This information really needs to be added. [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This information really needs to be added. [[Special:Contributions/24.190.34.219|24.190.34.219]] ([[User talk:24.190.34.219|talk]]) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:Welcome to Wikipedia and its many endorsements of Jewish POVs... :-) [[User:Cush|Cush]] ([[User talk:Cush|talk]]) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:34, 19 October 2009
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Wikipedia article tries to force an explanation using a false argument
as to why "Yəhovah" and "Adonai" DO NOT have the same vowels. According to Wikipedia
"The two are not really different: both short vowels, shva and hatef-patah, were allophones of the same phoneme used in different situations. Adonai uses the "hatef patah" because of the glottal nature of its first consonant aleph (the glottal stop), but the first consonant of YHWH is yodh, which is not glottal, and so uses the vowel shva."
This is completely WRONG. It is revisionism par excellence of a well-established vowel system. Shwa is NOT related to hataf patah (that's hataf, not "hatef"). It is a different vowel altogether. Hataf patah means simply reduced, or shortened, patah, which is the -a- vowel. The Shwa is a different animal altogether, simply put, so don't try to confound the two for the sake of trying to prove a point.
The vowels of the tetragrammaton in the Masoretic text are NOT based on those of "Adonai" and are not there to make the reader pronounce it as "Adonai", despite the fact that it is commonly read as "Adonai" to avoid reciting the divine name. There are 2 reasons which effectively discard Wikipedia's theory.
In the Masoretic text it is most common that the CENTRAL -o- vowel in the Tetragrammaton is discarded, so that the reader will not pronounce the divine name. Hence, יְהוָה is the most common transcription in the Masoretic text, which would be transliterated into English as YəH*VAH. It is the crucial central vowel -O- which is absent, which makes the reading even further removed from 'ADONAI' and makes the case alleging the vowels in question are based on those of Adonai that much weaker. The stable nucleus is the initial Shwa (-ə-)and final Kamatz (-a-). the same goes for the theophoric names.
In the case where vowels were indeed put in to get the reader to read the Tetragrammaton as another word altogether, i.e. 'Elohim', the new vowel points correspond exactly, and it is clearly understood by the reader how this should be read:יֱהֹוִה This simply is not the case with the Tetragrammaton and Adonai.
At any rate, the vocalization 'Yahweh' is a monumental hoax, based on some very basic misconceptions, as far as I am concerned.
You seem not to understand the way Hebrew grammar works. There are certain letters in the Hebrew alphabet which cannot take a shewa. Ever. One of these is aleph. When an aleph would get a shewa under normal rules of grammar, it is replaced with a hataf vowel. Most commonly, a hataf-patah.
Nor, btw, is the \o\ vowel (it's called a holam) missing from the Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic text. I have no idea where you got that from -LisaLiel (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not speaking about the letter 'Aleph'. We are talking about the letter 'Yod', which most definitely can and does take on a shwa. A good example of this is the Hebrew name Judah (Yəhudah), i.e. יְהוּדָה . This is a non-theophoric name, but the same also goes for a whole slew of theophoric names (Yəhoshua, Yəhoshaphat, Yəhoram, etc. etc.) The same goes for a variety of words, e.g. Yəsod, יְסוֹד (foundation); only child (female), יְחִידָה (Judges 11,34), etc.
It is also noteworthy that the shortened form of word-initial theophoric names does not eliminate the shwa sound in favor of a hataf-patah, \a\, but rather a holam \o\. So, for instance, Yəhoyaqim, יְהוֹיָקִימ , is shortened to יוֹיָקִימ , Yoaqim , and Yəhoram, יְהוֹרָם , becomes Yoram יוֹרָם (never Yaram, Yaharam, or Yahuram). This is one of the main reasons I find the vocalization 'Yahweh' to be incredulous.
As for the middle \o\ holam vowel, it is in fact frequently omitted from the Tetragrammaton in the Masoretic text, hence יְהוָה. I can spot it several times in Zechariah 13 alone.
In fact, in the Aleppo Codex, which is considered to be the most authoritative extant Masoretic text, the יְהוָה form with the missing \o\ holam in the middle is by far the most common. http://aleppocodex.org/images/x4/1.jpg
A few months ago I browsed through the images of the Aleppo Codex pages specifically for this reason, and I did notice that the fuller form יְהֹוָה with the holam is in fact given, but infrequently.
This leads me to conclude that the vowels of the Tetragrammaton given in the Masoretic text are not based on those of Adonai. I also believe that the masoretes took out the middle holam so that the common reader would not read it as written, with all the vowels. I cannot be sure if the central \o\ holam is intended, i.e. the vocalization יְהֹוָה , as the basis of the authentic pronunciation, but I am of the opinion that the initial and final vowels form a stable nucleus of the true vocalization, i.e. יְהוָה . That would seem to render the original pronunciation either Yəhowah, Yəhuah, or Yəhawah.
Jacob, as I said, you don't understand the way Hebrew grammar works. Yes, a yud can take a shwa. That's why it was given one when the vowels from Adonai were put onto the Tetragrammaton. In principle, the vowel under the aleph should be a shwa. As such, when its vowel was put under a yud, it was changed back to a shwa. The fact that it isn't a shwa as well under the aleph is due to a technicality.
As far as the dot missing from the holam, that's simply because a waw without a vowel of its own is generally considered to be a holam. The dot is redundant in most cases. For example, if you see lamed-waw, you know it's pronounced lo, even without a dot over the waw/holam. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa, sorry, but this 'technicality' does not explain why there would be a shwa under the yod in the tetragrammaton. If indeed the vowels of Adonai had been placed into YHWH, the yod would have 'inherited' the hataph-patah from the aleph, since this is allowed by the rules of Hebrew grammar. The omission of the holam from the central waw is usual in the Masoretic text, though not 100% of the time. By contrast, the holam is included in other words containing waw in the Masoretic text where it is supposed to be present. To me, this indicates a conspicuous attempt on the part of the Masoretes to impede pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton by masking the vocalization of the holam, not by leading the reader to pronounce the Name as 'Adonai' by insertion of its vowels.
No, there isn't. Frankly, there should be one article, Tetragrammaton, with the material from this article and the Jehovah one folded in, since both of them are theoretical pronunciations of the name that's referred to as the Tetragrammaton. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does your comment above have to do with what I said? And frankly, I think it's kind of rude of you not to sign your comments. Are you aware that you can type ~~~~, and Wikipedia will automatically turn that into your signature and timestamp? Or you could click on the button above the edit area that's between the red circle and the horizontal line. That will insert ~~~~ for you. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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) 07:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge Clearly there is something unique about the history of YHWH that warrants the information on the tetragrammaton page, but it’s not what I’m looking for when I look up Yahweh in an encyclopedia. This Yahweh page should definitely remain and be about the unifying main character of the Bible. Other salient biblical characters make much briefer appearances, such as Solomon and Queen Esther, yet each of these has a page describing his and her role and character (with a minor discussion of pronunciation and Hebrew words). If I want to know about Othello, the Wikipedia page appropriately assumes that I mean the lead character in the play by the same name. On that page, I see no pronunciation guide or etymology given, nor is there mention of the strategic board game or even debate about whether the Italian opera Otello has misrepresented the name. We understand it’s about the same guy. Keep the Yahweh page, and tell me who this character is in this book, which has been far more influential in human history than Othello or any other single work. (BTW, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Othello page reads “Because of its varied themes — racism, love, jealousy, and betrayal — Othello remains relevant to the present day and is often performed in professional and community theatres alike. The play has also been the basis for numerous operatic, film, and literary adaptations.” The Bible certainly has all this and more - its main character should have a Wikipedia page!)--Corinne68 (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YHWH or YHVH?
Hi, I have a question. The third letter of the Tetragrammaton is Vav, which is pronounced as a V in Hebrew (I think Hebrew doesn't have a W sound, in contrast with the Arabic "Waw", equivalent of Vav). Why then is the tetragrammaton always transcribed YHWH and the rendered Yahweh, instead of YHVH and Yahveh? Perhaps is the ancient Hebrew pronounciation different from the modern one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? German does not have a "w" sound as English has. The German w is equivalent to Latin v, while German v is used for both Latin v and f (f derives from the greek digamma which derives from the levantine vav). But what does that have to do with how the word is spelled in English? Cush (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When Eliezer Ben Yehudah revived Hebrew as a modern language, he used Germanic pronounciations. When you transliterate back into English from Modern Hebrew, you get a V instead of a W. Thus, the V spelling is used by people who are transliterating from Modern Hebrew, while the W spelling is used by those who are more scholarly and/or want to transliterate from ancient/Biblical Hebrew. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, he revived it as a modern spoken language - i.e. a general use language. It was still used within the synagogues, amongst Rabbi's and the study of religious text, etc. So while that may possibly be true for German Jews or the spread of language again outside of the synagogues, it does not account for every other location or practice. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not all Jews pronounce a "vav." Although Jews in the Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities pronounce a vav, Yemenite Jews have retained the "waw", probably related to their living in Arabic-speaking countries for so many centuries. There are also some other consonantal differences between the two groups (e.g. ghimmel, dhalet, thuf), in which only Yemenites retain the biblical pronunciation. (Incidentally, they still pronounce the Divine Name like other Orthodox Jews, with the euphamistic Adonai.) McKorn (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Yemenites don't retain the proper ghimmel. They pronounce it jimmel, having assimilated the Arabic consonent. But other than that, yes, they have the original pronunciations. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why has information been removed from this article?
This article reads more like an incoherent, rambling religious rule book than an encyclopedia article. I'm quite sure there used to be information in it regarding the god Yahweh and not just the name when I've come to visit it in the past. An article on the name itself is fine, but there is currently no article (AFAIK) that covers Yahweh as one of the gods in the Levantine pantheon, which is what I expected to find here. There also seems to be overlap with the articles on Jehovah and Tetragrammaton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.65.208 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Short Forms section, still present yesterday, along with David Stern's take on YHWH and comments on the meaning assumed "I am that I am" or "I am Who I am" meaning, has disappeared. Compare:
Why is the article titled Yahweh? The pronunciation Yahweh is one of several proposed pronunciations. So why isn't the article titled YHWH? The main purpose of the article is to discuss the different pronunciations of the word YHWH. By giving the article the title Yahweh we are giving more credit to one POV. Sci fi writer (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is not the Encyclopedia Iudaica. The content should rather be changed to being an article about the deity in Judaism. Because that's what one expects by the title. An article about the Tetragrammaton, which this in fact is, should be titled Tetragrammaton. Cush (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently noticed that an editor who participated in this discussion has the username SkyWriter. I'd like to mention that I have no relation to him. Sci fi writer (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep this article as it is, and just rename it something like "Etymology, pronounciation, spelling, utterability, scriptural references etc. of Yahweh". Then we should start a new article on "Yahweh" and in it cover topics like his interactions with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the Ten commandments, promise to the people of Israel and its importance...etc. or whatever is relevant. If anyone wants to add material on topics which are covered in the present article, we can request him/her to do it in this article. I think this step may be necessary because this article contains lots of valuable information.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criticisms and theories of origin and meaning
In the section "Criticisms and theories of origin and meaning", where's the criticism? I only see theories. Calling them criticisms seems rather biased to me. --66.243.197.47 (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this should be done. So much of this article is about pronunciation that it overwhelms anyone coming here to learn about what "Yahweh" means/is. Others have noted this on this discussion page, one person saying the article has no information, when what is more accurate is that it is overwhelmingly about pronunciation. Compare it to the Allah article in which one can learn what Allah means in Islam without reading five articles-worth of discussion of its pronunciation. Kriegman (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do that, what would be left here?
We already have an article God in Judaism, and people interested in what God means in Judaism should look there, not here, because Jews don't call God "Yahweh", still less "Jehovah".
The only thing I think might fit here might be the pre-Jewish development of Yahweh (or rather, academic speculations about it). So the suggestions that have been made that such a deity might have been worshipped as a Midianite storm-god, or one of the sons of the Canaanite El.
But apart from that, I'm not sure what people think should be in a "Yahweh" article, if it were to be an article on substance rather than pronounciation. Jheald (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that "Yahweh" is the God in the Old Testament/Tanakh. I think the article should describe the activities and attributes of the God in the Old Testament/Tanakh (rather than focusing on pronounciation).Civilizededucation (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have an article on "God in the Old Testament" (or Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible), then that article should be calledGod in the Hebrew Bible (or whatever). It's unacceptable to call it Yahweh because
(1) Most Jews vehemently deny that "Yahweh" is either (i) accurate or (ii) appropriate as a name for their G-d;
(2) God in the Old Testament isn't just called YHVH; G-d is also referred to in other ways, and the differences are significant;
(3) It isn't just the God of the Old Testament who is called YHVH -- witness ancient prayers/blessings found to "Yahweh and his Asherah"
YHVH is in fact the God in the Old Testament. Other designations are only titles (El, Elohim, Adonai, and whatnot), while YHVH is supposed to be the proper name (whatever the unspelled vowels are). Yahweh is the English rendition of YHVH (but also in many other languages), and it unambiguously means only that. And clearly it is also the deity whose spouse is Asherah, but of course that was removed by later monotheistic Judaism. Oh, and there is no hyphen in the word God. Cush (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally on the hyphen thing I would agree with you, as would the Wikipedia style guide; but just try persuading some frummers of the fact (or even some public examination boards)...
On the names/titles things, at one level yes technically of course you are right; but from another angle there are distinctive characteristic differences in the patterns of use, and one word is not substitutable for another: the way YHVH is used is not arbitrarily substitutable by, say, "Elohim". (And it's not necessarily clear that different passages using different names necessarily did in their earliest origins spring from worship of one and the same entity).
But most significant I think is my first point above: it is a bad idea to cause gratuitous offence when there is a straightforward alternative which is more acceptable, and arguably more immediately descriptive too. Jheald (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does your first point have any relevance to a reader of the Wikipedia article? Someone who looks up the word Yahweh is searching for an article on the biblical deity, not some weird article on word pronunciation and (ab)use by religionists. Cush (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, first write a good article on God in the Hebrew Bible (which is the big step), covering both what's in the text, and what people have said about it (eg the Religiongeschischte school seeing transitions from polytheism to henotheism to monolatry to monotheism; different representations of God in different parts of the Tanakh, from the directly physical and localised to the omnipresent and non-corporeal; different attitudes towards God, and different understanding of God's attitudes to people; and other views, etc... (so long as it's all well sourced)).
But do so under that title, which is clear, descriptive, neutral and reader-inclusive.
Then (only when that article is substantially in place), consider a one-paragraph summary hand-off to it in an article Yahweh.
2. God in the Hebrew Bible is a little restrictive, don't you think? After all the Jewish deity has been used by others long before Jews even existed, although sometimes by different names. Yah/Ea is not particularly Jewish, only its fusion with other gods into Yhvh in the Persian period makes it Jewisher (though non-Jews also worshiped that deity in later times, cf. Samari(t)ans). So "Hebrew Bible" is too narrow, especially when this term refers to a medieval work (namely the Masoretic text). Cush (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for yet another article - there's already Yahweh, Tetragrammaton, God in Judaism, and Godhead (Judaism), and I have no doubt that's not all. Can I suggest moving the material on the pronunciation of the Name to Tetragrammaton, which seems the most logical place, and keeping this article for all the other things that can be said about this particular god? It would be largely about archaeology/literary analysis - the origins of the name, possible meanings, mergings with other gods such as El and Elyon, etc. (I particularly don't like the idea of restricting this to the Hebrew bible - Yahweh also appears outside the bible). PiCo (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(Later): Just discovered a whole section on the correct pronunciation of the tetra in here :Names of God in Judaism. Most of this article is either duplication or perhaps a pov fork. Either way, there's no reason for all this material on pronunciation. PiCo (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As kind of a middle way between split and not-split positions, I propose extending Tetragrammaton with most of the material under the Correct pronunciation and spelling section, while all the same removing the f00l1sh "Correct" from the section heading. To remain under this new section Pronunciation and spelling would then preferrably be a short and coherent review of the contents that is moved to the aforementioned preexisting article. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be proven that Yahweh is the God of the Hebrew Bible?
There seems to be an elephant in the room that everyone seems to choose to ignore.
Anytime a new section is written about Yahweh,
the elephant remains in the room.
I don't think that the elephant will ever leave,
until someone discovers an extant Hebrew Bible
that c-l-e-a-r-l-y preserves God's Hebrew name as "Y-A-H-W-E-H"!
Seeker02421 (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being? Yahweh is the English rendering of Yhvh. Period. It does not even matter how that spelling and/or vocalization came about. It's just the way it has ended up. Live with it. WP is in no need of another discussion of such a minor point. Cush (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cush
It is hardly a minor point that the Hebrew Vocalization "Yahweh",
was proposed by Gesenius in about 1815 A.D.,
BUT IS FOUND IN NO EXTANT HEBREW TEXT ON THE PLANET EARTH.
It is not true that "Yahweh" only dwells on Gesenius, and it is not so that Gesenius just made that vocalization up. In fact it dwells on research that has shown that the vocalization of Yhvh in ancient was most likely "Yahweh", given the rendition of Yhvh in other ancient languages (such as Greek). And all extant Hebrew texts were written in times when Judaism had already established the weird rule that the name was not to be uttered. So that point really is irrelevant. And modern use in Judaism is irrelevant as well, because Judaism does not "own" the meaning of words (btw there is no such thing as a "Jewish people" just as there is no "Catholic people"). Cush (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cush.
In the article Jehovah (Yahweh), under the heading: "To take up the ancient writers", The editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 write:[1].
The judicious reader will perceive that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest; the other early writers transmit only abbreviations or corruptions of the sacred name.
Inserting the vowels of Jabe into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name.
It is not merely closely connected with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue by means of the Samaritan tradition, but it also allows the legitimate derivation of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament.
Other information tells us that it was Gesenius, in the 19th century, that placed the vowels of Jabe into the tetragrammaton creating his proposed Hebrew vocalization, as shown below:
Wikipedia standards to not require irrefutable proof, only reliable sources. There is not unanimous agreement, but there is widespread consensus that "Yahweh" is a reasonable English rendering of the Hebrew name. This widespread consensus includes the editors and contributors to The Jewish Study Bible as published by Oxford University Press. As far as this Wiki is concerned, it does not matter whether Yahweh is the God of the Jewish people who inspired the Bible or whether he is merely a character in the book known as the Bible. The article can be written to accurately reflect the Bible and the portrayal of Yahweh and how this character is developed, just as a wiki entry on other main characters from other books can be written to accurately reflect the character development in those books.Michael Courtney (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptance by the Jewish people is not required. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Iudaica, so we need only consider the international consensus about the usage of the word. If there are theological or linguistic minutiae then they could of course be mentioned in the article, but that does not keep us from using the word as the accepted identification of the biblical deity. Cush (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inspiration not implied, new material is introduced "According to the Bible"
If one is writing about the main character of a book, then the book can certainly be considered as a reliable source regarding what the book says about the character. Yahweh is an important character in the Bible, so one need not accept a specific position on the divine inspiration of the Bible to assess whether a brief character synopsis is properly supported by the text any more than one needs to accept a position on the divine inspiration of Moby Dick to assess whether a character synopsis of Ahab is supported by the text.Michael Courtney (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Character development of literary character named "Yahweh" independently of related religious beliefs
In the "Tetragrammaton" merge discussion, there was considerable agreement that the Yahweh article was the appropriate place for information about the character attributes of Yahweh. Multiple editors were in agreement, including Dan Pelleg and myself. More recently and without much discussion, Dan seemed to shift his position to assert that the "Yahweh" page should include only material about the "pronunciations, vocalizations, spellings, translations and transcriptions of the name of God" and exclude material about the character "Yahweh". I disagree. Articles on "God in Judiasm" and "God in the Abrahamic Religions" are articles about religions which admit a wide variety of primary sources and include information about God which represents a distillation of information from a multiple names. Certainly, the character named "Yahweh" in the Bible is sufficiently notable to have an article representing a his character attributes independently of the religions and beliefs that have been built up over time based on multiple sources and other names making claims of deity. Beliefs that different names are describing the same character/person/god represent a leap of faith which might be appropriate for certain discussion of religions. However, an article for the literary character named "Yahweh" in the Bible certainly has a place independently of discussions of the various religions claiming some origin in that literary character. I also question the propriety of an attempt to define the scope of two distinct articles to be the same in the middle of a merge discussion. It is a circular fallacy amounting to: "These two articles whould be merged because they have the same scope" and "These two articles should have the same scope so that they can be merged." Michael Courtney (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Michael,
I never asserted that the "Yahweh" page should include only material about the pronunciations etc. of the name, I rather asserted that it currently does. I might repeat that your valuable contribution constituted a fraction of the article (about 2%), not changing the nature of the article, thus, even if the information you contributed about the character etc. were reinserted, the disambiguation link still offers readers in search of a comprehensive portrayal of this character the articles which currently provide it.
You seem to refer to "Yahweh" as the more "real" or "authentic" pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, however, Wikipedia's NPOV and ORIG policies dictate that, since several pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton are widely accepted as legitimate, we can't rely on our personal opinions to single out only one of them as the appropriate one for being the "real" one and therefore the title of the article about god's attributes.
What you call "the literary character named Yahweh in the Bible" is the same character whether people choose to pronounce its name "Yahweh", "Jehovah", "Adonai" or any of its other pronunciations, thus an account of its attributes must also be independent of which pronunciation is used. Such accounts are already provided in God in Abrahamic religions and God in Judaism. Only attributes of the character which specifically pertain to only one pronunciation, if any such attributes exist, should be described in an article about that specific pronunciation, i.e.: only if certain attributes were found to describe "Yahweh" but never "Jehovah", "Adonai" or "Elohim" then they would have to appear in the article "Yahweh". Dan☺01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your reasoning, since there is disagreement about the English rendering of the name Rebecca, an article under the name “Rebecca” would violate NPOV and should only be found under “Wife of Isaac.” In reality, NPOV policy governs the content of articles and insists that all significant and verifiable viewpoints be represented. NPOV does not govern selection of an article name, and it certainly does not demand your implication that no specific rendering of a name be used if there is a debate. Any reasonable English rendering of a name can be used as long as it is prominent among reliable sources and other renderings are mentioned with appropriate links for further discussion. The “God in Abrahamic Religions” and “God in Judiasm” articles are fundamentally articles about religious views of God with all the historical and sociological implications that go far beyond the literary analysis of a character in a book.Michael Courtney (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Hannukah (alt. Chanukah) nor the Tsar (alt. Czar, Tzar) article violates Wikipedia’s requirement for a neutral point of view by choosing one English rendering for the title of the page and acknowledging the others. Just as most readers who look up Othello want to read about the Shakespearean character by that name rather than an article dominated by minutiae about the etymology of the name, most readers who look up Yahweh are primarily looking for information about that character in the Bible rather than an article dominated by punctuation and translation issues. --Corinne68 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an article on God in the Old Testament, call it God in the Old Testament. That's a much clearer title than "Yahweh". It's also a subject with well-defined edges, helpful to get to a good article based on reliable sources. Jheald (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Yahweh is not necessarily only the God in the Old Testament and a literary character, or even a Jewish God. The deity referred to as Yahweh, but also older forms such as Yah, has been worshiped long before Jews came into existence in the Persian era. So limiting this article to an analysis of the biblical character would narrow the scope down to an exclusively Jewish POV.
Of course the lengthy but uninteresting stuff about pronunciation and allowed utterance should go into a separate article. Only religious fundamentalists make the circumstances of utterance of the divine name an issue, the rest of readers is rather interested in the characteristics and history of Yahweh as a deity concept and its adherence. This article should be set up like all other articles about deities. A section about the characteristics (maybe from differing perspectives), one about the cultural context, one about the history of the deity as well as of the worship, one about prominent places of worship. Cush (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, your new addition currently constitutes about 6% of the article. The remaining 94% are still about pronunciations, vocalizations, spellings, translations and transcriptions of the name of god. In fact you are creating an article about the character "god" from scratch and inserting it into an existing article about the name instead of expanding the existing articles currently providing information about the character, contrary to your own rationale ("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"). I sense that no amount of reasoning can change your mind, but consider that your contributions would be more helpful to readers if they were to be found within existing articles that already deal predominantly with these themes rather than splitting and spreading bits and pieces of this subject throughout multiple articles. Dan☺00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly confusing
The lede of this article is shockingly confusing. It fails WP:LEDE in every respect. I have less concept of the actual meaning of Yahweh than I did before I came to the article! Surely whatever edit warring is going on is not more important than a bare-bones basic understanding of the concept for non-religiously oriented viewers of the article, of which we get several thousand a day.......right? Bullzeyecontribs23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion is caused by the recent additions "Account of the burning bush" and "Yahweh in the Torah" intended to change the article from an account of the name to an account of the character referred to by the name. The contributing editor rejects expanding existing articles about this character, arguing they are "fundamentally articles about religious views of God". Preceding this editor's recent changes, the lead and the article were consistent and clear. What can you do: have the lead say "Yahweh is the English rendering of יַהְוֶה [...] The two first paragraphs of this article are about the literary character referred to by this name."? Dan☺14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable consensus (though not unanimous) that most of the material in the "Yahweh" article regarding the pronounciation and related issues can be merged into the "Tetragramaton" article. To my knowledge, no one has rejected expanding other articles. Other editors are certainly welcome to expand the "God in Judaism" and "God in Abrahamic religions" articles as they see fit, as long as the Wikipedia guidelines are followed. My point has been that the since the notability of "Yahweh" can be established from a literary viewpoint without the leap of faith involved in religion, including this material in the "Yahweh" article is justified. It is a violation of Wikipedia policies to have both the "Tetragrammaton" and the "Yahweh" articles confined exclusively to the "pronunciations, vocalizations, spellings, translations and transcriptions of the name of God." Furthermore, it is consistent with Wikipedia article naming policies that an article named "Yahweh" not be primarily confined to how the word is pronounced and can reasonably include discussion of attrubites, character, and the story related to the character in the primary literary sources. Finally, there is an additional leap of faith in the religious articles that "Yahweh" is the same character as the all of the other names and titles ascribed to diety in those religions. Those articles are welcome to take that viewpoint, to the degree that those religious views can be established with reliable sources. However, there is also room for reasonable encyclopedic content to be developped without necessarily taking the viewpoint that "Yahweh" is the same character as all the other names and titles ascribed to diety in the Abrahamic religions.Michael Courtney (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rendering as "Yahweh" should be explained before it is used
I appreciate Dan pointing out that the rendering as "Yahweh" should be explained before it is used and making the change to better order the presentation.Michael Courtney (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but don't overdo it. People who enter Yahweh in the search box do not look for Jewish ideology on uttering names. Cush (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Late Latin sound shifts
Just couldn't refrain from my usual remark about English Latin pronunciation:
The English practice of transliterating the Biblical Hebrew Yodh as "j" and pronouncing it "dzh" (/dʒ/) started when, in late Latin, the pronunciation of consonantal "i" changed from "y" (as in English "yet") to "dzh" but continued to be spelled "i", bringing along with it Latin transcriptions and spoken renderings of Biblical and other foreign words and names.
(Inaccuracies red-marked) No, this is the typical confusion of English with Latin. Firstly, there were never a sound shift [i] /ih,ee/ --> [j] /y/, since Classical Latin had sound distinctions not reflected by letter usage. They used I for both [i] and [j]. Secondly the Late Latin and more importantly New Latin were never uniformly pronounced; the English Latin loan words followed the English sound law [j] /y/ --> [dʒ] /j/. This very characteristic English pronunciation jumped over to the Latin speaking English community, that for a short time imagined their national pronunciation to be "the real one", despite all other Europaeans pronouncing Latin differently. I'll fix it, but I think I'll never stop to teach the English-speakers how ridiculous their Latin pronunciation is, just for the sadistical fun of it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on it: why do we even have the sections
Using consonants as semi-vowels (v/w)
and
Yahweh or Jahweh
in this article??
These are transliteration issues and phonetics issues, the anatomy of Koine Greek vs. Modern Greek and Hindi as in the end of the semi-vowel (v/w) section is wildly off-topic. The text would still need a section on Jehovah vs. Yahweh theories, going into details on arguments for one or the other, but not providing a beginners lecture in phonetics. Unless the information is going to be fragmented to here and there around Wikipedia, it is better to concentrate on the topic in question, and add details only as pertaining to the academical debate about Jehovah vs. Yahweh, otherwise treating the God Yahweh, and possible etymologies, emergences, related cultural images in pre-antiquity middle east. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Bible does this article refer to in the 2nd paragraph
At the present moment, the 2nd paragraph reads as follows:
>>>
According to the Bible, Yahweh is the personal name of the one true God who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments, "God spoke all these words, saying: I Yahweh am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage: you shall have no other gods besides Me."[2]
>>>
The editor of this 2nd paragraph needs to to specify what the Bible he is referring to.
Dan Pelleg has written:
>>>
(Since the vocalisation "Yahweh" never appears in "the bible",
it must first be explained what this convention relies on,
before it is assumed for the rest of the article.)
>>>
While the English vocalization "Yahweh" occurs in several English bibles [that have been published in the last 100 years or so]
as far as I know, the Hebrew vocalization "Yahweh" occurs in no extant Hebrew Bible on the planet earth.
This article should deal with the issue, that it is quite possible that no English Bible in which the English word "Yahweh" occurs, has been translated from a Hebrew Bible in which the Hebrew vocalization "Yahweh" occurs even one time.
P.S. Of course any editor who has verifiable evidence that the vocalization "Yahweh" occurs in any extant Hebrew text on the planet earth,
is welcome to present that verifiable evidence!
Again, this is not the Encyclopaedia Iudaica. This is the English/international edition of Wikipedia. Yahweh is the English naqme for the biblical deity. It is of no relevance whether bibles in Hebrew use this or not. Yahweh is the most likely ancient vocalization of the name while Yehowah used in the "Hebrew Bible", i.e. the Masoretic text, is medieval. Cush (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cush,
I find it extremely difficult to believe that the moderators of the present English / International Wikipedia Article:Yahweh would find the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of this article acceptable,
The sentences starts out: According to the Bible, Yahweh is the personal name of the one true God who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments etc.
What "The Bible" is this Article talking about?
IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK what Bible is being referred to.
Of course the question then arises How can any English "Bible" provide proof that the personal name of the one true God of Israel is "Yahweh"?
I can name about four English Bibles in which the English name "Yhweh" occurs about 6823 times. But each one of these four Bibles appears to be a a work of fiction.
Not one of these 4 English Bibles has been translated from a Hebrew Bible in which the proposed Hebrew name "Yahweh" occurs even once!
1. The 1902 "The Emphasized Bible" by Joseph Bryant Rotherham.
2. The Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible
3. The Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible
4. The International NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament [NIVIHEOT]
The Hebrew Bible that underlies these four translations is either "The Leningrad Codex" or a Hebrew Bible derived from the Leningrad Codex.
To be more specific, the above four English translations,
in which the English Translation "Yahweh" occurs about 6823 times,
are all translated from a Hebrew Masoretic text in which the Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" occurs exactly ZERO TIMES.
To be even more specific is the fact that six different variants of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton occur in each of these Masoretic Texts,
As just mentioned not one of these variants of the Tetragrammaton is the Hebrew spelling "Yahweh".
Even worse is the fact that Hebrew word #3068 [the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah] occurs about 44 times in each of these 4 Masoretic Texts, and each time it occurs it is translated "Yahweh".
Something is definitely wrong in the method used to translate these four English Bibles.
Is Wikipedia going to allow an article to be written on the name "Yahweh",
that does not deal with these issues, that sort of tries to pretend that
the Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" [that Gesenius proposed in the 18th century]
is actually found in Hebrew copies of the Book of Exodus,
or in Hebrew copies of the Book of Gesenius" and is translated into English as "Yahweh".
In my opinion this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh has become a monstrosity since the previous editions of this Article have been rejected.
Of course "The Bible" in the second paragraph, can be changed to any one of the names of the 4 English Bibles that exist on the planet earth,
in which "Yahweh" occurs about 6823 times,
but to be redundant, in a sense each one of those 4 English Bibles is a work of fiction.
Why would anyone want to use any of those four English Bibles to try to prove that God's name is "Yahweh"?
FWIW
P.S.
The [NIVIHEOT] might be the lesser of four evils to use in the 2nd paragraph.
It "might" be relatively easy to provide the verification,
that Wikipedia would most likely demand to have,
that would prove that "Yahweh" occurs exactly Zero times
in the underlying Hebrew of the NIVIHEOT!
I do not get what you are getting at. The Masoretic text is no source that I accept as reliable, because it is a medieval work streamlined to fit the medieval fashion of Judaism. And in the whole pointless avoidance of uttering or writing the deity's name the vocalization has been changed and substituted so many times that dwelling on the Masoretic text, its reading guides, and on the bibles based on it is just laughable. What is relevant is the current use of the word Yahweh, and that is the name of the biblical god, no matter what edition of bible you use. By now the use of the word is independent of any actual occurrence in any bible.. And that is what somebody looks for when typing Yahweh into the search box. On a side note, it would be wise to not just look into English bibles. Cush (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw please stick to the common standard way of commenting on a discussion page and do not break up the text so it becomes illegible. Cush (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia naming conventions allow for the use of a reasonable English rendering as long as it is supported by reliable sources (as an English rendering, not necessarily as an accurate "vocalization.") The "vocalization" issue is a red herring with respect to Wikipedia naming policies. Lots of articles use common English renderings without any evidence whatsoever that those renderings represent accurate pronounciations in the original language. In fact, Wikipedia naming policies favor a common English rendering over transliteration from the original language. WIkipedia articles are not the place to argue about what a reasonable "vocalization" should be, it is the place to describe the entity using a common English name of that entity. "Yahweh" is a notable English rendering for the personal name of God in the Bible. This alone justifies an article by this name under Wikipedia standards.Michael Courtney (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael and Cush
I have posted below an early version of a table that is found in The Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton in a section titled: The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.
A shown below: Six different Hebrew spellings of the Tetragrammaton are found in The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D. These six different spellings can also be viewed on the On-line site, where the Leningrad Codex is displayed: See URL below:
The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.
The * indicates that the transliteration “e” indicates a Hatef Segol.
Note that a variation of the Leningrad Codex is used in the translation of the Old Testament of both the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible and in the translation of the Old Testament of the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. The English rendering "Yahweh" occurs 6823 times in both of the above mentioned Roman Catholic Bibles, although as noted in the chart above,
the Hebrew Spelling "Yahweh" occurs zero times.
As a matter of fact it would appear to be correct to say that in each of these two English Bibles the English rendering "Yahweh" is derived from Hebrew word #3068 [i.e. "Yehovah"] about 44 times.
P.S.
Michael and Cush
I remind you both of what Dan Pellig has previously written:
('Since the vocalisation "Yahweh" never appears in the bible [i.e. in the Hebrew Bible], it must first be explained what this convention relies on, before it is assumed for the rest of the article.)
I do not see of what the relevance the Leningrad Codex would be for the meaning and usage of "Yahweh" in English. Yahweh is not directly derived from hebrew anyways, but from the german rendition of the Tetragrammaton as Jahwe. Of course the vocalization does not appear in the bible, that is because the ancient biblical text sources in hebrew do not come with vocalization. However, "Yahweh" has been reconstructed as the most likely vocalization that was in fact in ancient times. The versions of the Masoretes with their medieval vocalization that derived from the roman/christian usage are of no importance in the modern usage of "Yahweh". Cush (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cush,
While Yahweh in a sense is a Scholarly reconstruction [by Gesenius] of the Samaritan transcription "IaBe" to "Yahveh",
which later became pronounced "Yahweh", again in a sense "Yahweh" seems more likely to represent Clement of Alexandria's Greek transcription "Iaoue"
So the accuracy of "Yahweh" depends on how accurate Clement of Alexandria and / or the Samaritans were. Plus it would be very helpful if some Hebrew Scholar could prefix "Nathan" with "Yahweh" and create the theophoric name "Yehonathan"
I have just deleted my previous comment about using a New Jerusalem Bible in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.
More and more I agree with what Dan Pellig previously wrote:
('Since the vocalisation "Yahweh" never appears in the bible [i.e. in the Hebrew Bible], it must first be explained what this convention relies on, before it is assumed for the rest of the article.)
It just seems that quoting any English Bible in this article is a problem, because the Hebrew vocalization "Yahweh" is just not found in any extant Hebrew Bible.
The trouble is that extant Hebrew Bibles are not the measure of things in the English language (or in any other language for that matter) and hence not in Wikipedia. And please stop formatting this talk page in an unreadable manner. Cush (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When Dan Pelleg said that the rendering of Yahweh should be explained before it is used in the rest of the article, he was explaining his decision to move the existing first paragraph (which briefly explains the origin of the English rendering of the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh") in front of what is now the second paragraph (which summarizes the basic Biblical portrayal of Yahweh). The first paragraph is sufficient explanation of the origins of the English rendering to subsequently describe the attributes of the character. One need not prove that an English rendering is accurate to use it as the basis of an article. One need only show that the subject is notable and that the rendering is common in English and found in reliable sources. There are multiple English renderings for Beijing, Tsar, Hannukah, and a host of other article titles. There is no need to show that these renderings represent the most accurate pronounciation, only that they are supported by reliable English sources.Michael Courtney (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, Thanks for pointing out that it was Dan Pelling that repositioned the text that briefly explains the origin of the English rendering "Yahweh". That same text also says: This pronunciation and spelling, as with many religious and scholarly issues, remains the subject of ongoing debate.[1]
While in my last edit I wrote: "It just seems that quoting any English Bible in this article is a problem, because the Hebrew vocalization "Yahweh" is just not found in any extant Hebrew Bible.", I still believe that some editor should clarify what precise English Bible is being quoted, when Biblical texts in which the English rendering "Yahweh" are found, are being quoted. How else can the text being quoted be verified, if the Bible in which the text is found in, is not clearly identified?
Michael, Are you able to provide this information? [i.e. The name of the specific Bible that is being used to provide the quotes found in this article]. It probably only needs to me mentioned once, in the second paragraph, and that should be enough to remind the reader where the quotes found in the remainder of the Article are found.
Good point, the article is in need of some cleanup in that the version of the Bible needs to be specified in citations throughout the article. I will put this next on my list of editorial contributions, but I have a very busy weekend so I expect I'll get to this task early next week, along with standardizing the format of biblical references while I'm at it. Please be patient, as I'd rather take some care and get it right rather than rush things and do a sloppy job. Have a great weekend!Michael Courtney (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the significance of pointing out the Bible version? Even if there is no English Bible using this spelling, it is still a widely accepted and used word to refer to the biblical deity and a valid vocalization of Yhvh. Cush (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cush
Wikipedia Article:Verifiability says:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Just put "Yahweh" in a search engine and show me those of the results where the word is used for something entirely else than the biblical deity. Common usage is sufficient verification. Cush (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not have an edit war on the meaning of Elijah
We need to keep in mind the Wikipedia policies on original research and naming conventions. Personal knowledge of Hebrew and one's reasoned explanations on what a Hebrew name means in English are merely original research unless a reliable source is cited. The reliable sources I've consulted yield a variety of English meanings for the name Elijah including "Yahweh is God", "Yahweh is my God", etc. with "The LORD", "Yah", and "Yahu" possibly substituted for "Yahweh" in the phrasing of the English meaning. However, the text of the "Yahweh" article is not the appropriate place to include this level of detail regarding the meaning of the name Elijah. Perhaps it can be discussed in a note, or in the Elijah article.
Wikipedia naming conventions indicate a preference for using a single English name throughout an article, except for a brief indication of alternate renderings. The meaning of "Elijah" should not become a surrogate for the debate of the proper rendering of the tetragrammaton. In an article on Beijing, a name meaning "Beijing is beautiful" would be more properly rendered as such rather than "Peking is beautiful" even if "Peking is beautiful" were a more accurate translation of the Chinese name. Since the meaning "Yahweh is God" is supported by reliable sources, and it is in better agreement with the policy of sticking to the same name throughout an article, it is probably best to use this meaning in the text with more detailed discussion either in an end note or in the Elijah article.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not so much an issue of using the right English word, but one of not falling for the doctrine in Judaism that Yah and Yahweh do in fact refer to the same deity. And since the character is not named Elijahweh but Elijah we should stick to what everyone looking at the name can comprehend. Cush (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The transliteration of the name “Elijah” from 1 Kings is “eliyyahu.” Wiki policies prefer that meanings be established with reliable sources rather than an editor’s interpretations of transliterations (which amount to original research.) Theophoric names from the Bible with the suffix “yahu” are more commonly given an English meaning using “Yahweh” rather than “Yah” in the sources I have consulted. With the appropriate support of reliable sources, there probably is a place in the Yahweh article to discuss whether or not “Yah” and “Yahweh” refer to the same diety, but the meaning of the name “eliyyahu” in 1 Kings is probably not the right place, since the Hebrew for “Yah” does not occur in 1 Kings. Take care not to give “undue weight” to discussion of “Yah” in the “Yahweh” article. “Yah” occurs roughly 50 times in the Bible, compared with over 6000 for “Yahweh.” The idea that these might be different entities seems like a minority view, and while it probably merits some mention in the article, squeezing in a plug for the minority view in the meaning of a theophoric name seems like undue weight.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selection criteria
Are there any conscious selection criteria being applied as to which mentions of God from the Bible to add to this article? Or is it just a random selection of what the authors happen to remember from Sunday school? Is there any reason why the whole of the book of Genesis is missing, for example?
My contributions are concentrating on the character development of Yahweh in the Bible, and I am trying to maintain a neutral point of view by consulting a variety of translations and secondary sources. I am adding material as time permits, and emphasizing what seems to be the highlights in available sources. Additional sources are en route to improve existing sections and address some areas that are conspicuously absent (Genesis, the Kethuvim, etc.) Wikipedia policy allows editors to add coverage in underrepresented areas provided they cite reliable sources. A brief summary on Yahweh in Genesis presents a greater challenge since Genesis covers a much longer span of time, there don’t seem to be a small number of passages which convey Yahweh’s character attributes more clearly than others, and most available sources concentrate on the plot rather than descriptions of Yahweh’s character. I hope to improve the article with additional citations from Jewish Study Bible, the HCSB, the New Jerusalem Bible, the NIVIHEOT, the Anchor Yale Bible Series (commentaries), and other sources available in my personal and local libraries. Please feel free to suggest other sources that you think should be considered. On-line sources are appreciated.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is surprising. I would have thought most people would see an enormous amount in Genesis about the nature of God -- particularly in stories like the Creation, the Flood, God's personal relationship with the Patriarchs, God's bargaining with Abraham over the destruction of Sodom, the near-sacrifice of Isaac, etc. etc. etc. At the moment the article suggests that the story begins with the burning bush, and that is an error.
More seriously, it seems the selection criteria at the moment are what match your personal WP:POV. This is dangerous, and can lead to the material being tagged {{Essay-like}}. We have important policy that selections from WP:PRIMARY sources need to be motivated by reference to WP:SECONDARY sources. In this case, commentary articles looking at God in the context of the whole of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible are probably most relevant for assessing significance -- eg from standard encyclopedias like the Anchor Bible Dictionary; and standard monographs on the whole of the Old Testament, like that of Eissfeldt; as well as works of theology notably grounded in the text rather than extra-textual material.
It would probably also be a good idea to be also thinking in mind of thematic sections to follow the initial orientating survey -- for example, the extent to which the text appears to describe God anthropometrically or abstractly, both in physical terms and in terms of a being emotions/personality, and the extent to which this balance varies from one part of the text to another; also the degree of variation as to where the view of God in different parts of the text appears to sit on a spectrum from pantheism, henotheism, monolatry, to monotheism. Consideration of this and similar such questions cutting across the text would give a better critical frame to the discussion, as policy requires. Jheald (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Pronunciation and spelling"
I was about to create a new article for this material but discovered that there's already a section with this title in the article YHWH. I don't want to create an unnecessary fork, and the material here is obviously duplicating the section there, so the best thing is just to delete this section and put a link in the See Also section. PiCo (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting/kooky article - obviously a fork. Should be mined for anything useful and then redirected to this article. PiCo (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the lede should mention the lack of universal agreement with the English rendering of the name as “Yahweh” but the current construction seems to belabor the point and give the false impression that the English rendering as “Yahweh” is a minority view. The sentence, “According to the small number of English Bibles mentioned above which use Yahweh . . .” suggests that there is no support beyond these translations that “Yahweh” is a reasonable English rendering of the Tetragrammaton. In reality I can probably cite at least 20 book level publications which favor rendering “Yahweh” and there are plenty of journal articles as well. Given this fact, the claim of a “small number” should be considered original research unless a reliable source can be cited. A more neutral phrasing of the second paragraph’s first sentence would be, “Yahweh is an English rendering of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the personal name . . .”Michael Courtney (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, On August 3,2009 Dan Pelleg wrote "Since the vocalization 'Yahweh' never appears in the bible [ i.e. The Hebrew Bible ] it must first be explained what this convention relies on, before it is assumed for the rest of the article"
Dan Pelleg has been on Wikivacation since he wrote those words, and this article has lost his input. I hope he returns soon.
In my opinion the statement that there are only a small amount of English Bibles that use the English rendering "Yahweh" is not an inaccurate statement.
The Emphasized Bible by Rotherham---1902
The Jerusalem Bible
The New Jerusalem Bible
The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament [NIVIHEOT]
The English Rendering "Yahweh" occurs about 6823 times in all four of the above listed English Bibles.
However none of these four English Bibles are translated from a Hebrew Text in which the Hebrew vocalized spelling "Yahweh" occurs even once.
To be redundant:On August 3,2009 Dan Pelleg wrote "Since the vocalization 'Yahweh' never appears in the bible [ i.e. The Hebrew Bible ] it must first be explained what this convention relies on, before it is assumed for the rest of the article"
How is the issue raised by Dan Pelleg to be explained to the readers of this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh"?
It is not a lie to quote the editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs-Lexicon of 1905 as stating that יַהְוֶה [ the Hebrew punctuation of יהוה proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century ] is"the proper name of the God of Israel".[7]
Yet, to be redundant again:On August 3,2009 Dan Pelleg wrote "Since the vocalization 'Yahweh' never appears in the bible [ i.e. The Hebrew Bible ] it must first be explained what this convention relies on, before it is assumed for the rest of the article"
Dan Pelleg’s quote was his reason for moving the first paragraph before the second, and this reasoning is satisfied by the explanation in the first paragraph. Your original research is inaccurate. In addition to the four translations you mention, “Yahweh” appears in the Anchor Bible, the World English Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the Amplified Bible, the Bible in Basic English, and the New Living Translation. Asserting that any enumeration of translations is a complete and accurate representation is original research unless a reliable source is cited. Describing such enumerations as a “small number” is an interpretative detail that requires a reliable source. Furthermore, the current wording suggests the rendering “Yahweh” is not supported by a considerable number of reliable sources (journal articles, commentaries, Bible dictionaries, study Bibles, etc.) other than the translations themselves. “Yahweh” is not the only reasonable English rendering, nor is there unanimous scholarship regarding its correctness. These are all issues that can be discussed in the body and given brief mention in the lede, but there is no need to present the whole debate in the lede.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael,
You continue to ignore what Dan Pelleg wrote at the precise same time he moved text to the introduction. He wrote:"Since the vocalization 'Yahweh' NEVER appears in the bible [ i.e. The Hebrew Bible ] it must first be explained what this convention relies on, before it is assumed for the rest of the article"
What should it mean to us if 8 Billion Hebrew Scholars say that the original pronunciation of God's name was "probably" 'Yahweh" if NO EXTANT HEBREW MANUSCRIPT EXISTS ON THE PLANET EARTH THAT PROVIDES ANY SOLID EVIDENCE THAT GOD"S NAME WAS ORIGINALLY 'YAHWEH'.
Again Dan Pelleg is not denying that all sorts of evidence exists that indicates that 'Yahweh" [might have been] the original pronunciation of God's name. Dan Pellegs issue was:
"The vocalization 'Yahweh' NEVER appears in the bible"
It can certainly be argued that Dan Pelleg may be mistaken,
and that an extant Hebrew manuscript does actually exist that does preserve the Hebrew vocalization 'Yahweh'.
Somehow I believe that if a Hebrew manuscript actually exists in which the Hebrew vocalization 'Yahweh" exists, that evidence would be made know all over the planet earth.
Michael,
are you intending to ignore Dan Pellegs' statement, or are you going to allow edits to be made in support of Dan Pelleg's statement.
Is solid evidence allowed to be posted that demonstrates that the Introduction of the New Jerusalem Bible claims that the underlying Hebrew Text for the NJB was a Masoretic Hebrew Text in which the Hebrew vocalization 'Yahweh' does not occur even once.
This information can be verified by the excellant on-line edition of the Leningrad Codex that exists on the Internet.
P.S. If I not be mistaken "Yahweh" occurs only once in the "Amplified Bible" and less than 100% of the time in the "Holman Christian Standard Bible".
Your keep returning to the debate whether the rendering "Yahweh" is rock solid correct, when (as I have pointed out in the past), Wikipedia policies only require the rendering of names from foreign languages to be supported with reliable sources. I am not ignoring Dan Pelleg's statement, my point is that the first paragraph is an adequate summary of what the English rendering relies on, and the details can be discussed in more detail in the main body. When a foreign name has multiple renderings, it is common for the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article to mention the most common alternatives, but it is uncommon for the lede of an article to delve deeply into the minutia of translation details and debates. Perhaps the first paragraph might be worded more clearly and have some citations added, but there is no need for the second paragraph to re-iterate the debate that is acknowledged in the first. Debates over English renderings of foreign names are common, and there is no need for inordinate attention to the debate. Once the debate (or rendering variations) is acknowledged in the lede, Wikipedia practice is to continue with the article describing the subject with perhaps a section devoted to translation issues. Wikipedia policies do not require one to make a case that a specific English rendering is correct, only that it is supported with reliable sources.Michael Courtney (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interwikis
Hi, I'm a new user and I can't edit this page. Could anyone add following interwikis?
The quotes appear to be linked to the TNIV, and yet they are not from the TNIV, which does not have "Yahweh of Armies" in those passages. Where are they from? -- Jonmmorgan (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A later editor added live links for Bible verses which suggest a version other than that quoted in the text. After I reverted some of these to show the correct version, they got changed back to live links to an incorrect version a second time. After this, I discussed the matter on the editor's talk page and we reached agreement that the references here should reflect the proper version of the source. Since that time, some of the quotes have been re-attributed to the proper versions, but all of the misattributions have not yet been fixed. I think most of the remaining quotes that are misattributed and contain the name "Yahweh" are the WEB, but I will have to check against other possible sources that use "Yahweh" (HCSB, NIVIHEOT, NJB, etc.) to be sure. I hope to have this all cleaned up by the end of this month. Michael Courtney (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serabit al-Khadim
In the course of other research I came across the specific reference to finding the name YHWH in Serabit al-Khadim. I was completely unaware a) that any definitive translations beyond (l-b3lt - which I think is disputable) actually exist from Sinai in general; and b) there is no citation.
If someone wants to revert or add the paragraph again, please cite those things (as it'd drastically help me out, too...). Until then, I really think this should be removed, because as far as I know, it's flagrantly untrue.
Removing:
"Petroglyphs evidencing that Yahweh (El, Al, Allah, Iah) was at one time reverenced by various tribes near Palestine in the Seir, the mountain chain running between Mount Horeb and Hammath, in Sinai and the Negev, have been found at Serabit el Khadim. Emanual Anasti has found several cultic places in that territory (Horeb, Sinai, Kadesh, &c.)that were sacred to the various powers of secular lord, wind, storm, water in the desert, fire and smoke that these glyphs represented. The oldest and most famous of these, the mountain of God, Mount Horeb seems to have lain in Arabia, at the juncture of the Arabah with the Gulf of Aqabah of the Red Sea at Elat." Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section ends with the text:
[quote]Gérard Gertoux wrote that in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010, the Masoretes used 7 different vowel pointings [i.e., 7 different Q're's] for YHWH.[66][/quote]
... but doesn't explain the significance of such. Could an expert add a sentence explaining why this is important, or else remove the quoted sentence as it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the section.
Md84419 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Md84419. I am not a true expert, but I have added a New Section # 5.2.5 to the Main Article which may answer your question.
First in the section "Criticisms and theories of origin and meaning" it has a "main article" redirect "Criticisms and theories on Yahweh", however "Criticisms and theories on Yahweh" is just a re-direct to this article, making a big circle. If someone can remove this as the so called "main article" does not exist.
Second, why is there almost no mention of Yahweh as a god in the Levant, particularly in the ancient religion of Ugarit? The only reason to not include this information is due to some religious based agenda. I'm sorry, this article is written from a primarily Judaic stand-point (which is fine as Yahweh is most often identified as Judeo-Christian today), however, Yahweh as a god pre-dates Judaism. There are a ton of material on this available, especially considering the amount of high quality religious texts recovered at Ras Shamra, to discuss Yahweh in a pre-Jewish mythological context.
Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
![[7]](http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BDBYahwehtrimmed.jpg){kind=link}
