Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> >I think, Iaoue is very clearly matres lectionis YHW + ue for h.
> >
> UE NEVER represents he. And UE is not a unit in Greek.
> If you divided it up as I-A-OU-E representing Y-H-W-H, you might be on
> to something, although I don't think this is right either.
>

I just skipped what I thought is an obvious step, u as a bridge from IAO to
e, making Iao:e or Iao(u)e.

> >I think of Iabe as literal, not phonetic transliteration. Letters, not
> >sounds transliterated. Letter-for-letter, YHWH for I(H-A)(W-B)(final
H-E).
> >
> Do you have any evidence for this being not phonetic except that it
> doesn't give the result you want?
>

Do you have any opposing evidence? This explanation is reasonable and fits
my hypothesis.

> >ihie (verb of YHWH) to ieue, and ieue to Iaoue are two very far-fetched
> >suppositions, making the ihie-Iaoue tranformations highly improbable, in
my
> >opinion.
> >
> These are indeed far-fetched, but they are not my suppositions. My
> theory is a verb form Yahwe(h), a regular formation (either qal or
> hiphil) from root HWH, which was transliterated into Greek IAOUE
> according to the regular Greek transliteration rules. Well, it is hardly
> my theory, for it was that of Gesenius in the 19th century. And in all
> of the long discussion here I have seen nothing to indicate that the
> great Gesenius got it wrong.
>

Well, great Gesenius got some other things wrong, too. And great Plato. And
few other great guys.
Gesenius doesn't explain how the Greeks heard ihie as Iao. And the verb
hypothesis makes ancient Hebrews into idiots who claimed that no one knows
vowels of a common verb.

Vadim Cherny