Will you respond to this issue as it has importance since you are making a claim as a "translator" that does not fit hebrew grammatical principals. This is a somewhat simple issue but your answer is simply not based upon facts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by James Trimm:

1. It is simple, the Masorites simplified the vowels when they placed them in YHWH and made the composite-sheva a normal vowel. A composit Sheva would not be called for after an initial constanant in normal Hebrew pronounciations as it might in an initial vowel position (under an initial alef).
2. The point is irrelevant to the HRV itself which only has YHWH with no vowels in the text.

3. The HRV Bible will have a much better binding than the NT. The NT had a "perfect binding" (glued in pages). The Complete Bible will have a stitched bonded-leather binding with gold trim pages and a cloth bookmark sewn in.

James Trimm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my opinion that the vowels for YeHoVaH were transplated from Eloah with only slight variation, a variation which itself had its origin in the fact that there were no written vowels.

At any rate the reason this is not a translation issue for the HRV is because teh HRV does not "translate" this word. The HRV only transliterates the constanants "YHWH". The vowels themselves are not relevant to the transklation of the HRV.

However you have sidestepped the issue in that I asked several questions that have to be addressed if one wishes to claim the Old Syriac was translated from Greek.

Why does the Old Syriac agree most closely with the Greek Western type text against the other text types? Is one a translation of the other? If so then why is the Greek Western text filled with Aramaic grammar that is not found in the other Greek text types? How could this be unless the Greek Western text was translated from the Aramaic of the Old Syriac rather than the other way around? Also how could the Tanak quotations in the Old Syriac agree in places with the Hebrew Masoretic Text against the same readings in the Greek NT if the Old Syriac was simply translated from the Greek NT?

Can you answer these questions?

Why do the quotations from teh NT by early "Church Fathers" also agree wiith the Western type text? Why does the oldest fragment of the Greek NT agree with the Western type text?

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Trimm:

There are no written vowels in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. Vowels in Hebrew were originally only verbal. We cannot therefore be clear on the differences between very similar vowels as they stood prior to the advent of the Masoretic system (and the Masorites were actually doing there work prior to the advent of that system as they were implementing it for the first time).

It is my opinion that the vowels for YeHoVaH were transplated from Eloah with only slight variation, a variation which itself had its origin in the fact that there were no written vowels.

At any rate the reason this is not a translation issue for the HRV is because teh HRV does not "translate" this word. The HRV only transliterates the constanants "YHWH". The vowels themselves are not relevant to the transklation of the HRV.

However you have sidestepped the issue in that I asked several questions that have to be addressed if one wishes to claim the Old Syriac was translated from Greek.

Why does the Old Syriac agree most closely with the Greek Western type text against the other text types? Is one a translation of the other? If so then why is the Greek Western text filled with Aramaic grammar that is not found in the other Greek text types? How could this be unless the Greek Western text was translated from the Aramaic of the Old Syriac rather than the other way around? Also how could the Tanak quotations in the Old Syriac agree in places with the Hebrew Masoretic Text against the same readings in the Greek NT if the Old Syriac was simply translated from the Greek NT?

Can you answer these questions?

James Trimm

---

James,

You are not making sense on the masorite issue. YOU claim that the masorites used the vowels from eloah when tranliterating YHWH. To come back and say there were no WRITTEN vowels is not the issue. The masorites in using their [corrupt] vowel pointing indicates that the phonetic (verbal) transliteration of YHWH uses the vowel pointing of adonai, not eloah. That has been established and your response concerning the mechanics of that vowel pointing is errant. We can take THEIR (masorites) vowel pointing of those three words and see the evidence. To say that they did something other than there is written proof for is errant......What are YOU basing your opinion on if you are not using their written vowel pointing evidence?

As for sidestepping anything, I am not the author of Herb Solinsky's critique and stands on its own. It also deals some with your apparent misapplication of quotes. etc. You have not addressed each point and there is nothing to sidestep until you do.......I have seen a habit of you constantly addressing only those issues that you seem comfortable with. You are the one who is making the claims and teaching doctines that need to be supported by the facts. Your claims have been called into question and it is your choice as to whether you want to objectively and honestly address them in their entirety.

2. There is nothing to respond to in Herb's paper. It is a list of testimonials. So we each can cite testimonials from scholars that argue opposite points of view. And in your case your citing a testimonial of Testimonials (You are citing Herb as he cites others). Lets throw all the testimonials aside and look at the first hand evidence. Now where is the error in the logic of the firsthand primary source evidence which I have presented?

Much of my evidence is at:

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001635.html

http://www.nazarene.net/hantri/FreeBook/AramaicTextualCriticism.htm

http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com

The reader can evaluate it first hand.

If the Old Syriac is a translation from Greek then what Greek text is it a translation of?

If it is a translation of the Greek Western type text then why does that type opf Greek text contain Semititic grammar that cannot be found in the other Greek text types? It is easy to demonstrate that the Greek Western type text of Codex D is a Greek translation of the Old Syriac Aramaic and not the other way around (see the material at the weblocations above for proof of this.

Also if the Old Syriac is a translation from Greek then why do its quotations from the Tanak ("Old Testament") often agree with the Hebrew of the Masoretic text AGAINST the readings of those same quotations in the Greek NT?

I do not rely on testimonials for my case (they were cited for simplicity) I build my case first hand on the manuscript evidence itself.

James Trimm

I think you may have missed my post on the first page of this thread, so I have posted a new thread dealing with the vowel points on the name YHWH in the Massoretic tradition:

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001636.html

James: Feel free to leave comments on this subject there if you wish. I would be interested in hearing an Eloah theory and how this is supperior to the standard theory.

Shmaland: James' theory is (serverly) lacking in my opinion, but not for the reason you state. The transition from a chatef-segôl to a shewa is easily explained (as I point out in the above thread and in my earlier post), the larger issues are (a) the (furtive) patach in ’elôah does not match the qâmets in YHWH and thus the vowels are not the same, (b) the qere (what is read) for Yehowâh is ’adonây (the vowel points being identical, less the shewa/chatef-segol issue), thus leaving us with the question: "Why is ’adonây read if the ’elôah vowels are used?", and (c) when the construction ’DNY YHWH is present in the text, YHWH takes the vowels of ’elohîm; thus we can infer that YHWH, when not preceded by ’DNY, is pronounced as ’adonây in the Massoretic tradition. It is for these reasons I find this opinion erronious (but James may prove me wrong--I do not know everything! Always room to learn.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Trimm:

1. Let me get this clear: You are saying that the vowels for ADONAI are the same sa the volwel the Masorites used in YeHoVaH?

2. There is nothing to respond to in Herb's paper. It is a list of testimonials. So we each can cite testimonials from scholars that argue opposite points of view. And in your case your citing a testimonial of Testimonials (You are citing Herb as he cites others). Lets throw all the testimonials aside and look at the first hand evidence. Now where is the error in the logic of the firsthand primary source evidence which I have presented?

---

James,

I am disagreeing with your teaching that the masorites used something that their writing shows otherwise. yahovah/yahowah, yehovah/yehowah use the vowel pointing borrowed from adonai.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acert93:
Shmaland and James,

I think you may have missed my post on the first page of this thread, so I have posted a new thread dealing with the vowel points on the name YHWH in the Massoretic tradition:

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/001636.html

James: Feel free to leave comments on this subject there if you wish. I would be interested in hearing an Eloah theory and how this is supperior to the standard theory.

Shmaland: James' theory is (serverly) lacking in my opinion, but not for the reason you state. The transition from a chatef-segôl to a shewa is easily explained (as I point out in the above thread and in my earlier post), the larger issues are (a) the (furtive) patach in ’elôah does not match the qâmets in YHWH and thus the vowels are not the same, (b) the qere (what is read) for Yehowâh is ’adonây (the vowel points being identical, less the shewa/chatef-segol issue), thus leaving us with the question: "Why is ’adonây read if the ’elôah vowels are used?", and (c) when the construction ’DNY YHWH is present in the text, YHWH takes the vowels of ’elohîm; thus we can infer that YHWH, when not preceded by ’DNY, is pronounced as ’adonây in the Massoretic tradition. It is for these reasons I find this opinion erronious (but James may prove me wrong--I do not know everything! Always room to learn.)

Shalom to your homes - Joshua

---

Joshua,

From waht I have seen of your position it would agree with what I have stated...that the vowel pointing of YHWH was borrowed from adonai, and not eloah. Also, I have pointed out some apparent contradicting statements by James. I have stated that the souce vowel pointing for YHWH in the masorectic text is from adonai. What do you disagree with there?

’adonây in the Hebrew Bible is a tricky subject--I am not sure I have all the answers for this question, but I will take precursory stab at the issue. ’adonây itself is possibly a form in pause, which would be explained due to its use in prayer and personal petition. As the text sits now, ’adonî (my lord) and ’adonay (my lords) are used in secular spheres while ’adonây is used only of YHWH. This distinction is, undoubtedly, partially artificial. There are many contexts where "my Lord" fits (e.g. Gen 15:2; Ex 4:10; Ps 38:15, note the parallel of ’adonây ’elohay, which would indicate the text prob. originally was read as ’adonay ’elohay).

So, on occasion, ’adonây should be read as ’adonî or ’adonay. That stated, there is a problem with applying this rule universally across the text. Taking the -ây suffix in ’adonây as a 1st person singular pronominal suffix meaning "my lord(s)" does not fit every context.

That ’adonây can stand syntactically as a name in the Hebrew Bible is not a question (e.g. Ex 15:17; just as ’elohîm can function as a name in Gen 1). That the form -ây can be/should be understood nominally and not as a pronominal suffix appears to have some support from Semitic languages and ancient translations. In Ugaritic the -ây ending can indicate an emphasis of the noun it is attached. i.e. In some circumstances the -ây is not a pronominal suffix, but is an intensifier of the noun; thus ’adonây would be understood as "The Lord" or "Lord of All" and not "my Lord(s)". By the intertestamental period ’adonây (in at least some circles) was frequently understood in this respect. e.g. The Lxx usually translates ’adonây with kurios ("lord") and does not convey the idea of the suffix.

So my answer would be yes and no. Some examples of ’adonây in the text probably should be ’adonî or ’adonay, but there is no firm evidence indicating every example falls under such an umbrella. From a textual standpoint I can see how the scribes could restrict ’adonây to references to YHWH and keep ’adonî/’adonay to the secular realm, especially since it appears ’adonây was used frequently in reference to YHWH and carried an emphatic meaning of, "Lord of All".

This is fairly precursory and I am sure there are many examples and nuances that I miss and my ideas do not explain, but I hope this is helpful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acert93:
Shalom Shmaland,

’adonây in the Hebrew Bible is a tricky subject--I am not sure I have all the answers for this question, but I will take precursory stab at the issue. ’adonây itself is possibly a form in pause, which would be explained due to its use in prayer and personal petition. As the text sits now, ’adonî (my lord) and ’adonay (my lords) are used in secular spheres while ’adonây is used only of YHWH. This distinction is, undoubtedly, partially artificial. There are many contexts where "my Lord" fits (e.g. Gen 15:2; Ex 4:10; Ps 38:15, note the parallel of ’adonây ’elohay, which would indicate the text prob. originally was read as ’adonay ’elohay).

So, on occasion, ’adonây should be read as ’adonî or ’adonay. That stated, there is a problem with applying this rule universally across the text. Taking the -ây suffix in ’adonây as a 1st person singular pronominal suffix meaning "my lord(s)" does not fit every context.

That ’adonây can stand syntactically as a name in the Hebrew Bible is not a question (e.g. Ex 15:17; just as ’elohîm can function as a name in Gen 1). That the form -ây can be/should be understood nominally and not as a pronominal suffix appears to have some support from Semitic languages and ancient translations. In Ugaritic the -ây ending can indicate an emphasis of the noun it is attached. i.e. In some circumstances the -ây is not a pronominal suffix, but is an intensifier of the noun; thus ’adonây would be understood as "The Lord" or "Lord of All" and not "my Lord(s)". By the intertestamental period ’adonây (in at least some circles) was frequently understood in this respect. e.g. The Lxx usually translates ’adonây with kurios ("lord") and does not convey the idea of the suffix.

So my answer would be yes and no. Some examples of ’adonây in the text probably should be ’adonî or ’adonay, but there is no firm evidence indicating every example falls under such an umbrella. From a textual standpoint I can see how the scribes could restrict ’adonây to references to YHWH and keep ’adonî/’adonay to the secular realm, especially since it appears ’adonây was used frequently in reference to YHWH and carried an emphatic meaning of, "Lord of All".

This is fairly precursory and I am sure there are many examples and nuances that I miss and my ideas do not explain, but I hope this is helpful.

Shalom - Joshua

---

Shalom Alechim Joshua,

I have studied through each example of adoniy (adon followed by yud) and in nearly every case, the first person singular could be used. The few exceptions are borderline. Have you examined all of the texts on this?

You had asked a question a few days ago about what I disagreed with, to do so I need to back track.

You had said: "The first vowel point in ELOAH is a compound shewa [e.g. Hateph Seghol] while the first vowel point in Yehovah is a simple shewa. Your statement may sound correct in English vowel pointing; that the vowels E-O-A come from ELOAH, but in Hebrew the "E" in "ELOAH" is not the same as the "E" in "Yehovah"

I had said, "Shmaland: James' theory is (serverly) lacking in my opinion, but not for the reason you state. "

You stated: "What do you disagree with there?"

While you disagree with James, your reason for such from your previous posts were not very clear. It appeared at the time of my post that you took issue with James' position because of the first vowel in Yehowâh. I believe this point is irrelevant and not cause for disagreement or criticism because the conflict between the shewa in Yehowâh and the chatef vowels in ’adonây and ’elôah apply equally to both theories of the gemination of the vowels. If the Yôd was isolated in Yehowâh, one could not say with any certainty if the shewa on the Yôd was from ’adonây (chatef-patach) or ’elôah (chatef-segol). We both agree the vowels came from adonây but we would both have to agree that the "e" in Yehowâh is not the same as the "a" in ’adonây either. As I noted in my other thread, there are other reasons why his theory, in my opinion, is lacking. Your posted reason in this thread was not one of them.

Therefore, I was disagreeing with your evaluation and point of contention, NOT your conclusion. I tried to make that distinction in my comment by stating I believed he was wrong, just not for the reason you had stated in your posts. I apologize if I failed at making this distinction clear. I hope that clarifies my comment

Why ’adonî over ’adonay? In this issue I believe the weight of the evidence for the 1cs pronominal suffix on plural nouns (-ay) seems to be have more favorable evidence than the 1cs suffix on singular nouns (-î); this would also harmonize ’adonay well with the grammatically plural ending of ’elohîm. The Vulgate of Ex 6:3 reads "Adonai" (doubtlessly the source of the KJV's use of Jehovah in this same passage), which indicates a pre-Massoretic reading of -ay/-ây over -î. I think when a pronominal suffix is intended in the MT, the 1cs suffix on plural nouns seems most likely.

In addition to the Vulgate information, if we consider the Lxx and Ugaritic info I posted the other day, I would say that the -ây ending (a lengthened form that is emphasizes the nouns meaning) has some ancient veracity to it. Below are some examples where reading, "my Lord(s)" would be forced, and instead reading ’adonây as a "name", and thus the ending nominally instead of pronominally, fits best:*

Exodus 15:17
A place, O Yahweh, which thou hast made for thy abode;
the sanctuary, O Adonai, which thy hands have established

Isa 3:17
Adonai will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion,
and Yahweh will lay bare their secret parts

Isa 49:14
But Zion said:
Yahweh has forsaken me,
And Adonai has forgotten me

Mic 1:2
And let Yahweh be a witness against you,
Adonai from his holy temple

Ps 30:9
To thee, O Yahweh, I cried;
and to Adonai I made supplication

Ps 35:22
Thou has seen, O Yahweh, be not silent!
O Adonai, be not far from me!

Ps 38:16
But for thee, O Yahweh, do I wait;
it is thou, O Adonai my God, who wilt answer

Ps 130:1
Out of the depths I cry out to thee, O Yahweh!
O Adonai, hear my voice!

Ps 130:3
If thou, O Yah, shouldst mark iniquiries,
Adonai, who could stand?

(*Translations from TDOT vol. 1, p. 61f.) These passages are similar to how YHWH and ’elohîm are used in parallel, e.g.:

Ps 47:5
’elohîm has ascended with a shout,
Yahweh with the sound of a shofar

Ps 58:7
O ’elohîm, break their teeth in their mouth;
tear out the fangs of the young lion, O Yahweh

Note that YHWH and ’adonây are used in varying forms of Semitic parallelism in these passages which strongly indicates that the suffix, in these passage, had a nominal function and not a pronominal one. Reading "My Lord" in these passages would be similar to reading, "My God" in Ps 47:5 or Ps 58:7 (we would just need to argue the final mem is enclitic!). But that is the point: the parallelism indicates that in these passages both are functioning syntactically as "names". Just like father/my father (the first functioning as a "name" and the second as a titke), it would seem we have ’adonây/’adonay (Lord/my Lord) in the MT.

I do not believe you are totally wrong--because you are correct that many examples may have been ’adonî/ay--but a blanket statement that most/all were originally ’adonî, I would think, goes beyond what we can conclude from the evidence. This, of course, is my opinion.