@[100000786212850:2048:Steven Avery] I’m glad you brought up Jacob ben Moses Bachrach, 1824 to 1896, because he’s a key example of someone defending Yehovah based on Masoretic tradition, not ancient...
www.facebook.com
Adam Alexander
Rising contributor
Steven Avery I’m glad you brought up Jacob ben Moses Bachrach, 1824 to 1896, because he’s a key example of someone defending Yehovah based on Masoretic tradition, not ancient pronunciation, his position represents a late stream of rabbinic thought, not original vocalization, now since you asked if I know any Hebraic sources, let’s go through the actual scholars who have weighed in on the Tetragrammaton and vowel usage, Nehemia Gordon, born in the 1970s, supports Yehovah based on manuscript vowel patterns, but admits it’s a result of later scribal substitution, Pavlos Vasileiadis, born in 1974, documents Yahweh’s early use in Judeo-Greek texts, Frank Shaw shows ΙΑΩ as an early Jewish pronunciation of the Name, dating back to the 1st century, Rotherham, 1823 to 1910, noted the shift toward Jehovah in English despite Hebrew roots suggesting Yahweh, Charles Pfeiffer, 1902 to 1982, and Bruce Metzger, 1914 to 2007, affirmed the Greek transliterations IAO and IAOUE pointed to Yahweh, Thomas Römer, born in 1958, supports Yahû or Yahwîh based on inscriptions, Max Reisel, 1913 to 2000, proposed Yehuàh or Yahwàh based on poetic structures, Paul Jouon, 1871 to 1942, with Muraoka, confirms Yahweh from grammar analysis, Emanuel Tov, born in 1941, confirms Yahweh consistency in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Sigmund Mowinckel, 1884 to 1965, described Yahweh cultic origins in Psalms, George Wesley Buchanan, 1921 to 2019, studied divine name preservation in LXX fragments, Adriaan Reland, 1676 to 1718, was one of the first Western scholars to document Yahweh from early sources, Avraham Gileadi, born 1950s, favors Yahweh in his Isaiah scholarship, Arnold Ehrlich, 1848 to 1919, analyzed Semitic vowel traditions in favor of Yahweh, Angelo Traina, 1889 to 1971, preferred Jehovah but admitted its hybrid origin, and of course the Masoretes from the 7th to 11th centuries inserted the vowels of Adonai to avoid pronunciation of the sacred Name, if you’re going to reject all of this as fabrication you’re dismissing centuries of scholarship, including your own source Jacob Bachrach, whose work was a defense of a late tradition not the restoration of the earliest one, I’ve answered you, now you answer mine.
====================================
Adam Alexander
Steven Avery I’m glad you brought up
Jacob ben Moses Bachrach, 1824 to 1896,
because he’s a key example of someone defending Yehovah based on Masoretic tradition, not ancient pronunciation, his position represents a late stream of rabbinic thought, not original vocalization,
now since you asked if I know any Hebraic sources, let’s go through the actual scholars who have weighed in on the Tetragrammaton and vowel usage,
Nehemia Gordon, born in the 1970s, supports Yehovah based on manuscript vowel patterns, but admits it’s a result of later scribal substitution,
Pavlos Vasileiadis, born in 1974, documents Yahweh’s early use in Judeo-Greek texts,
Frank (Edward) Shaw shows ΙΑΩ as an early Jewish pronunciation of the Name, dating back to the 1st century,
Shaw describes as “inconsistent and contradictory” the arguments by Pietersma, Rösel and Perkins for the originality of κύριος and considers all theories that posit in the Septuagint a single original form of the divine name as merely based on a priori assumptions. Accordingly, he declares: “
The matter of any (especially single) ‘original’ form of the divine name in the LXX is too complex, the evidence is too scattered and indefinite, and the various approaches offered for the issue are too simplistic” to account for the actual scribal practices (p. 158). He holds that the earliest stages of the LXX’s translation were marked by diversity (p. 262), with the choice of certain divine names depending on the context in which they appear (cf. Gen 4:26; Exod 3:15; 8:22; 28:32; 32:5; and 33:19). He treats of the related blank spaces in Septuagint manuscripts and the setting of spaces around the divine name in 4Q120 and another manuscript (p. 265), and repeats that “
there was no one ‘original’ form but different translators had different feelings, theological beliefs, motivations, and practices when it came to their handling of the name” (p. 271).
Rotherham, 1823 to 1910, noted the shift toward Jehovah in English despite Hebrew roots suggesting Yahweh, Charles Pfeiffer, 1902 to 1982, and Bruce Metzger, 1914 to 2007, affirmed the Greek transliterations IAO and IAOUE pointed to Yahweh,
Thomas Römer, born in 1958, supports Yahû or Yahwîh based on inscriptions,
Max Reisel, 1913 to 2000, proposed Yehuàh or Yahwàh based on
poetic structures,
Paul Jouon, 1871 to 1942, with
Muraoka, confirms Yahweh from grammar analysis,
Emanuel Tov, born in 1941, confirms
Yahweh consistency in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Sigmund Mowinckel, 1884 to 1965, described Yahweh cultic origins in Psalms,
George Wesley Buchanan, 1921 to 2019, studied divine name preservation in LXX fragments,
Adriaan Reland, 1676 to 1718, was one of the first Western scholars to document Yahweh from early sources,
Avraham Gileadi, born 1950s, favors Yahweh in his Isaiah scholarship,
Arnold Ehrlich, 1848 to 1919, analyzed Semitic vowel traditions in favor of Yahweh,
Angelo Traina, 1889 to 1971, preferred Jehovah but admitted its hybrid origin, and
of course the Masoretes from the 7th to 11th centuries inserted the vowels of Adonai to avoid pronunciation of the sacred Name, if you’re going to reject all of this as fabrication you’re dismissing centuries of scholarship, including your own source
Jacob Bachrach, whose work was a defense of a late tradition not the restoration of the earliest one, I’ve answered you, now you answer mine.
