PDA

View Full Version : Odd Vowel and Transliteration of YHWH



Yaku Lee
09-03-2008, 11:42 PM
Of the 6,828 occurrences of YHWH in WTT, 5,683 instances have the vowel points sheva on the 1st consonant and kamets on the 3rd consonant: hw"hy>, and they are transliterated in BHT as yhwh(´ädönäy). Because of the sheer number of such instances, these phenomena seem to be the norm. However, the same YHWH now oddly has an additional cholem on the 2nd consonant in further 50 instances (Gen 3:14, etc.): hw"hoy>, and 44 of them are transliterated according to the norm in spite of the additional cholem. Still oddly, the remaining 6 instances of them (1Ki 16:33, Psa 15:1, 40:5, 100:5, Jer 2:37, 30:10) are transliterated differently as yühôâ.

Are these “oddities” instances of inconsistency in vowel point markings in WTT and transliterations in BHT, or are there valid reasons to deviate from the norm?

Thank you very much for your help.

Adelphos
09-04-2008, 01:04 AM
Are these “oddities” instances of inconsistency in vowel point markings in WTT and transliterations in BHT, or are there valid reasons to deviate from the norm?

While there may be a few errors in the WTT database on this word (although I don't know of any), generally these "oddities", as you call them, are in conformity to the Leningrad Codex as well as the modern philosopy that the Tetragrammaton should be pronounced as "Yahweh" instead of "Yehovah" and the modern philosophy that the vowel points on the Tetragrammaton are not original.

For a brief rebuttal of this modern philosophy, you can see my brief article on this issue at --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/jehovah1.htm

David Kummerow
09-04-2008, 08:16 PM
Hi Scott,

Thanks for the link to your interesting essay.

Personally, I don't think the evidence is as black-and-white as you argue in the essay, at least in the direction you take it. For instance, the essay only deals with compound names where the divine name is in initial position. Compound names with the divine name at the end are not discussed, and could well lead in a different direction. Similarly, the short form /yah/.

If the evidence is not so clear-cut, then statements like the following are not that helpful: "Let the born again Christian who can clearly see the Pre-Incarnate Christ, even Yehovah, who is Yehoshua, who is Yeshua, who is Jesus, walking in the garden in the cool of the day, stick to the old paths". That is, you would seem to suggest that one who is a "born again Christian" must hold to to the view that the divine name is only to be pronounced "Yehovah"; on the flip-side, the implication would be that if one does not hold to the view that the divine name is not pronounced "Yehovah" (or what about someone fence-sitting on the issue?) then it is questionable that they are a "born again Christian".

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-04-2008, 08:46 PM
If the evidence is not so clear-cut, then statements like the following are not that helpful: "Let the born again Christian who can clearly see the Pre-Incarnate Christ, even Yehovah, who is Yehoshua, who is Yeshua, who is Jesus, walking in the garden in the cool of the day, stick to the old paths".

I've moved this to the non BW section. You can find my response here --

http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14515#post14515

yugu
09-05-2008, 01:46 PM
Hi,
I've read the post above and the lenghty one pointed in the last message. Since the style of Adelphos marked significantly by agressiveness (which is advised to practice in some local Boxing club - actually helpful thing by itself - but not in the discourse as the above one) I've preferred to adduce some insights for the original question...

The form YHWH really WAS pronounced ONCE by the ancients, but during the time it was preferred not to do that and this kind of intention maybe based on (or followed by) Ex. 20:7 and an expression of that may be found in the parallels betweeen the identical psalms from the so called E-psalterion and the J-psalterion (every Introduction into the OT cites the actual instances).

Another thing: Being polite I'll say that I think (as the same time being sure that I'm absolutelly correct) that Gisburg was WRONG in the origins of the shortened form YW in the personal names. The shortened form is the issue of the dialect (Northern) of the Old Hebrew as we can now crearly see from the Shomrons Pottery from the 9th-8th BCE, which uses this form only and that in every possible instance.

From the above point it is really possible that the H in the YHWH was nothing more than the vowel (similarly to the final H's or Alephs in words like YOMAR, YOCHAL). The YW could be actually a diphtong which was broken latelly in order to preserve the 'consonantness' of W. That means that the original pronunciation could be Y_W_ with every possible vowel in place of underline.

The Masoretic POINTING of the Name is wholy different issue since we are talking about almost thousand years of HANDING DOWN the SOUNDING of the Whole Mikra. There are different traditions and many instances of Keri and Qetib which are the real outcoming of this process. But: if we already applaying to the Jewish tradition, so the same Masoretes (and that not only from the pointing itself, but from really Oral tradition from them on [which authoritative in the same measure as the Oral tradition thay received by themselves while pointing the text]) read the Name as Adonai (or in some instances cited by Davidson, cited by Scott) Elohim.

Davidson himself was WRONG (to my opinion, for sure) when said that the difference between pointing by Sheva (like after the Adonai) and by Hattaf-Segol (like after the Elohim) could suggest the originality of the pointing by itself. No, the reason is to distinct between the inctances and to help to the reader not to mistake between when it should be read Elohim and where Adonai. And yes, Yod basically can not have Hattaf vowel, that's the reason why the pointing of YHWH and ADONAI looks (only LOOKS) like different while it's essentially EXACTLY the SAME ONE.

Good night to all you,
Yuri.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 03:08 PM
Hi,
I've read the post above and the lenghty one pointed in the last message.

Again, I'll reply to this in the current thread below in the non BW section, i.e., --

http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14533#post14533

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 08:10 PM
Hi yugu,

Interesting post. I personally agree with you that Ginsburg has not demonstrated a causal link between syncopation of the theophoric element in compound names to the pronunciation of the divine name. Given the regular syncopation of /h/ elsewhere in the language and given that this language change happens without the actual intention of the speaker (Keller's invisible hand process of linguistic change), then it is difficult to prove that this particular instance of syncopation is intentionally motivated. Further, given that vowel reduction commonly move forwards in the language, I personally do not find it surprising that we see a shewa in the longer form /yəho-/. Given this, it is more likely then that the attachment of the theophoric element to the end of a name preserves the original first vowel: /-yahu/. This form would then could also preserve the waw of what was originally a consonant.

Returning to the subject of this thread, I agree with you that there is some inconsistency in the transliterated version which requires attention.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 08:17 PM
Hi yugu,

Interesting post. I personally agree with you that Ginsburg has not demonstrated a causal link between syncopation of the theophoric element in compound names to the pronunciation of the divine name.

Oh, so you've actually READ Ginsburg's 1000+ page treatise on the matter? And you have made a life study of the Masorah, as Ginsburg did? Or have you ever actually read anything at all in a Masorah Finalis, or a Masorah Magna?

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 08:34 PM
Scott, I'd prefer you to deal with the evidence raised. I'm afraid that mockery doesn't carry much weight as an argument, at least in my opinion.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 08:42 PM
Scott, I'd prefer you to deal with the evidence raised. I'm afraid that mockery doesn't carry much weight as an argument, at least in my opinion.

Mockery? Ahem. You stated --

"I personally agree with you that Ginsburg has not demonstrated a causal link between syncopation of the theophoric element in compound names to the pronunciation of the divine name."

Now then, I'm asking you -- have you read Ginsburg's 1000+ page treatise on this matter?

I can understand why you might want to evade that question.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 08:56 PM
Sorry, but I am at a loss to understand the antogonism and why the subject is so touchy for you. Every time I have raised actualy language evidence, it is avoided by you, and all I get is some rhetoric and a post full of capitalisation.

I'm more than willing to have a look at Ginsburg work again. But like I said, there are the problems with the position that I've raised above. It's up to you to respond to that or not, but I would like to see how they might be handled by your position.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 09:07 PM
Sorry, but I am at a loss to understand the antogonism and why the subject is so touchy for you. Every time I have raised actualy language evidence, it is avoided by you, and all I get is some rhetoric and a post full of capitalisation.

I'm more than willing to have a look at Ginsburg work again. But like I said, there are the problems with the position that I've raised above. It's up to you to respond to that or not, but I would like to see how they might be handled by your position.

Regards,
David.

Sure David. You can't even make a straight-forward admission that you haven't read Ginsburg and that you criticized a work that you know absolutely nothing about.

And I'm not the one who is trying to obfuscate the actual FACTS and the actual EVIDENCE by grammatical SPECULATIONS.

The fact that you are confused by various grammatical forms in no way overturns WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Is that so hard to understand? See my final answer to this matter in the other section.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 10:27 PM
Sure David. You can't even make a straight-forward admission that you haven't read Ginsburg and that you criticized a work that you know absolutely nothing about.
Contrary, I just had a look again at the section in Ginsburg's Introduction. I'm glad I did so, as it is quite startling: you seem to be misquoting him.

1. He says that "the pronunciation ... of the divine name יהוה ... is beyond the scope of this section" (p.367).

2. He accepts that the points on יהוה are those of adonai (pp.367-368).

3. His argumentation for the protection against pronouncing the name is protection against this form, ie יהוה vocalised with the vowels of adonai. In other words, it is protection against uttering a series of sounds resembing the vocalisation of יהוה with the vowels of adonai. It is not an arguement for the originality of the pronunciation "yehovah", as supposed by your essay.

In any case, he has not actually demonstarted a causal link between this syncopation and the divine name; rather, it is one possible interpreation of the evidence. He has not demonstrated that this syncopation is intentional over and above the type of "regular" syncopation we see elsewhere in the langage. Indeed, this issue is not even discussed.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 10:38 PM
Contrary, I just had a look again at the section in Ginsburg's Introduction. I'm glad I did so, as it is quite startling: you seem to be misquoting him....

1. He says that "the pronunciation ... of the divine name יהוה ... is beyond the scope of this section" (p.367).

2. He accepts that the points on יהוה are those of adonai (pp.367-368).

3. His argumentation for the protection against pronouncing the name is protection against this form, ie יהוה vocalised with the vowels of adonai. In other words, it is protection against uttering a series of sounds resembing the vocalisation of יהוה with the vowels of adonai. It is not an arguement for the originality of the pronunciation "yehovah", as supposed by your essay...

First off, I didn't even come close to misquoting him. I quoted him word for word, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

Moreover, the fact that he didn't address the pronunciation in that section has nothing to do with the demonstration he gives and the conclusions I drew from them, nor does the fact that he is dealing with the vowel points of Adonai have any bearing whatsoever on his demonstration.

In my essay I demonstrated exactly what Ginsburg demonstrated and showed that the proper names were constituted the same way as the Tetragrammaton. I made no inaccurate claims about Ginsburg whatsoever, as you imply.

Furthermore, it is well known that Ginsburg believed the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was Jehovah, and in that very work he constantly translates it and refers to it as Jehovah.

Did someone provide you with those quotes via email, or do you actually have Ginsburg's book? It doesn't seem to me that you actually understand too much about Ginsburg at all.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 11:02 PM
Did someone provide you with those quotes via email, or do you actually have Ginsburg's book? It doesn't seem to me that you actually understand too much about Ginsburg at all.
I own a whole stack of books on the Hebrew Bible and Biblical Hebrew. I've got some of Ginsburg's otherworks also.

The point remains that in the section of Ginsburg's Introduction, he accepts that the points on יהוה are those of adonai. As such, any "protection" against the production of sounds similar to this is protection against the consonants יהוה vocalised with the vowels from adonai. This neither proves nor disproves the originality of the pronunciation as "yehovah". So back again to the other language evidence.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-05-2008, 11:24 PM
I own a whole stack of books on the Hebrew Bible and Biblical Hebrew. I've got some of Ginsburg's otherworks also.

That seems evasive, but no matter.

Next, I didn't even use Ginsburg as a proponent for Jehovah; I merely passed on his demonstration in his own words so as to show the relationship between the proper names and the Tetragrammaton, and it is Ginsburg himself -- not me -- who stated that the names were shortened so as to NOT pronounce the Tetragrammaton.

That was in fact the purpose of the demonstration, as I explicitly stated in my essay. So, if you really want to accuse me of misquoting or misrepresenting I would ask you to be specific and show specifically where I did such a thing, for as it stands, there is no misquote and no misrepresentation whatsoever.

Lastly, you may be back to grammatical speculations, but not me, because for me the issue is completely settled, both evidentiarly AND spiritually.

So I'll end my part in this thread here.

David Kummerow
09-05-2008, 11:54 PM
That seems evasive, but no matter.

I fail to see the relevance of this. I was just answering your question was all.



That was in fact the purpose of the demonstration, as I explicitly stated in my essay. So, if you really want to accuse me of misquoting or misrepresenting I would ask you to be specific and show specifically where I did such a thing, for as it stands, there is no misquote and no misrepresentation whatsoever.The evidence raised by Ginsburg is logically tied to your following conclusions:
Thus, it is clear how the ancient Jews viewed the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton
Further, the above names, as Ginsburg notes, are all derivatives of the Tetragrammaton. Like father, like son. The first two syllables in these names was pronounced the same way the Tetragrammaton was pronounced, which is why the Jews took safeguards to shorten these names in the first place. If the Jewish guardians of the Hebrew Scriptures did not consider Jehovah to be the correct pronunciation of the Ineffable Name, the above exercise in shortening the names would have been superfluous.
Now to this:
Lastly, you may be back to grammatical speculations, but not me, because for me the issue is completely settled, both evidentiarly AND spiritually.So the issue seems to be previously settled by you, which is then why you consistently fail to interact with any of the language evidence I've raised. Do you fail to confront it so that you don't have to modify your position at all? I'm not saying that you need to agree with me at all; only that a dogmatic black-and-white conclusion is hard to justify in the face of the language evidence I've raised. But then you may justify it by not confronting that evidence, but it remains nevertheless.

Regards,
David

Adelphos
09-06-2008, 12:39 AM
I fail to see the relevance of this. I was just answering your question was all.

I'm really trying to keep this topic out of here and over into the non BW section, so please go there for a reply. Actually, I'm trying to wind this down, as you will in my reply at --

http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14555&posted=1#post14555