Talk:Greek transcriptions of the Hebrew Divine Name

Trying to deal with a "scholars disagree with scholars" issue in "Iaoue"

There seems to be an almost 100% consensus among 20th century scholarly sources,
that in Clement of Alexandria's Stromata Book V. Chapter 6,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue".

However there seems to be an almost 100% consensus among pre 20th century scholarly sources,
that in Clement of Alexandria's Stromata Book V. Chapter 6,
Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaou".

I have attempted to deal with this issue by rewriting the introduction and section #1 of the present Wikipedia Article:Iaoue.

Comments are welcome.

Seeker02421 17:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Starting over with the 18:35, 21 March 2006 version of Wikipedia Article:Iaoue, I added information on two critical editions of the writings of Clement of Alexandria that were written in the 20th century.

The Greek scholars that wrote these two critical editions recognized the existance of the extant 11th century Greek Codex "L", that preserves the variant "ιαου" at Stromata Book V. chapter 6, where Clement writes how the Tetragrammaton is pronounced, yet in their critical editions, wrote "ιαουε" in the same verse.

Seeker02421 11:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Mpolo,

Thanks for making your changes to the Wikipedia Article "Iaoue".

Seeker02421 12:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Seeker, I removed your additions by mistake (it was an edit conflict), but after reading them, I think they would be better in the Tetragrammaton article. I don't see how they relate to Clement's spelling direcly. Gadykozma 13:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mission Impossible [Or Is It?]

"Mission Impossible" is to find a method of reading "יהוה",

[the Tetragrammaton without vowel points],

as "YaHWeH" without knowing beforehand that Clement of Alexandria pronounced "יהוה", as "ιαουε".

And we will have to use normal Biblical Hebrew Grammar rules,

that were in effect in the 1st or 2nd Century A.D.

And Gerard Gertoux will be looking over our shoulder,

because he believes that "יהוה" is pronounced "Yehua",

"according to its letters".

using normal Biblical Hebrew Grammar rules, that were in effect in the 1st and 2nd Century A.D.

We can probably safely say that the "yod" in "יהוה" will be pronounced "ee" in first century "Greek", and that this "ee" in combination with any vowel, [a or e or i or o or u] will probably sound like "Y" in 21st century English.

Some possible first syllable pronunciations of "יהוה" might be:

Ya or Ye or Yi or Yo or Yu

or

Yah or Yeh or Yih or Yoh or Yuh

Gerard Gertoux chooses "YE" for the first syllable, and "h" is the first letter of the 2nd syllable.

Of course we know that Gerard Gertoux must be wrong, because if he is right,

we will not be able to pronounce "יהוה" as Yahweh.

HAHA

Seeker02421 01:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seeker, your remarks (here and in other places) make it clear you think this Yahweh is the answer. Yahweh is no more than an educated guess. It might be — and it might be not. We simply do not have enough information to decide. Gadykozma 02:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gadykozma,

I realize that "articles" are supposed to be written from a "neutral point of view" [NPOV], which I try to do.

However I myself am not neutral in the Yahweh/Jehovah controversy.

I assume that nobody is t-o-t-a-l-l-y neutral in the Yahweh/Jehovah controversy, although I try to be neutral, in what I write in Wkipedia articles.

I assumed that NPOV was not required during Wikipedia discussions, however if Wikipedia requires NPOV during discussions, I am quite willing to delete my previous mentioned text.

DOES WIKIPEDIA EXPECT NPOV IN THE DISCUSSION PORTIONS OF ARTICLES?

IF SO I WAS INCORRECT TO POST THE PREVIOUS THOUGHTS THAT I POSTED ABOUT TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT "YAHWEH" CAN BE DERIVED FROM "יהוה"

[While I am not a member of any Sacred Name Group, I am aware that there are Sacred Name groups that present t-h-e-i-r evidence that "Yahweh" is the a-c-t-u-a-l pronunciation of "Yahweh", and clearly demostrate their transliteration methods.

I believe that they are in error in their presentation, yet I believe that their arguments should be examined from the neutral point of view.]

To be redundant: DOES WIKIPEDIA EXPECT NPOV IN THE DISCUSSION PORTIONS OF ARTICLES?

Seeker02421 10:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, NPOV is only for articles. In talk pages you only need to maintane civility. See some official policies: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Behavior guidelines. There is also a policy on staying on topic: Wikipedia:Talk page#What is it used for?, however, I think it is safe to say that this is the most commonly broken Wikipedia policy. I just did it above... Gadykozma 12:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zephyrus

I can't figure out when Zephyrus wrote his Catena, but from the name alone, it is clear that he is stringing together -- "chaining" -- commentaries of the Fathers. [I reconstructed the name of the book -- if it was published in Latin, the title would almost have to be what I cited.] Clement of Alexandria's only surviving work is the Stromata. After a bit more searching, I found out that Zephyrus was actually quoting Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century. That source, however, being in Latin, had to tranliterate iaoue, and did so with "Iehovah". (Which is to say that Nicetas went back to the original Hebrew rather than simply transliterating Clement.) Maybe the whole Nicetas/Zephyrus thing should be left out of the article, since it essentially ignores Clement's transliteration, which is the subject.

In any case, I edited as though we want to keep it.... Mpolo 10:47, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

I say this is sufficiently relevant to keep. Gadykozma 12:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo,

Back in January of 2002, an Article titled "JEHOVAH" by Scott Jones had the following text at the top of the article:

>>> That mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton, by which alone they who had access to the Holy of Holies were protected, is pronounced JEHOVAH, which means, Who is, and who shall be."

Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century, From The Catena On The Pentateuch, Published In Latin By Francis Zephyrus, P 146. >>>

At that time the words "Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century" were being questioned, because no evidence could be found, other than the quote above, that "Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century" was actually involved.

Peter Kirk on b-hebrew questions whether "Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century" is actually involved in the above quote which is "attributed to Clement of Alexabdria"

For various reasons Scott Jones no longer posts this quote at the start of his article on "JEHOVAH"

Many websites that quote the above statement,

do not mention"Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd Century".

Mpolo,

Are you sure that "Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd Century" is involved in any way with the above quote which has been attributed to Clement of Alexandria?

Seeker02421 12:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I got the name from [1].

Nicetas of Heraclea published quite a bit of translation of Clement in his "Catena" (but it seems to have been a Catena on Job and the Gospels, not on the Pentateuch). [2] He seems to have been from the 11th century, however, not the 2nd (somebody probably interpreted 11 as II at some point on the Internet): [3]. The later date seems more likely anyway, since Latin was not widely used before the late 3rd century in the Church, and Clement was writing around 190, not leaving much time for his work to get translated. I can find no evidence of the connection of Nicetas with the particular quote, other than the cited page.

The "Fragments not given in the Oxford Edition" page is a selection of fragments of Clement preserved in other authors. And that page cites this Zephyrus guy (whose book is entitled "Catena in Pentateuchum".) I wish I knew from what era he is. On the Internet, he is only mentioned in citings of "Early Church Fathers", where as we well know, on P. 146 he translates the phrase in question from Clement.

According to Smith's Bible dictionary, the original text in the Stromata was iaou (without the e), with the e occuring in a Catena on the Pentateuch. Unfortunately, I have no copy of Stromata in Greek around. "Ancient Church Fathers" translates the phrase 'Again, there is the veil of the entrance into the holy of holies. Four pillars there are, the sign of the sacred tetrad of the ancient covenants. Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, "Who is and shall be." The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters.' Which more or less supports the reading Iaoue: I=J a=a ou=v e=e.

So, it appears to me that the sequence of events is the following. (1) Clement wrote Stromata, using Iaoue as his transliteration (2) Nicetas used portions of Clement in his "Catena" around the 11th century, but not the phrase we are concerned about. (3) (but possibly before 2) Zephyrus translated the phrase in question into Latin. "Early Church Fathers" would seem to indicate that he transliterated Iaoue as "Iehovah".

As for what should be done in the article, I think that Nicetas will have to come out. I don't like citing Zephyrus without knowing when he's from -- it would have been nice to have his Latin text as well.... Mpolo 14:19, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

I see you finally decided Nicetas was from the 2nd century... Gadykozma 16:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, actually put my comment tag in the wrong spot. (Or someone managed an edit that didn't show up in the history...) I have removed Nicetas altogether, since as far as I can tell, his translation of Stromata was restricted to other parts. I wish I knew who the Zephyrus guy is, though. :-( Mpolo 16:49, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo,

It appears that I [seeker02421] am the original source of the comment in footnote #1, that:

"Necetas's statement in Latin, is a Greek to Latin translation of a quote that Clement of Alexandria made."

The source of footnote #1 even copied my incorrect spelling of Nicetas's name.

In a discussion on How did Nicetas spell YHWH in Latin ( 2nd Century )? ,

on a KJVO Discussion Board I wrote:

>>>

In the second century, Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, translated Clement of Alexandria's Greek pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton into Latin. Quote:

That mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton, by which alone they who had access to the Holy of Holies were protected, is pronounced JEHOVAH, which means, Who is, and who shall be."

--- Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century, From The Catena On The Pentateuch, Published In Latin By Francis Zephyrus, P 146.

The statement above is an English translation, of a statement written in Latin by Nicetas [in the 2nd century].

Necetas's statement in Latin, is a Greek to Latin translation of a quote that Clement of Alexandria made.

Does any member of this board know what Latin name for YHWH, that Nicetas used in the 2nd century?

In the b-hebrew archives, a member says that in the statement above, Clement spelled the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as "Iaou" [in Greek letters] not Iaoue [in Greek letters]

>>>

I am "Exodus Six Verse Three" when I post on Ezboards.

Seeker02421 17:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have found information about the mysterious Zephyrus and his Catena from the online catalogue of the Bodleian library in Oxford (http://library.ox.ac.uk/). Here is the catalogue record:

> Title Cathena, seu Explicatio locorum qui in Pentateucho subobscuriores occurrunt, ex antiquis Græcorum theologis deprompta, F. Zephyro interprete. Item Cathena explanationum veterum sanctorum patrum in omnia tam veteris, quam noui Testamenti cantica, ab A. Carafa in Lat. conversa.

> Publisher Colon. Agripp. 1572

> Description (80)

> Title as Subject Pentateuch

> Other Names Zephyris, Francisco Xaverius de, transl.

> Catena.

> Hierarchical Place Name Germany -- Cologne

> Form, Genre or Physical Characteristics as Subject Association copies (Provenance) -- Selden

> Local Control Number 14275606

> Library Holdings

> Location Call Number Status Bodleian

> BOD Bookstack 80 C 9 Th.Seld. In place

So this book does exist, and was probably written by a Catholic, a Jesuit (from the name Francis Xavier), and published in Cologne in 1572. So it is no surprise that it apparently used the form Iehova, which was in common use at that time. This copy in the Bodleian is very likely the very one translated by William Wilson in the 19th century and included in Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Peter Kirk Peterkirk 00:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (I hope I have now found out how to get my user name here)

Scott Jones' article on "Jehovah" previously quoted Nicetas.

Scott Jones is a strong defender on the accuracy of the name "Jehovah". In early 2002 he was defending the name "Jehovah" on a KJVO website. At that time his article on Jehovah started out with the following text:

>>>

"That mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton, by which alone they who had access to the Holy of Holies were protected, is pronounced JEHOVAH(Iehovah), which means, Who is, and who shall be." Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century, From The Catena On The Pentateuch, Published In Latin By Francis Zephyrus, P 146

>>>

This heading can be observed at the following link: Scott Jones earlier version of his article on Jehovah, where he quotes Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century.

Sometime in 2003, Scott Jones removed the above heading from his article on Jehovah. The present article, without that heading, can be observed at the link below: Scott Jones present version of his article on Jehovah where he quotes neither Nicetas nor Clement of Alexandria"

It is at least possible, that Scott Jones may have been the first person to write that "Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century", was involved in preserving the fragment "From The Catena On The Pentateuch, Published In Latin By Francis Zephyrus, P 146"

On my part, until recently, I have tried to defend the text:

>>> In the second century, Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, translated Clement of Alexandria's Greek pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton into Latin. Quote:

That mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton, by which alone they who had access to the Holy of Holies were protected, is pronounced JEHOVAH, which means, Who is, and who shall be."

--- Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century, From The Catena On The Pentateuch, Published In Latin By Francis Zephyrus, P 146.

>>>

because I had been led to believe that Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century was actually involved.

It was only in late 2003, that I reached the understanding that it was Clement of Alexandria, that originally wrote the text, and that he used "Iaoue" which was translated as "Jehovah", hundreds of years later.

And at that time I was still trying to understand Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea part on all this.

It helped when I discovered that a hebrew scholar on b-hebrew, questioned whether or not Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea had anything to do with this issue

Seeker02421 12:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, it appears to me that Nicetas of Heraclea is from the 11th century, not the 2nd. Since Heraclea is in the East, he almost certainly wrote in Greek. Logically, Nicetas couldn't be from the second century, because the text he is supposedly translating wasn't even written until 190. It is highly unlikely that a Greek in an area speaking only Greek in a Church that spoke only Greek for another hundred years could have translated the text into Latin. I don't know what language the 11th century Nicetas wrote in, but according to "Early Christian Fathers", the only source we have available to us of his writings, this section of Clement is not included, so I would think it better not to even bring him in. Mpolo 15:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Further evidence that Nicetas is not a second century bishop: According to the "Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche" (German Catholic Encyclopedia, essentially), the diocese of Heraclea was founded in 297, that is, in the third century. Heraclea is in Thrace. It was originally a Greek diocese. A Latin diocese of Heraclea was founded during the Crusades (which might allow for Nicetas speaking Latin -- don't know). Today it is a titular archdiocese (that is, a Cardinal who works in the Vatican is named its bishop). As of 2003, no bishop was assigned to it. Mpolo 18:03, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07242b.htm, Nicetas of Heraclea seems to have been "Nicetas, eleventh century, a writer of commentaries and other works". This confirms the suspicion that someone misread 11 as two. His Catenas on Job and Matthew are quoted in Ante-Nicene Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-75.htm. This page taken in isolation gives the wrong idea that this is text written by Nicetas, but the wider context in ANF (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.pdf) shows that this is material quoted by Nicetas from Clement. But there is nothing relevant to the divine name here.

Nicetas wrote a Catena on Job and one on Matthew. Corderius wrote one on Luke. And Zephyrus wrote one in Latin on the Pentateuch. All of them quoted Clement. But they are quite different works and whould not be confused. "Catena", literally "chain", seems to have been meant "commentary". So I can confirm that Nicetas is irrelevant to this issue.

Zephyrus (whoever he might have been) was simply quoting, in Latin translation, Clement's Stromata, book v. chap. vi. See the English translation of Clement's Greek in p. 452 of the printed edition of ANF (which is p.668 of the PDF file http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.pdf, or http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.v.vi.html). Zephyrus' Latin is rendered into English as "Jehovah". But maybe it is Zephyrus' Catena to the Pentateuch of which a Turin manuscript is mentioned in Smith's Bible Dictionary (see http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/IaoueInformationfrom1863trimmed.JPG), which is said to read IAOUE in Greek letters. Or is this a reconstruction from a Latin form? The form "Jehovah" in the English translation of Zephyrus may come from the translator, William Wilson. Of course if Zephyrus actually wrote "Iehouah" or similar before about 1530, that would be of great interest as it would support the antiquity of "Jehovah".

And what did Clement actually write? This Wikipedia article assumes that he wrote IAOUE, in Greek. But a number of authorities (Smith's Bible Dictionary as cited above; Rudolf Kittel quoted by http://hanskrause.de/HKHPE/hkhpe_28_01.htm; the Catholic Encyclopaedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm) state that Clement actually wrote IAOU in Greek. Does the Greek form IAOUE actually occur at all, at least before 19th century reconstructions? Has anyone seen it in a manuscript? If it doesn't exist, this whole Wikipaedia article is based on a false premise and should be totally rewritten.

Peter Kirk

Seeker just put that Clement had "Jave", which seems impossible, since Greek has no "v". The Catholic Encyclopedia certainly makes it look as though the text was Iaou, and not Iaoue. Is there a surviving Greek text of that section of the Stromata? I don't have one, certainly. What text is Ante-Nicene Fathers (which has "Jehovah", though that may only indicate a preference of the translator) based on? I don't think the current text can possibly be correct. (By the way, "Catena" means a stringing together of quotes from the Fathers of the Church to form a "patristic commentary" on a particular book. Many medieval theologians produced them, including Thomas Aquinas, whose "Catena Aurea" covers all four Gospels.) Mpolo 08:16, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo,

Before I made my last edit, the first sentence of the “Clement's writing” sub-topic read:

“In the Stromata Clement of Alexandria wrote that "The mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton...is pronounced ιαουε" 1.”

Footnote #1 pointed to an English translation of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, Book V. Chapter 6:34 which read:

"Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave,"

Obviously the first sentence was written incorrectly.

I edited the first sentence to read:

“In Clement of Alexandria's Stromata, Book V. Chapter 6:34, it says: "Further, the mystic name of four letters...is called Jave..." 1."

Other than the fact that I left out the words “which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was acceptable,”, I quoted a particular English translation of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, Book V. Chapter 6:34 accurately.

I made no attempt to indicate that “Jave” was an accurate translation of the underlying Greek word which was written by Clement of Alexandria.

I merely quoted “Jave” because that was the word used by the person who translated Stromata Book V. Chapter 6:34 into English.

I then added the following new sentence:

"Nineteenth Century scholars believed that the underlying Greek word that is translated as "Jave" was the Greek name "ιαουε"."

While I now realize that the Greek word used in Clement of Alexandria's Stromata Book V. Chapter 6:34 may have actually been "ιαου", I believe that I wrote the above sentence correctly, from a NPOV perspective.

Seeker02421 14:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are two translations of this passage from Clement in Volume 2 of "Ante-Nicene Fathers". The links under "Footnotes" in the article are to these two passages in the same volume, although copied from the original CCEL site to two different other sites. The full text of this volume is at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.pdf, and I recommend you to download this (but it is 5 MB). I would also advise replacing the links by ones to the original online text, as follows:

1. Stromata Book V, Chapter 6:34. See an online English translation (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-65.htm#P7381_2229893).

2. The Catena on the Pentateuch, Francis Zephyrus, P. 146. See an online English translation (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-85.htm#P10423_2896810).

The translation of this passage made from the Greek text of Clement is the one with the rendering "Jave". The second translation is from the passage as quoted in Latin by Zephyrus, and here the rendering is "Jehovah". But it is not safe to use either of these renderings as a guide to the underlying Greek or Latin form of the name.

Concerning the Greek text of Clement, I found the following at http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf201/htm/iii.xi.xiii.htm, i.e. taken from "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers": "The standard edition of Clement’s works is that of Potter, Oxford, 1715, in two vols. (reprinted in Migne’s Patr. Gr., Vols. VIII. and IX.)." This is presumably the Oxford edition referred to when the Zephyrus passage is listed as among "Fragments Not Given in the Oxford Edition". It is also presumably the basis for the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" translation of the Greek text, although Migne's notes in "Patrologiae Graecae" (see http://phoenix.reltech.org/Migne.html) were probably also taken into account.

I would advise serious scholars of this subject to check their facts by looking at Migne, either in print or the (rather costly) online edition. This should be available at good theological libraries.

Peter Kirk 213.162.124.237 00:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dissection table

Seeker, what is the purpose of this table? What is it trying to say?

BTW: the point inside the heh in "yah" is not a dagesh, it is a mapik. Gadykozma 03:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Gady.

I did some checking in my Hebrew grammar books, and you are correct that the dot in the “heh” is a mapiq / mappiq and not a "dagesh".

My intended purpose for the table, was to demonstrate that in the Greek New Testament, “Ia” was used to transliterate Hebrew word #3050 [e.g. Yahh]

The spelling [yod-qamets-heh-mapiq] is found in the underlying Hebrew of “LORD“ in the expression “Praise ye the LORD” [e.g. halelu-yahh]

I was trying to establish that there was a solid basis for the scholarly reconstruction of the first syllable of “YaH:WeH” , [e.g. yod-patah-heh-mapiq] while noting that the scholars used a “patah” not a “qamets” under the yod, and the scholars used a “silent shewa’ under the “heh” not a “mapiq” inside the “heh”.

I could possibly have quoted [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=165&letter=T&search=Tetragrammaton#627

the online Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906],

under the heading: Tetragrammaton/Church Fathers and Magic Papyri. which states that “Ia” reprents “יה” and that “Iaoue” represents “יהוה”.

Seeker02421 13:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seeker hi. To my great embarrassment, I am not that great with the rules of niqqud. However, this mapiq could not exist inside a word. So it would need to be removed, and that probably would curtail a change of qamats to patah. However, I feel we are again digressing into research. Gadykozma 14:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gady,

I am not sure what you mean by your statement:

“However, this mapiq could not exist inside a word, so it would have to be removed....”

At The Tetragrammaton under the heading: “short forms:”, you will see the Hebrew spelling of “Hallelujah”.

Strickly speaking I think "Hallelujah" is not "a" word, it is probably two words, the second one of which is Hebrew word #3050 [e.g. Yahh]

The last two letters of “Hallelujah”, are “yod” and “heh”. which make up Hebrew word #3050.

The “yod” has a qamets under it,

the “heh” has a mapiq inside it.

Seeker02421 17:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gady,

I have rewritten the Wikipedia Article Reconstructing the Vowelized spelling of the Tetragrammaton.

Would you check it out, and determine if it meets Wikipedia requirements?

4.156.36.130 23:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pronouncing Iaoue

Though "Yahweh" is commonly pronounced "Yah-way", the scholarly renderings actually have it as "Yah-weh" (e as in wet). The letter ε in Greek reflects this, as it is pronounced so. (The letter η is pronounced as a long e, as in "eat") Yahnatan 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

One-sided, biased article

It is amazing to me that such a drawn out article, citing chiefly one individual Clement of Alexandria as it main source, can state with such certainty that 'YAHWEH' is the name of God in Hebrew. The pronunciation 'YAHWEH' sounds like jibberish to a Hebrew speaker, and furthermore it does not mean anything in Hebrew in that form, contrary to what the article implies. Furthermore, the chance that YHWH represents a 2-syllabic word is, at best, slim. There is an abundance of historical evidence that the name was something like the 3-syllabic YE-HO-WAH (which does not have the same vowel points as ADONAI, contrary to what is constantly being repeated). Crucially this is the only pronunciation which correlates with the theophoric names beginning with Yeho- or Yo-. The name YAH, which is sometimes used as a thephoric suffix, is a stand-alone name for God separate from YHWH. YAHU is actually YAH HU, which means "God himself". Sorry if my views clash with those of Clement of Alexandria. Permit me to hypothesize why he may have arrived at his conclusion. The letter 'He' in Hebrew is equivalent to Epsilon in Greek, and were virtually identical in form in ancient Hebrew. 'He' would usually be transliterated as E. Thus, ignoring the rules of Hebrew pronunciation, the Hellenized form of YHWH would appear as YEWE, and by extention IAOUE. --JB