[b-hebrew] Can YHWH at Genesis 3:14 [ in Codex L. ] be "correctly"read as"Yehowah"? [ RE-TITLED MESSAGE]

davedonnelly1 at juno.com davedonnelly1 at juno.com
Sun Jun 27 19:24:54 EDT 2010

Yigal Levin leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il 
Sun Jun 27 14:37:21 EDT 2010 
Previous message: [b-hebrew] Can YHWH at Genesis 3:14 [ in Codex L. ] be
"correctly" read as"Yehowah"? [ RE TITLED MESSAGE] 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

Yigal Levin writes:
Okay Dave, you've clarified that your issue is with the various vowels
the Mesoretes attached to the Tetragrammaton. 
But still, why the focus on Gen. 3:14, and why does it really matter? 
Why not just admit that the Mesoretic tradition is inconsistent 
and that we just don't know?

Yigal Levin  

Hi Yigal,
You ask why the focus on Gen 3:14?
Under the best of circumstances Yehowah only occurs in Codex L. about 50
Gen 3:14 just happens to be one of the less than 50 occurrences.

In the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. there would have been 6516
occurrences of Yehowah to choose from!
Hebrew sources claim that the Masoretes tinkered with the vowels of YHWH,
and that 
YHWH ended up as [Yod-shewa-he-defective holem-waw-qamets-he] in 6518
in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text of 1525 A.D. 

However, to be redundant, the same vocalized version of the
ended up occurring less than 50 times in the Leningrad Codex. of
1008-1010 A.D.

The Internet allowed Gesenius to sort of spill the beans, 
an it became common knowledge that in the 20th century,
that Gesenius had acknowledged up front in the 19th century,
that YHWH did not have the same vowel points as "Adonai".

So there must be some other reason then that reason written about 
in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, 
why the Jewish reader would believe that he or she was not supposed to
[Yod-shewa-he-defective holem-waw-qamets-he] as it was written, 
but should read 
"Adonai" instead.

Search any way you want to but the EXACT VOWELS OF ADONAI,
just do not occur in [Yod-shewa-he-defective holem-waw-qamets-he].

The fact that a Yod does is said to not take a composite shewa 
[such as a Hatef Patah]
does not even seem to enter into this issue. 
So what is the actual truth on this issue?

Certainly in Yehowih the Yod takes a composite shewa.
It takes a "Hatef Segol"
Since we know for a fact, that there is room in the Hebrew Text,
for a composite shewa [such as the Hatef Segol],
to fit quite nicely under the Yod in Yehovih 
[Yod-Hatef Segol-Heh-defective holem-waw-hireq-heh],
why didn't the Masoretes simply place a "Hatef patah" 
under the yod in [Yod-shewa-he-defective holem-waw-qamets-he].
Certainly there was room enough.

Dave Donnelly
TODAY: iPads for $123.74?
Alert: iPads are being auctioned on SwipeBids.com for 95% off today!

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list