posted 07-02-2000 09:40 AM         

I too am short of time and after finishing this, I am literally going out the door for a week long conference. But a few brief points before I go.

First, re SOY's link, wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion of the pronunciation of Hebrew without Christian bashing?

The points about the use of hei as a mater for a final "a", "e", or "o" are unnecessary since the use is so frequent. It's use as an "a" as a common fs ending are most frequent, but two of the first Hebrew words I learned were: "eifo" (alef-yod-fei-hei), "where" and "po" (pei-hei), "here" that both use hei as a mater for "o".

The statement that hei was silent or very soft seems to contradict the statement that yod-hei was pronounced as "Yah" and more importantly that yod-hei-vav was pronounced as "Yahu". Certainly in the later case hei is functioning as a non-silent consonant.

Finally, there is the idea that the vocalization of a collection of radicals is the same whether they are in isolation or are compounded with other units. This is certainly not true in Biblical (or Tiberian or Masoretic or what ever you want to call it) Hebrew. Seow in his "A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew" sprinkles the text with examples.

As for Y'ho as a pronunciation for a prefixed yod-hei-vav following the vowel points of Adonai, I find the argument without merit. I believe that it is agreed that yod-hei-vav in isolation or as a suffix is pronounced as "Yahu", with the yod vocalized by a qamatz and the vav as a shureq. When yod-hei-vav serves as a prefix in a word such as yod-hei-vav-shin-(vav)-ayin the situation is different. The accent in the compound word is on the "shu", so the yod/qamatz is now the propretonic syllable. It is normal for a qamatz in a propretonic open syllable to reduce to a sh'va. And in response one expects the shureq to lengthen to a kholem. This a a typical pattern in Hebrew words. Any other vocalization than a sh'va on the yod would be abnormal.

I wish all the discussers well in my absence.

B'rakhot b'shem Yeshua

ThePhysicist

posted 07-02-2000 03:04 PM            

If you read the posts, it was necessary. It was questioned why I said "Yaho" was impossible and that Wâw did not make the ô sound. The point needed to be establish that Hê’, and not Wâw, was the letter used for "ô". Even your own comments about "Y'hô" show you did miss this point: Wâw did not make the ô sound.

ThePhysicist said:
======================================
The statement that hei was silent or very soft seems to contradict the statement that yod-hei was pronounced as "Yah" and more importantly that yod-hei-vav was pronounced as "Yahu". Certainly in the later case hei is functioning as a non-silent consonant.
======================================

What seems to contradict? I brought forth numerous points, proofs, and scholastic quotes to validate my stance. For YH, we know that "Yâh" was spelt as Y’ (Yôd-Alef) at times. Mark the fact 1) scholars say it was very soft 2) Akkadian names use an ’Alef for the Hê’ in some names (ie. Y’W) and 3) the Hê’ was dropped out of names for an obvious dialectical reason (i.e. over emphasis of the H’) in the Northern Kingdom are clear signs that Hê’ is not functioning as a hard consonant. The notes of a shift in a language are relivant points. The ancient transliteations of YH, YHW, and YHWH also stand firmly against this, as also the testimonies of Josephus (Wars 5:5:7) and Eusebius (The preparation for the Gospel; Book XI. Chap. VI; p. 558) that affirm the name YHWH consists of vowels (hard to mistake Iaôouêe or Iaoue (Greek) and IAUE (Latin) as anything else). The "contradict[ion]" and "certanly" you speak of are in no way certain per the evidence and the scholars. This is merly your opinion based on your knowledge of Tiberian Hebrew. There is an entire realm of scholarship dedicated to pre-exilic Hebrew. If pre-exilic Hebrew and "Biblical Hebrew" were so much alike we would not need the vast array of scholarship dedicated to this. THe fcat is, the reason so much effort has been put into this area is because they do differ and function at times much differently. The orthography is a clear point of this, and the shifts in vocalization are another (and how words functioned). If I gave you the name "FWH" how would you pronounce it? The MT has "Puvâh" (Gen 46:13) but we know this is wrong because the same name is spelt in 1Chr 7:1 as "FW’H" and pointed as Pû’âh.

It is clear from MT Hebrew that FWH can NOT make the sound "Pû’âh" but that is exactly what it is doing. It is clear the rules of the Massoretes do not always hold true for more ancient words, because the language did not function the same.

And we do know a lot of shifting and changing has occurred in Hebrew, the phonetics is a clear example. We know that Shîn originally was only a "Sh" sound, that Thâw was a "Th" and not a "T" sound, Pê’ was not a "P" sound but only an "F", Bêyth was never a "V" but only a "B", and Wâw was in consonental form a "W" and never "V". The language has clearly changed over the generations; therefor to conclude based on the system used now (or 1000 years ago as per the Massorites) is not conducive to the history of the language. This is identical of me procalming I will reconstruct 10th century English (both form, pronunciation, and word meaning) per my modern day understanding. It would be a fruitless endavour because I would be making a ton of assumptions. The alphabet has changed, particles have changed, words have changed; lets not even engage in the affects of French and Spanish on our language! What we are trying to do is understand a 6000 year old word and how it was functioning from the time there was no tradition forbearing its use (i.e. from Mosheh to the Exile; so roughly from 1450 to 587 BCE and a little after, a span of almost 1000 years). To travel yet another 1500 years down the road to the Massoretes and "assume" they are knowlible of a living languages changes over that entite time is a very large leap.

ThePhysicist said:
======================================
Finally, there is the idea that the vocalization of a collection of radicals is the same whether they are in isolation or are compounded with other units. This is certainly not true in Biblical (or Tiberian or Masoretic or what ever you want to call it) Hebrew. Seow in his "A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew" sprinkles the text with examples.
======================================

1) The question is not Biblical Hebrew as we find it today (I believe it is Albright or one of his students who not so jokingly said, "I firmly believe if you took Hillel and put him in the court of David listening to the Psalmist he would not have understood a word he said") and 2) I gave clear examples of the connection/agreement and the evidence of scholars.

ThePhysicist, I understand where you are coming from. You were quite clear when you said, "I am satisfied to learn Biblical Hebrew as presented in the standard texts". This is your stance, and that is fine. But you just can not reconstruct ancient Hebrew using the system found in the Massoretic text. This is a huge leap and assumption on your part, one that neither archeology nor the scholars who work in this field support. You do have every right to disagree with me, and I respect that, but comparing apples and oranges and to simply discredit information and numerous scholastic references based upon personal experience (in this case your knowledge of Biblical Hebrew that you chose to limit to that scope without considering other options) is not fair not only to the evidence, but also unfair to the effort to actually inquire and "solve" this issue nor the people who are seeking this issue out. We would know a lot less about scriptures if we had done this (especially linguistically) - the fruit of discovering and learning about other ancient Semitic languages has infinately increased our knowledge of Hebrew and the meaning of the words contained in the sacred lit. Your assumption is clear: You will only engage in this discussion from a Tiberian vowel set stance. Unfortunately, neither archeology, ancient transliterations, nor scholars are condusive to your stance.

ThePhysicist said:
======================================
As for Y'ho as a pronunciation for a prefixed yod-hei-vav following the vowel points of Adonai, I find the argument without merit. I believe that it is agreed that yod-hei-vav in isolation or as a suffix is pronounced as "Yahu", with the yod vocalized by a qamatz and the vav as a shureq. When yod-hei-vav serves as a prefix in a word such as yod-hei-vav-shin-(vav)-ayin the situation is different. The accent in the compound word is on the "shu", so the yod/qamatz is now the propretonic syllable. It is normal for a qamatz in a propretonic open syllable to reduce to a sh'va. And in response one expects the shureq to lengthen to a kholem. This a a typical pattern in Hebrew words. Any other vocalization than a sh'va on the yod would be abnormal.
======================================

You said, "When yod-hei-vav serves as a prefix in a word such as yod-hei-vav-shin-(vav)-ayin the situation is different".

We know this is false from archeology. This does not explain the Murashu Aramaic documents with contain many "Yahu-" names, nor the Akkadian records (which again contain many Yahu- names). Pre-exilically I have yet to find a single testimony from another language of a "Y'hô". The facts:
1.) YHW is a name
2.) YHW is suffixed as "Yahu"
3.) YHW alone is "Yahu"
4.) YHW in ancient records of other languages is "Yahu"
5.) W did not make the ô sound anciently (thus Y'hô can not be original)
6.) The form YW is not condusive to "Y'hô"
7.) We do not find Y'hô

All these points clearly contradict the idea YHW is pronounced as "Y'hô". Many scholars freely write YHW- names as "Yahu-", and ironically I was talking with 2 Rabbi friends of mine this week on this exact subject, and neither even batted an eye: They both agree Y'hô is not original, and "Yahu" was. Now, not all Rabbis would agree with this, but the evidence is pretty clear.

As for the change in vowels, it would not be proper to change a names vocalization (especially with a sound [i.e. ô] that did not exist). I am quite aware that for a normal word this would be appropriate in BH, but for a proper name or per the archeological evidence it does not stand.

We know that the scribes have tampered with the text in refernce to Yhwhistic names. The fact archeology is chalk full of -YW names (i.e. ’BYW, ’ChYW, YShYW, etc...) and yet not a SINGLE refernce is found in the Tanakh is a clear indication. With this in mind your statement that you, "find the argument without merit" is all nice and good, but it is merely your opinion and not based on the evidence. It is not a mere coincidence that YHW and YHWH share identical vowel pointings. The fact we do find these names as "Yahu-" in archeolgoy (the same sound these same people ascribe to -YHW at the end of names) and never Y'hô; so "Y'hô" is not original. It is not even plausible phonetically (i.e. Wâw=ô is not true). The scribes HAD to get the '_ô points from somewhere, the fact the vowel points are identical to YHWH's gloss points ('_ô_â/î) is a clear sign that Y'hô is not original but an assimulation of those points.

posted 07-03-2000 07:33 PM            

’Eliyahu (’Alef-Lamed-Yôd-Hê’-Wâw).

When YHWH blesses me with a wife and child (and I praise YHWH even now for such an awesome blessing and gift though it still lingers) I also intend, YHWH willing, on naming a male child by this name (or the inverse Yahu’el). It is a very moving name, and in this modern era of platonic teaching (the idea of ho on , the nameless universal deity; similar to the multitude of ba‘alîm) we need now more than ever to have it taught and bore close to our hearts and lives that, "YHWH, he is [ha]’elohîm; YHWH, he is [ha]’elohîm" (1Ki 18:39) and "YHWH is ’elohîm and there is none else" (1Ki 8:60). How much greater a sign can we give our children - not only of our faith in our heavenly father - but also a calling for their life than to give them a name that bears a testimony to the truth of scripture?

’Eliyahu (’LYHW = ’Alef-Lamed-Yôd-Hê’-Wâw) and Yahu’el (YHW’L = Yôd-Hê’-Wâw-’Alef-Lamed) are both found in the 7th century BCE in ancient Hebrew inscriptions. The evidence of the LXX, Peshitta, NT (Greek, Latin, and Aramaic) confirm ’Alef-Lamed = ’el. It is a common Semetic word (just like other titles like king and father and mother) used by all Semites originally as a generic word for mighty one (e.g. "You shall not use the names of foreign ’elohîm" the word ’elohîm is a generic phrase to refer to the other peoples mighty ones, it is not a name nor are its roots pagan).

posted 07-05-2000 11:51 PM         

Shalom Joshua ,
I enjoyed reading your reply to ThePhysicist it was very thougher and informative,
I sure do like the look of YAHU at the begining of Joshua more then YEHO/Y`HO, as it seems to be a more accurate translation and also transliteral/translateral sound of The Name Joshua in Paleo Hebrew as the word YAHU testifies in may other Names.
I myself do prefer YAHU over YEHO/Y`HO for that reason !

Thank you All for the information posted

Shalom & Ahavah
WAYne

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude.
Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no
record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but
rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses
faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance
1Corinthians 13:4-7