YHWH Alleluia!

[AugustineH354]

Hello HT,

Forgive my delay in commenting, but I just moments ago ‘discovered’ this thread; you wrote:

In the Septuagint (LXX), the Tetragrammon YHWH – is almost always replaced with Kyrios. (LORD).>>

Me: This is true concerning the LXX preserved by Christian scribes; however, as the DSS indicate, it was not true of the earliest LXX texts.

I am quite troubled by this recent ruling, as I was concerning the reversal of the use of Yahweh in the New Jerusalem Bible.

The Tetragrammaton is clearly God’s unique NAME. It appears some 6,828 times in the Hebrew Bible (BHS text). It seems to me that Exodus 3:15 is quite clear on how one is to treat God’s unique name:

And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (ASV)

[See also Psalm 100.]

Anyway, thought I would share my reflections on the matter…

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As promised:

1. I [will] praise the LORD = “Odeh et JHWH”–Gen. 29:35

Thanks Dave !

I finally had some time today to look things over – after sooo long…

So I looked here:
hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C029.htm

and they show this for the verse:

35
Modern Hebrew
ותהר עוד ותלד בן
ותאמר הפעם אודה
את־יהוה על־כן
קראה שמו יהודה
ותעמד מלדת׃

Hebrew Transliterated
29:35 VThHUr 'yVD VThLD BN VTh’aMUr HPh’yM 'aVDH 'aTh-YHVH 'yL-KN QUr’aH ShMV YHVDH VTh’yMD MLDTh.

The transliteration letters you chose don’t match the ones this site used, so I’ll take a shot at figuring this out myself and see how far I can get…

I spent some time studying the Hebrew alphabet (the “modern” versions) and can just barely distinguish most of the glyphs.
Ugh – what a nightmare – so many very similar shapes with different sounds!
And the key positions on my QWERTY keyboard don’t help a bit – I’ll have to rearrange the keyboard mapping this evening to keep from going completely insane… But anyway,

YHWH, shows up (Mirrored) as He Yod He Waw (HWHY) which is how they write.
eg: יהןה

Playing where’s Waldo with the mirrored word,
I find YHWH here in the Masoretic text quote:

את־יהוה על־כן

So, I see they write from right to left – unlike US left to righters…

I didn’t realize it before, but in trying to find YHWH I noticed the name Judah is (practically) the same word as YHWH, but with one extra consonant YH(D)WH. I would never have gotten that from the Greek, kind of a perk already!

The explanation in Genesis 29:35, then, is for how the word Judah sounds like YHWH in Hebrew-- suggesting that “Yudah” is some variant of “I [will?] praise the LORD”.

Judah=יהודה
Yahweh=יהןה

So, now I am looking for the “Odeh et” you mentioned, and not being sure of the placement – I am just going to parse through a couple of words on each side of YHWH… to be safe…

And taking their transliteration into account as a partial guide…

VTh’aMUr HPh’yM 'aVDH 'aTh-YHVH 'yL-KN QUr’aH

And I note that the transliteration is written right to left… rather than the other way… sheesh

The four words surrounding YHWH are:

1. Aleph Wow Daled He (AWDH) = אודה
2. Ayin Lamed ?? Chaf Waw (ALCW) = על־כן

Yod He waw He (YHWH) =יהוה

1. Aleph Taf ? (AT?) =את־
2. Quph Dalet Aleph He (QDAH)= קראה

So, it would seem your transliteration of:
“Odeh et YHWH”
Is word 4 followed by word 2 followed by YHWH.

In the website’s transliteration that would seem to be:
“aTh-YHVH 'yL-KN] QUr’aH”
The bracketed word not being given by you, so using your transliteration:
“et YHWH Odeh”

:thumbup (I am anywhere close…)

O.K. So if I solved that part right, I ought to be able to find the same words in I will praise YHWH in:

1. I [will] praise the LORD = “Odeh JHWH”–Psalm 7:17, 9:1 109:30, 111:1
2. I [will] praise the LORD = “Odeh Yah”–Psalm 118:9

But the Yah is possibly of a different spelling, I guess. Well looking quickly…

Psalm 7,17
Modern Hebrew
אודה יהוה כצדקו
ואזמרה שם־יהוה
עליון׃

The second word is YHWH, the first is AWDH, the third is QDAH.
So, using your transliteration this would be:
YHWH Odeh
with no “et”.

Thanks again Dave!
I’ll have to work my way through the ahal… later, but at least I am a bit more comfortable with what I am looking at.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hello HT,

Forgive my delay in commenting, but I just moments ago ‘discovered’ this thread; you wrote:

In the Septuagint (LXX), the Tetragrammon YHWH – is almost always replaced with Kyrios. (LORD).>>

Well, that is terribly interesting too.

I haven’t seen the Greek fragments from the DSS. All I am aware of is the Hebrew manuscripts which I can’t read yet, but my university has on file.

In the early Greek, from the DSS, I had heard several conflicting reports. Eg: The disputed deutero-canonical books were reported to not be in the DSS – but after reviewing the questions carefully I later came to discover fragments were found – just not in the traditionally expected place.
So, some people chose to ahhh — perhaps over-carefully state the answers to the public about the DSS…

In the Greek, where LORD is typically used now – should you still see this thread again — what did the DSS show as the other possible replacement?
Considering the breathing mark is at the beginning of Greek words, it would seem odd that they would try to phonetically spell his name. Yupsilon (breath mark?) (no V or W sound in Greek) … etc.
I am not sure that could be done without totally mangling the sound of God’s name beyond recognition!

So, I am curious – what is the alternate word preserved by the fallible dead sea scrolls?

Come to think of it, it would be limited to Ya(breath mark?)e Yahe!
or closer … just Yah. or perhaps I(e)A`YIA?



Peace and grace to you as well.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

To all,

Now that I have learnt that I have been singing "you all praise God to an empty church; e.g. empty Xcept Jesus in Eucharistic adoration…

How many others out there would have made the same mistake? Thinking we are praising God ourselves when we sing “Alleluia” before the Gospel proclamation rather than Ahal… or whatever.
I haven’t felt this silly in quite some time.

Does anybody have a clue why the congregation sings “you all praise the Lord”? (ALLELUIA) I am really baffled how this came to be — and haven’t a clue even how to search out the reasoning.

I mean, assuredly in the pre 100’s A.D the meaning of Alleluia was still known to the Greek chruches. Perhaps I need to ask the EO on this one…

I know certain liturgcal actions such as the priest going to this or that place to read the Gospel was associated with the people NORTH of the Latin countries not yet having fully had the Gospel preached to them (or some such reasoning). There has to be a similar history for why early liturgies chose Alleluia as a prelude to the Gospels… ending with “Thanks be to God.”

 

[DaveBj]

Hi, HT. I can’t make much sense of the translit you found. I was using an interlinear Old Testament that has both the Hebrew text (Masoretic) and a pronounceable transliteration. You can trust my posting.

With regards to the name Yahweh itself, the following is offered from the Britannica article on the subject:

Yahweh–the God of the Israelites, his name being revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the tetragrammaton. After the Exile (6th century BC), and especially from the 3rd century BC on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal religion through its proselytizing in the Greco-Roman world, the more common noun Elohim, meaning “god,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament.

The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh. Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used a form like Yahweh, and this pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was never really lost. Other Greek transcriptions also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh.

The meaning of the personal name of the Israelite God has been variously interpreted. Many scholars believe that the most proper meaning may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists” (Yahweh-Asher-Yahweh). In I Samuel, God is known by the name Yahweh Teva-ʿot, or “He Brings the Hosts Into Existence,” the hosts possibly referring to the heavenly court or to Israel.

The personal name of God probably was known long before the time of Moses. The name of Moses’ mother was Jochebed (Yokheved), a word based on the name Yahweh. Thus, the tribe of Levi, to which Moses belonged, probably knew the name Yahweh, which originally may have been (in its short form Yo, Yah, or Yahu) a religious invocation of no precise meaning evoked by the mysterious and awesome splendour of the manifestation of the holy.

DaveBj

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Dave,
That article is really interesting! The Greek preservation of the pronunciation of (part?) of YHWH is something I would really like to look up.
Did they footnote the title of the work Clement mentioned this in?

The article follows the standard textual criticism pattern of thinking JEDP – where Jahwist is the oldest, and Elohist is later, etc. And this is where I come to a few problems; so I went back and re-read the thread and spent some time thinking.

First off, I want to thank you for taking the time to follow up – I appreciate the help. I am easily buffaloed on Hebrew things – and have been told conflicting information; e.g: I don’t mean to attack your credibility.

Next, I wanted to review the thread (briefly) and show why I am still puzzled – although not quite the same way as when I started the thread.

(Thank you hereseozi for the articles, they do indeed help some.)
zenit.org/article-23414?l=english

The Vatican, clearly, has the authority to make statements like the above one. Although, I am not aware that they can bind any bishop (strictly speaking) to follow liturgical rules.

However, when I got into the article I noticed the interview includes a bit about how Lord was not applied to the OT Messiahs – and my memory started playing back scripture unbidden. The verse that came to mind, in a sort of sing-song way was – something like: if David is his father, then how is it he calls him “Lord”, eg: The LORD said to my LORD…

Now, I respect the Vatican, but they have puzzled me as to why they think what they do. Understand, then, my puzzlement toward you is not meant personally as an insult – but merely is an expression of my feeling gullible / naive.

The article you cited talks about the Jahwist being the oldest tradition and the elohist coming later. Yet, the name is-ra-el is certainly OLDER than 600B.C.E.
The final syllable of israel is (el) – a generic word for God – el-ohist.

The passage (however) of God revealing his name to Moses on the mountainDOES NOT refer to Israel – but specifically to Jacob. However, I am sure he was Is-Ra-El at the time of Egypt as the son being called out of Egypt.

So, I am not very comfortable with that aspect of the article – and I don’t think the author was TRYING to lie – but there are just things that maybe they didn’t think about.

With that in mind, I would like to revisit the thread’s points briefly (anyone may comment – I am not trying to be exclusive here) for I am still quite puzzled. This is sort of the “stone wall” of Hebrew Scholarship that I trip over more often then I would like to admit.

 

[benedictgal]

Dave,
That article is really interesting! The Greek preservation of the pronunciation of (part?) of YHWH is something I would really like to look up.
Did they footnote the title of the work Clement mentioned this in?

The article follows the standard textual criticism pattern of thinking JEDP – where Jahwist is the oldest, and Elohist is later, etc. And this is where I come to a few problems; so I went back and re-read the thread and spent some time thinking.

First off, I want to thank you for taking the time to follow up – I appreciate the help. I am easily buffaloed on Hebrew things – and have been told conflicting information; e.g: I don’t mean to attack your credibility.

Next, I wanted to review the thread (briefly) and show why I am still puzzled – although not quite the same way as when I started the thread.

(Thank you hereseozi for the articles, they do indeed help some.)
zenit.org/article-23414?l=english

The Vatican, clearly, has the authority to make statements like the above one. Although, I am not aware that they can bind any bishop (strictly speaking) to follow liturgical rules.

However, when I got into the article I noticed the interview includes a bit about how Lord was not applied to the OT Messiahs – and my memory started playing back scripture unbidden. The verse that came to mind, in a sort of sing-song way was – something like: if David is his father, then how is it he calls him “Lord”, eg: The LORD said to my LORD…

Now, I respect the Vatican, but they have puzzled me as to why they think what they do. Understand, then, my puzzlement toward you is not meant personally as an insult – but merely is an expression of my feeling gullible / naive.

The article you cited talks about the Jahwist being the oldest tradition and the elohist coming later. Yet, the name is-ra-el is certainly OLDER than 600B.C.E.
The final syllable of israel is (el) – a generic word for God – el-ohist.

The passage (however) of God revealing his name to Moses on the mountainDOES NOT refer to Israel – but specifically to Jacob. However, I am sure he was Is-Ra-El at the time of Egypt as the son being called out of Egypt.

So, I am not very comfortable with that aspect of the article – and I don’t think the author was TRYING to lie – but there are just things that maybe they didn’t think about.

With that in mind, I would like to revisit the thread’s points briefly (anyone may comment – I am not trying to be exclusive here) for I am still quite puzzled. This is sort of the “stone wall” of Hebrew Scholarship that I trip over more often then I would like to admit.

Actually, the Holy See has the authority to bind bishops to follow the liturgical norms. You see, obedience works both ways. Just as priests and the faithful should obey the bishop in matters of faith and morals, the bishop is obligated to obey the Holy See, i.e. the Holy Father under whose authority the various Congregations of the Roman Curia (including the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments which issued the ruling on the use (or non-use) of the Holy Name of God) operate.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Actually, the Holy See has the authority to bind bishops to follow the liturgical norms. You see, obedience works both ways. Just as priests and the faithful should obey the bishop in matters of faith and morals, the bishop is obligated to obey the Holy See, i.e. the Holy Father under whose authority the various Congregations of the Roman Curia (including the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments which issued the ruling on the use (or non-use) of the Holy Name of God) operate.

Well, let me put it this way:
I live in the Archdiocese of Portland – Cardinal Leveda’s old chair. Here, we wash women’s feet at easter, and a rock youth band plays in the cathedral itself every week. Guitars, drums, etc. etc. etc.
There never has been any public discipline of Leveda for going against any norm he wanted to.
Ultimately, though I don’t know the official “theory” of how this is “supposed” to work – liturgical changes and abuses are measured with respect to the local bishop – the center of the diocese.
Now – I CAN imagine if a bishop desecrated the Eucharist, got married, etc. that he Could be ex-communicated – but in practical daily life I see little or nothing of what you say applying.

Let me illustrate:

My sister in law (Theresa S./ C.) worked for the Oregon Catholic Press – which I am pretty sure owns the (non-exclusive?) rights to “Yahweh I know you are near…” for printing.
She showed me the videos made of Archbishop Vlazny endorsing them (in effect) some years back – and she had been talking about the problems with “gay” activist ideologies in the OCP. (They are very artistic!). So, in any event – I asked her (incredulously) why then the bishop would endorse them, and her reply was quite a shock. The revenues from OCP to the archdiocese of Portland (which is just through bankruptcy) she indicated meant that he would essentially “shoot himself in the foot” if he dared mess with them (eg: this is around 4-5 years back). I don’t know if that is still the case – and as my sister in law has left her husband (who incidentally, apparently was asked by Vlazny to become a deacon – or so he says) and followed another man to Bend Oregon without divorce, annulment or anything else – and I learned during thanksgiving (along with other seriously depressing news) that she is only able to stay there with her friend with benefits due to gas crisis – by the money she earns through music minister/y at St. Francis church there eg: esp. for Christmas.

These liturgical problems associated with music tend to attract the most unstable people; and considering what I have been through with my matriarchal in-laws – I can well imagine the circumstances which would cause a bishop to cave in to the women around here…

Anyhow, I digress… I agree they OUGHT to respect the unity of the Latin Church – but the issue is clearly more complicated than just dictate and it happens. There is a relationship which has give and take.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Now, back to what I was puzzling over…
oh yeah!

This is what got me really thinking about stuff…

My thoughts after reading the links go to this.

If the name of YHWH (spoken Yahweh) are taken out of songs, books and no one ever speaks Gods name …

… Then just a couple of years ago I find out that God has a personal name, YHWH (Yahweh). Needless to say I was shocked that I had never been taught that. …

Even though this is just a liturgical ruling – I share your sentiments on this point. If the logic in the articles is taken to its conclusion – the name YHWH is not revealed to Christians for some reason;

I would like to grasp the “why” of this; although I am also beginning to question the validity of the scholarship leading to the modern usage of the name in the first place. (The vowels CLEARLY are a problem).

Catholics baptize in the Name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. eg: Jesus, the baptism of the “God who saves” We don’t baptize (in the church, in a LITURGICAL action) in the name “Lord” or Adonis; I know that the church may arbitrarily choose to decide these matters, and I will respect that – however – I am totally lost as to the root logic.

The holy spirit, within, is to cry out Abba – father. (This is taught in the scriptures, I think?) – and yet Abba is a VERY personal name. We have songs like “Abba, Abba the potter…” etc.

Perhaps Zenit didn’t clearly cover the whole message.

(Oh well, I don’t sing those often anyway… in fact, not in 20 years – cum by jah)

Now, on to what Dave really sparked off in my mind.
…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First of all, Protestants don’t reinstate the initial h to “snub” the swallowing of the aspiration in Latin; …

In the Psalms, the word “hallel-u-jah” was a second-person plural imperative, … the “-u-” is the 2nd person plural suffix, ,

Ok, This is where you actually convinced me you have all the pieces – and confused me as to how the usage came in to being Christian-wise – for I heard the “hallal” and great “hallal” explanation from Scott Hahn ( but without liturgical analysis) over the radio some years back and came to a partially wrong conclusion (obviously).

The one part that never made sense to me was the extra “u” sound in the middle – and in trying to trace out other biblical words by sounding out eg: Bersebee beyond the Jordan (if I remember right) I found that there were MANY explanations of what a single word could mean – eg: as in conflicting and unrelated definitions. So, I feared the cause was somewhat hopeless – but you’ve actually encouraged me by solving a problem that has bothered me for a few years – perhaps I was hasty.

I downloaded a transliteration of the BHS text (no pointing) and looked up psalm 100. When you speak of the ‘alleluia in the psalms, I thought you might have been referring to the Hebrew Masoretic text, but now I see that isn’t the case. Neither the BHS or the deposit in Jerusalem (Mechon Mamre site) (a real crash course in Hebrew!! even the search engilne!) has – hallel YH – or any such notation.
eg: The chapter in revelation being the only place where all bibles will agree to its’ existence.
Whether it was edited out or not, is perhaps a good question to ask the Dead Sea Scrolls…

So, what I am gathering, is that the versions I would want to say, in private devotion, would be starting with an A just like Latin/Greek Alleluia, right?
(as if the H / aspiration were never there.)

You state that in your private devotions, you say “hallel JHWH.” I would have to look this up in my grammar refs to be sure, but I believe that what you are saying is a 2nd person singular imperative, telling some one person who is with you to praise JHWH.

The only one person there was Jesus.
I am sure he praises his father, too, anyway (at least in his human capacity).

The bottom line here is that if you’re not familiar with foreign language, you’re better off sticking with your native language; otherwise, you wind up saying things that either are meaningless or have a meaning that’s completely different from what you intended.

That’s where things still puzzle me.
Singing Alleluia in mass has exactly the same problem. No one taught me this in CCD years ago what this word meant – it was meaningless. A beautiful sound, joyous, but meaningless.
And now that I know what it probably means, I still find it disturbing that I would be commanding those around me to praise God without understanding what action we are doing to praise him.

Why do you think this form of the word was preserved in Greek usage in a Christian liturgical setting.

The use of it in Revelation, which is also a liturgical setting would seem to have a meaning associated with it that perhaps relates to the unbelievers who receive God’s wrath if it is taken in the sense of “you-all” praise God. It also follows the final Gospel preached in chapter 14 – as the Alleluias are relegated to chaper 19 with the suggested fall of “Babylon” eg: Rome proper on the other side of the river from where St. Peter and Paul were slain. (Vatican).

So, the liturgical sequence of Revelation is different than the English masses. I’ll have to check the Latin rites as well, but I don’t think its liturgical position is any different.

I don’t understand our liturgy having the congregation saying it – rather than the cantor saying Alleluia and having the congregation respond. It really makes me feel like a mistake has been made somewhere, or something important has been forgotten.

The psalm,(110/11) typically translated “The LORD said to my lord…”

follows the pattern YHWH for the first LORD, and a different word for the second (the Christ). This again reinforces the notion I have that YHWH refers to the father; as I expect the Father is the one who would have the son sit at his right hand. That the Jews of Jesus’ day understood the second title Lord to refer to Christ, is shown clearly in Matthew 22:41 - 45.

This all leads up to an interesting point – the Hebrew has no recollection of Alleluia in the Masoretic scripts of the OT (But I haven’t exhastively checked). We, then, have only the Greek transliteration to work from (period).
If later Christian scribes ASSUMED it was Hallel u Yah, even though it wasn’t – I can imagine a breathing mark added to the start of the Greek on that basis.

But, I am more interested in the fact that “Judah” also has the U sound; eg: what is the word if one drops the added “D”.

In Greek, Judah’s name is also transliterated, and the vowels would be obvious. Do you know what function the extra D adds to the name Judah in Hebrew?

I have more thoughts, but not enough information to pose my questions yet, and in this weather getting to the dead sea scrolls in the Library will be a few days. Your article also had a few other points of interest that I forget, so perhaps tomorrow…

Thanks for your patience; I appreciate any thoughts you (all) have.

God bless. Prepare ye for the Christ child at Christmas. Peace to His people on Earth.

–Andrew.

 

[Brendan]

The Vatican, clearly, has the authority to make statements like the above one. Although, I am not aware that they can bind any bishop (strictly speaking) to follow liturgical rules…

Pastor Aeternus - Vatican I

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

So, what I am gathering, is that the versions I would want to say, in private devotion, would be starting with an A just like Latin/Greek Alleluia, right?
(as if the H / aspiration were never there.)

No, if you want to be absolutely correct about pronouncing “hallelujah,” you need to retain the h. It is not an aspiration; it is a consonant, and it is part of the stem of the verb. If you leave it off, they theoretically you’re starting the word with an aleph, which is a whole 'nother consonant, which would make it a whole 'nother verb.

The only one person there was Jesus.
I am sure he praises his father, too, anyway (at least in his human capacity).

That’s where things still puzzle me.
Singing Alleluia in mass has exactly the same problem. No one taught me this in CCD years ago what this word meant – it was meaningless. A beautiful sound, joyous, but meaningless.
And now that I know what it probably means, I still find it disturbing that I would be commanding those around me to praise God without understanding what action we are doing to praise him.

Why do you think this form of the word was preserved in Greek usage in a Christian liturgical setting.

The use of it in Revelation, which is also a liturgical setting would seem to have a meaning associated with it that perhaps relates to the unbelievers who receive God’s wrath if it is taken in the sense of “you-all” praise God. It also follows the final Gospel preached in chapter 14 – as the Alleluias are relegated to chaper 19 with the suggested fall of “Babylon” eg: Rome proper on the other side of the river from where St. Peter and Paul were slain. (Vatican).

My personal opinion is that by the end of the first century (or maybe even before the beginning of the first century) the word “hallulujah” had moved from a 2nd-person imperative with a suffixed abbreviation for JHVH to a generic expression of praise, like it is now among charismatics and pentecostals. That’s a simple linguistic development, not a degeneration of the meaning of the Hebrew word.

snip

This all leads up to an interesting point – the Hebrew has no recollection of Alleluia in the Masoretic scripts of the OT (But I haven’t exhastively checked). We, then, have only the Greek transliteration to work from (period).

I beg to differ. It’s all over the Masoretic text of the Psalms. As one example, the first and last words of Psalm 150.

If later Christian scribes ASSUMED it was Hallel u Yah, even though it wasn’t – I can imagine a breathing mark added to the start of the Greek on that basis.

I have no explanation for why the “rough breathing” was dropped in the Septuagint (LXX), but it was definitely dropped–“alleluia.” But it is used in the LXX where the Hebrew has “hallelu-jah.”

But, I am more interested in the fact that “Judah” also has the U sound; eg: what is the word if one drops the added “D”.

In Greek, Judah’s name is also transliterated, and the vowels would be obvious. Do you know what function the extra D adds to the name Judah in Hebrew?

“Judah” is actually “J’hudah” (German “j”), which means “celebrated, praised.” It has nothing to do with the “hallal” expressions or the name JHWH.

remainder snipped

For what it’s worth, the last eight years of my previous (pre-retirement) life, I was a Middle East analyst for a major government agency, and I became fluent in Arabic, which is a close sister language to Hebrew (and Aramaic). The grammatical forms for “hallal” that we’ve been talking about are exactly the same as the corresponding forms of similar verbs in Arabic. I’m not saying this to confuse you; I’m just letting you know that I’m not just pulling these things out of thin air.

Sidebar–The verse where Leah names Judah reads, “And she conceived again and bore a son, and she said, ‘Now I will praise the Lord.’ Therefore she called his name Judah (J’hudah) and quit bearing.” In Hebrew, the part where she says “Now I will praise the Lord” is “Hapa’am odeh et-JHWH.” The dictionary form of “odeh/I will praise” is “jadah,” (remember, German j= English y) The name “Judah/J’hudah” is derived from this verb.

DaveBj

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Pastor Aeternus - Vatican I

Good shot Brendan!

The article cited shows in gross that there is a general obligation to follow whom? “The Roman pontiff”. In fine, though, what does this mean?

The terms used are “episcopal” epi=above scopos=see. (The over-seers: eg: bishops)

I see the declaration may be read in two ways, that the power of the Vatican is equivalent to the bishop – (episcopate) – and therefore the PRIESTS and DEACONS under a bishop must obey the Vatican; Or secondly that the Vatican has power even over the Bishops. The former idea being Collegial vs. the latter being Hierarchical.

I know, for instance, that local councils encouraged into existence (eg: the USCCB?) at the Pope’s prompting – DO NOT have the power to bind bishops in any way at all without explicit consent of the Pope in a ratifying way. They are merely advisory and a mechanism for communication. The same is true of the results of any Council that should meet on faith and morals – they too must have explicit consent of the Roman pontiff. Not even the Vatican offices could do that without explicit papal ratification.

Even in the matter now started on the question of the kiss of peace – the Pope HIMSELF is the instigator of that inquiry.

Now, I have given practical examples of the violation of this obedience idea to the norms specified by the congregations – whether the examples are licit or illicit I do not know – but I do know that I have never seen a disciplinary action by the congregations in the Vatican levied on a bishop outside the Vatican see – of their own accord and without explicit permission from the Pope. I see these congregations (in my imagination) as being advisory to the Pope, not his voice carte blanche. I also am not very learned in particular historical events, should there be some.

I easily could be wrong, which is why I expressed the original opinion as a doubt (my awareness). If you have practical examples which show the interpretation of Vatican I – above and beyond a fraternal or collegiality of the Bishops in Liturgy – I would happily accept that as quelling my doubts.

You see, Cardinal Leveda himself has taken over the post of defender of the Faith. Ratzinger’s old post. Now, here in the Archdiocese of Portland, we wash women’s feet. Perhaps Leveda had permission (secretly?) when he began permitting this to happen. Consider, though, that the washing of the feet is the supreme example of the authority given to the pope as the Vicar of Christ. It is at once a call to the lowest of service – by the ordained FOR the ordained. ( and in a sub-idea – Men are ordainable as deacons and preachers of the word. )

In the scene in the upper room, Jesus says to Peter of this washing: “If I do not wash your feet you will have no part with me.” That is, Jesus attached the threat of ex-communication to this action.

I see, that since the command is given for the bishops to “wash each other’s feet” that there is a Collegial or Brotherly effect intended by this washing – BUT – there is also a hierarchical one with respect to Christ the Head. This same head who washed all the Apostles feet.

Being as Peter is the “servant of the servants of Christ” – he then takes the pre-eminent place in washing his brother’s feet – even to the authority of ex-communication.

Now, I do not immediately jump to the conclusion that all bishops can excommunicate other bishops of their own power based on the example of Christ – but only the one through whom he acts as Head of stewardship – the Pope.

The very existence of the mere priest, and the deacon was brought into existence by the authority of the church after Christ had ascended. I mean the offices of Holy Orders below the episcopate – not the priesthood of all believers. So, it is clear to me that they are always and everywhere subject to the authority which established their existence.

But, what you seem to be hinting at – I am unable to probe. That such authority as granted to the Pope himself by example could be delegated to a council or congregation (The out-calling of leadership) without still requiring explicit consent in their determinations is a gray area.

For example, (Not that I expect Leveda to do this) – but as defender of the faith, if Leveda were to say that women everywhere can always have their feet washed – I would tend to think wouldn’t fly.
There is, in scripture, a precedence given to certain actions COMMANDED by christ – and (Wrong or Right) In my opinion, I think the washing of the feet is one such action. Another such action is the Name of Jesus with which we baptize – the valid formula being “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”

I don’t expect that to change – either – to baptizing in the name of Adonai, or Kyrios, or Lord, or EVEN in the name of Jesus.

In the context of this thread; I am unaware of Jesus speaking of the Name of his Father as YHWH, or of any significance of this name’s utterance or non-utterance. So, what we have is an issue related to the previous authority of the Scribes and Pharisees as the chair of Moses – and what they decreed then – vs. the intrinsic meaning of the name and how the present see wishes to use/or not use the name.

This fraternal vs. hierarchical tension in obedience is something that has torn the church apart esp. in terms of the Orthodox churches. This is a subject which I don’t want to willy nilly throw stones in without some good SOLID backing.

–Pax Tecum;
–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Dave,
I stand corrected on psalm 150 – Since I was taking apart psalm 110, I just looked there and the last of the Alleluia’ psalms of that group eg: Psalm 114. Running the search engine in Hebrew is a newbie experience for me.

Psalm 110 :: לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר:

I saw this, and I know Hallel has two l’s in it – and I was sure it wasn’t there because the l (lamed) looks like ; ל and there is only one of those.

The dalet at the end and trying to sound it out, made me think this was probably the part that says a psalm of David…So I assumed to much. Which word is the Hallel, just so I can recognize it in the future?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

snip
For what it’s worth, snip I was a Middle East analyst snip

[Edited]

Until now, I felt like I could do some biblical language research.
I sure the h**l ain’t writing no Arabic scanner.
And government employment means nothing to me.

 

[thistle]

He was saving lives from the individual explosive devices (IED’s) by repairing equipment damaged in the field – And I do know form non-classified literature that quite a few died when it didn’t work.

When my brother was called back with his (1) military partner – the jealous of your accomplishments type – because they were the most trained in the field and were wanted as teachers in the states – his field replacement civilian managed to get killed on landing (bomb or what, I don’t know). Soon after, I understand, the civilian part of theater got shut down – end of repairs? dunno.

During this time, My personal life was being scrambled by priests doing really STUPID things. After three years of it I got depressed and then my brother came home.

He takes all the money he earned over there risking his life and wants to work with me on a solution to save lives.

We look into it and there are a couple of choices – one is the intelligence side – I could build a lexical and grammatical analyzer for Arabic cursive writing using the optical recognition technology I had been developing earlier. But I was too scared to take that big and risky a project on as I don’t know Arabic.
So we chose the area I am champion in – electronic engineering.

In any event, I developed a solution out of industrial parts to solve one problem my brother saw repeatedly in the field with an upgrade path to easily obtained military parts. I threw it in dry ice and heat guns/steam – and I removed all the manufacturers of parts which could not stand the shock. Eg: It was a tough and fast little critter, reacting in less than 3uS to any idiot… Brag, Brag, Brag, …

When we go down to see if it can be used, more for lives than money, we get stonewalled by John’s old field buddy. He tells me the competitor had already developed this circuit and then goes on to tell me some GARBAGE about the part I found to be useful for static electricity surge protection being the only device which FAILED in THEIR circuit. So he chose them… Oh well, dollar short, day late.

We had seen an advertisement on the competing companies website which said they had this thing even before we built a solution eg: for a non-classified version of a similar device sold commercially – but it was a lie or they were shipping the older stock still. The part still blew up.
Still, as our upgrade was not official MIL810 tested, (neither was theirs, I understand) were out of luck.

I hope our “competition” at least got the problem fixed. so we moved on to the SBIR governmental agencies because they were asking for a super circuit to do exactly the same thing I have already done – just at MUCH higher power.

At this point I’m still too depressed so we try for a simpler project . We get turned down --eg: because they don’t know how big the problem is and my brother couldn’t tell them because that information is classified --:takethat:

So, we try again – for the high power version of the circuit I have already built. They were only asking for a simulation of one that reacts in 1 millesecond and I already HAVE a circuit which reacts in 3us WAY FASTER!!! I KNOW how to upgrade it and we have a connection with the cutting edge transistor manufacturer overseas (silicon carbide, brag. brag. No one in the US does it yet.) And so I offer to do the first part of the project (the mandatory part) for REAL using parts our military can get (silicon).
I can also simulate it – but hey, that’s not as good.

We just got turned down this year by that major governmental agency; The professional who wrote us back told us why we were turned down:

“silicon” is too SLOW and we don’t have silicon carbide experience!!! And we did not provide a solution to the OPTIONAL part of their request which I would happily have done had I known OPTIONAL is not OPTIONAL. :whacky: I have only struggled with building high power motor drives with no budget for 20 years (NO I AM NOT JOKING) and didn’t want to promise all I have done on our first try.

If he had half a brain he could have just said, no money, sorry – or BETTER – he could have called and asked questions – like EXACTLY which part are you going to build it out of… But No.
Every complaint he had – we actually SURPASSED except being “too small”. Duh, their department is SBIR – SMALL business…

I’ve lost and am loosing everything dear to me, I have let my brother down because I can’t do magic, and I sit here with no health insurance and a blurry left eye – OHH! and I can’t have state health insurance because the local government doesn’t believe I am a US citizen in spite of my birth certificate. I have no money, no retirement, NOTHING.

Meanwhile, the patent office keeps sending my patent application back — NOT FOR THINGS LIKE A MISTAKE – but for things like “the border around your drawing confuses our optical scanner.” $400 please. Oh, we can’t tell you what else is wrong. $25 dollars please.

My nondisclosure wears out in less than a year – and then the military will probably get to use the lesser version of the circuit for free. No one will be under obligation to me or my brother.

Until now, I felt like I could do some biblical language research.
I sure the h**l ain’t writing no Arabic scanner.
And government employment means nothing to me.

What on earth has all this gibberish got to do with the thread topic.
If you want to ramble on then open a blogsite.

 

[DaveBj]

Dave,
I stand corrected on psalm 150 – Since I was taking apart psalm 110, I just looked there and the last of the Alleluia’ psalms of that group eg: Psalm 114. Running the search engine in Hebrew is a newbie experience for me.

Psalm 110 :: לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר:

I saw this, and I know Hallel has two l’s in it – and I was sure it wasn’t there because the l (lamed) looks like ; ל and there is only one of those.

The dalet at the end and trying to sound it out, made me think this was probably the part that says a psalm of David…So I assumed to much. Which word is the Hallel, just so I can recognize it in the future?

For what you’ve got there, the first word (reading from right to left) is “to David,” their way of saying “by David,” and the second word is Hebrew for “a psalm.” There are no “hallelujahs” in 110. However, the first word (actually two words) of 111 = “Hallelu Jah!”

DaveBj

 

[Huiou_Theou]

thistle:

How is anyone supposed understand all this gibberish??

Sorry, Thyristor, I tried to respond to your post earlier, but something happened. My right eye is watering and the left one doesn’t work too well anymore, so please excuse the big print – I don’t want to type blind.
From what I think I saw you say, yes I had seen Fr. Z’s blog, and yes I did start this thread – not Fr. Z. What does gibberish mean?

David, sorry, I can’t quite see in order to read your last post.
Thank you so much; I have learned a bunch – and I obviously need to spend some time getting familiar with the Hebrew before I stick my foot in my mouth again. Most of my questions were answered, and perhaps on another thread I could ask the final ones once I have a clear mind.

No joke.

Peace;
–Andrew.