Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Peter wrote:
"I am not convinced that this is a fair summary. I don't think that 
authors like Gertoux, Gordon and Franklin have been taken at all 
seriously by the scholarly world. I am not saying that they shouldn't 
be, but that they are outsiders. I don't think any of them have a 
recognised academic position, and I have not seen publications by them 
in peer reviewed academic journals."

Forgive me if this is a wrong opinion but seeing as the title of 
'scholar' is one that men bestow upon men it hardly seems to be 
an appropriate observation that brings anything of worth to the 
discussion. On many occasion I have been pleased to see your 
request to see primary sources and have agreed with your sentiments 
entirely in this regard. 
If the reasoning of anyone comes from primary sources and sound points 
of reasoning, I do not see what a person's qualifications or worldly 
recongnition have to do with anything or why such a question should 
even arise. The faithful men of old who copied these manuscripts so 
diligently for us were certainly not doctorate holders or seekers of 
men's glory but simple men with a profound love for Yah.
Hence, I think we should be more concerned with the evidence provided and 
*its* credibility. Rather than the credibility that the world decides to 
bestow 
upon its providers.


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Peter Kirk
Sent: Mon 7/25/2005 2:55 PM
To: Schmuel
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH discussion recap
 
On 25/07/2005 14:12, Schmuel wrote:

>...
>
>     For consideration, probably just a decade or two ago, the "Yahweh" 
> usage would have
>likely been the almost-overwhelming consensus on a scholarly forum, and we 
>have also in
>the last decades seen it make its way into various translations, from the 
>catholic Jerusalem 
>Bible to the Everett Fox translation to others.  It was becoming mainstream 
>(socalled "sacred
>name" or "qodesh name" Bibles had been using various such forms for 50 
>years).   
>
>    Yet now we see a major turn-around, and to put it a bit indelicately, 
> the promoters and 
>defenders of "Yahweh" for the Tetragrammaton are a bit on the defensive, and 
>the 
>scholarship has shifted rather radically to at least a strong level of 
>simpatico to the 
>three-syllable "Yehowah/Yehovah" forms.  And this is shown even on a 
>scholarly forum like 
>this one,  possibly the most advanced discussions of the issues anywhere.   
>And some
>of the credit should, I believe, go to three writers on the topic, Gerard 
>Gertoux, Nehemiah
>Gordon and Carl Franklin, all defending forms close to Yehovah, while the 
>"Yahweh" 
>scholarship has been rather stagnant. 
>  
>

I am not convinced that this is a fair summary. I don't think that 
authors like Gertoux, Gordon and Franklin have been taken at all 
seriously by the scholarly world. I am not saying that they shouldn't 
be, but that they are outsiders. I don't think any of them have a 
recognised academic position, and I have not seen publications by them 
in peer reviewed academic journals. I may be wrong here, if so please 
correct me. But if this is true or nearly true, their position can 
hardly be considered to represent a shift in "scholarship". The real 
scholars in this field have probably not even seen the arguments of 
these three, and so have seen no reason to confirm the continuing 
scholarly consensus for "Yahwe" or similar.

In fact, don't overestimate this forum as "scholarship". Few of us on 
this list hold recognised academic positions either.

> ...
>
>If one decided on a two-syllable form, there would be NO starting vowels at 
>all.  
>It seems that "Yahweh" would be one of a dozen or so possible forms, and one 
>that 
>has a major problem to begin with (multi-syllabic Theophoric names 
>invariably start
>with "Yeh", per the pages on the Gerard Gertoux paper).  It only exists as 
>one scholarly
>reconstruction, hard to defend.  
>  
>

You have missed a point here. The existing multi-syllabic theophoric 
names in fact invariably start with Y:ho-, where the colon represents a 
sheva, rather than a real "e" vowel. And that sheva is almost certainly 
a reduced form of another vowel, which could be an "e" vowel (as in the 
name Jehu, which could be an abbreviated form of one of these names with 
the original vowel preserved) but is also very likely to be an "a" 
vowel, qamats. Certainly if the names had originally started Yaho-, with 
the first vowel as qamats, they would have been reduced, in that 
unstressed initial position, to the recorded form Y:ho-. So this is good 
reason to think that the initial vowel is "a", although it could also be 
"e" or "i".

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Mon Jul 25 10:32:40 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail58.messagelabs.com (mail58.messagelabs.com 
[193.109.255.35])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2E284C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:32:39 -0400 
(EDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-58.messagelabs.com!1122301958!89309987!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.22]
Received: (qmail 24903 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2005 14:32:38 -0000
Received: from kuexim3.king.ac.uk (141.241.2.22)
        by server-11.tower-58.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        25 Jul 2005 14:32:38 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim3.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1Dx40T-0004Fo-II; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:32:37 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:32:36 +0100
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3B6 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] YHWH discussion recap
Thread-Index: AcWRGrcufFCj2Ht+SO6S1veJkkpTAwACOnfa
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Schmuel" <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH discussion recap
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <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: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:32:40 -0000


Schmuel wrote:
"Also I believe another point should be mentioned.
Let's say that the vowels are only a representation of Elohim and Adonai,
as expressed by the Yahweh proponents. (hotly debated)."


Another point of interest in this regard is: Why would the qere for 
'yhwh' be trisyllabic titles when there are also an adequate array of 
bi-syllabic titles to chose from e.g. ELi, Ha_EL?
Could it be that they were specifically chosen as trisyllabic replacements 
so as to cause a smoother transition?

One good observation Schmuel made is that we may also be bringing our 
baggage to the discussion and that our views may be heavily swayed by 
our beliefs. I think that all parties agree that the only way we can find 
and be willing to accept the truth is if we lay this baggage aside and 
cocentrate on the evidences we find in the primary sources.
The only good proof for a yahweh pronunciation we have seen is the Samaritan 
transliteration IABE which seems to stand against the vast array of 
theophoric 
proofs.
It seems reasonably clear that there is now no doubt of a long O/U vowel in 
the second syllable and that the first vowel was an original A sound that may 
or may not have been pronounced as a shewa by vowel reduction.
This leaves the third vowel, which it has been reasoned could have been a 
furtive 
patah.
Are there any other theories or evidences for the final vowel?





-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Schmuel
Sent: Mon 7/25/2005 2:12 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH discussion recap
 
Hi b-hebrew,

   Thanks for the thread, folks, especial thanks to the mod for letting us go 
here and there,
and let me discuss this recap from George a bit, since it is foundational.  
And share a few
thoughts of my own. 

    First, some have said essentially "we can't really know" ... and that 
might be true
from a 100% scholarly objective view, however various theories and their 
evidences can be
examined.  We can place theories next to each other, look at texts, consider 
the history, etc.
e.g. I tried to do that especially with the post on the cholam after the hey, 
and George does
that here with the recap.

     For consideration, probably just a decade or two ago, the "Yahweh" usage 
would have
likely been the almost-overwhelming consensus on a scholarly forum, and we 
have also in
the last decades seen it make its way into various translations, from the 
catholic Jerusalem 
Bible to the Everett Fox translation to others.  It was becoming mainstream 
(socalled "sacred
name" or "qodesh name" Bibles had been using various such forms for 50 
years).   

    Yet now we see a major turn-around, and to put it a bit indelicately, the 
promoters and 
defenders of "Yahweh" for the Tetragrammaton are a bit on the defensive, and 
the 
scholarship has shifted rather radically to at least a strong level of 
simpatico to the 
three-syllable "Yehowah/Yehovah" forms.  And this is shown even on a 
scholarly forum like 
this one,  possibly the most advanced discussions of the issues anywhere.   
And some
of the credit should, I believe, go to three writers on the topic, Gerard 
Gertoux, Nehemiah
Gordon and Carl Franklin, all defending forms close to Yehovah, while the 
"Yahweh" 
scholarship has been rather stagnant. 

   Now to the recap :-)  

    Understand that I am just a layman, using only reading comprehension and 
logic and common sense, very interested in the topic, however :-)

Gene Gardner 
>I would like to recap some of the points that have been made during this 
>discussion. If any of my
>perceptions are in error, I welcome your correction.
>
>1)If we read the tetragrammaton as written with the vowel points found in 
>the Masoretic texts (Aleppo,
>Leningrad), some of the variables would be: YeHWaH, YeHWiH, YeHoWiH, YeHoWaH

Yes, I believe that is correct, from what has been stated.  (Not sure if 
there are ANY other lesser-used forms in those two codexes, although there 
are variants in other manuscripts, as well as complete omission in some). The 
two-syllable forms are the large majority, with various theories as to why 
there are two-syllable and three-syllable forms in the same texts -- part of 
the crux of the matter, at least in determining whether the vowels have any 
relation to the pronunciation.   

Also my own special interest in an examination of the Ben Hayim text 
(considered a Received Text by many) comes to play, which we now see may be 
properly and fully on the Net.  

>2)Yah is a valid name represented throughout the Psalms, but not necessarily 
>related to the
>pronunciation "YaHWeH".

Right.  You will see it in the Halleluyah type of suffix, and I believe also 
the special one-syllable form.  These seem to be more akin to the theophoric 
names that use -yah as a suffix, and don't offer much to the Tetragrammaton 
pronunciation.

>3)The cantillation marks in Psalm 96:10 does represent a tri-sylabic 
>cantoring of YHWH, or possibly Adonay. This would need to be verified in the 
>Massorah.

Ok.. I have to catch up on that aspect on the thread :-)  My ISP was down for 
a bit. 

>4)There is no vowel pointing found in the Masoretic texts that would allow 
>YHWH to be pronounced as "YaHWeH."

Right.  It exists only as a scholarly conjectural guess, no more, no less.  
More on that below.

>5)That the pronunciation "YaHWeH", is a scholarly re-construction based on 
>early Greek writings.

Largely based on the Clement of Alexandria/Samaritan issues.  However the 
reasons for the support for Yahweh are fairly diverse. 

Allow me to mention that Gerard Gertoux especially gives countervailing 
defenses for Yehowah, looking largely at the historic rabbinic writings. 

>6)That the nineteen or so tri-sylabic names found in the Hebrew Scriptures 
>that have the theophoric element "Yeho", which are pointed the same as YHWH 
>as found in the Masoretic texts, may or may not have any relation to the 
>pronunciation of YHWH.

Right.  However, supporters of forms akin to Yehowah would say that these are 
very strong evidence to the proper pronunciation.  Am we right in saying that 
such forms are generally tri & quatro syllabic, and never bi-syllabic ?

=========

Also I believe another point should be mentioned.
Let's say that the vowels are only a representation of Elohim and Adonai,
as expressed by the Yahweh proponents. (hotly debated).

Then we still have no convincing reason for choosing a two-syllable form
(at least based on the sharing I have seen on this forum.)  Since the vowels
are simply not relevant. 

If one decided on a two-syllable form, there would be NO starting vowels at 
all.  
It seems that "Yahweh" would be one of a dozen or so possible forms, and one 
that 
has a major problem to begin with (multi-syllabic Theophoric names invariably 
start
with "Yeh", per the pages on the Gerard Gertoux paper).  It only exists as 
one scholarly
reconstruction, hard to defend.  

Additional Note:
The defenders of Yehowah forms often tend to come from a higher view of the 
Scripture,
that Elohim would not leave us in a quandary and conundrum,  without real 
knowledge of 
the pronunciation of his name.

This leads to another point. 

    We should be aware that our scholarship may in fact be influenced by our 
spiritual
view.   I have no difficulty if a Jehovah's Witness tends to give arguments 
for a "Yehowah" 
type of pronunciation, if the scholarship is sound. Or if a Traditional 
Jewish perspective
emphasizes the "ineffable" aspect. Or if a believer in the Received Texts 
brings that 
perspective to the table, even that the historic BIbles in English truly 
represented the 
Word of God.   Or if someone with what might be called a 
historio-etymological approach 
tries to find the precursor to the Tetragrammaton in Ugaritic or Akkadian or 
whatever.
Or if a gnostic ties the Tetragrammaton into other cultures.  

     However, we should be aware of the tendencies of scholars, aware that 
*everyone* 
brings some viewpoints or biases to the table, consciously or not.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/ 




This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Mon Jul 25 10:51:16 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (unknown [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F7A4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:51:16 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.51)
        id 1Dx4IR-0008Fw-Ll; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:51:14 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.338 [267.9.4]);
        Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:51:20 +0100
Message-ID: <42E4FC67.9030408 AT qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:51:19 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
To: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
References: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3B5 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3B5 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH discussion recap
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <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: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:51:16 -0000

On 25/07/2005 15:16, Read, James C wrote:

> Peter wrote:
> "I am not convinced that this is a fair summary. I don't think that
> authors like Gertoux, Gordon and Franklin have been taken at all
> seriously by the scholarly world. I am not saying that they shouldn't
> be, but that they are outsiders. I don't think any of them have a
> recognised academic position, and I have not seen publications by them
> in peer reviewed academic journals."
>
> Forgive me if this is a wrong opinion but seeing as the title of
> 'scholar' is one that men bestow upon men it hardly seems to be
> an appropriate observation that brings anything of worth to the
> discussion. ...
>

James, I brought in the word "scholarly" only because Steven referred to
the "consensus on a scholarly forum" and to "scholarship". Steven seemed
to argue that the self-perpetuating group of "scholars" whose consensus
since the 19th century has been for "Yahwe" had changed its mind. But I
see no evidence of this. That same group of "scholars" continues to
support "Yahwe" and is largely unaware of the arguments of outsiders to
whom they would pay little attention.

Whether the "scholars" are right or wrong is a different matter. I
happen to think they are right in this case, not because of their titles
and qualifications but because of their arguments.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 22/07/2005