In a message dated 2/8/2003 9:26:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, furuli AT online.no writes:Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
I teach my students of Hebrew that they should read adonay or elohim
when they meet YHWH in the text, as you probably do as well. When
they translate the text, they are free to use "the Lord", "Yahweh",
or "Jehovah", or "Yahu". Why would it be "a very unwelcome
situation" if people said Yahweh? I would view it as a very welcome
situation. With all respect of those who view the name as ineffable,
we must admit that this view goes contrary to linguistic and
translational rules just as much as the trinity doctrine. There is
absolutely nothing in the text of the Tanach itself that say that a
substitute should be used instead of the pronunciation of YHWH. To
the contrary, the use of it is encouraged.
Jewish tradition does have some objection to its usage. A proper respect for the sensibilities of other might be to avoid its use except in academic situations where such matters must be discussed.
gfsomsel
From furuli AT online.no Sat Feb 8 16:04:14 2003
Dear gfsomsel,
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Jews during the
first or second temple pronounced YHWH as Yahweh. But Samaritans had
a pronunciation which was not far from Yahweh. When the element YAH
occurs in proper names, it is at the end of the name. Looking at
proper names in the Tanach, it seems that the first two syllables of
YHWH was YAHO or YEHO . It is true that the Masoretic pointing of
YHWH is based on the vowels of a substitute, but we must remember
that the real pronunciation of YHWH was lost when the Masoretes did
their work. Thus they did not necessarily use vowels which were
*different* from the original pronunciation (which they did not
know), but they used the vowels from the substitute word. Their use
of the vowels YE:H, or occasionally YE:HO at the beginning does not
rule out that YE:HO was used in the original pronunciation. In short:
The evidence points to a pronunciation during the second temple which
is closer to the three syllabic YAHOWA/YEHOWA than to the
two-syllabic YAHWEH.
<snip>
I know where you're coming from Rolf, and I'm not buying. This version of the name of God is not supported by scholars, but is desired by one particular faith group. Let's just drop any discussion of what that vocalization might have been.
gfsomsel
From furuli AT online.no Sat Feb 8 16:06:48 2003
In a message dated 2/8/2003 9:26:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, furuli AT online.no writes:Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
I teach my students of Hebrew that they should read adonay or elohim
when they meet YHWH in the text, as you probably do as well. When
they translate the text, they are free to use "the Lord", "Yahweh",
or "Jehovah", or "Yahu". Why would it be "a very unwelcome
situation" if people said Yahweh? I would view it as a very welcome
situation. With all respect of those who view the name as ineffable,
we must admit that this view goes contrary to linguistic and
translational rules just as much as the trinity doctrine. There is
absolutely nothing in the text of the Tanach itself that say that a
substitute should be used instead of the pronunciation of YHWH. To
the contrary, the use of it is encouraged.
Jewish tradition does have some objection to its usage. A proper respect for the sensibilities of other might be to avoid its use except in academic situations where such matters must be discussed.
gfsomsel
From furuli AT online.no Sat Feb 8 16:06:57 2003
In a message dated 2/8/2003 2:37:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, furuli AT online.no writes:Return-Path: <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
I disagree. I respect the right for those who believe in the trinity to use "the Lord" instead of a transcription of YHWH, and I respect the right of those whoh only would write "G-od" to do that. At the same time I respect the right of the readers of the Biblical text to read what the text really says. And the text of the Tanach uses YHWH as the proper name of God, and this should, in faithfulness to the text, be transcribed in English. In this way all parts would respect each other.
I don't know as the belief in the trinity has any particular bearing on the matter. It certainly has none for me. What seems important for me is that if you place YHWH in the text of an English translation and that is then read aloud, who will know how to pronounce it? Even if the reader should be knowledgable in the field, which theory regarding its pronunciation is to be followed? If one day one person reads a passage with the tetragrammaton and on another day another reads another passage which also happens to have it, is it not likely that one will follow one convention while the other follows a different one? What we would end up with is total confusion. If we could come to some agreement that, right or wrong historically, this is the way it will be pronounced, then there would be little problem. Until then I think it far simpler to use a known term.
BTW: they write "G-d" not "G-od"
gfsomsel
From rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl Sat Feb 8 16:34:26 2003
Dear Raymond,
Thankyou for your clarification. I can see that I misunderstood you and you
me.
Peace !
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.