YHVH, a little discovery

[SettingDogStar]

I ran across this picture on the internet and did a little more research to confirm that it was at least a little accurate. I have some thoughts on the meaning of this and I've wrote them down but I wonder what you guys think. There are some really incredible symbols to be learned when we breakdown old words into the original language!

What do you think?

[Robert F. Smith]

The biblical Hebrew vowel points of ʼădōnāy “My Lord” were mistakenly applied to YHWH, when read by Jews, which then became the monstrosities Jěhōwāh in Germanic usage, and Jehovah in English (Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, §59).  JEHOVAH comes from Old English IEHOUAH (Tyndale and Geneva Bible), and appeared as IEHOVAH in the 1611 KJV (Ex 6:3).

One LDS source claims Jehovah means “He is (exists), He causes to be,”[1] while  the late William F. Albright preferred to interpret it as “He-(Who)-Causes-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-He-Who-Creates” (Exodus 6:3).[2]

---

[1] R. N. Holzapfel, D. M. Pike, and D. R. Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament (SLC: Deseret Book, 2009), 16-17 (providing the spelling in old Hebrew characters), 94.

[2] Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (London, 1968), 147-149, nn. 44-52; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1957), 15-16.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The biblical Hebrew vowel points of ʼădōnāy “My Lord” were mistakenly applied to YHWH, when read by Jews, which then became the monstrosities Jěhōwāh in Germanic usage, and Jehovah in English (Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, §59).  JEHOVAH comes from Old English IEHOUAH (Tyndale and Geneva Bible), and appeared as IEHOVAH in the 1611 KJV (Ex 6:3).

One LDS source claims Jehovah means “He is (exists), He causes to be,”[1] while  the late William F. Albright preferred to interpret it as “He-(Who)-Causes-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-He-Who-Creates” (Exodus 6:3).[2]

---

[1] R. N. Holzapfel, D. M. Pike, and D. R. Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament (SLC: Deseret Book, 2009), 16-17 (providing the spelling in old Hebrew characters), 94.

[2] Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (London, 1968), 147-149, nn. 44-52; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1957), 15-16.

So are you saying that it doesn't have that meaning?

[SettingDogStar]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So are you saying that it doesn't have that meaning?

The key I think to the meaning that this little picture, and other research shows, is that they move the letters back to an original language which in this case was Paleo-hebrew. Then they took the meaning of the letters/hieroglyphs and pushed them together.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So are you saying that it doesn't have that meaning?

I follow Albright.

[Dan McClellan]

I would always be wary of any attempt to extract secret meaning from Hebrew words. The individual letters themselves do not carry those meanings. I'm also not a fan of most all attempts to arrive at a verbal interpretation of YHWH. Most likely, the name was a place name that was attributed to the deity worshipped in that place, and our earliest onomastic attestations have YH and YHW as variants on the divine name. Josef Tropper has shown from the occurrence of the YH/W theophoric element in Akkadian names that the addition of the final H is most likely the result of the use of the name in the absolutive case and the use of H as a mater lectionis. This spelling would have stuck around after the name stopped being pronounced independently.

[USU78]

Kabbalah games are fun.

[Doctrine 612]

I have also heard that Jehovah could also be Jahoveh (jaw- Ho- Va)

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

I have also heard that Jehovah could also be Jahoveh (jaw- Ho- Va)

The Hebrew had no hard J sound. The Germans used a J because in their usage it made a Ya sound. The J got copied over into the KJV and/or other English Bibles, and was given a hard J sound by English readers. I currently lean towards this pronunciation - Yahovah/Yahoveh'. It appears with these vowel marks in some of the earliest Masoretic texts - also in other Jewish writings. I believe Yaweh is incorrect, but has been supported as a pronunciation because Jews do not want to use the proper pronunciation. 

19 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I would always be wary of any attempt to extract secret meaning from Hebrew words. The individual letters themselves do not carry those meanings.

Yes, they absolutely do. You can look them up in any Hebrew teaching text. Each letter had a meaning in the ancient Hebrew. Behold/Look is appropriate for heh. The vav symbol was apparently derived from a tent stake. A nail is an appropriate synonym, and I think is appropriate for a fastener which holds up a house - including the house of the Lord back in Moses' day.  

[Calm]

You might want to rethink challenging Dan on this without some heavy duty references backing you given what he does:

Quote

Daniel O. McClellan is a scripture translation supervisor for the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. Originally from West Virginia, he has lived in Maryland, California, Colorado, Texas, Uruguay, Utah, the United Kingdom, and Washington. He received his bachelor’s degree from Brigham Young University in ancient Near Eastern studies, where he focused on Biblical Hebrew and minored in Classical Greek. He completed a master of studies in Jewish studies at the University of Oxford in July of 2010 and a master of arts in biblical studies at Trinity Western University just outside of Vancouver, BC. His areas of specialization are Second Temple Judaism, early Israelite religion, and textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

https://rsc.byu.edu/authors/mcclellan-daniel-o

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielomcclellan

Edited March 22, 2019 by Calm

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, they absolutely do. You can look them up in any Hebrew teaching text. Each letter had a meaning in the ancient Hebrew. Behold/Look is appropriate for heh. The vav symbol was apparently derived from a tent stake. A nail is an appropriate synonym, and I think is appropriate for a fastener which holds up a house - including the house of the Lord back in Moses' day.  

You're confusing the common nouns from which the characters developed for meanings that they carry. No texts carry any inherent meaning whatsoever, there is only the meaning that we assign them based on our understandings of their socially mediated relationships to conceptual content, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any such meanings were current at any point during the development or pre-Modern-Era use of the name YHWH. The notion that individual letters carry meaning other than that produced through the sounds they make in combination with other letters is a very late and artificial one that dates to after the time of Christ and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the development or use of the Tetragrammaton. Additionally, the meanings aren't all right. The he developed out of the word for "window," not "behold." Making that connection between a common noun and a verb is just another demonstration of the artificial and goofy nature of these connections. If they deepen meaning and significance for you personally, go wild, but please don't presume to declare to others what these things mean or meant.

[Doctrine 612]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The Hebrew had no hard J sound. The Germans used a J because in their usage it made a Ya sound. The J got copied over into the KJV and/or other English Bibles, and was given a hard J sound by English readers. I currently lean towards this pronunciation - Yahovah/Yahoveh'. It appears with these vowel marks in some of the earliest Masoretic texts - also in other Jewish writings. I believe Yaweh is incorrect, but has been supported as a pronunciation because Jews do not want to use the proper pronunciation. 

Sorry when I wrote jaw I meant it to sound like yaw.

Jah or Yah (Hebrew: יה, Yah) is a short form of Yahweh (in consonantal spelling YHWH Hebrew: יהוה, called the tetragrammaton), the proper name of God in the Hebrew Bible. ... In the King James Version (1611) there is only a single instance of JAH (capitalised), in Psalm 68:4.

like

4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah, and rejoice before him.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Doctrine 612

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

You're confusing the common nouns from which the characters developed for meanings that they carry. No texts carry any inherent meaning whatsoever, there is only the meaning that we assign them based on our understandings of their socially mediated relationships to conceptual content, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any such meanings were current at any point during the development or pre-Modern-Era use of the name YHWH. The notion that individual letters carry meaning other than that produced through the sounds they make in combination with other letters is a very late and artificial one that dates to after the time of Christ and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the development or use of the Tetragrammaton. Additionally, the meanings aren't all right. The he developed out of the word for "window," not "behold." Making that connection between a common noun and a verb is just another demonstration of the artificial and goofy nature of these connections. If they deepen meaning and significance for you personally, go wild, but please don't presume to declare to others what these things mean or meant.

I disagree. Of course I am no Hebrew expert, but there is absolutely evidence that the early Hebrews formed  their words based on the meanings of their characters. To conclude that these characters had no ancient meanings because there is no "evidence" that they did I think ignores the linguistic evidence - granted I guess you are not quite saying that. I assume it is safe to say that we have no archaeological idea how the usage of YHWH came into being. I would counter that assuming there is a God, that He knew the usage of the Hebrew alphabet, since I believe He had a hand in creating it, and gave them His name accordingly. That is essentially what the text says. The people did not name YHWH, and there is some archaeological evidence that this name was in use by around 1400 BC. Unfortunately, when it comes to proto-Sinaitic, and the birth of the alphabet, we don't have much to go on, so I guess we could pointlessly argue about it all day. Basically, all we have is  the linguistic evidence and Jewish tradition....

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

. No texts carry any inherent meaning whatsoever, there is only the meaning that we assign them based on our understandings of their socially mediated relationships to conceptual content,...

Yes, a hundred times yes, and this is precisely what we need to learn around here. 

And this is also why science is not religion.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, a hundred times yes, and this is precisely what we need to learn around here. 

And this is also why science is not religion.

He. Obviously meaning is necessarily correlated to the social context or meaning appointed to something by the users. Does gay mean happy or homosexual? 50 years ago the word meant happy, because that is the meaning society assigned to it. 

This argument is one I have gone over with my kids. My wife, being a molly Mormon, would teach them not to say bad words. I in turn taught them there is no such thing as a bad word - just bad meanings. If something is used with injurious intent - intent to offend, etc - then yes, I told my kids not to do that because that is the opposite of loving your neighbor. If the other party is  not "injured" then in my belief nothing "bad" has happened, and the word cannot be "bad." 

I believe this is akin to what McClellan is trying to point out. However, I do personally believe that the Hebrew letters did form out of a pictogram type of idea, and each represented a thing. To then conclude some 3500 years later that we cannot believe the letters carried this meaning is wrongheaded imho. These meanings went back to the root of their language. Just because the typical modern Jew does not associate these meanings to their words does not mean such was not intended when they formed many of their words upon coming out of Egypt. I believe it amply clear that the Hebrew was an interesting amalgamation of "Aramaic" or "Syrian Semitic"  and Egyptian. The huge advance was to use the Egyptian idea of creating characters to represent sounds. I believe the Hebrews, and perhaps maybe Joseph, began to adopt some Egyptian characters for this purpose - among the first were the Aleph and the Beit - and hence we have the birth of the modern Alphabet, which was copied by Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, and now us. It is absolutely true that these first characters carried with them a "picture" idea. The aleph was born from the oxhead symbol and is represented in our modern A. That is all I am saying. Each letter carried a picture idea - and it is also true that some Hebrew words were created by arranging those picture ideas. McClellan is saying there is no evidence that Jews formed the word YHWH based upon picture ideas - or at least that is what I get from him. I say so what? Those letters do carry those meanings. Have you ever noticed what the names of the first 12 or so biblical patriarchs mean? We have no evidence that it was an intentional arrangement by the Biblical composers, yet they seem to carry a definite prophetic meaning. I'm sure Orthodox Jews will make the McClellan argument....  FWIW

[Calm]

Nvm

Edited March 22, 2019 by Calm

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I disagree. Of course I am no Hebrew expert, but there is absolutely evidence that the early Hebrews formed  their words based on the meanings of their characters. To conclude that these characters had no ancient meanings because there is no "evidence" that they did I think ignores the linguistic evidence - granted I guess you are not quite saying that. I assume it is safe to say that we have no archaeological idea how the usage of YHWH came into being. I would counter that assuming there is a God, that He knew the usage of the Hebrew alphabet, since I believe He had a hand in creating it, and gave them His name accordingly. That is essentially what the text says. The people did not name YHWH, and there is some archaeological evidence that this name was in use by around 1400 BC. Unfortunately, when it comes to proto-Sinaitic, and the birth of the alphabet, we don't have much to go on, so I guess we could pointlessly argue about it all day. Basically, all we have is  the linguistic evidence and Jewish tradition....

(1) By all means, share this evidence that the early Hebrews formed their words based on the meanings of their characters.

(2) There is some archaeological evidence for the development of the use of the name YHWH came into being. We have 14th and 15th century BCE texts from Egypt that describe Semitic peoples they called the Shasu living in a region most conclude was somewhere around Midian that they called YHW. Personal names with Yahwistic theophoric elements begin to appear in the onomastic record in the late-tenth century BCE. The deity's name in the onomastica appears as YHW and as YH. These data suggest the name began as a toponym, so etymological analysis is of little help.

(3) Can you provide any rational argument for why "the people did not name YHWH" apart from just assuming the name was given to them by God?

(4) We have tons to go on regarding the birth of the alphabet. 

[Dan McClellan]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

These meanings went back to the root of their language. Just because the typical modern Jew does not associate these meanings to their words does not mean such was not intended when they formed many of their words upon coming out of Egypt. I believe it amply clear that the Hebrew was an interesting amalgamation of "Aramaic" or "Syrian Semitic"  and Egyptian. The huge advance was to use the Egyptian idea of creating characters to represent sounds. I believe the Hebrews, and perhaps maybe Joseph, began to adopt some Egyptian characters for this purpose - among the first were the Aleph and the Beit - and hence we have the birth of the modern Alphabet, which was copied by Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, and now us. It is absolutely true that these first characters carried with them a "picture" idea. The aleph was born from the oxhead symbol and is represented in our modern A. That is all I am saying. Each letter carried a picture idea - and it is also true that some Hebrew words were created by arranging those picture ideas. McClellan is saying there is no evidence that Jews formed the word YHWH based upon picture ideas - or at least that is what I get from him. I say so what? Those letters do carry those meanings. Have you ever noticed what the names of the first 12 or so biblical patriarchs mean? We have no evidence that it was an intentional arrangement by the Biblical composers, yet they seem to carry a definite prophetic meaning. I'm sure Orthodox Jews will make the McClellan argument....  FWIW

This is not even remotely an accurate representation of the development of the alphabet. 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

(4) We have tons to go on regarding the birth of the alphabet. 

Agreed.

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

This is not even remotely an accurate representation of the development of the alphabet. 

I really don't think you can confidently state that when you just finished stating that we don't know much about the birth of the alphabet. I agree that I am speculating about Joseph, but by 1500 BC I contend that the basics of the alphabet appear in a proto-sinaitic alphabet. Scholars do absolutely agree that many elements of our modern alphabet directly descend from it. Maybe you can better confirm how my representation is inaccurate because I am all ears. I would love to know all the origins of the alphabet.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

He. Obviously meaning is necessarily correlated to the social context or meaning appointed to something by the users. Does gay mean happy or homosexual? 50 years ago the word meant happy, because that is the meaning society assigned to it. 

This argument is one I have gone over with my kids. My wife, being a molly Mormon, would teach them not to say bad words. I in turn taught them there is no such thing as a bad word - just bad meanings. If something is used with injurious intent - intent to offend, etc - then yes, I told my kids not to do that because that is the opposite of loving your neighbor. If the other party is  not "injured" then in my belief nothing "bad" has happened, and the word cannot be "bad." 

I believe this is akin to what McClellan is trying to point out. However, I do personally believe that the Hebrew letters did form out of a pictogram type of idea, and each represented a thing. To then conclude some 3500 years later that we cannot believe the letters carried this meaning is wrongheaded imho. These meanings went back to the root of their language. Just because the typical modern Jew does not associate these meanings to their words does not mean such was not intended when they formed many of their words upon coming out of Egypt. I believe it amply clear that the Hebrew was an interesting amalgamation of "Aramaic" or "Syrian Semitic"  and Egyptian. The huge advance was to use the Egyptian idea of creating characters to represent sounds. I believe the Hebrews, and perhaps maybe Joseph, began to adopt some Egyptian characters for this purpose - among the first were the Aleph and the Beit - and hence we have the birth of the modern Alphabet, which was copied by Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, and now us. It is absolutely true that these first characters carried with them a "picture" idea. The aleph was born from the oxhead symbol and is represented in our modern A. That is all I am saying. Each letter carried a picture idea - and it is also true that some Hebrew words were created by arranging those picture ideas. McClellan is saying there is no evidence that Jews formed the word YHWH based upon picture ideas - or at least that is what I get from him. I say so what? Those letters do carry those meanings. Have you ever noticed what the names of the first 12 or so biblical patriarchs mean? We have no evidence that it was an intentional arrangement by the Biblical composers, yet they seem to carry a definite prophetic meaning. I'm sure Orthodox Jews will make the McClellan argument....  FWIW

Well I sho nuff ain't no Hebrew scholar neither.

On the other hand I know just a little bit about the philosophy of language, and philosophical hermeneutics, and current paradigms of what religion is and what it is not.

And my conclusion is that you are both right within your contextual ways of seeing the world.  

We are here to create our religious worlds out of matter unorganized, and there is certainly a lot of that unorganized matter everywhere and in every kind of text that exists.

As Dan himself has said essentially, if your analysis of the alphabet gives you greater spiritual strength and insight, go for it and I would say we all need to do that sort of thing.  I think it's what we all do and I think it's essential that we think in that manner. We are here to create meaning in and for,  our lives and I think that your points can help us do that. It's kind of cool to think about the alphabet in that way.

Whether or not it "really happened that way" is another issue that may actually be irrelevant to giving ourselves a meeting for our existence.

As you know I have trouble with people deciding what is true and not true and "what really happened"  when those judgments often simply come from our own pre- conceived notions that we learned in school or just made up on our own. 

Peer review after all, still comes down to community consensus.

So in my never humble opinion, I think you are both right within your own contexts and peer group.

It's it's kind of like the catalyst theory for the Book of Abraham.

If if your contemplation of those characters gives you a new meaning in your life that is inspired and brings you closer to the Lord I certainly have no problem with it.  

But but that is the way I feel about all scripture, including that of other religions.  

 

 

 

 

[Dan McClellan]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Agreed.

I really don't think you can confidently state that when you just finished stating that we don't know much about the birth of the alphabet. I agree that I am speculating about Joseph, but by 1500 BC I contend that the basics of the alphabet appear in a proto-sinaitic alphabet. Scholars do absolutely agree that many elements of our modern alphabet directly descend from it. Maybe you can better confirm how my representation is inaccurate because I am all ears. I would love to know all the origins of the alphabet.

I don't know where you get the idea that I said we don't know much about the birth of the alphabet. You just quoted me pointing out "We have tons to go on regarding the birth of the alphabet."

I asked you for the evidence you said surely existed. Until you actually share that evidence instead of rhetorically deflecting, I'm not going to waste my time unpacking everything you've said that's incorrect. If you honestly want to know more, you can start with Joseph Naveh's Early History of the Alphabet, then go to Seth Sanders' The Invention of Hebrew, and then I'd move on to Chris Rollston's Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel. Let me know when you're done with that and maybe we can address some of the issues with the framework you lay out above.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I don't know where you get the idea that I said we don't know much about the birth of the alphabet. You just quoted me pointing out "We have tons to go on regarding the birth of the alphabet."

I asked you for the evidence you said surely existed. Until you actually share that evidence instead of rhetorically deflecting, I'm not going to waste my time unpacking everything you've said that's incorrect. If you honestly want to know more, you can start with Joseph Naveh's Early History of the Alphabet, then go to Seth Sanders' The Invention of Hebrew, and then I'd move on to Chris Rollston's Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel. Let me know when you're done with that and maybe we can address some of the issues with the framework you lay out above.

I am sorry. I misread your statement. I have gotten older, and need to use my glasses. I just didn't want you to think that I was purposefully being difficult. I will give those works a perusal. Thanks for your suggestions, but I am not confident that they will be able to really fill in for me the origins of the alphabet. My guess is we are talking about different periods several hundreds of years apart. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by RevTestament