The vowel pointing of the name YHWH is being discussed in an unrelated thread (the HRV thread), so I thought I would start a new thread dealing with this issue. This thread may be confusing to those unfamiliar with the Hebrew alphabet, Hebrew grammar, and/or do not have a Hebrew Bible at hand to check examples I reference--to this I apologize (I only created graphics for the most vital examples).

In regards to the pointing of the Tetragrammaton, the Massoretic scribes developed a system of vowel points that worked in conjunction with their oral reading practices. In the Synagogue the name YHWH is usually read as ’DNY ’adonây (this is a very old tradition which began sometime between the 3rd century BCE and the 2nd century CE). When the vowel points were added to the Hebrew text by the Massoretic scribes between the 7th and 9th century CE (the Tiberian tradition coming to full fruition by the 10th century CE) they adopted the practice of writing (ketiv) the name YHWH with the vowels of what was read (qere), namely ’DNY ’adonây. Thus when the reader saw Yehowâh (YHWH with the adonây vowel points), they would read ’adonây. This practice is standard throughout the Massoretic text, and is therefore called a Qere Perpetuum.

Side note on Qere Perpetuum: Jerusalem (Heb. Yerûshâlâim) is likewise an example of a Qere Perpetuum in the Massoretic text. Though technically written (ketiv) Yerûshâlâmi (the chîreq being pointed either under the final mêm or between the lâmed and final mêm), it is read (qere) as Yerûshâlâ(y)im. There are a handful of occurrences where Yerûshâlâyim does in fact occur (e.g. 1Ch 3:5; 2Ch 25:1; Est 2:6; Jer 26:18). The DSS usually have YRWŠLYM, though most other ancient witnesses indicate YRWŠLM yerûshâlêm. While not for certain, the dual ending in the DSS and Massoretic text might be indicative of the dual wall structure around Jerusalem.

When examining the vowel points of YHWH in the Massoretic tradition one will note one major deviance between the vowels of ’DNY ’adonây and those given to YHWH, namely that the Yôd in YHWH is pointed with a shewa and not a chatef-patach (which looks like a shewa and patach side by side). The reason for this variance is simple: In Hebrew grammar, Yôd at the beginning of a word rarely takes a compound shewa (aka ultra short vowels, e.g. chatef-patach, chatef-segol, and chatef-qamets), in such situations Yôd is usually pointed with a shewa.

This system works flawlessly with one minor hitch: when the text is written as ’DNY YHWH (variations of this construction occur about 300x in the text), the reader would be forced to read the awkward phrase, "’adonây ’adonây". To prevent such, the reader would instead read, "’adonây ’elohîm". The pointing of the name YHWH in these circumstances thus reflects vowels of the Qere (what is read, in this case ’elohîm).

Note that, just as when YHWH is pointed with the ’DNY ’adonây vowels, the Yôd in YHWH is pointed with a simple shewa following the standard grammatical reluctance of Yôd in the first position of a word taking a compound shewa (chatef-segol, chatef-patach, and chatef-qamets). There are a handful of exceptions where the Yôd in YHWH, when preceded by ’DNY, does take a compound shewa (Gen 15:2,8; Jud 16:28. This rarity is probably related to the fact that the books that contain the compound shewa rarely have the phrase ’DNY YHWH thus the pointing is a firm reminder of the qere; whereas the prophets frequently use this phrase and no reminder is necessary and therefore conform more closely to the grammatical rule mentioned above).

Further proof that YHWH in these cases has the vowels of ’LHYM ’elohîm can be found in Ps 68:21 (Eng. 20), where we find the phrase WLYHWH ’DNY. To prevent the awkward "’adonây ’adonây" YHWH takes the ’LHYM vowel points and is written (ketiv) as welêyhwih ’adonây and read (qere) welêlohîm ’adonây. The tsere pointing of lamed in both forms comes from the tendency of the ’âlef in ’LHYM ’elohîm to quiescent when prefixed with an inseparable preposition (e.g. lamed, bet, waw, and kaf, the exception being mem for min). Thus *le’elohîm becomes lêlohîm (e.g. Gen 17:7). The analogy of the vowels and the qere (what is read) clearly demonstrates the origins of the vowels in this situation.

Kittle (BH3) and BHS (the standard scholarly Hebrew Bibles), following the Leningrad Codex, preserve a mixed tradition when dealing with the Tetragrammaton when it is not preceded by ’DNY ’adonây. In most cases it appears YHWH is pointed with the vowels of the Aramaic word ŠM’ shemâ’ which means, "The name" (not to be confused with the Heb. word ŠM‘ shema‘ in Deu 6:4 meaning, "You hear" qal imperative masc. sing. of the lexical root Shîn-Mêm-‘Ayin). This follows the common practice of saying HaShem (Heb. for "the name") when the Tetragrammaton is read in a text. There are exceptions where the Tetragrammaton also has a chôlem, in such cases the pointing is following the vowels of ’DNY ’adonây and not ŠM’ shemâ’ (e.g. compare Gen 2:4 without chôlem and Gen 9:26 with chôlem). This inconsistency can be explained by (a) the influence of other Massoretic texts and (b) the fact more than one scribe worked on the text over a long period of time.

The above appears to be the scholarly consensus, although there are other solutions for dealing with this phenomena, namely that the vowel pointing of YHWH in the Leningrad Codex is not related to the Arm. ŠM’ shemâ’ but is instead a shortened version of the vowels for ’DNY ’adonây, the chôlem simply being omitted. A strong parallel supporting this stance is the pointing of YHWH when it is preceded by ’DNY ’adonây; in such circumstances YHWH takes the ’LHYM ’elohîm vowel points instead. When YHWH is pointed with the ’LHYM ’elohîm vowel points the chôlem is frequently omitted (compare 1Ki 2:26 with chôlem and 1Ki 8:53 without).

In conclusion, when examining the spelling of the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Bible there are over a dozen spelling variances in the Leningrad Codex alone, and when this tradition is compared with other textual traditions there are yet even more. A general summary would be as follows: the ketiv (what is written) tradition is that (a) in the Massoretic tradition YHWH is pointed with the vowels for ’DNY ’adonây except when it is preceded by ’DNY, in which situations YHWH is pointed with the vowels of ’LHYM ’elohîm; (b) in the Leningrad Codex YHWH is usually pointed with the vowels for the Arm. shemâ’ ("the name"), less when the name is preceded by ’DNY, in such cases the Tetragrammaton is pointed with the vowels for ’LHYM ’elohîm. The Qere (what is read) tradition is that when YHWH is pointed with the vowels of ’DNY ’adonây or shemâ’ "’adonây" is read, when YHWH is pointed with the ’LHYM ’elohîm vowel points, "’elohîm" is read.

It is extremely unlikely that YHWH is pointed with the vowels for ’LWH (’elôah, found with (e.g. Neh 9:17) and without (e.g. Deu 32:15) the mappiq in the final hê’). When YHWH is not pointed with the ’LHYM ’elohîm vowel points, the Wâw in YHWH is pointed with a qâmets vowel point; whereas the "a" at the end of ’LWH ’elôah is a (furtive) patach.

So, while the vowels in Yehowâh may look like the vowels of Eloah in English, the difference in the Hebrew cannot be mistaken. As discussed above, the vowels of Yehowâh represent the ’DNY adonây vowel points. The difference of the "a" (chatef-patach, which looks like a patach next to a shewa) and "e" (shewa) being a simple matter of the initial Yôd refusing the compound shewa. If the vowels come from ’elôah, there is no easy way to explain why the furtive patach from ’elôah becomes a qâmets in Yehowâh. The qere (what is read) also poses a difficult hurdle for this theory (why would the reader say ’adonây if the vowels were for ’elôah??), though I would not mind this theory being explained.

I hope this is helpful in explaining this unique textual tradition. May Yahweh bless your studies - Joshua

Ps- If "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation of the name in the Biblical period (which I believe the evidence indicates), the correct vowel points would be:

You may be on to something here. I have always felt that the ELOAH vowels were a better cantidate because the segul-shevah seems more open to simplification to a sheva because there is much less difference between a segul-sheva and a sheva in pronounciation than there is between a ptah-sheva and a sheva.

Yes this does create the extra problem of the final vowel, but again patah and qamatz are almost indistinguishable in most translation schemes.

However it must be realized that this may have happened originally and conceptually BEFORE there were any written vowels at all. Not only were there originally no written vowels but there were also no formal vowel designations. They knew what things sounded like but it is likely that ancient Hebrews did not have names for their unwritten vowels and had not clearly defined them. That was being done by the Masorites themselves.

Then again Joshua may be right here as well. I am not married to the Eloah theory, ity justy seems most workable to me.

I have forgotten where I read that Yôd in the initial position of a word resists a compound shewa. I recently read through GKC and Joüon, so I may have stumbled on it in there, but I am not sure. Do you know if there is such a rule? I am hoping I have not invented a rule! (egad!!)

Anyhow, I was feeling pretty bad that I could not remember WHERE I found this, so to make sure I was not blowing hot air I thought I would ask you Don't knock yourself out looking, but if you know off the top of your head yea or nea it would help resolve my anxiety

I also did some checking and am fairly certain Yôd in the initial position does not take a compound shewa in the Hebrew Bible (even if there is no rule):

(a) The rules in Joüon §9 (and §21) do not seem to indicate that an initial Yôd would take a compound shewa.
(b) I skimmed over all the words in the Hebrew Bible that begin with Yôd and I did not see any that had a compound shewa (this is not conclusive, but I did not see any, which is a strong indication if it does at times take a compound shewa it is very rare).
(c) I checked, "The Ohs and Ahs of Torah Reading" which notes the examples of chatef-qamets in the text and there are no listings under Yôd.
(d) The verb paradigms do not seem to indicate any examples where this would happen (though I could be forgetting some examples).

There is also another explanation on why the Yôd in YHWH is not pointed with a compound shewa, namely that ’âlef cannot take a vocal shewa. When the grammar of the Massoretic tradition indicates a guttural (alef, ayin, he’, chet) should take a vocal shewa it becomes a compound shewa.

Thus, since a Yôd can take a vocal shewa, the scribes wrote that. Beyond grammar, this is an issue of economy similar to the omission of cholem. All the other vowel points appear under the text and thus the readers eyes are usually drawn to the vowels under the word thus the omission of the cholem has little effect.

Anyhow, I hope this information is helpful to those reading this thread.

I'm away from home right now, so I have few resources available to me. I can't say that I know such a rule, but I can't think of any counter-examples either. As you know, the useage of a composite shewa with other than a guttural is rare. Seow (pg 11), for example, calls attention to this practice. The few examples that I can think of are all medial uses of the composite shewa with a non-guttural. Off the top of my head I can't think of the use of a composite shewa with an initial non-guttural consonant. Ross (pg 60) calls attention to the change from a composite shewa to a simple shewa in the pointing of YHWH but provides no explanation.

Thanks for taking the time to reply :) I appreciate it. You know the old saying, "Two minds are better than one" so it is always good to get some additional input. One thing I have learned about Hebrew: as much as I have learned over the last couple years, there is 1000x more I have not the slightest grasp of! Learning a Biblical language can be a humbling experience :)

I got a few questions (don't feel obligated to answer these!) If the opportunity presented itself to help moderate a forum dedicated to helping people learn Hebrew and to answer common questions, would you be interested? This hypothetical forum would be a forum for (a) believers in the Bible (so the goal would be to make it approachable) and (b) believe in Mosaic authorship of the Torah; this "forum" would also be language/text based and not a forum for the discussion of Biblical doctrine. The goal would be to encourage believers to learn Biblical languages and to assist them in using language tools properly (i.e. to help prevent abuses of Strong's, word studies, and so forth). The site this forum would be on would (hopefully) have articles dealing with these issues along with introductory tutorials to learning Hebrew (eventually, Yahweh willing, include a full grammar and some "test runs" of introducing the student to the Biblical text and actually USING their grammar knowledge, ala Ross at the end of his grammar... maybe even include some nice quicktimes like BoBG does with lectures and video... of course this is all idealistic pie in the sky stuff). Would this be of interest to you?

I am on the b-Hebrew forum, and as great as it is there are some problems. First is that the majority of the group is critical in their outlook of the Bible's authorship and antiquity. The use of a newer BB script like PHPBB2 or the like would also make for easier skimming and searches (their online portion is not very user friendly).

I am in the slow process of making content for a Hebrew site and have mixed feelings on having a forum someday after the site is up and running... do you have any thoughts on this? There are some pros for a forum but a lot of big cons though also... I am not sure if the head ache would be worth it. It would really need some quality moderation to do a Biblical Hebrew discussion forum...

Also, do you teach at your local assembly? If so, where do you teach? If I am in your area some time I would like to visit your local assembly (feel free to contact me off-list at joshua@can-do.net if you prefer... I get a lot of spam there, so put ATTN: Joshua).

Anything, thanks for your reply and the time you took to look up the example and thanks also for the time you take to look over my posts. Always appreciated! Yahweh bless - Joshua