Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

The Tetragrammaton

I present some of my thoughts on the topic: "Tetragrammaton"seeker02421 9/11/04 and 9/12/04

The Tetragrammaton is preserved in two forms:

  1. Without vowel Points
  2. With Vowel points.

When the Tetragrammaton without vowel points is discussed, it is referred to as “The Unpointed Tetragrammaton”. The Unpointed Tetragrammaton has only one spelling. [yod-heh-waw-heh] When the Tetragrammaton with vowel points is discussed, it is referred to as “The Pointed Tetragrammaton”. The Pointed Tetragrammaton has at least 6 different spellings.

Clement of Alexandria pronounced “The Unpointed Tetragrammaton” as “Iaoue"

In about the year 200 A.D. Clement of Alexandria wrote in the Greek language that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced “Iaoue”. In the 19th century or earlier, scholars had transliterated "Iaoue" [in Greek letters] into English as "Yahweh"

Variants of The Pointed Tetragrammaton in the Leningrad Codex

[1008-1010 A.D.] There are at least 6 different spellings of The Pointed Tetragrammaton in the Leningrad Codex:

  • YeHWaH…..yod-shewa-heh-waw-qamets-heh
  • YeHWiH..…yod-shewa-heh-waw-hireq-heh
  • YeHWiH…..yod-hatef segol-heh-waw-hireq-heh
  • YeHoWaH…yod-shewa-heh-holem-waw-qamets-heh
  • YeHoWiH….yod-shewa-heh-holem-waw-hireq-heh
  • YeHoWiH….yod-hatef segol-heh-holem-waw-hireq-heh
  • YeHoWaH only occurs 44-45 times in the printed BHS Text which is derived from the hand written Leningrad Codex [1008-1010 A.D.]

Petrus Galatinus spelled “The Unpointed Tetragrammaton as “Iehoua”

[1518-1520 A.D.] Many sources credit Petrus Galatinus as being the first person to pronounce God’s name as “Jehovah”. They base that on Petrus Galatinus‘s Latin spelling “Iehoua” in 1518-1520. However Gerard Gertoux says that “Iehoua” is not a transliteration of The Pointed Tetragrammaton. Gerard Gertoux believed that Petrus Galatinus was familiar with the book of Maimonides “The Guide of the Perplexed”. Gerard Gertoux believed that “Iehoua” was how YHWH was pronounced “according to its letters”. TO BE REDUNDANT, GERARD GERTOUX DID NOT BELIEVE THAT PETRUS GALATINUS'S SPELLING "IEHOUA" WAS DERIVED FROM THE POINTED TETRAGRAMMATON. Gerard Gertoux believed that “Iehoua” was pronounced “Yehua” not “Yehowah”

Variants of The Pointed Tetragrammaton in the Ben Chayyim Printed Hebrew Text

[1525 A.D.] There are only 2 variants of The Pointed tetragrammaton in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text:

  • YeHoWaH…yod-shewa-heh-holem-waw-qamets-heh
  • YeHoWiH….yod-hatef segol-heh-holem-waw-hireq-heh
  • YeHoWaH occurs 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text
  • YeHoWiH occurs 305 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text


  • Tyndale transliterated The Pointed Tetragrammaton as “Iehouah” [1530 A.D.]
  • The KJV translators transliterated The Pointed Tetragrammaton as “Iehouah” in 1611 A.D.
  • The KJV editors transliterated The Pointed Tetragrammaton as “Jehovah” in 1762-1769 A.D.
  • The English spelling “Yahweh” is found in 19TH Century Dictionaries. Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary in the late 1880’s is said to have used the English spelling “Yahweh”
  • The English Spelling “Yahweh” is found in “THE EMPHASIZED BIBLE” by Rotherham in 1902.
  • Scholars transliterated "Yahweh" into Pointed Hebrew

[19TH Century or earlier]: In the 19th century [or earlier] a form of The Pointed Tetragrammaton [that had been preserved in no Extant Hebrew Text] began to appear in various 19TH century [or earlier] sources. In Hebrew this Pointed Tetragrammaton was spelled: [yod-patah-heh-shewa-waw-segol-heh] This Pointed Tetragrammaton, when it was letter-by-letter translated back into English, was spelled "Yahweh"

This Pointed Tetragrammaton is found in Smith's Bible Dictionary of 1863, and in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906 and in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon. Smith's Bible Dictionary of 1863 indicates that Gesenius knew of this Pointed Tetragrammaton.

Transliterating Iaoue into English as "Yahweh"

[19TH Century or earlier] In about the year 200 A.D. Clement of Alexandria had written in the Greek Language, that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue". "Iaoue" looks like it is composed of 5 Greek vowels, however the "ou" in "Iaoue" is a Greek diphthong, so in effect "Ia(ou)e" is composed of 4 not 5 Greek vowels. The transliteration of "Ia(ou)e" to "Yahweh" is as follows:

  • Ia = "Yah"
  • (ou) = "oo" like in food
  • e = "eh"

Pronounce "Yah" + "oo" + "eh" quickly and it sounds like "Yahweh"

Do The 16 Or More Theophoric Names Indicate That God's Name Is "Jehovah"?

The issue of pronunciation of God’s name may best be summarized by a statement from Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 6:

Hebrew scholars generally favor “Yahweh” as the most likely pronunciation.

They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Halelu-yah (meaning “praise Yah, you people!”). (Ps 104:35; 150:1; 6)

Also, the forms Yehoh’, Yoh, Yah, and Yahu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names of Jehoshaphat, **16**Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh…

Still there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as “Yahuwa”, “Yahuah”, or “Yehuah”

While certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well know form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation.

seeker02421 09/11/04 and 09/12/04 and 09/13.04


I reverted the addition of the following text by Seeker02421, the reasons are below the text

The first English transcription of the "pointed Tetragrammaton" [i.e. the "pointed Tetragrammaton" is preserved o-n-l-y in Masoretic texts], appeared on the title page of William Tyndale's translation of 1525 as "IEHOUAH."

The Masoretes created the "pointed Tetragrammaton" when they added specific Hebrew vowel points above and below the Hebrew letters Yod, Heh, Waw, Heh.

The "unpointed Tetragrammaton" consists of only the four Hebrew letters Yod, Heh, Waw and Heh, and is preserved only in unpointed Hebrew texts.

While various variants of the "pointed Tetragrammaton" have been preserved in extant Masoretic Texts, the particular variant of the "pointed Tetragrammaton" that Tyndale transcribed into English, had the vowel points Shewa and Holem and Qamets added above and below the Hebrew letters Yod, He, Waw and He.

Modern scholarship teaches that the Masoretes added the Hebrew vowel points Shewa, Holem, and Qamets to the the four Hebrew letters of unpointed tetragrammaton, not to help the Jewish reader to pronounce God's name correctly, but rather to indicate to the Jewish reader, that he was to read the name "Adonai", instead of reading God's name.

Modern Scholarship teaches that the Masoretes never meant for the " Tetragrammaton" to be pronounced with the added vowel points Shewa, Holem, and Qamets. If it is true, that the Masoretes never meant for the Tetragrammaton to be pronounced with the added vowel points Shewa, Holem, and Qamets, it may have been a serious mistake for Tyndale to have transcribed the Masoretic spelling of God's name as "Iehouah"

The particular variant of the "pointed Tetragrammaton", that Tyndale transcribed as "Iehouah", and that the latest editions of the KJV transcribe as "Jehovah" is designated as Hebrew word #3068 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

In spite of the evidence that indicates that "Iehouah" and/or "Jehovah" may be erroneous transcriptions of Hebrew word #3068,


it just may be that the English spelling "Jehovah may be best English transcription of Hebrew word #3068, at this present time.

I removed this text because

  • I am not sure the term "pointed tetragrammaton" is widely used (google gives nothing). Seeker02421, Hebrew nikud is not referred to as "points" usually — are you translating literally from Hebrew?
  • The claim that the Nikkud of YHVH is actually that of Adonai is explained in the existing text, making parts of this one a repetition.
  • If the term "Hebrew word #3068" is relevant, it should be explained in its own paragraph, not as a side remark.

In short, please reword this interesting information and add it again. Thanks Gadykozma 14:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Hebrew word #3068" is referring to a Bible concordance -- I think Strong's. While widely used by Protestants, I don't think that his numbering system should be taken over into the encyclopedia, especially since we provide the actual Hebrew. Mpolo 20:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have reworded the previous information.

I had never heard of the word “nikkud” before today.

I found the paragraph below at a site named Judaism 101: Hebrew Alphabet


However, as Hebrew literacy declined, particularly after the Romans expelled the Jews from Israel, the rabbis recognized the need for aids to pronunciation, so they developed a system of dots and dashes called nikkud (points).

These dots and dashes are written above, below or inside the letter, in ways that do not alter the spacing of the line.

Text containing these markings is referred to as "pointed" text.


I deleted those two expressions, "pointed Tetragrammaton" and "unpointed Tetragrammaton" when I rewrote the information.

I titled the new sub-topic James Strong's Hebrew word #3068.

That might be changed to:

"Jehovah is derived from the Masoretic spelling [Yod-Shewa-Heh-Holem-Waw-Qamets-Heh]"

Hebrew word #3068 could be replaced by "Masoretic spelling [Yod-Shewa-Heh-Holem-Waw-Qamets-Heh]" within the article.

This spelling is found 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Text, but is only found 44-45 times in the Leningrad Codex.

Since some sources say that the Ben Chayyim text is derived from the Leningrad Codex, that raises the question of how Ben Chayyim ended up with a Hebrew Text that preserved [Yod-Shewa-Heh-Holem-Waw-Qamets-Heh] 6518 times.


Hebrew word #3068

I removed the trivia about Hebrew word #3068:

  • This is not an article about Strong's concordance
  • We don't give prominence to Strong's numbers in any other article on Hebrew words
  • It gets only 19 Goodle hits, so its not even a common usage. Jayjg 03:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, tetragrammaton only gets 418 hits, so I don't think 19 is so bad. Also I searched for "word 3068" and got 39 hits (a quick check gave that they are all relevant), which brings us up to 10% — a non-negligble minority, I would say. Gadykozma 03:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what google you are using; I get "Results 1 - 10 of about 26,100 for tetragrammaton". I also get "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,510 for tetragramaton". The usage of word 3068 is negligible, not even worth mentioning as trivia, for this reason and the other reasons listed above. Jayjg 05:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hebrew word #3068 is the known source from which the transcription [or letter by letter transliteration] Iehouah/Jehovah has been derived from. Are there persons posting on this board who do not want this Masoretic spelling to be acknowledged, as the source of the name "(Y)Jehovah".

Yehovah is James Strong's letter-by-letter English transliteration of [yod-shewa-heh-holem-waw-qamets-heh] which is preserved 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.

Yehovah is translated Jehovah in the edited KJV of 1762-1769.

Is it possible that a member of this board might not want this Masoretic spelling to be acknowledged as the source of the name "Iehouah/Jehovah", in an article on the Tetragrammaton, which openly acknowledges the transcriptions "Iehouah" and "Jehovah"

I realise that to some Jehovah's Witnesses, Hebrew word #3068 is of no importence, in verifying the legitimacy of the name Jehovah.

My opinion is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not overly concerned with Hebrew word #3068, because their Old Testament is based on the BHS text, which is derived from the Leningrad Codex, which only preserves Hebrew word #3068 44 or 45 times.

That number 44-45 is agreed to by Peter Kirk who posts on b-hebrew, and is involved in the development of unicodes for the BHS text.

In my opinion any legitimacy for the name "Jehovah" depends on whether or not the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text is legitimate.

There are sources that claim that the Ben Chayyim Text is derived from the Leningrad Codex, but how did Ben Chayyim produce a Hebrew Text which preserves Hebrew word #3068 6818 times, if the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text is derived from the Leningrad Codex, which only preserves Hebrew word #3068 44-45 times.

Did Ben Chayyim smooth out the 6 or more variants of YHWH that are preserved in the Leningrad Codex.

If Ben Chayyim made a major change, by reducing the 6 or more qere readings for YHWH, that are found in the Leningrad Codex to the two variants, Hebrew word #3068 and Hebrew word #3069, that would seem to provide more evidence, that the Masoretes never meant either Hebrew word #3068 or Hebrew word #3069 to be pronounced.

The Leningrad Codex is an extant Masoretic text, and facsimiles can be purchased for about $255.00, so the above information can be easily verified.

Gerard Gertoux lists 7 variants of YHWH that are found in the Leningrad Codex, in his book:


Seeker02421 October 3, 2004

I think the point is not that the information about this word is being suppressed, but rather that we would prefer the word be printed out in Hebrew characters rather than referring to it from a number that only users of Strong's Concordance have access to. Perhaps some expert could produce these words for us. I found a copy of Strong's, but don't know Hebrew, so... But here's an attempt -- one of our Hebrew scholars should be able to help.
3068. he-vav with dot (holam?) over it and T under it-he-yod with two dots vertically under it, Yehôvâh, yeh-ho-vaw' ; from 1961 [hâyâh]; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jeho-vah, Jewish national name of God:—Jehovah, the Lord. Comp. 3050 [Yâhh], 3069.
3069. he-vav with dot (holam?) over it-he-yod with two dots vertically under it, Yehôvîh, ye-ho-vee' ; a variant of 3068 [used after 136 (Adonai), and pronounced by Jews as 430 (Elohim) in order to prevent the repetition of the same sound, since they elsewhere pronounce 3068 as 136]:—God.
Sorry about having to "describe" the vowel markings my Character Map on Fedora doesn't seem to have those... Hopefully this is enough information for Gadykozma and Jayjg (or some other Hebrew expert) to incorporate whatever needs to be incorporated into the article. Mpolo 18:58, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Yes, it was enough (after I realized you were describing it from left to right... FYI, Hebrew is written from right to left), it also corresponds with the information seeker gave above. Anyway, I think that the consensus here is that we should continue to refer to it throughout the page as "the tetragrammaton". The question is only whether the "trivia" as Jayjg puts it should appear or not.
As for the google search, Jayjg, now I get the same results as you — I must have mispeled it somehow. Gadykozma 20:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I know Hebrew is written right to left -- but I didn't know what order a description of the characters should be written in. I actually started out with yod-he-vav-he, but switched the order to imitate the "right to left". Ah well... Sooner or later, I'll just have to learn Hebrew (and lots of other languages... but Hebrew is pretty high on the list at the moment) Mpolo 06:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't even tell what conspiracy is supposed to be going on here. Strong's is a concordance; it lists words used in the particular Hebrew text Strong had access to, and then lists how these words were translated by the King James Version translators. Strong's Hebrew text was one text; the Leningrad codex is another. Others exist as well. It's easy enough to look up words in Strong's, there are even on-line versions. Regardless, Strong's word numbering system is not relevant to this article. Jayjg 01:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Conspiracy? Did I miss all the fun? Again??? Gadykozma 01:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The conspiracy that Seeker imagines when he/she says Are there persons posting on this board who do not want this Masoretic spelling to be acknowledged, as the source of the name "(Y)Jehovah". Jayjg 02:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really did miss all the fun. Is there any contention of this fact? Any reason it shouldn't be spelled out more clearly in the text? Gadykozma 02:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't even know what "side" people who think Strong's numbering system is irrelevant are on. Jayjg 04:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My last question had nothing to do with Strong's numbering. I'll move it downward to avoid confusion.
While we are think about this issue, here is a related one: should we make mention of the term HaShem HaMeforash (the explicit name), another term that is used to refer to the tetragrammaton? Gadykozma 13:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel that it is importent to clarify which variant spelling of the Tetragrammaton we are talking about.

When Clement of Alexandria said that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue" in Greek letters, he appeared to be talking about the 4-letter Tetragrammaton yod-heh-waw-heh

In 180-200 A.D. there were no variant spellings of the Tetragrammaton.

The Tetragrammaton was only spelled one way: yod-heh-waw-heh

However since the Masoretes started adding vowel points above and below the Hebrew letters yod-heh-waw-heh, there are at least 6 different spellings of the Tetragrammaton, which can be found in extant Hebrew Texts.

When the Wikipedia article on "Tetragrammaton" says that Tyndale transcribed the Tetragrammaton as "Iehouah", it is not clear what spelling of the Tetragrammaon Tyndale was transcribing.

Seeker02421 October 4. 2004

Seeker, these are not different words, these are variant spellings of the same word. There is no need to "clarify to which we are referring to". We are referring to the word יהוה in its (minor variations on) spelling. Gadykozma 13:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In fact, they are not even variant spellings of the same word; rather, they are different vowellizations (or if you prefer, "vowel pointings") of one word. Jayjg 18:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Strong's numbering

Guys, is there any contention over the following facts?

  • The Ben Chayyim text was derived from the Lenningrad Codex.
  • Tyndale's Bible was translated from the Ben Chayyim text.
  • Later editions' Jehova is just a rerepresenation of Tyndale's Iehouah, which didn't go to other Hebrew sources.

Please refer to these points individually. Thanks. Gadykozma 13:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have been involved in discussions on KJVO discussion boards in which I have been p-r-e-s-s-u-r-e-d to believe that the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text is N-O-T derived from the Leningrad Codex.

However lately I have found several links that claim that the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text has been derived from the Leningrad Codex. I will try to locate these links.

Some of the Hebrew scholars who post on b-Hebrew seemed to be completely unaware that the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text exists.

The Ben Chayyim Hebrew text is dated at 1524-1525. Tyndale's portion of the Old Testament is dated as 1525. I do not know if Tyndale would have had time to have translated the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, if it was not fully printed until 1525. However Tyndale only translated the first 5 books (+) of the Old Testament.

No real comment on Jehova, except my belief that any transcription from Hebrew word #3068 should end in "H" even if the last "heh" in Hebrew is silent. [Gerard Gertoux's writings have affected my understanding of this issue]

Gerard Gertoux strongly distinguishes between Galatinus's Latin spelling "Iehoua", [without a final "h"] which he believes is derived from yod-heh-waw-heh and not from the Masoretic Text], and Tyndales spelling "Iehouah" [with a final "h"] which he believes is translated from the Masoretic Text.

Just in passing, Gerard Gertoux offers the spelling "Iehoua=Yehua" as a possible spelling for God's name. He believes that "Yehua" is derived from yod-heh-waw-heh AND IS DEFINITELY NOT DERIVED FROM ANY EDITION OF THE MASORETIC TEXT.


A question for Gadykozma: Where do the numbers יהו&#1492 come from

I am going to raise a few more issues. The spelling "Adonay" and the spelling "Adonai" are an issue. The spelling "Adonay" is being used by Modern scholarship to critique Hebrew word #3068. The spelling "Adonai" does not appear to being used by modern scholarship to critique Hebrew word #3068.

Also, there is a problem with the Hebrew spelling of Hebrew word #3069 [Yehovih} as found in Strong's Concordance.

Strong's Concordance does not appear to show Hebrew word #3069 as it was preserved in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.

James Strong shows a "shewa" under the "yod" in Hebrew word #3069.

It is believed that in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, a compound shewa is found under the "yod"

This is not easy to prove because the Hebrew Bible being sold in many Christian bookstores, as a Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, is actually a revision of the 1866 Letteris Edition.

And the 1866 Letteris edition is a revision of the Second Rabbinic Bible of Jacob Ben Chayyim.

The Letteris edition of 1866 shows Hebrew word #3069 with a compound shewa under the "yod" not a simple shewa as found in Strong's Concordance.

seeker02421 October 4. 2004

The numbers that Gadzykoma uses to get the Hebrew characters are the Unicode values of those characters. Wikipedia allows insertion of Unicode characters as HTML entities of the form & # xxxx ; (without the spaces), where xxxx is the decimal representation of the Unicode character desired. It will only print on computers/browsers that handle Unicode.
I don't know how important it is to make major differentiations between the different vowellings. According to Strong's notes, #3068 was replaced by "Adonai/Adonay" in pronunciation, while #3069 was replaced by "Elohim" in pronunciation. It makes sense that the last vowel would change to an I in "Yahwih" to reflect this. It appears that the persons who voweled the texts used by Strong put the vowels of Elohim on the tetragrammaton to indicate that in this case (3069) it should be pronounced "Elohim" and not "Adonai". -- Mpolo 18:50, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Which is, in fact, exactly what Jews do when the word "YHVH" directly follows "Adonai" in the Biblical text (rather than say "Adonai Adonai"). Jayjg 19:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The link below takes you an article that claims that the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text is derived from the Leningrad Codex.


The Hebrew Text used was second edition of the Rabbinic Bible prepared by Jacob ben Chayim published by Bromberg (1524-1525).

The Hebrew manuscript source for the Hebrew text is known as the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) Manuscript (B19a) dated to 1008 AD.

This is a Masoretic manuscript based on the ben Asher text.


seeker02421 October 4, 2004

An answer

  • I don't actually remember the unicode chart by heart... if you enter Hebrew text like you do in any other application, it will be automatically translated to the unicode. Specifically
    • Windows XP: you have to enable various stuff from the Control Panel. I'm not on Windows now so I can't check what exactly, but its something like advanced text services, right-to-left support and the language bar, then add Hebrew to the language bar via the preferences. If you don't have the Hebrew letters on your keyboard, you can open one from the applications/accessibility/On screen Keyboard.
    • Any older Windows, must be specifically Hebrew enabled, or Hebrew wouldn't work.
    • Linux (Gnome): Add to the panel the "Keyboard Layout Switcher" (utility submenu), open its prefernces and add "Hebrew xkb keymap".

And a question:

  • IIRC, Niqqud was added around the second century AD. Is there no version of the tetragrammaton with vowel points earlier than the Lenningrad Codex? What can you find in Bibles in between?

Gadykozma 00:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


At the link above you will find some information written by Gerard Gertoux on how the vowel points e,a might have changed to e,o,a BEFORE the Leningrad Codex was written.

The image which first appears on the screen can be enlarged, via an icon that appears at the lower right of the image.

Several months ago, Gerard Gertoux gave me permission [via e-mail] to post pages from his book.

seeker02421 October 4, 2004

Of what value and relevance is all this? Jayjg 15:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gerard Gertoux is a scholar who is very knowledgeable about this time period 700 A.D.-1010 A.D. when YHWH with the vowel points e,a changed to YHWH with the vowel points e,o,a.

Gerard Gertoux seems to blame errors by copyists, for those 44-45 instances where YHWH is found pointed with the vowel points e,o,a in the Leningrad Codex.

He seems to believe that in some cases copiest may have mistsaken a rebia [a diamond shaped accent mark] above the waw in YHWH, [in a earlier manuscript that was being copied] for a holem, and thus placed a holem above a waw in YHWH [that wasn't meant to belong there] in the new manuscript they were pointing.

This would indicate that those 44-45 instances where YHWH was pointed e,o,a in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D., "may" not have been meant to be there.

Thus it is possible that the first evidence of "Yehovah" in Masoretic Texts in the years 900 A.D. - 1010 A.D. MAY HAVE BEEN ERRORS BY COPYISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

seeker02421 October 5, 2004

O.K., but so what? I repeat, of what value and relevance is this? Why is it important to the article? Jayjg 00:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The information I posted was in response to a request [by Gadykozma] for such information.

Gadykozma's question is repeated below:

>>> IIRC, Niqqud was added around the second century AD.

Is there no version of the tetragrammaton with vowel points earlier than the Lenningrad Codex?

What can you find in Bibles in between?

Gadykozma 00:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) >>>

I think that the link I provided answered some of the questions that Gadykozma was asking about, concerning versions of the Tetragrammaton before the Leningrad Codex.

It also made known Gerard Gertoux's opinion that the spelling "Yehovah" from which Jehovah has been derived, was a copyist error, that first occured in the years 700 A.D. to 900 A.D. before the Leningrad Codex was written.

Gerard Gertoux mentioned that what he believed was a copyist error [e.g. "Yehovah"] was noted in the Aleppo Codex [written in about about 925 A.D.] and in Or4445 Codex, which he did not give a date for.

That seems to be a rather importent bit of information, given that the vowel points of "Yehovah" are being questioned by modern scholars, and Gerard Gertoux is expressing his belief that they were a copyist error as early as 925 A.D.


A new version

I tried to rewrite the parts we are discussing inserting all the information I though relevant.

  • I did not insert the discussion whether Ben Chayim was derived from Leningrad or not, since I didn't see how it was related (mostly the article tries to explain theories about the origin of Jehovah, after all).
  • For similar reasons, I omitted the fact that the Leningrad codex had copying errors. No evidence was presented linking the Leningrad codex to Jehovah, directly or indirectly.
  • I reentered the 3068 issue in a less noticeable place. Please don't conclude that I have any special feeling about this! If you still think that it is not worth mentioning, don't hesitate to remove it.

Tell me what you think. Gadykozma 00:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great work, Gadykozma! Jayjg 01:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I like it. We do have to get the fact that the word is not pronounced by Jews earlier into the article, though. It is mentioned offhandedly in the "Pronunciation" section, but I found no reference above that point. We could either reorder paragraphs or we could add a sentence to the lead (probably better -- I'll do that and you can see what you think). Mpolo 07:17, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think this version shows much improvement.

Strong's Concordance seems to have been written in 1890, therefore the designation "Hebrew word #3068" did not exist before 1890.

I am going to try to add another topic or subtopic concerning how KJVO Christians defend the vowel points in Hebrew word #3068 [e.g. "Yehovah".] It appears that KJVO Christians may be the main group that uses the designation "Hebrew word #3068" in their explanation and in their defence of the name "Jehovah".

Thanks. I'm glad people like it. Gadykozma 22:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)