Here's my response to http://www.eliyah.com/yahushua.html

The 'o' vowel in Yhoshu`/"Yehoshua" and other Yho-/"Yeho-" names is not by
Masoretic invention; this is the vowel used in the common pronunciation of these
names at least as early as the Septuagint translation (~200BC), which generally
renders them IO-, not IAU- or IAOU- as Yahu- would be rendered.  Yahu- is a
mistake.

Furthermore, any theory for Yahw-h's name needs to account for how it became
Yho- in Yho- names.  The Yahwa theory accounts for this.  -wa- becomes -o- in
'achot from 'achwat (sister).  Then, what was Yaho- became reduced to
Yho-("Yeho-") by antepenultimate vowel reduction.

In time, the Hebrews dropped the 'h' from most names which were Yho- , and they
became Yo-, e.g. Yhochanan became Yochanan.
An exception to this is when the rest of the name begins with a syllable with a
long 'u' in it, e.g. Yho + hu' (Jehu), Yho + shu` (Joshua).  Then the expected
Yo- has become Ye- by the 'o' vowel dissimilating from the back vowel 'u' to a
front vowel 'e'.
The result is Yehu (Jehu) and Yeshu` (Jeshua, cf. Iesous, IESUS, etc.).

These were the Hebrew pronunciations of 200BC, as the Septuagint shows, and
likely the ones also used at the time of our Lord Yeshu`.  Hence they wrote his
name IESOUS, not IAUSOUS or IAOUSOUS.

I believe Yahushua is a mistaken reconstruction which doesn't represent a
historical pronunciation of the name of our Lord.

Love from Garth.

_________________________________________________________________
What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2\
Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%\
26a%3D30288&_t=764581033&_r=email_taglines_Join_free_OCT07&_m=EXT

Hi all!

Why was a short form YH made from YHWH?

This is a good question, and though I have an answer, I cannot claim
that it is the answer:  I was not there!

I can point out that YH is generally used more in poetry.

My theory is that BECAUSE...

1. 2nd Millenium BCE Canaanite had case endings -u, -a and -i,
    AND
2. Yahwa (according to my theory) is locked in -a regardless of case,
due to it being clipped from verb yahwayu,
   THEREFORE
3. Yah was created from Yahwa to create a name which could be
inflected as Yahu (nominative), Yaha (accusative) and Yahi (genitive).

Thus if one willed (either for stylistic, poetic reasons, or precise
grammatical reasons) to inflect the name of YHWH to show whether it be
the subject or object or.... in a sentence, one could us Yah with a
case ending.

If the name Yahwa was not shortened so much, if it were only shortened
to Yahw, then Yahwa (the hypothetical accusative case Yahw + a) would
not be distinguishable from Yahwa (the full name clipped from verb
yahwayu).


Does this make sense?

Love from Garth.

[Garth responds: Thanks Solomon for the feedback. YHWH be magnified and
His name be known among the brothers of Yeshu`. Do you reckon you could
scan and post some of what you say about the Hebrew prayer books? That
would be great if you could. The photo section would be the place.]

Dear Garth and alll:

Unfortunately, I do not have a working scanner, and these books have a
rather heavy copyright notice:

"No part of this book may be reproduced IN ANY FORM -- PHOTOCOPY, OR
OTHERWISE -- even for personal use without WRITTEN permission from the
copyright holder." (Capitals original)

The books are published by the Rabbinical Council of America, in
cooperation with Artscroll/Mesorah, Ltd. of Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Perhaps your local synagogue might be a good place to get a look, or
ask the rabbi what the prayer book says about the "meditative"
pronunciation of YHWH.

Best wishes,

Solomon


[Oh no! Now look what you've done! You've reproduced part of the book: the
Copyright notice! hehe! :-)  -Forgive me Solomon, I'm just being childish.  I
hate copyright laws! If anyone has something worth saying, it must be the Truth,
and if it is the Truth what man can claim it to have originated with him that he
should be able to charge for it?!  YHWH is the only author of Truth, isn't He? 
If I roast a chicken and you walk past and smell the pleasant smell, but take
nothing from me that I could have kept, shall I charge you for the smell you
smelled?  But for the sake of obeying the authorities that be, lets not breach
the copyright. "go to the sea, cast a hook" and if a Jewish prayer book comes
up, please mail it to me!  Otherwise maybe I'd better go to a synagogue... 
Actually, can you give me the name of the book?]

Hi Ivan,

> Garth..could you

Yes, it would be a pleasure to.

> comment about this web
>
> http://www.yahshuah.com/bkjy.html

It's historically incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of Hebrew and
Greek writing.

Yah is spelled with Hebrew letters Y and H, and the H is often marked with a
mappiq: it is a read 'h' sound.
Yahshua is not the transliteration of any Hebrew spelling of the name of
Messiah.  There is no Hebrew spelling Y-H-Sh-... of this name; only Y-Sh... and
Y-H-W-Sh-... no Y-H-Sh...

There are two true spellings of this name, and only the latter is used of Yeshu`
the Messiah:
*The older form of the name was Y-H-W-Sh-`ayin, representing what was at some
time "Yhoshu`", which was likely once pronounced "Yahoshu`" and perhaps
originally pronounced "Yahwashu`-".  Yeshu` Messiah's name is not spelled this
old way in any ancient manuscript I know of.
*The post-exilic form of the name is spelled Y-Sh-W-`ayin which represents
Yeshu`.  This is the way Messiah's name is spelled in all Aramaic and Hebrew
manuscripts I know of.


The form Jesus was originally (and still is in German) pronounced much like the
Greek form Iesous, which is represented as Iesus in Latin and in early English.
'J' is a recent addition to the Latin writing and was originally used in English
to represent initial 'i' or 'i' when it is being used as a consonant sound
(which we now use 'y' for).

The Greek form Iesous is the closest representation of the true Hebrew
pronunciation, with Greek letters, which can be inflected -s, -n, for different
cases.

"Jesus" has nothing to do with Zeus. Zeus is not properly pronounced "zoose"
anyway.


It is good for a person to have a desire to correct things and set things
straight.
It is also crucial that they learn what is straight, and learn the languages
they are talking about.

Love from Garth.




_________________________________________________________________
It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom\
%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F8596\
41&_t=762955845&_r=tig_OCT07&_m=EXT

Garth's response to Yoseph Viel's thename.mp3


Dear all,

First of all I'd like to say thank you to Yoseph Viel for making the
effort to record himself expressing clearly his thoughts concerning
the pronunciation of the divine name YHWH.  Yoseph expressed well how
ludicrous it appears to people who understand Hebrew to find a myriad
of supposed 'Hebrew roots' believers pronouncing names that show no
understanding of the Hebrew language or even the spelling of the names
they claim to restore:  Yahshua, Yahushua, Yahuah, IAUE, Ihawah...this
list grows on as each person adds his own pet theory about how these
names were pronounced.

That is one good reason for participating in this discussion:  Rather
than getting an idea and posting it on your own webpage and becoming a
guru in your own eyes -never to be tested and challenged by people who
know actually take the time to learn Hebrew- you can send your ideas
here and we will discuss them and test them and everyone can benefit
by seeing whether or not the idea fits the data that we have available
to us.  [We can also accumulate data which can be shared by the group,
and each can use it to test their understandings.]


Yoseph, you've well pointed out that we ought to know Hebrew if we are
going to think we know these Hebrew names.
I affirm this and go beyond it: we are not talking about the Hebrew
that Jews speak today, nor the Tiberian Hebrew from which it is
derived, but for Messiah's name we are talking about 1st century
Hebrew, and for YHWH's name we are talking about the language of 'Adam
and Hawwah.  We may be able to say something that means 'he is' and
makes sense in Modern Hebrew, but it may not be the pronunciation of
the Name that Scripture preserves, or that Messiah revealed to his
brothers.  Hebrew has changed.

*The pronunciation of Modern Hebrew is different from that of Tiberian
Hebrew.
*The pronunciation of Tiberian Hebrew was different from other
dialects of Hebrew.
*The pronunciation of these medieval dialects was different from that
of 1st century Hebrew.
*The pronunciation of 1st century Hebrew was different from pre-exilic
Hebrew.
*The pronunciation of pre-exilic Hebrew was different from the 2nd
Millenium BC 'Hebrew' of Moses.
*The 2nd Millenium BC 'Hebrew' was likely different from the original
Semitic language.


So the quest for the true pronunciation of YHWH is neither a matter of
ignorant guesswork without understanding
of the Hebrew language, and nor is it a matter we can presume by
merely knowing Modern Hebrew.  The name YHWH was revealed in ancient
history, and so we need to reach it through understanding the
languages of ancient history. [I've found these two books very helpful
in this, and tremendously interesting: "A History of the Hebrew
Language" by Angel Saenz-Badillos, and "Comparative Semitic
Linguistics: a Manual" by Patrick R. Bennett.]


A good start is understand the differences between Modern Hebrew and
Biblical Hebrew.

One difference (which is most important to testing Yoseph's reckoning
of the name) regards tense vs. aspect:
*Biblical Hebrew marks verbs for aspect(Complete"Perfect" or
Incomplete"Imperfect") but not for tense (past, present, future).
	 *The suffix conjugation, the QaTaL form, is used for Perfect aspect
and means that the action is referenced as complete. English
translations usually translate the Perfect forms as Past tense, even
if the time of the action is future from the speaker's perspective,
e.g. "Surely he bore our griefs" (Is 53:4).
	 *The prefix conjugation, the YQTL form is used for the Imperfect
aspect and means that the action is NOT referenced as complete.
English translations tend to translate the Imperfect forms ad Present
tense or Future tense, depending on context. [see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfective]


This means that the one form, the Imperfective YQTL form, would have a
meaning translatable into both present and future tense.  So when
Clement translates YHWH as "[He] is AND shall be", this should lead us
to seek the Imperfective form of a root which means 'to be'.


But Modern Hebrew has forced the forms of Biblical Hebrew into TENSE
categories:
*the QaTaL form for PAST tense,
*the YQTL form for FUTURE tense, and
*the Active Participle form QoTeL for PRESENT tense.


Brother Yoseph, it seems that you have assumed that for YHWH to means
as Clement says "who is AND shall be", it must contain elements of
both the Modern Hebrew Present tense form and the Modern Hebrew Future
tense form. [Then would everyone else's explanation "he who is" (e.g.
Rambam) be deficient?]

So you get y+howeh.

You have suggested this is what Clement's Greek letters iaou(e) refer
to, as though the omicron was the o in yahoweh.  I suggest this is
unlikely, as the 'o' in the Qotel form is represented by long 'o'
cholem, which in Greek is usually represented by long omega and not
short omicron. Hence i-omega-saphat for yhoshaphat, i-omega-ram for
yoram, and so on.

On the other hand, Greek 'ou' usually doesn't mean two sounds, but one
'oo' sound, approximating the long 'u' vowel and the semivowel
'w'/waw, which according to Modern Hebrew you are pronouncing as 'v'.

So Clement's iaou(e) may be a representation of what Theodore was
saying is the Samaritan iabe:
ia-w-(e)

So, I think iaoue can very easily be read as yahweh -but I'm not
saying that it is the correct pronunciation of YHWH.


I don't suggest that the Samaritan tradition be totally disregarded,
just because their Hebrew is different.  Rather I suggest it be
understood and that some intelligent comparison be made to determine
its relationship to 1st century Hebrew, even as we should do with
Modern Hebrew.  The fact that Modern Hebrew speakers are Jews should
lead us to assume that their form of Hebrew is the only form useful
for reconstructing 1st century Hebrew.

One such change in Samaritan Hebrew is that "Beth and Waw both are
pronounced as b," according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Hebrew#Pronunciation.

Therefore if the Samaritan pronunciation of YHWH was Iabe, there is
reason to suppose that the 'b' in it represented the waw. If Greek
could write a unique letter for 'w', then ia-ou-(e) would probably
have been writen as ia-w-(e).

As you've mentioned, Yoseph, there is dispute about whether the 'e' at
the end of Clement's iaou(e) was written by Clement.  I cannot be
sure;  I know Dave in our group has been on this specific issue for a
long time.  I personally cannot even be sure if Clement OF ALEXANDRIA
was not representing a pronunciation that he'd learnt from Gnostic
syncretists who may have got it from Samaritans(?!).

In the centuries BC, iota-alpha-omega seems to be the more usual
spelling of the YHWH in Greek letters.
We've been told that this is a manuscript preserving the older IAO
spelling:
http://au.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/YHWHgroup/photos/view/f8c9?b=1


If it was usually spelled iao, why did the final vowel disappear?
  The long 'e' in the Active participle never slips off the end of a
word, does it?
  Nor does the segol of 3-He Imperfectives, does it?


But we do see both layla and leyl forms of the word 'night'..



In conclusion, Yoseph, I don't see a reason to believe that YHWH would
do the unusual thing of attaching the y- prefix to an Active
Participle form to make y-howeh.  If this is a pronunciation well
known to Jews, where can I find some ancient testimony to it?

On the other hand, though this form may make some sense to a Modern
Hebrew speaker, how could Enosh (Gen 4:26) have spoken it before the
Canaanite Vowel Shift of long 'a' to 'o'?
The Active Participle (which is the form Modern Hebrew uses for
Present tense) used to be QaaTiLum/QaaTiLun.
If we used your method at this stage of the lanugage, Yoseph, we'd get
y-HaaWiYum/y-HaaWiYun.
What then would the consonant's YHWH represent?  A truncated Y-HoWi,
or an evolved form Y-HoWe?
Has the pronunciation of the name YHWH changed? I don't know.


Yoseph, I reckon all of us -Jew and Gentile- need to think outside of
the square we live in, if we are to be successful in the quest of the
pronunciation of the ancient, 'forever' name YHWH (Ex 3:14-15).


Love from Garth.

PS> I also offer these comments:

*A hybrid name ya+howeh is somewhat supported by the presumption that
mashiach is a hybrid form.  But is it?
	 *Yoseph, you've explained that mashuach means one who is anointed,
and that moshiach means one who anoints, and have come to the
conclusion that mashiach is a combination of both forms and both meanings.
	 *I wanted to test this, and I found that mashuach IS used of things
that have been anointed, as it is the Passive Participle, and
functions as an adjective for an "anointed" thing, e.g. "anointed
wafer".   Moshiach I could not find.  Do you mean mosheach, the active
participle "anointing", as in "he is anointing"?
	 *You've said mashiach only refers to our Messiah and the High Priest,
only to people who are both anointed and anointers.  I found rather
that mashiach is not a participle (mashuach and mosheach are
participles), but a noun meaning simple 'anointed one', and is used
not only of Messiah and the High Priest, but also anointed kings in
1Sa 16:6, 24:6,10, 26:16,23, 2Sa 1:14,16,19:21.

*Yoseph, you say often in the recording that Yeshua means 'salvation',
and it is easy for you to suppose this, as it sounds so similar to
Hebrew Yshu`ah.  However, I'm confident that you understand that it is
a contraction of Yhoshu`, and thus means the same: "YHWH is
salvation". Yhoshu` was probably formed from Yah+washu`(atu), as
y-sh-` is one of the roots that once began with w instead of y.
Yahwashu` could become Yahoshu` and Yhoshu`, just as 'achwatu became
'achot "sister" (construct 'chot with reduction of 'a' vowel, cf Yaho-
to Yho-).

*In Biblical Hebrew Yeshu` has: 1. a long 'e' and long 'u', 2. an
`ayin sound at the end of it, 3. no distinct 'a' vowel (furtive patach
is a feature of Tiberian pointing), 4. probably a penultimate accent
YE-shu`, as with apparantly all non-Tiberian Hebrew dialects of
post-exilic ancient Hebrew.

*You are right that shu` means 'a cry for help'. It is a noun, not a
Pu`al verb form.

*I'm probably nit-picking to point out that it is YHWH God Almighty
and not Yeshu` who says of Himself in Rev, that he "was and is and is
to come" (Rev 1:8).

*You mention a work in which it is said that the Aaronic blessing was
given with Past, present and future forms, e.g.:
"He Who Was bless you and keep you;
He Who Is make His face shine to you and grace you;
He Who Will Be make His face shine to you and give peace to you."
...but if this was so, we both know that any Hebrew distinguishing
between these would require a change in the consonants, so that what
is recorded 3 times as YHWH would have not been said 3 times.  I
suppose the work or the tradition it reports is thus unScriptural and
unreliable and probably late.










--- In YHWHgroup@..., "Jovial" <jovial@...> wrote:
>
> Hebrew GRAMMAR tells us how to pronounce the Name of "YHWH".  All we
have to do is apply the rules of grammar and we can know how to
pronounce it.  I've put together a teaching at
http://www.messiahalive.com/thename.htm that tells us what we need to
know from grammar to pronounce the Name correclty.  The Name means "He
Who Is" and all we have to do is figure out how to take the verb "HVH"
to same "He Who Is", applying the rules of grammar to know what vowels
to fill in between the consonants.  Hebrew is NOt like English , where
vowels are part of the basic word.  In Hebrew, the consonants define
the word and the vowels are filled in from the rules of grammar.
That's why there's more than one right way to say the Name "YHWH".
But you should know these rules of grammar before you try to say the Name.
>
> We've seen a multitude of pronunciations for "YHWH" floating around,
including....
>
> Yahweh Yahveh Yaveh Yaweh Jehova Jehovah
> Jahova Jahovah Yahova Yahovah Jahowa Jahowah
> Yahavah Yahawah Yahowe Yahoweh Yahaveh Yahaweh
> Yahuweh Yahuwah Yahuah Yah Jah Yahu Yahoo Yahvah
> Yahve Yahwe Yawhu Iahu Iahou Iahoo Iahueh
>
> Among these mis-pronunciations of the Name "YHWH" used in our modern
age are pronunciations that actually mean things like "He Who is evil"
or "He who is nonsense" or "He Who has become" (suggesting that G-d is
a created being!!!!).  What pronunciations mean these things?  I cover
this at http://www.messiahalive.com/thename.htm where I examine the
rules of grammar and what it tells us about the right way to say the
Name and what some of the wrong pronunciations used today actually
mean!  It is one of the most insightful and informative teachings on
the Name you'll ever hear, covering a TON of information you have
probably never heard anyone else teach about.
>
> In reality, there's more than one right way to say the Divine Name.
  but ALL ways of saying it are not "right".  Some pronunciations mean
things you would NEVER want to say about the Eternal One.  Listen to
http://www.messiahalive.com/thename.htm today and you can avoid using
some of those pronunciations that are actually blasphemous.
>
> Does pronunciation matter?  Yes and No.  Elohim understands and
forgives, but Hebrew is far more sensitive than English to
pronunciation changes.  Here's one example..
>
>   a.. "Moshiach" means "annointer"
>   b.. "Mashuach" means "announted one"
>   c.. "Mashiach" is actually a merging of these two words that
refers to someone who is both an annointer and an annointed one.  The
High Priest and the Messiah are the only two people that have ever
been called "mashiach".
> If you don't understand the rules of grammar that cause this to
happen, you probably shouldn't try to re-invent or "reconstruct" some
new unheard of pronunciation of "YHWH" or "Yeshua".  Vowel sounds do
not ride with the word in Hebrew the way they do in English, but they
are determined by grammar and the rules of grammar tell us everything
we need to know about how to say "YHWH" correctly.  And when you
change the vowel sounds, you can change the meaning, sense, tense, or
grammar and invert who is doing what to who when you change the vowels
from their intended original.  Many people in the sacred name movement
have decided to change the vowels underneath "YHWH" from how they are
traditionally understood to something that has a meaning they do not
understand, and they have no clue they are actually calling G-d a
blashpemous name.
>
> Jews quit pronouncing the Divine Name to keep Gentiles from
blaspheming G-d, but many Gentiles or those who describe themselves as
"Messianic" but reject Jewish ways have been blaspheming G-d by
mispronouncing His Name in blasphemous ways.  When you hear this
teaching at http://www.messiahalive.com/thename.htm, you are going to
learn several things, not the least of which is what some of these
blasphemous mis-pronunciations are.  You'll learn why we CAN
reconstruct the correct pronounciation of the Name from the rules of
Hebrew grammar, without even having to rely on tradition at all
(though both approaches arrive at the same conclusion).
>
>
> This is not only a great teaching you'll want to listen to, but one
you'll want to forward to all your friends.  It's a truly fresh look
at the pronunciation of the Names that has been ignored by most people
but definitely needs to be addressed.  Forward this email to all your
friends and enjoy listening to it yourself.  Also, you can download
this teaching as an MP3 so you can listen to it on the go (in your
car, etc).  [I just bought my daughter an MP3 player for $30 - they're
cheap!]
>
> Shalom, Yoseph Viel
>

((((((((((((((((((((((((
*The pronunciation of Modern Hebrew is different from that of Tiberian
Hebrew.
*The pronunciation of Tiberian Hebrew was different from other
dialects of Hebrew.
*The pronunciation of these medieval dialects was different from that
of 1st century Hebrew..........
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

We really don't KNOW that the pronunciation of Hebrew has changed during all
these times.  Perhaps it did.  Tape recorders weren't exactly available at
Mount Sinai.

[Garth replies: We know from the vowel system and the pointing of Tiberian
Hebrew that it was different from Modern Hebrew.  The 7 points corresponded to 7
vowels, not 5; the dagesh meant something in a daleth, etc.  We know from Greek
and Latin transcriptions as well as other traditions of vowel pointing that
Tiberian Hebrew was different from other medieval dialects of Hebrew.  We also
have syllabic inscriptions of early forms of Hebrew.]

But let's suppose it has for the moment.  If that's the case, the
pronunciation of "YHWH" is lost forever and we might as well shut this list
down because we'll never figure it out.  If the pronunciation has changed,
then it has been lost forever, never again to be retrieved.  The evidence
neccessary (some sort of audio recording) of how they spoke in the Garden of
Eden just doesn't exist.

[Garth replies: I'm not willing to give up, just because I recognise that there
has been a change in the language.  A change in the language may mean that you
are venturing into unknown territory; for me it is known territory, because I'm
aware of *how* it has changed.]

Hebrew has changed from Torah to the book of Judges for that matter.
However, if you're not going to pronounce the Name based on what is known
today about pronunciation, then you have no basis for pronouncing the Name
at all.  So why bother to mention it?

[Garth responds: I apologise if I've upset you.
The fact is that 'what is known today about pronunciation' is more than what can
be learnt from listening to Jews speak Modern Hebrew.]

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
So the quest for the true pronunciation of YHWH is neither a matter of
ignorant guesswork without understanding
of the Hebrew language, and nor is it a matter we can presume by
merely knowing Modern Hebrew.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

If pronunciation as it has been recorded is not the same as Gan Eden, it's
all ignorant guesswork.  We can't PROVE that Adam and Eve pronounced it the
same as any time period.

[Garth responds: But we can test various theories and see how far back into the
history of Semitic languages those theories can hold true.  Any theory with an
'o' cannot predate the split between Northwest Semitic and what would become
Arabic, can it?]

((((((((((((((((((((((
A good start is understand the differences between Modern Hebrew and
Biblical Hebrew.

One difference (which is most important to testing Yoseph's reckoning
of the name) regards tense vs. aspect:
*Biblical Hebrew marks verbs for aspect(Complete"Perfect" or
Incomplete"Imperfect") but not for tense (past, present, future).


Brother Yoseph, it seems that you have assumed that for YHWH to means
as Clement says "who is AND shall be", it must contain elements of
both the Modern Hebrew Present tense form and the Modern Hebrew Future
tense form. [Then would everyone else's explanation "he who is" (e.g.
Rambam) be deficient?]
)))))))))))))))))))))))

No.  Hebrew does have a way to describe past, present and future tense even
in Torah times.  It was not done with VERBS, but it could be done with other
grammatical words.  Some sentences don't have a way to assess tense, but
some sentences do.  There's debate as to whether HWH should be thought of as
similar to other verbs, or whether the tense was always there, or just there
when it was an auxilary verb, etc.  In the end, you have to explain it in
English in a way people can grasp hold of when you're keeping it simple.
Trying to unravel THAT can of worms was well beyond the scope of what I
wanted to get into for a recording that was ALREADY longer than I wanted it
to be.

[Garth responds:  perhaps here is a place for unraveling your true understanding
of the tenses of Hebrew.]

((((((((((((((((
On the other hand, Greek 'ou' usually doesn't mean two sounds, but one
'oo' sound, approximating the long 'u' vowel and the semivowel
'w'/waw, which according to Modern Hebrew you are pronouncing as 'v'.
))))))))))))))))))

I covered that when I brought the issue up because the unique nature of
expressing Hebrew sounds in Greek letters means we have to give some
lattitude in onterpretting what is written as potentially being more than
one thing.  It's the combination of the vowels along with the MEANING that
he gives that renders the conclusion into something sensible.

[Garth responds: Why wouldn't the *QAL* Imperfect Yahweh (before Ya became Yi)
be a sensible rendering of iaoue + "who is and will be"?  Why resort to a hybrid
word?]

((((((((((((((((((((((
wafer". Moshiach I could not find. Do you mean mosheach, the active
participle "anointing", as in "he is anointing"?
)))))))))))))))))))))))

No.  I meant what I said.

[Garth replies: In that case, where in the Bible (or other ancient literature
can I find this word 'moshiach', so that I can test your theory that mashiach is
derived from it?]

(((((((((((((
*You've said mashiach only refers to our Messiah and the High Priest,
only to people who are both anointed and anointers. I found rather
that mashiach is not a participle (mashuach and mosheach are
participles), but a noun meaning simple 'anointed one', and is used
not only of Messiah and the High Priest, but also anointed kings in
1Sa 16:6, 24:6,10, 26:16,23, 2Sa 1:14,16,19:21.
))))))))

No.  1  Sa 16:6 is "Meshicho"
1 Sa 24:6,10, 26:16,23 2Sa 1:14,16,19:21 all have מְש�ִיחַ , not
מָש�ִיחַ

[(M:shiach not Mashiach -Unfortunately Yahoo doesn't seem to support the letters
you use.) Garth responds Mshiach/M:shiach/Meshiach is the Tiberian construct
form of Mashiach, the same word.  It is the word you assert means "anointed
anointer", and not the word mashuach which we agree is a passive participle
"anointed".]

(((((((((((((((((((((((((
*Yoseph, you say often in the recording that Yeshua means 'salvation',
and it is easy for you to suppose this, as it sounds so similar to
Hebrew Yshu`ah. However, I'm confident that you understand that it is
a contraction of Yhoshu`, and thus means the same: "YHWH is
salvation".
))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The LONG form of "Yehoshua" can be viewed that way.  But "Yeshua" is simply
"Salvation" period.

[Garth responds: I note that Yeshu` has a long 'e', whereas yshu`ah "salvation"
has a shewa. What does Yehu' mean?  It means "YHWH is he."  'e' occurs in the
theophoric prefix in place of 'o', when the following syllable has a long 'u'. 
Thus most other Yho- names became Yo-, but Yhoshu` didn't become Yoshu`, but
rather Yeshu`.  I don't think this is a matter of what can or can't be viewed in
a certain way: this is the way the history of the name is.  Even in the Hebrew
Bible the same person is called Yhoshu` in older books and Yeshu` in newer
books, not because the meaning of his name had changed:  rather the
pronunciation had changed.]

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
*You are right that shu` means 'a cry for help'. It is a noun, not a
Pu`al verb form.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The noun form can be shawa or shoa.  Shua is the pual form of the verb.

[Garth responds:  You are probably right. Would you please help me find an
occurrence of a pual of sh-w-` in the Bible?  Here's one place I found with the
noun 'shu`'/'shua': Job 36:19]

((((((((((((
*You mention a work in which it is said that the Aaronic blessing was
given with Past, present and future forms, e.g.:
"He Who Was bless you and keep you;
He Who Is make His face shine to you and grace you;
He Who Will Be make His face shine to you and give peace to you."
...but if this was so, we both know that any Hebrew distinguishing
between these would require a change in the consonants, so that what
is recorded 3 times as YHWH would have not been said 3 times. I
suppose the work or the tradition it reports is thus unScriptural and
unreliable and probably late.
))))))))))))))))

While what you are saying could be true, I don't see that as a problem.
Under the rules of Modern Hebrew, "He Who Will Be" would be pronounced
"Yihyeh".  In fact the present tense might actually be "HHWH" and there may
not be one that has Y+H+W+H all together.  You've got the mix future (or
imperfect) with present (or perfect) to come up with one that fits.  But
since He is eternal, I suspect that all such combinations are valid as long
as they are true.  We're describing the infinite, not the finite.

[Garth responds: As I've shown, mixed imperfective+act.partiple forms do not
exist in Biblical Hebrew, nor do they need to, but if they were future and
present tenses (as they are in Modern Hebrew), a mixed form would be useful for
any statement which is true of the present as well as the future, and not just
regarding the Infinite One.  But all that fits YHWH of HWH verbs are those that
have a Y- prefix.  Y- verbs include the imperfective, subjective, jussive and
preterite, and only the imperfective is appropriate.  The Imperfective doesn't
carry tense that it could be marked as Past, Present or Future.  The tradtion is
thus likely to be false.]

Also, it may be (and I think it was) that in Torah times, HWH was synonymous
with HYH.  Let me provide some evidence based on the next closest word.

הו� (hoo) and הי� (hee) are used interchangeably as a personal pronoun in
the first 5 books of Torah (Genesis/Beresheet - Deuteronomy/Devarim). Either
can be used for a man or a woman. But in post-Torah Hebrew Scriptures, they
took on very gender specific roles with הו� (hoo) meaning "he" (being used
only for men) and הי� (hee) meaning "she" (being used only for women).
Examples of this can be seen in multiple places. הו� is used to mean "she"
in Gen 3:12,20, 7:2, 19:20 38:21. And in Gen 38:25, both הו� (hoo) and הי�
(hee) are used to refer to Tamar in the same sentence. And הי� can be seen
used as a masculine pronoun in both Lev 13:10 and Lev 16:31. הי� (hee) was
less common, being used only in 257 verses of the Torah, while הו� (hoo) is
used in 1337 verses of the Torah.

But at some point this changed, and הי� began to be used exclusively for
women, while הו� began to be used exclusively for men in post Torah
writings.

[Garth responds:  thanks for bringing that up.  I'll have to have a good think
about that.  I still haven't a solution for the Torah's feminine hw' form.]

My personal theory is that at one point, הוה and היה were synonymous as
well
just like הו� and הי� where, and only in later times did they separate
into
more specific roles.  Thus, there could have been a "Yihweh" and a "Yihyeh"
that both meant "He Will Be".

[Garth responds: I agree. I point out from...
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/semham/sem\
et&text_number=1644&root=config
...that the HWH root is more common in Semitic languages, but Biblical Hebrew
has HYH.  I also point out that the Qal YQTL form was once apparently ya- and
not yi-. ya- is preserved in 1st gutteral roots, and in all Arabic base stem
Imperfectives.  The 'a' in a Qal Yahwh form could have been preserved whilst it
became 'i' in other verb forms, because the 'a' was simultaneously preserved in
the short form Yah.  I would like to learn when Yaqtl became Yiqtl in Hebrew.]

Hi Garth,

This is a reply to message #182 which  I had written on 07/12/07, and in which the following text occurs: 

>>>

Much evidence has been presented in this Wikipedia Article:Transcribing YHWH in an attempt to prove that God's name is "Yahweh", and it has  been stated as a fact that Clement of Alexandria used a form like  "Yahweh" [e.g. "Iaoue"] in the 2nd century.
 
However no evidence has been presented that there is any extant ancient  Greek text on the planet earth, in which the Greek spelling "Iaoue" is  preserved.

While there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.  these same modern scholars present no ancient Greek manuscript evidence to back up their beliefs.

>>>

Garth,

While there is probably still no extant ancient Greek Manuscript of Clement's Stromata that preserves "Iaoue", since August 2007, the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh has had evidence added to it, concerning Otto Stahlin's 1905 Critical Edition of Clements Stromata, which lists 6 catena's in which "Iaoue" is found.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Clement_of_Alexandria

Section 3.9.2

>>>

It appears as if Otto Stahlin lists the same six old catena's that Gerard Gertoux had sent me a while back:

Six Greek catenas exist that quote Clement as writing IAOUE

--- In YHWHgroup@..., "Dave Donnelly" <davedonnelly1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Garth,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton/Transcribing_the_tetrag\
> rammaton
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton/Transcribing_the_tetra\
> grammaton>
>
> At the above link is found an archived Wikipedia Article
> titled:"Tetragrammaton/Transcribing the Tetragrammaton".
>
> Section #1 is titled: "This Article needs verifiable evidence that
> Clement of Alexandria actually wrote Iaoue."
>
> The text below is from sections #1 and #2 of this above mentioned
> Article, and was originally written by me on April 1, 2006.
>
> >>>
>
> This Article needs verifable evidence that Clement of Alexandria
> actually wrote Iaoue [in Greek letters] .
>
> All Wikipedia Articles are unusual, in that editors from all over the
> world can add their edits to any article.
>
> Much evidence has been presented in this Wikipedia Article:Transcribing
> YHWH in an attempt to prove that God's name is "Yahweh", and it has
> been stated as a fact that Clement of Alexandria used a form like
> "Yahweh" [e.g. "Iaoue"] in the 2nd century.
>
> However no evidence has been presented that there is any extant ancient
> Greek text on the planet earth, in which the Greek spelling "Iaoue" is
> preserved.
>
> While there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that Clement
> of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
> these same modern scholars present no ancient Greek manuscript evidence
> to back up their beliefs.
>
> Contrary wise, there is an extant 11th century Greek Codex "L" that
> preserves the Greek spelling "Iaou" NOT "Iaoue" at Stromata Book V.
> Chapter 6., and there is a documented 800+ year period from the 11th
> century to after 1850 A.D. during which there seems to be a consensus
> among those particular scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou"
> not "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chaper 6. And during this 800
> year period Greek scholars could point to existing documents, as
> evidence that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou" and not "Iaoue"
>
> This does not appear to be the situation that exists in 2006. While
> there definitely seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that
> Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" not "Iaou", no verifiable evidence
> [written before 1850 A.D.]has been presented by these same modern
> scholars for their belief.
>
> Since Wikipedia has potential editors all over the world, it is hoped
> that in the near future, evidence may be added to this present Wikipedia
> Article that Clement of Alexandria may actually have written "Iaoue" in
> his original writings.
>
> FOR A START IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF ANY WORLDWIDE EDITOR COULD PROVIDE
> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, THAT ANY DOCUMENT EXISTS THAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE
> 1850 A.D. [OR EVEN BEFORE 1900 A.D.],THAT INDICATED THAT CLEMENT OF
> ALEXANDRIA WROTE "IAOUE" AND NOT "IAOU" IN HIS GREEK STROMATA BOOK V.
> CHAPTER 6.
>
> Seeker02421
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seeker02421&action=edit>
> 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
>
> >>>
>
> The text from Section #2 continues below:
>
> >>>
>
>
> Six Greek catenas exist that quote Clement as writing IAOUE
> In an email, Gerard Gertoux provided me with the following information:
> In his article entitled Iaw ET Iawe (in: Hommage ¨¤ Georges Vajda Ed.
> Peeters 1980 Louvain pp. 73-78) Pierre Nautin quoted several Catenas
> which have Iaoue: Monac. gr. 9 Monac. gr. 82 Paris. gr. 1825 Paris.
> gr. 1888 Coislianus 133 Taurin. III, 50
> Gerard Gertoux also wrote:
> "(Unfortunately Catenas are badly known because these manuscripts are
> seldom published)".
> >>>
>
> It seems at least possible that only a Greek scholar can gain access to
> detailed information about these six catenas, from the sources that
> preserve them.
>
> These six catena's may or not provide evidence that Clement of
> Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6. If it
> turns out that all six of these catenas were written recently, they
> appear to mean almost nothing.
>
> However, if it turns out that one or more of these catena's were written
> before the 11th century, than extant evidence exists, written before the
> 11th century, that Clement of Alexandria wrote Iaoue in his Greek
> Stromata Book V., chapter 6.
>
> Seeker02421
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seeker02421&action=edit>
> 11:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
>
> >>>
>
>
>
> Dave Donnelly [a.k.a. Seeker02421]
>

This fonts did not come out right the first time, so I am resending with both
English and Unicode.  [Thanks Yoseph! -GG]

  While what you are saying could be true, I don't see that as a problem.  Under
the rules of Modern Hebrew, "He Who Will Be" would be pronounced  "Yihyeh".  In
fact the present tense might actually be "HHWH" and there may  not be one that
has Y+H+W+H all together.  You've got the mix future (or  imperfect) with
present (or perfect) to come up with one that fits.  But  since He is eternal, I
suspect that all such combinations are valid as long  as they are true.  We're
describing the infinite, not the finite.

[Garth responds: As I've shown, mixed imperfective+act.partiple forms do not
exist in Biblical Hebrew, nor do they need to, but if they were future and
present tenses (as they are in Modern Hebrew), a mixed form would be useful for
any statement which is true of the present as well as the future, and not just
regarding the Infinite One. But all that fits YHWH of HWH verbs are those that
have a Y- prefix. Y- verbs include the imperfective, subjective, jussive and
preterite, and only the imperfective is appropriate. The Imperfective doesn't
carry tense that it could be marked as Past, Present or Future. The tradtion is
thus likely to be false.]


Also, it may be (and I think it was) that in Torah times, HWH was synonymous 
with HYH.  Let me provide some evidence based on the next closest word.

HVA [הו� (hoo)] and HYA [הי� (hee)] are used interchangeably as a personal
pronoun in the first 5 books of Torah (Genesis/Beresheet - Deuteronomy/Devarim).
Either can be used for a man or a woman. But in post-Torah Hebrew Scriptures,
they  took on very gender specific roles with HVA [הו� (hoo)] meaning "he"
(being used only for men) and HYA [הי� (hee)] meaning "she" (being used only
for women). Examples of this can be seen in multiple places. הו� is used to
mean "she"  in Gen 3:12,20, 7:2, 19:20 38:21. And in Gen 38:25, both HVA [הו�
(hoo)] and HYA [הי� (hee)] are used to refer to Tamar in the same sentence.
And HYA [הי�] can be seen  used as a masculine pronoun in both Lev 13:10 and
Lev 16:31. HYA [הי� (hee)] was less common, being used only in 257 verses of
the Torah, while HVA [הו� (hoo)] is  used in 1337 verses of the Torah.

  But at some point this changed, and HYA [הי� (hee)] began to be used
exclusively for women, while HVA [הו� (hoo)] began to be used exclusively for
men in post Torah  writings.

[Garth responds: thanks for bringing that up. I'll have to have a good think
about that. I still haven't a solution for the Torah's feminine hw' form.]

  My personal theory is that at one point, HVH [הוה] and HYH [היה] were
synonymous as well just like HVA [הו�] and HYA [הי�] where, and only in
later times did they separate into more specific roles.  Thus, there could have
been a "Yihweh" and a "Yihyeh" that both meant "He Will Be".

[Garth responds: I agree. I point out from...
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/semham/sem\
\
et&text_number=1644&root=config
...that the HWH root is more common in Semitic languages, but Biblical Hebrew
has HYH. I also point out that the Qal YQTL form was once apparently ya- and
not yi-. ya- is preserved in 1st gutteral roots, and in all Arabic base stem
Imperfectives. The 'a' in a Qal Yahwh form could have been preserved whilst it
became 'i' in other verb forms, because the 'a' was simultaneously preserved in
the short form Yah. I would like to learn when Yaqtl became Yiqtl in Hebrew.]

Let me add a bit to the "circular" accusation.  When we see "YHWH" in
Hebrew, we know the root must be either YHV or HWH.  YHV makes no sense as a
root, so it has to be HVH.  The meaning of HVH is well established.  So all
we have to do is apply the rules of grammar to what is left.

In re Garth's comments.....
* ""I will give praise to YHWH" could be said with Y+Act.Part."

"HE will give praise ...." would use the YUD prefix, "I will give
praise...." would use an ALEF prefix.

[Garth responds: You are right, of course, Yoseph: the Imperfective for 1s
begins with Alef and not Yud.  My point though is that an everyday Imperfect
form would do just fine for implying Present and Future, and that if it were not
so, it would be useful to make a form which did and use it in such a sentence. 
The fact remains that there is no such Hebrew form as Y+Act.Part., and there is
not a good reason to invent it for YHWH, because at the time of its revelation,
the Imperfect covered both present and future tenses.]


----- Original Message -----
From: Jovial
To: YHWHgroup@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [YHWHgroup] Pronouncing "YHWH" from Hebrew Grammar


((((((((((((((((((((((
A problem I see with this is the fallacy called circular reasoning. First,
we decide that YHWH means "He Who Is." And then, supposedly, we construct
the Hebrew to say that.
BUT, how do we know that YHWH means "He Who Is" unless we have already
accepted a particular form of the Name as the true one?
))))))))))))))))))))))

There's nothing "circular" about it. It's called applying the rules of
grammar. HWH means "is". Adding a YUD prefix makes it 3rd person, although
the exact tense (future, jussive, etc) can be open for interpretation if you
throw away the vowels. That is something anyone who can read Hebrew can
see.

((((((((((((((((((((((((
It seems to me that we must first know the correct pronunciation of YHWH
before we can determine what it means, rather than the other way around.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Nope. There's a reason ancient Hebrew has no vowels. You don't need them.
Vowels are determined by GRAMMAR. they are not part of the word. Hebrew is
not like English.In ancient times they just looked at a sentence, determined
the grammar from the context, and filled in the vowels based on the
suggested grammar. Granted, there is some room for 'play' between piel and
pual. But MOST of the time the context will give make it obvious which is
which.

You need to stop and study Hebrew before trying to figure out something that
is beyond the reach of English understanding.

[Garth replies:...hmm... It is true that abjad scripts are more suited to
Semitic languages than the syllabic script which appears to predate them.
However, the vowels are by no means unimportant, BECAUSE they reveal the
grammar. They certainly are part of the word, and we must remember that the
word is primarily a spoken thing, which the few have encoded in writing.]

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((\
((((((((((((((((
Garth affirms: Yes. And our brother Yoseph has given quite a peculiar way of
contructing, "He who is" in Hebrew: the y- prefix + the active participle
howeh -which he calls the 'present tense', as it is reckoned in Modern
Hebrew grammar. I don't know of any word or name that is constructed in this
way.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))\
))))))))))))

There's only thousands upon thousands of examples in Scripture of the YUD
prefix. No, I haven't seen that exact construct, but I didn't make this up.
I was quoting Clement and numerous Jewish rabbis have concurred as far as
the meaning goes. Since it is an attempt to describe the Eternalness of
G-d, what other example WOULD you see it in?

[Garth replies: I know the Y- prefix, that it is used for Imperfective,
Jussive, Subjunctive... etc. I do not know of y- ever being attached to an
Active Participle as you suggest for YHWH. I trust that my detailed response
demonstrates that Clement needn't be suggesting this construction. As for
numerous Jewish rabbis, can you give us their era and what they actually
wrote? I do not disagree that it means "is" and can have present and future
meaning. The standard form for the Imperfective in Biblical Hebrew can have
present and/or future meaning. 'What other example WOULD we see it in?' Well
if a form y-+Act.Part. form needed to be created for a word to have present
AND future implications, I think such a form would be quite useful. I would
even suggest that if YHWH started this Y+Act.Part. thing in place of
exclusively Future or Present forms, many would follow suit when they needed
a word to express both Present and Future action. "I will give praise to
YHWH" could be said with Y+Act.Part. form as "I am giving praise and will
give praise..." all in one word. I think that would be worthwhile and
express what the Psalmist meant. But making a Y+Act.Part. form was not at
all necessary because the Imperfect form is used of both Present and Future
tense in Biblical Hebrew.]

While we might KNOW that some changes have happened fairly recently in the grand
span of things, we can't describe what changes in vowels took place
say....between Torah and Judges.  Yet I showed in my other post that some
evolution of language took place in the HYA vs HWA issue.  If what we have today
is not correct, then what we had 1000 years ago or 1500 years ago bears no
reason to be preferred over today, and we can't proive that those time periods
are the same as in the beginning.  So if Elohim DIDN'T preserve the correct
pronunciation within modern Hebrew, the correct pronunciation has been lost.  If
it has been lost, might as well either not say the Name or use modern
pronunciation as the guide so as to stay in sync with those who actually speak
Hebrew and be a better witness to them.

[G responds: When it comes to YHWH, most Jews don't say it.  I am not against
saying Yshua the way they do.  When I speak to him, I'd use it according to what
I know.  Sometimes what IS preserved is a good indication of what WAS, provided
we know how what WAS has become what IS.  Thanks for your thoughts, Yoseph. They
are always welcome here.]


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Jovial
   To: YHWHgroup@...
   Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:15 AM
   Subject: Re: [YHWHgroup] A response to Yoseph Viel's thename.mp3


   ((((((((((((((((((((((((
   *The pronunciation of Modern Hebrew is different from that of Tiberian
   Hebrew.
   *The pronunciation of Tiberian Hebrew was different from other
   dialects of Hebrew.
   *The pronunciation of these medieval dialects was different from that
   of 1st century Hebrew..........
   ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

   We really don't KNOW that the pronunciation of Hebrew has changed during all
   these times. Perhaps it did. Tape recorders weren't exactly available at
   Mount Sinai.

   [Garth replies: We know from the vowel system and the pointing of Tiberian
Hebrew that it was different from Modern Hebrew. The 7 points corresponded to 7
vowels, not 5; the dagesh meant something in a daleth, etc. We know from Greek
and Latin transcriptions as well as other traditions of vowel pointing that
Tiberian Hebrew was different from other medieval dialects of Hebrew. We also
have syllabic inscriptions of early forms of Hebrew.]

   But let's suppose it has for the moment. If that's the case, the
   pronunciation of "YHWH" is lost forever and we might as well shut this list
   down because we'll never figure it out. If the pronunciation has changed,
   then it has been lost forever, never again to be retrieved. The evidence
   neccessary (some sort of audio recording) of how they spoke in the Garden of
   Eden just doesn't exist.

   [Garth replies: I'm not willing to give up, just because I recognise that
there has been a change in the language. A change in the language may mean that
you are venturing into unknown territory; for me it is known territory, because
I'm aware of *how* it has changed.]

   Hebrew has changed from Torah to the book of Judges for that matter.
   However, if you're not going to pronounce the Name based on what is known
   today about pronunciation, then you have no basis for pronouncing the Name
   at all. So why bother to mention it?

   [Garth responds: I apologise if I've upset you.
   The fact is that 'what is known today about pronunciation' is more than what
can be learnt from listening to Jews speak Modern Hebrew.]

   ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
   So the quest for the true pronunciation of YHWH is neither a matter of
   ignorant guesswork without understanding
   of the Hebrew language, and nor is it a matter we can presume by
   merely knowing Modern Hebrew.
   )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

   If pronunciation as it has been recorded is not the same as Gan Eden, it's
   all ignorant guesswork. We can't PROVE that Adam and Eve pronounced it the
   same as any time period.

   [Garth responds: But we can test various theories and see how far back into
the history of Semitic languages those theories can hold true. Any theory with
an 'o' cannot predate the split between Northwest Semitic and what would become
Arabic, can it?]

   ((((((((((((((((((((((
   A good start is understand the differences between Modern Hebrew and
   Biblical Hebrew.

   One difference (which is most important to testing Yoseph's reckoning
   of the name) regards tense vs. aspect:
   *Biblical Hebrew marks verbs for aspect(Complete"Perfect" or
   Incomplete"Imperfect") but not for tense (past, present, future).

   Brother Yoseph, it seems that you have assumed that for YHWH to means
   as Clement says "who is AND shall be", it must contain elements of
   both the Modern Hebrew Present tense form and the Modern Hebrew Future
   tense form. [Then would everyone else's explanation "he who is" (e.g.
   Rambam) be deficient?]
   )))))))))))))))))))))))

   No. Hebrew does have a way to describe past, present and future tense even
   in Torah times. It was not done with VERBS, but it could be done with other
   grammatical words. Some sentences don't have a way to assess tense, but
   some sentences do. There's debate as to whether HWH should be thought of as
   similar to other verbs, or whether the tense was always there, or just there
   when it was an auxilary verb, etc. In the end, you have to explain it in
   English in a way people can grasp hold of when you're keeping it simple.
   Trying to unravel THAT can of worms was well beyond the scope of what I
   wanted to get into for a recording that was ALREADY longer than I wanted it
   to be.

   [Garth responds: perhaps here is a place for unraveling your true
understanding of the tenses of Hebrew.]

   ((((((((((((((((
   On the other hand, Greek 'ou' usually doesn't mean two sounds, but one
   'oo' sound, approximating the long 'u' vowel and the semivowel
   'w'/waw, which according to Modern Hebrew you are pronouncing as 'v'.
   ))))))))))))))))))

   I covered that when I brought the issue up because the unique nature of
   expressing Hebrew sounds in Greek letters means we have to give some
   lattitude in onterpretting what is written as potentially being more than
   one thing. It's the combination of the vowels along with the MEANING that
   he gives that renders the conclusion into something sensible.

   [Garth responds: Why wouldn't the *QAL* Imperfect Yahweh (before Ya became Yi)
be a sensible rendering of iaoue + "who is and will be"? Why resort to a hybrid
word?]

   ((((((((((((((((((((((
   wafer". Moshiach I could not find. Do you mean mosheach, the active
   participle "anointing", as in "he is anointing"?
   )))))))))))))))))))))))

   No. I meant what I said.

   [Garth replies: In that case, where in the Bible (or other ancient literature
can I find this word 'moshiach', so that I can test your theory that mashiach is
derived from it?]

   (((((((((((((
   *You've said mashiach only refers to our Messiah and the High Priest,
   only to people who are both anointed and anointers. I found rather
   that mashiach is not a participle (mashuach and mosheach are
   participles), but a noun meaning simple 'anointed one', and is used
   not only of Messiah and the High Priest, but also anointed kings in
   1Sa 16:6, 24:6,10, 26:16,23, 2Sa 1:14,16,19:21.
   ))))))))

   No. 1 Sa 16:6 is "Meshicho"
   1 Sa 24:6,10, 26:16,23 2Sa 1:14,16,19:21 all have מְש�ִיחַ , not
מָש�ִיחַ

   [(M:shiach not Mashiach -Unfortunately Yahoo doesn't seem to support the
letters you use.) Garth responds Mshiach/M:shiach/Meshiach is the Tiberian
construct form of Mashiach, the same word. It is the word you assert means
"anointed anointer", and not the word mashuach which we agree is a passive
participle "anointed".]

   (((((((((((((((((((((((((
   *Yoseph, you say often in the recording that Yeshua means 'salvation',
   and it is easy for you to suppose this, as it sounds so similar to
   Hebrew Yshu`ah. However, I'm confident that you understand that it is
   a contraction of Yhoshu`, and thus means the same: "YHWH is
   salvation".
   ))))))))))))))))))))))))))

   The LONG form of "Yehoshua" can be viewed that way. But "Yeshua" is simply
   "Salvation" period.

   [Garth responds: I note that Yeshu` has a long 'e', whereas yshu`ah
"salvation" has a shewa. What does Yehu' mean? It means "YHWH is he." 'e' occurs
in the theophoric prefix in place of 'o', when the following syllable has a long
'u'. Thus most other Yho- names became Yo-, but Yhoshu` didn't become Yoshu`,
but rather Yeshu`. I don't think this is a matter of what can or can't be viewed
in a certain way: this is the way the history of the name is. Even in the Hebrew
Bible the same person is called Yhoshu` in older books and Yeshu` in newer
books, not because the meaning of his name had changed: rather the pronunciation
had changed.]

   (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
   *You are right that shu` means 'a cry for help'. It is a noun, not a
   Pu`al verb form.
   ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

   The noun form can be shawa or shoa. Shua is the pual form of the verb.

   [Garth responds: You are probably right. Would you please help me find an
occurrence of a pual of sh-w-` in the Bible? Here's one place I found with the
noun 'shu`'/'shua': Job 36:19]

Guess I'm going to have to get out the Greek grammar book on this one.  Let me
quote from what I used in college.

"The dipthongs are:
   ai pronounced like ai in aisle.
   au pronounced like ou in house, now.
   ei pronounced like ei in feign.
   eu pronounced like e in met plus the oo in moon.
   ....
   ou pronounced like the oo in moon.
   ui pronounced like the English we."
   (A new introduction to Greek, Chase and Phillips, 1977, Tenth printing.)

So what can we make out of iaoue?

(1) Yahowe', since "u" can be a "w" sound.
(2) Yahoowe, since "ou" can be a "oo" sound.

There could be other intepretations here.  I'm not tryting to be stuck on one,
just show the BREADTH of what it could be.  However, we'd have to delete the "o"
to get "Yahweh".  "Yahweh" is obviously NOT what Clement was thinking.

Shalom, Joe

[Garth responds:  Thanks Yoseph!  I do beg to differ though..
The pronunciations your book gives are not bad for English-speaking beginners. 
The reality is a bit more complicated:
"Note on [Upsilon]: Upsilon was earlier a close back rounded vowel [u] (= oo),
and it retained this value in forming the diphthongs au,eu,HY. In classical
Attic, the sound [u] was conveyed by ou."
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ancgreek/pronunchtml/upsilonU.html

The sound of upsilon had become a FRONT rounded vowel like French 'u'. Hear the
sound here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_front_rounded_vowel
This is not a 'w'.

Upsilon became a front vowel long before Clement's time.  As a front rounded
vowel (except when in diphthongs eu, HY and au), it is unsuitable to mark the
sound of the back rounded semivowel 'w'.  The most suitable way of writing the
semivowel 'w' in Greek is with the monophthong ou, which had long become the way
of writing the back rounded vowel.  This 'oo' sound is not the sound of the 'oo'
in the way I say 'moon' -I don't know about you.  But the vowel in the way I say
'yule' or 'tool' is getting pretty close to ou, 'oo'.  A semivowel has the sound
quality of a vowel, but the place of a consonant.  'w' has the sound quality of
ou 'oo'; 'y' has the sound quality of iota.  In Greek writing vowels and
semivowels are not distinguished: iota marks both 'y' and 'i'.  The best way to
mark a 'w' which is not immediately preceded by an a or e, is with Greek ou,
which has the sound quality of 'w'.  Greek u doesn't have the sound quality of
'w', but of French 'u', a FRONT rounded vowel.  Even in the Greek diphthong ui,
it is the FRONT rounded 'u' which is combined with iota; your book is being
approximate to say it sounds like English 'we'.

In conclusion, To write Yahweh in Greek letters...
1. iota for the 'Y',
2. alpha for the 'a',
3. no Greek letter available for the 'h',
4. the monophthong omicron-upsilon for the quality of the semivowel 'w',
5. epsilon for the 'e'.

If this is what Clement wrote, 'Yahweh' is definitely a strong candidate for
what he meant.  Whether that was the correct pronunciation of YHWH or not is
another issue.  Alternatively, he may have only written iaou, and this may have
represented 1. what was left of YHWH in common pronunciation, or 2. the
theophoric ending -yahu/-yahw presumed to be the pronunciation of YHWH.

On the other hand, if Clement had the task of writing Ya+howeh with the Active
Participle's long o, an omega before ou would better indicate the presence of
the long o.

This iaOou... happens to be how the name was written in pagan syncretist magical
writings .  But I don't suppose they were trying to write Yahoweh, but perhaps
trying to cram the whole array of regular Greek vowel sounds into the name,
which they may have merged with Iowi[Jupiter] as they proclaimed the name as a
title for Zeus.  Don't laugh! read
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/YHWHgroup/message/212 !!!

Yoseph, I'm very happy that you've started this conversation, and trust that you
are finding things not as straight-forward as initially they seemed.]





   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Jovial
   To: YHWHgroup@...
   Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:18 AM
   Subject: Re: [YHWHgroup] Clement's comments


   (((((((((((((((((((((
   On the other hand, Greek 'ou' usually doesn't mean two sounds, but one
   'oo' sound, approximating the long 'u' vowel and the semivowel
   'w'/waw, which according to Modern Hebrew you are pronouncing as 'v'.
   )))))))))))))))))))))

   Not according to my Greek grammar books.

   "υ" in Greek can be a "w" sound, or a "u" sound, but "ου" can be a dipthong
similar to "oo" in English. But that is usually when it is sandwiched between
two consonants in a Greek word. Since this is a transliteration of a Hebrew
pronunciation, multiple interpretations of this need to be considered as
potentially valid. One COULD interpret Clement's notation as "Yahoow[e]"
(assuming the "ou" is intended as a dipthong).

   [Garth responds: Argh.. Yahoo and fonts... I guess you meant "upsilon in Greek
can be a "w" sound or a "u" sound, but omicron-upsilon can be a diphthong
similar to "oo" in English." Actually, there is no 'w' sound native to Greek,
therefore they would perceive "w" as the monophthong they use ou for. ou has the
same sound as the u in the diphthongs au, eu and HY, because these diphthongs
existed when upsilon once meant "oo". Then u took the front rounded vowel value,
and ou was left to represent the "oo". "oo" is the closest native Greek sound to
"w" and thus ou may be sensibly used for "w". I thought I had an example or two,
but will have to find one for you, if YHWH wills. There are also good reasons
for just using u. It is probably a matter of the writer's preference. But what
good reason is there for using ou to represent long o + w, when it leaves the
reader wondering whether o+u was meant or 'w', and using omega instead of
omicron would BOTH properly represent the long o AND prevent taking the two
letters as the monophthong 'ou'? But you are right that multiple interpretations
could be potentially valid, if iaoue was all we had to go by. We could have
Yahweh, or Yhawweh, or Yahuweh(Yahooweh)...]

LEt me add one more thing.  Why did HWH and HYH seperate?  I think Jews quit
using HWH most of the time because of respect for the Divine Name , which is
probably why HYH began to dominate.  HYH is what you see in MOST places in
Scripture, and HVH only rarely.

[Garth responds: I've also wondered from time to time if that was the reason. 
As far as I know, only Hebrew has HYH.  Whether this is the reason or not, the
mere fact that in Biblical Hebrew, written by people well initiated into YHWism,
uses HYH for 'be', and almost never 'HWH' tells us something:  that they
preserved the ancient pronunciation of YHWH, with it's 'w', and didn't simply
update the pronunciation and spelling of the name to reflect how 'he is' was
being said in their language.  The name was standardized and its pronunciation
carried, even though YHYH would have become much more readily recognised as
meaning 'he is'.]

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Jovial
   To: YHWHgroup@...
   Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:56 PM
   Subject: HWH / HYH


   This fonts did not come out right the first time, so I am resending with both
English and Unicode.

    While what you are saying could be true, I don't see that as a problem. 
Under the rules of Modern Hebrew, "He Who Will Be" would be pronounced 
"Yihyeh".  In fact the present tense might actually be "HHWH" and there may  not
be one that has Y+H+W+H all together.  You've got the mix future (or  imperfect)
with present (or perfect) to come up with one that fits.  But  since He is
eternal, I suspect that all such combinations are valid as long  as they are
true.  We're describing the infinite, not the finite.

   Also, it may be (and I think it was) that in Torah times, HWH was synonymous 
with HYH.  Let me provide some evidence based on the next closest word.

   HVA [הו� (hoo)] and HYA [הי� (hee)] are used interchangeably as a
personal pronoun in the first 5 books of Torah (Genesis/Beresheet -
Deuteronomy/Devarim). Either can be used for a man or a woman. But in post-Torah
Hebrew Scriptures, they  took on very gender specific roles with HVA [הו�
(hoo)] meaning "he" (being used only for men) and HYA [הי� (hee)] meaning
"she" (being used only for women). Examples of this can be seen in multiple
places. הו� is used to mean "she"  in Gen 3:12,20, 7:2, 19:20 38:21. And in
Gen 38:25, both HVA [הו� (hoo)] and HYA [הי� (hee)] are used to refer to
Tamar in the same sentence. And HYA [הי�] can be seen  used as a masculine
pronoun in both Lev 13:10 and Lev 16:31. HYA [הי� (hee)] was less common,
being used only in 257 verses of the Torah, while HVA [הו� (hoo)] is  used in
1337 verses of the Torah.

    But at some point this changed, and HYA [הי� (hee)] began to be used
exclusively for women, while HVA [הו� (hoo)] began to be used exclusively for
men in post Torah  writings.

   My personal theory is that at one point, HVH [הוה] and HYH [היה] were
synonymous as well just like HVA [הו�] and HYA [הי�] where, and only in
later times did they separate into more specific roles.  Thus, there could have
been a "Yihweh" and a "Yihyeh" that both meant "He Will Be".

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Donnelly

To: YHWHgroup@...

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:09 PM

Subject: [YHWHgroup] Re: Did Clement of Alexandria use the Greek spelling: "Iaoue"?

Hi Garth,

This is a reply to message #182 which  I had written on 07/12/07, and in which the following text occurs: 

>>>

Much evidence has been presented in this Wikipedia Article:Transcribing YHWH in an attempt to prove that God's name is "Yahweh", and it has  been stated as a fact that Clement of Alexandria used a form like  "Yahweh" [e.g. "Iaoue"] in the 2nd century.
 
However no evidence has been presented that there is any extant ancient  Greek text on the planet earth, in which the Greek spelling "Iaoue" is  preserved.

While there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.  these same modern scholars present no ancient Greek manuscript evidence to back up their beliefs.

>>>

Garth,

While there is probably still no extant ancient Greek Manuscript of Clement's Stromata that preserves "Iaoue", since August 2007, the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh has had evidence added to it, concerning Otto Stahlin's 1905 Critical Edition of Clements Stromata, which lists 6 catena's in which "Iaoue" is found.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Clement_of_Alexandria

Section 3.9.2

>>>

It appears as if Otto Stahlin lists the same six old catena's that Gerard Gertoux had sent me a while back:

Six Greek catenas exist that quote Clement as writing IAOUE

In an email, Gerard Gertoux provided me with the following information:  

In his article entitled Iaw ET Iawe (in: Hommage ¨¤ Georges Vajda Ed.  Peeters 1980 Louvain pp. 73-78) Pierre Nautin quoted several Catenas  which have Iaoue:

Monac. gr. 9

Monac. gr. 82

Paris. gr. 1825

Paris.  gr. 1888

Coislianus 133

Taurin. III, 50

Gerard Gertoux also wrote:

"(Unfortunately Catenas are badly known because these manuscripts are  seldom published)".

>>>

So, while in effect,  it still appears that no old Greek manuscript evidence exists in which Iaoue is found in Clement's Stromata Book V., Chapter 6:34 , we now have two separate sources listing 6 old catena's in which "Iaoue" occurs.

An assumption is being made that all six of these catena's are quoting Clement's Greek Stromata Book V., Chapter6:34   

This information on Otto Stahlin's 1905 Critical edition of Clement's Stromata provides the missing link between a scholarly 1895 JSTOR Article that said that the only source of Clement's  Sromata was an 11th century Greek Codex in which "Iaou" not "Iaoue occurs, and an article in the 1911 Encyclopedia Btritannica which stated that Clement wrote "Iaoue" in 190 A.D.   

Dave Donnelly

P.S.

Garth,

I am still posting on a KJVO Discussion Board in which the Moderator allows criticism of the name "Jehovah" to be posted, and also allows positive articles on the name "Yahweh" to be posted.

Plus the board allows images to be inserted into posts.

http://p208.ezboard.com/ffinalauthority48270frm32.showMessage?topicID=548.topic

The topic:

"Does The Catholic Church claim that God's name is Yahweh?" is discussed at the above link. The following text from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 is found in my post.

The judicious reader will perceive
that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe
probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest;
the other early writers transmit only abbreviations
or corruptions of the sacred name.

Inserting the vowels of Jabe
into the original Hebrew consonant text,
we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh),
which has been generally accepted by modern scholars
as the true pronunciation of the Divine name.

It is not merely closely connected
with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue
by means of the Samaritan tradition,
but it also allows the legitimate derivation
of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament.

It appears that in 1910, the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia  were aware that Gesenius, in effect, had added the vowel points from "Jave" to "YHWH" to create his proposed punctuation "YaH:WeH" 

 

   

--- In YHWHgroup@yahoogroups.com.au, "Dave Donnelly" <davedonnelly1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Garth,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton/Transcribing_the_tetrag\
> rammaton
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton/Transcribing_the_tetra\
> grammaton>
>
> At the above link is found an archived Wikipedia Article
> titled:"Tetragrammaton/Transcribing the Tetragrammaton".
>
> Section #1 is titled: "This Article needs verifiable evidence that
> Clement of Alexandria actually wrote Iaoue."
>
> The text below is from sections #1 and #2 of this above mentioned
> Article, and was originally written by me on April 1, 2006.
>
> >>>
>
> This Article needs verifable evidence that Clement of Alexandria
> actually wrote Iaoue [in Greek letters] .
>
> All Wikipedia Articles are unusual, in that editors from all over the
> world can add their edits to any article.
>
> Much evidence has been presented in this Wikipedia Article:Transcribing
> YHWH in an attempt to prove that God's name is "Yahweh", and it has
> been stated as a fact that Clement of Alexandria used a form like
> "Yahweh" [e.g. "Iaoue"] in the 2nd century.
>
> However no evidence has been presented that there is any extant ancient
> Greek text on the planet earth, in which the Greek spelling "Iaoue" is
> preserved.
>
> While there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that Clement
> of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
> these same modern scholars present no ancient Greek manuscript evidence
> to back up their beliefs.
>
> Contrary wise, there is an extant 11th century Greek Codex "L" that
> preserves the Greek spelling "Iaou" NOT "Iaoue" at Stromata Book V.
> Chapter 6., and there is a documented 800+ year period from the 11th
> century to after 1850 A.D. during which there seems to be a consensus
> among those particular scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou"
> not "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chaper 6. And during this 800
> year period Greek scholars could point to existing documents, as
> evidence that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou" and not "Iaoue"
>
> This does not appear to be the situation that exists in 2006. While
> there definitely seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that
> Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" not "Iaou", no verifiable evidence
> [written before 1850 A.D.]has been presented by these same modern
> scholars for their belief.
>
> Since Wikipedia has potential editors all over the world, it is hoped
> that in the near future, evidence may be added to this present Wikipedia
> Article that Clement of Alexandria may actually have written "Iaoue" in
> his original writings.
>
> FOR A START IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF ANY WORLDWIDE EDITOR COULD PROVIDE
> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, THAT ANY DOCUMENT EXISTS THAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE
> 1850 A.D. [OR EVEN BEFORE 1900 A.D.],THAT INDICATED THAT CLEMENT OF
> ALEXANDRIA WROTE "IAOUE" AND NOT "IAOU" IN HIS GREEK STROMATA BOOK V.
> CHAPTER 6.
>
> Seeker02421
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seeker02421&action=edit>
> 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
>
> >>>
>
> The text from Section #2 continues below:
>
> >>>
>
>
> Six Greek catenas exist that quote Clement as writing IAOUE
> In an email, Gerard Gertoux provided me with the following information:
> In his article entitled Iaw ET Iawe (in: Hommage ¨¤ Georges Vajda Ed.
> Peeters 1980 Louvain pp. 73-78) Pierre Nautin quoted several Catenas
> which have Iaoue: Monac. gr. 9 Monac. gr. 82 Paris. gr. 1825 Paris.
> gr. 1888 Coislianus 133 Taurin. III, 50
> Gerard Gertoux also wrote:
> "(Unfortunately Catenas are badly known because these manuscripts are
> seldom published)".
> >>>
>
> It seems at least possible that only a Greek scholar can gain access to
> detailed information about these six catenas, from the sources that
> preserve them.
>
> These six catena's may or not provide evidence that Clement of
> Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6. If it
> turns out that all six of these catenas were written recently, they
> appear to mean almost nothing.
>
> However, if it turns out that one or more of these catena's were written
> before the 11th century, than extant evidence exists, written before the
> 11th century, that Clement of Alexandria wrote Iaoue in his Greek
> Stromata Book V., chapter 6.
>
> Seeker02421
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seeker02421&action=edit>
> 11:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
>
> >>>
>
>
>
> Dave Donnelly [a.k.a. Seeker02421]
>

Jovial writes:

>>>

..."iaoue" is the spelling used in the manuscript of the Catena [i.e.
Coisl. 113 fol. 368v ].

>>>

Jovial,

Would you know what year  Coisl. 113 fol. 368v was written in?

Would you know if this catena was specifically quoting Clement's Greek
Stromata Book V., Chapter 6:34?

Dave Donnelly

[Garth adds: Yoseph, another thing that would be great would be to have an image
of this Catena text in our Photos section.  Do you reckon you can get one for
us?]


--- In YHWHgroup@..., "Jovial" <jovial@...> wrote:
>
> That's not true. There is at least ONE manuscript that uses iaoue.
>
> "ιαουε" / "iaoue" is the spelling used in the manuscript of
the Catena [i.e. Coisl. 113 fol. 368v ].
> "ιαου" / "iaou" is the spelling used in the manuscript of the
Codex Laurentianus V 3. There's plenty of room to debate which is what
Clement originally wrote.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Donnelly
> To: YHWHgroup@...
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:09 PM
> Subject: [YHWHgroup] Re: Did Clement of Alexandria use the Greek
spelling: "Iaoue"?
>
>
>
> Hi Garth,
>
> This is a reply to message #182 which I had written on 07/12/07, and
in which the following text occurs:
>
> >>>
>
> Much evidence has been presented in this Wikipedia
Article:Transcribing YHWH in an attempt to prove that God's name is
"Yahweh", and it has been stated as a fact that Clement of Alexandria
used a form like "Yahweh" [e.g. "Iaoue"] in the 2nd century.
>
> However no evidence has been presented that there is any extant
ancient Greek text on the planet earth, in which the Greek spelling
"Iaoue" is preserved.
>
> While there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that Clement
of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
these same modern scholars present no ancient Greek manuscript evidence
to back up their beliefs.
>
> >>>
>
> Garth,
>
> While there is probably still no extant ancient Greek Manuscript of
Clement's Stromata that preserves "Iaoue", since August 2007, the
Wikipedia Article:Yahweh has had evidence added to it, concerning Otto
Stahlin's 1905 Critical Edition of Clements Stromata, which lists 6
catena's in which "Iaoue" is found.
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Clement_of_Alexandria
>
> Section 3.9.2
>
> >>>
>
> It appears as if Otto Stahlin lists the same six old catena's that
Gerard Gertoux had sent me a while back:
>
> Six Greek catenas exist that quote Clement as writing IAOUE
>
> In an email, Gerard Gertoux provided me with the following
information:
>
> In his article entitled Iaw ET Iawe (in: Hommage ¨¤ Georges Vajda
Ed. Peeters 1980 Louvain pp. 73-78) Pierre Nautin quoted several Catenas
which have Iaoue:
>
> Monac. gr. 9
>
> Monac. gr. 82
>
> Paris. gr. 1825
>
> Paris. gr. 1888
>
> Coislianus 133
>
> Taurin. III, 50
>
>
> Gerard Gertoux also wrote:
>
>
> "(Unfortunately Catenas are badly known because these manuscripts are
seldom published)".
>
> >>>
>
> So, while in effect, it still appears that no old Greek manuscript
evidence exists in which Iaoue is found in Clement's Stromata Book V.,
Chapter 6:34 , we now have two separate sources listing 6 old catena's
in which "Iaoue" occurs.
>
> An assumption is being made that all six of these catena's are quoting
Clement's Greek Stromata Book V., Chapter6:34
>
> This information on Otto Stahlin's 1905 Critical edition of Clement's
Stromata provides the missing link between a scholarly 1895 JSTOR
Article that said that the only source of Clement's Sromata was an 11th
century Greek Codex in which "Iaou" not "Iaoue occurs, and an article in
the 1911 Encyclopedia Btritannica which stated that Clement wrote
"Iaoue" in 190 A.D.
>
> Dave Donnelly
>
> P.S.
>
> Garth,
>
> I am still posting on a KJVO Discussion Board in which the Moderator
allows criticism of the name "Jehovah" to be posted, and also allows
positive articles on the name "Yahweh" to be posted.
>
> Plus the board allows images to be inserted into posts.
>
>
http://p208.ezboard.com/ffinalauthority48270frm32.showMessage?topicID=54\
8.topic
>
> The topic:
>
> "Does The Catholic Church claim that God's name is Yahweh?" is
discussed at the above link. The following text from the Catholic
Encyclopedia of 1910 is found in my post.
>
> The judicious reader will perceive
> that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe
> probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest;
> the other early writers transmit only abbreviations
> or corruptions of the sacred name.
>
> Inserting the vowels of Jabe
> into the original Hebrew consonant text,
> we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh),
> which has been generally accepted by modern scholars
> as the true pronunciation of the Divine name.
>
> It is not merely closely connected
> with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue
> by means of the Samaritan tradition,
> but it also allows the legitimate derivation
> of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament.
>
> It appears that in 1910, the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia were
aware that Gesenius, in effect, had added the vowel points from "Jave"
to "YHWH" to create his proposed punctuation "YaH:WeH"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In YHWHgroup@..., "Dave Donnelly" davedonnelly1@
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Garth,
> >
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton/Transcribing_the_tetrag\
\
> > rammaton
> >
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tetragrammaton/Transcribing_the_tetra\
\
> > grammaton>
> >
> > At the above link is found an archived Wikipedia Article
> > titled:"Tetragrammaton/Transcribing the Tetragrammaton".
> >
> > Section #1 is titled: "This Article needs verifiable evidence that
> > Clement of Alexandria actually wrote Iaoue."
> >
> > The text below is from sections #1 and #2 of this above mentioned
> > Article, and was originally written by me on April 1, 2006.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > This Article needs verifable evidence that Clement of Alexandria
> > actually wrote Iaoue [in Greek letters] .
> >
> > All Wikipedia Articles are unusual, in that editors from all over
the
> > world can add their edits to any article.
> >
> > Much evidence has been presented in this Wikipedia
Article:Transcribing
> > YHWH in an attempt to prove that God's name is "Yahweh", and it has
> > been stated as a fact that Clement of Alexandria used a form like
> > "Yahweh" [e.g. "Iaoue"] in the 2nd century.
> >
> > However no evidence has been presented that there is any extant
ancient
> > Greek text on the planet earth, in which the Greek spelling "Iaoue"
is
> > preserved.
> >
> > While there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that
Clement
> > of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
> > these same modern scholars present no ancient Greek manuscript
evidence
> > to back up their beliefs.
> >
> > Contrary wise, there is an extant 11th century Greek Codex "L" that
> > preserves the Greek spelling "Iaou" NOT "Iaoue" at Stromata Book V.
> > Chapter 6., and there is a documented 800+ year period from the 11th
> > century to after 1850 A.D. during which there seems to be a
consensus
> > among those particular scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote
"Iaou"
> > not "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chaper 6. And during this
800
> > year period Greek scholars could point to existing documents, as
> > evidence that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou" and not "Iaoue"
> >
> > This does not appear to be the situation that exists in 2006. While
> > there definitely seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that
> > Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" not "Iaou", no verifiable
evidence
> > [written before 1850 A.D.]has been presented by these same modern
> > scholars for their belief.
> >
> > Since Wikipedia has potential editors all over the world, it is
hoped
> > that in the near future, evidence may be added to this present
Wikipedia
> > Article that Clement of Alexandria may actually have written "Iaoue"
in
> > his original writings.
> >
> > FOR A START IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF ANY WORLDWIDE EDITOR COULD
PROVIDE
> > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, THAT ANY DOCUMENT EXISTS THAT WAS WRITTEN
BEFORE
> > 1850 A.D. [OR EVEN BEFORE 1900 A.D.],THAT INDICATED THAT CLEMENT OF
> > ALEXANDRIA WROTE "IAOUE" AND NOT "IAOU" IN HIS GREEK STROMATA BOOK
V.
> > CHAPTER 6.
> >
> > Seeker02421
> >
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seeker02421&action=edit>
> > 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > The text from Section #2 continues below:
> >
> > >>>
> >
> >
> > Six Greek catenas exist that quote Clement as writing IAOUE
> > In an email, Gerard Gertoux provided me with the following
information:
> > In his article entitled Iaw ET Iawe (in: Hommage ¨¤ Georges
Vajda Ed.
> > Peeters 1980 Louvain pp. 73-78) Pierre Nautin quoted several Catenas
> > which have Iaoue: Monac. gr. 9 Monac. gr. 82 Paris. gr. 1825 Paris.
> > gr. 1888 Coislianus 133 Taurin. III, 50
> > Gerard Gertoux also wrote:
> > "(Unfortunately Catenas are badly known because these manuscripts
are
> > seldom published)".
> > >>>
> >
> > It seems at least possible that only a Greek scholar can gain access
to
> > detailed information about these six catenas, from the sources that
> > preserve them.
> >
> > These six catena's may or not provide evidence that Clement of
> > Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6. If
it
> > turns out that all six of these catenas were written recently, they
> > appear to mean almost nothing.
> >
> > However, if it turns out that one or more of these catena's were
written
> > before the 11th century, than extant evidence exists, written before
the
> > 11th century, that Clement of Alexandria wrote Iaoue in his Greek
> > Stromata Book V., chapter 6.
> >
> > Seeker02421
> >
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seeker02421&action=edit>
> > 11:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
> >
> > >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Donnelly [a.k.a. Seeker02421]
> >
>

I haven't been able to follow the entire thread, but some additional
things should be noted.

The archaic Greek alphabets had a letter representing the "w" sound,
called "waw," derived from the West Semitic letter of that name.  It
looked like an F, and was the ancestor or our F.

Classical Greek did not have a "w" sound.  In "Leui" (Levi) the upsilon
alone represents that sound.  However, in Flaouios (Flavius -- the Roman
"v" in classical times represented the "w" or "u" sound), the "w" sound is
represented by "ou."  I suspect there were rules, or at least patterns,
about what is used when.

Michael S. Borries
CUNY Central Cataloging
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY  10010
email: Michael.Borries@...
Phone: (646) 312-1687

[Garth replies: Thanks very much to Michael, who has provided evidence for Greek
ou being used for 'w', so that iaou- could represent Yahw-, rather than
Yahow-/Yahu-.  Interestingly, in Lewi, Greek Leui, the 'eu' diphthong has the u
as part of a diphthong, in which it always represents the BACK vowel 'oo', and
not the FRONT vowel like French 'u'.  Classical Greek L+eu+i thus very well
represents the Hebrew Lewi, because the 'u' as part of the diphthong, must
represent the BACK vowel 'oo' which has the sound quality of 'w'.  But what if
the 'w'/'oo' is separated from its preceding letter by a consonantal 'h', as in
Yahw?  Would it be appropriate to diphthongize the a-w to au, when there is an
'h' in between these sounds?  It would seem more appropriate to mark the 'a'
sound and the 'oo' sound separately as a+ou.  If Flawius was written Flaouios,
how much more should Yahw- be written iaou-, when the sound of 'a' is not
immediately followed by the 'w'?]

"Jovial" <jovial@...>
Sent by: YHWHgroup@...
02/28/2008 08:37 AM
Please respond to
YHWHgroup@...


To
<YHWHgroup@...>
cc

Subject
Re: [YHWHgroup] Clement's comments









Guess I'm going to have to get out the Greek grammar book on this one. Let
me quote from what I used in college.

"The dipthongs are:
ai pronounced like ai in aisle.
au pronounced like ou in house, now.
ei pronounced like ei in feign.
eu pronounced like e in met plus the oo in moon.
....
ou pronounced like the oo in moon.
ui pronounced like the English we."
(A new introduction to Greek, Chase and Phillips, 1977, Tenth printing.)

So what can we make out of iaoue?

(1) Yahowe', since "u" can be a "w" sound.
(2) Yahoowe, since "ou" can be a "oo" sound.

There could be other intepretations here. I'm not tryting to be stuck on
one, just show the BREADTH of what it could be. However, we'd have to
delete the "o" to get "Yahweh". "Yahweh" is obviously NOT what Clement was
thinking.

Shalom, Joe

[Garth responds: Thanks Yoseph! I do beg to differ though..
The pronunciations your book gives are not bad for English-speaking
beginners. The reality is a bit more complicated:
"Note on [Upsilon]: Upsilon was earlier a close back rounded vowel [u] (=
oo), and it retained this value in forming the diphthongs au,eu,HY. In
classical Attic, the sound [u] was conveyed by ou."
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ancgreek/pronunchtml/upsilonU.html

The sound of upsilon had become a FRONT rounded vowel like French 'u'.
Hear the sound here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_front_rounded_vowel
This is not a 'w'.

Upsilon became a front vowel long before Clement's time. As a front
rounded vowel (except when in diphthongs eu, HY and au), it is unsuitable
to mark the sound of the back rounded semivowel 'w'. The most suitable way
of writing the semivowel 'w' in Greek is with the monophthong ou, which
had long become the way of writing the back rounded vowel. This 'oo' sound
is not the sound of the 'oo' in the way I say 'moon' -I don't know about
you. But the vowel in the way I say 'yule' or 'tool' is getting pretty
close to ou, 'oo'. A semivowel has the sound quality of a vowel, but the
place of a consonant. 'w' has the sound quality of ou 'oo'; 'y' has the
sound quality of iota. In Greek writing vowels and semivowels are not
distinguished: iota marks both 'y' and 'i'. The best way to mark a 'w'
which is not immediately preceded by an a or e, is with Greek ou, which
has the sound quality of 'w'. Greek u doesn't have the sound quality of
'w', but of French 'u', a FRONT rounded vowel. Even in the Greek diphthong
ui, it is the FRONT rounded 'u' which is combined with iota; your book is
being approximate to say it sounds like English 'we'.

In conclusion, To write Yahweh in Greek letters...
1. iota for the 'Y',
2. alpha for the 'a',
3. no Greek letter available for the 'h',
4. the monophthong omicron-upsilon for the quality of the semivowel 'w',
5. epsilon for the 'e'.

If this is what Clement wrote, 'Yahweh' is definitely a strong candidate
for what he meant. Whether that was the correct pronunciation of YHWH or
not is another issue. Alternatively, he may have only written iaou, and
this may have represented 1. what was left of YHWH in common
pronunciation, or 2. the theophoric ending -yahu/-yahw presumed to be the
pronunciation of YHWH.

On the other hand, if Clement had the task of writing Ya+howeh with the
Active Participle's long o, an omega before ou would better indicate the
presence of the long o.

This iaOou... happens to be how the name was written in pagan syncretist
magical writings . But I don't suppose they were trying to write Yahoweh,
but perhaps trying to cram the whole array of regular Greek vowel sounds
into the name, which they may have merged with Iowi[Jupiter] as they
proclaimed the name as a title for Zeus. Don't laugh! read
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/YHWHgroup/message/212 !!!

Yoseph, I'm very happy that you've started this conversation, and trust
that you are finding things not as straight-forward as initially they
seemed.]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jovial
To: YHWHgroup@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: [YHWHgroup] Clement's comments

(((((((((((((((((((((
On the other hand, Greek 'ou' usually doesn't mean two sounds, but one
'oo' sound, approximating the long 'u' vowel and the semivowel
'w'/waw, which according to Modern Hebrew you are pronouncing as 'v'.
)))))))))))))))))))))

Not according to my Greek grammar books.

"õ" in Greek can be a "w" sound, or a "u" sound, but "ïõ" can be a
dipthong similar to "oo" in English. But that is usually when it is
sandwiched between two consonants in a Greek word. Since this is a
transliteration of a Hebrew pronunciation, multiple interpretations of
this need to be considered as potentially valid. One COULD interpret
Clement's notation as "Yahoow[e]" (assuming the "ou" is intended as a
dipthong).

[Garth responds: Argh.. Yahoo and fonts... I guess you meant "upsilon in
Greek can be a "w" sound or a "u" sound, but omicron-upsilon can be a
diphthong similar to "oo" in English." Actually, there is no 'w' sound
native to Greek, therefore they would perceive "w" as the monophthong they
use ou for. ou has the same sound as the u in the diphthongs au, eu and
HY, because these diphthongs existed when upsilon once meant "oo". Then u
took the front rounded vowel value, and ou was left to represent the "oo".
"oo" is the closest native Greek sound to "w" and thus ou may be sensibly
used for "w". I thought I had an example or two, but will have to find one
for you, if YHWH wills. There are also good reasons for just using u. It
is probably a matter of the writer's preference. But what good reason is
there for using ou to represent long o + w, when it leaves the reader
wondering whether o+u was meant or 'w', and using omega instead of omicron
would BOTH properly represent the long o AND prevent taking the two
letters as the monophthong 'ou'? But you are right that multiple
interpretations could be potentially valid, if iaoue was all we had to go
by. We could have Yahweh, or Yhawweh, or Yahuweh(Yahooweh)...]

Let's recap this thing so we don't get off track.

Clement wrote either iaoue or iaou.  What is the "ou" sound?

I quoted one Greek grammar book that says this was the "oo" sound in "moon".  I
found another source that specifically mentioned the differences between Attic
and Classic Greek and related the Attic "ou" to the "u" / "oo" sound in "boot". 
No one yet has quoted a source that tells us that Attic Greek or any other style
of Greek uses "ou" to make a "w" sound.

So is it possible that "iaoue" is "Yahweh"?  No.  We could come up with
"Yahoweh" or "Yahooweh" or "Yahuweh", but there has been no evidence presented
to show that we can omit a vowel sound between the "a" and the "u".

Now at least one Greek writer DID say the Samaritan pronunciation was "Yahweh". 
theodorret wrote iabe, which would be Yahweh.  One text records Epiphanius as
using IABE (Yahweh) as well.  But there's just not a legitimate way you can take
i-a-ou-e and get Y-ah-w-e out of it.  There's not a single Greek grammar source
I have seen that suggests it is legitimate to take "ou" and use it to represent
a "w" sound.

I found another source that gives these transliterations from Greek writers.....

a.. "IAO" was used by Diodorus Siculus (I, 94); the Valentinian heretics
(Irenaeus, "Adv. Haer.", I, iv, 1, in P.G., VII, col. 481), and Origen ("in
Joh.", II, 1, in P.G., XIV, col. 105)
a.. Pseudo-Jerome ("Breviarium in Pss.", in P.L., XXVI, 828 ), Iaho;
a.. Irenaeus ("Adv. Haer.", II, xxxv, 3, in P. G., VII, col. 840) wrote Iaoth;
a.. Theodoret gives AIA as the "Jewish" pronunciation.
a.. Porphyry (Eusebius, "Praep. evang", I, ix, in P.G., XXI, col. 72) used Ieuo;
a.. James of Edessa (cf. Lamy, "La science catholique", 1891, p. 196), iehieh;

I haven't double checked all of these for accuracy.  I'm just posting them.  In
short, there was not a real consensus on how to spell it in Greek.  However, we
do find a common thread that a multitude of writers used the "o" where Hebrew
would have the second syllable but without the "u" Clement used.

Part of this may be that some of them were writing "Yah" or "Yahu" or some other
short form.


[Garth responds:  Thanks Yoseph for asking.  I trust that my next post will
demonstrate the evidence you are after, and that truly i-a-ou- could represent
Yahw-.]

Hi all,

It has been proposed that Greek ou cannot represent the 'w' semivowel
alone, that it must represent a 'o' or 'u' sound followed by 'w'.

Instead it has been asserted that semivowel 'w' would be written with
Greek 'u', so that Clements iaou- must be taken as Yahow- and not Yahw-.


My findings in the Septuagint(the major BC translation of the Hebrew
Bible into Greek) are to the contrary:

Firstly, there is no Greek letter specific for 'w'. This means that
vowel letters must be used for the 'w', IF the 'w' is to be represented.


1. If there is nothing immediately preceding the 'w', it seems often
the 'w' is left unrepresented. Upsilon is NOT used:
   Washti is written as a-s-t-in
   Wophsi is written as i-a-b-i
But compare Ps 119(118):41, where 'waw' is written ou-au.
And a weird one: For Wanyah it has ou-i-e-ch-o-a


2. IF the 'w' is immediately preceded with an 'a' sound or 'e' sound
(epsilon/eta), the 'aw' and 'ew' are well represented by au and eu.
Only in these diphthongs does upsilon have its old value: the BACK
vowel 'oo'; elsewhere it is a FRONT vowel, which is why it is
inappropriate to represent 'w'.
  Chawwah is written as eu-an
     Lewi is written as L-eu-i;
Chawilah is written as eu-i-l-a(t).
    Dawid is written as D-au-i-d.




What shall we expect if the 'w' is immediately preceeded by a
consonant, as in Yahw-?

Can anyone find examples?

I found in Ezr 8:21, Ah(a)wa was represented by a-ou-e.
In Gen 36:40 (gh)alwa is represented by g-o-l-a, omitting the 'w'.
2Ch 20:14 has Tiqwa represented by th-e-k-ou-e
In Neh 7:43 hod:wa is represented by ou-d-ou-i-a


It seems that when 'w' is immediately preceeded by a consonant, as in
Yahw-, the tendency is to either omit the 'w', or represent it with ou.


Therefore Clement's ou in iaou- may well represent 'w' after the 'h'
consonant in Yahw-



Love from Garth.

In the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 the editors state something to the effect that:

Judging by the Greek transcriptions "Iabe" and "Iaouai" [i.e. one of 3 variants found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria" ],  the original name of God would  probably have been "Yahweh"

The following information was previously posted in Message # 238. It was cut and pasted from the online Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910:

>>>

The judicious reader will perceive
that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe
probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest;
the other early writers transmit only abbreviations
or corruptions of the sacred name.

Inserting the vowels of Jabe
into the original Hebrew consonant text,
we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh),
which has been generally accepted by modern scholars
as the true pronunciation of the Divine name.

It is not merely closely connected
with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue
by means of the Samaritan tradition,
but it also allows the legitimate derivation
of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament.

>>>

Neither Gesenius in the 19th century, or the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910  [ in 1910] seemed to have known that Clement had written "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V., Chapter 6:34.

However,  It does appears that in 1910, the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia  were aware that Gesenius, in effect, had inserted the  vowels from "Jave" into "YHWH" to create the  proposed punctuation "YaH:WeH", which can be observed in the link below:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/YahwehBCDtrimmed.JPG

And of course the editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905 identified Yahweh as:

"the proper name of the God of Israel" 

Dave Donnelly

P.S. to Garth

While Peter Kirk questions whether or not theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from "Yahweh", it is my opinion that he still believes that God's name is "Yahweh" .

But Peter is trusting in the Samaritan pronunciation "Jabe", and as far as I know he doesn't trust in "Iaoue" because he questions whether or not Clement wrote "Iaoue".

However in old discussions on b-hebrew, before  Peter started to question "Iaoue", Peter Kirk  indicated that he thought that "Yahweh" was a good representation of "Iaoue".

 .

.

[Garth responds: I agree that iaoue would be a good representation of Yahwe. I'm not certain that Yahwe is the name though. If it were it would seem to have to become after -ayu became -e. Otherwise the name would have once been Yahwayu, and this, in Accusative inflection could easily become Yahwaya, which would be identical to the verb form for "he would be"... not an appropriate meaning for our God's name!]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/StrongsGreekword2424750pixels.JPG

At the link above James Strong's analysis of Greek word #2424 can be found.

James Strong pronounces "ou" in "Iesous"  as "oo"

Dave Donnelly

1. I've been a yahwist for almost my intire liftime!
If you want to know about Yahweh or YHWH, ask me!
I made up the name Yahwua.
As far as I know it don't mean anything.

2.Yahweh means "He Who Creates"."I an that I am" was placed by the
Jews when they took over the priesthood of Isreal and gangstered the
original texts.

3. Yahweh only reveals himself to those who searches for him.
My search started when I was 14 or 15, now I'm 47.
His Name came as a revelation.
A lot of what you are talking about is GARBAGE!
From that point on I searched more and more until I arrived at what
satified me. The Truth.


[Garth responds:  I'm happy to accept that what I'm saying may be garbage or
untrue, if you can demonstrate it with some facts:

*Do you have any scriptural or historical evidence that YHWH means "He who
creates"?
*Do you have any scriptural evidence that the Jews 'gangstered' the name as
found in Scripture to make it mean 'I am that I am'?  (Would not the same
consonantal spelling be used for Hiph`il as for Qal?, or rather YHWH be changed
to YHYH to reflect the Jewish way of saying 'He is'?)

Blessings to you friend.  If I am wrong about this it is not from a  desire to
be wrong.  Please help me come to the facts which allow you to reach your
conclusion, and pray for me. -Garth.]

--- In YHWHgroup@..., "Garth's Hotmail"
<garthgrenache@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm wanting to learn a bit more about cuneiform Canaanite, and then
share what I've learnt.
>
> But for now I've been thinking of whether or not "Yahwa" -which I
theorise to be the pronunciation of YHWH- would have originally been
the hypothetical "Yahwayu". I'm thinking "perhaps not". Let me explain...
>
> yaCCaCu is the base Imperfective form of Stative verbs with strong
roots in Central Semitic (and perhaps Proto-Semitic), the hypothetical
ancestor of both Hebrew and Arabic.
>
> Assuming Hebrew HWH and Aramaic HW' represents a root which was
originally HWY, and that the name is the 3ms Imperfective of this
root, we have arrived at...
>
> yaHWaYu, as a hypothetical original...
>                 From this we have noticed that the last syllable has
either been lost (to form -a, as Arabic "yahya" attests)
>                 or blended with the second last syllable (which many
suggest is the origin of Hebrew forms -e,  -iyu/-ayu to -e).
>
> But if Yahwayu was ever God's name -a noun- we run into this difficulty:
>
> Whilst the final -u is appropriate for a Nominative, Yahwaya would
be the Accusative.
>
> But the form Yahwaya (with -a after the 3rd root consonant) would
imply the subjunctive form of the verb, "he would be" "he intends to
be".  This meaning is quite contrary to the meaning God intends for
His name!
>
> The same problem would occur if the contemporary state of the
language left Nominatives unmarked (*Yahway) and Accusative marked
(*Yahwaya).
>   The -a marker even exists in Biblical Hebrew where it appears as
-a in Directives, e.g. Misrayma(h)  Genesis 12:10.
>
>
> So, I suggest that YHWH did not reveal his name as Yahwayu or
Yahway, which -as a noun- could be inflected in the Accusative case as
Yahwaya, which could then be taken as a verb with the inappropriate
meaning "he intends to be".
>
> Rather, to avoid this, perhaps YHWH revealed his name as shortened
as simply "Yahwa".
>   The final -a of "Yahwa" marks the stative nature of the verb and
cannot imply the subjunctive because it is after the second root
consonant, rather than the third.
>
> <o>
>
>
> Furthermore, I suggest that with time,
>   1.. "Yahwa" was recognised as a noun having an Accusative form,
>   2.. perhaps thus a mechanical Nominative form developed (Yahwu ->
Yahû, or originally Yahw),
>   3.. from this 'mechanical nominative' form "Yahw" or "Yahwu"
>     1.. we can easily derive the theophoric suffix -yahû,
>     2.. and also the Greek forms IAO and IAOU.
>
>
> Love from Garth Grenache.
>

--- In YHWHgroup@..., dan barrientos <dan9910331@...>
wrote:
>
> jan. 19, 2008
>
>   For: All of you, guys, lovers of the name, yhwh...
>
>   I'm a newbie... lol...
>   I'm just just curious of the name-form YAHWAH, YAHWAH, YAWAH
YAWA...
>
>   In the Philippines, the Cebuan dialect has these terms also but
are used as personal names of the devil. Since the Cebuan dialect has
no silent letters, and the words are pronounced as is it written, the
form YAWA is used, with heavy accent at the last.  But as i mentioned
earlier, this is the personal name of the devil, but i do not know
its history...
>
>   What makes me wonder, how it came about. Could it be the real
name of the creator but was ascribed to the devil as time went by?
>
>   Dan
>
>
> [Hi Dan!  You are very welcome here, and thanks for joining the
discussion.
> That is an amazing thing that I was not aware of, that in the
Cebuan Philippino dialect "Ya-WA" is the personal name of the devil.
> Firstly, I'd like to agree with you that what you said is quite
possible, that the true name of the God of the Hebrew Bible ('Old
Testament') may have been attributed to the devil.  Some gnostics,
for example, have historically taught the false doctrine that the God
of the Old Testament is not that of the New Testament.  Some
Freemasons have said that "Adonay" (a title used for the God of the
Bible) is the bad god and "Lucifer" the good god
(http://www.geocities.com/endtimedeception/worship.htm).
>
> It is not unusual for men to blaspheme our God.  The Cainites were
a group of Gnostics which revered Cain and the Sodomites and other so-
called 'victims' of our God.  They were responsible for the so-
called "Gospel of Judas"... and some wonder why it wasn't included in
the Bible!
>
> Secondly I'd like to point out that the first H in Yahwa (or in any
pronunciation of YHWH) cannot be silent -not originally, not
authentically. Only at the end of a word can a Hebrew H be silent.
So there is an essential difference between the pronunciation of YHWH
and "Yawa".  Also, according to the theory I'm proposing, "YAH-wa"
has the first syllable accented, unlike "Ya-WA".
>
> I have a recommendation: let's find out the etymology of
this "Yawa" name you speak of.  Are there any Cebuan words which are
similar in form, perhaps having a 'y' and 'w', and which have a
meaning which could be related to the devil?  YHWH is not a Cebuan
name, that's for sure!  -Garth.]
>Hello, guys....it's been a time since.... LOL.....
Well, in the Cebuan dialect... similar words do appear. like... yave
or yawe both mean a key (that one used to open padlocks).
Yawa, on the other hand, is a word exclusively referring to the devil
or demon and used to even curse another, such as pesting yawa (lit..
a devil pest or demon pest)... letseng yawa ( lit. milking devil or
demon).. similar in connotation with pesting yawa.... these words are
used heavily by drunkards, angry person or cursing person... in the
same manner that an american uses bullsh%t and f@#$ you...

[Garth responds:  Stuff! I guess that would mean that Cebuan -speakers, if they
were to pronounce "Yahwa", should be very careful to pronounce the 'h' in it! 
If they pronounced "Yahwa" like many English-speakers mispronounce "Yahweh"
(without the middle 'h') then it would seem like they were calling God a demon
or the devil.  http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/YHWHgroup/files/Yahwa.wav  is a
recording of me saying "Yahwa" with the 'h' in it.  Welcome back, friend!]

YHWH and YHWDH are spelled similarly... so what?!

Rabbinic literature makes much of the fact that the nation's name YHWDH (Judah)
contains the letters of the divine name YHWH plus the Dalet.

It is apparantly from this notion that some have thought that the pronunciation
of YHWH could be found by pronouncing the sounds Yehudah without the 'd':
Yehuah.  Often it is put forth that the pronunciation of YHWDH is Yahudah
(probably by assuming that the YHW- part is like the -yahu theophoric element),
and thus removing the 'd' yields Yahuah, which fits 'Yah' better than Yehuah.

Interestingly "Yahuah" is not very far from the pronunciation "Yahwa" that I've
been suggesting.

However I suggest the method is faulty, and the yielded form is an
impossibility.



Can the pronunciation of YHWH be determined from Yhudah (Judah)?

There is no reason why similarly spelled Hebrew words must have a similar set of
vowels!
To imply, therefore, that 'it is logical' that YHWH be pronounced the same as
YHWDH without the 'd', is aburd.

It is presumptuous to assume that YHWDH contains the same vowels as YHWH, such
that all we need to do is remove the 'd' sound.
Furthermore, it is not possible for the qamets 'a' to follow immediately after
shureq 'u' without a consonant between.  In fact no two vowels can be adjacent
in Hebrew (excluding the gliding 'patach furtivum' and diphthongs, which only in
certain situations which are irrelevant to this discussion).
Also, as the first vowel of YHuDaH has been reduced, it is presumptuous to
assume that it was an 'a' and not an 'i' or 'u' vowel.


Is YHWDH a theophoric: YHW- + DH?

As YHWDH is spelled with the same three letters as the theophoric element YHW-,
it seems most have assumed that YHWDH is a theophoric name containing the
theophoric element.  There are two problems with this notion:
1. Elsewhere the theophoric element YHW- is consistently pronounced Yho-, not
like the Yhu- in Yhudah.
2. If YHW is the theophoric element, what in the world does 'dah' mean that this
could be a meaningful theophoric name?  "YHWH dah" doesn't mean anything, does
it?


Is YHWDH a theophoric: YH + HWDH?

Leah called him Yhudah saying "Now I will thank YHWH", so some may think that it
may be from hudah "He was thanked" + Yah: Yahhudah.
But though 'h' became ungeminable, the original 'hh' would have prevented the
reduction of the 'a' to shewa.  As the first vowel was reduced to shewa it had
to be in an open syllable.  It also had to be a short vowel.  Therefore it could
not be a theophoric 'Yo-' or 'Ye-' either, because both of these contain
unreducible long vowels.


If the Y is not theophoric, what kind of word could prefix both Y and H to the
root WDH?

There is no such verb class in Biblical Hebrew grammar, but there probably was
in an earlier stage of the West Semitic languages. There is some evidence that
the H prefix of Hiph`il/Hoph`al Perfective forms was once also present in the
Hiph`il/Hoph`al IMPERFECTIVE forms.  At the time of Leah in West Semitic (the
ancestor of most Semitic languages) the causative prefix may have been retained
in the prefix conjugation (Imperfective form) as well as the suffix conjugation
(Perfective form).  Originally the causative prefix had the 'sh' phoneme as in
'shalom'/'salaam', and it is so in Akkadian, and is even retained (as the Arabic
equivalent, 's') in the Arabic reflexive causative forms istaCCaCa (Perfect) and
yastaCCiCu (Imperfective).  In the Hebrew Hiph`il/Hoph`al forms the causative
'sh' become 'h', as also the 3rd person suffix -hu corresponds to -shu in
Akkadian and Jibbali.  [In Arabic and Aramaic the 'h' has generally further
weakened to the sound of 'alef/hamza.]

These things are explained in the 'Comparative/Internal Reconstruction' of the
Semitic Verbal Derivation given in pages 53-55 of Patrick R. Bennett's
"Comparative Semitic Linguistics - A Manual".

The Proto-Semitic passive causative is reconstructed as yushuCCaCu
Therefore it is quite plausible that in the language of Leah, in the early 2nd
Millenium BC, what would become the Hoph`al Imperfective form still retained the
causative prefix as 'h':  yuhuCCaCu

The Hiphil Imperfective of the root WDY (which became YDH) means "he thanks".
The Hophal Imperfective would thus be the passive of this, meaning "he is
thanked".
This fits with what Leah was saying, "Now I will thank YHWH"; Judah's name says
of YHWH, "He is thanked".

The form yuhuCCaCu with the root WDY would go through this transformation:
yuhuwdayu
yuhuwde(h)
yhude(h)

But we know from the Masoretic pointing Yhudah as well as the Greek iouda(s)
that the final vowel is 'a' and not 'e'.

Therefore I suggest the verb form yuhuwdayu had the final -yu clipped off to
form the Name Yuhuwda
Yuhuwda
Yhuda(h)

This would predictably produce the current Tiberian Hebrew form that is found in
our Hebrew Bibles.



But why would the -yu be clipped from yuhuwdayu?

By doing so, one would prevent the formation of an accusative form Yuhuwdaya
which would have the same pronunciation as the Subjunctive verb implying "He
INTENDED to be thanked".  If the -yu were left, it would mean that (in the
regular inflexion of the Name) a form suggesting an unintended verbal meaning
would be produced.

To prevent this, the -yu could be removed.

Likewise I suggest that the -yu was removed from yahwayu "He is" to form the
name "Yahwa", so that it could not be inflected as "Yahwaya" which form would
suggest the inappropriate verbal meaning "He INTENDED to be".


But whether or not this be the reason for the Names ending in -a rather than -e,
this demonstration that Yhudah could derive from a 3-He Imperfective gives
evidence suggestive that YHWH could likewise derive from a 3-He Imperfective and
yet end in -a and not -e.

The 'e' ending of a word could only exist as far back as the 'e' vowel existed
in Semitic, but 'a' vowels have always existed in Semitic.  Therefore a form
like "Yhude" or "Yahwe" could only exist so far back, but a form like "Yahwa"
could exist from the earliest Semitic language, and "Yhuda/Yuhuwda" could
likewise exist from before the -e ending developed from -ayu/-iyu.

[The -e ending is absent from Arabic, which suggests that the ancestor of Arabic
and Northwest Semitic languages did not have -e.  Therefore a "Yahweh"
pronunciation would not be older than the Arabic language, but if it were
"Yahwa" it would have likely been pronounced exactly the same from the time of
the earliest Semitic language to the exile of the Jews to Babylon in the 1st
millenium BC.]


Love from Garth.







_________________________________________________________________
Get MOTORAZR MAXX V6 now $249 on Next G™ Pre-Paid
http://clk.atdmt.com/OAT/go/nnmsntel0690000034oat/direct/01/

Hi Garth,

I decided to check my birth certificate, and yes indeed, at 72 years of
age, I seem to be one of those persons who are older than you, that you
have conversed with in the past.  However although we have disagreed on
issues, I don't recall that you were bad mannered or rude in our
discussions.

And although you and I are  both aware of my lack of knowledge in the
Hebrew language, I don't recall you were ever critical of  me for only
having a kindergarten understanding of the Hebrew language.

Sincerely yours,

Dave Donnelly

[Garth responds: I am grateful to YHWH that He has apparently kept me from being
rude or bad mannered toward you, Dave, even until this day that I learn of your
many days. But truly it is easy to be well mannered with such a well mannered
and humble man like yourself.
...But put before me someone who is puffed up with lies and wants to accuse and
find fault with me simply because I disagree and ask for evidence... wow! That
really ticks me off, eh?  Recently I stumbled over such a situation, and by
YHWH's rebuke I regretted my response to it.  It seems to me that some people
NEED to be humiliated; it seems that some DESERVE to be humiliated; but it also
seems to me that I should be very careful before I assume that I should be the
one to do the job!!  I want to be a vessel for honorable purpose rather than for
dishonorable purpose.  To be 'used by God' is not enough!  I want to be 'used by
God' in ways that are produced by obeying Him.]

--- In YHWHgroup@..., Garth Grenache <garthgrenache@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> A peaceful Sabbath to each of you.
>
> Father YHWH has just rebuked me for being bad-mannered in conversing
with people who are older than me.
>
> Therefore I repent of being quick, judgmental, rude, critical with
older people, regardless of how arrogant, comfortable or ignorant they
may be.
>
> Please announce it publicly and in your circles that Garth Grenache
has repented of being disrespectful to his elders, and if I have harmed
anyone, let their complaint come to my ear and I will listen, for I've
been a roarer.
>
> Let them know that I have been a sinner and I'm sorry and repent, dear
friends.
>
> Love from Garth.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get MOTORAZR MAXX V6 now $249 on Next G™ Pre-Paid
> http://clk.atdmt.com/OAT/go/nnmsntel0690000034oat/direct/01/
>

Humility is always a good thing, and we are encouraged to consider others  as
superior to ourselves.  I am reminded of the time the apostle Paul  called
the persecuting high priest a "whitewashed wall" and was slapped for  it.
Still, the high priest was wrong and Paul was right.

Confession is good for the soul, as they say, so long as we don't beat
ourselves up over it.  God forgives "in a large way."  I am sure that  He
appreciates all that you are doing for His Name.

By the way, like Dave, I am a "senior citizen," although Dave has me by a
few years.  :)

Solomon

[Garth responds: Thanks for the encouragement, Solomon!  It was a joy to confess
and repent and restore rightness in the sight of YHWH and man, and it is an
excitement to notice that the rules now have changed for me: not that the rules
have changed, but rather that I understand that I must play the game of life
differently to please YHWH.  Now when I'm receiving flack from an older person,
I intend to hold back, commune and laugh with YHWH in my spirit, say a few
'hmm's, and gently throw a couple of spanners in the works, knowing that as I
hold back from being aggressive I will please my heavenly Father, whilst He
knows who's right.  It is releasing to know that it's not my task to make
everyone see what is right.  It is encouraging to see that YHWH sometimes uses
me to help some people see what is right. Blessings!]

In a message dated 3/24/2008 11:21:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
davedonnelly1@... writes:

Garth  responds: I am grateful to YHWH that He has apparently kept me from
being rude  or bad mannered toward you, Dave, even until this day that I learn
of your  many days. But truly it is easy to be well mannered with such a well
mannered  and humble man like yourself.
...But put before me someone who is puffed up  with lies and wants to accuse
and find fault with me simply because I disagree  and ask for evidence... wow!
That really ticks me off, eh? Recently I stumbled  over such a situation, and
by YHWH's rebuke I regretted my response to it. It  seems to me that some
people NEED to be humiliated; it seems that some DESERVE  to be humiliated; but
it also seems to me that I should be very careful before  I assume that I
should be the one to do the job!! I want to be a vessel for  honorable purpose
rather than for dishonorable purpose. To be 'used by God' is  not enough! I want
to be 'used by God' in ways that are produced by obeying  Him.






**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030\
000000001)