Is "YaH:WeH" an accurate translation of "Iaoue", or is it necessary to> engage in scholarly speculation to translate
"Iaoue" as "YaH:WeH"? Many> scholarly sources merely state that "Iaoue" favors the translation>
"Yahweh".> Dave Donnelly
'YaHWeH' is a theoretical vocalization of the tetragrammaton which, as
itstands now, indeed draws heavily on the argument of the 'Iaoue'-translation.
Lately I've been reading a dissertation titled"Observations on אהיה אשר
אהיההואהאandשם המפורש" by one M. Reisel, a Dutch linguist and philosopher. In it,
heargues for the form יְהוּהַּ ('Yehuah') or יַהוּהַּ ('Yahuah') as theoriginal
pronounciation of the tetragrammaton. Thereby he draws heavily onthe transliteration
'Iaoue'. He argues that in the Septuagint and in theHexapla, medial 'ou' followed by a
vowel does not indicate a consonantal wavbut rather the vowel וּ. He refers to
transcriptions like Ἐμμανουελ,Σαμουελ, Μελκισουε; ισουωθ = ישועות and σασουου =
שסוהו.Second, he argues that the final ε must not be seen as representing ה, butrather
as a rendering of a guttural, which was made audible by a Patachfurtivum, just as the ε
in Νωε (Hebrew נוֹהַ), Μανωε, Ωσηε, Ελισουε,Αβισουε, Μελκισουε, and Θαφφουε.
In the form thus defended (יְהוּהַּ ('YeHuaH') or יַהוּהַּ ('YaHuaH')),Thanks for taking the time to share all this. It is quite interesting and suggestive. I tend to attribute the phenomenon of the lost pronunciation to overly cautious theology about taking the name in vain, but you never know.
thefinal ה is an integral consonant, which would be in accordance with the
factthat even on the Mesa-stone the ה is written.He offers additional support
for this thesis, which I will not discuss here,but all in all, his arguments
are reasonably strong. His own thesis that nosufficient grounds exist in
support of the view that a pronounciation YaHWeHdeserves more credit than the
pronounciation YeHuaH, seems to be correct tobe sure.
We may reach the conclusion that at the present, we cannot reconstruct
theoriginal pronounciation of the tetragrammaton with certainty,
sincediffering pronounciations can be defended succesfully.
Personally, this has brought me to the conclusion that the claims of
theSacred Name movement are devoid of linguistic support.
-------------WARNING: EXPLICIT THEOLOGICAL
CONTENTFOLLOWING!-----------------------
The unreconstructability of the sacred name is of course theologicallyhighly
significant. From a New Testament point of view, in this regard theconfession
that Jesus is κυριος whom has been given the name above allnames, whereas
κυριος in the Septuagint as well as in the NT is thetranslation par
excellence of the tetragrammaton, is equally significant.
---------END OF EXPLICIT THEOLOGICAL CONTENT---------
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.