Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

When I was talking about coincidence I meant the coincidence 
that not only are there strong linguistic evidences for a yahowah/
yehowah pronunciation but that also these missionaries evidently 
used it as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk AT qaya.org]
Sent: Thu 7/28/2005 12:17 PM
To: Read, James C
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciation
 
On 28/07/2005 01:46, Read, James C wrote:

>
> I think that would be just far too coincidental to believe.
>

I don't mean a coincidence, I mean that the Cherokees took the name and 
the stories from the traders, or from missionaries who accompanied them. 
Well, Jack has explained this idea in more detail.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk AT qaya.org]
> Sent: Wed 7/27/2005 10:55 PM
> To: Stephen Segall
> Cc: Read, James C; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciation
>
> On 27/07/2005 21:51, Stephen Segall wrote:
>
> >The pronunciation was based on diaries kept by traders who lived with the
> >Cherokees for decades and detailed their customs and religion.
> >
> > 
> >
> Is it possible that the name of these traders' own God was pronounced by
> them Ye-ho-wah or Je-ho-vah, and that they might themselves have passed
> on to the Cherokee nation this name and the stories of Adam and Eve etc?
>


-- 
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: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 27/07/2005


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 schmuel AT nyc.rr.com  Thu Jul 28 09:34:53 2005
Return-Path: <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com (ms-smtp-01-smtplb.rdc-nyc.rr.com
        [24.29.109.5])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1902E4C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:34:53 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from PowerSpec.nyc.rr.com (cpe-24-90-51-176.nyc.res.rr.com
        [24.90.51.176])
        by ms-smtp-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id
        j6SDYk1h025803
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:34:47 -0400 
(EDT)
Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.0.20050728091648.03aeb260 AT pop-server.nyc.rr.com>
X-Sender: schmuel AT pop-server.nyc.rr.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:33:19 -0400
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: Schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <42E8CE2A.9030803 AT qaya.org>
References: <6.1.0.6.0.20050727220245.06120280 AT pop-server.nyc.rr.com>
        <42E8CE2A.9030803 AT qaya.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jacob ben Hayyim - Masoretic Text
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:34:53 -0000

Hi Folks,

Schmuel
>>This doesn't make sense, since it was used for the King James Bible.  
>>Likely the Geneva also, although that should be checked. ...

Peter Kirk,
>The story may not be that simple. Ben Hayyim's text is called the "Second 
>Rabbinic Bible", but before that there was the "First Rabbinic Bible", 
>published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice and 1517 - see 
>http://www.glaird.com/inspire3.htm. See further below.

Schmuel
Gordon Laird has a wonderful site.  His discussion of Psalm 110, and the 
David Kimchi (Radaq) view is very interesting. I trust his scholarship as 
much as just about anybody, although of course his specialty is not 
necessarily NT editions.

Peter Kirk
>By the way, I also found a link (untested) to a free downloadable Ben Hayyim 
>Bible at http://www.christianhospitality.org/benchayyim.htm. But this is 
>apparently incomplete. This page confuses the issue by calling this Second 
>Rabbinic Bible the Bomberg Bible - although Bomberg was perhaps the printed 
>of both.

Schmuel
There are multiple corn-fusions on that site in regard to the Ben Hayim 
Masoretic Text, I emailed the site author and basically decided that he does 
not seem to grasp the issues and definitions. If you like I will go into this 
more.

The site recommended earlier (I think by you Peter :-)
http://www.bibles.org.uk/ looks far more reliable.

>>... And there really weren't other Christian Bibles of note till about 
>>1880. ...
>
>This isn't fair. English is not the only language in the world!

Agreed.  Even in English I meant after 1611 :-) (I was thinking but not 
writing).  Of course Tyndale and Douay-Rheims and others before 1611 were 
very notable English translations.  And of course Luther and Reina Valera and 
others are primary Bibles historically.

>Also, before these two was the translation of William Tyndale (about half of 
>the Hebrew Bible) and John Rogers (alias Thomas Matthew, who completed 
>Tyndale's work), also the Great Bible which is probably based on Tyndale and 
>Rogers. Indeed, the KJV is based largely (83%, according to one estimate) on 
>the work of Tyndale and Rogers, although revised from a variety of Hebrew 
>texts including both the First and Second Rabbinic Bibles.

Agreed, I think the 83% figure might be NT.  And such figures are notoriously 
squirrelly. e.g. Who knows if they include the very significant preposition, 
word order, conjunction and punctuation changes, or whether they are talking 
about major verb and noun differences.  You can get a statistic for just 
about anything, the insight is in the details.

> But did Tyndale use Ben Hayyim's text? It would have been very newly 
> published when Tyndale started work on translating the Hebrew in the late 
> 1520's. I can't find any clear statement of which text Tyndale used, but at 
> http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID271 it is suggested that 
> at least one of his sources was Ximenez' 1517 Complutensian Polyglot.

Right.  And I don't think he personally finished the Tanach, and his sources 
may have been mixed.

>Tyndale also worked with Luther and from his translation. Now Luther cannot 
>have used the Ben Hayyim text because he was working before Ben Hayyim (his 
>Pentateuch was published in 1523); in fact it seems he used Gerson's 1494 
>Brescia edition (see The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
>Knowledge (1908-1912) as quoted at 
>http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebrewtext1.html).

That's quite interesting :-)  What do we know of the Gerson edition ?  Is it 
a similar Masoretic Text work as Ben Hayim ?  Perhaps a precursor to the 2nd 
Rabbinic Bible?  I wonder if Max Gerson, famous cancer doctor, is a 
descendent.

>But does this actually make any difference? According to one site I found, 
>there are a total of just EIGHT differences between the Ben Hayyim and Ben 
>Asher (Aleppo/Leningrad) texts, none of which affect the meaning. (I accept 
>that this count of eight does not include the different pointings of YHWH.) 
>So, are the differences really enough to make a fuss about?

That is the big issue.  I will fly it by some folks. I have seen claims that 
the difference is much greater. Perhaps there are some notes in Kittel's 3rd 
edition.

>>KJB used the ben Hayim text directly as its primary underlying text, 
>>augmented more with things like Kimchi's grammar than anything else. ...
>
>It seems that the KJV translators in fact followed Tyndale and Rogers as 
>much as any Hebrew text.

Well I don't think that is fair :-)   They were updating what they viewed as 
the best English Bibles available, but they had about a dozen 
semitic-language scholars, and went over every single verse in committee.  
The 83% figure can mean just about anything, and might not apply to the 
Tanach.  It is easy enough to compare Tyndale and KJB to see differences, if 
we want to get more involved.

>And Ben Hayyim's edition was only one of the many Hebrew texts they had 
>available.

Every source I have seen indicates it was the primary underlying Hebrew text.

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