Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

Dear gfsomsel



It is true that theology has influenced Bible translators. The NIV
has for instance on the basis of a hapax legomenon introduced a brand
new theological teaching into the OT. In Is. 19:3 it translates
)++YM with "the spirits of the dead". The context would rathr suggest
the rendering "the charmers"

As in the case above, we can criticize a rendering and say it is
tendentious, it is not accurate, or it is colored by theology, but it
is rather seldom that we can say that a rendering is *wrong*.
However, from a *linguistic* ( not theological) point of view we can
say that to render YHWH with "the Lord" is wrong, because it is a
violation of fundamental rules of translation.

YHWH is a proper name, and the rule is that a proper name which
denotes one particular person or one particular place should not be
translated but transcribed. The reason is that the *reference* must
be upheld. To render a  proper name with an appellative simply is
confusing; "Lord" can refer to different persons. There are proper
names in the Tanach (for instance the sons of Isaiah) that have a
particular meaning. In such cases the translator may consider either
a transcription or a translation (where the reference is upheld). But
no translator would render Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc with completely
different words. That we do not know the original pronunciation is
beyond the point.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Jews during the
first or second temple pronounced YHWH as Yahweh. But Samaritans had
a pronunciation which was not far from Yahweh. When the element YAH
occurs in proper names, it is at the end of the name. Looking at
proper names in the Tanach, it seems that the first two syllables of
YHWH was YAHO or YEHO . It is true that the Masoretic pointing of
YHWH is based on the vowels of a substitute, but we must remember
that the real pronunciation of YHWH was lost when the Masoretes did
their work. Thus they did not necessarily use vowels which were
*different* from the original pronunciation (which they did not
know), but they used the vowels from the substitute word. Their use
of the vowels YE:H, or occasionally YE:HO  at the beginning does not
rule out that YE:HO was used in the original pronunciation. In short:
The evidence points to a pronunciation during the second temple which
is closer to the three syllabic YAHOWA/YEHOWA  than to the
two-syllabic YAHWEH.

I once wrote an academic paper regarding the name and its substitutes
during the second temple, so I am familiar with the data. It is not
true that the LXX substituted YHWH with KURIOS. All the LXX and
LXX-like manuscripts from the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.E. and the
1st century C.E. have the tetragrammaton in Old Hebrew or Aramaic
characters, or as the Greek phonetic transcription IAW, but never do
we find KURIOS. We know, however, that in the 2nd century C.E. the
name was removed from LXX manuscripts and was substituted by KS, or
occationally by QS. Textbooks and Encyclopedias state that YHWH was
not used or pronounced from the 3rd or 2nd centuries B.C.E. onward,
but the evidence for this is lacking. To the contrary, there is
evidence that the tetragrammaton was used by some as long as the
second temple existed.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




> In a message dated 2/8/2003 1:09:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> osbo AT hn.ozemail.com.au writes:
>
> >  Yes we do get into theology. Regretably theology has influenced the
> >  translators to too great an extent. A symple example is the statement found
> >  in the preface to the RSV page 9 where the transdlators make the remarkable
> >  statement that to translate the words God LORD Lord etc "is entirely
> >  inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church" (preface
> >  page 9)"
> >
> >  Now to translate these words is inappropriate?
> >
> >  I ask you!!!!!
>
> I assume this is the passage to which you refer
>
> A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the
> rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton."  The American Standard
> Version used the term ’ÄúJehovah’Äù; the King James Version had
> employed this in
> four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed
> as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases
> GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of
> the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and
> Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the
> Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain
> that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not
> indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew
> text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded
> as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in
> its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai  meaning "Lord" (or Elohim
> meaning "God"). The ancient Greek translators substituted the word Kyrios
> (Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus. The
> form ’ÄúJehovah’Äù is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the
> consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes
> but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by
> J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has
> returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1)
> the word ’Äú
> Jehovah’Äù does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in
> Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as
> though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was
> discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely
> inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.
>
> I find nothing so extraordinary here.  Names are not usually ** translated **
> but are transliterated.  In this case we don't know what the original
> pronunciation was (for sure).  I find to reason to be concerned about this.
> As the preface points out, to render it as a name would be to somehow
> indicate that the one named was somehow one among others of the same type to
> be distinguished by a name.  Since Judaism and it's child, Christianity, to
> whom these texts are sacred do not acknowledge "other gods", is it really
> necessary to provide a name?
>
> gfsomsel
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew