|
 Forums at EliYah's Home Page
 Scripture Discussion Forum
 Yahushua vs Yahusha (Page 2)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Yahushua vs Yahusha |
|
Bereshiyt Posts: 22 |
posted 05-03-2008 06:31 AM
  
Shalom George, From my perspective your post poses a number of difficulties. My approach is to emphasize the grammatical and philological data we have for Biblical languages and the transliterations we have in our possession, which leads me to following issues. To summarize I see the following problems with your solution: 1) The Lxx is not slavishly exact in rendering names but typically uses the contemporary form familiar to the translators. For our discussion they use Iesous for both Yeshua` and Yehoshua` because this was the common form in the era (compare Iesous son of Sirach from the 2nd century BCE). This trend was already seen in later historical books where individuals (like Joshua son of Nun) were named by the shorter version. This is similar to our use of “Josh and Joshua” and “Bob and Bobby” or even “Bob and Robert.” 2) Eta is an “e” sound as in “obey” and not “a” as in “father.” IH- in Iesous represents the Yod with tsere vowel point in Yeshua` (I am not aware of Iota-Eta being used for Hebrew Yah in other examples.) 3) Iesous is a functionally accurate transliteration of Yeshua` into Greek. 4) Vav is not a silent letter and YHW- cannot be pronounced simply as “Yah.”
quote: While the translators of the Lxx understood Hebrew and Greek I don't agree they rendered names as closely as they could from the Hebrew text to Greek. Beyond small deviations in individual names between books and transliteration challenges between the languages the Lxx typically demonstrates harmonization between names with different spellings in the Hebrew. In regards to names that appear with the longer theophoric element prefixed (YHW-) and shorter forms the Lxx regularly renders the shorter form--even when the Hebrew has the longer form. Five quick examples: Ionatan (Jonathan) Iodae (Jehoiada) Jehoiakim (Ioakim) Jehoahaz (Ioachas) Iosafat (Jehoshaphat) The Lxx regularly renders the shorter form of the theophoric names regardless of whether the Hebrew text has the longer or shorter form. This argues strongly against the suggestion the Greek translators rendered these names as “closely” as possible. Instead, the translators used the most common form familiar to them at their time. This practice is common today in Bible translations where translators will use one word to translate all the variable spellings of a name. A classic example is Hezekiah which appears four (4!) different ways in the Hebrew text: Chizqiyah If we count the Dead Sea Scrolls we could add two more spellings! In general the Lxx (like modern translations) used a single contemporary form to render names—not necessarily the most slavish and exacting rendering. This holds true of our discussion as well as the names Yehoshua` and Yeshua` which as noted before are both used of the same people in the Hebrew Bible. Both these words are rendered by regularly as Iesous regardless of it being the longer or shorter form. For example: Haggai 1:1 Ezra 3:2 Yeshua` is the short form of Yehoshua` and, if the precedent of other theophoric names is followed where the short form was used in the Lxx rendering, then the Lxx authors used Yeshua`. This appears certain as Iesous is an excellent transliteration of Yeshua` into Greek.
quote: Yah in names is typically Iota Alpha [like -ia()] in Greek. Iota Eta is equivalent to the Yod with tsere vowel point in Yeshua`. Eta is an "e" as in "obey". Iesous is as functionally correct of a transliteration one can from the Hebrew Yeshua` into Greek when the limitations of the Greek alphabet (no "sh" sound) and case endings are taking into consideration. (A small note: these short comings are no different than (a) native English speakers failing to reproduce the `Ayin at the end of Yeshua` and (b) the use of possessive forms like, "Yeshua's Father" and so forth). The first two letters in Iesous (Iota Eta) are rendering the first syllable of Yeshua` (Yod w/ tsere which sounds like "yay"). It does not sound like "Yah" (Iota Alpha) and is not a rendering of the longer form.
quote: The Lxx is rendering the shorter form Yeshua`. Yeshua` lacks the initial He’ and Vav in the name Yehoshua`.
quote: The Vav in YHW- names are vocalized in Hebrew. Hebrew has no "silent" letters--even 'Aleph and `Ayin are articulated. They only "appear" silent to many westerners because many of these languages are deficient of gutturals to represent them. Further, the Vav in YHW- forms is "o" in Massoretic Hebrew and frequently "u" in cuneiforms (which probably represents the pronunciation pre-exile; note it is “u” when the theophoric form appears at the end of names). There is no indication it was ever silent. And on a morphological level, within the confines of the Hebrew language, there is no precedent for Vav to be silent. Typically, when letters became "silent" through historical processes they were completely dropped from the spelling (e.g.Yehonatan-to-Yonatan). I would suggest, again, that the proliferation of forms is typically related to the reconstruction of Greek and Hebrew to support a form rather than the support of a form derived from the grammar and witnesses. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Bereshiyt (edited 05-03-2008).] [This message has been edited by Bereshiyt (edited 05-03-2008).] |
|
Missy Posts: 2643 |
posted 05-03-2008 07:13 AM
Bereshyit, Thank you for your additions to this thread... they have helped me out a lot. I am not very learned in the Hebrew language so I do try to give respect to those that have a better handle on the language,speak it fluently, or have some degree in Hebraic studies. I was wondering about YHWH. I pretty much always type YHWH and when I actually say it.. that is how I visualize it in my mind without the vowels because I just truly am not so sure what vowels go in there. I was just wondering do you think Yahweh is the proper spelling in English ? Or maybe Yehowah or Yehovah ? My Karaite friends say Yehovah.. and I had read this article stated to have been penned by Nehemia Gordon and would like to know your take on what it says:
quote: Here's the whole thing if you want to read it: And please do not think I am trying to contradict anything you presented. I do not speak Hebrew (I know a few words here and there) and so when I haven't studied an area fully I don't try to tell people that obviously know more than me (such as yourself) what's what. I simply ask them for some clearer understanding. And that is what I am doing with you. I pray that my post is respectful to you because I mean it with the most respect for you and your knowledge. Shalom to you, |
|
chuckbaldwin Posts: 2753 |
posted 05-04-2008 12:36 AM
quote:Hello Bereshiyt, What is "morphology"? I agree that "Yahuah" is a vowel cluster, as did Josephus, when he wrote that the Name consisted of 4 vowels. My previous post simply showed some ways those 4 vowels (yod-hey-waw-hey) might be transliterated and pronounced. Since the "Hebrew" language didn't exist before creation, i doubt that the Almighty's Name must conform to Hebrew grammar. You lost me when you mentioned "III-He' verbs", since i don't know what they are. However, since proper names are nouns, i'm not sure why it would be relevent. quote:1st question: I don't spell it, the Hebrew text does: "YOD-HEY-WAW-HEY". 2nd question: I don't know what you're talking about. ------------- [This message has been edited by chuckbaldwin (edited 05-04-2008).] |
|
Bereshiyt Posts: 22 |
posted 05-17-2008 09:54 AM
Shalom Missy,
quote: Yahweh of all the suggested forms has by far the most grammatical and historical support. The preformative Yod on the root (HWH) indicates the word ends with -eh which is what the various ancient witnesses (Grk. iaoue, iaôoueê, iabe; Lat. iaue) report which is also agreeable to some Samaritan poetry which rhymes YHWH with words ending with -eh. Most scholars agree that the Vav in YHWH was w in the Biblical period which is further supported by the reduction of the dithphong aw to o. The a in ya- snaps right into the Hebrew paradigm for Hifil imperfect III-He' verbs in the 3ms (3ms being the form that attracts the Yod preformative); yet it is worth noting that comparative linguistics indicate in the 2nd millenium that the Qal was a-class as well (and later shifted to i as in yihweh). The verb Chawah (Chet-Vav-He') offers strong analogy to Yahweh/Yahu which is insightful due to the similarity in the verb constructions (both are III-He', both have Vav as a second radical, both have a guttural for the first radical). Chawah appears in a unique stem called the Hishtafel (Causative Reflexive; conceptually a cross between the Hifil and Hithpael). What is interesting of this verb is the jussive form. Note the construction in the Imperfect 3ms (* axillary helping chatef not indicated): Hishtafel: yishtachweh* On the basis of analogy we can see that the very well attested form yahu further supports Yahweh through analogy; that is yishta-chweh is to yishta-chu as ya-hweh is to ya-hu. This avoids the difficulty of "shortening" a divine name (which is very out of place in the ANE) and explains it on linguistic grounds (Yahu simply being the proper jussive of Yahweh). Thus yishta-chweh is to yishta-chu; as The preformative forms are of course different, but the point being that there is analogy within the language that would strongly suggest that yahu is a jussive form of Yahweh. If Yahu can be explained as the jussive of YHWH, then Yahweh is almost surely the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. These are some of the reasons that Yahweh is popular among scholars as the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (or a close approximation) during the "Biblical Period." The convergence of historical and grammatical points support this position. Most of the other forms sacred namers invent not only lack any historical support, but they also lack any "sense" within a framework of the language. It isn't just about creating a competiting paradigm of how a few letters may have been pronounced, but how the language would function as a language.
quote: I unfortunately don't have time to document every point below (it has taken weeks just to find the time to respond to your question) but I believe you will find my comments reliable if you compared them to the academic grammars, lexicons and word books, and academic treatsies on the evolution of the Hebrew language. The Lenningrad Codex displays a bit of variability in regards to the vowel pointings of the Tetragrammaton. Sometimes it is Yehowah and other times Yehwah as Gordon notes. But it is more complicated as when the Tetragrammaton is preceded by Adonai the Tetragrammaton is pointed as Yehowih (Judg. 16:28), Y'howih (1Ki. 2:26), Y'hwih (Deu. 9:6), or Yehwih (Gen. 15:6) and tradition dictates that Elohim is read. In all there are over a dozen variable spellings of YHWH in the Lenningrad Codex. To complicate this issue is the Aleppo Codex and Massoretic tradition in general vary from each other. So which text is "right"? Returning to Yehowah and Yehwah, the traditional understanding is that these indicate that the reader should read Adonai which has the same vowel points (the difference in the initial vowels, chateph seghol and simple shewa, is presumably due to the fact the 'aleph in Adonai cannot take a simple shewa whereas the Yod in the Tetragrammaton has no such issues). The occassional ommission of the cholem may be inconsequential due to the frequency of this qere perpetuum. Another option, which I think has some merit, is that the Lenningrad Codex represents a mixed tradition in regards to the qere perpetuum. It is well documented that while initially Adonai and Elohim were used as circumlocutions for YHWH, that over time even these became to "holy" for common use as well. One of the more common surragates is Hashem. Interestingly the Aramaic form (Shema') of Hashem aligns well with the shorter vowel point tradition of the Tetragrammaton. Regardless of the origins of these points Gordon's solution fails because it only addresses two of the dozen or so variable spellings. The Y'howih (and derivative forms) that are read as Elohim establish a link between the vowels and the surragate pronunciations. This indicates that Y'howah, which is read as Adonay, has a similar origin and function. There is no more reason to believe Yehowah is more "correct" of a pronunciation than Yehowih or the other various forms in the Massoretic tradition. The variable spelling issue aside, Gordon also fails to address the grammatical generation of the word which is a significant issue because the Yod preformative. And while he points to Yeho- prefixed in theophoric names this point is not very strong. First, it appears that Yahu- was original prefixed in the earlist Biblical Period and that through various linguistic and dialectical developments there was a later shift. Second, while Gordon is correct the a construction like Yahu would undergo vowel shift if a sufformative or suffix was added in Classical Hebrew, the question is when did this practice develop. So while a form like davar shifts to d'varim (note the qamets to shwa reduction in the propretonic syllable) the question is when did this practice begin occuring in Hebrew. The vaious prefixed yahu- transliterations indicate this may have not been in effect in the earliest Biblical period. Frequently, understanding the "proto" form of the vowel structure easily explains all the various permutations in the vowels that beginning students struggle with (and hints strongly that these vowels were, at one time, used). Third, this suggestion doesn't resolve forms like Yehowih. Not only is the final vowel chiriq, but the first vowel a chatef-shewa (e.g. Judg. 16:28) instead of the typical simple shewa. Gordon's poroposal generates more questions than answers. What does Y'howah mean grammatically? Why is it -ah and not -eh as Hebrew grammar would indicate? Why is to sometimes Yehowih instead of Y'howih? And so forth. Of course Gordon will be sympathetic to the Leningrad codex due to the Karaite position that it is a Karaite product (which most scholars I have read contest). The presence of the qere poses historical issues for Karaites as it indicates the observance of Jewish oral tradition which the Kariates reject. This is one reason why Gordon takes an alternate position.
quote: I didn't take it as such. Questions are always fair, although the dismissal of Hebrew grammar by some who don't know the language and refuse to engage specific points to challenge the consensus I find annoying because, effectively, they are demanding you recreate a Hebrew grammar in a post! Further, many of these "competiting" ideas have never developed to actually work with the Biblical text. Ok, strip all the vowel points (which the Biblical text can be read without the written points... millions of Israelis read Hebrew daily this way, Arabs can do the same with Arabic, and many other ancient Semitic languages like Ugaritic, Aramaic, Phoenician, etc function just fine without written vowels as they are mostly very easily understood due to the inflectional pattern and syntax of the languages) but please tell, how do all the various forms relate? Hebrew is a beautiful language as it is very normal, structural, and functional. Beyond introductory grammar it is quite interesting how the language works "under the hood." G. Landes Hebrew Vocabular builder has a good introduction to Hebrew word formation which explains a lot of this at a basic level. For example a verb like qum "to sand" with a prefixed mem forms the word meqom which means "place." It bears out that frequently in Biblical Hebrew the prefixed mem is indicative of a noun formation of a root. Some other quick examples: ma'or / luminary (mem + 'wr / to shine) A word like Messiah (Heb. Mashiach / annointed, from the root mashach "to annoint, to smear") forms another class of formations (like tsadiq, navi', tamid, etc) where a yod is infixed before the third radical and the word takes on an adjectival noun function. Of course if mashach has a sufformative he' it bears the sense of "annointing." And then there are other patterns like the Qotel, Qatul, etc. and diminutives with the -an and -on endings which carry all sorts of nuances. Much of this is beyond 1st year grammar (Landes survey is a very conside abridgement of the same topics covered in the massive Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Waltke and O'Connar) yet even a casual reading of this material demonstrates why written vowels weren't of primary concern in a culture where the language continued to be spoken: the inflection and patterns in the language are, once learned and mastered, easy to grasp and apply. A form often has a couple possible readings and typically syntax will narrow that down to only a single option. Form and function are very strong indicators of how a word is pronounced in Hebrew. But this is the meat; a student must first master the elementary elements of the language before they can begin digesting the functional morphology of the language. There are a lot of good grammars on the market these days (Practico's, Ross's, and Fuller's grammars all have video lectures available) and there are even excellent grammars online for free (like Putnam's). I must confess that discussing a language with people who haven't studies the language is difficult for a number of reasons. It is difficult because some terms have "familiar" as well as "technical" usages based on context. Further, it is common for people to transport concepts and ideas about the language they are familiar with an expect (or even demand) the other language function with these expectations in view. For Hebrew much of this can be resolve through spending as little as one year working through a primary grammar. You won't be a Hebrew expert but you will have a grasp of how the language functions and will find yourself being able to work more honestly with the Biblical text and avoid many of the word study pitfalls students find themselves in when they are unable to identify, and appreciate, the distinctive properties of a word in its various inflections and forms. Ironically, one of the reasons I registered for the forums was to post some resources to Renae (?) because of your comments to her that the divinity of Yeshua was unscriptural and pagan. That is another topic for another thread but I wanted to offer her some references, both academic and Messianic, which contradict the position that it is unscriptural as well as being a pagan thought. I don't have the time to invest in that dialogue but I did want to direct her toward well documented and peer reviewed literature that would give her the other side of the discussion. Don't get to excited ab out my posts yet! ------------------ |
|
dabar_olam Posts: 156 |
posted 05-17-2008 11:21 AM
Didn't read all the responses, so if someone has already asked this question, I apologize for the repitition. How would it be TRANSLITERATED into Greek? The reason why I ask is because the Jewish translators of the LXX knew The Hebrew consists of six letters: YHWSWA The LXX consistantly uses 5 letters, IHSOU, with various grammatical IH-SOU-() Note, however, that only one "waw" is articulated in the transliteration. IH-SOU() As the proper atriculation of a Hebrew name. Where is the Greek transliteration for the first 'waw', which 'YahUshua' To accurately TRANSLITERATE 'Yah-u-shu-a into Greek, it would have to be: IH-OU-SOU-() Which is NEVER found in the LXX...or the Greek scriptures we call the The presumption that Hebrew speaking Jews of several thousand years ago Agape in YahwehShua, For more details see: |
|
Bereshiyt Posts: 22 |
posted 05-17-2008 11:32 AM
Shalom Chuck,
quote: Merriam-Webster explain the basic idea well:
quote: You are familiar with morphology in English, at least in terms of application. You can naturally transition a word, for example run: run, runs, ran, runner, runners, running, rerun, etc. Speak, speaks, spoke, speaking, spoken, speaker, speakers, etc. Internal vowel inflection, afixes (pre-/suff- and even infixes) and the like are all examples of tasks you passively do all the time as you write, speak, and even think. Some other examples of word formation in English. (1) Present Tense; (2) Present Tense 3rd person; (3) Past Tense; (4) Present Participle; (5) Past Participle. (1) walk * keep * break * sing * throw * go Note some of the irrelgulars. In Present Tense 3rd person forms go is goes instead of "gos." In the Past Tense on walk is normal (walked) but all the other examples are irregular. Keep is kept (not keeped), broke is broke (not breaked), sing is sang (not singed), throw is threw (not throwed), and go is went (not goed). In the Past Participle keepo is kept (not keeped), break is broken (not breaked and dissimilar to the Past Tense broke), sing is sung (not singed), throw is thrown (not throwed and dissimilar to the Past Tense threw), and go is gone (not goed and dissimilar to the Past tense went). These, in a nutshell, are examples of morphology in English. In our case we are looking at some regular and irregular inflections in English. Some other good examples are Adjectives: short * shorter * shortest (base; + er; + est) And some plurals: friend * friends English, due to its history, is one of the most complicated languages that has ever existed. The exceptions are frequent and common, yet native speakers are able to master the complexity of word changes through immersion. If I asked you to give me some forms of "drive" you could do it without much thought--even if you are not familiar with their technical "part of speach" and even if you lack any training in morphology. It is natural to the speaker of the language and forms are simply understood (even if you never attended school). Which brings us back to Shlohomh's point. Shlomoh's point, put another way, is that the word you are suggesting does not fall within the boundaries of Hebrew word formation. The vowels you suggest bear no meaning a Hebrew speaker would understand. The construction violates the natural expression of the language (including irregular formations). The word ee-ah-oo-ah would not have communicated a meaning to the Hebrew and wouldn't have sounded Semitic, let alone Hebrew, to them. The written letters Yod-He'-Vav-He' would communicate, in Hebrew, the root Heh'-Vav-He' as a Hifil or Qal Imperfect 3ms verb (or possibly a substantive form) but these would be pronounced as Yahweh.
quote: Putting aside if Josephus ment vowels or semi-vowels for phoneenta tessara I would suggest these points. First is that we should be careful transporting modern linguistics into ancient terms (as modern grammar originated in the middle centuries). For example, are semi-vowels consonants or vowels? What is a Semi-vowel? "Semivowels are vowel-like consonants: that is, the air-flow is not stopped or impeded so as to cause a friction-sound, but the aperture through which the air passes is smaller than the aperture of any vowel. Also, in forming words, semivowels appear in positions where consonants normally appear. Present-Day English has two semivowels." The two you are familiar with in English are Y and W. Vowel-like sounds but functionally consonants. Hebrew has a number of such, namely Yod, Vav, and He'. Second is that Yod, He', and Vav were all used as vowels during the time of Josephus. Not only were they soft consonants, they were sometimes used as helper vowels (Matres Lectionis) in words. Not EVERY occurance of such was a vowel, but some where. Third is that the letters used in Greek and Latin to transcribe the Tetragrammaton were always, you guessed it, vowels. Yod and Vav were not consonants either language readily had available to these languages so they used the closes letters, which were frequently vowels (although note the Samaritan form used a Beta for Vav). So put ourselves in Josephus's shoes for a moment. He was communicating a description of the Tetragrammaton written on the miter of the High Priest. He was communicating the letters, which the Romans and Greek speakers in general would have associated with vowels due to the forms available in those languages, and sought to describe them. The closest letters Greek has to a Yod, Vav, or He' are vowels and when Hebrew words were transcribed into Greek or Latin these letters (Yod, Vav, and He') were often transcribed with vowels. It didn't hurt that these letters were semi-vowels in quality (functionally consonants with vowel like sounds) and could even be used as vowels at times. But suggesting that the letters were vowels in a proper grammatical sense doesn't address the context of what was being communicated. 'ehyeh (Targum 'ahyah) is aia in Greek--but it isn't 4 vowels in Hebrew. Is every word that is transcribed as vowels in Greek mean the Hebrew was vowels then?!
quote: Ahhh... so (1) the name didn't communicate anything to Israel at all and (2) you can dismiss Hebrew (and historical examples?) and just create your own form. Gotcha!
quote: A III-He' verb is (it is a root where the third radical is a He'). These are some of the most common irregular verbs in the Hebrew Bible. As for proper names ... the reason this is relevant is because many names in the Hebrew Bible are verbs functioning as nouns. Specifically, a number of ancient names in the Hebrew Bible are verbs. I will use the examples of Jacob, Isaac, and Ishmael: Eng.: Jacob `aqab (`Ayin-Qof-Bet) is a I-Guttural verb. This means the first radical (`Ayin) is a guttural. A typical paradigm verb for a I-Guttural is `amad (`Ayin-Mem-Dalet; "to stand") which in the Qal Imperfect 3ms is ya`amod "he will stand." Hence: ya`amod is to `amad, as is Ya`aqov is the Qal Imperfect 3ms of `Ayin-Qof-Bet (the root attributed to the meaning of the name in Gen. 25:26). Eng.: Isaac tsachaq (Tsade-Chet-Qof) is a II-Guttural verb. This means the second radical (Chet) is a guttural. A typical paradigm verb for II-Guttural verbs is bachar (Bet-Chet-Resh; "to choose") which in the Qal Imperfect 3ms is yivchar "he will choose." Hence: yivchar is to bachar, as is Yitschaq is the Qal Imperfect 3ms of Tsade-Chet-Qof (the root associated with his name Gen. 17, 18). Eng.: Ishmael shama` (Shin-Mem-`Ayin) is a III-Guttural. This means the third radical (`Ayin) is a guttural. A typical paradigm verb for III-Guttural verbs is shalach (Shin-Lamed-Chet; "to send") which in the Qal Imperfect 3ms is yishlach "he will send." Hence: yishlach is to shalach, as is Yishma`el is the Qal Imperfect 3ms of Shin-Mem-`Ayin (the root associated with his name Gen. 16:11) with the theophoric form 'el suffixed. As can be seen it was common in the period to construct a noun from a verb. A pattern frequently seen in the patriarchal period (both inside the Torah and outside) are imperfect verb, i.e. preformative Yod to a root with the meaning, "he will..." It is important to note that this is not a blatant affixing of the prefix, but follows along the established rules of inflection of Hebrew verbs, i.e. the Yod is a formative letter of the word and not a simple prefix. A different inflection (or substantive) would inflect differently. i.e. This is more than merely tossing a Yod on the front of the verb! While odd, even disturbing to English speakers, many names and nouns in Hebrew are verbs or verbal forms that only "function" as nouns or names. Wordplay is a very important part of the Hebrew Bible (and is not always etymological) and really should be addressed before broaching more difficult topics, like the Tetragrammaton. By the way, it can be noted that the three names above are fallow a pattern of preformative Yod on a root. I chose these specific forms because they relate back to the Tetragrammaton as it follows the same pattern. It is beyond coincidence that the oldest names in the Hebrew Bible (those in Genesis) demonstrate a pattern also found in the name of their God. YHWH hayah is unique in that it is a III-He' verb and also has a I-Guttural and thus inflect irregularly; thankfully hayah is a very common verb and has a robust paradigm. The Imperfect 3ms paradigm produces two forms of interest that reproduce the YHWH structure: Qal: YHWH (yihyeh / yihweh, "he will be/come to pass") Comparative linguistics from 2nd millenium Semitic languages indicates that the Qal had yet to shift from "a" yo "i" so in the period of Moses and before the Qal Imperfect 3ms of HWH would likely have been, "yahweh" as well.
quote: ee-ah-oo-ah in Hebrew wouldn't be spelled like that. 'Alef-Yod (dagesh?)-He'-'Alef-Vav-'Alef-He' would be more likely for that sound. You may deny that the Tetragrammaton has any relationship to the Hebrew language--but you cannot deny that the letters in the language have certain limitations and function. IF ee-ah-oo-ah is how it was pronounced, the letter formation YHWH would not have accurately conveyed this sound in Hebrew during any period we are aware of. ------------------ |
|
Missy Posts: 2643 |
posted 05-17-2008 01:45 PM
quote: Bereshiyt, Anyway.. um.. I was just wondering could you point me to a link where I said that the divinity of Yeshua was unScriptural and pagan ? Not to suggest I didn't post that.. in all likelihood I did.. I just was wondering where it was so I could read for myself in what context I was talking about in that discussion and so I could read what sources you offered to see what perspective you are coming from on this issue of Yeshua being "divine". Normallly, I wouldn't ask you to post the link.. I would just look it up. But EliYah's search engine seems to be having some issues. I do want to say for the record is that my husband and I for a few years had been doing serious study on the pre-existence of Yeshua...and that is what has held me back from believing in this idea of Yeshua being divine because I not seen proof of it in Scripture so I didn't see the point saying he was divine with no proof. Our study on the issue has now been concluded on that matter. And frankly, while I do now actually believe he definitely pre-existed, I still don't believe he's divine so to speak. I believe he pre-existed as a supernatural being rather than the human that we know today as Yeshua. When he was on earth that former glory was removed from him so that he could be FULLY human, and then once the first half of his work was completed and he ascended back to the Father he then became the same supernatural being he was in the beginning. But that still in my mind doesn't make him a diety or divine. It makes him supernatural to me. I don't use the term diety or divine to address anyone besides YHWH but I realize that when SOME people say Yeshua is divine, they don't neccessarily mean that he is a "god" or that he is YHWH, but just use the term "divine" to denote that Yeshua pre-existed in some supernatural form. And I don't have a problem with that although I don't like the term "divine" to address anyone but YHWH. I simply don't use "divine" and "diety" for anyone beside YHWH himself since Yeshua said that YHWH is the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM and YHWH said himself beside him there is no other. It's a respect thing for me. But I still believe the idea of the trinity is pagan in origin and the idea of 2 gods equal to eachother is pagan in origin as well because that can easily be proven. But I would be very interested in how you see this particular issue of Yeshua being divine to see specifically what you mean when you say it. I mean do you believe in the trinity ? Do you believe in 2 El's ? Do you simply mean Yeshua pre-existed ? or what ? So can you direct me to the link you mean so I can read your stance on this issue ? Oh and BTW, I noticed you said for me not to get excited about your posts yet. LOL! But just for record sake.. me appreciating the fact that you know some more Hebrew grammar than I do.. doesn't excite me. I simply appreciated your perspective and expressed it as such. I always judge post by post though, so my interest in one post certainly would not excite me about anything else that an individual has posted in the past or will post in the future.. I am not easily impressed or easily excitable. M
[This message has been edited by Missy (edited 05-17-2008).] |
|
Bereshiyt Posts: 22 |
posted 05-17-2008 01:58 PM
George,
quote: I responded to you in full on the top of the 2nd page.
quote: How would YOU transliterate Yeshua`? (The 2nd word in Ezra 3:2). In Greek the Hebrew Yah is typically Ia (Iota Alpha). This is seen when Yah is alone as well as at the end of names or words (e.g. Halleluyah in Rev. 19:1 is allelouia; 1Chr. 3:2 adonia for the Heb. 'adoniyyah "Adonijah"). Eta, which is in the name Iesous (IHSOUS), is a long e as in "obey". Yehu' (Jehu) is another name with a tsere in Hebrew and it is spelled ieou in Greek (e.g. 1Chr. 2:38). What evidence do you have Eta is an "a"? So two questions: (1) How would you transliterate Yeshua` into Greek and (2) on what grounds are you basing your stance that Eta is "a." And two observation: (1) Yah is transliterated frequently as Iota-Alpha in Greek, not Iota-Eta; (2) the other name that begins with Iota-Eta in the Lxx is Jehu, which in the Hebrew begins with a Yod w/ tsere (ye-). And one request: transliterate Yeshua` into Greek. ------------------ |
|
Bereshiyt Posts: 22 |
posted 05-17-2008 02:23 PM
Shalom Missy, http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/004254.html
quote: As for searching, this was easy to find. Go to google and type: site:eliyah.com Missy pagan unscriptural This search will limit itself to Eliyah.com and look for all 3 words. As for links and books I have, unfortunately, as of yet not had the time to type up a post for Renae on this topic. Hopefully I can do that next weekend. My point isn't to argue the topic, but to provide her with some reading material, if she wishes to read it, that offers a Biblical and/or historical case for the divinity. Gordon Fee (Pauline Christology) does an excellent job of analysing Paul's position, Larry Hurtado's "Lord Jesus Christ" is a solid "standard" Christology which does a lot of background snooping in the 2nd temple context (his volume "One God, One Lord" is aimed at the academic and demonstrates how the early Christian position is unique, but also at home, in 2nd Temple Literatures' understanding of the Hebrew Bible), among others. Tim Hegg has two volumes, "Messiah in the Tanach" as well as a volume on New Testament Christology if Renae is more interested in quality scholarship from a Torah observant individual. There are a number of other volumes by Kaiser, Harris, Segal, Thompson, von Gronig, etc that cover specific areas that may be of interest to her in resolving this topic. All these are deeply researched, peer reviewed, and oriented toward understanding the text and not necessarily defending an orthodox position. e.g. Fee has an entire section of his book dedicated to the subordination of the Son to the Father. Hopefully I can post complete links and a descriptions for her shortly. I wish I could offer her some of my own research for a small area of the topic but my formal research isn't completed or reviewed. Obviously the issue is for her to resolve for herself, as well for others, but there is another side from "xitians" which argues that, "the Logos was with God, and the Logos was all that God was" is not influenced by paganism but is instead rooted firmly in the Hebrew Bible. But that is a discussion for another thread! ------------------ |
|
Yahwehwitnesses Posts: 2247 |
posted 05-17-2008 02:39 PM
Shalom, The word divine has many meanings and uses. I guess it can be confusining if not defined properly. Check it out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/divine |
|
Missy Posts: 2643 |
posted 05-17-2008 03:21 PM
quote:
quote: That is precisely what I was conveying in the previous response to you in this thread because "divinity" means different things to different people. Anyway.. I thought you had posted some sort of response in that thread that was different than my own perspective, but you didn't. So I am kind of not sure why you felt the need to bring it up here at the end of your response to me. You kind of leave me confused on that front...especially when you said you didn't bring it up to argue the point. I mean I thought you brought it up cause maybe you had some different ideas you had posted from Scripture but you didn't and haven't.. so I still don't get why you brought it up at all...but oh well guess it's not that important. Guess it's my own fault for always being so interested in certain topics.. LOL! I am always interested in reading different perspectives on the "divinity" of Yeshua and what people mean by it. So when I thought you had offered one..of course I wanted to read it. Anyway, I won't bother you with the topic anymore in this thread. And thank you very much for all your responses. Take care, ------------------ |
|
Missy Posts: 2643 |
posted 05-17-2008 03:24 PM
quote: Yeah Bro. Yohanan, That is PRECISELY the point I was making.. it depends on what definition someone is going by when they say "divine". Because I have friends that believe exactly as I do about Yeshua but they call it his "divinity" and I don't.. so go figure. Guess it's all a semantics issue. Shalom, ------------------ |
|
chuckbaldwin Posts: 2753 |
posted 05-18-2008 01:22 AM
Greetings Bereshiyt, Thanks much for your explanation of "morphology" and "semi-vowels", which i understood; and for the rest as well, even though some of it was way out of my realm of understanding, with several unfamiliar terms. I think i understood the main points though, and just have a couple clarifying comments. quote: quote:The 2 portions quoted above appear to have 2 things in common: 1. You seemed to suggest that "YAH'-WEH" is a reasonably likely pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (unless i totally misunderstood). I think you must have misunderstood the actual pronunciation that i was giving for "ee-AH-oo-AH". I wrote it that way to illustrate the "4 vowels" in the form of an English phonetic transliteration, NOT as a suggestion of how it would be spelled in Hebrew. I already know the Hebrew spelling, as shown in my quote above. And at normal speed, it would be pronounced "YAH'-WAH", only a hair's-breadth difference from "YAH'-WEH" (which would phonetically be "ee-AH-oo-EH"), the difference being in the 4th "vowel" (Hey); and with the diminutive "ee" & "oo" being the SEMI-VOWELS "Y" & "W", just like you mentioned. So my representation (with "EH" instead of "AH" on the end) would agree with your understanding, and also be consistent with the "4 vowel" statement of Josephus. I currently use "YAHWEH" most of the time, but also sometimes use "YAHWAH", based on the "rule" that each letter should have 1 and only 1 sound, so the 2 Hey's would both have the "ah" sound. I realize that probably ISN'T an actual rule, but it SHOULD be. quote:This could get into a philosophical discussion about where the "original" language came from, but i've already addressed that on another thread. I suppose i must modify or clarify that statement. Perhaps the Almighty with His foreknowledge of the Hebrew language, did in fact choose a Name that would have meaning in that language. Although i still wouldn't want to "put Him in a box" and say that He HAD to conform to their grammatical rules. He could have "morphed" it just enough to not conform and still have meaning. That's my speculation. ------------------ |
|
dabar_olam Posts: 156 |
posted 05-19-2008 07:30 AM
Greetings Bereshiyt, Just wanted to thank you for your response, and the others for their contributions as well. It's a lot of information to investigate, and to pray about, but an important one, so it will take a while. When my work week drops from the current 63+ hours I'm sure I'll make more headway. Blessings to each of you always and for ever, George |
But I don't mind giving credit when and where I think it's due.
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EliYah's Home Page
Please read the disclaimer. If you see any violations of forum guidelines, please contact the moderator.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e