The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$thread_modes - Line: 46 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code 46 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1617 eval




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hebrew: YHWH, an Arabic Name?
#1
There is an intriguing article in TheTorah.com titled: YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name which notes, in part ...

Quote:If YHWH’s origins are in the Nomad-land of Yehwa among the Midianites, then the meaning of the name should be from the Arabic language family rather than the Hebrew language family. This further calls into question the etymology in Exodus 3 of the Tetragrammaton from ה.ו.י, “to be,” since, unlike Hebrew and Aramaic, Proto-Arabic does not have the root ה.ו.י for the word “to be.”

In 1956, Shelomo Dov Goitein (1900-1985), a scholar of both Jewish and Arabic studies, suggested that the name derives from the Arabic root h.w.y (هوى), and the word hawaya(هوايا), which means “love, affection, passion, desire.” He connected this suggestion with the passage in Exodus 34, in a set of laws known by scholars as the Ritual Decalogue. ...

Let me know what you think.
Reply
#2
I think that the name began as the shorter forms Yah (יָהּ) and Yahu or Yaho (יָהוּ or יָהוֹ). There is speculation that just as ה can function as a vowel letter even with o vowels (such as in כֹּה and פֹּה), the name was sometimes written as יהה and still read as Yaho (that is, as יָהֹה). The vav may have then been added to represent the long o (יָהוֹה as a plene spelling of יָהֹה). This is just conjecture, but there may be something to it.

As it is, the pronunciation varied greatly among some groups during the Second Temple period. Most adhered to the proscription on its pronunciation, though.

As to the origins of the name, I've read some theories recently that it originated around Yemen (specifically, Mt. Seir). Don't confuse the forms of Arabic spoken at that time with Qur'anic Arabic, though, and certainly remove all supposition that the pagan Arab tribes were at all anything related to Muslims. The chronology must be maintained.
Reply
#3
(01-17-2019, 10:38 AM)Jason Wrote: I think that the name began as the shorter forms Yah (יָהּ) and Yahu or Yaho (יָהוּ or יָהוֹ). There is speculation that just as ה can function as a vowel letter even with o vowels (such as in כֹּה and פֹּה), the name was sometimes written as יהה and still read as Yaho (that is, as יָהֹה). The vav may have then been added to represent the long o (יָהוֹה as a plene spelling of יָהֹה). This is just conjecture, but there may be something to it.

As it is, the pronunciation varied greatly among some groups during the Second Temple period. Most adhered to the proscription on its pronunciation, though.

As to the origins of the name, I've read some theories recently that it originated around Yemen (specifically, Mt. Seir). Don't confuse the forms of Arabic spoken at that time with Qur'anic Arabic, though, and certainly remove all supposition that the pagan Arab tribes were at all anything related to Muslims. The chronology must be maintained.

I'm certainly in favor of maintaining both chronology and geography. Smile

I'd be interested in learning your response to the article's suggestion that: "If YHWH’s origins are in the Nomad-land of Yehwa among the Midianites, then the meaning of the name should be from the Arabic language family rather than the Hebrew language family."

Parenthetically, your reference to "plene spelling" brought to mind an interesting article by Aaron Hornkohl, "Characteristically Late Spellings in the Hebrew Bible: With Special Reference to the Plene Spelling of the o-vowel in the Qal Infinitive Construct," Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 134.4 (2014). Hornkohl writes:

Quote:If any part of the biblical text is to be considered pre-exilic, then a comparison of biblical and early extra-biblical spelling practices, i.e., inscriptional orthography, makes necessary the assumption that at least some portion of the biblical text underwent a late orthographic revision. This is clear, since Hebrew orthography of First Temple Period inscriptions is very defective, i.e., uses very few matres lectionis (consonants that mark vowel sounds), whereas all biblical texts, even those considered archaic, exhibit degrees of plene spelling that, while varying in their fullness, are unknown in extra-biblical Hebrew sources prior to the Second Temple Period.20 For classical biblical texts to be spelled as they are in the MT, they must have been subjected to a process of orthographical revision, presumably around the time that the late biblical books were written. There is consensus among scholars that just such a revision, likely a gradual one, led to alterations in spelling, including, but not limited to, the insertion of matres lectionis into classical texts that had formerly exhibited more defective spelling. Consensus is lacking, however, on the question of whether or not the textual modifications extended beyond orthography, so that elements of morphology, syntax, and lexicon—not to mention content—were also altered. Obviously, if the revision was even remotely comprehensive, then the language of the original writers must be considered effectively obscured.

I'm not sure if this has any particular relevance here, but it may at least provide context.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)