# yhvh ("to be")



## saint satin stain

yhvh is the verb "to be" in hebrew? If so which form -equivalent in english- would it be?  I read a poem in which the poet translates the tetragrammaton as "is." 

"deity as is" is the last line of his poem. He also translates the declaration of the oneness of the deity, the Shema, as

listen
israel
is our god
is one

Is there any basis for that translation linguistically?


----------



## Marnavot

להיות (Lihiyot) is the verb "to be" in Hebrew, and it (probably) has the same root as "yhvh".

One of the interpretations of the name (yhvh) is that it is a combination of three Hebrew words:
Haya- was
Hove- is
Yihiye- will be

We cannot be sure if that is correct, because god's name (yhvh) always appears  without nikkud in the bible, so it's exact pronunciation is unknown.

And yes, the translation to "Shma" is correct:
"Listen Israel, (yhvh) is our god, (yhvh) is one".


----------



## saint satin stain

Your comments influenced a change to last line.

*[...]
sod's giddy
oxeye image
labia image
deity exist*


----------



## jdotjdot89

I just want to clarify--as far as I can tell, the poem does not translate the tetragrammaton as "is".  There is no form "is" in Hebrew; it is just understood.  And while what Marnavot said regarding where the tetragrammaton comes from is definitely one school of thought, the name is not ever really translated as "is".  In the poem, I imagine that the poet (using artistic license, I suppose) just left out God's name.


----------



## Aoyama

> One of the interpretations of the name (yhvh) is that it is a combination of three Hebrew words:
> Haya- was
> Hove- is
> Yihiye- will be


absolutely, which is why the name of G.od is often translated in the Bible as :
"I Am the One who Is, Has been, Will be", thus the Eternal.
Yahvé, Yéhovah (Jehovah) are arbitrary vocalizations of the consonants serving as the root of the word.


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, Saint Satin Stain.

Exodus 3:14 has G-d speaking about his own name and suggests a connection between His name and היה (HYH) = "exist", "be", "come to pass".  This verb is not used in the Shema.


----------



## jdotjdot89

There actually is quite a bit of Jewish mystical commentary on the matter.  From my own personal experience, I know ספר השל"ה talks about the "fulfillment" of God's name regarding the tetragrammaton and forms of להיות.


----------



## Aoyama

But then, one will also remember that in Hebrew (as in all other Semitic languages) there is no verb "to be" _per se _at the present tense. _To be_ will be declined at the other tenses, but not the present.
The root היה (HYH) , read Hashem (the Name) or Adonaï (the Lord, the reading is akin to Greek Adonis), is originally (as Forero mentions, post # 6) derived from "haya", "has been", past tense of להיות.


----------



## saint satin stain

jdotjdot89 said:


> I just want to clarify--as far as I can tell, the poem does not translate the tetragrammaton as "is".  There is no form "is" in Hebrew; it is just understood.  And while what Marnavot said regarding where the tetragrammaton comes from is definitely one school of thought, the name is not ever really translated as "is".  In the poem, I imagine that the poet (using artistic license, I suppose) just left out God's name.



I wonder if the poet was reasoning the same way you are.  It is understood. 'exist' perhaps indicates that he simply wants us to understand the was, is, and future existence. Is 'exist' a good transinterpretation for the tetragrammaton? Is it similar in some respects as hashem, a substitution but with some semantic content of the hebrew deity?  I will talk about this tomorrow with the poet.


----------



## jdotjdot89

I suppose that the concept of "is-ness" could be a viable use of the tetragrammaton, especially in a poetic context.  However, I don't think that this would extend to its use as a verb.


----------



## saint satin stain

What is the closest literal translation of the tetragrammaton into english? Succinct is desirable, but not necessary. Exactitude is more important, allowing for the differences between the two languages.


----------



## jdotjdot89

There is none.  God's name is untranslatable--even unpronounceable.


----------



## Aoyama

But then (again), *yhvh *is _not_ the name of G.od (in as far as there would be one). It is just a derivation of the verbe "to be". Arbitrary readings (see my post # 5) have given some mythical, mystical or even mythological meanings to the names Yahveh, Yehovah.
But Jews are not concerned with this.


----------



## jdotjdot89

Aoyama said:


> But then (again), *yhvh *is _not_ the name of G.od (in as far as there would be one). It is just a derivation of the verbe "to be". Arbitrary readings (see my post # 5) have given some mythical, mystical or even mythological meanings to the names Yahveh, Yehovah.
> But Jews are not concerned with this.



I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there on both counts.  Jews are most definitely concerned with it, and moreover, the tetragrammaton is one of God's names.  According to Judaism, there is no singlular, all-encompassing name of God--by nature, God cannot be fully understood and the best we can do is to describe various aspects of God that we understand.  In Jewish mysticism in particular, the tetragrammaton is the name reprenting one of God's aspects.  In other contexts, the tetragrammaton may just be used simply in an attempt to refer to God--but regardless, it is definitely considered a name.  This can be shown by how Jews pronounce it--given that it is unpronounceable, instead, "Hashem" (meaning "the Name") is said.  (Alternatively, in blessings, "Adonai" ("our Lord") is used.)  Regardless, though, it is not just a derivation of להיות.  The relationship has been studied, but it doesn't mean that it's not a name.  On an extremely fundamental level, it's the same as if I were to tell you that all "Johnson" is is an arbitrary term meaning "John's son", so it's not really a name.  I'm sure all people named Johnson would disagree.


----------



## Aoyama

This discussion, though no doubt very interesting and ontological, in the very meaning of the word, will lead us to an off-topic diversion, to be avoided.
My remark had to do with the two "names" Yahveh and Yehovah/Jehovah," which are -to my knowledge- _never_ used in Judaism directly. If they happen to be used , it is through Christian texts.
This is in no way a religious quarrel. It simply shows that the tetragrammaton (of Greek origin) , or the meaning of it, has never been at the center of jewish religious concern.
In short, trying to find a/the name to G.od has never been a jewish preoccupation (apart from the Golem mythology).
As you yourself rightly said (the first answer in a slightly different context), [the name of G.od] 





> There is none. God's name is untranslatable--even unpronounceable.


And one will add : there is no need to translate It or even pronounce It.


----------



## jdotjdot89

There's no quarrel at all.  I was mistaken; I thought you were referring to the tetragrammaton, not "Jehovah."  I agree completely.



> In short, trying to find a/the name to G.od has never been a jewish preoccupation (apart from the Golem mythology).



At times.  Within Kabballah it plays an important role.


----------



## Linguaphile182

I'd normally be using Hebrew letters, but I don't want to write the Lord's name for fear that it be blasphemed.

I have heard that YHVH is based on the Hebrew binyan HVH, which means to be. The Y in front indicates Yah (G-d). So put together, the Tetragrammaton means "G-d is". This is a simple concept, and yet profound.

The Lord refers to Himself with other names based off of HVH. For instance, He introduces Himself to Moses as "Ehyeh asher ehyeh", or "I will be that I will be" (Ex. 3:14).


----------



## dinji

Linguaphile182 said:


> I have heard that YHVH is based on the Hebrew binyan HVH, which means to be. The Y in front indicates Yah (G-d). So put together, the Tetragrammaton means "G-d is". This is a simple concept, and yet profound.


No this rather seems like tautological nonsense.
Yah (G-d) is in itself a shortened form of Yahu (found in proper names as Yesha-yahu < *Yahwe.
So your interpretation is now to decompose the name into Yah+hwe where the first element is G-d and the second is a verbal element meaning 'is'. But then again the first element "Yahu" encompasses and equals the whole as well, and you are therefore before an impossibly silly and tautological paradox: Yah+hwe= Yahwe=Yahu=Yah


----------



## origumi

Does the similar (identical?) sound of the primary Roman god *Iove* (pronounced "Iowe" I guess) have any significance?


----------



## Forero

Not in relation to the tetragrammaton.  The origin of _Iove_ is apparently an Indoeuropean root meaning "bright", "sky", "daylight", etc., the same root as in _Zeus_, _deity_, and _Tuesday_.


----------



## origumi

Forero said:


> Not in relation to the tetragrammaton. The origin of _Iove_ is apparently an Indoeuropean root meaning "bright", "sky", "daylight", etc., the same root as in _Zeus_, _deity_, and _Tuesday_.


Deity is related to deus (or div-), right? So Latin had two very different derivatives of the old IE root, Iove and Deus, and one of them has almost identical sound and meaning to the oldest Hebrew name for God.

Just a coincidence?


----------



## Talib

Why shouldn't it be? Latin is not related to Hebrew, nor did the Romans have the same religion the Jews did. Iove (Jupiter) was just one of many gods they worshipped.

For that matter we don't know exactly how the Tetragrammaton sounded so comparing the two seems pointless.


> Yahvé, Yéhovah (Jehovah) are arbitrary vocalizations of the consonants serving as the root of the word.


Not true. _Jehovah _(Yehowah) is the Tetragrammaton with the vowel points of אדוני. _Yahweh _is the best scholarly reconstruction of the Name.


----------



## Aoyama

> _Jehovah _(Yehowah) is the Tetragrammaton with the vowel points of אדוני. _Yahweh _is the best scholarly reconstruction of the Name.


But then, as in Adona-i , it should be* a o a i*, not *e/ye o a* ...


----------



## origumi

Aoyama said:


> But then, as in Adona-i , it should be* a o a i*, not *e/ye o a* ...


 
* Adonai is "my lords", thus the -ai suffix.
* The God's name, if derived from verb הוה, should mean something like "shall exist [forever]", or "essence", or "existence".

There's no reason for the latter to end with -ai.


----------



## Talib

Aoyama said:


> But then, as in Adona-i , it should be* a o a i*, not *e/ye o a* ...


Actually the spelling is 'adonay. It ends in a consonant. The vowels are '*a*d*o*n*a*y and y*e*h*o*w*a*h.

The reason the first vowel changes to an _a_ in Adonai is because the first letter is a א. There's information about this in any Biblical Hebrew grammar.


----------



## Aoyama

This discussion is slowly turning a bit out of topic, but for the sake of clarity :


> Adonai is "my lord", thus the -ai suffix.


Yes , though modern Hebrew has the word *adoni* (from *adon*), on the same construction as French : sieur (adon), *mon*sieur (adon*i*), the word is of Greek origin.


> God's name, if derived from verb הוה, should mean something like "shall exist [forever]", or "essence", or "existence".


In fact the verb "to be", thus translated as [I am] the One who is, has been, will be, [the Eternal].


> Actually the spelling is 'adonay. It ends in a consonant. The vowels are '*a*d*o*n*a*y and y*e*h*o*w*a*h.


It is true that *yod *is a consonant (sometimes called half consonant or half vowel). 
As for the vowels in Adonai (I have never seen it transcribed "Adonay", though once again, it is true that the last letter is a yod = y) being similar to Yehovah ... Well, there is some sense, but I still think it is arbitrary.


> The reason the first vowel changes to an _a_ in Adonai is because the first letter is a א.


That one I don't follow (sorry), because the word seem to come from (or be influenced by) Greek (Adonis) ...


----------



## Forero

Why is it "Jehovah" and not "Jahovah."  Doesn't _Adonai_ start with pasakh aleph?


----------



## Aoyama

> Why is it "Jehovah" and not "Jahovah." Doesn't _Adonai_ start with pasakh aleph


Good question, which shows (if need there was) that the vocalization of Jehovah is _arbitrary_ ...
But I guess that here, one could argue that the vowels _are not in the same order_ , so the "ye/je" is the yod _at the end of Adonai/y_.
This being said, yod becoming J is clearly a European shift that does not exist in Hebrew or any semitic language (you find it in Yonathan/Jonathan、Yonas/Jonas etc, not to mention Jacques/Jack coming from Yitzhak ...).


----------



## origumi

It's becoming futile. I wrote: Adonai is "my lord*s"*. You quote as if I wrote Adonai is "my lord", and then teaches me that "my lord" is "adoni" and not "adonai". Like duh? Yes, it's plural, at least according to the word's appearance, compare to "elohai".

You take a questionable etymology about the meaning of God's name "[I am] the One who is, has been, will be, [the Eternal]" as if it was accepted fact.

You relate Adonai to Greek Adonis with no supporting evidence.

You expect Adonai and God's name to be of the same pattern (משקל), for eample a-o-a-i or e-o-a, with no reason. At least no reason that comes from the Hebrew language or Bible.

Jacques/Jack has nothing to do with Yitshak יצחק. It comes from Yaakov יעקב.


----------



## Talib

Aoyama said:


> TIt is true that *yod *is a consonant (sometimes called half consonant or half vowel).
> As for the vowels in Adonai (I have never seen it transcribed "Adonay", though once again, it is true that the last letter is a yod = y) being similar to Yehovah ... Well, there is some sense, but I still think it is arbitrary.
> 
> That one I don't follow (sorry), because the word seem to come from (or be influenced by) Greek (Adonis) ...


Other way around. _Adonis_ comes from the Semitic _'adon_.


			
				Forero said:
			
		

> Why is it "Jehovah" and not "Jahovah."


Because the stress is (properly) on the last syllable, which makes the first vowel weaken to a shewa.

It changes to pathah hateph in אדני because the first letter is an א. Hateph vowels are ultrashort vowels, like shewa.

Thus you see how the vowels of יהוה and אדני are the same in theory, but the first vowel changes because of the letter it is under.

These grammar rules are eluciated on in great detail in Biblical Hebrew readers, but rarely anywhere else...


----------



## Aoyama

> Jacques/Jack has nothing to do with Yitshak יצחק. It comes from Yaakov יעקב.


My mistake here, you are right, though sometimes (mistakenly it seems) Yits'hak is also linked to Jack, Jake etc.


> You relate Adonai to Greek Adonis with no supporting evidence.


Talib gave some answer.
This also :_*Adonis*, youth beloved by Aphrodite, from Phoenician adon "lord," probably originally "ruler," from base a-d-n "to judge, rule." Adonai, an O.T. word for "God," is the Heb. cognate, with pl. of majesty_
For the rest, we will leave it be.


----------



## clevermizo

I would like to add that in addition to the understanding of the tetragrammaton as related to the verb "to be", the name may also be connected to the root h-w, which has a cognate in Arabic هوى which is related to things "falling down", as well as the wind and making the wind blow. In this explanation, the name has its origins in the name of an ancient storm or wind god. 

Mind you, this explanation would have no validity under the framework of traditional Judaism.


----------



## dinji

origumi said:


> You expect Adonai and God's name to be of the same pattern (משקל), for eample a-o-a-i or e-o-a, with no reason. At least no reason that comes from the Hebrew language or Bible.


Well we do know, I believe, that in some (or most?) old recital and loud reading traditions the tetragrammaton has been read out precisely as: Adonay. 

The idea of the hypotheses that Talib defends would be, I believe, that the copiers wanted to support the lecture here, as so many other mater lectionis are designed to do.

I admit the whole thing is rather speculative, and the solution for the chatef patach/shwa is not completely convincing to me.


----------



## Talib

It's in any good Hebrew grammar. Chatef vowels appear under the "gutteral" letters אהחע because sh'wa na' is not allowed under these letters. They should properly be regarded as variants of sh'wa. 

They don't teach rules like this in Hebrew school or anything because the idea to simplify the pronunciation for learners.


----------



## dinji

Talib said:


> It's in any good Hebrew grammar. Chatef vowels appear under the "gutteral" letters אהחע because sh'wa na' is not allowed under these letters. They should properly be regarded as variants of sh'wa.


I am well aware of this conditioning factor in Tiberian vocalisation. But this rule presupposes that the conditioning consonant was actually read out, otherwise the conditioning would not be productive.

If the vowels on the other hand were marked to support the correct lecture one would expect to see the chatef patach anyway, to remind of Adonay, independently of the fact that it couldn't be pronounced under yod.

In order to straighten this mess a lot of complicated explanation has to be done, probably involving an older system of nikkud (which I am not aware of) and some kind of oblivion/misinterpretation of the original purpose of the vowels before the Tiberian system was introduced. I have a hard time to make it work.


----------



## Talib

dinji said:


> I am well aware of this conditioning factor in Tiberian vocalisation. But this rule presupposes that the conditioning consonant was actually read out, otherwise the conditioning would not be productive.
> 
> If the vowels on the other hand were marked to support the correct lecture one would expect to see the chatef patach anyway, to remind of Adonay, independently of the fact that it couldn't be pronounced under yod.
> 
> In order to straighten this mess a lot of complicated explanation has to be done, probably involving an older system of nikkud (which I am not aware of) and some kind of oblivion/misinterpretation of the original purpose of the vowels before the Tiberian system was introduced. I have a hard time to make it work.


It's just an orthographic convention. Chatef patach isn't written under yod precisely because it can't appear there. Instead shwa is used.

Either way the word is not pronounced as it's spelled (since it is the Ineffable Name).


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> Deity is related to deus (or div-), right? So Latin had two very different derivatives of the old IE root, Iove and Deus, and one of them has almost identical sound and meaning to the oldest Hebrew name for God.
> 
> *Just a coincidence*?


Assuming anything else would be wild speculation. It is hard to see how Old Latin and Hebrew should have interacted. Finding traces of the name YHWH in Philistine, Phoenician or Punic would add considerably to the plausibility of a relation between the two.


----------



## Aoyama

And also deus is linked to Zeus/theos ...


----------



## delayah

I found this thread in searching for the proper form of the verb hayah, yihiyeh, which was erroneously spelled in an exposition regarding the pronunciation and meaning of the name of the God of Abraham, Y'tzak & Yaacov, which seems to line up perfectly with the evidence he shows and Exodus 3:14-15

If interested, the video is on youtube at <<link to youtube video removed by moderator (Rule 4)>>

The conclusion reached is that the name YeHoVaH which he found in over 1000 manuscripts with the vowel points being eh oh and ah.

He further claims the Name of the Father, YeHoVaH is a combination of the 3 forms of the verb Hayah, which are:

Hayah = I am (I exist)
Hoveh = I have been
Yiheyeh = I will be


----------



## berndf

delayah said:


> The conclusion reached is that the name YeHoVaH which he found in over 1000 manuscripts with the vowel points being eh oh and ah.


The Masoretic vowel sign system was developed centuries after the name _YHWH_ ceased to be pronounced. You could produce millions of texts with those vowel signs (schwa, holam, kamatz) and it would show nothing but that the vowel signs are meand to guide the reader towards the pronunciation _Adonai_. These authors lived to late to even knew how _ÝHWH_ was once pronounced before saying the name aloud became considered a mortal sin.


----------



## delayah

I have heard this before, however, it leaves the question; why are there so many examples dating back to the 7th century, and ONLY written with the Schwa, Kholam, kamatz?

Where is the representation of the "real" or "actual" vowel points if it's not YeHoVaH ?

The texts had very little representation of any other vowel points and I believe the 7th century Jews would know better than we in this generation.

Also, he uncovered stories (multiple) of details of ceremonies Rabbi's would perform every 7 years to teach one of their disciples how the name was actually pronounced, not adonai, but the actual name.


----------



## berndf

delayah said:


> I have heard this before, however, it leaves the question; why are there so many examples dating back to the 7th century, and ONLY written with the Schwa, Kholam, kamatz?


By that time, no Jew would have dared to pronounced the name of God for 1000 years. The original pronunciation was certainly lost.

The vowel sign system for Hebrew was developed around that time (6th to 10th centuries). Out of the rivalling systems, the "Tiberian" system eventually prevailed, which was the most detailed system. It is actually not quite correct that in the Masoretic text there is only schwa, holam and kamatz. In Genesis 2:4, e.g., the vocalizations is YǝHWāH and in Genesis 15:2 it is YĕHWiH.


delayah said:


> Where is the representation of the "real" or "actual" vowel points if it's not YeHoVaH ?
> 
> The texts had very little representation of any other vowel points and I believe the 7th century Jews would know better than we in this generation.


Nowhere because the vocalizations systems weren't yet developed when the the name was still pronounced by Jews. The Masoretes, even if they new the correct pronunciation, would certainly not have encoded it. The purpose of the system was to produce a standardized system for recital (hence the cantilation marks). And they would never have wanted the reciter to use the correct pronunciation. That was completely taboo. There are stories like that of a babbling child who accidentally pronounced the name of God and died immediately. Modern Jews generally don't believe in such horror stories any more but it is still a very deeply rooted taboo that one mustn't even attempt to know the pronunciation. All reconstruction attempt have been done by non-Jewish scholars, like Gresenius' reconstruction יַהְוֶה‎ (Yahweh), which is the most widely used today. It is safe to assume that the Tiberian vocalization of YHWH is purposefully wrong and not they were bad scholars.


----------



## delayah

You assume much. Too much in my view. This like many matters can be reasonably understood via the Ruach.


----------



## berndf

delayah said:


> You assume much. Too much in my view. This like many matters can be reasonably understood via the Ruach.


Neither of things are new or "assumptions". There are just a few people, usually evangelical fundamentalists, who for ideological reasons want to interpret the Masoretic text ignoring the history of Rabbinic scholarship and/or that the Masoretic text is not the only biblical tradition and that much older text have survived. They do not even recognize that even the Masoretic text itself has several vocalizations and not only _Yehova_.

Gresenius' reconstruction is mainly based on Greek transcriptions, from the LXX and transcriptions of the Samaritan pronunciation (ιαβε), as well as on the surviving short forms, like -_yah_ and -_yahu_.


----------



## Malki92

delayah said:


> You assume much. Too much in my view.


This really isn't up for debate. I recommend using any biblical encyclopedia or lexicon. The Jewish Encyclopedia is available online.


----------

