PDA

View Full Version : Where Did The WAW Come From?



Adelphos
10-28-2011, 07:29 PM
An Israeli friend of mine visted me yesterday and we spent a good deal of time in front of the computer where we compared notes about we do here compared to what they do there, etc., and of course I showed him BibleWorks. Anyway, to make a long storty short, I mentioned of the cuff that "some" Anglo's call it a "waw" instead of a vav, and he immediately asked, what's a "waw", for the fact is, neither I nor he have ever heard ANYBODY pronounce a vav as a waw in ANY form of legitimate spoken Hebrew.

Perhaps we've both missed something, but seeing as how he lives there and is a native...

In any case, I explained to him that Anglo's sometimes pronounce it as "waw" and he, of course, like me, just shook his head.

So does anybody know where the "waw" actually came from? I know what it's supposed to represent, but what I mean is, does anybody know where it actually originated? Or in other words, who started calling it a "waw" instead of a "vav"?

Michael Hanel
10-28-2011, 07:38 PM
I don't know where, but going to school with people who don't know German, it's easy to see how waw becomes "wow" because they don't pronounce it with a German tongue.

jimofbentley
10-28-2011, 07:51 PM
I was always taught that the variance was determined by development in the accents/pronunciation over time as the Jewish people were dispersed, and the exact pronunciation depended upon which group one learned their Hebrew from.

Gesenius' grammar (6b) suggests the same thing:



"The pronunciation of Hebrew by the modern German Jews, which partly resembles the Syriac . . . differs considerably from that of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, which approaches nearer the Arablic. The pronunciation of Hebrew by Christians follows the latter . . . in almost all cases".


For what it is worth, Wikipedia says:


In most Semitic languages it represents the sound [w (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Voiced_labio-velar_approximant)], and in some (such as Hebrew and Arabic) also the long vowel (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Long_vowel) [uː (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Close_back_rounded_vowel)], depending on context.
In Modern Hebrew (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Modern_Hebrew), the consonantal pronunciation is [v (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Voiced_labiodental_fricative)] or [β (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Voiced_bilabial_fricative)], a pattern shared by certain non-Semitic languages using the Arabic alphabet such as Persian (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Persian_language) and Urdu (http://www.bibleworks.com/wiki/Urdu).


It appears that the suggestion of this particular author (before revisions a man named Dan Pelleg) is that "w" is the more ancient pronunciation while "v" is the more modern.

Adelphos
10-28-2011, 10:44 PM
I was actually thinking that Yiddish might have had something to do with because of the German flavor, but regardless of where it came from, I do think it is strange that some people continue to employ it since, as far as I know, no Hebrew speaker would ever use it, especially in a biblical sense.

Now that I've said that, I'm sure somebody will come out of the woodwork and point out the one exception! :cool:

But at least I'm in good company... no Israeli I know has ever heard of it either. Notice I said, no Israel "I know", not no Israeli period.

ISalzman
11-16-2011, 10:30 AM
Gentlemen, it is, as one poster suggested, influenced by the German scholars. There is no "v" sound in German. Hence, "vav" became "waw." Neither Hebrew nor Yiddish have a "w" sound; the letter is "vav" in both languages and makes the "v" sound. (That despite the fact that Yiddish is heavily influenced by German.)

I can't believe I missed this thread till now, but, alas, I have been away much of late.

Irving

Adelphos
11-16-2011, 01:23 PM
There is no "v" sound in German.

Actually, the "w" in German is pronounced as a "v", such as if you say, "I want something" in German it would be spelled "Ich will etwas", but it would sound "Ich Vill etwas".

I don't know about Yiddish hardly at all. My friend tells me there's whole neighborhoods over there that still speak Yiddish instead of Hebrew.

But precisely because there is no "w" sound in Hebrew is why he raised the question. One of a number of questions he raised regarding Anglo Hebrew scholarship, actually.

Adelphos
11-16-2011, 01:46 PM
Actually, you may have made me figure it out Irving...

The Germans pronounce the "w" as a "v" and so when they spelled it they may have written it with a "w" because they knew it was pronounced as a "v". But then the British and the Americans came along, and when they saw it spelled with a "w", and not knowing that the Germans pronounced it as a "v", they instead pronounced it the Anglo way, i.e., as a "w", and hence the "waw".

Now that, as they say, is a darn good yarn!

Michael Hanel
11-16-2011, 03:08 PM
Actually, you may have made me figure it out Irving...

The Germans pronounce the "w" as a "v" and so when they spelled it they may have written it with a "w" because they knew it was pronounced as a "v". But then the British and the Americans came along, and when they saw it spelled with a "w", and not knowing that the Germans pronounced it as a "v", they instead pronounced it the Anglo way, i.e., as a "w", and hence the "waw".

Now that, as they say, is a darn good yarn!

I'll have to work on my communication skills, but I thought that's what I said in my 1st reply to you ;)

Adelphos
11-16-2011, 03:29 PM
I'll have to work on my communication skills, but I thought that's what I said in my 1st reply to you ;)

Either that, or I'lll have to work on my comprehension skills. :cool:

Actually, I thought you were on to something when you made your first reply, but I didn't know how you were applying it.

I think we're proabably all agreed that the Germans have something to do with it, and that the Brits and the Americano's probably ran with what the Germans produced without knowing the whole scheme.

And if you were in fact asserting what I just posited, which I see now can be deduced from your statement, then I think that is probably the most plausible explanation.

And to tell you the truth, the pronunciation of "waw", as utterly insignificant and irrelevant an issue as it is, has nevertheless irritated me for years. I've had to bite my tongue numerous times whenever I've heard it or read it.

So when my friend was likewise confused about it, well, that gave me all the license I needed to start a new thread! :mad:

Michael Hanel
11-16-2011, 03:39 PM
Well I don't have an Israeli or Yiddish background, but I'm fairly well versed in German and I know that a lot of terminology in Hebrew grammars is pulled from German grammars (e.g. the Piel being referred to as the D-stem (Doppelstamm). And I also know that most kids in classes,when they came to "waw," didn't understand that it came from German as well and just called it "wow" rather than "vav".

Adelphos
11-16-2011, 03:57 PM
Well I don't have an Israeli or Yiddish background, but I'm fairly well versed in German and I know that a lot of terminology in Hebrew grammars is pulled from German grammars (e.g. the Piel being referred to as the D-stem (Doppelstamm). And I also know that most kids in classes,when they came to "waw," didn't understand that it came from German as well and just called it "wow" rather than "vav".

It's funny how many little things that occured in the past can bring to light something that occurs years down the road. Had you not had that experience you may never have made the connection.

Now then, since I've admitted one pet peeve, let me just throw out another one, only this one is really important. In fact, I may have to get an internet petition started on this one. To wit:

We should quit calling it the "bald" eagle. Rather, it should be called the "crowned" eagle. It's too majestic a bird to be called a "bald" eagle, and I happen to know for a fact that not one of them birds would like being called that if they could speak English.

It is "crowned" eagle. That's the only word befitting such a majestic bird's piercing demeanor.

And for those of you that are bald, and who like to say, "Bald is beautiful!" Well, have at it. Say it all day long if you want to...

Just leave it off of my Crowned Eagles.

ISalzman
11-16-2011, 05:39 PM
Actually, you may have made me figure it out Irving...

The Germans pronounce the "w" as a "v" and so when they spelled it they may have written it with a "w" because they knew it was pronounced as a "v". But then the British and the Americans came along, and when they saw it spelled with a "w", and not knowing that the Germans pronounced it as a "v", they instead pronounced it the Anglo way, i.e., as a "w", and hence the "waw".

Now that, as they say, is a darn good yarn!

Scott, I think you are very likely correct. Vis-a-vis Yiddish, there are indeed neighborhoods in NY where Yiddish is actually the lingua franca. Hasidic Jews give priority to Yiddish in regular common everyday speech. Hebrew, for them, is the language of prayer and the sacred texts.

Thanks for the good thread, Scott.

Irving

ISalzman
11-16-2011, 05:53 PM
Well I don't have an Israeli or Yiddish background, but I'm fairly well versed in German and I know that a lot of terminology in Hebrew grammars is pulled from German grammars (e.g. the Piel being referred to as the D-stem (Doppelstamm). And I also know that most kids in classes,when they came to "waw," didn't understand that it came from German as well and just called it "wow" rather than "vav".

Interesting, Michael. Your story brought back certain memories for me. I will never forget the day I arrived at a particular Christian Bible College here in the northeast. I was a relatively new believer in Jesus as the Messiah, having come from a rabbinical Yeshiva (school) background. I will never forget my bewilderment at hearing profs and students alike all refer to the "waw.' "They are butchering my beloved vav," I thought, horrified to be sure. Then, one day, I came to an OT exegesis class early. In the spare moments that I had, I wrote out a favorite Hebrew verse on the blackboard. When my prof entered the class, he took a long, staring look at the blackboard, and his face soon showed his puzzlement. It dawned on me later that he had never been taught Hebrew cursive. My prof was a PhD and well-established Hebrew Scholar. But I might as well have written hieroglyphics up on the board. He couldn't for the life of him decipher my cursive Hebrew.

What's funny is that as a Jewish kid going to Hebrew School, you learn the alphabet in block letters in kindergarten. But shortly thereafter, you learn to write cursively and never again write Hebrew out in the block letters. I would have a very hard time today writing out Hebrew block letters, since the cursive system is so ingrained in me. (It's much faster to write too!)

Michael Hanel
11-16-2011, 06:22 PM
I wrote out a favorite Hebrew verse on the blackboard. When my prof entered the class, he took a long, staring look at the blackboard, and his face soon showed his puzzlement. It dawned on me later that he had never been taught Hebrew cursive. My prof was a PhD and well-established Hebrew Scholar. But I might as well have written hieroglyphics up on the board. He couldn't for the life of him decipher my cursive Hebrew.

What's funny is that as a Jewish kid going to Hebrew School, you learn the alphabet in block letters in kindergarten. But shortly thereafter, you learn to write cursively and never again write Hebrew out in the block letters. I would have a very hard time today writing out Hebrew block letters, since the cursive system is so ingrained in me. (It's much faster to write too!)

That's funny. Until my post-seminary life when my wife and studied some non-Biblical Hebrew readings with a former professor at Hebrew Union I had never known cursive Hebrew myself. This is true of both Greek and Hebrew, but when we no longer focus on composition, the skill-set shifts and so all they are worried about is making sure students know the block letters. I don't do enough Hebrew writing though in order to keep with the cursive though and since all I read is in block, it's much the same. But then again, I'm also of the generation where I was taught in grade school the cursive letters in English, but other than a year or two after that, I never write in cursive except signing my name -- but even then some would wonder if you could really call my signature cursive "writing."

ISalzman
11-16-2011, 07:14 PM
Interesting points, Michael. I wonder how much cursive or block writing is really even done these days. I suspect keyboarding has replaced a lot of that.

Did your time at HUC ever produce any meaningful opportunities to share your faith with peers and teachers there? Or was that a complete taboo?

Michael Hanel
11-16-2011, 07:30 PM
Interesting points, Michael. I wonder how much cursive or block writing is really even done these days. I suspect keyboarding has replaced a lot of that.

Did your time at HUC ever produce any meaningful opportunities to share your faith with peers and teachers there? Or was that a complete taboo?

This was actually not even connected with the school itself. The person I was working with was retired and, (now that I think about it, I don't think he was ever a professor there, but he was elsewhere) already a Christian, but he got his PhD from HUC and won an alumnus award, so he had a lot of ties still there.

ISalzman
11-16-2011, 07:40 PM
Good stuff. Thanks, Michael.

Adelphos
11-16-2011, 10:10 PM
So does that mean neither one of you guys is going to sign my Crowned Eagle petition? Well, now, I'm just gonna get miffed for the rest of the night! (Course, I'm going to go to bed in moment, so it should pass very quickly). :cool:

Obviously I didn't grow up Jewish or with Hebrew, but my Hebrew teacher is lady who still to this day teaches in the synagogues around here and elsewhere, and she gave me private lessons way back when several times a week. She had me reading Hebrew the first day -- the entire alphabet -- and she had me reciting the Hebrew alphabet the first day as well. She also taught me cursive right after block, though I have to actually use cursive for a little bit before it all comes back to me, because I just hardly ever write Hebrew by hand.

But the point is, she is a GREAT teacher and she made me overlearn, as it were, the Hebrew alphabet. She so ingrained it into me, in fact, that to this day -- and I'm not exaggerating -- that if you ask me to simply recite the alphabet, even if you ask me in English, I'm more likely, unless I actually think about it for a second, to recite the alphatet in Hebrew than English.

This lady was effectively for me a one-woman Ulpan! :cool:

Michael Hanel
11-16-2011, 10:30 PM
So does that mean neither one of you guys is going to sign my Crowned Eagle petition? Well, now, I'm just gonna get miffed for the rest of the night! (Course, I'm going to go to bed in moment, so it should pass very quickly). :cool:

Don't look at me. I'm much more of a turkey person. (http://www.chron.com/life/article/The-turkey-was-almost-our-national-bird-1732163.php)

ISalzman
11-16-2011, 11:10 PM
Hey Scott, I'll sign your petition. Mind you, we have red-tailed Hawks in our area. Last winter, we had a hawk eat a squirrel on a mound of snow in front of our house. Neighbors all stood by amazed and gawking at the sight of it all. One guys took photos that made their way into our local newspaper that week.

That's pretty neat about your Hebrew teacher. She sounds like she was the consummate teacher.

Adelphos
11-17-2011, 12:11 PM
I think we're all going to be turkey persons in about a week, now!

That would have been fascinating to see, Iriving. I've seen eagles and hawks hunt, mostly in the Sierras when I lived out there, but I've never seen one actually make a kill, not in real life, I mean. I've seen 'em make kills on television, but never in real life. But just watching them hunt and patrol the skies really is truly amazing. The majesty and regal bearing really isn't possible to convey unless you yourself are sitting at abount nine or ten thousand feet elevation and suddenly you watch them come from afar and go swooping across the sky.

ISalzman
11-17-2011, 01:55 PM
Agreed Scott. It was fascinating. It was like Mutual of Omaha's 'Wild Kingdom' was being filmed in my front yard (I guess I'm really dating myself with that TV reference, huh?).

Joshua Luna
11-18-2011, 05:46 PM
The character Vav is pronounced as /w/ in Yemenite Hebrew, so there is a "legitimate" form of Hebrew that does so. The general consesus (although there are those who disagree) is that in Hebrew, like other NW Semitic Languages, Vav was pronounced as /w/. An example that indicates such is the reduction of the diphthong seen in epigraphic Hebrew. e.g. Biblical Hebrew mot (mem-vav-tav) is, before the development of medial matres lectionis, mawt*. The LXX at times supports that some dialects of Hebrew used a softer sound as well.

benelchi
11-26-2011, 02:37 PM
An Israeli friend of mine visted me yesterday and we spent a good deal of time in front of the computer where we compared notes about we do here compared to what they do there, etc., and of course I showed him BibleWorks. Anyway, to make a long storty short, I mentioned of the cuff that "some" Anglo's call it a "waw" instead of a vav, and he immediately asked, what's a "waw", for the fact is, neither I nor he have ever heard ANYBODY pronounce a vav as a waw in ANY form of legitimate spoken Hebrew.

Perhaps we've both missed something, but seeing as how he lives there and is a native...

In any case, I explained to him that Anglo's sometimes pronounce it as "waw" and he, of course, like me, just shook his head.

So does anybody know where the "waw" actually came from? I know what it's supposed to represent, but what I mean is, does anybody know where it actually originated? Or in other words, who started calling it a "waw" instead of a "vav"?

This is a distiction based on ancient pronunciations verses modern pronunciations. Scholars can reconstruct ancient pronunciations by looking at ancient transliterations of a word. In the case of the vav, ancient transliterations of its consonantal form usually reflect a "w" sound or occasionally a "z" sound. Most often transliterations are found by looking at people or place names. One such example for the vav can be found in numbers 31:8, in the name Evi. The Greek LXX transliteration of this name has a strong "w" sound from the diphthong used in transliteration.

I am not sure exactly when the consonantal sound changed but it was being transliterated with a "v" sound by the 11th century AD. Influences of Yiddish, as some have suggested, might be possible but I think it would be unlikely because Yiddish did not originate until the 10th century AD. I think it would be unlikely that Yiddish would have such wide influences that quickly.

Note: My Hebrew teacher, who was both Israeli and Jewish, was well aware of this issue. This is not, as someone suggested, something only found in Evangelical scholarship. However, it is more prevalent in Evangelical schools because they often teach biblical pronunciations rather than modern pronunciations; this is something I have always thought was foolish because the modern pronunciations are so similar and do not affect the meaning of the words at all.

Adelphos
11-26-2011, 04:19 PM
I am well aware of the attempts to reconstruct the Hebrew, both textually and with regard to pronunciation, from the LXX, but doing that is foolish and an exercise in futility. I've explored that portion of the argument thoroughly, and though I have no intention of getting into it, the LXX can no more tell us about the Hebrew text than it can tell us about rocks on Mars.

In fact, I have already demonstrated from Matthew 1:1 -- the first verse in the NT -- that the LXX is corrupt throuogh and through, that the Traditional Text followed the earlier pronouncition of the vav as a "V" in its spelling of the name David, and that that is only one instance of a gazillion instances that can be brought forward to show that the Traditional Hebrew Text of the OT and the Traditional Text of the NT is far older and superior to the LXX and the Critical Text.

But I pass on further elaboration. Nobody who hasn't already seen it will be persuaded by anything I could say here.

benelchi
11-26-2011, 04:42 PM
I am well aware of the attempts to reconstruct the Hebrew, both textually and with regard to pronunciation, from the LXX, but doing that is foolish and an exercise in futility. I've explored that portion of the argument thoroughly, and though I have no intention of getting into it, the LXX can no more tell us about the Hebrew text than it can tell us about rocks on Mars.

In fact, I have already demonstrated from Matthew 1:1 -- the first verse in the NT -- that the LXX is corrupt throuogh and through, that the Traditional Text followed the earlier pronouncition of the vav as a "V" in its spelling of the name David, and that that is only one instance of a gazillion instances that can be brought forward to show that the Traditional Hebrew Text of the OT and the Traditional Text of the NT is far older and superior to the LXX and the Critical Text.

But I pass on further elaboration. Nobody who hasn't already seen it will be persuaded by anything I could say here.

I don't know how Mt. 1:1 supports in any way that the vav was pronounced as a 'v' in antiquity. The spelling of David (Δαυιδ) in Mat. 1:1 is identical to the spelling of David in the LXX and the spelling has the same diphthong'ed "w" sound one would expect in antiquity. Additionally, this is not an argument made only by evaluating the transliterations of the LXX but by looking at the transliterations in a number of different languages. I would be curious to see what evidence there was for a "v" pronunciation in antiquity. Especially in 2nd century BC or earlier literature. I would also be interested to see any scholarly support for such a pronunciation.

Adelphos
11-26-2011, 05:02 PM
As I said, I'm not going to get into it, but I will give you this hint...

As anyone who can pronounce Greek properly and who can actually speak Greek knows, the second letter of the Greek alphabet is pronounced as a "Veeta", not a "Beta". It has ALWAYS been pronounced VEETA.

If you'll notice, the Traditional Text of the NT spells the name of David correctly because the scribes of the Traditional Text knew Greek, unlike the scribes of the LXX and the Critical Text, who demonstrabley knew no more Greeek than an educated walnut. That's why the Greek in the Critical Text in B, Aleph, et al, is so corrupt that no Greek schoolboy could tolerate it.

That is as deep as I'm goiing to go here. I may write a paper on it and post it on my website, but I've already demonstrated the rapt ignorance of Greek by the scribes of the LXX, i.e., B, Aleph, et al. And yes, I am aware that there are numerous other manuscripts of the LXX than just B and Aleph.

benelchi
11-26-2011, 05:25 PM
I am well aware of the attempts to reconstruct the Hebrew, both textually and with regard to pronunciation, from the LXX, but doing that is foolish and an exercise in futility. I've explored that portion of the argument thoroughly, and though I have no intention of getting into it, the LXX can no more tell us about the Hebrew text than it can tell us about rocks on Mars.


While unrelated to the phonetic reconstruction of ancient Hebrew. You mentioned in your post the idea that reconstructing the Hebrew text from the LXX is "foolish" and while I believe that our prefrence should generally lie with the Hebrew text, looking to the LXX as well as other textual traditions can be invaluable to understanding the Hebrew text. Additionally, many of the "embelishments" of the LXX have shown to have an origin in an alternate Hebrew text (samples of which were found amoung the DSS).

Sometimes ambiguities in the Hebrew text can be illuminated by looking at translations in other languages (like the LXX). For example, the LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts of Ho. 7:14 suggest a root of גדד instead of the MT גור; the prior is more likely original. The MT likely demonstrates a transcription error where the ד was incorrectly read as a ר.

benelchi
11-28-2011, 01:47 PM
As I said, I'm not going to get into it, but I will give you this hint...

As anyone who can pronounce Greek properly and who can actually speak Greek knows, the second letter of the Greek alphabet is pronounced as a "Veeta", not a "Beta". It has ALWAYS been pronounced VEETA.

If you'll notice, the Traditional Text of the NT spells the name of David correctly because the scribes of the Traditional Text knew Greek, unlike the scribes of the LXX and the Critical Text, who demonstrabley knew no more Greeek than an educated walnut. That's why the Greek in the Critical Text in B, Aleph, et al, is so corrupt that no Greek schoolboy could tolerate it.

That is as deep as I'm goiing to go here. I may write a paper on it and post it on my website, but I've already demonstrated the rapt ignorance of Greek by the scribes of the LXX, i.e., B, Aleph, et al. And yes, I am aware that there are numerous other manuscripts of the LXX than just B and Aleph.

First, I don't think that anyone disputes the existence of a soft pronunciation of the Beta; although it is suspected that both hard and soft pronunciations existed in Biblical Greek, grammar and context determining which was employed.

Second, the spelling with the Beta is by far the minority spelling. Spellings in most NT manuscripts and in the writings of the Greek Fathers are almost unanimous in their pronunciation using diphthongs that sound much closer to a "w" and the Beta spellings that I am aware of emerge in only a few manuscripts from about the 5th century on, the early manuscripts still contain the diphthong spelling. I really can't imagine how all of these different sources could be attributed to the author not knowing Greek???? The strongest argument for spelling with the Beta is probably found in Josephus work and because of the case endings employed in his work, it likely represents an original spelling; however, even his work is late first century. Again, the question would be be "What early Greek (i.e. 2nd century or earlier) or other language document shows a "v" transliteration rather than a "w" transliteration? And how do you explain transliterations into other languages like Sumerian, Persian, Egyptian, etc... that also indicate a "w" like pronunciation?

Adelphos
11-28-2011, 02:40 PM
As I told you, I'm not going to expound it here. And you also keep missing the point. If you think the scribes of B, Aleph, et. al. knew Greek, then that simply means you don't.

Read Aleph and B straight through. In fact, just read the first chapter of John in B and Aleph. If you still think that the scribes of B and Aleph knew Greek, then, as I said, you yousrself don't have the first clue about Greek. Not the first clue.

You can go here for just a short example --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/which_is_in_heaven1.htm#john_1_demo

If that link doesn't take you directly the portion in the article that is intended, just search on "shakes out" and then read the following short demo.

The entire text of B and Aleph is INUNDATED with this kind of textual absurdity THROUGHOUT the NT. This is why the cobbled-together Critical Text in the NT was FORCED to rely on the Traditional Text/Textus Receptus THROUGHOUT the NT COUNTLESS TIMES, because the scribes of B, Aleph et. al. were so ignorant of Greek that they made pure spaghetti out the text THROUGHOUT the NT.


As I said, after actually reading B, Aleph, et. al., if you still think that the scribes of B and Aleph knew Greek, then you yourself need to learn Greek.

You can also go here for a different category of blunders in B and Aleph, which are HABITUAL throughout both manuscripts --

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

Once there, search on "what can be said of manuscripts " and just read that paragraph.

The above are only two examples out of REAMS UPON REAM UPON REAMS of examples of the depraved character of these two witnesses.

benelchi
11-28-2011, 06:33 PM
As I told you, I'm not going to expound it here. And you also keep missing the point. If you think the scribes of B, Aleph, et. al. knew Greek, then that simply means you don't.

Read Aleph and B straight through. In fact, just read the first chapter of John in B and Aleph. If you still think that the scribes of B and Aleph knew Greek, then, as I said, you yousrself don't have the first clue about Greek. Not the first clue.

You can go here for just a short example --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/which_is_in_heaven1.htm#john_1_demo

If that link doesn't take you directly the portion in the article that is intended, just search on "shakes out" and then read the following short demo.

The entire text of B and Aleph is INUNDATED with this kind of textual absurdity THROUGHOUT the NT. This is why the cobbled-together Critical Text in the NT was FORCED to rely on the Traditional Text/Textus Receptus THROUGHOUT the NT COUNTLESS TIMES, because the scribes of B, Aleph et. al. were so ignorant of Greek that they made pure spaghetti out the text THROUGHOUT the NT.


As I said, after actually reading B, Aleph, et. al., if you still think that the scribes of B and Aleph knew Greek, then you yourself need to learn Greek.

You can also go here for a different category of blunders in B and Aleph, which are HABITUAL throughout both manuscripts --

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

Once there, search on "what can be said of manuscripts " and just read that paragraph.

The above are only two examples out of REAMS UPON REAM UPON REAMS of examples of the depraved character of these two witnesses.

Thanks for the links to the website; although the site provides little in the way of evidence to support the claims you have made about the pronunciation of the vav in antiquity, it provided a wealth of information about the biases you bring to the table. I am sorry but I do not believe there is any merit to the KJV only'ist position and I did not realize that this is where you were headed.

Adelphos
11-28-2011, 07:06 PM
Thanks for the links to the website; although the site provides little in the way of evidence to support the claims you have made about the pronunciation of the vav in antiquity, it provided a wealth of information about the biases you bring to the table. I am sorry but I do not believe there is any merit to the KJV only'ist position and I did not realize that this is where you were headed.

You make your own assumptions in your statement above, so don't delude yourself and think you stand alone in that regard, and if you think you don't bring a bias to the table then you only prove yourself to be the most biased person of all.

Your above assertion also has nothing to do with the point at hand, which was your contention that I should not have said that it is foolish to judge the Hebrew by the Greek.

If you understood the concept, you would know that the depravity of B and Aleph makes it utterly foolish to correct the Hebrew based on the text of B and Aleph, et. al., which was my earlier statement, because it is obviously clear that the scribes of B and Aleph were ignoramuses in Greek, and therefore to try to derive the Hebrew from the Greek of scribes who were themselves ignoramuses in Greek is foolish to the extreme.

Leoben
04-17-2013, 11:46 PM
Ok, so I realize this is an old, old discussion, but I was doing some research and, happening upon it, found myself in a position to further address some of the points discussed in this thread.

Basically, regarding the waw, it was, by all our best evidence, originally a waw. One of the greatest proofs to this is the use of it as a mater letter. Mater letters were the first attempt at vowel markings in the Hebrew. They also became the foundation used for the current vowel markings. The Masorites basically used the consonants that were closest to the vowel sounds to indicate the vowels. Hebrew has three vowel categories: the a family, the e/i family and the o/u family. Since the closest letter to the a vowel sounds is the h sound, they used "he" for the a vowels, which makes sense, since even in English we often use "ah" in phonetic spellings to indicate the soft a vowel sound. E/i took on the yod, and o/u took on the waw. If it had been vav instead of waw, it would not have been a close enough consonant to the o/u vowels to be used FOR the o/u vowels. Pay attention to what your mouth is doing for a moment, if you don't mind. Say wah, ooh, you (as in u) and ohhhh. Notice the position of the lips and tongue do not change much.

This isn't the only differences noticed in the classical vs modern pronunciations. All of the BeGaDKePaT letters (letters that take dagesh lene) all have dual pronunciations based on whether they have the dagesh or not. Modern Hebrew, if I recall correctly, only has dual pronunciation on bet(h) and maybe one other letter.
And the soft b, or bet(h) without the dagesh, is where the v sound can be found in classic Hebrew. The letter bet in classic Hebrew is beth, because the final letter of bet is a tau, which without the dagesh has a th sound. We see this survive in worlds like Bethlehem and Bethel. Yet modern readings of Gen 1:1 start with bereshiyT instead of bereshiyTH (which would be proper in classical/Biblical Hebrew).

So why aren't modern Hebrew speakers aware of this? Doesn't that prove that waw was a later construct? No. Most, if not all, who read this are native modern English speakers. Do you all know that English used to have case endings? Did you know that English verbs used to be highly inflected? Even if you do, did you learn that in public school? I didn't learn those facts until after college, in private study. (I am a bit of a language buff.)

So if modern pronunciations do not affect meaning, why do so many seminary professors insist on classical pronunciation? Well, there are a few reasons. This actually came up between a professor and myself in a discourse regarding learning modern Hebrew.
1) The idea of learning ancient pronunciation for purposes of reading the Scripture in the original text is the pursuit of hearing, reading and experiencing the ancient text in the same way that our spiritual predecessors did.

2) Because Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew diverge in grammar and certain key vocabulary, it is helpful to the Biblical Hebrew student to separate him/herself from the Modern for better focus and understanding UNLESS they have also a desire to travel to Israel some day. If you don't plan on conversing with a modern speaker, Modern Hebrew is more cons than pros to the Bible student. If your purpose is strictly to learn to read the Bible in the ancient tongue, focusing on the Classical will be clearer AND faster. (In MH you have to learn words like cellphone, airport and automobile, which just add unnecessary words to your vocab lists.)

3) Many who pursue this do so because a love of the Word AND a love of language. And if you have a passion for languages, there is a certain intimacy to taking a language back that far. In Koine, I leaned to pronounce iota as ee-ota, because that is how they said it in Koine. Those little intimate details are the things that take you from the realm of learning a language to knowing a language, making love to the language, if you will. Yes, some of us are that passionate about language.

4) And this is one of my own predilections. Hebrew is a guttural language, with a lot of hard sounds. V is a hard letter. W is a soft one. Retaining the waw returns that softness to the language which was originally there that balanced the hard and guttural letters. Just my humble opinion on that one.

Anywho, those are my two cents on the discussion. It really doesn't matter if you learn it as waw or vav, at the end of the day.

Sara K
08-10-2014, 11:57 PM
The late Professor Benzion Netanyahu stated at the Messiah Truth Forum that “ The earliest Hebrew grammar texts that were produced in a European language were published in Austria and hence were written in German. The Hebrew letter ו (vav) was transliterated by the letter W in those grammar texts because the letter W has the same sound in German as the letter V has in English. Unfortunately, though, the transliteration scheme was overlooked when these grammar books were subsequently translated into English, and consequently the use of the letter W to represent the Hebrew letter ו (vav) was never corrected to the letter V. From this simple oversight has grown the unshakeable conviction among many christians that the Hebrew letter ו (vav) “originally” sounded like the English letter W “because books written by Jews say so” and, however many times they are told that this is not the case, they flatly refuse to accept it.”

http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/4001/Vav-vs-Waw#.U-go1_ldVxl

I came across this info when I was researching GOD'S sacred Hebrew name for my teaching on You Tube titled "Why So Many Names"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy-PwKbmdC8&list=PLx-PV4Bps-uQYT7KK1Lqv_jryorgYUFUW&index=3