two vowels with the vav?

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Doug Kutilek
https://www.facebook.com/groups/KJVOdiscussion/posts/5853304771456642/

Indeed, anyone who knows Hebrew immediately sees a huge problem with how the name is commonly written in the masoretic text: the consonant vav--the third in the name--has TWO vowels written with it--a holem (indicating a long "o") over it and a qamets (indicating a long "a") under it (some modern printed Hebrew editions don't have the holem, but the famous 2nd rabbinic Bible of 1525, the "standard" masoretic text edition of the Reformation era did, as do many other printed). In written Hebrew--a consonant can have just one vowel, never two. The presence of two vowels would be a red flag to the reader immediately. In this case, the reader is thereby informed NOT to pronounce the name represented by the consonants, but to substitute another as represented by the vowels.

Steven Avery Anyone who knows Hebrew knows that there can only be one vowel per consonant.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Puritanboard
https://puritanboard.com/threads/jehovah-or-yehovah-vs-yahweh.104438/

Ian
Indeed there are. Names like "Yeho-shua" "Yeho-nathan" and so on. The difficulty for the traditional reading (which traces back to a medieval monk) is that it requires the vav to be a consonantal vav preceded by a cholem, which I think would be unparalleled elsewhere in Hebrew. This isn't really a new discussion. Samuel Mather is well aware of it in 1760, and while he comes down in favor of the traditional pronunciation (without actually answering why the Masoretes put different vowels under the divine name in different places), he pronounces it a matter of little import - as indeed I do myself. The issue is with describing the alternative as some kind of liberal/papist plot.

==================

2) Nowhere else in Hebrew (that I know of) is a consonantal vav preceded by a cholem (o sound). When vav's and cholem's occur together, either they are simply the vowel (o) or the vav comes first (Mitsvot). I'd be very interested if anyone can show me a counter example.

==================

Not that that is really significant for the form of "Jehovah". Since the first syllable is open and distant from accent, you would expect a medium vowel to reduce to a sheva there. Names like Yehonathan form a parallel. The difficulties come with a) the cholem before the consonantal vav and b) the fact that the Massoretic text consistently points the tetragrammaton differently when it occurs after 'adonai.

Here's an example from the Second Rabbinic Bible, which most people reckon was the main Hebrew source for the KJV. Here you clearly have the vowels of Elohim (hataph seghol, cholem, chireq - even though a chireq never precedes a final he in Hebrew) under the consonants of the divine name. I'm still waiting for any alternative explanation.

===================

Douglas Somerset
3) How much weight do you attach to the idea that certain forms occur nowhere else in Biblical Hebrew, e.g. a cholem before a consonantal vav? Do you know any English/Scottish word that rhymes with "Duguid" (although I have lived in Aberdeen for twenty-five years, I had to look it up in my pronouncing dictionary!) or with "Rachel"? Arguments of this sort need to be refined considerably before they can be regarded as conclusive. [In any case, since I wrote that I have learned that cholem before consonantal vav does occur in Eccl. 2:22 and Ezek. 7:26].

Ian
More importantly, I stand corrected on the use of cholem before vav. The occasions you cite (plus a couple of others) are exceptional, but do make the point that linguistic "laws" are not exactly like the laws of physics.

Tyler Ray
The cholem > consonantal vav doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. Unless you can show that it is impossible for it to happen, it is an argument from ignorance, which is an informal fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is impossible according to the laws of Hebrew.

Ian
You are right regarding the cholem, especially since Douglas pointed to some examples. They are rare but do happen. The primary challenges are to explain why the pointing in our earliest texts is what it is, often omitting the cholem, which results in an impossible form, and changing consistently to the vowels of Elohim whenever it follows adonai.


1737274050216.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jason Hare

Explanation of the Lack of Cholem

In his latest release on this issue (since he is so interested in it), Nehemia Gordon reports that there are
six manuscripts in which some instances of יְהוָֹה (with the cholem above the vav – like וֹ) have been
discovered. e name is normally written in the manuscripts as יְהוָה (with no upper dot), which is not
really pronounceable in Hebrew. Mr. Gordon surmises that the full form is with the upper dot, and that
the scribes who copied the manuscripts were following the Masoretic tradition of leaving of the dot in
order to remind people not to read it as “Jehovah.” e assumption behind this is that the scribes
actually knew that “Jehovah” was the name and the way to read it, but that leaving off the upper dot
would serve as a reminder not to pronounce it
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Creator's Name
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheCreatorsName/permalink/752292918501907/

Good discussion

Also, don't make the mistake of confusing the cholem with the accent mark called Revia. This is a large dot, usually diamond shaped, above the vav/waw. There will always be an accent either below next to the chametz or above by the vav/waw. If you see no mark next to the vav/waw other than the dot above the line, then it's probably not the cholem at all.

Katherine Witherell Vowel points are indicated by using dots and dashes of various kinds above, below, or in the middle of letters. These are known as nikkudim. The dot above the Heh (ה) or sometimes over the Waw/Vav (ו) in the Tetragrammaton is called cholem/cholem/holem and represents an O vowel sound.
The Revia (diamond shaped dot) is one of the Te'amim, which serve both as musical notes and as indications of where to place the stress or accentuation. They also serve as Masoretic punctuation marks, just as we use colons, semi-colons, commas, etc. The stress in the Name falls on the last syllable, so this is usually represented by a revia next to where the cholem would be, or by a different te'am (accent mark) underneath the Vav/Waw next to where the qametz (T- shaped) vowel mark would be.

I hope that helps and isn't too confusing.

==========================================

MYPOST
https://www.facebook.com/groups/The...98161834716&reply_comment_id=2125785761152609

Steven Avery

Katherine Witherell - some yahweh-pushers have made an issue over the idea that the vav has two vowels in Masoretic printed editions and this presents a grammatical problem that points to the artificiality of the cholem.

And I am setting up a page on the question.

Pure Bible Forum
two vowels with the vav?
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/two-vowels-with-the-vav.4992/
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator

Evelin Carr

I think that it’s a printing quirk, because the cholam belongs in between the hey and the vav, which is not easy, since it’s just a dot. If it were connected to the vav the vav would be the letter o and could not have the kamatz below it. In the case of Yehovah, we would have to read the name as Yehoh.

Ro Astrom

In Hebrew there are two types of cholam vowels: "cholam male" (there is a dot above the consonant "vav") and "cholam chaser" (in this case, the dot, for example, in the Tetragrammaton is placed not above "vav" but in the upper left corner of the consonant "he"). When the accent "Revia" or "Zaqef Qaton" is placed above "vav", the cholam must naturally be moved to the right corner of the consonant "he".
 

Attachments

  • 1737362110807.png
    1737362110807.png
    34.6 KB · Views: 12
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Doug Kutilek - so here is your Tetragram with revia - diamond cantillation - added, above the vav.
Note the cholem is with the hey.
You really do not understand that 1500s printing was not super sophisticated?
Have you studied the material from Dr. Nehemia Gordon?

1 of 2 pics - maybe Ro chat
Or Creator’s Name

Better - hard tofind - has two picx. *
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top