even ya-huah with a furtive patah before he
with mappiq. So maybe your conclusion is not so off-based, but not
because HU or HO is dropped.

Brilliant!
A furtive patah! of course!
ya-hu-ah
Right, I ran into problems, cuz I cannot have the W be both a vowel and a
consonant, and I cannot have two vowels together.
But YaHUaH would solve it all, no?
Liz

Post by Peter Kirk
--
Peter Kirk
http://www.qaya.org/

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Liz Fried

Post by Peter Kirk
Add H, yes, but why U or O? After all, the Hebrew basis of Greek ABRAAM
and AARWN is not Avrahoam or Ahuaron. Maybe Greek IAOUE might be more
like Yahue, but in Greek it would not be well-defined whether this was
two syllables yah-we or three syllables ya-hu-e. To go back to Hebrew,
if the vav is used as evidence for a central U or O vowel it cannot be
reused as a consonant, but I supposed the pronunciation could be
something like ya-hu-he, or even ya-huah with a furtive patah before he
with mappiq. So maybe your conclusion is not so off-based, but not
because HU or HO is dropped.

Brilliant!
A furtive patah! of course!
ya-hu-ah
Right, I ran into problems, cuz I cannot have the W be both a vowel and a
consonant, and I cannot have two vowels together.
But YaHUaH would solve it all, no?
Liz

Well, in favour we have the final he with mappiq in the short form Yah.

But against, we have the etymology. Yahuah with a mappiq would have to
come from an otherwise unattested root he - vav - he, with the last he a
real one marked by mappiq and not a yod which has been dropped and then
replaced by a he mater. So no relationship with HYH/HWH (really HYY/HWY)
= "to be", and Exodus 3:14 becomes at best a misleading folk etymology.
While I don't usually set much store by etymology, other things being
equal it is better to link a word to a well known Semitic root than to
an otherwise unknown one.

[Jason Hare]

Liz, et al.

What if, rather than taking the VAV as a vowel, we take it consonantally and
make the -u- vowel proceed from a kibbutz?

YaHuWeH

Then, the VAV doesn't lose its consonantal nature (as all seem to see it
need) if this is the case. I have read before a suggestion that I had
thought was in the Artscroll Siddur--consequently, I cannot now find the
statement! What is said, however, is that YaHaWeH was a possible
pronunciation. In this the first vowel is a full patach, the second is a
chatef-patach and the third is a segol. Thus:

YAHA:WEH

What do you think?

Regards,
Jason

[Jason Hare]

BTW, one of the things that keeps me liking these two suggestions (and
that's all they are) is that they maintain the consonantal nature of the
first Heh. I just don't think that Heh would tend to be a /mater lectionis/
in the middle of a word. I know that it (sorta) happens in forms of HYH --
LiH:YoWT, &c. However, I don't think that it would function as a normal -ah
within a word. Are there examples of this happening? Heh is normally a
/mater/ at the end of a word.

Jason

Post by Jason Hare
Liz, et al.
What if, rather than taking the VAV as a vowel, we take it consonantally and
make the -u- vowel proceed from a kibbutz?
YaHuWeH
Then, the VAV doesn't lose its consonantal nature (as all seem to see it
need) if this is the case. I have read before a suggestion that I had
thought was in the Artscroll Siddur--consequently, I cannot now find the
statement! What is said, however, is that YaHaWeH was a possible
pronunciation. In this the first vowel is a full patach, the second is a
YAHA:WEH
What do you think?
Regards,
Jason

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Jason Hare
BTW, one of the things that keeps me liking these two suggestions (and
that's all they are) is that they maintain the consonantal nature of the
first Heh. I just don't think that Heh would tend to be a /mater lectionis/
in the middle of a word. I know that it (sorta) happens in forms of HYH --
LiH:YoWT, &c. However, I don't think that it would function as a normal -ah
within a word. Are there examples of this happening? Heh is normally a
/mater/ at the end of a word.
Jason

Jason, I have never suggested that the first he is an unpronounced
mater. There is no need to insert a vowel after he to make sure it is
pronounced. In the form I preferred, where it is pointed with a sheva,
it is a fully pronounced root consonant, as always when non-final, even
in LIH:YOWT etc. And he can be pronounced word finally, when it is
pointed with mappiq to indicate that it is not a mater. This accords
with the general rule that a base letter with any kind of pointing is
never silent, but that a non-final base letter without pointing, unless
followed by full holem or shuruq, is silent.

In English we are not used to pronouncing an H sound at the end of a
syllable. But this was perfectly normal in biblical Hebrew and still is
in middle Eastern languages. It is no accident that for example the
modern Turkish Bible uses, in the introduction and footnotes, the form
"Yahve", which makes it clear in a language where there is a clear
distinction that the first H is pronounced and the second is not - in
line with the link to the verb "to be" explained in the footnote to
Exodus 3:14.

[Jason Hare]

Post by Peter Kirk
Jason, I have never suggested that the first he is an unpronounced
mater. There is no need to insert a vowel after he to make sure it is
pronounced. In the form I preferred, where it is pointed with a sheva,
it is a fully pronounced root consonant, as always when non-final, even
in LIH:YOWT etc. And he can be pronounced word finally, when it is
pointed with mappiq to indicate that it is not a mater. This accords
with the general rule that a base letter with any kind of pointing is
never silent, but that a non-final base letter without pointing, unless
followed by full holem or shuruq, is silent.

Peter,

I wasn't suggesting that the H in LiH:YoWT was a mater. I just wanted to
clarify quickly. I know it is pronounced. However, I think the tendency is
*not* to pronounce the first H in YHWH. And, of course, there is a
difference between a mappik H and a mater. Yet, I just think it fits better
to give it a stronger connection with the next syllable, especially given
the attraction of H and X to patach (A).

This is just my suggestion. I am kinda wondering if anyone else has come
across it.

Regards,
Jason

[Trevor Peterson]

Post by Peter Kirk
Well, in favour we have the final he with mappiq in the short
form Yah.

How would that have anything to do with it? If we're all agreed that the
first he is consonantal, I would think that's our he with mappiq in the
short form.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

[Trevor Peterson]

Post by Jason Hare
What if, rather than taking the VAV as a vowel, we take it
consonantally and make the -u- vowel proceed from a kibbutz?
YaHuWeH

That still leaves open the question of whether the Greek transliteration
fits. I'm not convinced that we can account for /uw/ with Greek OU.

Post by Jason Hare
Then, the VAV doesn't lose its consonantal nature (as all
seem to see it
need) if this is the case. I have read before a suggestion
that I had thought was in the Artscroll Siddur--consequently,
I cannot now find the statement! What is said, however, is
that YaHaWeH was a possible pronunciation. In this the first
vowel is a full patach, the second is a chatef-patach and the
YAHA:WEH
What do you think?

I would be surprised if you saw that in Artscroll, but I suppose it's
possible. I don't see why the usual scholarly reconstruction couldn't be
adjusted for a half-vowel under the he.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

[Giuseppe Regalzi]

It should be taken into consideration that YHWH was transcribed into
Greek as IABE too (see BDB and HALOT for references).

Giuseppe

--------------------------------------
Giuseppe Regalzi
University of Turin, Italy
***@tiscali.it
http://purl.org/net/regalzi/
http://www.orientalisti.net/

[Peter Kirk]

Post by Trevor Peterson

Post by Jason Hare
What if, rather than taking the VAV as a vowel, we take it
consonantally and make the -u- vowel proceed from a kibbutz?
YaHuWeH

That still leaves open the question of whether the Greek transliteration
fits. I'm not convinced that we can account for /uw/ with Greek OU.

Post by Jason Hare
Then, the VAV doesn't lose its consonantal nature (as all
seem to see it
need) if this is the case. I have read before a suggestion
that I had thought was in the Artscroll Siddur--consequently,
I cannot now find the statement! What is said, however, is
that YaHaWeH was a possible pronunciation. In this the first
vowel is a full patach, the second is a chatef-patach and the
YAHA:WEH
What do you think?

I would be surprised if you saw that in Artscroll, but I suppose it's
possible. I don't see why the usual scholarly reconstruction couldn't be
adjusted for a half-vowel under the he.

If I remember rightly, there are quite a number of words where Hebrew
texts vary between sheva and a hataf vowel under a word medial
"guttural" consonant including he. So YAH:WEH and YAH:AWEH could be
considered variant pointings and perhaps pronunciations of the same
word. On the other hand, )AH:AROWN becomes AARWN in Greek (and hence the
Englis Aaron), but we don't get a double alpha in Greek versions of the
divine name, which suggests a sheva rather than a hataf patah in the
Hebrew pronunciation.

[Trevor Peterson]

===== Original Message

[Peter Kirk]

Good point. A couple of thoughts on the other hand. First, I don't know that
we could rule it out on this basis, since it's possible that there were
different ways of pronouncing it. Second, regarding your suggestion yesterday
about a furtive patach, I wonder how the evidence shapes up for Greek
rendering. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is IHSOUS from
yeshua, which doesn't seem to preserve the furtive patach. Is there any
evidence of a Greek preservation of this sound? For that matter, I would think
we'd want specific evidence of Greek epsilon for furtive patach, if we're
going to suppose that Liz's pronunciation is correct.
(I don't know if this is at all relevant, but segol in Tiberian pointing often
corresponds to patach in Babylonian, which has no equivalent to segol. On the
other hand, it's Tiberian pointing that gives us the furtive patach, so if it
was a Western tendency to pronounce this glide element closer to epsilon, I
would think they'd have rendered it that way.)
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

I thought of an example surprisingly quickly: Greek NWE from Hebrew
NOXA, furtive patah. Also, conveniently on the same page of BDB, Greek
MANWE from Hebrew MFNOWXA. But, oddly, YFNOWXA becomes ANIWX or IANWX.
Also, according to BDB, Y:HOW$U(A becomes WSHE or IWSHE in some Greek
MSS in 1 Sam 6:14,18, 2 Kings 23:8 when not assimilated to the more
regular IHSOUS.

There are not many other proper names with furtive patah in the HB. Here
are the other ones I could find, with their Greek versions (omitting
obviously corrupt ones) according to BDB:

With ayin:

QFD"$ B.AR:N"(A > ... BARNH
YFPI(A > IAF(A)IE, IEFEIS, IABEG, FAGGAI, IAFAGAI, IAFFIE
)E$:T.:MO(A > ??
MAL:K.IY-$W.(A > MELCEISA, MELCESOUE (C = chi)
G.IL:B.O(A > ??
$AM.W.(A > SAMMOUS[E] (??), SAMOUEI, SAMOUE
HOW$"(A > AUSH, WSHE
B.AT-$W.(A > ??
T.:QOW(A > QEKWE, QEKOUE (Q = theta)
)A$:B."(A > ??
ZIY(A > ZOUE, ZEA
):ABIY$W.(A > ABESSOUE
T.AX:R"(A / T.A):R"(A > QEREE, QAREE, QARAA
):ELIY$W.(A > ??
YAD.W.(A > IEDDOUA, IADOU, IEDDOU
QOW(A > ??

With het:

CFP:NAT P.A(:N"XA > YONQOMPANHC, YOMQOMPANHC (Y = psi)
NEP:T.OWXA > MAFQW, NAFQW
B."YT T.AP.W.XA > ??
("YN T.AP.W.XA > ??
):APIYXA > ??
G.IYXA > ??
P.FRW.XA > FARROU, BARSAOUX
QFR"XA > KARHE
$W.XA > SWUE, SWE, SOUE
B.FRIYXA > ??
P.FS"XA > BESSHE, FESSH, FASSA, FASEK, FESSE
YFROWXA > AROUE
T.OWXA > QEIE, QOOUE, QOKE, QOOU, QWE
):AXOWXA > ??
N:CIYXA > NASOUS, NEQIE, ASEIA, NEISEIA, NESIA
$ILOXA > S(E)ILWAM

With he with mappiq: none!

Some further evidence for furtive patah becoming alpha in Greek is
MESSIAS from MF$IYXA, in the NT etc though not in LXX.

So it looks as if furtive patah sometimes became alpha, and was
sometimes dropped, but most commonly became epsilon. All evidence for a
theory of the divine name which I don't actually hold.

[Uri Hurwitz]

Perhaps we may get some help in the discussion from syllabic evidence, though only partial:

Hezekiah = ha - za - qi - (i)a - u

[f***@online.no]

Dear Uri,

Whereas the default value of the first sign of Jehoiachin is IA, it
can also be IE, IU and JI (See Labat 142). Therefore we cannot rule
out that the scribe took the sign as IE. We can also note that
Gedalyahu is written as GA - DA - AL - IA - A - MA and Gemaryahu as
GA - MAR - IA - A - MA. The sign GA (Labat 319) does not have the
variant GE, so we cannot rule out that the timbre of each vowel was
somewhat different in Assyria/Babylon than it was in Israel/Juda. On
the other side, we should remember that the shewah in the first
syllable of Jehoiachin is supplied by the Masoretes, and that the
default pronunciation of shewa in Masoretic times was an "a"-sound. I
therefore find the discussion of the original pronunciation of YHWH,
on the basis of the Greek or Akkadian languages or on the basis of
the MT, futile. We simply cannot know anything about it! But the
view that YHWH had three rather than two syllables is much stronger
in the light of the theophoric names in the MT.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Post by Uri Hurwitz
Perhaps we may get some help in the discussion from syllabic
Hezekiah = ha - za - qi - (i)a - u