tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post2521382701766077606..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: Yahweh / LORD — ay, yi yiDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-26768788415413989712007-01-31T06:21:00.000-06:002007-01-31T06:21:00.000-06:00Yes, that's the practice, and it's a bad one. The ...Yes, that's the practice, and it's a bad one. The text says "A," but they're much holier than the text, so they read "14."<br /><br />So I reverse-course. When I read a text with LORD or Lord GOD, I read it as given: Yahweh, Lord Yahweh.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-56180162629454694842007-01-31T03:50:00.000-06:002007-01-31T03:50:00.000-06:00I learned Hebrew (well, the basics) from a man who...I learned Hebrew (well, the basics) from a man whose day job is outreach to the Jews in North London (where most of the London Jewish population is these days). He tells me the Jews only say 'adonay' when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue - apparently that's now too holy for everyday use.<br /> But my teacher always substituted adonay for YHVH in our reading the Hebrew Bible. I think he'd find using a Bible that used 'Yahweh' a problem.<br /><br /> Also he'd say 'Yahvey', as modern Jews pronounce the relevant letter as a 'v' not a 'w'.<br /> Ah, the joys of learning Hebrew...Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-23752821910399414032007-01-30T15:34:00.000-06:002007-01-30T15:34:00.000-06:00I can be wrong.I can be wrong.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-91846186793499172912007-01-30T13:04:00.000-06:002007-01-30T13:04:00.000-06:00So, I'll just pass by how troubling it is to know ...So, I'll just pass by how troubling it is to know that you associate iMonk and me in your mind that way, and say this....<br /><br />No, forgive a little Hebrew. The entire alphabet, per se, is consonantal, though originally some of the consonants may have signalled vowel sounds. The vowels were understood in reading and, later in the textual tradition, supplied by a system of vowel-points.<br /><br />So the whole text originally is strictly consonantal -- `brhm (Abraham) no less than yhwh (Yahweh).<br /><br />The pronunciation "Jehovah" is sort of an abomination, made by reading the vowels for `adonay (lord) into Yahweh per Jewish superstitions as discussed above, then coming to us by way of German or Latin (where the y sound is represented by j, and w by v).<br /><br />So the pronunciation "Jehovah" or "Yahowah" is a mongrel impossibility.<br /><br />I think this is probably paralyzing enough without my going into why "Yahweh" is the most probable pronunciation.<br /><br />So, all that to say, love you Frank, but no.<br /><br />And thanks for the poke.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-81322722873728209112007-01-30T12:12:00.000-06:002007-01-30T12:12:00.000-06:00The vacation is nice. Somehow I feel like the blo...The vacation is nice. Somehow I feel like the blogging pressure is off until Daddy comes home.<br /><br />That said, I'm not a Hebrew scholar -- I'm a guy with a blog. But I think -- I <i>think</i> -- that "Yahweh" is itself a convention, Dan, isn't it? Isn't it "YHVH" a contraction of "YAHOVAH" (I'm sure it ought to be "JEHOVAH")? It's "Yahweh" the "fourth commandment" version of the actual name of God, isn't it?<br /><br />So translating it "Yahweh" and saying, "hey -- that's the text" is a little short sighted, I think. Especially in Ex 6:2-3, as I have exemplified already. It's wooden to say that God never uses His name as His title. It overlooks several cases where that conclusion cannot be overlooked. (for example, Ps 3, where the sense of "YHVH" moves from "YHVH" who I cry out to" to "YHVH who saves me")<br /><br />It's exactly the way the word "Caesar" works -- it is both a name and a title.<br /><br />You can have the last word on that. It's a slow day and I couldn;t think of any good ways to poke at iMonk, so I cam by to poke at you.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-39365708058709677352007-01-30T10:44:00.000-06:002007-01-30T10:44:00.000-06:00I dunno about the Yahweh thing. Some guys came to...I dunno about the Yahweh thing. Some guys came to my door one day and said God's true name is <i>Jehovah</i>. They didn't say anything about Yahweh.<br /><br />They seemed really sincere, so I guess it must be true.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18196737077210254855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-15727804519515865682007-01-30T09:14:00.000-06:002007-01-30T09:14:00.000-06:00Frank, thanks for your thoughts. They're character...Frank, thanks for your thoughts. They're characteristically clever and well-put. However, the argument is wrong at every essential point. (c:<br /><br />[1] "Yahweh" is not a "convention." Hiding it behind "LORD" or "GOD" is a convention. That Yahweh inspired the writers to call Him, well, "Yahweh," is a <i>fact</i>, not a convention.<br /><br />[2] Why the NT writers continued LXX use is a matter of speculation. Best not to build on speculation when you have a truckload of facts. To my mind, 6823 uses constitute a truckload.<br /><br />[3] What you argue about the "two senses" of Yahweh amounts to an unnecessary "improvement" on the text itself. I am extremely leery of saying, in effect, that God didn't phrase Himself very deftly, so I am going to help Him out. You're smart and very well-read, so you can put on your 3-D glasses and see behind the secret code. I think the Bible is sufficiently challenging reading that we don't need to "improve" on it by adding over-subtle obstacles.<br /><br />[4] You give the KJV too much credit in one regard. I've been doing this Hebrew/Greek thing for well over thirty years. There are some conventions of translation that are simply there because they are over-familiar, and don't even get thought about by translators. Like Proverbs 22:6, which I'll write on someday. The KJV's rendering "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it," for instance, is fine except for the "train up," the "in," the "he should go," and the "and." I mean to write on that someday. But no tr will challenge that rendering as they should.<br /><br />As to the vacation -- < shrug ><br /><br />You?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-62769184670219263752007-01-30T08:51:00.000-06:002007-01-30T08:51:00.000-06:00Dan --
Didn't you just answer your own argument w...Dan --<br /><br />Didn't you just answer your own argument with the LXX rebuttal?<br /><br />Here's what I'm thinking:<br />[1] Hb has YHVH, which is a convention to honor the name of God. Right or wrong, that's the <i>convention</i>.<br />[2] The Jews who translated "YHVH" into LXX Greek used "kurios" for "YHVH".<br />[3] The Christians -- like Peter, for example, at Pentecost -- who were using the LXX as the their source for OT wisdom, call Jesus "kurios" and "xristos". The implication in that case is quite obvious.<br />[4] The basis for using "kurios" is established over time -- and by the NT, btw -- as a validated method of refering to God the Father.<br />[5] 1200 years later, English comes around, and we translate "kurios" as "Lord", and go back and realize that this is what the hellenized Jews called "YHVH".<br /><br />The reason I bring that up is that I find it hard to believe that the KJV translators were "superstitious" about the name of God. I think these were men of extraordinary erudition who could read many languages, and their facility in handling the issue (I think) demonstrates something quite insightful.<br /><br />Consider Ex 6:2-3. In those verses, God says to Moses, "I am the LORD. 3I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them."(ESV) That reads in HCSB, "I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I did not make My name Yahweh known to them."<br /><br />My suggestion is that, irony of ironies, the KJV actually gets it right: "I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."<br /><br />That is: there are two senses to the use of "YHVH" which the reader ought to be sensitive to. The first, of course, is as the name of God. But the second is as it works in the text to refer to God not just <i>by name</i> but by <i>position or title</i>. For God to say, "I am that I am", and thereby tell Moses His <i>name</i> is Yahovah, He is also telling Moses His <i>essence</i> or <i>position among all things</i>.<br /><br />Because we do not have a great way in English of representing the Hebrew word play going on when God provides His name as "I AM", I think the view that <i>both</i> LORD and Yahweh are viable translations, and I think the HCSB's criteria is goo on its face even if it doesn't represent it in my example from Ex 6 very well.<br /><br />How you enjoying the Pyro vacation, btw?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-6049032070415674372007-01-30T08:16:00.000-06:002007-01-30T08:16:00.000-06:00Great post. I'm glad that during the Pyro break w...Great post. I'm glad that during the Pyro break we don't have to take leave of DJP as well!!<br /><br />That use of "Jehovah" always bothered me. God gives us the inestimable privilege of his name, and we dare use the verbal typo of "Jehovah", even when we know that it's wrong.<br /><br />(Minor nit: you might want to reconsider the use of Google ads on your site. Because they appear on your blog, it could cause some to believe that you endorse those ads. The ads that came up on this post, for example, included "Hell does not exist: and you can prove it", "Revelation 17 reveals the name of the next Pope, ... Learn Bible prophecy" and "Eloah: the Goddess within the Bible").Tom Geehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15363329987895368813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-38644389142455446952007-01-30T07:53:00.000-06:002007-01-30T07:53:00.000-06:00Well, Don, some OT texts which are applied to Jesu...Well, Don, some OT texts which are applied to Jesus in the NT do use the name Yahweh; so if the translation used "Yahweh," readers would more readily see that Jesus is Yahweh the Son. I've made much of that, betimes, in witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses.<br /><br />The NT writers tended to use the LXX (Greek translation) as we do the NAS or KJV, and it had <i>kurios</i> (Lord).<br /><br />To make clear: "Yahweh" never occurs in the NT. Fringey tr's that stick it in there are either cultic, nuts, or both.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-52599232624180337362007-01-30T07:43:00.000-06:002007-01-30T07:43:00.000-06:00Tell me about it. I recently decided it made more...Tell me about it. I recently decided it made more sense to use "Yahweh" when writing theologically. One of these, er, years, I'd love to sit down and study what governs the Bible writers' various uses of the Tetragrammaton, Adonai and Elohim. There'll be a book somewhere on it already, I'm sure.<br /><br />[Incidentally, spinning off from Judges 6:24, I wish they'd translate Jehovah-Jireh and their ilk as "Yahweh provides" etc. Names were meant to mean something, darn it, so tell us what they mean!]Phil Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07682724722979908589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-8946908682190429872007-01-30T07:40:00.000-06:002007-01-30T07:40:00.000-06:00That's my understanding, yes. It grew from the sam...That's my understanding, yes. It grew from the same superstitious legalism that over-defined "work" on the Sabbath, setting a hedge around the law. If using Yahweh's name frivolously was a sin, one way to avoid it would be NEVER TO SAY IT! Problem solved!<br /><br />Thus the absurd practice of saying <i>'adonay</i> instead of <i>Yahweh</i> when reading aloud, which persists to this day—even among many Christian Hebrew profs! And thence the odd vowel-pointing in the Hebrew text, which led to the mispronunciation "Jehovah" which, while no likelier than <i>'adonay</i>, at least has the advantage of not being <i>utterly and unquestionably impossible and misleading</i>, like "Lord."DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-29989178366828391732007-01-30T07:38:00.000-06:002007-01-30T07:38:00.000-06:00I have a New Jerusalem Bible. It's difficult to re...I have a New Jerusalem Bible. It's difficult to read Yahweh, when your so used to the word LORD. But I like it.<br /><br />Nice thoughts on all this.<br /><br />I do think by saying Lord for the word Yahweh Jesus Christ is identified with God in some sense, though I imagine the word Yahweh most likely refers to the Father, though I'm not sure about that.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-20792487923493489332007-01-30T07:35:00.000-06:002007-01-30T07:35:00.000-06:00This was a very good post and a very good point.
...This was a very good post and a very good point.<br /><br />Is this tradition of substituting something else for "Yhwh" a hanger-on from the Jewish aversion to speaking the Name?Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16625691560372353977noreply@blogger.com