Lecture 3: Biblical Hebrew Grammar II - Dr. Bill Barrick

[@PastorBrianLantz]

actually I completed dr. Barrick series some 30 Advanced lessons about 6 months ago

[@Pacmanite]

15:10 The word שֵׁם does not have a seghol in its normal/absolute form, but thankfully Dr. Barrick clarifies at 49:56 that this was an error. The construct of שֵׁם can be either שֶׁם or שֵׁם

[@tebelshaw9486]

The British sing, "Guide me, oh, Thou great Redeemer" and so avoid the improper use of the word "Jehovah"

[@kcl1837]

recommendation for books listing vocab is helpful~

[@PastorBrianLantz]

Frankly on an etymological level I believe ego eimi is the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton, insofar as it is derived from hyh

[@Pacmanite]

B. Lantz If you want to go the Greek translation route, it would be more accurate to say the great "I am" is ὁ ὤν [transliterated: "ho on"]. In the Septuagint, when God says 'I am that I am", he says, "ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν." - literally, "I am the one who is" or "I am the being one". He then goes on to tell Moses to tell the people that "ὁ ὤν" - "the being one"/"the one who is" has sent him.

[@PastorBrianLantz]

I clearly what Jesus said of himself in John 8:58 was accurate. Clearly Revelation 1:8 completes the thought so we don't discount one for the other. They are clearly in synchrony as they are spoken by the same Lord and it remains for us to understand that synchrony. Of course ego eimi doesn't involve the aktionsart of the participle. How could it in John 8:58 he's standing in front of the Pharisees making that statement? It's a static reference just as the TETRAGRAMMATON . But in Revelation 1:8 he contemplates his existence from eternity past to Eternity future. Nevertheless the Pharisees clearly understood what he was saying in J 8.58 and tried to Stone him for blasphemy

[@Pacmanite]

Ah, if you're looking it from that angle, yes, ego eimi is strongly reminiscent of the tetragrammaton. The phrase, "I am that I am" in the Septuagint ("ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" [ego eimi ho on]) contains both "ego eimi" and "ho on". Both "ego eimi" (I am) and "ho on" (the being one) contain the sense of being, but it was "ego eimi" that recurs in the New Testament. I agree that "ego eimi" is a powerful restatement of what God said in Exodus 3:14.

[@PastorBrianLantz]

Carla Schodde that was my original point I'm glad we're in agreement. that was a long trip around Robin's barn

[@PastorBrianLantz]

Can YhWh reasonably be pointed since, if I'm not mistaken, these are mater lectionis letters? Why wouldn't we refer to the God of Israel as Jesus, instead of Yhwh?

[@Pacmanite]

B. Lantz Yes, the tetragrammaton can be pointed with reasonable certainty. First, there are Greek transcriptions of it with Greek vowels; secondly, it appears in names like "Jeremiah" in a shortened form as "Yah" (making the first syllable of YHWH is "Yah"); thirdly, the passage in Exodus 3:14 implies that Yahweh is derived from (or, if you need to be pedantic, would have sounded like it would be derived from) a form of the verb "hayah" which is the verb to be. All of this points to a fairly certain pointing of Yahweh. You can read more detail here: www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14346-tetragrammaton

[@PastorBrianLantz]

I'm not saying people haven't tried to point it in our history. There's no agreement there's no consensus on a phonetic level. Indeed it does come from haya, I pointed that out. But when you have four mater lecciones in a row like this, it's clearly a unique Hebrew word

[@Pacmanite]

Would the Jewish Encyclopedia be an indication of a general fairly good consensus? It says that it is "possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty the historical pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton", and it was compiled by many scholars and peer-referenced. Also, I don't quite understand what the problem is with a Hebrew word being composed out of matres lectionis? There are other Hebrew words complete composed out of matres lectionis - like אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה which means "I am", as in the phrase "I am that I am". Or a really common word, הוּא, which means "he". A word composed entirely out of matres lectionis is not unique.

[@PastorBrianLantz]

Indeed they're all pronouns, regularly spoken words. They are not verbal cognates or verbs or nouns. There are no phonetic principles one can point to apart from the very irregular copula. A a phonetic investigation would be by far more constructive than hearsay consensus doesn't regard the opposition at all. That's not scholarly.

[@Pacmanite]

Yes, and there is a grammatical form which can be postulated for Yahweh. "It thus probably means "he causes to be, to become," etc. It has הוה (h-w-h) as a variant form" Source: The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic by Frances Brown, with the cooperation of S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs (1907), p. 217ff (entry יהוה listed under root הוה). The Jewish Encyclopedia is not reporting hearsay, but the collective evidence of three things: Greek transliterations "Iaoouee," "Iaoue," "Iabe,", Hebrew names with "Yah" as the shortened name of God in them, and forms of the verb to be as suggested by the passage in Exodus 3:14. Source: www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14346-tetragrammaton