Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

Dear List:

While thinking about the issues Peter and I were discussing concerning the 
middle vowel being short or long in the ancient pronunciation of the divine 
name, I gave further thought to the form of the name found in Clement of 
Alexandria's writings, namely, IAOUE.

Peter is of the opinion that OU may well represent the Hebrew W, resulting in 
the possible pronunciation (y)IA(h) - WE(h). 

However, if we take OU as a substitute for W, then for the aforementioned 
pronunciation to result we would have to say that I = Y, A is used as a 
vowel, H is understood, E is a vowel, with H understood, as illustrated by my 
use of ( ). 

The problem I have with this scheme is we have three vowels and one diphthong 
in IAOUE, but we are only taking the first vowel (I) and the diphthong (OU) 
as representing Hebrew consonants. But on what basis is this done? 

If it is merely conjecture, then of course we must consider it as a 
possibility. But I find it interesting that if we pronounce the Greek IAOUE 
the four consonants of the divine name (YHWH) automatically result: (y)IA(h) 
- OU - (w)E(h). 

In this light, it seems clear that Clement provided a form of the divine name 
that, when pronounced, captures the essential elements of the divine name, 
most of which cannot be captured by Greek transliteration. 

On this same note, IAW (a form of the divine name found in pre-Christian 
copies of LXX fragments [such as 4QLXXLevb]) seems to capture the abbreviated 
form of the divine name, Yaho: (y)IA - (h)W.

In short, I do not see any evidence from Clement's writings to support the 
popular bisyllable pronunciation "Yahweh." In fact, if we attempt to 
pronounce the Greek form IAOUE then we also pronounce the consonants of the 
divine name, as part of a trisyllable pronunciation.

The reported Samaritan pronunciation IABE (Theodoret [fourth century CE])is 
the best evidence for a bisyllable pronunciation, but it does not necessarily 
involve the ancient Hebrew (or Greek) pronunciation of the divine name, and 
it may simply be the result of overlooking a possible short, middle vowel in 
the divine name. (See my previous post to Peter for a discussion of this 
point.)

Your thoughts on the above are welcome.

Greg Stafford