Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Robin Baugus
Under the supervision of Doctor Ellen Kaisse
Linguistics Departmental Honors Thesis
1. Introduction
Language has always been a great influence on religion. The words of a member of
clergy can have sway the actions of many people: from a political leader to a begging streetwalker. Entire faiths and communities have been built around oral traditions, codified many
years later into an established text. Words in religion provide power. They can become anything
from weapons to medicine, magic to salvation. It shouldn't be unexpected, then, to find that
some words may reach such a level of awe as to become sacred.
Such is the case of the name of G-d in the Hebrew Bible. If you were to glance over a
fully pointed1 text of the Hebrew Bible you would find a curious set of four consonants, often
provided without any vowels to accompany itself. These four consonants (, corresponding to
[jhwh]2), identified as the 'tetragrammaton,' are meant to represent the divine name of G-d.
When they appear, the word itself is often rendered unpronounceable: either without vowels at
all or with vowels which cannot be read with the consonants in question.3 Being that the Hebrew
1 Hebrew, both ancient and modern, is often written without the inclusion of vowels. A 'fully pointed' text would
include all vowel notations for words, and, in the case of biblical Hebrew, prosodic diacritic marks.
Unpointed texts may, however, make use of matres lectionis, consonants used to indicate the presence of
specific, often long, vowels. While originally a mater lectionis was only included word-finally, later the practice
of including them word-internally as well developed. Matres lectionis include the consonants [ j], [ h], and
[w]. These consonants were not pronounced, rather they indicated the presence of specific vowels and acted as a
guide. Thus, for instance, if a reader saw that the final consonant of a word was a [j], it would be taken as an
indication to produce an [i] vowel with the penultimate consonant it did not, however, indicate the phonetic
presence of a [j] at the end of the word. In this regard, matres lectionis act as vowels rather than consonants.
2 In most texts regarding Biblical Hebrew and the tetragrammaton, English orthography is used (such that the
consonants of the tetragrammaton would appear YHWH). However, this thesis will utilize IPA symbols.
3 More on this later
Bible was transmitted orally prior to the establishment of a writing system, the tetragrammaton
must have had, at one time, an oral form. The pronunciation of the name was lost with time as
the name came to be regarded with higher and higher levels of sacredness: eventually being
deemed unspeakably holy and therefore unsuitable for use in public reading. (Freedman, et al,
1986) While it is unclear exactly when the sacred name became unspeakable, some scholars,
such as De Troyer, believe it was pronounced until the end of the second century BCE. (De
Troyer, 2005)
As the name became too sacred to be spoken, an alternative was needed. While the
tetragrammaton itself remained in the text, the tradition of replacing the word orally with
[adonaKi] (in vowelled Hebrew:XZ, meaning Lord) arose. Reminders, in the form of an
occasional marginal note or by writing the tetragrammaton with the vowels of [adonaKi] (the
unpronounceable combination mentioned above), became common practice as the Masoretes 4
solidified the written form of the Hebrew Bible. The tradition of replacing the sacred name with
[adonaKi] in reading continues to this day as students learning to read Biblical Hebrew (from
Sunday school to college classes) are instructed in this practice.
Yet the question remains: what was the original pronunciation of the sacred name? Had
these four consonants never been elevated to such sacred status, what vowels would the
Masoretes have provided them in later years? Is it possible to find out? The answer is a
resounding Maybe. The good news is that there is a general consensus on the most likely
pronunciation of the tetragrammaton by scholars: [jahwh]. The bad news is that this is, indeed,
just an educated guess. Some maintain that [hova] is the correct pronunciation (though the
vast majority of scholars deem [hova] to be a Christian mistake: the result of early Christians
who were unfamiliar with the Masoretic convention attempting to pronounce the tetragrammaton
4 The Masoretes and their writing system are discussed below in section 1.1.2.
with the vowels of [adonaKi]).5 Hard evidence is, unsurprisingly, hard to come by. It may,
however, be possible to further strengthen the argument for [jahwh] through the examination of
literary features in Biblical Hebrew which can assist in pointing to this as the most acceptable
pronunciation.
In particular assonance, consonance, alliteration, rhyme, meter, and syllable count will be
examined for their usefulness in determining what could be the pronunciation of G-d's name. It
is fortunate, as Badillos (1993) points out, that Hebrew as a language has remained substantially
the same avoiding changes which would significantly affect its essential morphological,
phonological, or even syntactic structure. Thus the basic structures of the language, its
morphological system, and especially its verbal morphology, [have] been preserved without
major changes over the centuries... (Badillos, 1993: 50) It is not expected that a definitive
answer will be made. Certainly there is not enough space in this piece to truly examine each
instance of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Bible: the word appears nearly 7,000 times.
Rather than seeking to determine whether [jahwh] is, indeed, the most likely candidate (though
the argument for [jahwh] as the appropriate vowel-consonant combination will be revisited
briefly later), this thesis seeks to outline those factors which should be taken into consideration
when making such assumptions. How much weight should each of these literary features be
5 Franklin (1997) argues strongly for the pronunciation of [hova] . It is difficult to examine his claims as he
provides few sources in his article, written (perhaps with significant bias) for the Christian Biblical Church of Gd Website.
Franklin is an outlier in this regard as most other scholars have pointed out that this pronunciation is highly
unlikely. [hova] has no meaning in Hebrew and does not otherwise exist as a lexical item. Furthermore, the
reading of [hova] assumes that the vowels of [adonaKi] are meant to be applied to the tetragrammaton: thus
invalidating the point of the deeming the name too sacred to be spoken. It is unlikely that the correct vowels
would have been codified for a word meant never to be spoken aloud. Lastly, of the sources gathered in the
research of this thesis (Rogers, 2005; Rendsburg in Kaye, 1997; Badillos, 1993) none include in their list of
Biblical Hebrew consonants the affricate [] or any comparable sound. Perhaps the establishment of the
affricate [] arose as English speakers encountered copies of the Bible written in European languages for which,
orthographically, 'j' presents the [j] sound (unlike in English where the [j] consonant is represented by 'y'
orthographically.)
given?
How do these literary features interact and how might such interaction affect the
environment in which the tetragrammaton appears? The ambitious scholar may take this thesis
and use it as a basis by which to lay their foundations for a more in-depth study of the
tetragrammaton as it appears in the text of the Hebrew bible.
Biblical Hebrew's
Kts
s
Table: 02
Tiberian Hebrew Vowels (Reproduced from Rogers, 2005: 127)
i
pointing the text. As this pointing system is the one which has survived the test of time, some
scholars refer to the Biblical Hebrew Text as the Masoretic Text (MT) and the language it is
written in as Tiberian Hebrew. (Rogers, 2005: 126)
1.1.3 Poetry versus Prose
The distinctions between Biblical poetry and prose is not always clear. Furthermore,
sections of poetry may be found scattered within prose texts (in such forms as speeches, songs,
or prophecy, among others). Sections of Biblical poetry are not uniform in size either: Pslam 87
contains only 7 versus, but Pslam 18 contains 50. Debates as to whether a certain portion of the
Hebrew Bible should be considered prose or poetry still occur today, 6 and as such there isn't a
comprehensive list of what is and is not poetry within the Bible. Additional features which are
seen more often in Biblical poetry (such as sound patterns like alliteration) will be discussed
below, beginning in section 4.
Scholarly consensus does extend to some portions of text, such as the Song of the
Sea (Exodus 15)7, Isaiah, the Psalms, the Proverbs, The Song of Songs, and The Song of
Deborah (Judges 5). It is these texts that I will primarily limit my analysis to. Additional
texts may be examined, however all texts which are examined are acknowledged as
poetry by Watson (1984) or O'Connor (1997).
6 In large part, this debate centers around attempts at assigning metrical structure to poetry and prose which is
not a straightforward task in the case of Biblical Hebrew, as is discussed in section 3.2 below.
7 This is also known as the Song of Moses.
8 Additionally, for the sake of avoiding repetition, any references to Hebrew poetry/language/structure/etc.
always refers to Biblical Hebrew not to Modern Hebrew, unless otherwise stated.
9 The Qumran scrolls are often more colloquially identified as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls constitute the
2nd oldest surviving artifacts containing copies of portions of Biblical texts (many are damaged or incomplete),
alongside Biblical commentary and copies of the community rules. They were discovered near the site of the
ancient city of Khirbet Qumran in the West Bank over a period of ten years (from 1946-1956) scattered
throughout eleven caves.
sacred to be pronounced while the shortened version remained acceptable.10 There was an
intermediary step prior to this in which the High Priest was permitted, on the Day of the
Atonement, to speak the name of G-d once. (De Troyer, 2005) Once the tetragrammaton was
deemed too sacred to be spoken aloud, the tradition of replacing (verbally, but not
orthographically) all instances of the tetragrammaton with the word [adonaKi] was developed.
This is a practice which continues today.
Evidence for the replacement of the tetragrammaton with [adonaKi] as early as the Qumran
scribes can be found in the Qumran Isaiah scroll and the community rules. One rule of the
community indicates that any person who speaks the name of G-d for any reason would face
banishment from the community with no chance of return. An examination of Isaiah 3:14-19 11
presents five instances of either the tetragrammaton or [adonaKi] being written. Of the five
tokens, three have the opposite set of consonants written above them while the other two remain
untouched. The first instance of this features the tetragrammaton written with [adonaKi] above it,
shifted slightly to the left. In the traditional Masoretic text, both appear: [adonaK i] being followed
by the tetragrammaton ([adonaKi jhwh]). It is possible the shifting of the written-in word is meant
to denote that it should be added, not changed. 12
corrections notated in the rest of the text. However, the most likely scenario is that a teacher or
10 Had the shortened version of the tetragrammaton been also deemed unpronounceable, there would have been no
reason for the word to receive vowel pointing during orthographic codification. As no attempts appear to have
been made which hinder the pronunciation of the shortened form of the name (it remains fully pointed and
attached to various words or names, as discussed), it must be assumed that pronunciation of [jah] was acceptable.
However, Durousseau (2014) notes that even if the verbally pronouncing the tetragrammaton was not technically
forbidden, more observant individuals might avoid doing so except in the instance of prayer and study.
Likewise, they may avoid writing the word as well. This is illustrated in the use of different consonants ([tw]) in
the writing of the number 15 which would otherwise be expected to be the consonants of [jah]. Furthermore, for
the number 16 which differs from [jah] by one letter ([jh] and [jw]) is still deemed too close for comfort and
substituted by two other letters ([tz]) as well.
11 The Isaiah scroll is significant when examining Qumran texts as it is the only complete copy of a Biblical Book
found in the caves. These verses, as they appear in the Isaiah scroll, provide evidence of the replacement of the
tetragrammaton orally with [adonaKi], as will be explained.
12 This is conjecture by Professor Gary Martin of the University of Washington's Near Eastern Languages and
Civilization department. (Personal interview, 2015)
scribal leader was reading from an established copy (or reciting from memory) the text of Isaiah
which another scribe (perhaps an apprentice or student) was copying down. As, by this point, all
instances of the tetragrammaton were spoken aloud as [adonaKi] there would be no verbal
indication as to whether the tetragrammaton or [adonaKi] should be written in the text and, as
such, the transcriber wrote which ever first occurred to him. When the document was later
checked against a standard of the community, the corrections were annotated by a second hand.
(Howard, 1977: 69)
Along with being too sacred to pronounce, the name of G-d became to sacred to copy in
full. Thus it was written with the vowels of its verbal replacement, [adonaK i], or without vowels
at all.13 Alternatively, the word may be abbreviated by using select letters. In his article on
tetragrammaton substitutions, Lauterbach (1931) identifies 83 alternatives which have been
utilized throughout the years in various writings (manuscripts, early books, etc.) primarily
involving combinations utilizing the consonant [j].
Howard (1977) mentions that in other texts, such as the Greek Septuagint, the practice of
abbreviation was continued. The surrogates which replaced the tetragrammaton in the Greek
translations of the bible, 'theos' and 'kurios' eventually being abbreviated to TS and KS,
respectively. He goes on to illustrate the ways in which abbreviation began to be applied
towards all words deemed 'sacred' in the New Testament but this exceeds the scope of this
thesis.
There is some speculation that the name of G-d is related to the Hebrew root meaning To
13 As a point of interest, this is also where the tradition of writing G-d without the middle 'o' vowel arises. In some
more religious communities (such as the one in which the author was raised) writing of the complete name in
English is frowned upon. Doing so makes the name and that which it is written upon sacred: the name cannot be
erased and the document or item it is written on can no longer be thrown away or allowed to touch the
ground/feet/etc. This includes, for instance, writing the name in full on a blackboard in a classroom. The only
way to dispose of these items now becomes a ritual burial of documents/items with the name of G-d and other
sacred text on them alongside other sacred items (such as prayer shawls, etc.). Leaving out the vowel renders the
name 'incomplete' and thus it can be disposed of as normal, etc.
pronounced without consequence and which appears throughout the Biblical text both
independently and as a part of phrases (ex: Hallelu-yah) and names (ex: Zechariyah). Thus,
scholars uniformly agree that this abbreviated form was taken from the first half of the name
itself. This left only the second half of the tetragrammaton in question.
The spelling of the name has helped in at least eliminating a few possibilities. Matres
lectionis (see footnote 1) were rather consistent: a [j] consonant indicated a long [i] vowel, [w]
indicated a long [u] or [o], and [h] identified long [], or [a] vowels.
Thus, as the
tetragrammaton ends with the consonant [h], we can eliminate the vowels [i], [u], and [o] as
possibilities. This leaves the remaining two. Though there has been some skepticism in the past
that the correct vowel would be [o] (resulting in [yaho] with a long final vowel, we will see why
this is significant later in this thesis in section 4.3.1),14 it is likely that G-d's response in Exodus
3:14 is a significant factor in choosing []. Wilhelm Gesenius (author of Gesenius' Hebrew
Grammar) was the first to officially propose the vowel [] which has come to be accepted by the
scholarly community.
Perhaps most
influential, Shakespeare's sonnets are constrained to 10-syllable lines. Why shouldn't Biblical
Hebrew, especially Biblical Hebrew poetry, be equally organized around syllable count?
As it refers to the tetragrammaton this could prove useful. [hova] and [adonaKi] both
function as a three-syllable words while [jahwh] is only two. If verse structure was dependent
upon syllable count, such a distinction could indicate which of the pronunciations is more likely
to be correct.15 Unfortunately there are some flaws with this idea.
First and foremost, it does not appear that the verse structure of Biblical Hebrew,
including poetry, is rigidly defined by syllable count. In the first place, scholars do not always
agree on syllable boundaries. DeCaen (2009) provided a comparison of the syllable counts by
different scholars (Culley, 1970; Vance, 2001; Fokkelman, 2003; and Loretz, 1989) and the
Masoretes for Psalm 111:1-10c. While syllable counts did not vary greatly across the board (and
it is true that many of the counts matched exactly), it should be noted that these scholars did not
always agree with the Masoretes or each other.16 As the distinction between our alternative
pronunciations for the tetragrammaton as they appear above differ in length by only a single
syllable: even minor disagreements among scholars about the syllable-count of a verse weaken
the reliability of this literary feature in analysis. Furthermore, scholars seem to be in agreement
that syllable-count should not be depended upon. Freedman (1960) (as cited in O'Connor, 1997)
points out, It is not likely that the Israelites counted syllables carefully, or even accents for that
matter, when composing their poetry... having found it useful for describing phonological
features, but not in generating a system which would apply to any large sample without
15 Additionally, if syllable count could be identified as a defining characteristic of verse structure, one may posit
that it could be possible (if one disregards [hova]) to determine whether [adonaKi] was being substituted for the
tetragrammaton at the time of composition. Such a course of research is beyond the breadth of this thesis,
however.
16 It should be noted that syllable counts by these scholars were not necessarily undertaken in the pursuit of the
creation of a syllable meter for Biblical Hebrew.
extensive reshaping of individual poems and verses... (Freedman, in O'Connor, 1997: 38-39).
Watson (1984) notes that syllable-counting is merely, [a]t best...useful for lineation. His
judgment here is based on the fact that a structure based upon syllable count does not
acknowledge stress and is dependent upon the reconstruction of vowels.
The last thing to consider when examining syllable-count as a means of determining the
pronunciation of the name of G-d comes from Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1909).17 Section
26:m indicates that when a syllable bearing a firm vowel 18 is preceded by a single consonant
bearing a vocal shewa,19 the two are meant to be attached so closely...that it forms practically
one syllable... This has been taken by some scholars (such as Professor Gary Martin in the
University of Washington's Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations department) to indicate
that [adonaKi] is, in actuality, meant to be a two syllable word. Determining whether this rule
17 Despite its age, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar remains one of the most influential grammars on the market and is
still in print.
18 Firm vowels are a term used by Hebrew grammarians to refer to vowels in a word are long by nature, not as a
result of rhythmic modifications which adjust vowel length for features such as tone or syllable formation.
(Gesenius, 1909: 76).
19 Here, a shewa does not refer to the name of the phonetic vowel [] (a 'schwa'). In Hebrew (both Biblical and
Modern) 'shewa' is the name for a vowel represented by two vertical dots beneath a letter (for instance: ).
Generally this vowel is silent and prompts the reader to only produce the sound of the consonant under which
it appears. For instance: