Robert F. Smith Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I was all with you until that point. I think it's likely true to a degree, but I think the very nature of the text and its dependence upon the KJV texts to translate underlying texts makes that problematic to establish too closely. Put an other way, I think there are artifacts of translation that make the argument difficult. Bear in mind that they are copying Scripture from the Brass Plates, and that an 1828 KJV is used when they come to extensive quotations. One sure sign that it is Elohistic is the contempt and disregard for the the House of David and the Davidic Covenant. John Sorenson goes into great detail in his "The 'Brass Plates' and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue, 10/4 (1977):31-39, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_33.pdf .
Robert F. Smith Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: .................................................................. we still have the issue that Lord (YHWH) appears a lot in the Book of Mormon. ............................ We do not actually know what was used for "Lord" in the BofM, even when we have biblical quotations. I maintain that the engraved text is Egyptian, which may therefore have used the regular word for "lord" nb. However, Yahweh could have been spelled out as yhwЗ in a list of Edmite toponyms (14th cent. BC, Amenhotep III Amun Temple in Soleb, Sudan), in a cursive form or abbreviation. In any case, Lehi and Nephi were certainly well aware of the meaning and use of Yahweh, so would not necessarily hesitate to use it. Their successors likewise. The Documentary preferences from previous centuries would no longer have been controlling.
clarkgoble Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: We do not actually know what was used for "Lord" in the BofM, even when we have biblical quotations. I maintain that the engraved text is Egyptian, which may therefore have used the regular word for "lord" nb. However, Yahweh could have been spelled out as yhwЗ in a list of Edmite toponyms (14th cent. BC, Amenhotep III Amun Temple in Soleb, Sudan), in a cursive form or abbreviation. In any case, Lehi and Nephi were certainly well aware of the meaning and use of Yahweh, so would not necessarily hesitate to use it. Their successors likewise. The Documentary preferences from previous centuries would no longer have been controlling. Possibly, but we really don't know. Even when we turn to extended quoted texts that is more limited in appropriation of KJV passages things get tricky. Consider Jacob 5 where some see Zenos as a northern prophet. Yet Lord is used extensively. I agree with you about later figures when Nephites have become much more assimilated to the local culture. However if we just stick with 1 Nephi - Jacob we get 349 uses of God and 494 for Lord. Sorenson, drawing on older scholarship, sees the northern Kingdom as Elohiem. I'm not sure if that identification is still consensus. (I looked but couldn't find much on it) My understanding is that over the last 50 years some of the theories about E vs. J have fallen out of favor. So I'd say it's likely the brass plates reflects the northern kingdom but I'm not sure we can say much about E vs. J from that. Edited April 9, 2019 by clarkgoble
Robert F. Smith Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Possibly, but we really don't know. Even when we turn to extended quoted texts that is more limited in appropriation of KJV passages things get tricky. Consider Jacob 5 where some see Zenos as a northern prophet. Yet Lord is used extensively. Documentary assignments depend on far more than title-choice. 3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I agree with you about later figures when Nephites have become much more assimilated to the local culture. However if we just stick with 1 Nephi - Jacob we get 349 uses of God and 494 for Lord. I was speaking of Lehi's ancestors having lived in Jerusalem for a century already, so that he and Nephi would not likely prefer El to Yahweh. The Brass Plates are far more likely to have strong Northern preferences, but we only see the quotations through an 1828 KJV lens (Oliver likely copying directly when making his copy of the Original Manuscript for the Printer -- who made further changes).
clarkgoble Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Documentary assignments depend on far more than title-choice. Certainly, but here we're focused on title choice. I'd also just again point out that how J/E gets seen seems to be a moving target. Some scholars I've read see the traditions as largely solidified by the 9th century and thereafter see it as a single mythic tradition albeit one open to revision by D and P redactors and editors even prior to the exile. So it's quite possible if that theory is true that at least in the southern Kingdom J/E is fixed well before the Assyrian conquest. Of course I'd also say that given the basically non-existent pre-exilic sources, most of this is ridiculously speculative. I'd also quibble that we don't know if Lehi's family has been in Jerusalem for a century. It's likely they are refugees, but we also don't really have a good grasp on how the Assyrians treated the northern kingdom and whether it was possible to live there nor how Babylonian conquest of Assyria affected things. Edited April 9, 2019 by clarkgoble
Robert F. Smith Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Certainly, but here we're focused on title choice. I'd also just again point out that how J/E gets seen seems to be a moving target. Some scholars I've read see the traditions as largely solidified by the 9th century and thereafter see it as a single mythic tradition albeit one open to revision by D and P redactors and editors even prior to the exile. So it's quite possible if that theory is true that at least in the southern Kingdom J/E is fixed well before the Assyrian conquest. Of course I'd also say that given the basically non-existent pre-exilic sources, most of this is ridiculously speculative. Yes, the docs had long since been available to redactors, and the Psalter includes some of the most archaic language. However, note that the E Psalms and J Psalms are in separated groups inside the Psalter. They are not intermixed. 18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I'd also quibble that we don't know if Lehi's family has been in Jerusalem for a century. It's likely they are refugees, but we also don't really have a good grasp on how the Assyrians treated the northern kingdom and whether it was possible to live there nor how Babylonian conquest of Assyria affected things. It is even possible that Lehi and his ancestors spent long periods in Egypt. We just don't know the clan circumstances, but it is very unlikely that they stayed in the North. Jerusalem swelled with Northern refugees during the Assyrian threat to such a degree that an entire new, north section of Jerusalem had to be built. Some have suggested that Lehi's clan was from a wealthy mercantile background. Another possibility is that they were a clan of scribes at the royal court in the Northern Kingdom. How else to explain both their wealth, as well as their deep knowledge of Egyptian -- and connection to Laban and the Brass Plates.
clarkgoble Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is even possible that Lehi and his ancestors spent long periods in Egypt. We just don't know the clan circumstances, but it is very unlikely that they stayed in the North. Jerusalem swelled with Northern refugees during the Assyrian threat to such a degree that an entire new, north section of Jerusalem had to be built. Some have suggested that Lehi's clan was from a wealthy mercantile background. Another possibility is that they were a clan of scribes at the royal court in the Northern Kingdom. How else to explain both their wealth, as well as their deep knowledge of Egyptian -- and connection to Laban and the Brass Plates. I tend to favor the idea of Egypt. To explaining their wealth and knowledge, being metallurgists and traders explains that well and has been a common theory. Their trade routes may have taken them to Egypt. Some see Elephantine originating with Manasseh sending Jewish troops there. It's possible that there were such contacts with the northern Kingdom prior to the Assyrian conquest too.
Robert F. Smith Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I tend to favor the idea of Egypt. To explaining their wealth and knowledge, being metallurgists and traders explains that well and has been a common theory. Their trade routes may have taken them to Egypt. Some see Elephantine originating with Manasseh sending Jewish troops there. It's possible that there were such contacts with the northern Kingdom prior to the Assyrian conquest too. In both Samaria and Judah, prior to the Assyrian invasion, Egyptian hieratic had come into vogue, and all Israelites were using a system of weights and measures identical with the Egyptian system, except for the recalibration of the Egyptian decimal system into base 8 (8 shekels = 10 Egyptian qite = 1 Egyptian diban), which matches the system in Alma 11. The ratios were all the same, and all Israelite weights were marked in hieratic. Egypt and Phoenicia were the most important trading partners of Israel and Judah. The Samaria Ostraca are noteworthy for containing Manassite names, indicating that the endogamous clan structure had survived for centuries. The BofM has a high concentration of Manassite names.
Dan McClellan Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 21 hours ago, RevTestament said: There exists ancient Hebrew from the Masoretic Text and other writings which use the pronunciation Yehovah. Show me. Quote Blaming it on Raymundus Martini hundreds of years later doesn't hack it in my book. I've noticed your book isn't particularly well-researched. Quote Why is referring to El as YHWH a conflation? If YHWH is a name and El is a title, El can be a title or a name. The best discussion of how to distinguish is Rainer Albertz's essay "Personal Names and Family Religion," in the edited volume Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant. Quote why cannot they both apply? There are distinct divine profiles associated with the two deities. El is a patriarchal high deity while YHWH is a second-tier storm-deity. Quote The OT also has Eloah. Is that another "conflation" or did it have meaning to them? Saying that this other name of YHWH appeared around 1400 BC is quite consistent with the Bible, and I see no reason to conclude it is a conflation. You don't appear to be looking. Quote Speaking of late Hebraic use does little to illuminate the subject. "The word El comes from a root word meaning 'might, strength, power' and probably derives from the Ugaritic word for god." Nevertheless, Jews take the "variant" name as you call it, Eloah, to mean the Mighty or Powerful One. https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html The dogmatism of "hebrew4christians" means absolutely nothing to me. Quote It is possible that YHWH had introduced his name to the Sumerians, but that it got lost. Of course, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that. Quote It seems archaeology has not yet as found that name in Sumerian. I don't believe the Hebrew form of YHWH existed until it was introduced around 1400 BC. It is also possible that this verse is just an artifact of the narrative process from which the Torah was written, and the name it refers to was some other form. Scripturally, you are wrong. No, I'm not. Quote God used his titles for reference to what He was being for the people. Eloah is used in early scripture thusly: Deuteronomy 32:15 15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness;then he forsook God/Eloah which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. Eloah is also used in reference to the false pagan idolic gods of stone in the Tanakh as is Elohim - but never YHWH. I'm finding it difficult to articulate just how silly it is to suggest that when a word appears in conceptual parallelism with another word, it indicates the first word actually lexically means the second word. That's jut complete and utter nonsense. Quote It is reading what is there even if the later Jews became extremely monotheistic. Nor have I proposed it is binitarian. see where I reference the El of Elohim above - or there is also Psalms 82 "Ye are Elohim" used by Jesus to defend Himself. No, it's not even remotely reading "what is there." It's quite literally and explicitly reading things into it that are not there. if you want to understand what's going on with elohim in Psalm 82 and John 10, I published a paper about it here: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/psalm-82-in-contemporary-latter-day-saint-tradition/ Quote Thank you for those additional references proving my point from scripture. "YHWH is not a title of Elyon." "Here are two passages where YHWH is used in reference to Elyon." "Thanks for proving my point." You really don't know what you're talking about. Quote I didn't reference what Latter Day Saints did nor believed. It is not terribly germane to me. Then you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever for your claims.
RevTestament Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: Show me. Your pronunciation of Yahweh comes from the 1800s. There are no prior Hebrew manuscripts which support this pronunciation. The Aleppo Codex has the vowels for Yehovah 7 times. The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text and Tiberian vocalization. It is dated 1008 CE (or possibly 1009) according to its colophon. It contains the vocalization of Yehovah about 50 times. That shows that the name was written and preserved Yehovah almost three hundred years before you attribute it to Raymundus Martini around 1270 CE - btw you say his pronunciation was Yohouwah. There is scholarship that the w sound came from the influence of Arabic translations. The U sound is rarely manifested in any of the Hebrew documents so appears to be copyist error. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: I've noticed your book isn't particularly well-researched. It is apparent to me you are strictly relying on modern Christian scholarship for your insistence that the name is pronounced Yahweh and that you have ignored all ancient Hebrew texts. By ignoring all ancient Hebrew texts you are completely misinformed and are relying upon the the opinions of late scholars such as Wilhelm Gesenius who started this idea that the name is pronounced Yahweh in the 1800s. Science and scholarship since that time show otherwise. So sorry, but it is you who is not particularly well -researched. I suggest you research the actual existing Hebrew manuscripts. If you are allowed in to the Vatican vault to do this, you will find that it is Yehovah in those manuscripts as well. In the Hebrew documents preserved in Israel it is Yehovah. The Jews recorded how they pronounced the name, even though when speaking to non-Jews they had a later tradition of saying Adonai. That is probably because the Romans forbade the use of the name after the fall of Jerusalem. Anyway that is a different debate. Again, the pronunciation Yehovah/Yahovah is found in almost all the Hebrew documents that have a full vocalization. If you are still going to insist on the Yahweh pronunciation, find it in an ancient Hebrew manuscript for me. Otherwise, I will chalk it up to the realization that you are just following the guess of an out-dated scholar named Gesenius. I'm sure the Jews don't mind you pronouncing the name incorrectly, so they have allowed this error to proliferate to preserve their late tradition not to pronounce the name. However, the Lord says that He will publish His name throughout the nations, and so He will. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: El can be a title or a name. The best discussion of how to distinguish is Rainer Albertz's essay "Personal Names and Family Religion," in the edited volume Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant. El is not a name, although it was often included in names such as Micha-el and Gabri-el. It was included because the individual was to remember their representation of El as a title. Calling it a name is like saying President is a name, although I guess it is treated as such when people refer to him as Mr. President. I still consider it a title. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: There are distinct divine profiles associated with the two deities. El is a patriarchal high deity while YHWH is a second-tier storm-deity. In Judaism? I don't think so. You are superimposing other cultures onto early Israelite culture. Israelite culture tells us that YHWH was the name of their supreme power. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: You don't appear to be looking. Says he that hasn't looked at any ancient Hebrew manuscripts. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: The dogmatism of "hebrew4christians" means absolutely nothing to me. Modern scholarship can also be extremely dogmatic - case in point. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: Of course, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that. Which is why I said "possible" and acknowledged that archaeology has not found it yet. Unfortunately, there is not much or really any religious tradition preserved in the earliest known Sumerian. That of course does not mean they had no religion. Further, as Robert Smith astutely pointed out, the JST strongly infers that earlier patriarchs than Moses had known him by the name of Yehovah. Obviously, it would have had a different spelling. I admit to being somewhat dubious about that. I feel the name was specific to Hebrew, and appeared around 1500 BC. However, I have not prayed about that. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: No, I'm not. Um, yes you are: 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: I'm finding it difficult to articulate just how silly it is to suggest that when a word appears in conceptual parallelism with another word, it indicates the first word actually lexically means the second word. That's jut complete and utter nonsense. I didn't say that - you are putting words in my mouth. What I said is that the name of God reflects what He is being for the people - not that it translated lexically. Perhaps, the latest example is the name of Yeshua Himself. Gabriel tells Mary to name Him Yeshua because He will save/Yoshia His people - harkening back to Joshua/Yehoshua whose name was changed from Hoshua because He led the people into their promised land. God did it for Abram and Jacob, etc. It applies to Him as well. It is certainly not complete and utter nonsense. It is apparent repeatedly from scripture. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: No, it's not even remotely reading "what is there." It's quite literally and explicitly reading things into it that are not there. if you want to understand what's going on with elohim in Psalm 82 and John 10, I published a paper about it here: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/psalm-82-in-contemporary-latter-day-saint-tradition/ There is no getting around that Elim and Elohim are plural forms and are explicitly used that way at times in reference to God. It also conforms perfectly with what the Lord tells us in D&C that we can be called gods. If I were to translate that I would translate it as elohim from the English tradition. It also completely conforms to the NT when our Lord tells us that in the Father's house (of Elohim) are many rooms, which He will prepare for us. From a brief overview of your article it is apparent that you and I are not going to see eye to eye because you say "I will not seek to harmonize Psalm 82 with John 10 but will highlight what I believe can be garnered from the texts by understanding John 10 precisely as a reinterpretation of Psalm 82," and then you add that you will "discuss what we can learn from seeing Jesus’s reading as a reinterpretation." If you want to believe that our Savior didn't know what was meant in the OT, I am not going to follow you. "I believe Jesus is doing what all scripture-based religious communities do, namely reading scripture in a way that makes it applicable to their time." At least you are honest about what you are doing in your article. I do not believe that. I believe Yeshua is revealing more about the godhead, and the divine council and prophets than was previously realized using prior revelation. 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: "YHWH is not a title of Elyon." "Here are two passages where YHWH is used in reference to Elyon." "Thanks for proving my point." You really don't know what you're talking about. Then you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever for your claims. No. I just have the scripture which you yourself show calling the Father YHWH, and the usage of the head prophet of the sixth seal, Joseph Smith. Because that somehow doesn't sit right with you, and you seem to favor late LDS scholarship, you wish to demean me. However, I am totally at home relying on scripture. Sure Joseph Smith said the Savior is Yehovah. That doesn't mean He said the Father is not. In fact He followed the scriptures in calling both the Father and the Son Jehovah. Joseph Smith either combined them or used them interchangeably as epithets for God the Father. This is demonstrated in the following prayer he wrote in 1842: "O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men-Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah - God - Thou Elohim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, 'enthroned in heaven,' look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him."(History of the Church, 5:127) Other sources for usage of Jehovah as referring to the Father can be found in D&C 109: 4, 10, 14, 22, 24, 29, 34, 42, 47, 56, 68; Joseph Smith, Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 2d ed. rev., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1932-51), 5:94, 127. Your insistence that I have no grounds for my claims is contrary to scripture and modern revelation. It is only based on your idea of modern scholarship, which I have shown is not well-founded. Cheers.
Dan McClellan Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 1 minute ago, RevTestament said: Your pronunciation of Yahweh comes from the 1800s. My pronunciation? You have no idea what my pronunciation is. Quote There are no prior Hebrew manuscripts which support this pronunciation. The Aleppo Codex has the vowels for Yehovah 7 times. Yes, they substituted the vowels from Adonay, but this wasn't to produce a pronunciation that combined the two, it was just to remind the reader to pronounce Adonay. "Yehovah" was never pronounced, so it does not "support this pronunciation." Quote It is apparent to me you are strictly relying on modern Christian scholarship for your insistence that the name is pronounced Yahweh and that you have ignored all ancient Hebrew texts. Where did I say the name was pronounced Yahweh? I'll save my response to the rest of your comments until you can answer that question for me.
clarkgoble Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The Samaria Ostraca are noteworthy for containing Manassite names, indicating that the endogamous clan structure had survived for centuries. The BofM has a high concentration of Manassite names. I'm not familiar with this. What names are we talking about and what sources are we using to determine what is a Manassite name popular in the 6th century versus Levirite or Judean names?
Calm Posted April 11, 2019 Posted April 11, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: El is not a name, although it was often included in names such as Micha-el and Gabri-el. It was included because the individual was to remember their representation of El as a title. Calling it a name is like saying President is a name, although I guess it is treated as such when people refer to him as Mr. President. I still consider it a title. Titles can become names and names titles. Think Christian being used as a title/label and then as people's first name. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Very common for last names...Smith, Baker, Lord...maybe even King (haven't researched that one). I don't know how it worked for Israelites, but it is a common practice in other languages, so it seems a problematic assumption. Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm
Calm Posted April 11, 2019 Posted April 11, 2019 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: Says he that hasn't looked at any ancient Hebrew manuscripts. This is not an appeal to authority, but wondering if you know the context of Dan's observations: Quote 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. He is not someone who hasn't looked at ancient Hebrew in his studies. https://rsc.byu.edu/authors/mcclellan-daniel-o 1
RevTestament Posted April 11, 2019 Posted April 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Calm said: This is not an appeal to authority, but wondering if you know the context of Dan's observations: He is not someone who hasn't looked at ancient Hebrew in his studies. https://rsc.byu.edu/authors/mcclellan-daniel-o This is the context of my statement. He said: There are two different kind of conflations under consideration. One is the conflation of the deity El and the deity YHWH, and that absolutely happened, although I would put it much earlier than Josiah. We already have inscriptions from around 800 BCE that seem to refer to YHWH as El and maybe even as Baal (which could also mean "master" or "lord," and so isn't very surprising). The other conflation is the vowels of the Hebrew word adonay and the consonants of YHWH to produce the name Yohouwah, and that also absolutely happened around 1270 CE (Raymundus Martini did it). The spelling would later become Jehovah. And I responded: Quote There exists ancient Hebrew from the Masoretic Text and other writings which use the pronunciation Yehovah. Blaming it on Raymundus Martini hundreds of years later doesn't hack it in my book. He then responded again claiming I have no basis for my claims, and I responded back with the existence of the actual Hebrew Leningrad Codex which dates almost 300 years before he claims the "conflation" started in 1270. You got a like for defending him. I will admit that he is on the side of the majority of scholarship, but that doesn't make his statement right. He is just repeating what he has been taught incorrectly. Do i get a like for correcting him? No, of course not. This question is not going to be settled with scholarship. This is how it will go: When he would have responded again by saying I am an uninformed dufo, I will respond that Jehovah is not the result of a valid qere ketiv for several reasons: first the Hebrew scribes did not make a notation mark above YHWH indicating how it was to be pronounced like in all other examples of qere ketiv in the Masoretic Text. Then he will probably respond that it is a qere perpetuum, but even in those cases the scribes made at least a handful of notations before dropping them. None of the Masoretic Texts have any such notations for YHWH, so making the claim that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation is already departing from Hebrew scribal practice. Next I will point out that Jehovah does not have the same vowels as adonai. In fact only the last vowel of adonai usually appears in the masoretic text of YHWH. Sometimes the middle vowel cholam also appears, but it is usually absent. That hardly constitutes a substitution of the vowels of adonai in YHWH. The vowels of adonai are chataf patach - cholam - kamatz. The Masoretic scribes typically wrote YHWH with a shva(usually pronounced as a short e) and a kamatz(pronounced as a soft a) with a missing vowel. A few times all three vowels are given - shva - cholam - kamatz. So the claim that the name of Yehovah has been confabulated with adonai is simply false by all Hebrew standards and scribal customs. It appears the removal of the cholam was the factor to prevent accidentally pronouncing the name, but sometimes that was not followed, so we do have all the Hebrew vowels recorded in ancient Hebrew texts. The only exception to this tradition was to prevent the double reading of adonai when the name YHWH appears with adonai in the text. Then YHWH was written with the vowels for "YeHoViH" (shva - cholam - chiriq) which are the vowels of Elohim in order to remind the reader to read it as Elohim so as to avoid reading it as adonai adonai while not pronouncing Yehovah. If the vowels of adonai were used it would be pronounced Yahovah. The vowel pointers used are also inconsistent with Yahweh for this reason. This claim asserts that the scribes correctly substituted the vowels of Elohim, but somehow just didn't quite manage to do it for adonai - yet they still claim it. It really just makes no sense. If the scribes included the cholam for Elohim, why didn't they do it for adonai? Indeed omitting the cholam is how scholars end up with Yahweh. A response to the Yehovah name claim has been that the shva vowel pointer can be attributed where the hataf patakh always replaces the shva under a guttural letter. Since the first letter of ינדא is a guttural letter while the first letter of הוהי is not, the hataf patakh under the (guttural) aleph reverts to a regular shva under the (non-guttural) yod. While this argument makes some grammatical sense, it does not follow the pattern of other qere ketiv which force a vowel replacement whether grammatical or not - probably to emphasize not to pronounce the word the way it is written. Also it ignores the fact that the cholam of adonai is virtually always completely dropped by the scribes in YHVH. So to claim that the vowels of YHVH are simply replaced with the vowels of adonai is misleading. It is true that adonai was considered the preferred public reading of the text, but that seemed to be addressed by omitting the cholam of YHVH as a reminder not to pronounce the written name. The hard truth of the matter is that there currently exists no good record of exactly how the name was pronounced before the Masoretes recorded it with diacritical marks, and by that time the rabbis had adopted their tradition of not pronouncing the name. That remains the best evidence for how it was pronounced, and it conforms with all later Jewish writings until the Middle Ages. The Jewish community is somewhat divided. Perhaps a last bit of evidence is to illicit a response of a Jew by calling YHWH Yehovah - unless he or she is a karaite Jew not beholden to rabbinical traditions - then they might ask you how do you know the correct name? Perhaps the best remaining evidence is direct revelation. I have done my best to inform myself of the issues, and have prayed about the subject. These are my conclusions so far. I find the adonai vowel substitution argument far from convincing upon close examination for the reasons I have given. I will pronounce it and proclaim it as Yehovah until my time is come. If you don't accept my representations, but are a faithful Christian, I am sure you will be saved...
Robert F. Smith Posted April 11, 2019 Posted April 11, 2019 7 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I'm not familiar with this. What names are we talking about and what sources are we using to determine what is a Manassite name popular in the 6th century versus Levirite or Judean names? The Hexateuch has many lists of names within genealogies of tribes, and those same name-groups show up sometimes in excavations. The Samaria Ostraca are one instance in which we find Manassite names grouped within the tribal territory of Manasseh. Non-LDS archeologist Bryant Wood takes those Samaria Ostraca as evidence "that customs from Israel's earlier tribal history survived well into the kingdom period." Biblical Archaeology Review, 21/3 (May-June 1995), 34.
Dan McClellan Posted April 11, 2019 Posted April 11, 2019 8 hours ago, RevTestament said: He then responded again claiming I have no basis for my claims, and I responded back with the existence of the actual Hebrew Leningrad Codex which dates almost 300 years before he claims the "conflation" started in 1270. Except what is going on in Leningrad is they're substituting one word for another, not creating a hybrid word. It's precisely why many scholars today, when reading the text out loud, pronounced "adonay" when they get to the Tetragrammaton. The vowels indicate substitution, not conflation. Are you going to be responding to my request? Quote You got a like for defending him. I will admit that he is on the side of the majority of scholarship, but that doesn't make his statement right. He is just repeating what he has been taught incorrectly. Do i get a like for correcting him? No, of course not. This question is not going to be settled with scholarship. This is how it will go: When he would have responded again by saying I am an uninformed dufo, I will respond that Jehovah is not the result of a valid qere ketiv for several reasons: This isn't really a standard ketiv/qere, though, so this is a strawman. Quote first the Hebrew scribes did not make a notation mark above YHWH indicating how it was to be pronounced like in all other examples of qere ketiv in the Masoretic Text. Then he will probably respond that it is a qere perpetuum, but even in those cases the scribes made at least a handful of notations before dropping them. None of the Masoretic Texts have any such notations for YHWH, so making the claim that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation is already departing from Hebrew scribal practice. I'm still waiting on you to demonstrate that I claimed "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation, since I haven't claimed that. Quote Next I will point out that Jehovah does not have the same vowels as adonai. Yes it does, filtered through the phonemic restrictions of Latin and English, of course. After all, it was invented by a Christian monk. Quote In fact only the last vowel of adonai usually appears in the masoretic text of YHWH. Which is both not correct and also totally irrelevant. Quote Sometimes the middle vowel cholam also appears, but it is usually absent. That hardly constitutes a substitution of the vowels of adonai in YHWH. The vowels of adonai are chataf patach - cholam - kamatz. The Masoretic scribes typically wrote YHWH with a shva(usually pronounced as a short e) and a kamatz(pronounced as a soft a) with a missing vowel. A few times all three vowels are given - shva - cholam - kamatz. So the claim that the name of Yehovah has been confabulated with adonai is simply false by all Hebrew standards and scribal customs. And this would mean something if I were arguing that it is the product of the Hebrew text, which I'm not. My entire point is that it was not a product of the Hebrew text, but of someone's own initiative. Quote It appears the removal of the cholam was the factor to prevent accidentally pronouncing the name, but sometimes that was not followed, so we do have all the Hebrew vowels recorded in ancient Hebrew texts. The only exception to this tradition was to prevent the double reading of adonai when the name YHWH appears with adonai in the text. Then YHWH was written with the vowels for "YeHoViH" (shva - cholam - chiriq) which are the vowels of Elohim in order to remind the reader to read it as Elohim so as to avoid reading it as adonai adonai while not pronouncing Yehovah. If the vowels of adonai were used it would be pronounced Yahovah. The vowel pointers used are also inconsistent with Yahweh for this reason. This claim asserts that the scribes correctly substituted the vowels of Elohim, but somehow just didn't quite manage to do it for adonai - yet they still claim it. It really just makes no sense. If the scribes included the cholam for Elohim, why didn't they do it for adonai? Indeed omitting the cholam is how scholars end up with Yahweh. A response to the Yehovah name claim has been that the shva vowel pointer can be attributed where the hataf patakh always replaces the shva under a guttural letter. Since the first letter of ינדא is a guttural letter while the first letter of הוהי is not, the hataf patakh under the (guttural) aleph reverts to a regular shva under the (non-guttural) yod. While this argument makes some grammatical sense, it does not follow the pattern of other qere ketiv which force a vowel replacement whether grammatical or not - probably to emphasize not to pronounce the word the way it is written. And anyone well enough versed in Hebrew knows that "does not follow the pattern" is not a particularly strong argument in Hebrew philology. Quote Also it ignores the fact that the cholam of adonai is virtually always completely dropped by the scribes in YHVH. So to claim that the vowels of YHVH are simply replaced with the vowels of adonai is misleading. It is true that adonai was considered the preferred public reading of the text, but that seemed to be addressed by omitting the cholam of YHVH as a reminder not to pronounce the written name. The hard truth of the matter is that there currently exists no good record of exactly how the name was pronounced before the Masoretes recorded it with diacritical marks, and by that time the rabbis had adopted their tradition of not pronouncing the name. That remains the best evidence for how it was pronounced, and it conforms with all later Jewish writings until the Middle Ages. The Jewish community is somewhat divided. Perhaps a last bit of evidence is to illicit a response of a Jew by calling YHWH Yehovah - unless he or she is a karaite Jew not beholden to rabbinical traditions - then they might ask you how do you know the correct name? Perhaps the best remaining evidence is direct revelation. I have done my best to inform myself of the issues, and have prayed about the subject. These are my conclusions so far. I find the adonai vowel substitution argument far from convincing upon close examination for the reasons I have given. I will pronounce it and proclaim it as Yehovah until my time is come. If you don't accept my representations, but are a faithful Christian, I am sure you will be saved... Josef Tropper's 2001 VT article on the original pronunciations of YHWH absolutely produces a "good record," but you seem to be grappling with an imaginary argument, so the degree to which you're willing or able to engage actual concerns remains to be seen. You've not even responded to my very simple request above.
Recommended Posts