Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear Chavoux,

When you ask whether a Piel form of HYH would be possible, I must answer that 
we do not know. We must even ask: Why should the name of God be a verb? That 
the YOD is a mark for the 3rd person of a verb, as some would use as an 
argument, has no value. There are many other words than verbs that begin with 
a YOD.  And continuing the line of uncertainty, we do not know whether there 
is a wordplay (similarity of sounds)  between the use of HYH in Exodus 3:14 
and the name YHWH in 3:15. We do not even have any clues that could suggest 
that there was a connection between the verb HYH and YHWH.

Regarding pronunciation, the situation is different, because there are some 
clues, as I already have mentioned. There are two reasons why a Piel form of 
HYH does not seem to fit. First, we have the theophoric names in the Tanakh 
which starts with YEHO-, suggesting that the first syllable of the name was 
YE- and the second syllable was HO. We note that the vowel O in HO is plene 
written. Second, we have transcriptions of theophoric names into Akkadian. In 
Neo-Babylonian documents we find the forms Ia-a-hu-u-za-bad (Yehosabad) and 
Ia-a-hu-u-na-ta-nu (Jehonatan). In Akkadian transcriptions in Persian 
documents, we find Ia-a-hu-na-ta-nu (Jehonatan) and Ia-a-hu-du (Jehodu). The 
cuneiform sign "ia" is a combination of the signs for "i" and "a."But the 
sign cal also be read as "iu" and "ie," and there is no sign for "ho," only 
for "hu." In Akkadian, the second syllable of theophoric names were written 
as "hu," corroborating the Hebrew "ho." Thus, the evidence speaks against a 
Piel form of the verb HYH.

Several Hebrew names have the theophoric ending YAHU; we find it two times in 
Isaiah 1:1.If the last H in YHWH served as a vowel, here we have the three 
consonants of the name, YHW. We know that the name of God was not pronounced 
in the days of the Masoretes, and that the substitute )DNY was used. Could it 
be that the long theophoric ending in proper names also were doctored by the 
rabbis or the Masoretes, to the effect that the last WAW in these theohoric 
names is a consonant and not a plene vowel, as indicated by the Masoretic 
pointing? Something that could suggest that, are the endings of some  
Akkadian transcriptions of Hebrew names. In Neo-Babylonian documents we find 
Ha-na-ni-a-ma and Pi-il-ia-a-ma, and in Persian documents we find 
Ia-a-hu-ia-a-ma and Ma-ta-ni-ia-a-ma. What can this last last "ma" be? The 
sign representing "w," may have been pronounced with a weak nasalization in 
Middle Babylonian. Whatever was the case, the letter "w" was replaced by "m" 
in Neo-Babylonian. Thus, the word for "man" was AWILU in Middle Babylonian 
and AMILU i Neo-Babylonian. Thus, the "ma"-element could stand for "wa." If 
that was the case, the ending was ia-a-wa or ie-a-wa. If the written "ma" was 
"wa," it cvould suggest that the last syllable of Hebrew names with 
theophoric endings was "wa" and not plene "u," as pointed by the Masoretes. 
That could also have a bearing on the Aramaic writing of God's name as YHW at 
Elephantine in the 5th century BCE. These three letters are almost 
universally taken as YAHO. But as the the case of the Akkadian 
transliterations and possibly in the Masoretic text, the last WAW could have 
been a consonant, and its vowel would naturally have been qamets. I find 
several problems with the attempts to distinguish between a northern and a 
southern form of Hebrew; I therefore look at such arguments with caution.

What about the Greek evidence? The Church father Theodoret (c. 393-c. 457) 
claimed that the Samaritans pronounced the name as Iabe (eta). But he 
continues to say that the Jews pronouned it aia. (No such Samaritan evidence 
has been foiund) He therefore speaks against iabe as the Jewish 
pronunciation. Origen used iao (omega) and iaoia (omega) and iae (eta). But 
the form that were widespread all over the Greek-speaking world from the 
second or third century BCE to the second century CE. or longer was iao 
(omega). Some of those who used this form was Diodorus Siculus (first century 
BCE); the author Marcus Terrentius Varro (116-27 BCE), who wrote 75 works; 
Philo of Byblos (64-41 CE); the Roman writer Valerius Maximus (first part of 
the first century CE); and emperor Gaius Ceasar (Caligula, 12-41 CE). It is 
also found in  the LXX-like manuscript 4QLXXLevb from the first century BCE 
where the MT has YHWH. The he occurring two times in the name cannot be 
reproduced in Greek, and we do not know the real correspondence between 
Hebrew YHWH and Greek iao. A Piel form of HYH could of course have led to the 
Greek form iao, but a number of other forms could  have led to the same Greek 
transcription as well.

So the conclusion is that we do not know whether the name of God is connected 
with HYH or another verb, and if it is connected with a verb, we do not know 
which stem.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway


Onsdag 5. Juni 2013 14:01 CEST skrev Chavoux Luyt <chavoux AT gmail.com>: 
> Shalom Rolf
>
> On 3 June 2013 17:00, <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
>
> > From: "Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
> > To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Cc:
> > Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:20:12 +0200
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I would once again ask about the possibility that it was actually a piel
> form with the vowels of "Y'HaWeH" where the u in the Greek transliterations
> would be the result of the waw rather than a middle vowel. It is not> 
> strange that the Greek transliteration would not preserve the 3 syllables
> accurately, resulting in IABE.. Of course it is also possible that
> different dialects of Hebrew pronounced the Name slightly differently,
> since we have archaeological evidence of differences in spelling between
> the Northern and Southern Kingdoms when including the Name as part of a
> person's name (e.g. the shorter -YaH ending predominating in Northern> 
> Israel with the longer -YaHuW ending used more in Judah).
>
> Regards
> Chavoux Luyt