JEHOVAH (page 8)

Oxnard Hamster

Well, that's why he had the New World Translation printed in this time of the end.

Yes, plus they are giving us our "food at the proper time."

Another interesting piece that suggests Ugarit Yaw was a protoYahweh, one of the ingrediants with EL and Baal and Anat....... Professor Cohn on the pagan god Yaw is Yahweh debate: "For two opposing views see John Gray, 'The god Yaw in the Religion of Canaan,' in Journal of Near Eastern Studies . Chicacgo. Vol. 12. 1953. pp. 278-283 and Garbini, op. cit., pp. 57-58. Gray cites the scholars who originally identified Yaw with Yahweh but rejects the identification, Garbini reaffirms it. Redford op.cit., p. 272, holds Yahweh was first worshipped by proto-Israelites in Edom." (p.246, note 5, to p. 132. Norman Cohn. 1993) Bull-El's wife is Athirat, whose name means "she who treads upon the sea" (Athirat is alternately rendered as Ashirat or Asherah). El being called "Bull-El" suggests his sons are born as "bull-calves" and become "bulls" at maturity. Thus Baal-Hadad is shown at times standing on a bull hurling lightning bolts. Thunderclouds were called "Adad's Calves." As Yahweh-Elohim appeared at Mt. Sinai as a Thundercloud, he is in Ugaritic imagery, "a calf" of Adad. I note a golden calf is made at Mt. Sinai shortly after Yahweh's appearance as a Thundercloud. Jeroboam honors Yahweh-Elohim with two golden calves set up at Dan and Bethel. I suspect this is harkening back to the reality that Yahweh-Elohim was portrayed alternately as a "bull-calf" in his manifestation as a Thundercloud. The Bible's writers are in denial of the true origins of Yahweh-Elohim and have "covered up" the fact that he is really a conflation and fusing together of Bull-El, Baal-Hadad and Yaw/Yam of the Ugaritic Myths. I suspect that the animosity between Baal and Yahweh, ca. 1200-587 BCE is arising directly from the 1500-1200 BCE Ugaritic myths, and the animosity between Baal (Baal-Hadad) and his brother Yam or Yaw, to see which would become "lord of the earth." The Hebrews came in later ages to conflate and fuse the earlier (1500-1200 BCE) mythical protagonists. Eventually Yahweh-Elohim came to absorb the names, epithets, and feats of his rivals and other gods. It is my understanding that Yahweh-Elohim is a conflation and fusing of the sea and river god Yaw (sea is Yam in Hebrew) and Baal-Hadad (Baal being asssociated with thunderclouds and Yahweh-Elohim manifesting himself as a thundercloud at Mt. Sinai), as well as the persona of El (Bull-El), the father of Baal and Yam, and of mankind (Ugaritic ab-adm). Thus Ugaritic adm meaning "mankind" was later transformed by the Hebrews into Adam, the first man and eponymn for mankind.

Narkissos

Peacefulpete: Thank you for the additional data. Generally speaking, I agree with the idea of distinct traditions eventually merging into a new one (it is the way it usually works in History of Religions). In this perspective, I liked Wyatt's reference to Sanskrit too (not to be dismissed too hastily because it is originally from a very different realm).

So the idea of the conflict between Yhwh and Baal, though probably very late, may reflect in some way the old "Yam vs Baal" myth. I would have only two reservations about that: 1) your own arguments, in a previous post, against the identification of "ym" and "yw"; 2) the fact that in the Bible itself the sea mostly has a negative overtone (in Genesis 1 the primeval ocean or "abyss", Heb. tehom = Akkadian Tiamat, is not "created" but subdued as a part of the chaos; and even in Revelation there is no place for the sea in the new creation). The overwhelming evidence, as I see it, favors the identification of the old Yhwh with Haddu-Baal rather than Yam.

On the El-Baal bull-calf traits attributed to Yhwh, I mentioned them earlier (though partly as a joke) in answer to Faraon. To the previous references one could add the description of Yhwh as 'Ab(b)ir (Gen 49:24 etc.), a Hebrew word which generally refers to a bull (sometimes a stallion perhaps)

More specifically, I could not check the ref. BM 93035. I just kept it in case somebody could find what it is.

Just for the sake of clarity, 'adam (= Ugaritic adm) also means "man" and "mankind" in Biblical Hebrew (more than 500 occurrences, only Gen 4:25; 5:1-5 and 1 Ch 1:1 as a personal name "Adam"). So on this point it is more parallel to Ugarit than derived from it.

Earnest: I didn't know that the practice of a "limited transliteration" of the Tetragrammaton Yhwh, as is mainly known from the King James Version, originated with Tyndale. It is not the common practice of French Bibles, but a recent version finally came to something similar.

During the past years I had the opportunity of working on the "Nouvelle Bible Segond", a Protestant Study Bible published in 2002. One of the first questions that came up was the rendering of Yhwh. In Protestant Bible since Olivétan (a relative of Calvin) the use was to "translate" Yhwh as "l'Eternel" ("the Eternal or Everlasting One"), from a dubious interpretation of Exodus 3 mistakenly applied to the whole Bible. The Writing Committee readily agreed that this has to be changed and reversed to the Septuagint-Vulgate substitution (LORD or GOD), mainly because of the N.T. practice. But it quickly appeared that in many cases this substitution was no better than the previous translation. For instance, in Exodus 6:3 a change of personal names is involved, not a change of "meaning" (it's "Yhwh" vs "Shadday", not "the Lord" or "the Eternal" vs "the Almighty"). Also, all the prophetical proclamations like "I am the LORD" are declarations of identity (I am Yhwh) and not of quality (such as "I am the big boss", or "I am eternal"). So we finally resolved to add "(YHWH)" to the common substitution in a number of cases where it seemed necessary (some 700 in the OT). I would personally have favored a consistent transliteration such as Yahweh, but in my eyes it was not too bad a compromise.

peacefulpete

Narkissos...It's useful to remember that the Hebrews selectively utilized myths and as Jacob Rabinowitz says it, "went thru a process of abstraction and refinement". The late Deuteronomist and postexilic use of the chaos battle motif doesn't suggest theological indebtedness as much as literary. Being so, the late explicit/implicit use of the chaos motif doesn't say much about the myths themselves as they have by that time become mere caricatures and symbols stripped of the theological meaning. Earlier parallels are indicative share world view as well as shared theology in some cases. Yet even in observing this is is not demonstratrated that any direct transmission of the mythology took place. In many cases the cults developed collaterally. This is what I understood you to be saying in relation to your Adam comment. While I'm sure someone has suggested a direct importing of the YHwh myth from the Ugaritic Pantheon (me last year) it seems more probable that we are observing another element of a complex near east collage(my French word for the day). The Yaw of the Ugarits may have be a local expression of a deity derived from Edomite or Egyptian (etc)contact The Hebrew form from the same and perhaps with a touch of El, Baal,etc and the Ugarit Yaw mixed in. At any rate I still find the matter provocative. And again I want to thank you for your research. This board has been greatly benefitted by your contribution.

Earnest

Earnest: I didn't know that the practice of a "limited transliteration" of the Tetragrammaton Yhwh, as is mainly known from the King James Version, originated with Tyndale. - Narkissos, 03-Dec-03 21:39 GMT

Narkissos, I was particularly referring to the use of the name in English as I think there were a number of Latin translations prior to Tyndale which used the name. Cardinal Cajetan used it constantly in his Commentary on the Pentateuch (Rome,1531). The Hebrew scholar Sebastian Münster used the name Iehova in his Hebraic grammar (in 1526), a name which he introduced into his Latin translation of the Bible in 1534.

And it was in French too. The translator Pierre Robert Olivétan introduced it in some places of his French translation in 1535, clarifying in the foreword (Apologie du translateur ) that the vocalization 'Iehouah' expressed the sound of the letter H better than 'Ioua'. François Vatable used it in his translation in 1545.

Having obtained a copy of Reuchlin's De arte cabalistica I now doubt that this influenced Tyndale to use the name Jehovah. Possibly, it was the book Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth (1518) by Pietro Galatino or perhaps Luther's use of the name in some of his printed sermons. Or maybe Tyndale just figured it out for himself.

Earnest

playdrums

One of my favorite things to read on the JW site is the explanation of why Jehovah should be used. First, the reason is because God should be called by his name because, of course, He's a personal God right? Then, it's not really his name - just as close as we can get. Hmmm, but I thought we were supposed to use it because that was the way to correctly address Him. So much circular reasoning it's really incredible to me.

My first post in a while from sunny Southern Cal.

Narkissos

Hi Playdrum,

IMO we have the same kind of problems with the concept of a "personal god" as we have with a "name of god". Both were at home in polytheism, but reached their logical limits when producing the new idea of "God".

Earnest: Thanks for the info. In fact the practice remained in French Bibles, down to the beginning of the 20th century, to "transliterate" in some places, though much fewer than in English Bibles: place names for instance. I still remember in the early 70's (prior to the publication of the French NWT) JWs pointing to Genesis 22:14 in their Segond Bible because it read "Jéhova-Jiré".

Narkissos

I meant French PROTESTANT Bibles of course. One of JW's favorites was the Catholic 1905 Crampon Bible which consistently had "Jéhovah" throughout the OT.

minimus

And they say all the intelligent posters are gone......

stillajwexelder

If we were addressing the Queen of Great Britain I do not think any of us (American/British or otherwise) would call her Elizabeth. If we were addressing the President of the USA (whatever your opinion of him) we would acll him Sir -- and so on. It is purely respect. So with God -- Lord seems much more appropriate from a respect point of view than his first name which we do not know the accurate pronunciation of anyway.

JEHOVAH

Share this