sacred name theory

Huh? What language are you referring to? Aleph in Hebrew AND Aramaic is silent.

By "it's both a vowel and a consonant" he means that it's a consonant, but the only way it gets pronounced is when it carries a vowel. Like the "h" in "honor." Or the "h" in any French word.
 
By "it's both a vowel and a consonant" he means that it's a consonant, but the only way it gets pronounced is when it carries a vowel. Like the "h" in "honor." Or the "h" in any French word.
Aleph has what sound? The nikkudim is pronounced while the aleph is no more than a place holder.
 
Aleph has what sound? The nikkudim is pronounced while the aleph is no more than a place holder.

Phonetically it's a place holder, but it's still considered a consonant. Again, think of the "h" in "honor". In Hebrew there's no such thing as a vowel independent of a consonant. Those syllables that contain only a vowel will have an aleph to indicate them.
 
Phonetically it's a place holder, but it's still considered a consonant. Again, think of the "h" in "honor". In Hebrew there's no such thing as a vowel independent of a consonant. Those syllables that contain only a vowel will have an aleph to indicate them.
So when Dancing David said...

Aleph is a vowel and a consonant.

He was unequivocally wrong.
 
So when Dancing David said...


He was unequivocally wrong.

I wouldn't say unequivocally, because it depends on how one understands the terms "vowel" and "consonant". It can "be" a vowel, a consonant or neither (i.e. completely silent, but preserved in written form, since it's part of the root).

So it can "be" a vowel in the sense that an actor can "be" a character: its job in this case is to express that vowel. But the aleph doesn't lose its fundamental nature, that of a consonant, so even in when not attached to a vowel it appears in the written word.

So Bill Clinton was right, after all: it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
 
Huh? What language are you referring to? Aleph in Hebrew AND Aramaic is silent.


True, but is is written, as are some of the vowel sounds, someone who has not looked at hebrew and hears that 'they don't write the vowels in hebrew' is probably confused, especialy since aleph is sometimes written. So I guess I added to the confusion.

So someone who hasn't looked it up would not know a.d.m is the written version of adam Although you did show us in hebrew.
 
Aleph has what sound? The nikkudim is pronounced while the aleph is no more than a place holder.

That makes a lot more sense than anything I have heard before, thank you. How about 'yod' , 'aayin' and 'vau' which are sometimes described as having vowel sounds? (Not is hebrew instructional texts I am sure)
 
I wouldn't say unequivocally, because it depends on how one understands the terms "vowel" and "consonant". It can "be" a vowel, a consonant or neither (i.e. completely silent, but preserved in written form, since it's part of the root).

So it can "be" a vowel in the sense that an actor can "be" a character: its job in this case is to express that vowel. But the aleph doesn't lose its fundamental nature, that of a consonant, so even in when not attached to a vowel it appears in the written word.

So Bill Clinton was right, after all: it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.


Naw, it sounds like I was wrong. Written or silent, it is not a voiced vowel.
 
i've done what i thought was decent research into the "correct" name of the christian god and messiah after i was directed to a "sacred name" site. i've used the information i got on that sire here in a thread... after that, i will admit, i continued that research and have found rather different information. i guess i'm asking if someone can help me sort through all the chaff and figure out what this whole sacred name theory is all about. i've got conflicting theories on a jesus-zeus connection that are very different, and a theory that the NT was never written in hebrew at all... i have to admit that my head hurts with it. so, can anyone help?

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about, but the name Jesus doesn't have anything to do with Zeus.

As for the language of the New Testament, everyone knows that all of the works of the New Testament, except perhaps the Book of Hebrews, was originally written in Greek, that's no mystery or any big deal.

Greek was the dominant language of the region, and was even the most widely used language in Judea in the 1st century. A lot of the Jewish writings were written in Greek during this time.
 
That makes a lot more sense than anything I have heard before, thank you. How about 'yod' , 'aayin' and 'vau' which are sometimes described as having vowel sounds? (Not is hebrew instructional texts I am sure)
Vav and Yud are letters (constanents). Vav is transliterated as V and Yod as Y. Ayin like Aleph is a silent letter. The confusion for some is that Ayin is used as a vowel in Yiddish.
 
Vav and Yud are letters (constanents). Vav is transliterated as V and Yod as Y. Ayin like Aleph is a silent letter. The confusion for some is that Ayin is used as a vowel in Yiddish.

So is aleph, actually. The convention in modern Hebrew follows that of Yiddish, whereby a transliterated foreign word will generally have "ah" indicated by aleph and "eh" indicated by 'ayin.

Technically, 'ayin isn't silent, but through the ages, European Jews' pronunciation lost the guttural sound it makes, and it became like an aleph. Sephardic/Mizrahi pronunciation preserves the unique sound, which is somewhere between a gag and a hiccup. Ancient sources also attest to there being a distinction between the letters.
 
I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about, but the name Jesus doesn't have anything to do with Zeus.

As for the language of the New Testament, everyone knows that all of the works of the New Testament, except perhaps the Book of Hebrews, was originally written in Greek, that's no mystery or any big deal.

Greek was the dominant language of the region, and was even the most widely used language in Judea in the 1st century. A lot of the Jewish writings were written in Greek during this time.
thanks but that was less helpful than the sites that contradicted each other. i asked here so that the educated could help me sort through the contradictions; just telling me no, with no information to back you up, is less than helpful. as to the idea of jesus-zeus, this is where i first found the connection. and it's not the only place.
 
thanks but that was less helpful than the sites that contradicted each other. i asked here so that the educated could help me sort through the contradictions; just telling me no, with no information to back you up, is less than helpful. as to the idea of jesus-zeus, this is where i first found the connection. and it's not the only place.

I guess I'm not understanding, then.

The "theory" that the New Testament was not originally written in Hebrew is about as controversial as the "theory" that the second World War was not fought in the 5th century BCE, or that Dante's Inferno was not originally written in Chinese. It's as close to established fact as it's generally possible to get in the study of history -- and no reputable web site will tell you otherwise.

That's the key phrase. No reputable web site. Your revelations.org.za is (ahem) not a reputable site; it took me something like ten seconds to identify it as a badly-designed religious nutcase site. If you check out a more sober site -- say, wikipedia, you'll see that "The New Testament (Greek: Καινή Διαθήκη), sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures, and sometimes also New Covenant – which is the literal translation of the original Greek – is the name given to the final portion of the Christian Bible, written after the Old Testament." Of course, Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source, but check these out as well.

From the offical Greek Orthodox Church: "The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek."

From American Thinker: "1. What is the original language of the New Testament?

Since the question and answer is so fundamental, I have repeated them in the other parts in this series. It was written in common Greek of the first century, in a vocabulary and sentence structure that most people could understand. This is especially true of the four Gospels. Christianity is a missionary religion, so it had to use the language that everyone knew in the cities in the first century. And that language was Greek. "

Et cetera. One gets tired of typing after a while.

In fact, about the only spot you'll see the claim that the original NT was written in Hebrew is the so-called "Sacred Name Movement," which is widely recognized as being at best erroneous and at worst totally whacked-out. The Watchman Fellowship lists it as a cult precisely because of its bizarre (by mainstream Christian standards) and inaccurate (by scholarly standards) beliefs.
 
So is aleph, actually. The convention in modern Hebrew follows that of Yiddish, whereby a transliterated foreign word will generally have "ah" indicated by aleph and "eh" indicated by 'ayin.

Technically, 'ayin isn't silent, but through the ages, European Jews' pronunciation lost the guttural sound it makes, and it became like an aleph. Sephardic/Mizrahi pronunciation preserves the unique sound, which is somewhere between a gag and a hiccup. Ancient sources also attest to there being a distinction between the letters.
Wikipedia is not the worlds most accurate source of information.
 
Wikipedia is not the worlds most accurate source of information.

This is possibly a non-sequitur as a result of quoting the wrong post, or just the result of an erroneous assumption. As it happens, I'm fluent in Hebrew, live in Israel, study Hebrew and Aramaic texts daily (Talmud, Tanakh and commentaries thereupon) and have never, to my knowledge, referenced Wikipedia in a single post.

But again, the most likely explanation is that the wrong "quote" button was clicked.
 
This is possibly a non-sequitur as a result of quoting the wrong post, or just the result of an erroneous assumption. As it happens, I'm fluent in Hebrew, live in Israel, study Hebrew and Aramaic texts daily (Talmud, Tanakh and commentaries thereupon) and have never, to my knowledge, referenced Wikipedia in a single post.

But again, the most likely explanation is that the wrong "quote" button was clicked.
Perhaps you didn't cite wikipedia but your remark about Yiddish pronunciation of Aleph and Ayin appears there and as we were speaking of the tetragrammaton as it appears in the Torah, Yiddish has nothing to do with it unless you are claiming that the Torah was written in Yiddish.
 
I think the problem arises here, in the highlighted portion.

So is aleph, actually. The convention in modern Hebrew follows that of Yiddish,

The convention in modern English is that the 'k' in "knight" is silent, as is the "gh." Which means absolutely bugger-all if someone wants to know how the old English "cnicht" was pronounced.

We have little -- if any -- assurance that there is any relationship between how a modern Hebrew reader would pronounce the Tetragrammaton and how it would have been pronounced by Moses.
 
thanks but that was less helpful than the sites that contradicted each other. i asked here so that the educated could help me sort through the contradictions; just telling me no, with no information to back you up, is less than helpful. as to the idea of jesus-zeus, this is where i first found the connection. and it's not the only place.

The problem with their claim is that Yeshua was translated as Iēsous in Greek by Jews long before "Jesus came along". Iēsous as the Greek translation of Yeshua is in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures), which was produced in the 2nd and 1st century BCE.
 
The problem with their claim is that Yeshua was translated as Iēsous in Greek by Jews long before "Jesus came along". Iēsous as the Greek translation of Yeshua is in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures), which was produced in the 2nd and 1st century BCE.
Chapter and verse please.
 
Chapter and verse please.

I can't rad Greek, so all I can tell you is that there are indeed many instances of Iēsous in the Septuagint, Iēsous ben Nun being a prominent example.

The reason I am told is that Greek doesn't have the "sh" sound, so the name was changed in Greek. Our versions of the Old Testament come from translations in Latin directly from the Hebrew, thereby skipping the Greek version, hence in our English versions of the Old Testament we go directly from Hebrew to translate Yoshua to Joshua, but in the case of the New Testament everything was only written in Greek, so there we translation from the Greek Iēsous to get Jesus, even though both of these names have the same root in Yoshua.

If we translated the Old Testament from Greek then there would be a lot of "Jesuses" in our Old Testament.
 

Back
Top Bottom