LSB or ESV for preaching?

[B.L.]

Yahweh instead of LORD -- I prefer the latter to align more with the practice of the Apostles in the NT

As for the use of Yahweh instead of "the Lord", we have the example of Jesus and the disciples in favor of the latter (again, as Jake pointed out).

I had a question for you gents on this one...and I ask your patience with any ignorance displayed on my part.

I don't know if this is accurate, but I read that during the intertestamental period between the OT and NT Jews stopped pronouncing "Yahweh", which appears ~6,000 times in the OT, out of fear the name would be misused or blasphemed and began substituting "Adonai" when reading scripture whenever the Hebrew word "Yahweh" appeared and that it was this development that led to the use of "Lord" in the NT. Since vowels weren't used in Hebrew the consonants "YHWH" were merged with the vowels from "Adonai" so that the Jewish reader knew to read "Adonai" instead of "Yahweh" for public reading. Our early English translations seemed to follow this with its use of "Jehovah", which is a similar mash-up of "YHWH" consonants with "Adonai" vowels. I think the ASV is the last to do this if I'm not mistaken. At any rate, IF this historical development is accurate wouldn't a return to "Yahweh" in the OT of our English translations be more true to the original text than "Lord", which is true to the NT Greek but not necessarily the OT Hebrew where words other than Adonai were used? Beyond the familiarity I have with Lord over Yahweh in our English translations I guess I struggle to see what the big deal is with the LSB using Yahweh in the OT and Lord in the NT.

 

[greenbaggins]

I had a question for you gents on this one...and I ask your patience with any ignorance displayed on my part.

I don't know if this is accurate, but I read that during the intertestamental period between the OT and NT Jews stopped pronouncing "Yahweh", which appears ~6,000 times in the OT, out of fear the name would be misused or blasphemed and began substituting "Adonai" when reading scripture whenever the Hebrew word "Yahweh" appeared and that it was this development that led to the use of "Lord" in the NT. Since vowels weren't used in Hebrew the consonants "YHWH" were merged with the vowels from "Adonai" so that the Jewish reader knew to read "Adonai" instead of "Yahweh" for public reading. Our early English translations seemed to follow this with its use of "Jehovah", which is a similar mash-up of "YHWH" consonants with "Adonai" vowels. I think the ASV is the last to do this if I'm not mistaken. At any rate, IF this historical development is accurate wouldn't a return to "Yahweh" in the OT of our English translations be more true to the original text than "Lord", which is true to the NT Greek but not necessarily the OT Hebrew where words other than Adonai were used? Beyond the familiarity I have with Lord over Yahweh in our English translations I guess I struggle to see what the big deal is with the LSB using Yahweh in the OT and Lord in the NT.

Your historical point is true. The conclusion you draw from it, however, does not entirely follow. The word "Lord" (usually with small capital letters) is simply a translation of Yahweh. Yahweh is a transliteration of the Hebrew letters (our best guess), but Lord is a translation. Is one more accurate than the other? If one is contemplating translating the name "Yeshua" in the OT book of Joshua, does one say "Yeshua," "Joshua," or "Jesus?" The first is a transliteration of the Hebrew, the second an anglicized version of the same name, and the third is the Greek translation of the name. How could one possibly determine which is "more" accurate?

 

[B.L.]

Your historical point is true. The conclusion you draw from it, however, does not entirely follow. The word "Lord" (usually with small capital letters) is simply a translation of Yahweh.

I appreciate your response.

There's a difference between the meanings of "Yahweh" and "Lord" though, right? Yahweh being a personal name and Lord being a title. Lord conveys authority but doesn't quite capture the full meaning of Yahweh which is related to God's self-existence and covenant relationship with Israel.

What role, if any, do you think the translation of the Septuagint from Greek into English plays for why we see Lord in our modern translations? Yahweh in Hebrew -> Kurios in Greek -> Lord in English.

 

[greenbaggins]

The name "Yahweh" is not limited to a personal name. It has implications of covenantal relationship (and lordship). The fact is that English does not have an exact equivalent to "yahweh" in one single word. One could coin an extraordinarily awkward word like "Is-ness." The phrase "I am" perhaps comes closest, but that leaves out the covenantal and relational implications. One has to choose among various not-quite-adequate English phrases/titles/names to translate "Yahweh." Incidentally, I have no trouble at all with a translation that decides to go with "Yahweh." But if you put Yahweh, you will be requiring everyone who reads it or preaches it to explain the name every time. It is not a name that conveys much to English speakers unless they know some of the Hebrew meaning.

 

[Alex Moore]

I would also note that the trisyllabic 'Jehovah' (pronounced Yĕ-hō-văh, stressed on the third syllable) fits the haiku structure (5 syllables, 7 syllables, 5 syllables) of the Shema (Deut. 6:4). The modern scholarly reconstruction of the disyllabic 'Yahweh' does not.

Shema yisrael / Yehovah elohenu / Yehovah echad
Hear, O Israel / the LORD our God / is one LORD

 

[iainduguid]

I would also note that the trisyllabic 'Jehovah' (pronounced Yĕ-hō-văh, stressed on the third syllable) fits the haiku structure (5 syllables, 7 syllables, 5 syllables) of the Shema (Deut. 6:4). The modern scholarly reconstruction of the disyllabic 'Yahweh' does not.

Shema yisrael / Yehovah elohenu / Yehovah echad
Hear, O Israel / the LORD our God / is one LORD

Why would a Hebrew saying have the form of an East Asian poem? Are there other Haiku in the Old Testament?

 

[Alex Moore]

Why would a Hebrew saying have the form of an East Asian poem? Are there other Haiku in the Old Testament?

Good questions. Or rather, why would a form of East Asian poetry borrow the structure of the inspired Shema? After all, it predates Japanese usage by approximately three millennia. And none other of which I am aware. Grace and peace!

 

[iainduguid]

I would also note that the trisyllabic 'Jehovah' (pronounced Yĕ-hō-văh, stressed on the third syllable) fits the haiku structure (5 syllables, 7 syllables, 5 syllables) of the Shema (Deut. 6:4). The modern scholarly reconstruction of the disyllabic 'Yahweh' does not.

Shema yisrael / Yehovah elohenu / Yehovah echad
Hear, O Israel / the LORD our God / is one LORD

An obvious problem with the proposed pronunciation Yehovah is that it fails to explain why when yhwh follows adonai it is pointed yehovih (e.g. Ps 69:7[Heb], an impossible Hebrew form, but which makes perfect sense if the vowels are intended to be read as 'elohim (so "Lord GOD", rather than "Lord LORD"). This is how the KJV and almost all modern versions read it (LSB has "Lord Yahweh").

 

[Alex Moore]

An obvious problem with the proposed pronunciation Yehovah is that it fails to explain why when yhwh follows adonai it is pointed yehovih (e.g. Ps 69:7[Heb], an impossible Hebrew form, but which makes perfect sense if the vowels are intended to be read as 'elohim (so "Lord GOD", rather than "Lord LORD"). This is how the KJV and almost all modern versions read it (LSB has "Lord Yahweh").

We have shifted from a discussion of syllabification and stress, to medieval vowel pointing. Be that as it may, this only presents a problem if one intends to enunciate the word from which the vowels are derived. There is not an inherent problem with the sets of vowels chosen for Yehovah, Yahweh, or necessarily any other viable reconstruction. However, issues do present themselves with alternate syllabification (e.g., Deut. 6:4), and stress (e.g., Yah׳-weh). In any event, I hope you have a blessed Lord's day tomorrow!

 

[Phil D.]

I would also note that the trisyllabic 'Jehovah' (pronounced Yĕ-hō-văh, stressed on the third syllable) fits the haiku structure (5 syllables, 7 syllables, 5 syllables) of the Shema (Deut. 6:4). The modern scholarly reconstruction of the disyllabic 'Yahweh' does not.

Good questions. Or rather, why would a form of East Asian poetry borrow the structure of the inspired Shema? After all, it predates Japanese usage by approximately three millennia. And none other of which I am aware.

Giving credence to a (supposed) singular OT textual structure on the basis that it matches up with a much later manifestation of that form found in a historically foreign milieu is...odd.

 

[Pomopu]

The problem with the discussion of haikou, from what I've heard, is that 5-7-5 is largely a loose structure, more a guide then a technical manual, and for the benefit of the English language. Actual Japanese haikou has underwent a long and complex history. Suffice to say, there is nothing magical about 5-7-5 and modern English-speaking and Japanese-speaking poets understand this. You can basically just google that. The issue is that Japanese pronunciation and syllabification is vastly different than ours.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Giving credence to a (supposed) singular OT textual structure on the basis that it matches up with a much later manifestation of that form found in a historically foreign milieu is...odd.

True, but, setting aside the syllabic argument/reasoning with regard to of the Shema, 7 letters vs. 6 is nevertheless significant given the numerology of Scripture (7 representing completeness, fullness, and/or perfection throughout). So a YvHvWvH structure (where "v" = a vowel) has always seemed more fitting than YvHWvH.

 

[Phil D.]

True, but, setting aside the syllabic argument/reasoning with regard to of the Shema, 7 letters vs. 6 is nevertheless significant given the numerology of Scripture (7 representing completeness, fullness, and/or perfection throughout). So a YvHvWvH structure (where "v" = a vowel) has always seemed more fitting than YvHWvH.

Perhaps. But even that would be a questionable basis for biblical linguists to make their determinations on.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

You'd be far better off using the KJV than the LSB

Lane, you said in another post that you were thoroughly Sturzian. Thus it could be better to compare the NKJV (a more updated translation with updated textual notes) to the LSB.

The ESV is far superior to the LSB as well,

The NASB 95 is also a less wooden translation than the LSB