[b-hebrew] Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Reading Jehovah in Psalm 16:2 and in Psalm 110...
TedBro at aol.com
TedBro at aol.com
Tue Jun 29 09:55:58 EDT 2010
I'm not sure if a discussion of epistemological questions is appropriate to
this list... but much of what we discuss here comes down to differences
between scientific and religious approaches to evidence and knowledge.
The ideal scientist should be unbiased, with no emotional, social,
religious or personal preference for one view over another, able to weigh evidence
and come down on whichever side makes the best argument.
The ideal religionist, in contrast, is committed to specific set of beliefs
and often has taken a vow to uphold them and often is willing to die
rather than recant. They tend to be more apologists for a specific perspective
than real investigators. Scholarship becomes then a vehicle for finding good
arguments to support a preexisting position.
That doesn't mean that in practice the scientist is more factual, more
logical or more correct than the religionist. In practice scientists have
strong biases, often in opposition to faith-based positions, but they are
better at hiding it.
Likewise, religionists tend to have a more coherent outlook while the
scientist may look at every issue in a microscope and end up with a patchwork.
Reasonably, anyone who reads / studies a text as a sacred text is looking
for inspiration, guidance, and carries a perspective that is more in line
with the author / redactor's motives for creating the text than the objective
scholar. Due to this shared faith between reader and author, they may have
a leg up in understanding what the text is saying.
To be specific, some of our list members are inseparably attached to the
form Jehovah due to their religious affiliation. As far as I'm concerned they
are most welcome to participate on this list with their faith-based
orientation intact. But they should know that others will often find their
perspective preachy and sectarian. Let's try to facilitate understanding rather
In a message dated 6/29/2010 8:53:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
davedonnelly1 at juno.com writes:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: James Christian <jc.bhebrew at googlemail.com>
To: davedonnelly1 at juno.com
Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:11:44 +0300
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [b-hebrew] Reading Jehovah in Psalm 16:2 and in
Psalm 110:1 ]
<AANLkTikP0RanQGHOpLn3ofFhZY3Y8cqYQhlNSDldT58u at mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100625.155916.7387.90925 at mailpop09.dca.untd.com>
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
More information about the b-hebrew