Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Marten,

> > Is "YaH:WeH" an accurate translation of "Iaoue", or is it necessary to> engage in scholarly speculation to translate 
> > "Iaoue" as "YaH:WeH"?  Many> scholarly sources merely state that "Iaoue" favors the translation> 
> > "Yahweh".> Dave Donnelly
> >    
>
> 'YaHWeH'  is a theoretical vocalization of the tetragrammaton which, as 
> itstands now, indeed draws heavily on the argument of the 'Iaoue'-translation.
>
> Lately I've been reading a dissertation titled"Observations on אהיה אשר 
> אהיההואהאandשם המפורש"  by one M. Reisel, a Dutch linguist and philosopher. In it, 
> heargues for the form יְהוּהַּ  ('Yehuah') or יַהוּהַּ ('Yahuah') as theoriginal 
> pronounciation of the tetragrammaton. Thereby he draws heavily onthe transliteration 
> 'Iaoue'. He argues that in the Septuagint and in theHexapla, medial 'ou' followed by a 
> vowel does not indicate a consonantal wavbut rather the vowel וּ. He refers to 
> transcriptions like Ἐμμανουελ,Σαμουελ, Μελκισουε; ισουωθ = ישועות and σασουου = 
> שסוהו.Second, he argues that the final ε must not be seen as representing ה, butrather 
> as a rendering of a guttural, which was made audible by a Patachfurtivum, just as the ε 
> in Νωε (Hebrew נוֹהַ), Μανωε, Ωσηε, Ελισουε,Αβισουε, Μελκισουε, and Θαφφουε.

HH: These LXX names can be compared with the Hebrew at the following verses:

Μανωε,

Judg. 13:2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not. 
Judg. 13:8 Then Manoah intreated the LORD, and said, O my Lord, let the man of God which thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born.  

Ωσηε,

Hos. 1:1 The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. 
Hos. 1:2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.  

Ελισουε,

2Sam. 5:15 Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 

HH: Here I had to use the Greek Text that comes with Lancelot Brenton's 
translation of the LXX, not the Greek text in Accordance.

Αβισουε,

1Chr. 8:4 And Abishua, and Naaman, and Ahoah, 
Ezra 7:5 The son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest:

Μελκισουε,

HH: This should be: Μελcισουε

1Chr. 8:33 And Ner begat Kish, and Kish begat Saul, and Saul begat Jonathan, and Malchi-shua, and Abinadab, and Esh-baal. 
1Chr. 9:39 And Ner begat Kish; and Kish begat Saul; and Saul begat Jonathan, and Malchi-shua, and Abinadab, and Esh-baal. 

and Θαφφουε

HH: I could not find this form, though I guess it is a variant for Tappuah. 
The LXX trasnscribes Tappuah differently in my texts.


> In the form thus defended (יְהוּהַּ  ('YeHuaH') or יַהוּהַּ ('YaHuaH')), 
> thefinal ה is an integral consonant, which would be in accordance with the 
> factthat even on the Mesa-stone the ה is written.He offers additional support 
> for this thesis, which I will not discuss here,but all in all, his arguments 
> are reasonably strong. His own thesis that nosufficient grounds exist in 
> support of the view that a pronounciation YaHWeHdeserves more credit than the 
> pronounciation YeHuaH, seems to be correct tobe sure.
> We may reach the conclusion that at the present, we cannot reconstruct 
> theoriginal pronounciation of the tetragrammaton with certainty, 
> sincediffering pronounciations can be defended succesfully.
> Personally, this has brought me to the conclusion that the claims of 
> theSacred Name movement are devoid of linguistic support.
> -------------WARNING: EXPLICIT THEOLOGICAL 
> CONTENTFOLLOWING!-----------------------
> The unreconstructability of the sacred name is of course theologicallyhighly 
> significant. From a New Testament point of view, in this regard theconfession 
> that Jesus is κυριος whom has been given the name above allnames, whereas 
> κυριος in the Septuagint as well as in the NT is thetranslation par 
> excellence of the tetragrammaton, is equally significant.
>                 ---------END OF EXPLICIT THEOLOGICAL CONTENT---------
>  
Thanks for taking the time to share all this. It is quite interesting 
and suggestive.  I tend to attribute the phenomenon of the lost 
pronunciation to overly cautious theology about taking the name in vain, 
but you never know.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard