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

trepp at telus.net trepp at telus.net
Thu May 26 01:39:53 EDT 2005



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. 

H’ 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"? 






More information about the b-hebrew mailing list