[b-hebrew] Fw: Re: Reading Jehovah in Psalm 16:2 and in Psalm 110:1 ]

James Christian jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com
Tue Jun 29 08:11:44 EDT 2010

Hi Dave,

Jehovah as a translation of Yhwh is about as acceptable a translation as
Jesus is of Yeshua. That is to say if you are prepared to accept the one I
see no reason why you should not accept the other.

Now if you are asking me if Jehovah is an accurate representation of the
original pronunciation of Yhwh then the answer is clearly No! J may be
pronounced as Y in some languages but it certainly isn't in English.

Now if you are asking me how many syllables did Yhwh have then I lean
towards 3 rather than 2. The Yeho's and Yahu's certainly seem to support a
second syllable vowel with o/u quality. I know Garth's reply to this. I
don't see it as valid.

There also seems to be some Greek transliteration evidence of a 3 syllable
name and supporters of Yahweh tend to lean on the transliteration of the
Samaritan pronunciation of Iave.

In conclusion Dave, I reassert the position I made clear to you from the
very beginning. I see the best translation as Yhwh. This is exactly what we
have in the manuscripts. Nothing more and nothing less. A reader reading
Yhwh is free to supply the pronunciation they feel most comfortable with.

James Christian

On 26 June 2010 01:58, <davedonnelly1 at juno.com> wrote:

> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* <davedonnelly1 at juno.com>
> *To:* jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com
> *Date:* Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:04:50 -0400
> *Subject:* Re: [b-hebrew] Reading Jehovah in Psalm 16:2 and in Psalm 110:1
> ]
> Hi James,
> You asked me: Are you for or against translating as Jehovah?
> James; If Jehovah is a legitimate name for God, of course I want to use
> that name.
> James; If Jehovah is not a legitimate name for God, of course I do not want
> to use that name.
> *I do not know what is true about the name Jehovah.*
> **
>  I sort of think that I can, but I never asked Garth to verify if he
> thought that my method was legitimate..
> Gesenius has said:
>  "Also those who consider that Yehowah was the actual pronunciation
> are not without ground on which to defend their opinion;
> in this way can the abbreviated syllables Yeh and Yo,
> with which many proper names begin,
> be more satisfactorily explained."
> Of course as far as I know Gesenius did not believe that the vowels in the
> underlying Hebrew of Jehovah were the actual vowels of God's name, *althought
> he was very up front about saying that the vowels in the underlying Hebrew
> of Jehovah were not the same as those vowels found in "Adonai"*
> **
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> James, I am very sceptic al about *some* of the evidence that has been
> presented *to defend various Hebrew teachings* that Jehovah was not meant
> to be pronounced "AS IT WAS WRITTEN".
> I recognize that, in my particular situation [with my limited understanding
> of Hebrew]  some of the evidence that I have heard is far beyond my ability
> to understand!!!
> However, the evidence that I have heard, that is far beyond my
> understanding, does not seem to deal with the situation as it exists in the
> Leningrad Codex and in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D.
> James:  Could you write something in your own words, to explain what the
> Jewish reader sees in the Hebrew word [Yod-shewa-He-defective
> holem-waw-qamets-he] that indicates to him or her that the Masoretes did not
> want that Hebrew word to be pronounced "as it was written".
> Dave Donnelly
> P.S.
> Have you read Gesenius's page long article on this issue, of the name
> "Jehovah"?
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:00:17 +0300 James Christian <
> jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com> writes:
> Hi Dave,
> I believe I speak for just about everyone when I say we are already
> familiar with this criticism. But I have to be honest and open with you and
> observe that I don't quite see what your point is or why you made this
> quotation to us. Are you for or against translating as Jehovah?
> James Christian
> On 25 June 2010 01:43, <davedonnelly1 at juno.com> wrote:
>> On Thu Jun 24 13:44:34 EDT 2010 , Yigal Levin leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> Dave,
>> B-Hebrew does not espouse a particular dogma about the vocalization of
>> theTetragrammaton,
>> nor does ii even enforce a particular scheme of transliteration.
>> If anyone wishes to use "Jehovah" they are free to do so,  just as others
>> may use Yahweh, Yhwh, Yehovah, Lord, Kurios, Baal or even Bruce Almighty.
>> I answered your original question by saying that I assumed that whoever
>> used "Jehovah" simply didn't bother to change whatever source they had
>> copied from, and that the reason that no-one protested was that the
>> subject had already been discussed to death.
>> You've now made your point. If you want to know why someone else used one
>> form or another,
>> ask them directly.
>> If they feel like answering, they will.
>> If they don't feel like discussing the issue, please respect that.
>> Yigal Levin
>> >>>
>> Yigal,
>> Thank you very much for your response.
>> Just in passing, the editors of the Article JEHOVAH (YAHWEH) in the
>> Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 have been one of the harshest critics of
>> those persons who first translated the Hebrew text into English. [or
>> German in the case of Martin Luther.]
>> After making known their belief that "Jehovah" is a mispronunciation of
>> the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of the name,
>> Jhvh, with the vowels of the word Adonay, "Lord", which the Jews
>> substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures . They
>> continued and wrote: "In such cases of substitution the vowels of the
>> word which is to be read are written in the Hebrew text with the
>> consonants of the word which is not to be read. The consonants of the
>> word to be substituted are ordinarily written in the margins; but
>> inasmuch  as Adonay was regularly read instead of the ineffable name
>> Jhvh, it was deemed unnecessary to note the fact at every occurrence.
>> When Christian scholars began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, if
>> they were ignorant of this general rule or regarded the substitution as a
>> piece of Jewish superstition, reading what actually stood in the text ,
>> they would inevitably pronounce the name Jehovah. It is an unprofitable
>> inquiry who first made the blunder,  probably many fell into it
>> independently........
>> I am adding a link to an image taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica of
>> 1911.
>> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BritannicaJehovah600.JPG
>> Dave Donnelly
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
>> Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
>> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c23dfa626ccf18721st05duc
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list