The texts of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament used by most bibles today is called Masoretic (or Tiberian), based on the standardised texts produced by the Masoretes in Tiberias. Nowadays, when one learns Biblical Hebrew, they learn from this text type. The spelling and vocalisation of these texts not only tell the reader WHAT the text is or is not saying (contrary to popular opinion, vowels do change meaning), but tells the reader HOW to say it. This pronunciation, however, was never the only way of reading/speaking the biblical texts.
Prior to the standardisation of the Hebrew manuscripts, there were two other types of pronunciation called Palestinian and Babylonian. Masoretic Hebrew altered and changed the pronunciation of Palestinian and Babylonian Hebrew in order to standardise the reading. Once the Tiberian type was established, Palestinian and Babylonian manuscripts were changed or altered to conform with the Masoretic. The Masoretic, however, did not escape alteration itself based on the Palestinian or Babylonian, which were older. Over several centuries, the Masoretic was changed to conform to Palestinian and/or Babylonian while Palestinian and/or Babylonian was being changed to conform to Masoretic. The result of that normalisation and harmonisation process between all three types was a new eclectic text based on no actual manuscript, but which itself became a textual tradition. This text was widely printed in the early days of the printing press and for quite some time was the authoritative and official Hebrew text. It was often mistaken to be Masoretic. Manuscripts which actually were Masoretic, Palestinian, or Babylonian were then altered to conform to this new eclectic text so that by the 13th and 14th Centuries, almost all Hebrew manuscripts represented this new eclectic text. That text was named Ben Chayyim after the Jew who was responsible for getting it printed and is the primary text used by the makers of the King James Bible for the Christian Old Testament. About a century ago, the Ben Chayyim text was abandoned for the Masoretic text type, which is what we use today. The Masoretic text type, however, does not preserve the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Instead, it inserts vowels representative of various other words like Elohim or Adonai. There do exist, however, fragments of manuscript in earlier Palestinian and Babylonian pronunciation. These texts offer us a glimpse at what the Name looked and sounded like before the Masoretes began their work.
The picture above is a transcription of part of MS 594 of the Jewish Theological Seminary as taken from Paul E. Kahle’s The Cairo Geniza. It contains the last part of Qoheleth and the first part of Lamentations in Palestinian Hebrew. A later scribe added Masoretic pronunciation to the manuscript in a different colored ink, but preserved the original Palestinian reading. In the transcription, the Hebrew with Palestinian pronunciation is given in the upper portion while the Hebrew with Masoretic pronunciation is given in the lower. This particular piece comes from Lamentations 1:9, but can also be seen with the same vocalisation in Lamentations 1:11 of the MS. Palestinian vocalisation is new to me, so I don’t know about the proper pronunciation. Looking at how it is used on other words in the manuscript, it does show up in places where qamets exists in the Masoretic, but it also shows up in places where there is a chireq and even shureq in the Masoretic. Curiouser and curiouser. Unfortunately, Palestinian manuscripts unmolested by Masoretic harmonisation are few and far between and those who study them fewer and further. When I master Hebrew, I’ll come back to this. Otherwise, comments are open for those much more learned than I in these matters.
slaveofone Says:
UPDATE:
More progress on the pre-Masoretic pronunciation of the divine name.
The Palestinian sign for qibbutz (the vowel “u,” pronunced “oo”) is the same as that above the penultimate consonant of the divine name. Since vowel signs were almost always placed on the stressed syllable, and since this vowel has nothing to do with the names Elohim or Adonai that the Masoretes used in giving vowels to the divine name, this means (if, indeed, this mark is the Palestinian sign for qibbutz and not some other sign) that the last part of the divine name was pronounced “wooh” by Jews in Palestine before the Masoretes worked to hide its pronunciation from the text.
James Says:
Most people look at Yhwh and think 4 consonants, but isn’t it strange how Yhwh’s name contains all semi-consonants? The yod, he, and waw were used as “mothers of reading” before the vowel points were added by the Masoretes. They could have been used for long vowel sounds (?). For example: yod was long e, he was long a, and waw was long o.
So could Yhwh have been pronounced as eee-aah-ooo-aah? And also, do most Hebrew names have 3 or 4 syllables? Therefore, Yahweh is not possible.
*I do not know Hebrew, so correct me if I’m wrong.
slaveofone Says:
Well, it was worth a shot, right? Unfortunately, what you suggest is impossible in Hebrew or in any Semitic language. LOL. Yeah, I can tell you don’t know Hebrew ;)
K E Froeschner Says:
I read in a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls that yod was pronounced as the continental vowels e or i, as in they or machine, and waw was also a vowel as in father or often. The he seems to be just an aspirant of some sort, like our h.
So a reasonable guess as to the early pronunciation would be: Eh-Ah, or perhaps E(ch)-A(ch). Just two syllables (Josephus reported 4 vowels — not 4 syllables.)
If so, it is remarkably similar to the proper name of the Sumerian deity E.A., also known as En.Ki ‘Lord of Earth.’
I do agree that the modern pronunciation Yah-Weh is unsupportable. The analysis that it is simply the latin pronunciation of the Roman’s Jove, which we pronounce as rhyming with stove, but in latin or almost any romance language is Yah-weh, or Yah-veh.
slaveofone Says:
Again, for the same reason, that is literally impossible in Hebrew, let alone in any Semitic language. LOL. The fact that you have to turn to Sumerian should tell you something (hint hint – Sumerian is completely unlike any Semitic language in existence). Sometimes, yes, Yod was used to indicate a vowel. And sometimes, yes, the H was aspirated. But these things operate according to the standard rules of Hebrew grammar… which you obviously don’t know. I suggest that those of you who are interested in the pronunciation of the Divine Name pick up a beginner’s guide or grammar to Biblical Hebrew and read the first couple chapters at least. If you’d like to know more about the historical development of the language, there is a decent book out by Joshua Blau called Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew that could keep you busy for some time :)
passin by Says:
according to my very beginner’s understanding as i study Paleo Hebrew
several things…
Yahudah – (minus) the “dalet” = Yahuah.
EhYah asher EhYah isn’t that “Ah-Hh-Yah” or some such?
the “ay” sound doesn’t make sense to me as a “hah” at the end of a word has an ahh sound doesn’t it?
Yad Hah Uau Hah…Yahuah seems pretty simple to me.
Shalwm.
K E Froeschner Says:
The insistence that the Tetra make sense according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, naming conventions, etc, misses the point that the person, divinity or whatever being referred to is far older than the Hebrew civilization. The hypothesis I suggested is that the name is borrowed from the ancient past, most likely form the Sumerian histories learned during the Babylonian Captivity and that the ancient Hebrew version is a transliteration, yhwh being an approximation to the original E.A. Is not the fact that the Tetra makes no sense according to Hebrew grammar indicative that it may be a borrowed term? And the fact that it was usually written in an archaic “typestyle,” distinctively different from the body text?
Thanks for the recommendation of Blau’s book.
slaveofone Says:
>> >> “The insistence that the Tetra make sense according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, naming conventions, etc, misses the point that the person, divinity or whatever being referred to is far older than the Hebrew civilization.” < < < <
–Perhaps I am missing your point, because I’m talking about phonetics, morphology, and linguistics, based on evidence. What are you talking about?–
>> >> “The hypothesis I suggested is that the name is borrowed from the ancient past, most likely form the Sumerian histories learned during the Babylonian Captivity” < < < <
–The Tetragrammaton existed long before the Babylonian Captivity and all our actual evidence seems to authenticate the form “YHWH” as being the original as far back as we can trace it. A few examples, far from complete: From the Bible, “YHWH” occurs in the Song of Deborah, which scholars date to about the 11th Century BC (before David). Outside the Bible, the Mesha Stele (9th Century) has “YHWH,” an ostracon from Kuntillet ˓Ajrud (8th century) has “YHWH” – all these things are multiple centuries before the Babylonian Exile. In the Arad and Lachish Letters, from the 7th to 6th Centuries, we have “YHWH.” Some of the Lachish Letters with “YHWH” were written literally as Judah was falling to the Babylonians.–
–To quote Frank Moore Cross, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 61:
“The form Yahweh (the Tetragrammaton) has been established as primitive by its appearance in epigraphic sources. . . . there seems to be no valid reason to doubt that Yahweh (the Tetragrammaton) is a primitive divine name . . . . The earliest appearance of what appears to be the independent form of the name is found in fourteenth and thirteenth century lists of South Palestinian (Edomite) place-names.”–
–According to current archaeological perspective, that would even pre-date the existence of Israel and locate the Tetragrammaton in Caananite culture.–
>> >> “Is not the fact that the Tetra makes no sense according to Hebrew grammar indicative that it may be a borrowed term?” < < < <
–Some, like Cross, would argue that it makes plenty of sense within Hebrew and goes back to a Causative stem of the verb “to be” in South-Canaanite Proto-Hebrew. Personally, I’m not comfortable with that (yet). But I’m even more uncomfortable with ideas that are merely thrown out in the air, based on no evidence whatsoever, that people try to pass off as legitimate merely because that idea can be created. If you can show how the evidence we have in Semitic goes back in time to the evidence we have in Sumerian and what all the phonological and morphological changes are and what the linguistic rules are that are at work to make those changes, then I’ll consider your proposal. But if you’re looking for someone to consider an idea based on pure imagination, you came to the wrong blog.–
K E Froeschner Says:
I agree that “YHWH” has been found in circumstances that pre-date the Babylonian captivity. Some variations, such as “YAH” have also been found. I referred to the Babylonian Captivity because it seems to be about the time of the earliest written biblical texts. Sorry, I brought it up — it’s not really relevant.
You do seem to agree that it is “… a primitive divine name … that would even pre-date the existence of Israel … Caananite culture …” Are we only dis-agreeing as to how far back it might go?
Considering that most of the stories in the OT have parallels (origins, perhaps) in other cultures such as the Egyptian and Sumerian (Enuma Elish, Utnapishtim, …) I do not think it inconcievable or even highly speculative to suggest that “YHWH” comes from there as well.
As to morphology, phonetics, etc., that is exactly my point — YHWH = E.A. Phonetically and morphologically. Is this just coincidence?
Linguistically and grammatically, the issue is messy and as you and others have pointed out, opinions abound.
< >
I am not sure what you are asking for here — How did the name transform from E.A. to YHWH? It seems to me that it is just a simple phonetic transliteration — no linguistic rules are involved. Consider a parallel: “Yeshua” in Aramaic becomes “Jesus” in English. What linguistic or grammatical rules are involved? None. It’s just a simple transliteration. And just as “YHWH” makes little sense in modern Hebrew, so “Jesus” is linguistically incorrect in Aramaic.
It would be very interesting to find some archeological evidence connecting the old Hebrew or Caananite or Phoenecian or whatever form of the name to the current Hebrew, but this has not been found — so far. And the oldest forms we have are the YHWH in proto-aramaic (I think)
However, there are those finds with a shorter form transliterated as “Yah” which may be relevant. It was in BAR a while ago.
I enjoy your site and the discussion and your research and analysis. I’d like to continue but if you think I am just blowing smoke I’ll shut up and go away.
slaveofone Says:
I really do not think it is possible to argue that “YHWH” can equal “E.A.” even if we posit that it is a completely foreign word inserted into another context and knowingly uttered wrong in that new context. I’ll skip the sociological and phonetic reasons that make that almost impossible and go to the text.>>>>>>
>>>>Take, for example, one common type of oath formula “(by) the life of X…” The Masoretes vocalised this expression in two different ways depending on the Subject (X). If X was God, it was vocalised thusly: חַי־יְהוָה (chay-YHWH). If X was someone other than God, it was vocalised thusly: חֵי פַרְעֹה (chey-Pharaoh – this example from Gen 42:16). “Chay” looks like the adjective “alive”, whereas “chey” is the construct noun “life of…”. So why do we have different forms of the same word when that word is being used in the same way? The only reason I can see is phonological. The subject YHWH begins with Yod. If that Yod is pronounced as a Consonant, then when you say chay-Y…, the two Yods form one sound, a closed syllable. Because it is closed, the form does not change. Even if “YHWH” is an alien word, “chay” is not–it is Hebrew and it operates according to the rules of the Hebrew language. So it should change to what we expect of a construct noun “chey” like it does everywhere else. But because it doesn’t when “YHWH” comes after, this is strong evidence that the Yod in YHWH must be functioning as a consonant, forming a closed syllable, and keeping “chay” from changing to the form we expect.
K E Froeschner Says:
Interesting point. However, you are talking about how the Masoretes dealt with the issue. This is far from the time that the word (name) entered the texts. Is it also possible that they vocalized ch in two different ways precisely because the subjects were different — God being a special case. So the readings would be “..by the alive God.” and “by the life of my sainted aunt (for example0.” Further, I thought that YHWH was never supposed to be uttered aloud, so the phonological issues do not seem relevant. I am unclear as to when that particular injunction took effect — can you enlighten me?
I’d love to hear your views on the sociological reasons.