Posted by Janey to J.H. on March 23, 1999 at 06:09:43 {MW/mrDAKQdkdU}:
Jan has reached a new level of stupidity it seems. But we will see if he can put his money where his mouth is.
On the thread on Stafford refutes White below J.H. actually clings to that old belief that "Yahweh" is God's name, and argues against Stafford's view that the trisyllable form "Yahaweh" is more accurate. Stafford also makes a simple point about Anglicized spelling of biblical names and points out that the form "Jehovah" lives up to this practice and represents a trisyllable form of the divine name, and is therefore a "closer apporximation than Yahweh."
But since J.H. has such a hard time understanding these simple points, and s8ince he relies on the Jerome Bible Commentary and some journals who merely present the traditional view, I spent several hours last night typing in paragraphs from Stafford's book where he utterly destroys the "Yahweh" view.
J.H. calls his sources,
"These articles were written by honest and real scholars, which is why they are accepted in peer-reviewed journals that would reject the garbage people like Furuli, Stafford or White usually writes."
We all know that "real scholars" to J.H. are only those that agree with him. But J.H. does not give any data from this articles at all. I doubt he even read them.
Here is what Stafford has to say:
"Hebrew personal names with theophoric suffixes. Jehovah is an acceptable pronunciation of the divine name. It preserves
the essential elements of the Tetragrammaton (hwhy). That the most widely known form in English, which is a form linguistically widespread because of Christendom�s missionary-translators of the Bible and the modern use by Jehovah�s Witnesses,
is three syllables�whereas most authorities say that the original pronunciation in Hebrew was two syllables (Yahweh)�is of no moment. After all, we think nothing of our taking the Greek trisyllable Iesous, pronounced ee-aye-soos, with
emphasis on the final syllable) and writing the English, shortened form of it, namely, the two-syllable "Jesus." In fact, the Hebrew language does this with the spelling of God�s name so that some of its occurrences are as a hypocoristic
(shortened) form, YH (or JH), in the extant manuscripts.
In some of the Hebrew personal names that incorporate a theophoric (divine name-bearing) suffix, we find three different treatments of such names. First, there is the case
where a theophoric suffix (for example, -yah [Hebrew YH] or -yahu [Hebrew YHW], instead of the full spelling Jehovah or Yahweh [Hebrew YHWH], of course,) was sometimes entirely dropped. Thus, Berekhyahu could and did become truncated to
Berekh (= the Anglicized Baruch). We know this from a comparison of the extant Hebrew manuscripts, which preserve the shortened form as reflected in our English versions� spelling of the name "Baruch," with seventh-century BCE �seals and seal
impressions of six Biblical [Judahite] personages recovered.�
Then we have the second and third treatments of names that incorporate the theophoric element so that the theophoric element could appear either as -yahu or as -yah.
We transliterate (not to be confused with Anglicizing a Hebrew spelling) both the second and third treatments of the theophoric suffix as -iah.
The third-mentioned treatment (-yah) was a very common practice so that, for example, a
man�s given name could be Neriyahu, but he would commonly hear his name as Neriah. In fact, such is exactly the case with the historical Neriyahu, for apparently he was better known as Neriah. We know this fact from a comparison of the
spelling "Neriyahu" (the patronymic of Baruch/Berekh), which occurs in a bulla (a blisterlike lump of clay used to bind shut a scroll, usually impressed with a scribe�s seal) dating from the time of Jeremiah�s and his scribe Baruch�s ministries,
with what we see in the extant Hebrew manuscripts, wherein we see the spelling "Neriah." The spelling "Neriah" shows us either that Jeremiah introduced the less formal expression "Berekh ben Neriah" into the Hebrew Scriptures, or that
Hebrew scribes early on so introduced these particular hypocoristics, for they are not the formal names that we see in "Berekhyahu ben Neriyahu," an identification which appears on the aforementioned, formal bulla.
. . .
Regarding the use of Jehovah for hwhy (YHWH), Francis Denio states:
"Unquestionably it is an erroneous form. Other forms equally erroneous are unchallenged. Isaiah and Jeremiah, to name no others, would, if correctly printed, be as much barbarisms as Yahweh. . . . Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right. Usage has given them the connotations proper for designating the personalities which these words represent. Much the same is true of Jehovah. It is not a barbarism. It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant God of Israel. There is no other word which can faintly compare with it. For centuries it has been gathering these connotations. No other word approaches this name in the fulness [sic] of associations required. The use of any other word falls so far short of the proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in a translation.
Thus, according to Denio "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu." Does this mean that "Jeremiah" is not actually a "biblical term," as Rhodes would have it? Quite
the contrary. The two terms "Jehovah" and "Jeremiah" represent, in English, the actual Hebrew words written long ago.
More recently George Buchanan has written in support of a trisyllable form of the divine name in Hebrew. In a
recent article, he argues against the pronunciation "Yahweh," stating: "Anyone who cares to check the concordances will find that there is no name in the entire Scriptures that includes the Tetragrammaton and also omits the vowel that is
left out in the two-syllable pronunciation [=Yahweh] Rainey upholds. . . . When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was �Yah� or �Yo.� When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been �Yahowah� or �Yahoowah.� If it was ever
abbreviated to two syllables it would have been �Yaho,� but even this spelling may have been pronounced with three syllables, including the final aspirant, because Hebrew had no vowel points in Biblical times."
Several years earlier
Buchanan wrote a similar, more detailed defense of the original, trisyllable form. In this article he points out that there was only one group in antiquity to pronounce the divine name similar to the popular form, "Yahweh." And this only
because Theodoret (fifth-century CE Antiochene theologian) claimed that the Samaritans pronounced the divine name as Iabe. But, "all other examples [from antiquity] maintain the middle vowel." Buchanan also points out that "the name �Yahweh�
does not even sound Semitic," and he produces examples from Exodus 15 with "Yahweh" and "Yahowah" in the same sentences. Those with "Yahowah" sound "smooth and poetic," while those with "Yahweh" "sound rough and unrythmical." Buchanan
concludes: "The accumulated data points heavily in the direction of a three syllable word, whose middle syllable was h� or h�. The first two syllables were Yah� or Yah� that were sometimes abbreviated to Y�. For poetry, liturgy, and some other
reasons, the name Y�h was also used. Only from Theodoret�s Greek spelling of the Samaritan use of the term is there any basis for the pronunciation �Yahweh� or �Jahveh.� This is hardly enough to overpower all of the other exhibits."
I left out
the footnotes, but Stafford quote George Buchanan, H. W. F. Gesenius, F. Denio,and other scholars from publications such as the Journal of Biblical Literature, The Bible Translator, Reveu De Qumran, Biblical Archeology Review, and
Zeitschrift f�r die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
Now Jan, please remember that "Stafford would not know an encycolpedia if it hit him on the head," "he is wrong," "I am right" are not ARGUMENTS. They are stupid statement that tell us all that you have no argument.
Basically Jan, you have not given even one argument for your position. Now would you please deal with the above? I know it is probably way over your head, but at least try.
Janey