Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com>]

On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:00 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>

Date: June 3, 2013 2:20:12 AM CDT

To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name...

Dear Jonathan,

I have an explanation that differs from yours. The kaf is the first letter of the syllable, and because it has no preceding vowel, it should have had a dagesh and have been a stop, according to Masoretic rules. But it is fricative because other forms of MLK have a vowel before the kaf. Therefore, when Masoretic rules are violated, and we find a fricative begadkefat, which should have been a stop, this is often a signal that something is lacking that previously was there—here a vowel.

sure, but I think its new environment has to play a role as well. In this case the fact that the lamed is a continuant encourages the speaker to keep the fricative kaf.  To confirm this I need to see some examples where the middle consonant is a stop.  But my main point is that it is first a deep structure phenomena then by observation it became a masoretic rule.

The vocalization of the four consonants YHWH leads to one closed syllable, YEH, and one open syllable, WA. A shewa in a closed syllable violates the rules of the Masoretes, Therefore, when it occurs, it may signal that something is lacking that previously was there. And this "something" naturally was a vowel after he. This would lead to three open syllables YE-H+vowel-WA.

Yes I agree. In fact Nehemiah points out that on two occasions the holem is included.  He believes this to be an early scribal slip.

The position of Nehemiah Gordon may or may not be true; in my view, his arguments are not  convincing. We do not know the real pronunciation of YHWH, but the clues we have, based on theophoric names, and corroborated by Akkadian transcriptions of Hebrew names, are that YHWH had three syllables, that the first was YE, and the last was WA, or WE (segol), and that the middle vowel was O  or U. There is absolutely no ancient Hebrew evidence in favor of the two-syllabic YAHWEH.

Agreed. I have never liked the YAHWEH argument; it just seems too ad hoc.  I would point out that Nehemiah adds to his argument that names do not follow vowel grammar, but instead generally work on a similarity principle, like Manasseh with "forget", and Ephraim with "fruitful".  He makes a good point that we have no reason to force a sentence grammar on the tetragrammaton.

Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Best Regards to you too,

Jonathan Mohler

Baptist Bible Graduate School

Springfield, Missouri, U.S.