God’s name and Hovah-logic (by Nehemia Gordon)

clip_image002.jpgReposted from Nehemia’s Wall. Visit Nehemia’s Wall for more in-depth posts regarding Hebrew sources of faith, brought to light in their history, language, and context.

A few weeks ago I was bathing an elephant in northern Laos, when she suddenly decided to toss me headlong into the murky waters of the Mekong River. My encounter with Ms. Snuffleupagus got me thinking about the Hebrew word for elephant, which is PIL פיל. This word does not appear in the Tanakh, simply because the Hebrew Bible had no occasion to speak about elephants. However, the word did exist in ancient Hebrew and later appears in the Mishnah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew word PIL is probably the source (via Phoenician) behind the Greek word ELEPHAS, from which the English word “elephant” is itself derived (via French).

The switching of the letters PH פ and L ל is called “metathesis.” PIL became LIPH in Greek and eventually elephas. [Greek adds the -as ending to many words; the “e” at the beginning could have been added in certain Hebrew or Phoenician dialects through what linguists call “prosthetic aleph.”] What all this means is that when you say “elephant” in English you are actually speaking Hebrew! This shouldn’t be such a surprise. Many animals unknown in ancient Europe have exotic names, such as Camel from the Hebrew Gamal גמל or Giraffe from some African language.

Believe it or not, the noble elephant can teach us something important about the name of Yehovah! Specifically, the rather silly claim that Yehovah יהוה comes from the Hebrew word HOVAH הוה meaning “disaster.” As I have explained in the past, this would be like saying that the word “assume” comes from the English words “ass,” “you,” and “me.” I call this “Hovah-logic,” which is defined as “knowing just enough Hebrew to be a disaster to yourself and others.”

In reality, Yehovah comes from the root HYH היה, meaning “to be,” whereas the word HOVAH (disaster) comes from the root HVH הוה. The two words only sound similar to someone blissfully ignorant of Hebrew grammar. For those who actually know Hebrew, Hoveh is a perfectly normal word meaning “he is” and Hovah is the feminine form meaning “she is” (both from HYH). Yehovah comes from Hoveh/ Hovah (“he/ she that is”). Neither has anything to do with the word “HOVAH” meaning “disaster” (from HVH).

My Laotian friend provides another example from Hebrew of how disastrous Hovah-logic can be. The Hebrew word for elephant, “PIL” פיל, sounds similar to “PILegesh” פילגש, meaning “concubine.” Using Hovah-logic, you could come up with some bizarre explanations. You might break down the word PILegesh into two words: PIL “elephant” and the verb GESH meaning “approach!” You could then say that ancient concubines were immensely fat and their paramours would shout at them, “Pil, Gesh!” “Approach, elephant!” As silly as this sounds, it’s actually more plausible than the name Yehovah having anything to do with the word for “disaster!”

So what is the source of the word PILegesh (concubine)? Anyone who knows Hebrew grammar immediately identifies PILegesh as a foreign loan-word. The dead giveaway is the fact that it has four (or possibly five) root-letters, rather than three. In reality, the Hebrew word PILegesh is most likely derived from the Greek word pallakis, meaning “young girl” (so according to Brown-Driver-Briggs).

Technically, the source of the word PILegesh might not be Greek, but some other related Indo-European language that no longer exists. Either way, it’s part of a handful of foreign loan-words in Hebrew that terminate with Indo-European “case-endings.” [Other examples include the names of the two Gittites Achish אכיש and Goliath גלית. Both of these names terminate with SH/ TH reflecting Indo-European case-endings. Another famous example is the word Apiryon אפריון (“chariot” in the KJV) in Song of Songs 3:9 containing the Indo-European case-ending “-on.”]

If you don’t know what a case-ending is, don’t worry about it. It just means that there was trade, travel, and invasions across the eastern Mediterranean and as a result Hebrew and Greek swapped a few words with each other. The concept of a “concubine,” what we might call in English a “mistress,” was alien to the original Hebrew language. From the Garden of Eden, Hebrew had the concept of a “wife” ISHAH אשה, but it had to look to Greek to express the perverse idea of a “mistress.” That’s how the word PILegesh (concubine) came into the Hebrew language. On the other hand, the Greeks were unaware of camels and elephants and had to borrow words for these creatures from Hebrew. To translate all this into modern terms, the Greeks gave us Marilyn Monroe and Monica Lewinsky, whereas the Hebrews gave us Dumbo and Babar. It was worth getting thrown into a polluted river by a cantankerous pachyderm just to learn all this.


Profile Picture

For myself, I understand the frustration that Nehemia may have when he encounters people who enjoy thinking they know enough Hebrew to teach others, but the end result is horrendous.

I have my own personal example of Nehemia’s Hova-logic. There’s a group that does not use shua at all because it sounds similar to a negative word in Hebrew. I don’t know their explanation exactly, but that’s why they call Yeshua (Jesus) as Yahusha – they remove all instances of shua from their reading and pronunciation of Hebrew. Then they pronounced the Father’s name as Yahuwah instead of Yehovah because they have an inherent distrust of the nikkud (vowel marking) in the Hebrew manuscripts.

The sad thing is that I know the anti-shua people quite well, and they are good people who simply believe what they believe because they are sincerely trying to do what they know to be right. What a tragedy.

About Jonathan Lankford

Jonathan has a Bachelor of Arts degree (BA) in Bible with a concentration in missions and intercultural communication. He also earned his Master's in Business Quality Management (MBQPM) and graduated Summa Cum Laude with a Master's in Education (MEd) focusing on Administration. He has been an educator since 2007, teaching English and humanities in Vietnamese universities. He currently holds the position of Associate Registrar at Tan Tao University, Vietnam.
This entry was posted in God the Father and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to God’s name and Hovah-logic (by Nehemia Gordon)

  1. GarthYahu says:

    Good viewpoint Brother Jonathan Lankford

    It is considerable by great weight of evidence and the actual presentation of this facts and proves that the Name of the Creator is YAHUWAH no other else, but then the Messiah Y’shua(Yeshua), Yahushua(Yehoshua in vowel points) had on its name the “shua” which has many meanings, the Yahusha logic is the “sha” in the ending in whom they(Yahusha users) claim that its salvation/deliverance or saves as in the root word “Yasha”, well the fact is the “sha/shah” is no where to be found in the Hebrew manuscripts nor in its equivalence on foreign neighbor countries and languages. So it must have “Yahushua” not the literal letter by letter sounding “Yahusha” relating the Yod, Hey, Waw, SHIN(SH), AYIN(AH)= “yahuSHA”. Doesn’t based on reliable information but on a poorly assessed Hebrew scholarship. YAHUWAH be Magnified :)

    Like

    • What is this “great weight of evidence” that His name is Yahuwah? Which manuscript and reference? The Hebrew manuscripts have Yehvah when the olam is missing, but Yehovah when it is present with full vowels. See https://jonathansdocs.com/2016/01/18/the-name-of-yehovah/. It’s okay. I used to say Yahuwah and then Yehowah until I found out it’s plainly written in the Hebrew manuscripts. It’s just a matter of choosing them for your evidence or choosing a translated manuscript or circumstantial evidence. I had to choose the Hebrew, of course.

      Like

  2. El C says:

    Thank you for sharing. I have similar frustrations on my blog, thehovahofjehovah.blogspot.co.uk and I would greatly appreciate it if you would comment for the cause or reply to something you find interesting or disagree with. I am no scholar so I have little to say and can only put forward the evidence from others. Many thanks, djelc

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s