[b-hebrew] 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 21:39:24 EDT 2010
On Sun Jun 27 20:11:39 EDT 2010 , Yitzhak Sapir yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Various answers have been provided to you over the years.
You never tell us why they don't satisfy you.
Why is the case that is written in the Encyclopedia Britannica
Not acknowledged to be false up front, on B-Hebrew.
Yitzhak Sapir: Do you believe that the case against Yehowah,
made known in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911,
is valid? As it is presently written?
There is actually a whole lot of evidence that the Masoretes read
the name as Adonai.
First, the vocalization changes whenever the word is nearby the
word Adonai. This would be easy to explain if the vocalization of
the Tetragrammaton is Adonai, but not if it were something else.
How else would you explain the vocalization change next to the
A large part of this issue, is that for the most part I have analyzed the
Ben Chayyim Hebrew
Text of 1525 A.D. that underlies the Old Testament of the King James
I have to acknowledge that I dont claim to understand how the six
variants of YHWH that occur in Codex L, might provide helpful information
on this issue.
Could you help me by explaining how the various variants of YHWH might
help me to understand this issue.
Certainly the variants of YHWH that are meant to be read as Elohim and
which are written as GOD add information to this issue, but they
havent convinced me to to believe that the Masoretes wanted
[Yod-shewa-defective holem- waw-qamets-heh] to be read as Adonai
HOWEVER THEY CERTAINLY HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT THE MASORETES WANTED
YEHOVIH TO BE READ AS ELOHIM = GOD
If a hatef patah was found under the yod, in [Yod-shewa-defective
holem-waw-qamets-he] I most likely would believe that the Masoretes
wanted me to read Adonai
HOWEVER THERE IS NO HATEF PATAH UNDER THE YOD IN ANY OF THE VARIANTS OF
YHWH FOUND IN THE VARIOUS HEBREW TEXTS. [Except one that Gerard Gertoux
mentions in his paperback book]
WHY IS THAT?????
Why doesn't this answer satisfy you?
Yitzhak , I have just reached your list of the many cases
where prefixes enter into this issue.
I will have to spend a lot of time on this new evidence,
Although I must admit I was somewhat aware of some of this information
that was covered slightly in William Smiths 1863 A Dictionary of the
Yitzhak, I assume that I will be spending a lot of time trying to
this new information.
I will continue to study this new information at a later time.
Thank you for posting this new information!
Yitzhap Sapir continues:
Also, the schewa joins up differently with prefixes under the
letter yodh. If a word that begins with a vocal schewa under
yodh takes a prefix with a vocal schewa itself, both the
schewas and the yodh disappear and the prefix takes a long
??? yade Gen 24:30 -
???? vide - Ex 17:12,
???? bide Ps 141:6,
???? kide Gen 27:23
???? mide Gen 49:24
??? yihi Gen 1:6
???? vihi Gen 1:6
(This is a conjunctive waw different from vayhi which is a conversive
This also happens in proper names:
?????? yoho)aHaz 2 Ki 13:8
??????? liho)aHaz 2 Ki 13:7
????? yuhuda Gen 37:26
?????? vihuda Gen 35:23
?????? bihuda Jud 10:9
?????? lihuda Gen 38:24
Now, in the word Adonai, the prefix becomes a patah:
????? adonai Jud 13:8
????? vadonai 2 Ki 7:6
????? ladonai Gen 18:30
Now, Dave, the tetragrammaton behaves exactly like the
word Adonai when taking a prefix, but never like a word
that begins with a yodh -- even a theophoric name that
begins with YHW.
It is also important to understand that a schewa under the yodh would
not be read by the Masoretes as Jehovah. It would be read as [yohov@].
Jehovah is a late European reading of the Masoretic schewa and vowels,
but not how the Masoretes themselves read it. The Masoretes when
reading a letter with a schewa followed by a guttural such as He would
read the letter with the same vowel as the guttural. So above we have
yoho)aHaz, not yeho)aHaz, and yuhuda, not yehuda.
You can see this already in the LXX. The name YHWRM is read in the
Tiberian tradition as [yohor at m] and the name YHWNTN is read in the
Tiberian tradition as [yohon at th at n] and this vocalization of the
syllable is already seen in the LXX. There these names are transcribed
IWRAM and IWNAQAN. This is why you get transcriptions such as
Joram or Jonathan. You even have IOUDA in the LXX. All these show a
long o: and u:. Because the He was not transcribed in Greek, this turns
out to be almost the exact same pronunciation as the Masoretes! (The
difference is actually in the qamats which the Masoretes pronounced
differently from a patah. This is not germane to this discussion so I've
not differentiated it in the transcriptions above).
Why would you continue to write Jehovah if it is clear that the first
under no circumstance could be -e- and the first consonant could not be
-j-? (For what it's worth, the Masoretes did pronounce the waw as a [v]
except when adjacent to an [u] vowel).
The Talmud already explicitly deals with the issue in a quote attributed
Rabbi Avina several centuries prior to the Masoretes:
??? ????? ???, ???? '?? ???' ????? '?? ????'. ??? ????? ???? ???,
?? ????? ???? ??? ????, ???? ??? ???'? ?'? ????? ???'? ??'?
Rabbi Avina said - It is written "This is my name" and it is also written
"This is my mention." The Holy One is saying - I'm not called the same
way as I'm written. I'm written with Yodh-He but read with Aleph-Daleth.
Why is this quote from the Talmud not sufficient for you, Dave?
Why are you skeptical about the evidence that has been provided?
Simply because one has hataf patah and one has a schewa? But a schewa
was normally pronounced like a hataf patah (except for some exceptions
such as when followed by a yodh or a guttural as described above). From
the Masoretic point of view they were the same.
Because sometimes you don't have the holam? But the only point the
Masoretes had to specify for the word was whether it was to be pronounced
Adonai or Elohim, and this depended only on the vocalization of the last
vowel - qamats or hirik. Also, we have additional documents from the
Masoretes and in these the Masoretes spell the name of God as three
yodhs arranged in a pyramid, two on the bottom and one on top, with a
circle around them. Since there is only room for two vowels, they give
the first and last vowel. This practice is what you apparently see now
when the holam is missing. But it is just a scribal convention for
specifying the vocalization Adonai. It is like one person would write
an essay and dot the lowercase j's only in some places. That doesn't
mean that the words with dotted lowercase j's are different variants from
the ones without them. It is just what the scribe felt like using from a
variety of equivalent representations for the same pronunciation.
Why are you skeptical about the evidence provided? Why doesn't the
evidence satisfy you?
Thank you for so much new information
Hopefully other members of b-Hebrew will respond to your Post
as I occasionally look on in Awe.
TODAY: iPads for $123.74?
Alert: iPads are being auctioned on SwipeBids.com for 95% off today!
More information about the b-hebrew