Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yes! i fully appreciate what you are saying. But the problem is that the 
entire 
context of the bible allows for many meanings to the name.

1)Gen1 in particular supports the interpretation 'He causes to become' i.e he 
creates
and therefore a Hiphil, but at this juncture we have to either abandon the 
theory 
that it is 3rd person of Qal EHYEH or question the pointing of EHYEH.

2)The current pointing of EHYEH allows for YHWH to be 3rd person Qal in which 
case 
the meaning would be 'He exists (in past, present and future i.e eternally) 
and this 
is both in agreement with the context of the story at hand in Exodus, the 
context of 
the entire bible (see Rev 1:8) and the pragmatic translation offered by the 
LXX

3)The interpretation 'He causes [himself] to become' is nowhere explicitly 
described of 
Yah and is not supported by a Hiphil theory as the Hiphil never expresses 
reflexive 
action. If we are, for whatever reason (dogmatic etc.) to assume that the 
meaning 
is reflexive then we have to abandon the Hiphil theory and propose another 
form.


Thus, the context of the entire bible is little help here because 
interpretations 1 
and 3 are equally supported.


-----Original Message-----
From: Awohili AT aol.com [mailto:Awohili AT aol.com]
Sent: Fri 8/5/2005 1:09 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Read, James C
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Meaning of YHWH
 
 
There is of necessity speculation and interpretation about the meaning of  
YHWH because it appears to be an old form and an old name, and the name of 
deity 
 besides.  So what it "means" has to be read in the context of the fullest  
narrative in which it appears, i.e., the Bible.
 
As should be obvious just from reading this forum, there is disagreement on  
the "exact" meanings of many things related to the Hebrew language.   
Learning 
is a work in progress.  Exactitude is perhaps yet a ways into the  future.
 
Solomon Landers
 
In a message dated 08/05/2005 1:30:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk writes:

Another  confusing factor is that proponents of the Hiphil form say that the  
name
indicates that Yah causes *himself* to become whatever is needed in  order to 
save his people. This adds much more confusion to the matter  because this 
would 
require the verb to be reflexive as Yah would be acting  upon *himself* by 
causing 
*himself* to become something he previously  wasn't. To the best of my 
knowledge 
the Hiphil cannot express a reflexive  action and this interpretation would 
call 
for another  form.






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.