Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davedonnelly1 <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>]

Hi Ted,

I'm going over an old comment that you wrote to James.

Ted, you wrote to James.:

"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?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Ted, if we are dealing with the vowels  of elohim (hireq)  
and adonai (qamatz) superimposed on the tetragram, 
why don't we also find the vowels of elohiym  (Hatef segol)
and the vowels of adonai (Hatef Patah) also superimposed on the
Tetragrammaton?

Certainly there is no Hebrew Grammar Rule that prevented the Masoretes
from placing a compound shewa under the  yod in YHVH.  As noted in 
Gesenius's discussion on Hebrew word #3068, Gesenius even showed what
YHVH would have looked like, if the Masoretes had actually placed the
precise same vowels as are found in Adonai into YHVH.

Obviously the Masoretes placed the precise same vowels as are found in
Elohiym into YHVH, 
but what prevented them from honoring the rules of "Qere Perpetuum" 
by placing the precise same vowels as are found in Adonai into YHVH.

The Jewish Encyclopedia proposes a reason, 
but there seems to be no consensus among Scholar sources as to precisely
why this issue exists.

MAYBE THERE ARE NO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED WRITTEN RULES FOR QERE PERPETUUM!


Dave Donnelly    
____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=tZhcCCM072AaC7bEe0z0NgAAJ1BVGyITH_OGb159rldJgo3SAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
>From TedBro AT aol.com  Thu Dec 31 10:19:10 2009
Return-Path: <TedBro AT aol.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id CBCA24C012; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:19:10 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from imr-db02.mx.aol.com (imr-db02.mx.aol.com [205.188.91.96])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA814C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:19:10 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202])
        by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBVFJ0g4025238;
        Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:19:00 -0500
Received: from TedBro AT aol.com
        by imo-da04.mx.aol.com  (mail_out_v42.5.) id o.bd4.5ab89b7c (65099);
        Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:18:58 -0500 (EST)
From: TedBro AT aol.com
Message-ID: <bd4.5ab89b7c.386e1b1e AT aol.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:19:58 EST
To: davedonnelly1 AT juno.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: AOL 9.5 sub 155
X-AOL-SENDER: TedBro AT aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Vowel Substitution
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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, 31 Dec 2009 15:19:10 -0000

Dave:
 
The statement below is simply incorrect. 
 
There are admittedly a few isolated cases where the yod of  YHWH is pointed 
with compound shva (seghol hateph). But in 99% of qere  elohim cases, the 
Massoretes give the yod a simple shva. 
 
This is precisely the same supposed lack of precision that exists with qere 
 adonai. Why is the one significant and the other not? To be consistent 
wouldn't  we have to say that the Yehowih and Yehowah both represent real 
ancient  pronunciations of YHWH since neither represents the exact vowels of 
the 
supposed  qere? Or conversely that both represent the vowels of the qere 
placed on the  tetragram?
 
Peace,
Ted Brownstein
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/31/2009 9:14:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
davedonnelly1 AT juno.com writes:

Obviously the Masoretes placed the precise same vowels as are found in  
Elohiym into YHVH,