Biblical Hebrew Forum

[TedBro AT aol.com]

Hi, All:
 
I'm not sure if a discussion of epistemological questions is appropriate to 
 this list... but much of what we discuss here comes down to differences 
between  scientific and religious approaches to evidence and knowledge. 
 
The ideal scientist should be unbiased, with no emotional, social,  
religious or personal preference for one view over another, able to weigh  
evidence 
and come down on whichever side makes the best argument. 
 
The ideal religionist, in contrast, is committed to specific set of beliefs 
 and often has taken a vow to uphold them and often is willing to die 
rather than  recant. They tend to be more apologists for a specific 
perspective 
than real  investigators. Scholarship becomes then a vehicle for finding good 
arguments to  support a preexisting position.
 
That doesn't mean that in practice the scientist is more factual, more  
logical or more correct than the religionist. In practice  scientists have 
strong biases, often in opposition to faith-based  positions, but they are 
better at hiding it.  
 
Likewise, religionists tend to have a more coherent outlook while the  
scientist may look at every issue in a microscope and end up with a 
patchwork.  
Reasonably, anyone who reads / studies a text as a sacred text is looking 
for  inspiration, guidance, and carries a perspective that is more in line 
with the  author / redactor's motives for creating the text than the 
objective 
scholar.  Due to this shared faith between reader and author, they may have 
a leg up  in understanding what the text is saying.
 
To be specific, some of our list members are inseparably attached to the  
form Jehovah due to their religious affiliation. As far as I'm concerned they 
 are most welcome to participate on this list with their faith-based 
orientation  intact. But they should know that others will often find their  
perspective preachy and sectarian. Let's try to facilitate understanding  
rather 
than polarization. 
 
Peace,
Ted Brownstein
 
 
In a message dated 6/29/2010 8:53:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
davedonnelly1 AT juno.com writes:

-----  Forwarded Message -----
From: James Christian  <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
To: davedonnelly1 AT juno.com
Cc:  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:11:44  +0300
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [b-hebrew] Reading Jehovah in Psalm 16:2 and  in
Psalm 110:1  ]
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikP0RanQGHOpLn3ofFhZY3Y8cqYQhlNSDldT58u AT mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20100625.155916.7387.90925 AT mailpop09.dca.untd.com>

Hi  Dave,


Jehovah as a translation of Yhwh is about as acceptable a  translation as
Jesus is of Yeshua. That is to say if you are prepared to  accept the one
I see no reason why you should not accept the other.  


Now if you are asking me if Jehovah is an accurate representation  of the
original pronunciation of Yhwh then the answer is clearly No! J may  be
pronounced as Y in some languages but it certainly isn't in English.  


Now if you are asking me how many syllables did Yhwh have then I  lean
towards 3 rather than 2. The Yeho's and Yahu's certainly seem to  support
a second syllable vowel with o/u quality. I know Garth's reply to  this. I
don't see it as valid.


There also seems to be some Greek  transliteration evidence of a 3
syllable name and supporters of Yahweh tend  to lean on the
transliteration of the Samaritan pronunciation of  Iave.


In conclusion Dave, I reassert the position I made clear to  you from the
very beginning. I see the best translation as Yhwh. This is  exactly what
we have in the manuscripts. Nothing more and nothing less. A  reader
reading Yhwh is free to supply the pronunciation they feel  most
comfortable with.


James  Christian