Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David P Donnelly <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>]

Mark Eddy says:

>>>
So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no  vowels.
>>>

Dave says:

Concerning this "it is written" form of God's name that has no vowels,
God says in the last sentence of Exodus 3:15: 

>>>
: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
>>>

It would seem that you possibly  believe that this 4-letter Hebrew name
without vowels
is God's name forever.

Do you believe that a time will come,
when men and women will once again know how 
to pronounce this 4-letter Hebrew name without vowels,
and men and women will pray to God using this name?
[and pronouncing this name as God pronounced it to Moses]

Dave Donnelly

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:18:01 -0500 "Pastor Mark Eddy"
<markeddy AT adams.net> writes:
> One more answer to your post, from a slightly different perspective:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David P Donnelly" <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>
> >
> > Yehovah
> > [yod-shewa-he-holem-vav-qamets-he]
> > is a Hebrew form of God's name
> > that is preserved in both the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text,
> > and in the Leningrad Codex..
> >
> > It appears to be a Hebrew form,
> > that is pronounceable.
> >
> Just because can be pronounced does not mean that it was ever 
> intended to be pronounced. So you ought not
> to make the following statement:
> > It is pronounced "Yehovah" in Hebrew.
> 
> It "could be" pronounced this way. And it "is" pronounced this way 
> by some people who don't understand the
> Massoretic substitution of the word Adonai for YHWH as they read the 
> biblical text.
> 
> > Thus to be redundant,
> > I am trying to understand the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew 
> name,
> > [e.g. Yehovah]
> > as it is preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text over 6000 
> times,
> > and as it is preserved in the Leningrad Codex 44 times.
> 
> I think the question is, what do you mean by "the 'it is written' 
> form of God's Hebrew name"? When the
> divine name was first written, it had no vowels. The Dead Sea 
> scrolls have no vowels points. Some of the
> scrolls even write the name YHWH in ancient Hebrew script while the 
> rest of the text is written in what we
> now call Hebrew script. The copyists were preserving the divine name 
> just as they saw it in the old
> script, while they were converting the rest of the text to "modern" 
> script. Some later pointed Hebrew
> manuscripts refrain from adding vowel points to YHWH, even though 
> the vowels had been added to every other
> word. So the "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name has no 
> vowels. The vowels were added later, by
> people who did not pronounce the divine name. You can see pictures 
> of these older manuscripts in Ernst
> Wuerthwein's book _The Text of the Old Testament_, a standard 
> textbook for textual criticism of the Hebrew
> Bible. It is clearly documented that the original Hebrew text was 
> written without vowels. So we cannot
> refer to an original pronunciation of YHWH. We can only refer to the 
> Massoretic pointing of the NAME, and
> we know that they pronounced it "Adonai."
> 
> > I am aware that many sources do not believe that
> > this  "it is written" form of God's Hebrew name,
> > [e.g. Yehovah]
> > was meant to be pronounced.
> 
> This is not just a belief but an historically accurate description.
> 
> If you wish to discuss the pronunciation of the divine name based on 
> the names of biblical people which
> incorporated that name, you may find some support for the 
> pronunciation Yehovah. See names such as
> Jeho-shua, Jeho-nathan, Jeho-iada, etc. Someone else has already 
> suggested a different possibliity,
> people's names that end in "jahu" or just "yah." These would suggest 
> a different pronunciation for the
> divine name.
> 
> Mark Eddy
> 
> 
> 
>From jason AT hareplay.com  Sat Sep 27 14:49:56 2003
Return-Path: <jason AT hareplay.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from scanmail1.cableone.net (scanmail1.cableone.net [24.116.0.121])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155BA20081
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:49:56 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from scanmail1.cableone.net ([10.116.0.121]) by
        scanmail1.cableone.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); 
        Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:46:18 -0700
Received: from scanmail1.cableone.net [24.116.0.121] by scanmail1.cableone.net
        (SMTPD32-7.04) id AAFA3DAD0118; Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:46:18 -0700
Received: from computer (24-117-17-56.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.17.56]) by
        mail.cableone.net with SMTP (MailShield v2.04 - WIN32 Jul 17
        2001 17:12:42); Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:46:18 -0600
Message-ID: <002d01c38527$d4695f00$0200a8c0@computer>
From: "Jason Hare" <jason AT hareplay.com>
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <BB9B173C.C44%jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] elohim versus aggelous, Psalm 8:6[5] MT verses LXX
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:46:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-SMTP-HELO: computer
X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: jason AT hareplay.com
X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: 24-117-17-56.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.17.56]
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
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/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/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 18:49:56 -0000

> Aggeloi is not a typical gloss for )lhyM in the LXX. Here is some data to
> work with.
>
>
> Psalms 8:6
> m )lhyMpar aggelous
>
> Psalms 97:7
> )lhyM     hoi aggeloi autou [96.7]
>
> Psalms 138:1
> )lhyM     aggelon [137.1]
>
> DanielLXX 2:11
> )lhyN     aggelos
>
> Job 20:15
> )l aggelos

Clay,

Do you think it possible that only single words from these lines were
changed from each of these books--Daniel, Job, and Psalms?

Would there be completely different Vorlages for each of these books (since
they were *not* contained as a single unit) in which one followed what we
ended up with in the MT [elohim] and the other what we find in the LXX
[angeloi]? I think it is a bit of a stretch to try to say that these were
*most likely* from a different Vorlage.

I think, rather, that all of these occurrences of [elohim]/[el] >
[angeloi]/[angelos] should render a conclusion in our mind that the idea
that we have of angels (heavenly beings under the authority/control of the
Supreme) was within the semantic domain of [el]/[elohim] in the minds of the
ancient Israelites. Is this out of the way?

It would seem to me, by these several occurrences, that (given certain
contexts) [angeloi] is not an *atypical* gloss for [elohim].

Sorry if I ramble a bit. Also, sorry for not using the transliteration
scheme. I just get annoyed at so many parentheses that represent letters. I
have placed my transcription in brackets to represent a type of sound-based
spelling. ;-)

[elohim] > )LHYM
[el] > )L
[angelos] > AGGELOS
[angeloi] > AGGELOI

Best regards,
Jason Hare