Clivedurdle

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=249396

Eusebius "quotes" a conflation of cronus and el, a phoenician god.

J-D

Note, however, that the infrequent occurrences of 'Lord GOD' represent 'Adonai Yahweh'. Traditionally, when the Tetragrammaton can't be read as 'Adonai' because it appears in conjunction with the actual word 'Adonai', it is instead read as 'Elohim'.

J-D

1. What are three different letters U, V, and W in modern alphabets all derive from a single letter in the earlier Roman alphabet. They are used as three different letters with different sound values in modern English, but the same is not true in many other languages. In German, for example, V has a sound value close to the English F, while W has a sound value close to the English V. Thus in German it could make sense to transliterate the Hebrew letter ו as W. I see no reason to give preferential status to English in devising a standard transliteration of Hebrew.

2. According to the Wikipedia article on the letter ו (Waw (letter)):
'In most Semitic languages it represents the voiced labial-velar approximant IPA: [w], and in some (particularly Arabic) also the long close back rounded vowel /uː/ depending on context, while in Hebrew it represents a labial approximant, either IPA: [v] or /β/, a pattern shared by the non-Semitic languages using the Arabic alphabet (e.g. Persian and Urdu).'
It seems reasonable to infer that there was a sound shift at some point in the history of Hebrew. If so, it is at least possible that in Biblical times the letter still had its earlier sound value.

3. According to the Wikipedia article on Yahweh:
'Various proposals exist for what the vowels of יהוה were. Current convention is יַהְוֶה, that is, "Yahweh" (IPA: [jahˈweh]). Evidence is:
Some Biblical theophoric names end in -ia(h) or -yahu as shortened forms of YHWH: that points to the first vowel being "a".
Various Early Christian Greek transcriptions of the Hebrew Divine Name seem to point to "Yahweh" or similar.
Samaritan priests have preserved a liturgical pronunciation "Yahwe" or "Yahwa" to the present day.
Today many scholars accept this proposal, based on the pronunciation conserved both by the Church Fathers (as noted above) and by the Samaritans. (Here 'accept' does not necessarily mean that they actually believe that it describes the truth, but rather that among the many vocalizations that have been proposed, none is clearly superior. That is, 'Yahweh' is the scholarly convention, rather than the scholarly consensus.)'
So it's not fair to say that is has 'no basis in anything'.

Loomis

That is a very appealing perspective. I considered that possibility too, but I don’t think that is what the original author meant. First - like you mentioned, I think the word ‘stand’ is singular. Maybe someone reading this thread - who is fluent in Hebrew, can confirm this for us. Judging from the context it would not make sense for everyone to stand; the author’s point is that someone is ‘standing out’ from the others.

Second – I think we agree that the context of Psalm 81 is that Yahweh is replacing the old Canaanite religion. Here is how Mark S. Smith explains it:
If you google "Elohistic psalter" you will learn more about this; and then the idea that the name ‘Yahweh’ was replaced by the title ‘Elohim’ will not seem as far-fetched.

Loomis

Good point. I forgot about that. Lord GOD means ‘lord Yahweh’, but LORD God means 'Yahweh elohim' (maybe "Yahweh among the gods").

Someone’s gonna think we’re just making this shit up.

mg01

I tend to see Elohim as a title for YHWH, came to be out of an older sense where the term was used in a broader sense of "pertaining to the divine" where of course the primary reference as typically to a god or gods. You still see reference in cases of "other Elohim" (translated gods), "x the Elohim of Y", and in the priestly mantra, "YHWH will be your Elohim", all in the sense that a particular el was ones personal elohim. In that sense, whatever the original context was, all one (biblical authors) has to do is reinterpret any occurance of Elohim as a reference to YHWH. To me this is exactly what we see in the instances of "ha-Elohim of Elohim" and similar other caes. In time, any reference to the divine (elohim) becomes a reference to YHWH. What then needs to be '"fixed" is the singular/plural sense of the modifing verb.

If you get stuck on "Elohim=GOD" you can't see this, but when you look at the range of uses of context it seems plausible. All this would have been esentially complete, or at least well underway (as a processes of re-attributing basically all of cannanite polytheistic religion to the god of Israel) by the time of the Priestly material, which does not share this ambiguity and in which solo occurances of Elohim refer distinctly to YHWH. (Though there are still occurances in reference to "other Elohim".

Also with reference to the "original author", I think it's likely the original context was purely canaanite, and the hymn was co-opted by a later YHWHistic author. (Though I recognize there was likely a period where the two were likely "fuzzy" where it depended on which temple/shrine/local holy place you visited and which attending priest you spok with.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Loomis

Exactly.

Most of the scholars I read (Mark Smith, John Day, Michael Heiser, Simon Parker, et al) all use Yahweh. Not because they agree that that is the correct pronunciation or spelling; but because they recognize that if they are going to move the subject any further that they will need a placeholder for the name.

neilgodfrey

My links were footnote references to those who have proposed alternative hypotheses to the DH. A more detailed critique and argumentation would require a reading of those works.

A detailed discussion of the DH and alternative explanations for the evidence would rightly belong in a separate discussion thread. My focus was on putting the DH hypothesis in relative context as part of another discussion, the historical background of El and Yahweh.

To show how the alternative hypothesis of Davies et al do address the same data is another discussion, and the extent of their archaeological and literary supports, is another thread. I linked to info that only went so far as opening up the questionable nature of a critical assumption of the DH hypothesis. I was casting a quick side-glance to show that there are grounds for questioning the DH hypothesis, without launching into a major discussion of details. Again, those details are another topic.

Your assumption here is the chronology implicit in the DH hypothesis. It is this chronology that is being questioned.

Perhaps a detailed discussion of the DH would be a good idea, then. Unfortunately, any contributions I would be able to make must be delayed a few months since I will be absent from my library till some time later this year. But from then, it's a discussion I would be most interested in.

Neil

Malachi151

I can't find anything exactly demonstrating this. However, is "Mark S. Smith", whoever that is, claiming that the name Israel, is Isra-El, a name indicating that the nation belongs to El?

HaRaAYaH

There are a lot of word plays on the name Israel. In poem in his famous (if your Jewish) Orot Hakodesh that name Israel really meant Shir-El. (Shir=Song) the Song of God.