Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi,

obviously there is no real debate over the Elohim readings. The debate is
over the adonai readings. We accept that in the places where we see YHWH
with vowel pointing in some respects similar to that of adonai and in some
respects conforming to expected usage under the consonants of YHWH the
modern reading tradition is adonai and has been for quite some time. The
question is:

Did the massoretes who pointed the text put the vowels of adonai under YHWH
while conforming to pointed rules dictated by the yodh of YHWH or are the
similarities just coincidence?

After all if we already know the general rule that YHWH should be replaced
by adonai (if you follow the superstition) then we only really need to know
about the exceptions (those that are read elohim). To resolve this question
we need to ask what the evidence is. When is the oldest explicit reference
to the vowel pointing below YHWH in the MT explicitly named as the pointing
of adonai?

Only by honestly asking yourself this question can you truly understand what
I meant by 'no real evidence'.

Your reply "the universal synagogue practice of substitute readings, a
tradition that goes back over a thousand years by the only keepers and
preservers of the Hebrew text" is not backed up by any data other your
assumption that this is the case. Can you really honestly point the members
of the list to an explicit reference to this practice that dates to over a
thousand years? And if so, can see that such a reference would fall short of
the mark by at least a thousand years if we are to take seriously some of
the claims we generally hear about when the name fell out of use?

James Christian

2009/12/29 <TedBro AT aol.com>

>  James:
>
> It seems we are talking past each other. Are you suggesting that the text
> as it stands represents the original pronunciation of YHWH? If so, how can
> we explain the fact that the waw in YHWH is sometimes pointed with hireq and
> sometimes with qamatz? Both can't be the original, can they? Isn't this very
> strong evidence that we are dealing with the vowels of elohim (hireq) and
> adonai (qamatz) superimposed on the tetragram?
>
> Additionally, I have a hard time understanding how the universal synagogue
> practice of substitute readings, a tradition that goes back over a thousand
> years by the only keepers and preservers of the Hebrew text, can be called
> "no real evidence."
>
> Peace,
> Ted Brownstein
> =======================
>
>  In a message dated 12/28/2009 3:10:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com writes:
>
> Hi all,
>
> the classic explanation is as Ted puts forward but there is no real
> evidence
> for it and this argument is quoted parrot fashion seemingly without end as
> if it were established fact.
>
> Also Ted's presentation of the facts is not entirely complete. The fact is
> that vocal shwa was never used under aleph for pronunciation reasons. The
> massoretes used a different vowel symbol because they were different
> vowels,
> neither a pure shwa and neither a proper 'a' sound but somewhere in
> between.
>
> James Christian
>
>