Talk:Tetragrammaton

Merge discussion

Er - I note that there are three proposed merges for this page, but no apparrent location for their discussion. If the proposals are still live, I'll Support them. If there's a more appropriate place to discuss the merges, I think it would be useful to mention it here... Tevildo (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion at T:Jehovah, I believe however that whereas "Jehovah" concerns the god, both "Tetragrammaton" and "Yahweh" concern the name, i.e. exactly the same entity. I therefore add my support to the merge proposal of "Tetragrammaton" and "Yahweh". Dan ☺ 11:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, in both articles, all interwiki links either refer to the same article or end up at the same one after redirects (I checked over half). Dan ☺ 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Nope, the Jehovah article seems entirely devoted to discussing the pronounciation. Jheald (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Tetragrammaton must be the main article on God's name, and Yahweh a secondary, only in relation with the specific suggested form and pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, separate articles should be maintained for Tetragrammaton, Jehovah, and Yahweh. The Tetragrammaton is an entirely separate subject, although care should be taken that the primary discussions of specific Tetragrammaton translations and pronunciations (that is, Jehovah and Yahweh) be made in the latter two articles. Regarding the latter two subjects, Jehovah and Yahweh, each has a rich and interesting history largely independent of the other (variations of those names, such as Jahveh, Yehuwa, etc, can appear within those major categories).
Frankly, I think an effort to combine even just existing article material would kick back a 'long article, consider splitting' message from Wikipedia.

Oppose merge. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge -- We can discuss the proper division of labor with "Yahweh", "Jehovah", etc., but "Tetragrammaton" cannot usefully be a mere redirect... AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Let's please not discuss the article Jehovah, since the proposal doesn't concern it.
2. Tetragrammaton#Pronunciation sends readers to the article Yahweh, which indeed offers several pronunciations other than "Yahweh" (YeHoWah, Adonai etc. in Hebrew and others in other languages): to me this suggests that if the article Yahweh remains separate, it should be titled "Pronunciations of the tetragrammaton", since that's what it's actually about, isn't it? Dan ☺ 23:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Support merge -- it's the same term with different pronunciations applied.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Support merge -- ditto what Tim said. -Lisa (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge -- The articles must be seperated. Tetragrammaton or YHWH must have all the general details about the use of God's name, and the articles Yahweh and Jehovah must have specific details for the specific suggested forms of the Tetragrammaton or YHWH. Many have not understood yet that even Yahwen is nothing more than a suggested or speculated form of the Tetragrammaton.--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge -- "Tetragrammaton" is the name of a name, and is reasonably focussed on name-specific issues. "Yahweh" is the name of God, or at least a reasonable attempt at rendering the name of God in English. Thus the "Yahweh" article can reasonably include the attributes, character, and history of God that are revealed by the name and the way it is used.Michael Courtney (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically a sound objection, only the article "Yahweh" in its present form deals exclusively with matters of pronunciation, spelling, transcription etc., and not at all with "the attributes, character, and history of God that are revealed by the name". Thus your opposition seems misguided (although of course formally valid). Dan ☺ 22:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Michael Courtney, the addition you made to Yahweh after my preceding comment might be a step in the right direction towards creating the kind of article you described ("the attributes, character, and history of God"), however, the paragraph you added still constitutes less than 2.5% of the article, which remains substantially about matters of pronunciation, spelling and transcription of the name. A good article about the god rather than the name is in my opinion certainly called for, but making this small addition unfortunately moved us away from that goal, creating the false impression that Yahweh is already about the god and not the name. Let's rather merge these two articles, both of which are in fact still about the name, and take care that a new, good, comprehensive article exists about the god. Dan ☺ 06:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge (still) Think about the Yahweh article as describing the main character of a book. It would make sense that the article concentrate on the character's attributes, history, and character as revealed in the book with perhaps minor sections regarding etymology, pronounciation, and translation, and perhaps a minor section regarding influence of earlier literature and beliefs. As I see it, a merge followed by a complete re-write is not the best way to get from the current article to the more desirable article. Wikipedia articles evolve over time, and creating the Yahweh article from a blank page is less likely to produce the desired outcome and more likely to produce a lower-quality work-in-progress than evolving the current article by expanding the material on the attributes, character, and history of Yahweh while condensing the material that can be more fully covered on the Tetragrammaton page. Of course, the assistance of Tetragrammaton editors in organizing and condensing the material in the Yahweh article regarding pronounciation, spelling, and translation would be greatly appreciated.Michael Courtney (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're right – until that happens, we're stuck with two percent of an article on the "character" and (at least) two separate, uncoordinated articles about the name. Dan ☺ 21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(!) Hi again Michael Courtney – the articles God in Abrahamic religions and God in Judaism are existing articles concerned with exactly what you described as "the attributes, character, and history of God". Your addition is relevant to (at least one of) these two articles and, moreover, pertains to god independently of a specific name, thus there's no need to repeat that information in "Yahweh". Dan ☺ 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support merge -- there is no obvious reason to separate a word from its (modern) pronounciation and its meaning. This should be an article about the divine name of the Jewish deity, maybe even about the deity itself (God in Abrahamic religions). The whole issue of how and why Jews do not utter the word and make substitutions should be moved to its own article, since such religious fundamentalist minutiae are rather irrelevant to the general reader who seeks information about the biblical deity (because that's what someone who enters "Yahweh" in the search textbox is looking for). Cush (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With wall-crushingly and blindingly loud and bright audio-visual effects oppose since this Tetragrammaton article is a suitable place for all linguistic/phonetical stuff that is bugging the article Yahweh with its off-topicalness. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In support for my opposition, see Talk:Yahweh#Split article: Tetragrammaton (correct_pronunciation). I propose we merge the split and the merge efforts into a new do-neither effort, concentrating on sorting linguism into Tetragrammaton and God-speculation into Yahweh. ... said: Rursus (mb_ork²) 09:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Dear AnonMoos, what do you mean by "old phrasing was better"? -- pvasiliadis  00:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your comment here until just now, but I left some comments on your user talk page... AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The phrasing and concept "personal name of God" is somewhat anachronistic, since it does not entirely accurately represent Jewish thought of the Biblical or the Rabbinic periods -- and furthermore, in the modern period it is strongly identified with the particular ideology and theology of one specific relatively small group. For these reasons, the phrase would best be completely avoided in the overview article Tetragrammaton (though it may have a place in other articles in different contexts)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Biblical Hebrew simply did not have a "v" sound as a pronunciation of the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, period, end of story, that's all she wrote. The matter is not open to legitimate dispute among mainstream reputable scholars... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

1. It is not a matter of "anachronism". It is clear by far that the sacred Tetragrammaton is the proper name of the Biblical deity, His personal name.

2. It is at least a misunderstanding that the notion of Tetragrammaton as the proper name of the God of the Bible "is strongly identified with the particular ideology and theology of one specific relatively small group". Both Judaism and mainstream Christianity believe according to the official dogmas that this is the proper name of God.

3. I did not get into details about the waw letter. The point is that in English it has been transliterated for centuries as v.

As a sample I quote a couple of sources. If more is needed, I would happily supply them into the text of the article.

"The Tetragrammaton is the ancient Israelitish name for God [...] the original name of God [...] the Divine Name [...] the true name of God [...] the Sacred Name." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, "Tetragrammaton")

"The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Jehovah (Yahweh)")

"The full and proper name of the Lord of Israel, written with four consonants YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton [...] the divine name." (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14, "Yahweh")

"The name of God in the OT." (Anchor Bible Dictionary, Ed. by D. N. Freedman, Doubleday, 1992, "Yahweh")

See also Briggs & Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament (1904, pp. 36, 39, 48); John Phillips, Exploring the Epistles of John: An Expository Commentary (2003, Kregel Publications, pp. 119, 120); Christopher Nelson, Word studies in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin (Southwestern Press, 1941, pp. 35, 36, 40). -- pvasiliadis  06:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

That's nice -- however, this rather short article has a strong focus on the Tetragrammaton as it appears in the Bible, and not on the remote cultural connections and chronologically much later further developments of the Tetragrammaton (those things can perfectly well be discussed elsewhere, but they're not really in the scope of this particular article as it has stood for many months). The phrase "personal name of God" is not a completely adequate summary of the Tetragrammaton as it appears in the Bible, and in the modern period this phrase tends to be very narrowly associated with the particular ideology and theology of one specific relatively small group. For these reasons, the phrase is not really appropriate for inclusion in this article.

And with respect to the Hebrew language of the Biblical period, "V" is simply plain flat-out 100% factually wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

1. In the Bible the point is even more clearer that Tetragrammaton is the proper name of God. Moses was given the name of God, not a group of names/tiles. At your disposal for sources on Biblical base. 2. The article mentions the renderings of the Tetragrammaton in Latin, English, etc and the comment for the v is concerning these ones. -- pvasiliadis  13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

This article somewhat tangentially mentions post-Biblical matters, but the core focus remains on the language of the Bible, so that post-Biblical factors are not really appropriate to alter the core terminology or focus of this article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The term Tetragrammaton itself is not mentioned in the OT or NT and it is of post-OT origin. If you refer to the deity that is named after this name, Bible has many to say -both OT and NT. But I don't think that an encyclopedical article should be based on primary sources (as the Bible) alone. -- pvasiliadis  14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Your first sentence is perfectly true, but "Tetragrammaton" is still the standard terminology used in English-language Biblical criticism for the last 400 years or so. This article shouldn't necessarily "depend on primary sources", but its main subject matter is very much the Tetragrammaton in the Bible, as opposed to developments of the Tetragrammaton in modern cultures... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The use, even the meaning of Tetragrammaton, changed even during the OT era, not to mention the NT period. What "developments" "in modern cultures" do you believe that should not be included in the article? -- pvasiliadis  06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I think it's very safe to say that meanings or associated cultural developments which did not occur until long after the Biblical period, or which are not part of accepted mainstream scholarly terminology, should not be given a prominent place on this article (though they may very well have a place as part of other articles). AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If such kind of information will appear in the article, we will re-examine it thoroughly. -- pvasiliadis  07:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"No" to all of this. F.ex. "The Tetragrammaton is the ancient Israelitish name for God" is way wrong, it is a Greek description of the four ("tetra") Hebrew letters ("grammata") YODH-HE-WAW-HE. Tetragrammaton is the name of the name, not the name itself, see Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It's not common discussing the name itself outside linguist circles, but it happens, and when it occurs, there might be a confusion between the name and the name of the name. ... said: Rursus (mb_ork²) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget "Wonderland" above, instead ref2 Alice's Through the Looking-Glass, the dialogue with the White Knight search for "HADDOCKS' EYES". ... said: Rursus (mb_ork²) 10:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

YHWH

YHWH represent the 4 elements of Yah's throne. Yahweh is like calling the YMCA Yamaca, it was translated from Jehovah which was an attempt at making a word out of JHVH in Old English from the Latin Vulgate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.27.100 (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable to believe that some mystics or similar have come to that conclusion, and if we have a suitable external source claiming this, we can also use it in the article. Anyone? ... said: Rursus (mb_ork²) 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Except the part about Jehovah, which is an error: the name was never Jehovah. ... said: Rursus (mb_ork²) 10:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Four Elements" YHWH may also recapitulate the four stages mentioned in Siddha practices, from the physical, through the astral to the causal and supra-causal bodies: additionally these four letters might be taken to represent the four corners of new Jerusalem, with their diagonals intersecting at the central Throne. 71.51.74.151 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is for basically for YHWH in the Bible or the Biblical period, as discussed above in a previous subsection. Much later cultural or mystical interpretations of the Tetragrammaton may be suitable for other articles, but probably not for this one. AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why some things may appear in "discussions" that do not appear in articles. However, much earlier potential sources may shed light on some points of ignorance which may have continued for many centuries even unto the present day. 71.51.76.150 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

---

The YHWH may have been an attempt to duplicate the Chinese, Yi Yau or Yau Yi, the science of Healing Seeking, as delineated in Hua Hu Ching by Lao Tzu from more ancient sources. Such traveling the silk route to ancient Israel, along with the idea that "Divine Subtle Origin" is beyond words and language, cf. Tao Teh Ching could well have been the gift of a more ancient Chinese culture to the more modern culture of then newbie Israel.71.51.73.103 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt it -- Lao Tzu lived about 500 years after the period when we can be reasonably certain that the Tetragrammaton was already in use. Also, before the "Closure of the Eurasian Ecumene" in Hellenistic times, contacts between the Mediterranean region and China were extremely indirect and fragmentary. Anyway, what is pronounced Yi Yau in modern Mandarin could have been pronounced completely differently in 600 A.D. (much less 600 B.C.), as reconstructed by Bernhard Karlgren and those who have continued his work... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your doubt as it itself seems a most elegant modern obfuscating convenience: Chinese cultural development has been shown to precede the culture of Israel by several thousands of years and the earlier, generally, simply eidetically begets or spawns the later, either by imitation or by osmosis through intermediaries. In the case of varying pronunciations -- that is a point, as even the disputations upon the various pronunciations of YHWH should give us much reflective pause -- and should spark some wonder as to whence the concept(s) derive -- certainly they do not smack of sheep farmers and military mercenary thought, but rather of some partially assimilated foreign material, either of Heaven, Otherworld, or China 71.51.76.205 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to engage in a general philosophical discussion, but the simple fact is that before 500 B.C. contacts between the Mediterranean and China were sporadic and extremely tenuous (mediated by a whole series of middlemen) -- and there's very little evidence that much of anything was conveyed between the two cultural zones other than simple material items (domesticated crops and animals, and a few small portable precious objects). The silk road didn't become a regular major trade route until after 500 B.C. I have no idea which specific Chinese characters lie behind the transcription "Yi Yau", but if you were to look up those characters in a standard reference work, such as Edwin G. Pulleyblank's A Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin, then you might be very surprised by their pronunciation long after 500 B.C. And the most basic principle is "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". The ancient Israelites were demonstrably inflenced in a number of ways by the cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia (something which is not true with respect to China), yet remained stubbornly independent with regards to the central tenets of their distinctive theology. The only kind of diffusion between China and the Mediterranean that was possible before 500 B.C. was indirect transmission of material objects and "stimulus diffusion" -- neither of which would permit borrowing of words and subtle philosophical concepts... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone not engaging in a general philosophical discussion...oh, well, how linguistically amusing. The simple fact is that "Yi Yau," as given as an approximated, modern English pronunciation by a modern, native Chinese speaker who traces his Taoist ancestry back many generations, -- when reversed, "Yi Yau," resembles, "Yau Yi," which resembles a tentative version, when modified, of "Yah-weh." As the "gods" of the Jews, preceding Yahweh or YHWH each had quite notable and distinctive names, and statuary, or dolls, not encoded, composite or "not to be spoken," or "incapable of being spoken," or "forbidden to be spoken." Those gods, statues and dolls, displaced by "Yahweh" seem to have been supplanted by something judged as "superior," and perhaps "foreign." Since "Yahweh" did in fact displace various other idols, dolls and gods, "Yahweh" had to come from somewhere. And "Yahweh" did not come from this article; "Yahweh" came from elsewhere than Israel, be it extraterrestrials, Chinese or Moses imagination. It is amusing to watch persons try to attribute roots to "Yahweh," when they know neither the word's source nor its actual pronunciation. Another clue from Taoist thought could well be, that, as "Divine Subtle Origin" is "beyond words and language," then there really isn't any name or word for it. That kind of idea does seem to have made it in to Western thought in the practice of trying not to say God's name. At the lower levels of this discussion, people just don't know how to say it, yet may think they can and that it was after all somehow "Invented Here," so one doesn't have to worry about the NIH (Not Invented Here = automatic rejection) syndrome. As for the "Occam's razor" on it; as it concerns God and Theology, it is most likely that few to none of us know what we are talking about, otherwise there could be a simple explanation we could all easily accept. 71.51.78.153 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your amusement does nothing whatever to change the basic facts that we can be reasonably confident that the name YHWH was in use already before Lao-Tzu, during a period when there is no evidence of cultural contacts as such between the Mediterranean and Chinese cultural areas -- only indirect transmission of a relatively few material items through a long sequence of middlemen in between. And if you don't know what actual Chinese characters lie behind the modern transcription "Yi Yau", and are too lackadaisical to research what the probable pronunciations of these characters would have been ca. 600 A.D. (which could be radically different from the modern Mandarin pronunciations, as is often the case), then it's difficult to ascertain what valid basis there is for your very broad and categorical sweeping assertions... And the fact that modern scholars are ignorant about some matters doesn't mean that everything is equally possible, or that normal considerations of evidence, plausibility, and taking into account geographic proximity suddenly don't apply. AnonMoos (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, what such a broad swath of thought is, has a name, it is called, "speculative theory of original transmission," in this instance, one that you appear to disagree with rather vehemently for whatever personal reasons -- I will however remind you, that "YHWH," in thought, meaning, encoding, documentation or sound, doesn't really need your personal protection or "ownership," and is more universal than say, your opinions, or possessions, and has, mercifully, currently progressed rather far beyond your, or any Earth nation's or culture's ownership abilities. 71.51.76.172 (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You can interpret things however you want, but that doesn't change historical facts and evidence, nor the accepted consensus of among scholars in the field... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor do your pretensions of scholarship or quoted sources predate Lao Tzu, or indeed any of his most ancient, superior sources which obviously predate and remain superior to anything you appear capable of imagining. You speak like an Israeli sheep, merely saying what you think is "Baa," but sounding to others as "Baal," a rather primitive form of ridiculous self-worship. 71.51.77.113 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

"The ancient Israelites were demonstrably influenced in a number of ways by the cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia, yet remained stubbornly independent with regards to the central tenets of their distinctive theology." In what way? Israelites were polytheists just as everybody else. The distinction in theology, namely monotheism, came very late, probably in the 6th century BCE. So caution should be taken to make such claims. And of course the assumption of Chinese influence is just ridiculous and really needs no further elaboration. Cush (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're greatly oversimplifying a rather complex issue. The Bible itself is very clear about backsliding monarchs (including Solomon himself), Asherah poles, worship of the queen of heaven etc., but it's also clear that there was a vocal "prophetic" movement advocating the sole and exclusive worship of YHWH during much of the divided monarchy period. A thoroughgoing consistent monotheism didn't have thoroughgoing strong government support until the reign of Josiah of Judah, probably, but to say that the Israelites were happy unconflicted polytheists before the reign of Josiah is rather misleading, since polytheism was a somewhat controversial issue, and the vocal reform faction developed a distinctive theology whose central tenets were stubbornly independent of most Mesopotamian or Egyptian cultural influences, and which had some degree of government backing during the reigns of some of what the Bible regards as "good" monarchs, such as Hezekiah of Judah... In any case, YHWH was originally the name of the national god of the Israelites (just as Chemosh was the name of the national god of the Moabites, Qaws was the name of the national god of the Edomites, etc.) even before strictly monotheistic ideas were widely promulgated, so the name YHWH goes back a long ways (something which 71.51.XX.XX doesn't seem to understand). AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bible itself is not a source I accept as reliable on Israelite history. The Bible is Jewish propaganda and wishful historization of much later beliefs. Cush (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nice for you, then. If you completely dismiss the Bible as a historical source, then we have extremely minimal evidence for almost any events in Judea/Israel during the period 1000-600 B.C. (i.e. archaeological remains which are of very limited value in reconstructing the flow of historical events; inscriptions by Egyptian and Mesopotamian rulers invariably boasting of their glorious conquests, which are subject to their own problems of reliability; seal impressions containing various names; and some mostly rather brief and fragmentary contemporary alphabetic inscriptions -- the only one of which contains anything approaching a coherent historical narrative being the Mesha stele). That being the case, it's hard to see what basis you think you have for your sweeping and categorical assertions about the beliefs of the Israelites during the period... And anyway, if the books of Samuel and Kings are "wishful" thinking, then it's hard to see why so many travails and backslidings were included, instead of a rather simpler and streamlined narrative with a glorious ending. AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"so the name YHWH goes back a long ways (something which 71.51.XX.XX doesn't seem to understand)." And just how far back might that be, into late Phoenician? Or early Phony...the stories of the first previous lives of the Buddha speak of eras around 300,000 years ago...and no linguist mention of even an ur-Hebrew language, then. The logic of the Creationists ends at about 5769 years ago, as I recall.71.51.78.153 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- I entirely fail to see how numerological calculations of the Kali-Yuga are of any relevance here, but if you look at real historical evidence in real scholarly sources (such as "Writings from Ancient Israel: A Handbook of Historical and Religious Documents" by Klaas A.D. Smelik ISBN 0-664-25308-3 which I happen to have on my shelf here), then you will find a number of inscriptions from the Divided Monarchy period which have religious content or theophoric names, providing evidence for the use of the Tetragrammaton YHWH at that time. The exact dates could be quibbled over, but for the purposes of the present discussion, let's just pick 700 B.C. as a nice round conservative number. 700 B.C. is perfectly adequate to support my arguments, since in 700 B.C. there were no major regular direct or quasi-direct trade routes between China and the Mediterranean era, and no evidence of any significant direct or quasi-direct cultural contacts between the two areas. AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What ever indeed, for those were not numerological calculations but approximations of Gautama's life stream events during previous incarnations. You speak with such certainty of 700 BCE it is very amusing; I suppose you could opine too that the Hittites and Romans never invaded Israel because of the sound tightness of her borders; that Jesus never existed and that Sodom and Gomorrah were cruelly sadistic lies. People have all kinds of weird opinions -- so you and I are not alone -- perhaps it's just you. 71.51.76.172 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nice -- 700 B.C. is based on detailed factual historical evidence (as you could see for yourself by perusing the book indicated, or other relevant reputable works of scholarship), and not abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculations. Furthermore, I'm the one sticking to established accepted facts in this conversation, while you seem to be the one going into strange pseudo-history... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at this point (2009/5769) in time, 700 BCE is very well filtered, as you could probably imagine if you attempted to remember your breakfasts at that time through your own imagination. Having read through some thousand or so Earth articles recounting the histories of those times I can only smile at your assertion(s) that you have what appears "absolute truth." A point is, at about that time the Tetragrammaton apparently gained some greater currency, both as a sound and as a forbidden, no-sound, both of which it retains to this present day. 71.51.76.172 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with these articles is they attract kooks. Still, it does keep them off the street. PiCo (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also the good of these articles, for we have often walked these streets before and the pavement always stayed beneath our feet before -- no "trouble" can mean you're not learning anything. 71.51.76.172 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Old history that used to be at this page

Some old history that used to be at the title "Tetragrammaton" is now at Talk:Tetragrammaton/Old history. Graham87 09:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Waw" vs. "Vav"

The third letter in the Tetragrammaton is Vav, the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is pronounced like a 'v' in English, not like a 'w'. Considered as a letter present in multiple Semitic alphabets, it appears to be referred to by the name "Waw". But in Heberew, the name of this letter is pronounced "Vav", not "Waw".

I propose that in the table of letters present in the introduction, the link text ought to be changed to read "Vav", not "Waw". Thoughts? DRE (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In Biblical Hebrew, as opposed to modern Hebrew, it was a "W". See that article. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The pronunciation "v" would be completely anachronistic for the Biblical period... AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this has been discussed previously and was agreed that it would be noted thus: "The letters, properly read from right to left (in Biblical Hebrew)". The Biblical period had a pronunciation of "w" as noted by Grover cleveland. --AustinWellbelove (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tiberian vocalization, presented in the Masoretic Text preserves the pronunciation of "W" for the letter Waw, the sound "V" originally was used for the letter "Veth", its use for "Waw" is of a later innovation. See main article - Tiberian Vocalization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanyb (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the table in section 3 need to be corrected?

The expression holam/waw is used three times in the "Explanation Column" of the table in Section 3 of the main article. But does the on-line Leningrad Codex show any holem waws in any of the 6 variants of YHWH? All of the waws definitely show a vowel point under them, either a qamets or a hireq. If any of these waws were holem-waws that would indicate that the waw had two different vowel points assigned to it, which I believe is not allowed.

The online Leningrad Codex seems to show that in 3 variants there is a defective holem shown at the top left of the first heh, and there is no defective holem shown at the top left of the heh in the other 3 variants.

In my opinion each of the six variants show a regular waw [NOT A HOLEM WAW] with a vowel point directly under it.

In my opinion there are no holem-waws shown in any of those six variants of YHWH, and the text in the "Explanation Column" should be corrected.

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What it means is "the ħolem dot to the right of the waw"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yehimilk/Yehawmilk given meaning is not supported by the sources

Concerning the change I made, none of the references mention that Yehimilk/Yehawmilk means “YH the king”/“YHW the king”. -- pvasiliadis  18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"I AM WHO I AM", said Re

Could some mention be made in this article that the Ancient Egyptian 'Book of the Heavenly Cow' quotes the creator god Re (Ra) as saying "I am who I am"? This scripture is considered older than its earliest surviving inscription on one of the gilded shrines of Tutankhamen (also occurs in the tombs of Seti I, Ramesses II, III and IV.) Certainly Moses as an Egyptian prince would have heard of it! Please see:

The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry (Third Edition)

Professor William Kelley Simpson (Editor) Yale University Press, 2003 Page 294

64.90.143.2 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Samgwan Spiess

However, the Egyptian language did not have a verb meaning "to be" formed from the Triconsonantal root h-w-y and/or h-y-y so the relevance of the Egyptian thing to the Tetragrammaton itself would be rather tenuous and indirect... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Tetragrammaton → YHWH —

• The term "YHWH" used to represent יהוה, the proper name of the God of Israel used in the Hebrew Bible, is in greater use today by scholars and the general public than is "Tetragrammaton". YHWH also represents the Hebrew original more accurately than does the aforementioned Greek title. User:Newmanyb 06:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• If so, then also move the existing page YHWH to e.g. YHWH/version 2 to get it away from under the incoming page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically oppose -- YHWH is used in mentioning the name, but when referring to it as an entity, Tetragrammaton is the long-established usage... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"YHWH ... is in greater use today by scholars" - really? That certainly does not tally with my experience. Any evidence of that? Knepflerle (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose in greater use by the general public??? I highly doubt that. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• oppose not correct, not common, as pointed out above. —innotata 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

recent anonymous IP edits (Q're perpetuum)

Including "Yəhōwāh" in the lead paragraph of the article is extremely misleading, since when the Masoretes added vowel-point diacritics (Niqqud) to the consonantal Tetragrammaton YHWH, they never had the slightest intention of signalling any such pronunciation as "Yəhōwāh"[sic] -- rather, they intended to signal that YHWH was read aloud as Adonai when reciting the Biblical text. In the technical terminology of Hebrew Biblical studies, this is known as a "Q're perpetuum". Please consult Image:Qre-perpetuum.png and Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, Why didn't the Masoretes add the precise vowel points of Adonai to the consonantal Tetragrammaton, if they were trying to signal the Jewish reader that the vocalized Tetragrammaton was to be read as "Adonai".

It just seems that there would be less conflict about "Qere perpetuum" among lay persons,

if the Masoretes had placed a "hatef patah" under the yod in God's name.

Just in passing a Hebrew Scholar on the B-hebrew Discussion board claims that not only is the shewa under the Yod in God's nam pronounced with an "a" sound, but that the shewa under the yod in the name of the city that I pronounce "Yerusalem" is also pronounced with an "a" sound.

AnonMoos, is that your understanding?

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Because a Q're Perpetuum is a mnemonic device for trained readers who are familiar with the scribal conventions being used. So any diacritic which could be omitted without creating ambiguity is somewhat redundant, and omitting it would conserve ink and scribal effort. In the case of YHWH, the only two choices are whether it's recited as "Adonai" or recited as "Elohim". That's why the "o" vowel diacritic is very frequently omitted -- since Adonai and Elohim both have an "o" vowel in their middle syllables, the "o" diacritic doesn't help in disambiguating between the two readings. Similarly, simplifying a hateph-patah to a shewa saves effort in writing and doesn't create any ambiguity. The fact that there is still a hateph-patah (a vowel) there when YHWH is read as "Adonai" is seen when a monoconsonantal preposition is prefixed (as discussed in the middle section of Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png ).

The pronunciation of shewa with different qualities in various Biblical recitation/pronunciation traditions is a complex subject, and I don't think it has much to do with YHWH as a Q're Perpetuum for "Adonai"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos:

It would appear as if the only thing that a KJBO Christian could know for sure, is that the Masoretes NEVER placed the exact vowel points that are found in Adonai, into the Tetragrammaton, to indicate to the Jewish reader that he or she was to read "Adonai" and not "Yehowah".

It appears as if the layman must believe by faith [ i.e. Faith in Hebrew Scholars ] that Hebrew word #3068 [ i.e. יְהֹוָה ] is to be read as "Adonai", EVEN THOUGH THE MASORETES NEVER POINTED THE TETRAGRAMMATON WITH THE EXACT SAME VOWEL POINTS AS ARE FOUND IN ADONAI !!!!!!!!

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- the Masoretes worked from almost a thousand years before the King James Bible came into existence until over five hundred years before the King James Bible came into existence, and they couldn't have cared less about the English language (which was not a Jewish language at that time, and which would not have had the slightest relevance to the liturgical recitation of Hebrew even if it had been a Jewish language). So unfortunately, you're just going to have to get used to the fact — like it or not — that the masoretes didn't have KJV-onlyites in mind when they wrote their Bible manuscripts. Instead, they had in mind trained liturgical readers of Hebrew who were familiar with the scribal conventions used by the masoretes. Furthermore, the Masoretes didn't leave behind any surviving general descriptions of the broad principles behind their orthographic practices. Instead, they left behind the marginal masora, the masora magna, and a certain highly-technicalistic literature which is an extension of the masora (i.e. concerned with the exact distribution of variant forms across the text).

I could multiply copious abundant and redundant citations that would show that all mainstream reputable scholars support the fact that the Masoretes added vowel-diacritic annotations to the consonantal tetragrammaton YHWH for the purpose of indicating whether YHWH was to be read aloud as either Adonai or read aloud as Elohim as part of the accepted liturgical recitation practices of the masoretic period, but the final bit of internal orthographic corroboration which you seem to crave was apparently not considered very important by the masoretes themselves (who were interested in making things completely unambiguous for liturgical reciters of the Hebrew Bible, but couldn't have foreseen your particular doubts here a thousand years later). AnonMoos (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again AnonMoos.

In one of your earlier posts you wrote: "Similarly, simplifying a hateph-patah to a shewa saves effort in writing and doesn't create any ambiguity."

Of course the Masoretes clearly proved in the Leningrad codex that a hateph-segol could "sort of easily" be placed under a yod in a varient of YHWH in which they had placed the precise vowel points of Elohim.

Certainly the Masoretes could have pointed YHWH with the precise vowel points that are found in Adonay [if they had wanted to] and there would have been no ambiguity at all, for the Jewish reader who was trying to determine what word the Masoretes wanted him to read.

Of course in the image below the Masoretes had hand wrote a hatef segol because in that particular variant, they wanted the Jewish reader to read "Elohim". OBVIOUSLY if a hatef segol will fit under a yod, a hatef patah would fit under a yod.

It would appear as if the Masoretes must have had some other reason why they didn't place the precise vowel points of Adonai into YHWH.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/TriplePhoto.JPG

The bottom text is from the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text of 1525 A.D.

The upper text is from a facsimile of the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.

Seeker02421 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"I woman"

I just heard somebody claim that "YHWH" translates to "I woman" or "I am woman". Here is a excerpt of what the person said

"Who is JE-HO-VAH? The name "Jehovah", is a code word used in the place of God's actual name. This code was used because (according to the "revisionists") if anyone should say God's real name, "the entire universe would end." So they said. So they invented a code word known as the TETRAGRAMMATON. This code is composed of four letters, YHWH. It can be used in place of God's real name. You are allowed to pronounce it "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" (and a couple of lesser used variations). What is important here is that this code supposedly represents not the name actually, but rather what God is.

So that you can understand, let's translate YHWH to Latin. "Y" translates to "I". So the first letter is to announce that "I" am what follows. HWH = "EVE" when translated to Latin. Y-H-W-H = I-E-V-E. What does "EVE" mean? It is the prime word for all females on this planet. It means "WOMAN" I-WOMAN = I-EVE = Y-HWH.

I was wondering if any professionals here could check this out and tell me if it actually works or not. I highly doubt it becasue I have never heard it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.136.190 (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take up some healthy outdoor activity.PiCo (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.46.42 (talk)

I whole-heartedly concurr! 98.67.97.108 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew YHWH was actually transcribed into medieval Latin as "IEVE" by Peter Alfonsi in his Tetragrammaton-Trinity diagram (see Image:Tetragrammaton-Trinity-diagram-12thC.jpg). However, the letter or sound "I" does not mean first person singular in either Latin or Hebrew (the Latin first person singular pronoun is ego, while the Hebrew first person singular pronoun is ani or anokhi), and the original Hebrew form of the name "Eve" contains a ħet consonant ח (i.e. voiceless pharyngeal) which is quite separate and distinct from the he consonant ה (non-pharyngeal) found in the Tetragrammaton... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Beaten to Death!

People have taken the whole subject of "tetragrammaton" and beaten it to death!
How many score paragraphs does it take?
I do not believe that God Almighty likes this.98.67.97.108 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And you probably haven't read through the pre-2009 discussion archives yet... AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And just wait til they get around to the 72 Names of God in the Kabbalah, for the discussion will be perhaps 72 times as complex: one hopes God is tickled, regardless of what you may believe. 69.69.17.24 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Double Yud

The article seems to be missing an explanation of use of double Yud as a graphical substitute for the Tetragrammaton, with the nikkud on the Yud and Vav of the Tetragrammaton placed under each of the two Yud in the substitute. Not sure where in the article may be a good fit for this explanation. CJLippert (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why היה and הוה as triconsonantal roots are transcribed "h-y-y" and "h-w-y"

In the so-called lamed-he roots, the final radical is sometimes spelled with the Hebrew letter ה in absolute word-final position, but morphologically and phonologically the third radical is actually a [y] sound, as can be seen when many endings are added (הייתי hayiti "I was" etc.). Roots that would be transcribed into English as "h-y-h" or "h-w-h" would actually be lamed-he-mapiq roots (with a real guttural consonant in third position), which would be something completely different... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh vs. Yahwe

It's almost certain that the final H in YHWH was not phonetically pronounced (definitely the case if YHWH is connected to the roots היה "h-y-y" / הוה "h-w-y" -- see previous section above). However, the overwhelmingly used transliteration of Gesenius' reconstructed vocalization in English is in fact "Yahweh". As a hypothetical phonetic transcription, [yahwe] in square brackets could be appropriate, but for general use in the article, "Yahweh" must be preferred... AnonMoos (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Yahweh is the English term. Yahwe is the Hebrew romanization. So there should be a note that Yahweh is not the Hebrew word, but the English word, and that the Hebrew word is Yahwe. Ly362 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not the case. יהוה is the Hebrew form and YHWH is a transliteration into the Latin alphabet using English-language conventions. יַהְוֶה is a hypothetical scholarly vocalization of יהוה (which was first posited about two centuries ago), and the conventional accepted English transliterated form of vocalized יַהְוֶה is "Yahweh" (though [yahwe] in square brackets might be used in a strict phonetic transcription). We can make it clear that the final ה letter was not pronounced while also using the common English form "Yahweh"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing up a few things, "Yahweh" can indeed be the common ENGLISH term, because that's how it had been Romanized in the past, but there is no relevance to "English language conventions" when trying to Romanize Hebrew words. Each language has its own Romanization standards, and they usually stand regardless of any "target" language, just like natively Latin-script written languages, that do not change their spellings to English spelling. When coming to Romanize a Hebrew word, such as יַהְוֶה it should be done with the accepted guidelines for Hebrew Romanization. There are such guidelines here in English Wikipedia, but they are problematic in my view, but in this case there is doubt it should be spelled "Yahwe". That is, the Romanization of the word. Without contradicting "Yahweh" as the accepted ENGLISH name. Ly362 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're the one mixing things up. "Yahweh" definitely uses English alphabetical conventions, since many languages do not show the correspondence of "Y" with IPA [j] (for example, German and the Nordic languages and many Slavic languages use "J" for IPA [j]), French writes [w] with "OU" etc. etc. In any case, it's simply a fact that "Yahweh" is the common general-purpose use form in an English-language context (what is found in the Jerusalem Bible etc. etc.), while [yahwe] is a specialized technical phonetic transcription which is used in only rather limited contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What? How does the fact that "Yahweh" uses English alphabetical conventions contradict anything I said. Yes, "Yahweh" is the common general-purpose use form in English, I have not contradicted that, I've stated several times that it is the English word and that's ok, but that has nothing to do with the actual Romanization of Hebrew. If you want to present the Hebrew word יהוה or יַהְוֶה in Latin letters, there are ways to do that, that have nothing to do with English. Since we present the Hebrew word in the original script, we might want to give the Romanization of the word for the Latin-script reader, and this is better spelled "Yahwe". It does not contradict "Yahweh" as an English term wherever it is used as a reference for the god without trying to give the Hebrew origin. Ly362 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, Jeremiah is the English name, Yirmiyáhu could be the Hebrew Romanization. Israel is the English name, Yiśraˀel is the Hebrew Romanization. Yahweh is the English name, Yahwe is the Hebrew Romanization. Hope this clarifies it. Ly362 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is fully consistent with your previous remarks, but since you seem to be partially admitting that "Yahweh" is the general-purpose form in English, this clearly implies that [yahwe] should be used mainly to specifically indicate pronunciation. AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is, when you also give the word יַהְוֶה, you should also give the Romanization of it to people who can't read it. And also read the following paragraph on the Samaritans. Ly362 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of your remarks do not really seem to succeed in conveying much specific information to my mind, but if one thing is clearer than another, it's that if "Yahweh" is the accepted transcription of Gesenius' reconstruction for general-purpose use in English, then "Yahweh" should be used in most cases in the article (with [yahwe] reserved to discussions of details of pronunciation). AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a disagreement about the use of Yahweh in English context, but why do you call this Gesenius thing a transcription? It isn't. It is the English name, but it isn't the transcription nor the transliteration of the Hebrew word. Fine, call it pronunciation matters. So why do you give the Hebrew form of יַהְוֶה? If it is to present the actual Hebrew word, then it should also be written in Latin letters while remaining a word in Hebrew. Unlike Yahweh which is a word in English. Ly362 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See my recent edit to the article. AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And of course you had already reverted it... I'm afraid that sprinkling "Yahweh" and "Yahwe" at random through the article really accomplishes nothing except to create confusion about which one is correct -- whereas saying specifically that [yahwe] indicates probable phonetic pronunciation, while "Yahweh" is a conventional transliteration, is much more useful. AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't random, it is exactly only after where you show the word יַהְוֶה, when you talk about "pronouncing" it. This is simply the Hebrew in Latin letters after giving it in Hebrew letters. As it is done anywhere else on Wikipedia. You can't give instead an explanation that the name is (The English name) "Yahweh", only that it is pronounce without the "h". You are talking about two different languages. It isn't that Yahweh is a Hebrew word that besides the "h", if you pronounce it in English that is how it is really pronounced in Hebrew! English is another language, it isn't Hebrew, the "a" isn't the same /a/, and the "e" isn't the same /e/, and so are the "y" and "w", they just happen to be "the same", but they don't ought to be, these are different languages. Imagine that the common English word would have been Javek (made it up just now), now how would you say that it is pronounced without the "h"? There is no "h". It just happened they chose good letters to "transcribe" it to English. But you need to separate the things. If it were Javek would you ask me to not write the Hebrew Romanization after the Hebrew name in Hebrew letters? And it just happens that (in all systems in this case) the letters are almost the same as in "English", but it could have been a different system where you convert it as "Jagve" for example (just made it up as well). Actually, if a common unstandardied system were to be used here, like according to the guidelines here in Wikipedia (which I'm not a fan of) it could have been "Yahave". Ly362 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My previous basic remarks re-apply with renewed force -- Many of your remarks do not really seem to succeed in conveying much specific information to my mind, but if one thing is clearer than another, it's that if "Yahweh" is the accepted transcription of Gesenius' reconstruction for general-purpose use in English, then "Yahweh" should be used in most cases in the article (with [yahwe], in IPA brackets and lowercase, reserved for discussions of details of pronunciation). AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you give the word יַהְוֶה? What is it if not a pronunciation guide? In Hebrew letters and Tiberian niqqud. You write: "His proposal to read YHWH as "יַהְוֶה"..." That's like saying "His proposal to read YHWH as "Yahwe"..." or any other system for Romanizing Hebrew. Ly362 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And what does it mean to transliterate something to "English"? I know what it means to transliterate something to Latin letters. Ly362 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately the pronunciation of יַהְוֶה would be [yahwe], as shown in proper IPA conventions (square brackets and lowercase), but the customary English spelling of Gesenius' reconstruction is "Yahweh". And it means transliterated keeping English spelling conventions in mind. Чайкoвский is transliterated to German as Tschaikowski, but to English as Tchaikovsky (where the "T" in the English form is actually from French transliteration influence)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the customary English spelling of the French word "chanson"? Ly362 (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked the fact, but English and French are both written with the same alphabet (the Latin), which is not the case with English and Hebrew or English and Russian. However, even in the case of languages written with the same alphabet, there are common exonyms, such as Munich vs. München, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yahouh ?

I was interested that the French wiki article fr:Yahweh describes the pronounciation "Yahweh" as "now regarded as erroneous", directing readers to fr:YHWH which claims that "it seems that the pronunciation was Yahouh (W being then a mater lectionis, that is to say, a vowel)".

Is this a true statement of the balance of modern scholarship? And if it is, is it something we should make more of in our article here? Jheald (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think so -- a word-final letter ה is not silent after a long [ū] vowel in any other Biblical Hebrew words that I know of, and in the vast majority of cases it's silent only after long [ā] or short [e] vowels (with a few lingering archaic remnants of [ō] in proper names such as "Solomon" and "Shiloh"). Also, in roots such as h-w-y/h-y-y "to be", the final root consonant (known as a "lamed-he" semivowel in traditional grammatical terminology) is given to vocalizing in almost all circumstances, leaving little scope for a preceding middle-radical "w" to vocalize to [ū] (of course, it's strictly forbidden by ancient Hebrew phonological restrictions to have two vowels which occur directly in sequence within a word, not separated by an intervening consonant). And in fact, a highly pertinent question is, where is the "y" of h-w-y in Yahouh? If there's some very recently published paper or book which claims to overturn all previous work in the field, then the bibliographical details need to be given, so that it can be determined what degree of scholarly respectability and acceptance it has... AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the French claim is based on.

de-wiki's de:JHWH cites a 1936 journal paper by Sigmund Mowinckel as claiming

"Thus we can determine -- indeed even prove -- that Yahweh was not the correct pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton... the name itself was probably YAHÔH",

and also the revised French translation by Louis Segond as commenting that

"The pronounciation Yahweh, which is used in some newer translations, is based on a few ancient witnesses, but they are not conclusive. If one takes personal names ... into account, such as the Hebrew name of the Prophet Elijah (Eliyahou), then a just as good pronounciation could be Yaho or Yahou".

But that dates back to 1871, so can hardly be counted as a "recently published" paper or book !! Jheald (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd probably want a linguistic scholar whose work focuses on comparative Semitic and/or ancient Hebrew in the areas of phonology and/or etymology, rather than a philologist of Psalms, or a 19th-century Bible translator. In any case, Yahu is usually explained as a secondary form through the historical sound changes yahwe > yahw > yahu. It's hard to see how either Yahuh or Yahoh can be derived from the triconsonantal verb roots meaning "to be"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. "Yahu" as a suffix at the end of names is of course spelled יהו not יהוה ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

relating articles and citations needed

Hi, I just interesting about this second revert from that article content. IMHO, more clear see also is needed, because lot of disambiguation there. {{WP:D}}, {{WP:V}} I think about more related topics should be included, and with verified citation check (for example number of appearance sourced only from WTS) {{Not verified}} or only 1 source, while could be better to have 2 reliable sources. {{Sources}}. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1) I removed the "citation needed" tag because the sentence where it was included does actually have a reference (whether that reference is adequate is another issue which can be addressed in another manner). In fact, it seems that the {{Citation needed|date=May 2011}} tag was inserted artificially early in order to avoid having {{Citation needed}} right next to <ref>...</ref>!

2) I removed the "Cleanup" tag because it seems this was only inserted in order to deal with the mess that was created by the poorly-formatted links added to the top and the bottom of the article. It's really greatly preferable to add material in a correct and usable form right from the beginning, rather than adding loose or sloppy to material to the article, and then also adding in a compensatory cleanup tag to try to induce someone else to deal with the mess which you have created.

3) I removed the newly-added links at the top and bottom of the article because those at the top of the article did not use standard templates, those at the bottom of the article were long and rambling (not in the preferred style for "See also" sections). Also, the links at the very top are supposed to be to disambiguations only, not to related topics as such, while the links in the "See also" section are supposed to be mainly to things which are not discussed or linked in the main text of the article (again, not a general guide to related topics). AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that these sections: Tetragrammaton#Bible_translations_into_English and Tetragrammaton#In_the_New_Testament be merged into Sacred_Name_Bibles and Tetragrammaton in the New Testament respectively. Sacred Name Movmement (SN_Movement) 09:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Encyclopedia of Protestantism J. Gordon Melton p.479 lists Sacred Name Bible as something unique to the Sacred Name Movement, adding in "Yahweh" etc where the New Testament text has Kyrios "Lord". That's very different from the mainstream translations listed under Tetragrammaton which are often RC Bibles listing Yahweh for YHWH in the OT. btw - I just reverted your edits on Sacred Name Bibles, mainly since they weren't sourced and not because of spelling/grammar.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sacred_Name_Movmement -- The Jehovah's Witnesses are not ordinarily considered to be part of the "Sacred name movement" by any criterion which I'm aware of, so this can't be implemented in the particular form in which you proposed it, but I do agree that any extended discussion of unique Sacred Name beliefs which are rejected by the consensus of mainstream scholarship belongs on those articles, not on this one. By the way, are you aware that your username contains a typo...? 13:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as AnonMoos says above, I've attempted to clean up Sacred Name Bibles a bit, the information about 4QLev (the Greek Iao fragment), and Ibn Shaprut's Touchstone was misrepresented, and also some OR categories "Partial Name Bibles" (no hit on Google Books) removed. What's really badly needed is publisher data for an article that is supposed to be listing a class of books. How many of these versions are really published, how many are just pdfs? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: All SNM adherents use Sacred Name Bibles. No SNM adherents use Jehovah. Jehovah Witnesses consider the Sacred Name to be Jehovah. As a result, they believe their Bible contains the Sacred Name and therefore a Sacred Name Bible. I believe in the Name Yahweh, but Jehovah Witnesses don't. From our perspective, a SNB is best described as one that uses the Hebraic/Semitic terms because we don't use the Jehovah, we do not believe it to be sacred, but that's a biased view and I recognize this is an encyclopedia and should not be WP:UNDUE. It just depends whose perspective you are looking at things from. But the term Sacred Name Bible should not be seen as exclusive to the SNM. (SN_Movement) 18:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- however, the JW's were translating Greek κυριος by means of claimed forms of the Tetragrammaton before the Sacred name movement became at all widely known, and the JW's are still more prominent than the Sacred name movement today. Therefore it's extremely unclear why subsections which are mainly about JW's should be transferred to an article not about JW's. AnonMoos (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is very bad

Very confusing! We have 251 watchers and over 300 contributors on this article and yet, the page is a shocker! Incredibly messy. It seems like there's just been a scramble by all religious groups and perspectives. I am calling for a rapid clean up of this article and am requesting some assistance and suggestions as to how to do it. (SN_Movement) 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is that everything in section 3.2 and below me separated in their own articles. So one article on Evidence for the Name, another on Religious use of the Name etc. We could add 4 major articles on their own and remove a lot of the content from these. (SN_Movement) 18:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I'd agree it's fairly messy. But these contents don't seem that bad: Contents [hide]

• 1 Occurrences and uses
• 2 Etymology and meaning of YHWH
• 3 Pronunciation
• 3.1 Historical overview
• 3.1.1 Using the name in the Bible

Evidence for the Name

• 3.2 Evidence
• 3.2.1 Theophoric names
• 3.2.2 Using consonants as semi-vowels (v/w)
• 3.2.3 Yahweh or Jahweh
• 3.2.4 Kethib and Qere and Qere perpetuum
• 3.2.5 The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010
• 3.2.6 Frequency of use in scripture
• 3.2.7 The vocalizations of יְהֹוָה and אֲדֹנָי are not identical
• 3.2.8 Dead Sea scrolls
• 3.2.9 Josephus's description of vowels
• 3.3 Conclusions
• 3.3.1 Early Greek and Latin forms
• 3.3.1.1 Clement's Stromata

The Name in Religion

3.4 In ancient Judaism

• 3.5 In later Judaism
• 3.6 In Modern Judaism
• 3.6.1 Jehovah
• 3.6.2 יַהְוֶה = Yahweh
• 3.7 Among the Samaritans
• 3.8 Catholic Church

Other theories

• 3.9 Yahu
• 3.10 Magical papyri
• 3.11 Mesopotamian influence

Scholarship

• 3.11.1 19th Century scholarship
• 3.11.2 Modern scholarship

To be merged to Sacred Name Bibles, Jehovah article and Tetragrammaton in the New Testament article.

• 3.12 Bible translations into English
• 3.13 Loss of the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint
• 4 Examining the vowel points of יְהֹוָה and אֲדֹנָי
• 5 In the New Testament
• 5.1 Translations of the New Testament into Hebrew
• 6 In the Kabbalah and Chassidut

• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 Notes

And if there's been a scramble by all religious groups and perspectives that in itself should be a good thing, provided they've all left sources. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

All we have to do is create these separate pages: Evidence for the Name, The Name in Religion, Other theories and Scholarship. It would drastically clean up the article and help to simplify what really should be a simple article stating that the Tetragrammaton is a 4 letter word representing the Name of Yahweh. Any input would be appreciated, thanks to In ictu oculi for the input so far (SN_Movement) 03:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's how the article would look with the above changes made. (SN_Movement) 03:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Comparing the Jehovah article to the the Tetragrammaton (and Yahweh article) shows that, these articles have had to to bear all the brunt for the theories, and the criticisms about the Name and an article like Jehovah gets away scot free and something needs to be done. I'm saying, the Jehovah article is a very good articlem but only because they don't take any discredit to the Name. No, all of that gets put on the Yahweh article and the Tetragrammaton one and sorry to say this but it seems deliberate, which is why I'm calling for separate pages - because someone needs to separate the bad from the good, the truth from the error, the theory from the fact. (SN_Movement) 04:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Your explanation of your proposed changes is really not at all clear to me in the form given above, but I've removed the "mergeto" tag from the "Bible translations into English" subsection because the Sacred name Bible translations and general movement really do not have great prominence in number of adherents, historical weight, or current broad influence within Christianity as a whole, so it would be ludicrous to merge a general discussion of English Bible translations produced by many different groups into a Sacred name article. AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly as per AnonMoos, and for the same reasons. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sacred Name Bibles are notable, especially in relation to the subject of the Tetragrammaton. Why would it be ludicrous to merge a discussion of English Bible translations that use the Name (Sacred Name Bibles) produced by many different groups into a Sacred Name Bible article.? This page IS a Sacred Name article. Yahweh, Testrammaton, Tetragrammaton...they're all Sacred Name articles. (SN_Movement) 10:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sacred name Bibles pass the threshold of Wikipedia minimum notability (which is why they have their own separate article), but that's very different from saying that they're a significant component of, or influence on, the mainstream of Christianity as a whole, because they simply aren't. The unique features of Sacred name Bibles are unanimously rejected by the consensus of modern scholarship, and the Sacred name movement is far from being prominent within Christianity -- which means that by Wikipedia standards, Sacred name should not be given any lengthy or extended discussion in this article.

Your originally-proposed edits were inappropriate because it seemed that you were effectively trying to jump Sacred name over JW's, but in trying to bring the Jerusalem Bible etc. under the aegis of Sacred name, you're now effectively trying to jump Sacred name over the Roman Catholic church -- despite the fact that they have thousands of times more adherents than you do, they've been established more than twenty times as long as you have, and the forms of the Tetragrammaton used in their modern Bible translations have much more scholarly respectability than the forms of the Tetragrammaton used in your Bible translations... AnonMoos (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, a Sacred Name Bible is a Bible that uses the Sacred Name, and that makes them notable. Don't shoot the messenger. That's the definition. And Sacred Name Bibles have had a major influence on Christianity on the whole. Why else would the Vatican state that they don't want the Name of G-d (Yahweh) pronounced? Would they do that if there wasn't an issue? We can't delude ourselves here. Is the Name a mute issue or not? If it is, why are there so many articles related to the Sacred Name corresponding to Christianity? (SN_Movement) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because a Bible translation rejects the traditional rendering of YHWH as Adonai (or a translation of Adonai, such as "LORD" etc.) doesn't mean that it's affiliated with the specific "Sacred name movement" (or even the "Sacred Name Movmement") in any way whatsoever. You seem to be significantly confused on that point. AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're straying off the point and now making assertions that I have in no way endorsed. (SN_Movement) 20:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If we were to have an article on "Bible translations where YHWH is not translated as Adonai/κυριος/LORD", then Sacred Name Bibles would not predominate, and it would not be an overall Sacred Name Movement article. AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

General reorg.

I agree with Sacred Name Movement, the article is too messy. As Wikipedians our aim is to create resources where people can find valid information to support their understanding. By splitting the article we can create clarity instead of confusion. Oggy15 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To continue the point made by Oggy15, an overly long and confusing article will deter users from the article and make them more likely to look elsewhere for their information. A concise article with good linking to the divided pages will be more attractive for the user. The four new pages suggested by Sacred Name Movement appear to make sense in the context of the entire article. Nay! (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The article could be improved, but some of the difficulties are inherent in the subject matter, where of necessity highly-technical matters have to be discussed. And Sacred Name MovmeMent has provided no specific supporting discussion for the split tag he added to the top of the article, and I'm not enthusiastic about the specifics -- "Evidence for the Name", "Religious use of the Name", "Other theories on the Name" and "Scholarship on the Name". For one thing, scholarship pervades all aspects of the subject, so I really don't know how it can be separated out into a separate article. Also not sure what the difference between "Evidence" and "Scholarship is". And "Other theories on the Name" sounds suspiciously like a Content Fork. And "Religious use of the Name" is pretty much what Names of God in Judaism already is now. I think this needs a lot of thinking through and further consideration before any split could be carried through... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate to simply "ditto", but what AnonMoos says, again, is correct. See Wikipedia:Content forking.

I suggest a simple (and painfree) confirming of the page basic content would be simply ordering YHWH by it's treatment in A. TEXTS (1) Hebrew, (2) Aramaic, (3) Greek, (4) Latin, (5) English, (6) other languages including modern Hebrew. THEN B. USAGE Religious use of the Name by (a) Jewish (b) Christian use. The article is 90% there already. Just needs a bit of moving around, which will remove and trim duplication and end with an article 20-30% shorter. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking again and cannot see much in this article that is specific to the Sacred Name Movement, but maybe some points could be hived off to Sacred Name Bibles -- and incidentally, see Talk:Sacred Name Bibles for edits to lede there. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I´ll take a watch on progress here and also agree with Sacred Name Movement, the article is too messy. Many different theories and information about several related topics. That all should be clarified. WP:CON and WP:WikiLove. You all are welcome to WP:Be bold in editing. Hi. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is positive that In ictu oculi believes the article is 90% there and I would tend to agree. I like the seperation between texts and usage to improve understanding and cohesiveness. Certainly some progress being made here. Nay! (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Contents [hide] It seems that the current structure could be simplified to these 4 sections.

• 1. Primary Evidence: Occurrences in written texts
• 2. Etymology and meaning of YHWH
• 3. Pronunciation; The question of which vowels
• 4. Usage; The question of whether to say the name outloud

I'm going to be bold and try it. Other eds comments please.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

del. nonsense

I was cleaning up the formatting, and noticed where we said that when scholars "accept" the reading, that doesn't mean they accept it. I deleted it as stupid. I don't know if they accept it or not; if not, we shouldn't say they do, rather than saying it and then contradicting ourselves. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, I take it then that the simplification of structure meets with at least one other editor's approval... or at least it isn't too bad? Good call on the delete, there are two many POV insertions like that in the pronunciation section.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses sources

"Chapter 1 of The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures, under the heading The Pronunciation Of God's Name quotes from Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 7:"

And that, if you bother to check, is Jehovah's Witnesses quoting Jehovah's Witnesses. JW are not a scholarly but a biased source that has an interest in justifying its use of the name Jehovah. They shouldn't be used as a source at all.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton in Metaphysics

This articles content concerning the metaphysical importance of the tetragrammaton is disappointingly brief. I propose that this article expand its coverage of the metaphysical aspects of the tetragrammaton so that its relationship to process is more clearly understood.

In this context, yod he vau he, is taken less as a name and more as a description of the process of creation. More specifically, in some mystical circles the tetragrammaton is a cyclicly applied self-referential formula for becoming (as hinted by the etymological derivation from the Hebrew verb "to be" indicated in the article) . The second "he" of the "yod he vau he" becomes the yod of a further cycle.

To see this more clearly consider the Hegelian 1)thesis, 2)antithesis, 3)synthesis. The synthesis becomes a new thesis for a second Hegelian cycle. Again, in mystical circles, one can see the correspondence to the numerologically key numbers 4, 7, 10, 13 as completions of tetragrammaton cycles (which initiate new cycles) when the process is applied to the natural numbers.

It is of further import to metaphysics that this repeated cycle of being/becoming is self-referential and fractal in exactly the same sense as a Sierpinski gasket. Indeed, a Sierpinski gasket of equilateral triangles is a graphical representation of the tetragrammaton where each of the first three distinct letters represent the vertices of a generating triangle and the whole of the interior triangle with vertices corresponding to the bisections of each side represents the second "he" which then becomes a new generator.Janimue (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with YHWH being the personal name of biblical god

Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ?

When Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר ]..and forever [ לְעלָם ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה] is just a generic name,not personal ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …יהוה]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…אהיה אשׁר אהיה… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ? ….where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.8.161 (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is that 'Ehyeh and YHWH are both derived from the same linguistic triliteral root (or from the slight root variants H-Y-Y / H-W-Y which have the same basic meaning). AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If YHWH is just a generic name, it follows that there must be many YHWHs. Anyone for polytheism? PiCo (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Historically, that's not the case -- the name was almost certainly derived from a root with a general meaning ("to be"), but it was originally used specifically as the name of the national god of the Israelites -- where Moab had Chemosh and Edom had Qaws, Israel had YHWH... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking history, more logic: if a name is a generic (e.g. "Cola") it follows that there can be more than one specific (e.g. "Coke, Pepsi..."). I doubt that the anon ISP was going down that road. PiCo (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how a name can be "generic" if it's not used generically. In any case, in attested historical usage, YHWH is the name of the God of Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Oh, is 78.101.8.161 the return of Seeker02421 ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so -- he was more coherent, and not as fond of the ellipsis. AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Some might not agree but this is a good article

If someone has a question along the lines of - What exactly is the problem with writing 'God' and why use this translation of individual lettres from Hebrew which makes no sense at all in English? - then they can come here and see why the name of God is so sensitive and so confusing. Its as though the use of the word has been deliberately confused by a higher power, like at the Tower of Babel. However, using the term YHWH instead of writing 'God' in articles is inconsiderate to the vast majority of English readers who have no idea what the tetragrammaton means. Can we agree to restrict its use to articles where the name of God is relevant? Mdw0 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No. But instead of YHWH the name Yahweh is to be used, which is the proper English name. The use of 'God' is to be discouraged except in quotations where it replaces Elohim. It is common practice to use LORD for the Tetragrammaton in quotations. The automatic identification of 'God' with the biblical deity as YHWH is only valid among such Christians and Jews who don't care too much about the details of their own respective religions (Elohist and Yahwist writings differ considerably in the characterizations of the deity/deities). And of course readers from other religious or non-religious backgrounds or simply with a wider view of religions in general see the use of 'God' as irritating if not offensive (e.g. Hindus, Atheists). ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Face Of God

The image of an old man with a bushy beard is quite clearly visible on the Mesha Stele.. Is this how YHWH revealed Himself before tortillas, pizzaz, corn chips, toast etc were invented? 82.71.30.178 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)