b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD

From: furuli AT online.no
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: : Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:12:55 +0100

Dear gfsomsel,

I disagree. I respect the right for those who believe in the trinity to use "the Lord" instead of a transcription of YHWH, and I respect the right of those whoh only would write "G-od" to do that. At the same time I respect the right of the readers of the Biblical text to read what the text really says. And the text of the Tanach uses YHWH as the proper name of God, and this should, in faithfulness to the text, be transcribed in English. In this way all parts would respect each other.

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

In a message dated 2/8/2003 9:26:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, furuli AT online.no writes:

I teach my students of Hebrew that they should read adonay or elohim
when they meet YHWH in the text, as you probably do as well. When
they translate the text, they are free to use "the Lord", "Yahweh",
or "Jehovah", or "Yahu". Why would it be "a very unwelcome
situation" if people said Yahweh? I would view it as a very welcome
situation. With all respect of those who view the name as ineffable,
we must admit that this view goes contrary to linguistic and
translational rules just as much as the trinity doctrine. There is
absolutely nothing in the text of the Tanach itself that say that a
substitute should be used instead of the pronunciation of YHWH. To
the contrary, the use of it is encouraged.

Jewish tradition does have some objection to its usage. A proper respect for the sensibilities of other might be to avoid its use except in academic situations where such matters must be discussed.

gfsomsel
From furuli AT online.no Sat Feb 8 16:04:14 2003

Dear gfsomsel,

It is not true that "This version (what I write in the paragraph below) of the name of God is not supported by scholars". Please take a look at Buchanan G. W. (1988). "Some unfinished business with the Dead Sea Scrolls", Revue de Qumran, 13:49-52. Buchanan draws about the same conclusions that I do in the paragraph below. But would you say that Buchanan is not a scholar?

Best Regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

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.

<snip>

I know where you're coming from Rolf, and I'm not buying. This version of the name of God is not supported by scholars, but is desired by one particular faith group. Let's just drop any discussion of what that vocalization might have been.

gfsomsel
From furuli AT online.no Sat Feb 8 16:06:48 2003

In a message dated 2/8/2003 9:26:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, furuli AT online.no writes:

I teach my students of Hebrew that they should read adonay or elohim
when they meet YHWH in the text, as you probably do as well. When
they translate the text, they are free to use "the Lord", "Yahweh",
or "Jehovah", or "Yahu". Why would it be "a very unwelcome
situation" if people said Yahweh? I would view it as a very welcome
situation. With all respect of those who view the name as ineffable,
we must admit that this view goes contrary to linguistic and
translational rules just as much as the trinity doctrine. There is
absolutely nothing in the text of the Tanach itself that say that a
substitute should be used instead of the pronunciation of YHWH. To
the contrary, the use of it is encouraged.

Jewish tradition does have some objection to its usage. A proper respect for the sensibilities of other might be to avoid its use except in academic situations where such matters must be discussed.

gfsomsel
From furuli AT online.no Sat Feb 8 16:06:57 2003

Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail41.fg.online.no (mail41-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.41])
by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCA92007A
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:06:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [80.213.43.214] (ti200710a080-3086.bb.online.no [80.213.44.14])
by mail41.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05950
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 22:07:56 +0100 (MET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a05111b09ba6b15cb7f58@[80.213.43.214]>
In-Reply-To: <19c.10a411d8.2b76b999 AT aol.com>
References: <19c.10a411d8.2b76b999 AT aol.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 22:06:18 +0100
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: furuli AT online.no
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
<b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:06:57 -0000

Dear gfsomsel,

The Bible translator is to translate the text according to the principles of translation theory. Both the functional equivalence theory and the concordant theory agree that a proper name should not be substituted with another word, but should be transcribed.

The translator has a responsibility not to favor a particular creed or a particular religious view, but simply to translate the text. This means that the Christian trinity is irrelevant for translation purposes, and the same is true with the traditional view of the Jews that YHWH should be substituted with another word. The translator respects persons of both views, but he or she cannot let these views of tradition influence the rendering of the proper name YHWH. Religious views is one thing, translation is something completely different.

We should keep in mind that the view of the trinity was invented between the 4th and the 5th centuries C.E., a long time after the Greek Biblical scriptures were finished, and the view that the name was ineffable first became visible among one group in the 2nd century B.C.E. and gradually became more and more popular, until it had conquered all other views in the 2nd century C.E., a long time after the Hebrew Scriptures were finished. These late views, therefore, cannot dictate the Bible translator.

The lack of knowledge of the pronunciation of YHWH is not an argument in favor of a substitute. If you look at translations made by missionaries in different smaller languages in the 19th and 20th century, you will find that the English name "Jesus" is rendered in different ways. We do not know the exact Hebrew pronunciation of it, but that is no problem, because the reader knows that each form, though being different, denotes the same referent. In the same missionary translations the name YHWH is rendered in different ways, but nobody should doubt that the same individual is denoted in each case.

For instance, in the Bible of 1908-1909 in the language of Madagascar, which was a joint project of the Norwegian and the French Bible Societies, in Luke 4:8 we find the names "Jesosy" and "Jehovah". Nobody would object to the form "Jesosy" even though it is different both from the Hebrew and Greek form of the name. Why should anybody then object to the form "Jehovah", because we do not know the correct original pronunciation?

What the Bible translator should convey to the reader is the difference between a proper name, which points to one particular person, and an appellative, which points to several persons. The exact pronunciation is beyond the point. So we cannot differentiate between an academic setting, and a "lay" setting. If the translator is to follow fundamental translation rules, he or she has no other choice than to transcribe YHWH with vowels from the stock of phonemes of the target language.

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

In a message dated 2/8/2003 2:37:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, furuli AT online.no writes:

I disagree. I respect the right for those who believe in the trinity to use "the Lord" instead of a transcription of YHWH, and I respect the right of those whoh only would write "G-od" to do that. At the same time I respect the right of the readers of the Biblical text to read what the text really says. And the text of the Tanach uses YHWH as the proper name of God, and this should, in faithfulness to the text, be transcribed in English. In this way all parts would respect each other.

I don't know as the belief in the trinity has any particular bearing on the matter. It certainly has none for me. What seems important for me is that if you place YHWH in the text of an English translation and that is then read aloud, who will know how to pronounce it? Even if the reader should be knowledgable in the field, which theory regarding its pronunciation is to be followed? If one day one person reads a passage with the tetragrammaton and on another day another reads another passage which also happens to have it, is it not likely that one will follow one convention while the other follows a different one? What we would end up with is total confusion. If we could come to some agreement that, right or wrong historically, this is the way it will be pronounced, then there would be little problem. Until then I think it far simpler to use a known term.

BTW: they write "G-d" not "G-od"

gfsomsel
From rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl Sat Feb 8 16:34:26 2003

Return-Path: <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mta2.essentkabel.com (mta2.essentkabel.com [195.85.130.100])
by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCBE2003E
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:34:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [195.85.166.126] (dialin-c2-85.166.126.keyaccess.nl
[195.85.166.126])h18LZQ9g009624; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 22:35:27 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 22:34:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lord
From: Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
To: "Walter R. Mattfeld" <mattfeld12 AT charter.net>,
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <BA6B3689.39E9%rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
In-Reply-To: <000b01c2cf94$faea3e40$594dbd42@yourus67pi6luv>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
<b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:34:26 -0000

At 08-02-2003 18:10 Walter R. Mattfeld <mattfeld12 AT charter.net> wrote:

Dear Raymond,

Thankyou for your clarification. I can see that I misunderstood you and you
me.

Peace !

Shalom Walter!

Raymond

: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD, furuli, 02/08/2003