Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] What do you think of these ideas on "YAHWEH" and "RUACH"? (Travis Jackson)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: trepp AT telus.net
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] What do you think of these ideas on "YAHWEH" and "RUACH"? (Travis Jackson)
  • Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:39:53 -0700



These following comments are from outside of b-hebrew:
------------------------------------------------------
the first:
Anyone who is fluent in Hebrew can tell you that the pronunciation of a
suffix
tells you nothing about the pronunciation of the same letters at the
beginning
of a word. Moreover, names with such suffixes began appearing only after
exile,
raising the suspicion that they are of foreign influence.

HÂ’ tells us very clearly Who He is. This gives us the key to the
pronunciation
of His name. It is: Yihwe
i as in yield;
h is not silent;
e as in bed;
accent on second syllable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the second:
The word ruah can be either masculine or feminine. It appears, for instance,
in
Gen. 1:2 in the feminine and in Gen. 6:3 in the masculine.

The same man posted both comments. To the first, this reply was given:
I am trying to understand your response. Please let me know if I am
misinterpretting anything. You claim that the tetragrammaton was pronounced
Yihwe but under what basis do you come to this conclusion? ...the study of
theophoric names was pretty much the only reference modern scholars had.

Even looking at ancient Greek sources....the tetragrammaton/title given to
Yahweh was written as:
???? - Pipi
??O - Iao
????? - Iaoue (this last one is thought of being a transliteration of the
Tetragrammaton using Greek letters)

This is not meant as an insult because I do not know if you know Greek....but
when breaking down the last title.... you would read (phonetically): I - A -
OU - E
where the:
I - was substituted for the yod
A - substituted for the patach
OU - for the waw
E - for the segol and hey

being pronounced almost identical to what modern scholars have taken decades
to
centuries to come to the conclusion to.

For your amusement...I also found this website:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/name/

Now understanding Hebrew grammar....I very well know that a suffix doesn't
always give the pronounciation of the beginning of a word but there are those
instances when they do. Aside from that....think of those instances when in
ancient name (as mentioned above) when prefixes and suffixes containing both
el
and baal did not differ in the pronounciation of their actual names. For
names
containing these suffixes and prefixes please reference the Books of Joshua,
Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings and anything else I may have
left
out.

the first poster in response:
_________ wrote:
under what basis do you come to this conclusion?
The same way I conclude how to pronounce every other word in Torah. Within
the
context, this is the only pronunciation that the text allows. I agree that
Hebrew can sometimes be ambiguous, but here it isn't. Pronouncing the i as an
a
would make the word causative. H' explained His name to us, and it is not
causitive. Quote:
Even looking at ancient Greek sources....
Torah wasn't written in Greek, so the Greek source isn't relavant to me. As
I've said elsewhere on this forum, my belief is that we should seek to
understand Torah only from within Torah. Surely H' knows His name better than
the Greeks!

second poster's reply:
Quote:
Within the context, this is the only pronunciation that the text allows.


Could you please explain to me in detail how the context directs you to this
pronounciation....ignoring all modern scholary agreements.

Please do not take this as an attack. I want to see what you see.

Quote:
Torah wasn't written in Greek, so the Greek source isn't relavant to me. As
I've said elsewhere on this forum, my belief is that we should seek to
understand Torah only from within Torah. Surely H' knows His name better than
the Greeks!


You seem to be forgetting that the most complete translation of the Old
Testament (found in history) is the Septuagint. The only things older are
fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What we have today on the complete Hebrew
Tanakh is nothing more than copies copied on top of other copies. Much like
the
scribes of ancient days....who is to say that the feelings and judgements and
even corruptions were not clouding up that scribes' mind when copying the
text.
All forms of literature in history have displayed their own variations making
them different from the original. For instance compare the Dead Sea Scrolls
of
Qumran with the literature in the OT. Even thought it is the same story being
told...there are differences and that is a big deal. Also why are there four
traditions/sources (Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly, and Deuteronomic) present
within the Bible? Because times change and things mold to accomodate the
present era (of that scribe); and this is evidence that things may not be as
original (in the Hebrew) as you may believe.

I am not saying that the Greeks are 100% correct; although the work of the
Greeks should not be ignored.
[Even though the Septuagint was the work of Hebrews.]

first poster's reply:
_______ wrote:
Could you please explain to me in detail how the context directs you to this
pronounciation....


Why are Yitshak, Ya'akov, and Yosef called what they are called? Their names
are verbs, and each of their names is explained in Scripture. Their names
conform to the verb form. In Hebrew, Yitshak, Ya'akov, and Yosef are not only
names, but also ordinary verbs that people use where appropriate in their
everyday speach. For instance, if you say, "Wow, will Joe ever laugh when he
hears this joke!" then you use the word yitshak (laugh). Or if you say, "You
and I will go in my car, and Bill will follow us in his," then you use the
word
ya'akov (follow), etc. Remember that Yishak was so-called because his mother
laughed when she was told she would bear him, and Ya'akov was so-called
because
he was holding on to his twin brother's heal (following him) at birth.

The same exactly applies to H's name.

His name is derived from the verb to be. The root is heh-waw-heh or heh-yod-
heh. Like in many words, the yod and the waw are interchangable, even though
they are part of the root. Because we use the waw altenative in His Name, in
everyday speach we use the yod out of deference. But otherwise the word is
simply an ordinary word that is use in everday speach, and pronounced
accordingly. Every Hebrew-speaking child is using it by the time he enters
pre-
kindergarden.

Millennia of taboos and misleading notation seem to have mystified something
which is really very simple.

second poster:
I want to say that now I understand how you have come to this conclusion; but
what about the prefix Yi? Where do you obtain the phonetic 'i'?

I mentioned in an early post:
Quote:
Some things held within the Greek translations are tools to help us
understand
the Hebrew ones.

Now I am not claiming that the Greeks had it 100% correct but following
through
my research on top of studying theophoric names (I had explained why I choose
to follow them in an early post on this topic) and possible ancient Ugaritic
references to the same title...I feel that this name/title is a very close
one
if not accurate pronounciation of Yahweh.

first poster again:
_______ wrote:
but what about the prefix Yi? Where do you obtain the phonetic 'i'?


The Y is the prefix used in the third person in this particular tense
(usually
thought of as future, but that's not exactly accurate) in every single verb
in
the Hebrew language, no exceptions. When the verb is of the simple
construction, as is the case here, then the first vowel is i except in some
special cases, which I don't want to get into here, because H's name is not
one
of those special cases.

my reply to the first poster:
Dear ?___?,
While the rationale for your positing the alleged NAME form "YIHWE" makes
some
sense to me as well, I must ask you this rather obvious question:
whereas _______[poster 2] gives examples of the preservation of the
form "YAHWEH", WHICH comes naturally to my heart and lips, where are the
precedents in any mss. at all for "YIHWE"? Would the real form, if so
logically
constructed as you suggest so easily disappear into oblivion?
This is something I at once could not help but think of. Could it be that
HaSHEM is constructed in a specifically immediately noticably profound
manner,
in contrast to the usual name construction for created persons?

the first poster's last words:
trepp wrote:
where are the precedents in any mss. at all for "YIHWE"?
What do you mean by precedent? What is mss? The name Yitshak is the same verb
form as H's name. So it also starts with Yi. Is that a precedent?
Quote:
Would the real form, if so logically constructed as you suggest so easily
disappear into oblivion?
This is i.m.o. the greatest sin committed after the exile. Under the
influence
of foreign religions the rabbis made us forget His name instead of remember
it
as we are commanded to do. The Jews who attempt to preserve Torah don't
pronounce it, and the others don't know how.
Quote:
Could it be, though, that HaSHEM is constructed in a specifically immediately
noticably profound manner, in contrast to the usual name construction for
created persons?
Do you mean that His name does not conform to grammatical rules? I have no
reason to think that. That a certain pronunciation has been used by certain
people for two millennia doesn't make it correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone agree with either the first poster's idea of Ha SHEM, or his
remark
on "ruach"?







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page