IBRIY AND YHWH.
Inquiry:
I am currently studying the Ancient Ibriy, because I want to take a stab at knowing the Name of YHWH myself, and since the Most High shared His name with Mosheh in Shemot (Exodus 3:14) in THAT language, it is the only language that counts when it comes to the correct pronunciation. (By the way, it is my personal belief that the Ancient Ibriy language was an unambiguous language with one vowel. Sxxxx the Masoretes and their man-made vowel points is my current point of view).
My comments:
I have not extensively studied Hebrew or Aramaic, so I appreciate your knowing Ibriy and whatever comments concerning it. I’ll take your word for it. I’m puzzled though. What is your interest in Ibriy? Is it only that you wish to find an acceptable way for pronouncing the Hebrew word for God, YHWH? Why would you want to correctly pronounce it if no one would understand what you are saying? If you desire to talk to God, did not Jesus teach His apostles to address God as “Our Father” when speaking directly to Him in prayer (Matthew 6:9)?
THE NAME OF GOD (DEITY)
Exodus 3:14 identifies God’s name not as YHWH but as “I AM THAT I AM.” “Elohim” in Genesis 1:1 (Hebrew meaning “the Almighty Ones”) told Moses to identify Him to Israel as, “‘I Am’ has sent me”. The other word “YHWH” H3068 in Exodus 3:4 (according to Strong’s Dictionary and Brown-Driver-Briggs Dictionary meaning “the Eternal One”) is translated into the Septuagint LXXi as Kurios (Lord); e.g., in Psalm 68:4, “Sing unto God, H3068 sing praises to his name.” So, “I Am” and “YHWH” are not equivalent words although they reference the same deity.
John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” Is not Jesus identifying Himself as the “I am”? Concerning rescued Israel through the Red Sea: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4). “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8). “Who has wrought and done these things? he has called it who called it from the generations of old; I God, the first and to all futurity, I AM” (Isaiah 41:4, LXX). “Thus saith God the King of Israel, and the God of hosts that delivered him; I am the first, and I am hereafter: beside me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6). Compare also Isaiah 43:13; 48:12. ii
“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” (Revelation 4:8).
Note: I suggest an internet article that claims to deal with the actual pronunciation of YHWH or the failure thereof.iii
There seemed to have been a demand for a readable translation of the Bible for the Jews during the Diaspora; a common Greek translation of the Law and Writings was accommodatingly prepared by seventy Jewish scholars according to the historian Josephus. Therefore, I understand that it to be historically true that this Greek version was in common use in the synagogues in the Roman world.iv At the same time during the first century the everyday languages of the Jews were local dialects (Acts 2:8-11). Acts 2:9-11, “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.”
GALILEAN LANGUAGE
In Mark 14:70 Peter was identified as a Galilean because of his Galilean dialect which according to the scholar A. T. Robinson was a “rude Aramaic” which may have included a mixture of Greek vernacular.
“The Galileans spoke a rude Aramaic (Mark 14:70) and “probably a crude Greek vernacular also.” Thus when a Galilean would have asked, [H563], "whose is this lamb," he pronounced the first word so confusedly that it could not be known whether he meant [H2543], "a donkey," [H2562], "wine," [H6015], "wool," or [H563], "a lamb."v
JESUS PREACHES IN GALILEE
Wouldn’t Jesus have spoken in this vernacular of Galilee? Otherwise, how could He communicate to the masses? The LXX, Septuagint Greek translation of the OT, is assumed to have been that used by the Jews universally and did not change until Some say that the LXX ceased to be used by Jews in favor to an updated Hebrew version in order to distinguish themselves from those Jewish “Christians.”
THE WORD “HEBREW” IS REFERRED TO BY THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ON
THE CROSS, John
19:20, “This
title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was
crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in HebrewG1447,
and Greek, and Latin.”
PAUL’S
AUDIENCE IN JERSUSALEM.
Acts
22:2, "(And
when they heard that he spake in the HebrewG1446
tongue
to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)"
Thayer’ s Dictionary defines the word "Hebrew" as used in the KJV (G1446 & G1447) as meaning a Chaldean form of Hebrew. The dispersed Jewsvi were "united" worldwide eventually with the KOINE translation of the Hebrew Bible (LXX) translated by Jewish elites in Egypt a century or two before Christ. One reference is http://www.hope-of-israel.org/lxx.htm.
Consequently, Gentiles were able to understand and learn the Torah and Prophets from hearing synagogue teachings (Acts 15:21; 13:42, 43; 17:12, 22; 18:4). Would it not have been read and taught in a common language of the Empire? Would this not explain why the Gentiles were interested in the Jewish worship in the synagogues?
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/6601/ is an article that presents opposing arguments for whether Hebrew was common or nonexistent during the first century. A New Testament account is clear though that the audience of devout Jews visiting Jerusalem were surprised yet understood Paul’s speaking to them in “Hebrew” (Acts 22:2, i.e., Thayer’s Greek Dictionary: “Chaldean Hebrew”).
“To whatever extent translation is interpretation, the Septuagint is to that extent the earliest surviving witness of how Hellenistic Judaism understood Scripture; and therefore, it is a foundational text for studying the Judaism from which early Christianity arose. As Robert Hanhart notes, ‘the Septuagint cannot be bypassed if we want to conjure the Judaism from which Christianity grew.’” vii
Some passages that refer to “Chaldean Hebrew” translations: John 5:2 “Bethesda” is Chaldean but identified as “Hebrew” in the KJV; John 19:13 “Gabbatha” is Chaldean but identified as “Hebrew”; John 19:17, “Golgotha”, Chaldean but identified as “Hebrew”.
The New Testament apparently quotes quite a bit from the LXX Greek OT instead of a Hebrew version; e.g., a chart is provided at http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm.
The point/s I would make is this:
1. The Old Testament is significant, I agree.
2. But not because it is in the Hebrew language.
3. To the Christian, the language Hebrew is just an instrument of the past and has never been required of Christians.
4. Latin has been an instrument through Europe. In the East, Greek has been an instrument.
5. Christians have never been required to speak or understand Hebrew.
Throw Out The Lifeline
Gaylon West
i The Latin word septuaginta means “seventy,” and we inherit it as a name for the Greek Old Testament from Josephus (c. 37–c. 100 CE), who used it in his writings, and who talks about its formation in his Antiquities of the Jews, which Cassiodorus translated into Latin.
ii Good summary in A commentary in Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge on John 8:58.
iii http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/YHWH.html#.WWTiS4TyvA8.
iv https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/of-gods-and-languages-on-when-god-spoke-greek/;
Timothy Michael Law. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible
v Mark 14:70, Robertson’s Word Pictures; see comments also on Acts 2:7.
vi (so called at this time because the Babylonian captivity group was mainly from the southern tribe of Judah; Assyria's policy had been shipping and mixing the northern state socially among the other captive nations, and hence, had technically minimized their identity)
vii https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2006b_02-Jobes.pdf
