"Sinai"

[CThomas]

Do you ever get some trivial little question in your mind that nags at you even though there is no importance to it whatsoever? I think this keeps coming up in my mind because I just finished Steve's lectures on the Pentateuch (starting Joshua now . . . .). Really outstanding lectures, by the way. But every time Mount Sinai is mentioned, it occurs to me that Steve pronounces "Sinai" as a three-syllable word. I have always grown up hearing it pronounced as having two syllables, both rhyming with the English word "tie." Steve has a third syllable in the middle that I think is a long "a" sound, or possibly a long "e" sound. I was curious if this is an idiosyncrasy of Steve's, or if it is commonplace. In favor of Steve's pronunciation, there certainly is the extra syllable in the adjectival form "Siniatic," which I think is four syllables instead of three. As I say, this is (as far as I can tell) completely without any importance, but I think it's drilled into my mind since it pops up as a minor question probably hundreds of times throughout the Pentateuch lectures, every time the word is mentioned.

Thanks!

CThomas

[steve]

My wife, who sat in on those lectures, made the same observation/complaint. She believed Sinai should be two syllables, not three. This may be correct. I do make two syllables out of the "a" and the "i." I am probably influenced by my early teachers, who pronounced the Canaanite town "Ai" as "aye-eye" (treating the two letters as a hiatus). This may be a habit reinforced (notice the hiatus in that word "reinforce") by my many years trying to pronounce Hawaiian street names.

Possibly, the two letters "ai" should be pronounced as one syllable: "eye" (that is, as a diphthong). I am just repeating what I heard from my youth—possibly wrongly. Perhaps it is better pronounced "SIGN-EYE." I am in the habit of pronouncing it "SIGN-AY-EYE." Probably my pronunciation is wrong, but old habits die hard. As a child, my ear heard people saying it as "SIGH-UH-NIGH" (sounds similar to cyanide) and was surprised when I actually saw how it was spelled.

I remember, when my kids were young, having a dramatized, narrated Bible on tape that we listened to. I did not recognize half the proper names, because the narrator pronounced every name in its proper Hebrew way. I realized then how much we Anglicize the proper names in scripture. I have since contemplated whether it might be advantageous for me to start pronouncing everything authentically. I dismissed the thought, thinking that I would have to unlearn too much (is that prophet's name "huh-BACK-kuk" or HAB-uh-kuk"?), and, if successful, many of my English-speaking hearers would have the same confusion that I had listening to those tapes.

[backwoodsman]

I grew up using King James Bibles, many of which have pronunciation helps added by the translators on words English readers may not otherwise know how to pronounce correctly. In that environment the way Steve pronounces it is almost universal, the only other pronunciation being 'sigh-uh-nigh', which I've always attributed to inattentive reading of the word. I don't recall ever hearing it as two syllables until much later, and then only rarely.

So once again we have solid proof that the KJV is the best Bible.

[Tres]

I used to wonder the same thing about Steve's pronunciation, and yes, especially after listening to his Pentateuch series. I also heard NT Wright pronounce it that way, then I really wondered. My wife makes the same pronunciation Steve does with Haggai, making it three rather than two syllables, with the ee sound in the middle, as Steve also does with Sinai.

[steve]

Out of curiosity, I just looked it up on the Miriam-Webster site. When you click the audio proninciation, the lady makes it two syllables, but when the phonetic spelling is given in writing, it gives both pronunciations as options (see also readers' comments at the link): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinai

My guess is that the two-syllable pronunciation is the more modern way English-speaking people say the word (as in "Sinai Peninsula"), and that the three-syllable way is the way older generations of English speakers said it. Which of the two is closer to the original Hebrew we may never know. There is no guarantee that the ancient Hebrew (a dead language) followed the same conventions of pronunciation as does modern Hebrew. No living person has heard anyone speak ancient (biblical) Hebrew.

[SteveF]

There is no guarantee that the ancient Hebrew (a dead language) followed the same conventions of pronunciation as does modern Hebrew. No living person has heard anyone speak ancient (biblical) Hebrew.

This verse of scripture comes to my mind whenever considering the proper pronunciation of ancient Hebrew words:

Jdg 12:6 they said to him, "Then say Shibboleth," and he said, "Sibboleth," for he could not pronounce it right.

If the Ephraimites were known to pronounce a word differently then it may be fair to assume other tribes had different accents as well since they lived in different areas. So there may not have been a universal way of pronouncing a lot of Hebrew words, even in their day. Just a guess.

[CThomas]

Thanks for the insights on this stuff, fellas. Steve, it is particularly inspiring that you are able to maintain a harmonious marriage when the two of you are divided over such a fundamental issue of doctrine.

CThomas

[Mitzi]

......

I remember, when my kids were young, having a dramatized, narrated Bible on tape that we listened to. I did not recognize half the proper names, because the narrator pronounced every name in its proper Hebrew way. I realized then how much we Anglicize the proper names in scripture. I have since contemplated whether it might be advantageous for me to start pronouncing everything authentically. I dismissed the thought, thinking that I would have to unlearn too much (is that prophet's name "huh-BACK-kuk" or HAB-uh-kuk"?), and, if successful, many of my English-speaking hearers would have the same confusion that I had listening to those tapes.

I was listening to a Dr. Michael Brown lecture the other day and was startled when I heard him refer to Melchizedek. He pronounced it in a way I can't even begin to describe here and I had never heard it pronounced that way before. What's important though, in my view, is the subject; who Melchizedek is not how to state his name, and the same with a mountain. As long as we understand which mountain we're all referring to does it really matter that much how we pronounce it? If so, I'm in big trouble because I'm southern.