Talk:Yahweh/Archive 3

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.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2313.htm

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 Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

Jacob Davidson205.68.95.65 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5wW-VVHPE4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.54.117 (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

• Is there any good reason to keep this article separate to the Tetragrammaton article? It look like a POV fork of that article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• LisaLiel, see my comment above.
• Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• Merged to page Yahweh. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That's correct. The Hebrew waw only turned into a vav because German Jews couldn't pronounce the "w" sound. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A sockpuppet siphoned it off to a new, but awkwardly named, article - Criticisms and theories on Yahweh - in October. For reasons that have a suspiciously high possibility of being due to their religion-based bias, they neglected to leave a link between the two articles, and they left the 'what the bible says' element of those sections. This should be sorted out now. Clinkophonist (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Information is indeed removed in the spirit of biased censorship; this reader feels one needs look far outside the locale of ancient Israel for the sources, origins of "Yahweh," as a word/concept: to further Asia where the ancient concept of Yi Yau [Healing Seeking] and its reversed form, Yau Yi, functionally demonstrate some reasons for the concept of the later Hebraic word/tetragrammaton, if not the confusions demonstrated in the pronunciations of the tetragrammaton/word itself as the ancients strove to assimilate a foreign term from another language and region. Saying that Israel was insulated from ancient Chinese thought really reminds me of Australian aborigines and American Navajo, whose creation myths declare to have them originating in Australia or America -- whilst their DNA ultimately traces to Central Africa. Or the testing, incipient metaphysician, who asks if one believes we have extraterrestrial origins, whilst standing in the sun's light or even beneath the stars, on a planet composed of cosmic dust 71.51.75.154 (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Short Forms section and David H. Stern's input

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:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&oldid=276274973#Short_forms

I see Clinkophonist ditched it. Much of information isn't reflected in Criticisms and theories on Yahweh however. Information shouldn't just vanish into thin air with one-line explanations? --Baba Bom (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the short forms section to Criticisms and theories on Yahweh#Verb origin, and merged the text with what was already there (as explained in the edit summary). Clinkophonist (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article

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)

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)

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)

What's this?

Why doesn't the article contain any information?PiCo (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you expect? Cush (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naive, but I sort of hoped that an article abt Yahweh would contain stuff about Yahweh :) PiCo (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I can see your point. What do you suggest?Civilizededucation (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Isn't that covered in God in Judaism? Mitchell Powell (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh is not limited to Judaism. CUSH 07:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Split article: Tetragrammaton (correct pronunciation)

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)

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)

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)

If you want to have an article on "God in the Old Testament" (or Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible), then that article should be called God 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"

For all these reasons, "Yahweh" is not an appropriate article title for God in the Hebrew Bible. Jheald (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

That is a much better way to go about things, IMO. Jheald (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. What with the Tetragrammaton article?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

To all appearances "Yahweh" is only a guess name,

and as far as I know "Yahweh"

has not been accepted by the Jewish People

as being the correct Hebrew Name of their God.

FWIW

Seeker02421 (talk)

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)

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:.

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:

(Yahweh) William Gesenius's proposed Hebrew vocalization of YHWH

Seeker02421 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi there Michael,

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? Bullzeye ^contribs 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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!

Seeker02421 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Chapter & Verse	Hebrew Spelling	Transliteration	Codex L. Link
Judges 16:28	יְהוָה	Yehwah	[1]
Genesis 3:14	יְהֹוָה	Yehovah	[2]
Ezekiel 24:24	יְהוִה	Yehwih	[3]
Genesis 15:2	יֱהוִה	Yehwih*	[4]
1 Kings 2:26	יְהֹוִה	Yehowih	[5]
Judges 16:28	יֱהֹוִה	Yehowih*	[6]

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.)

Seeker02421 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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"

Seeker02421 (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cush,

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.

Seeker02421 (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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."

Seeker02421 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

Can those who are adding this material set out the basis on which they are working? Jheald (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
• Page YHWH is a redirect to page Tetragrammaton, where this removed matter is not. I have reverted the big deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms and theories on Yahweh

• 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)
•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OR and NPOV issues in the lede

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)

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"?

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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"

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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".

Seeker02421 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Interwikis

Hi, I'm a new user and I can't edit this page. Could anyone add following interwikis?

hu:Jahve

pl:Jahwe

ru:Яхве

--Anton vk (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes not from TNIV

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)

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)

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)

Ok... it wasn't removed, but I still don't see any evidence... Michael Sheflin (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Kethib and Qere and Qere perpetuum

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)

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.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Two SERIOUS problems with this article...

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.

This information really needs to be added. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and its many endorsements of Jewish POVs... :-) Cush (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And several of its somewhat bigoted or at least self-righteous enforcers, some of whom seem to think they may actually be or personally own Yahweh... 71.51.73.23 (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this article should also describe the pre-Herbrew Yahweh, as well as the characteristics of Yahweh as he appears in the J source of the Torah. Leadwind (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The earliest trace of Yahweh comes from around 850 BCE, so you should rather elaborate on a pre-Jewish Yahweh. Prior to that the inhabitants of the region worshiped Yah as everyone else between the Mediterranean and the Zagros, including "Israelites" and other Hebrews. CUSH 09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh/ Jahova is a moon G_D

Off-topic argument

YHVH Means Unseen (Invisible: בלתי נראה) The Jewish/Egyptian hallelu-jah god The word "hallelujah" is not in the Bible One of the false gods the Jews worshipped was Yah. This pagan idol has its roots in Babylon and in Egypt. This is the lunar or moon god. In Babylon the moon god is called "Ia" or Ya. It has both a female and a male identity. In Egypt the Babylonian female "Ia or Ya" was changed into a male god and the female god was named "shua" and made the sky god. When a person then combines these forms into Iashua or Yahshua they have made the moon god the sky god. This Babylonian/Egypt deity is also called Baal throughout the Scriptures. The Jews did worshiped the moon god when they apostated into idolatry from the true God Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (Elohim/Adonai). Look up the word moon in Hebrew and it is "yareah" which is the same as "Yahweh." Modern Hebrew spells it different now to distort the real identity of their ancient Yah god. They now spell it "yareach." No matter, real scholars know the truth! The Yah moon god remains controversial. Why? Because scholars are fearful to say the Jewish god Yah is the same as the Babylonian god "Ia-ya" and or the Egyptian moon god Yah. They feel this somehow may cause loss of faith in the Jews and in the true God of the Jews. They are fearful and reluctant to make this bold connection because it brings into question the tetragrammaton god YHVH or YHWH since both incorporate the "Yah" deity into their name constructions as "Yahveh or Yahweh." The evidence however is quite strong and overwhelming that Yah is an idol god. This moon god also has the name of Thoth. It is because there are two names for this same idol that scholars can draw away attention that this moon god is Yah. This is how they do it with the word Baal also. They will not give us the real names of these Baal gods so we can observe the Jews as they moved from idol to idol and from one god to another. There were many Jewish gods. Here is a short list as we found them so far: Baal=Num 22:41 Baal-peor=Num 25:3 Ashtoreth Jug 2:13; 2Ki 23:13 Molech=Jug 8:33 Baal-Berith=Jug 8:33 Milcom=1Ki 11:33 Baal-zebub=2Ki 1:2 Calves (Isis)=2Ki 16:16 Chemosh=2Ki 23:13 Jah or Yah=Psalms 68:4 Sun=shemesh=2 Ch 33:3; Ezek 8:16 Moon=yah=2 Ch 33:3; Ezek 8:16 Stars=ishtar=2 Ch 33:3; Ezek 8:16 Planets=astrology=2 Ch 33:3; Ezek 8:16 Remphan=Acts 7:41 The land was filled with these idols: Deut 29:26; 2Kings 17:12; 2Kings 23:24; 2Chron 24:18; Isa 2:6-8. Because of this same idolatry the Jews were expelled from Israel: Ezk 6:4-9. Because of this spiritual whoredom and adultery against God, Israel was divorced: Jer 3:8. The Jews were counted by God as the seed of the adulterer and whore: Isa 57:3. Because of these idols and the whoredom thereof, God chose a new bride... The Church replaced the whore wife who went after other gods: Isa 57:4-9. The effects of worshipping these idol gods caused the Jewish people as a nation to be forever replaced by the New Testament Church. They must come into the Kingdom of the Messiah which is the true Israel now, or they cannot be saved! They may be Jews of flesh and the Gospel preached to them first, but they will be cut off forever as long as they remain in unbelief. While in this unbelief they have again taken up the Yah moon god of the Egyptians. This god figures in their tetragrammaton gods YHVH and YHWH each of which as said before contain the "Yah" identity! Scholars are very good at corrupting the truth on all this including the Yah idol. They have no other reason to fabricate their falsehoods except to keep condemnation from the Jews and from their tetragrammaton guess names. No amount of denial and no amount of perverting the facts will take away the truth. This pagan Yah idol was not the original God of the Jews. This Yah idol is not the God of creation. This Yah idol is not the God Abraham believed in and it was counted to him for righteousness. This Yah idol is a Baal god and the sooner we acknowledge this the quicker the Jews can return to the true God and let him heal their sins. So long as we participate in this massive perversion we are guilty of idolatry. We cannot worship this Yah idol god. We cannot place this idol's name into our names and we dare not continue the massive fraud of translating "yh" into "yah" when it should correctly be "yeh" a contraction of "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" as given to Moses at the burning bush. Hallelu is the Hebrew word for "praise." Yah is the name of the Jewish/Egyptian moon god. Therefore hallelu-jah is a praise to the moon god. Yah is the hallelu-jah god! The words "hallelu-yah" and "hallelu-jah" are not in your Bible! Eleleu-ih or Alleluia (Praise Yah) in Revelation chapter 19? The name of the Unseen Deity is in (Armaic: Alaha)Avram spoke Armiac, YHVH the Unseen refers to Avram and Avram called Him Alaha (Allah) Reference Rabi Inoc Hebrew and Arabic speaking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.104 (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC) You need to stick to discussing the article and what changes to make to it, based on reliable sources. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

"Yahweh". A useful, informed, neutral article. Leadwind (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision and Split

This article is a mess which could easily be corrected. The first step in that process, however, is the need to split the many sections concerning the pronunciation of the name into the Tetragrammaton article where those sections would be appropriate (this has been suggested, at length, on this talk page). This article would still contain a section which briefly discusses the issue of the pronunciation, but would direct readers to the Tetragrammaton article if they wished to read further on that topic. Such a split will leave this article on topic describing Yahweh/Yehowah as he appears within the both scriptures, as he is possibly found outside of scriptures (id est: the possible connection between YHWH and YHW and others), as well as the possible inclusion of a section on the origin(s) of YHWH. In conjunction with the split, the lead needs revision as the lead discusses the debate over the name far more than it discusses the the character/origin/referrences-to YHWH. — al-Shimoni (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Split

Support Split

I support the split, in part, for the following reasons: 1) Discussion of the pronunciation is more appropriate to the Tetragrammaton article; 2) A brief section on the name debate and wiki link to Tetragrammaton article would be included in this article after the split; 3) Readers who search for Yahweh/(Y/J)eho(w/v)ah are most likely looking for info about YHWH himself, not about a debate on the pronunciation, however, a mentioned in #2, they could easily find such info if they are interested in reading that; 4) A split would make this article more focused on a single major topic rather than a mashing of 2 major topics into 1; 5) A split would make possible the expansion of the appropriate topic of this article without significantly contributing to the mess that it is in now and exacerbating the problem in #4. Many reasons exist, but these are some of the main ones. — al-Shimoni (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I think a split would be nice, but it needs to be done with some skill and care.Michael Courtney (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Support split. Move the "name" material to Tetragrammaton. Leadwind (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Port and move. This article is composed of

1. name stuff that properly belongs to Tetragrammaton,
2. that guy named YHWH in the Old Testament, which belongs to God in Old Testament or God in Tanakh. It doesn't belong to God in Abrahamic religions since Islam doesn't use the Old Testament/Tanakh.

After moving the name stuff to Tetragrammaton this article should be moved to God in Old Testament or God in Tanakh whatever the mover's mood happenstance is then. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Split The reasons given above are very good, I have no more to add to them. It seems no-one opposes. Is someone going to do this? (I've amended the definition of Yahweh in the lead to take the proposed split into account) PiCo (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• If nobody else comments here, I'll make the move in the next few days.PiCo (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody has commented after three days, and so I've carried out the split. Some cleanup may of course be needed. PiCo (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh in the TANAKH

There are currently three sections which add up to a treatment of Yawheh in the Tanakh (the first three sections of the article). It's essential that such a section exist, but I have problems with the material actually presented. Most of the space is taken up with selections from various books - big slabs of quotation, they take up a lot of room, but are they essential to the article? The three sections should, I feel, be combined (Yahweh in the Tanakh), and it should tell how Yahweh is described. This is already done in, especially, the section Yahweh in the Ketuvim - it tells how the Writings describe Yahweh as the source of wisdom, as the uniquely praised, etc etc. So what I'm suggesting is combine the sections, have less quotes, and concentrate on the way Yahweh is portrayed in the scriptures. Comments? PiCo (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a "brief" summary of my main thoughts at the moment. I agree that these sections should be combined and the block quotations should be minimized. Full quotations aren't necessary to get the point across. At the moment, these sections look a little amateurish with the quotations far outweighing the actual article's description. I can see a reason for separate sections — to describe the different ways Yahweh is portrayed in various parts of TaNaK — but considering how small each of these sections are (mostly with just a single point presented) there really isn't a need to divide it into subsections like we have now. One approach that may be taken — only if it actually helps clarify the points — is that after we combine these sections, we would have a short, concise subsection at the end which describes how the portrayal varies throughout the TaNak. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was editing while you were writing this. I've been bold, and done the following:

• Previous section deleted, for the reasons outlined here;
• New section inserted, taking a thematic approach. I could only think of two "themes", the first a brief summary of how Yahweh is depicted in the bible, the second some background on the social basis of the religion of ancient Israel, which, although it was the ancestor of modern Judaism, wasn't identical with it.
• I can see the need for a third subsection, on the history of Yahweh - i.e., how Yahweh changes from book to book. That, however, would probably be controversial, an I'd like some feedback before I attempt it.

My aim has been to be as succinct as possible - there's a great deal more that could be said, but I wanted to get a basic framework in place.

Please regard this as a contribution for further work, not as a final effort. PiCo (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which section should contain changes in the actual worship, not just from a perspective within the Bible, but in real history? I.e. the gradual shift from polytheism to monotheism focusing on Yah. I find it noteworthy that Yah had a spouse and offspring before these were abolished to form what would become Judaism. There are of course remnants of polytheism in the Tanakh (e.g. the constant references to Asherah-poles, Asherah being the spouse of Yah) but they are not mentioned in this article which only renders a portrayal of Yah consistent with later Judaism. CUSH 12:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably the proposed 3rd sub-section - but we'd have to be careful not to get into a discussion of the development of religion in ancient Israel, which I think has it's own article somewhere. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The removal of reliably sourced material leaves this article too short to sufficiently describe the character’s attributes, given the notability and cultural influence of this character in history. The reader of an encyclopedic article on a literary character expects the article to address the character’s identity, role and influence by discussing the primary source material. The article was informative and much closer to meeting this expectation before the recent edits. The removed material should be restored. Corinne68 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of many books representing a number of authors and a long period of time. Since this article is currently well within article length guidelines, the treatment of the Yahweh in any of these books is sufficiently notable to justify a paragraph or two in this article, given appropriate substantiation with reliable sources. Organizing such treatment in sections reflecting the common categorization of Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim is reasonable, given the historicity of this organization (though other organizations are certainly possible). In an article treating the development of a character in a series of books (which is what the TANAKH is), a couple of paragraphs addressing character development in various books is reasonable and encyclopedic. I’ve added a significant number of secondary sources, as well as achieved a better balance of discussion and direct quotations.Michael Courtney (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed also. But Corinne, the length of the sections which have been removed was due to the use of massive block-quotes. As al-Shimoni points out (echoing earlier threads), such block-quotes are not encyclopediac. We need to go to reliable secondary and tertiary sources to get an overview of how Yahweh appears in the Hebrew bible. As an example: In the Torah, Yahweh appears in person; in the Former Prophets, this stops and he merely communicates with the prophets; and in the Writings even this stops, and he's merely referenced. This is noted by scholars (the so-called "disappearance of God" problem), but didn't appear at all in the removed material. So, please, go to the sources - bible dictionaries would be best - and expand the section, but without block-quotes. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Block quotes are common in literary articles. For example, the articles on William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew and Shakespeare’s Sonnets, as well as Samuel Taylor Coleridge and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner make extensive use of block quotes. The usage of block quotes here is a reasonable proportion of the article and well supported with secondary sources. Corinne68 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Block quotes themselves are not a problem, but they should be used properly. It could be said that block quotes were being abused in this section of the article, and thus the reason for the changes. — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh as name of God

(This section began as Seeker02421's response to the preceding thread, Yahweh in the Tanakh. As it doesn't address the question raised there I'me hiving it off as a new thread) PiCo (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where precisely is the name "Yahweh" found in the TANAKH?

Where precisely does the Hebrew Bible give the name "Yahweh" to the God of Israel?

Isn't the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh only presuming that the God of Israel is called "Yahweh"?

Seeker02421 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Being loud does not make you right. You have been told many times that "Hebrew Bible" does NOT refer to bible published in the Hebrew language. And in the Tanakh the name Yahweh is ubiquitous. What point exactly are you trying to make? CUSH 14:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cush,

Do you believe that a reader of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh deserves to be informed early in the article that English Bibles in which "Yahweh" occurs 6823 times, have been translated from Hebrew Texts in which no support for the translation "Yahweh" exists. This is a fact.

Do you believe that the fact that I mentioned in the sentence above deserves to be found in the Wikipedia Article, before the sentence, "Yahweh is the name given in the Hebrew bible to the god of Israel." occurs.

The sentence: "Yahweh is the name given in the Hebrew bible to the god of Israel," strongly implies that the name "Yahweh" is found in the Hebrew Bible. [e.g. in Hebrew Manuscripts.]

But where is the evidence that a Hebrew Word exists that can be legitimately translated as "Yahweh".

Gesenius's proposed Hebrew Punctuation of "Yahweh" is a made up name that occurs in no extant Hebrew Text.

In my less than humble opinion the sentence: "Yahweh is the name given in the Hebrew bible to the god of Israel" does not belong in an Wikipedia Article concerning the English name "Yahweh". Seeker02421 (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you refer to by "extant hebrew text"? The whole problem arises because ancient texts where the tetragrammaton appears do not contain punctuation. However, Yahweh IS the rendition of the Tetragrammaton that is used in English (and in other languages), and it also happens to be the one that is most likely what the name really was in ancient times. What modern Jews do with their replacements for the divine name should not be introduced into this article, but rather be put into the Tetragrammaton article. CUSH 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Cush,

You asked: "What exactly do you refer to by "extant hebrew text"?" The most famous "extant Hebrew Text" is probably "The Leningrad Codex" of 1008 A.D.-1010 A.D.. The Leningrad Codex was published in book form [a very large book, about 14 pounds]and is considered to be the oldest "COMPLETE" Masoretic Text in existance. The original Leningrad Codex still exists. I own a facsimile edition that cost about $268.00.

The Masoretes were the first persons to vocalize the "original" unvocalized [i.e. un pointed] Hebrew Texts. The Masoretes wrote six different vocalizations of YHWH in the Leningrad Codex.

Several English Bibles claim to have been translated from BHS Hebrew texts derived from the text of the Leningrad Codex. The Roman Catholic "New Jerusalem Bible" is one of those translations, and "Yahweh" occurs 6823 times in that Bible. As mentioned the BHS text which they used, like the Leningrad Codex it was derived from, contained six different variants of the Tetragrammaton, none of which were pointed as "Yahweh".

While the Hebrew punctuation which Gesenius proposed can be seen in many scholarly sources, it is only an educated guess of what might have been the original pronunciations of God's name. [ It is possible that it is not correct. ]

Some sources refer to Gesenius's Hebrew punctualtion as being a "Scholarly Reconstruction of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.

And of course Gesenius's Scholarly Reconstructed Hebrew pronunciation of God's name, can be letter-by-letter" transliterated into English as "Y-a-h-w-e-h".

Some sources refer to "Yahweh" as being a "guess name".

Seeker02421 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So what is your problem? That medieval Jewish fanatics avoided the punctuation that would have represented the original vocalization? And now Wikipedia should subsequently avoid the spelling that is a representation of the original vocalization? This petty bitching is beyond me. Or are you just one of those who do not want to see the deity's name spelled out publicly? What is your aim? CUSH 20:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cush,

I just don't believe that God should be called by a name that seems to have no Hebrew Evidence

backing it up, without early in the Article, mentioning same.

I believe that "all Scripture is given by Inspiration of God"

I do not know of any similar claim made concerning the writings of the Early Greek Fathers of the Christian Church.

Seeker02421 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeker, this article is about Yahweh, which, as it says at one point (quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica), "is now the commonly used form in biblical scholarship." If you want to follow up your concerns, the article tetragrammaton is the right place.PiCo (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What is Hebrew evidence? The term Hebrew Bible is a synonym to Tanakh and Old Testament, and not limited to the Hebrew language, least of all to Hebrew language with modern or medieval punctuation. And as you have said yourself, English publications of the Tanakh/Old Testament do contain Yahweh as the biblical deity's name. What do you want? CUSH 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cush

You wrote:

"And as you have said yourself, English publications of the Tanakh/Old Testament do contain Yahweh as the biblical deity's name. What do you want?"

I think you know exactly what I am looking for.

The Hebrew portion of the Tanakh provides no Hebrew evidence that God's name is "Yahweh"!

The English portion of the Tanakh may translate God's name into the English Language as "Yahweh", however the English portion is not translating any Hebrew word or Hebrew evidence found in the Tanakh as "Yahweh". That evidence is not found in the Hebrew portion of the Tanakh, as you well know yourself.

The translators of the Tanakh have chosen to use the English translation "Yahweh" for reasons that have nothing to do with the underlying Hebrew evidence found in the Tanakh!!!

This is obvious to the most casual observer, in my copy of "The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testamen".[ a.k.a. NIVIHEOT]

Seeker02421 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we're missing the point here. This isn't a Wikipedia article concerning the English name "Yahweh" (for which see the article Tetragrammaton). It's an article concerning the god/God commonly called Yahweh in modern scholarly circles. Let's move on. PiCo (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to. This talks about "Hebrew evidence" goes no-where. What Hebrew versus English portions of the Tanakh??? יהוה is all there is. The punctuation was added later anyways, so all this insistence on the Masoretic stuff is ultimately pointless. CUSH 02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cush writes:

This talks about "Hebrew evidence" goes no-where. What Hebrew versus English portions of the Tanakh??? יהוה is all there is. The punctuation was added later anyways, so all this insistence on the Masoretic stuff is ultimately pointless.

Cush:

If יהוה is all there is why does the first sentence in the Article read:

"Yahweh is the name given in the Hebrew bible to the god of Israel."

How did those persons who wrote the Tanakh get from the unvocalized name of God יהוהto the English name "Yahweh" which is obviously a translation/transliteration of some vocalized variant of יהוה found somewhere on the planet earth.

Just possibly the persons who wrote the Tanakh may have gone to some vocalized Hebrew Text invented by Gesenius in the 19th Century.

That name "Yahweh" is certainly not found in the Hebrew portion of the Tanakh.

However the 2nd sentence like magic tells the reader:

"Yahweh" is the English rendering of יַהְוֶה , a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה that was proposed by the Hebrew scholar Wilhelm Gesenius in the 19th century.

Why not just leave out the first sentence and explain to the reader that Gesenius in the 19th century invented the name "Yahweh",which occurs in no extant Hebrew text on the planet earth.

Seeker02421 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeker02421! There is an article Tetragrammaton. Have you read it? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rursus,

I am aware that there is an article Tetragrammaton. Why do you ask?

Seeker02421 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the issue you're raising belongs in that article, not this one. But I've made an edit to have the lead sentence say that Yahweh is the scholarly useage. Now lets' move on.PiCo (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The name Yahweh is a scholarly guess as to how the name was pronounced. There is a question about how that name should be vocalized, but discussion about this belongs within the Tetragrammaton article. For the purpose of this article (and many discussions and papers relating to the deity referred to by יהוה) the vocalization of Yahweh is the generally agreed upon convention. I, myself, disagree with the scholarly guess, but for the purpose of discussion, it is best to go with the general convention until that convention changes (if it ever does). This article should briefly point out that the vocalization of "Yahweh" is what is generally agreed upon, and that's the vocalization that will be used within this article, but it should also mention that other renderings have support (and then refer the reader to the Tetragrammaton article if they want to follow up on that point — the issue of the name is far too large to be discussed within this article). For the purpose of this article, it is generally agreed that "Yahweh" should be used, and any further discussion of the original vocalization of the name kept to a minimum — we are only discussing the person/deity referred to by the name in this article, not the name itself. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, Seeker02421 now you are overdoing it. Please stop forcing your opinion on everybody else and assailing the consensus about what Yahweh is or means. Yahweh is the name of the biblical deity, no matter what spelling or transliteration you prefer. Yahweh as the name of the biblical deity is very well sourced since it is ubiquitous in the media and in common use. So stop your private crusade just because you have issues with how the Tetragrammaton is rendered in English. This is getting ridiculous. CUSH 14:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Israelite "Yah" material is inaccurate and outdated/no mention of "Yhw" Shasu

Just an observation:

Mark Smith is listed as a reference for the idea that "Yah" was the original name of the Ugaritic deity Yamm and that such a deity connects to both the earlier Mesopotamian Ea and the later Israelite Yahweh. I've read Smith and as far as I can remember he makes no such assertion. "Yamm" is simply the Northwest Semitic word for "Sea," of which the Ugaritic deity in question is a personification.

There is no mention of any "Yah" in the Ugaritic texts. There is an alleged reference to El changing Yamm's name to "Yaw," but this is usually seen as a misreading (El is here changing Yamm's name to "Darling of El") and is hardly ever encountered in current biblical studies literature (I can't find it on JSTOR, for example). Other supposed pre-Israelite references to "Yah" (such as Pettinato's readings of the Ebla texts) are generally not accepted either; no one but Petinatto and Dahood have written anything in support of this view since the '80s. The general consensus is that Ea and Yamm do not have any connections to biblical Yahweh (or to each other for that matter).

Pre-Israelite references to Yahweh CAN probably be found in Egyptian toponymic texts from the New Kingdom period referring to the place-name "Yhw" in the shasu-land (southern Transjordan), see [here] page 50 and Redford 1992. It is commonly assumed that Yahweh was in fact a transjordanian deity that was adopted by the early Israelites--hence the legend about the name Yahweh being "revealed" to Moses at Sinai in the E and P sources, and otherwise obscure references to Yahweh coming from "Seir" and "Edom" in Judges 5, as well as the Kuntillet Ajrud references to "Yahweh of Teman." This material should be included in the article and the whole issue of "Ya" at Ebla should be specified as a minority view.--76.78.57.66 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have references for the material in the last paragraph? PiCo (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The book preview I linked to above, plus Donald Redford's "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times." Also search for "Yhw shasu" on Google scholar and you will get a ton of hits, although most of them are subscribers only, unfortunately. The article on "Yahweh" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary also mentions this "Yhw in the shasu-land," although it takes issue with the usual geographic identification in Transjordan, arguing instead for a location in Syria.

And there are no citations in the article to the "Yah" material, aside from Mark Smith, which I am 99.99% sure is a misattribution (i.e. Smith does not actually say what the article claims he says).

Additionally the article claims (without reference) that Yahweh is mentioned in the Serabit el-Khadim texts, which is not true. I am a student in Near Eastern archaeology with an interest in the biblical period and in four years of reading I have never heard this claim anywhere apart from Wikipedia; this is strange given the implications it would have.--76.78.57.66 (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll lift the paragraph in question out of the article and break it into sentences so that we can discuss it more easily:

1. According to a theory, Yahweh may be a compound from Yahu or Yah, explaining why there are many theophoric names (of people and places) based on Yah but few based on Yahweh as a whole; the theory proposes that Yahu/Yah is the name of a deity worshipped throughout the Western Semitic area. This is pretty poor - "a theory" is vague, it needs to say if this theory is widely accepted. Also, the part after the semi-colon seems to be saying that Yahu/Yah was a West Semitic god, which is contrary to what Mark Smith (Origins of Biblical Monotheism, p.140) is quoted saying in the next paragraph (if I understand him rightly, he says that El was a common West Semitic divinity and that Yahweh was an outsider from the south).

2. Based on damaged writing at Ebla, dated to the reign of Ebrum, it has been proposed by Mark Smith that Yah was the original name of Yam, and that this Yah must be another form of Ea, the Babylonian version of Enki, with which Yam has several similarities. Sentence 2 seems to be a development of the preceding sentence. It contains the assertion, sourced from Smith's Biblical Monotheism, that you dispute, i.e. that Yah is mentioned at Ebla and was originally a name of Yam and a variant of Ea/Enki. Unfortunately no page number is given. If anyone can give the page reference it would be much appreciated.

3. Jean Bottero and other archaeologists have consequently supported the view that Yahweh derives from this Yah, and ultimately from Enki. Sentence 3 gives Jean Bottero and Norman Cohn as references for the same view.

4. It has also not gone unnoticed that the Egyptian word for moon was Yah, and the semitic moon god was Sin, after which scholars believe Sinai and the surrounding wilderness of Sin were named. Sentence 4 has similar problems to the first sentence - a vague "it has not gone unnoticed" and a reference to unspecified "scholars" for the two separate claims, (a) that the Egyptian word for moon was Iah/Yah, and (b) that Sinai and the Wilderness of Sin derive from the moon-god Sin. Also, if there's an inference here that Yah is identical with this Egyptian moon-god, it needs to be made explicit and given a reference.

PiCo (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I don't know of any professional ANE historian who connects Yahweh with the Egyptian moon god. Smith, as I remember, does assert that El was a native Canaanite deity and Yahweh is an outsider from the south; if he asserted that Yahweh was from Ebla he would thus be contradicting himself.

I can't give any opinion on the content of Bottero and Cohn, because I haven't read them, although I know Bottero is associated with Ebla. The whole controversy over alleged references to Yah (as well as Sodom and Gomorrah) at Ebla was a big thing in the '70s and '80s and was dependent on claims made by the original epigraphers that were unverifiable by the scholarly community at large due to delays in publishing of the Ebla texts. These claims seem to have been since dismissed by other semiticists after the publication of the texts; see for example the article on Ebla in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which provides alternative readings for the alleged "Yah" references and doesn't even mention the Sodom and Gomorrah claims.--76.78.57.66 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, point 2 (Yamm has similarities with Ea/Enki) is just wrong. Ea/Enki is a major divinity in the Mesopotamian pantheon, whereas Yamm is essentially a demonic monster in the Ugarit texts. The only similarities between the two are that they are both associated with water.--76.78.57.66 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think point 1 and point 2 are separate theories, although they are compatible with each other. Point 4 I have only heard from folks who are rather ignorant of archæology other than what they've learned from the Discovery Channel, and which have a tendency to jump to wild conclusions based on the most tenuous things. There are more than a few professionals who support points 1-3 (there are several variations of these theories) although I'm not sure at the moment if Bottero is one of them, as point 3 seems to indicate. Can we remove point 4 right now unless someone more professional than an "arm-chair archæologist" can give support to it? — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed point 4. I drastically revised 1-3 to say that this view (Ebla-Yah) is no longer followed by scholars - it was what I gathered from my source to be the case. If this is wrong, please revise. PiCo (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules Concerning Edits

Any person who edits a Wikipedia Article should note the text just above the Edit Summary. The text says: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

Material that is in the Public Domain such as material found in Encyclopedias written in the early 1900's is allowed to be quoted in any Wikipedia Article.

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't that the 1911 EB is in the public domain, but that it's almost a century old. Outdated, in other words. PiCo (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PiCo

The point is that if Wikipedia was enforcing its own rules, they wouldn't allow information from a modern encyclopedia to be posted, unless the poster had written permission from the modern source. [E.G.content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.] "Why isn't Wikipedia enforcing it's own rules? Can I post information from the copyrighted 1967 Catholic Encyclopedia without having it deleted? Seeker02421 (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on whether there is not more accurate material out of newer Encyclopedias available. You can always describe what an encyclopedia says and reference it, you can of course not copy and paste it verbatim. CUSH 02:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I gather you're saying the material from the current EB which appears in the lead is too close to the original. If so, the correct thing to do is to reword it. As for the 1967 Catholic Encyclopedia, that's already getting a bit ancient, I'd be happier with something more recent. Do you have something from that source that you'd like to include? PiCo (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PiCo,

If I understand you correctly, you are asking me if I have something from the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia, that I would like to include in the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.

If Wikipedia allows me to post it, I would like to post the text below taken from the Article YAHWEH in the copyrighted 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia, which uses Greek Font.

"Judging from Greek transcriptions of the Sacred name ( IαΒε, ιαουαι ), YHWH ought to be pronounced Yahweh."

I would especially like to note that the Roman Catholic editors made their judgement using the Greek Transcriptions used by certain Greek Fathers of the Church and not by Hebrew Scripture "that was given by inspiration of God."

Is it possible to add a new section dealing with Roman Catholic teaching on the name: Yahweh.

Seeker02421 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to include that in either the Tetragrammaton article (which discusses the name) or else place that deeper within this article in which it briefly summarizes the issue of how YHWH should be vocalized? I'm a little uncomfortable with the amount that the name is discussed in the opening, as it is, as this article isn't about the name, but the entity that the name is being applied to. I do know the Tetra"n article discusses this very issue (the Greek transcription point made by the NCE in your quote above), and much more in-depth than the NCE quote you have above. I do not know the copyright situation with the NCE, but a simple paraphrase of your quote will alleviate any copyright concerns. Your quote looks short enough that it's possibly not an issue, anyway (as long as the description around it places it in context and the short quote is clearly presented as a quote from the named source, then it's not typically a problem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk • contribs) 23:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree: Tetragrammaton for the pronunication, everything else here, otherwise we get a serious overload problem. Also, you can conciser this: the concern you raise isn't actually about the pronunciation of Yahweh, it's about the pronunciation of YHWH.

I've moved the pronunciation-related material from the lead of this article down to a section. The sentence about meaning I've moved also, but to a different section - that part really needs to be strengthened. (It's interesting that most sources talk about the name deriving from the verb to be or to to become - "I am that I am, or I am that I will be, or something similar. All are based on the assumption that the ancient author was interested in epistemology, a concept I find rather doubtful, since everywhere else he's interested in theology). PiCo (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

In reply to PiCo's comment in last section (Dec-17, 00:13UTC) about editing the lead: • I expanded on the previous edit of the lead. My aim was to summarize a broadened window overlooking the character of YHWH — it seemed the earlier lead had a TaNaK-primary perspective. • Moved one of the pictures down to a section, replaced its place with a portrayal of YHWH by Michelangelo (a burning bush painting might have been better, or more appropriate, but I am unaware of any famous depictions of such). The picture that got moved down took the place of the hamsa pic, the hamsa pic being moved slightly further down in that same section. Is there a reason for the hamsa pic to even be in the article? I'm a little lost on its relevance. • The scripture quotes were unnecessary and redundant in the second para of the lead, so removed them; if readers are curious about the actual wording, the refs are still there.
Any problems that can be pointed out? — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is Judaism a "major world religion" when it only has 15 million or so adherents? Judaism is clearly fringe. CUSH 11:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is frequently listed as one of the major world religions despite its numbers not being as great as religions such as Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity (one of the reasons often given is its influence, past and present). Concerning your edit to the internal link for "deity" to point to the "Deity" article, the reason I chose to point it to the "God" article was because that article deals specifically with monotheistic and henotheistic deities — both of which are varieties of deity Yahweh would be categorized, depending on what part of TNK you look at — while the general "Deity" wiki article concerns any variety of deity, polytheistic included (which Yahweh would not be). — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't you use "god" instead of "deity"? CUSH 12:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work al-Shimoni, but about the illustration: one of the major features of the Israelite religion was that there were no images, a major distinction between the Jews and their neighbours. I don't know when Western artists started depicting God the Father, but I'd query whether this is in fact Yahweh - The Christian God has some different characteristics, notably that he's not tribal, but also he's not aniconic. That, I imagine, is why the written Name was placed there rather than a work like Michelangelo's (Christian) God (William Blake has another famous God-painting, by the way - God the Divine Architect).

Just a few queries about the very first sentence: "Yahweh is the solitary Ancient Near Eastern god of Israel, as described in the Hebrew Bible." (1) Is "solitary" the word you're after? To me, it conveys a meaning of lonely, when I think what you mean is perhaps unique or sole. (2) I'm not sure why you want to specify Ancient Near Eastern and "god" - I think every reader will already know this. If it's the wikilinks that you're after, they can probably be introduced more naturally later in the article. (3) "as described in the Hebrew bible" is, to me, an awkward limiting clause which seems to rule out those instances where YHWH occurs outside the bible in the archeological record. Anyway, this is just for your consideration.

And the last sentence in the first paragraph: "It is from the worship of this god which gave rise to three major world religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." The phrasing is a bit off - maybe "The worship of this god gave rise..." would be better. More importantly, do you really mean to say, as this seems to me to say, that Judaism arose subsequent to the worship of Yahweh in ancient Israel? PiCo (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I made a few small changes reflecting some of your thoughts. Re the picture, your thoughts on this touches on part of the reason I was thinking a burning bush painting would have been better, a caption along the lines of Yahweh speaks to Moses from a burning bush would sidestep the image issue a bit. While the Tetra pic has a positive on this point, the concept would be completely lost on people unaware of the issue or the concept of replacing an image of Y with the Tetra. Something like a burning bush image would at least give unaware people a mental anchor to work with (unlike some documentaries and movies about Muhammed where they never show a picture of M or some mental anchor for the viewer; viewers have frequently complained that such programmes "drove [them] insane").

Re your question "[...] Judaism arose subsequent to the worship [...]": yes, as in, I mean the modern religion of Judaism (which is primarily the religion of the Oral Law and of the Pharisees — id est, the rabbis — which is practiced today, as opposed to the pre-Pharisaic Jewish/Israelite/Yahwistic religion[s], which, for the most part, don't exist anymore). Would that sentence need a clarification? — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a nice burning bush; and here's another; and this one, though it's probably not the bush you were after. They'd have to be put in WikiCommons first of course, but I don't see any problem.

On the other point, your argument is essentially the academic one which sees a religion called Yahwism, the religion of Israel between approximately the time of David and the time of the Second Temple, predating and giving rise to Judaism. Personally I'd have no problems with that, but I can almost predict that our Jewish readers won't accept it. Nevertheless, let it go until such objections appear.PiCo (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am replying to the unsigned post above.

The poster, who did not sign his post wrote:

"On the other point, your argument is essentially the academic one which sees a religion called Yahwism, the religion of Israel between approximately the time of David and the time of the Second Temple, predating and giving rise to Judaism. Personally I'd have no problems with that, but I can almost predict that our Jewish readers won't accept it. Nevertheless, let it go until such objections appear."

Personally I believe that readers other than Jewish readers will not accept the argument which appear to have been proposed by Imeriki al-Shimoni, that a religion called "Yahwism" predated "Judaism". I believe that many Bible Believing Christian will not accept that the name "Yahweh" was actually even known and certainly not accepted by early Judaism. The name "Yahweh" was only proposed in the early 19th Century by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius, and only started to be widely accepted by Hebrew scholars in the early 1900's. The name "Yahweh" appears to a proposed Hebrew punctuation [for YHWH]which was based on Clement of Alexndria's 190 A.D. Greek transcription "Iaoue".

Seeker02421 (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I did not apply a name other than "judaism" to pre-Pharisaic Judaism (I didn't even mention the word "Yahwism"). What I did say had the adjective "pre-Pharisaic" plus 3 optional adjectives ("Jewish/Israelite/Yahwistic") applied to the noun "religion[s]" (note the optional "s"). As to the unsigned commenter's statement about the Jewish readers: I think we generally acknowledge that Judaism was practiced quite differently before the rise of the Pharisees, what we would argue about is just what those differences are. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeker, the unsigned post was mine, sorry that the sig somehow got left off - I've now signed it.

al-Shimoni is correct in saying that he/she never used the word Yahwism. I did. But al-Shimoni is also correct to say that Judaism has gone through several stages in its history, one of which is studied by modern scholars under the rubric Yahwism. But we're getting off topic: this thread is about the article lead, not about the vocalisation of the tetragrammaton. PiCo (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Critiquing a lead sentence as being deliberately disingenuous

The last sentence of the lead reads: "Yahweh is the one true God[2] who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments.[3] Yahweh revealed himself to Israel as a jealous God who would not permit his people to make idols or follow gods of other nations,[4] nor worship gods known by other names.[5]"

The sentence is based on 4 different English Bibles that have been translated from Hebrew Texts in which there is no Hebrew support for the English translation Yahweh. E.G. They profess to be translated from BHS Hebrew Texts in which YHWH is found in 6 diferent variants,none of which provides Hebrew evidence that the Tetragrammaton should be translated as "Yahweh".

Seeker02421 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is much more to this than what meets the eye, but are you disputing what this article is about? It's like saying the article on the Qur'an is not talking about the central religious text of Islam because we don't spell it Koran. Maybe we should step back and realize "this isn't a big deal". -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

You write:"Maybe there is much more to this than what meets the eye, but are you disputing what this article is about?

I don't think that I am disputing what this article is about. The Title of this article is "YAHWEH" However several editors wish to claim that "Yahweh" is the one true God[2] who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments.[3] Yahweh revealed himself to Israel as a jealous God who would not permit his people to make idols or follow gods of other nations,[4] nor worship gods known by other names.[5]"

Where in any extant Hebrew Text, which would appear to be the only Hebrew source which has authority over this issue, does it say that God's name is "Yahweh". Hebrew texts may say YHWH, but what specific Hebrew Text preserves God's name as "Yahweh" in vocalized Hebrew.

How can Wikipedia allow an article named "Yahweh" to be written, that does not provide any Hebrew evidence that God's name is actually "Yahweh", but contiues to claim that "Yahweh" is the God of the Bible.

Someone seems to be placing the cart before the horse. First prove that the Hebrew Manuscripts preseve God's name as Yahweh. This article claims that "Yahweh" revealed himself to Israel, but the only God who revealed himself to Israel is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and his words are preserved accurately only ln some Hebrew text. This article is guessing that the Hebrew punctuation of YHWH, first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century, is actually the name of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Joseph, without finding any extant Hebrew Manuscript that agrees with same.

Hundreds of scholars who have joined together and proclaim in unity that God's name is "Yahweh" don't have a lot of authority, if there is no extant Hebrew name text that agees with their conclusion.

To quote English Bibles that state that God's name is "Yahweh", which are not translated from a Hebrew Manuscript in which the Hebrew name Yahweh occurs, would appear to be totally disengenous.

Seeker02421 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that we wouldn't need to prove that Yahweh is in the Hebrew, but only that the mainstream or majority view of scholars is that the English transcription/translation is "Yahweh". I'm not sure what your complaint is. Are you saying that there is another one true God in the bible? Or are you saying there are multiple gods, not one? You are saying YHWH does not equal Yahweh, correct? The way I see it, the Tetragrammaton article discusses the various transcription/pronunciation issues, and this article is simply about the god of the old testament. We shouldn't let the content of those separate topics spill over too much. Perhaps it is POV to say that "Yahweh" is the one and only pronunciation. Maybe that makes wikipedia take sides on the issue, where we should. We'd first need to determine what is the most common name in English, per WP:NC, and if it is NOT Yahweh, perhaps we should consider renaming this article. It may not hurt to have a small section summarizing the spelling dispute detailed in Tetragrammaton as well. What, in your opinion, would fix this article? Would renaming it to something else solve your concerns? Do you have evidence of what the most common name in English is? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

NO, we are not discussing this for the 10th time. To argue that Yahweh could not be YHVH because the tetragrammaton contains no vowels is entirely pointless. And to dwell on how modern (or medieval) Hebrew texts punctuate the tetragrammaton is equally pointless. And irrelevant as well, since Hebrew texts do not determine the usage of word in English. What Seeker02421 fails to understand is that "Hebrew bible" means what Christians call the "Old Testament" and not a bible printed in Hebrew. Can we please finish this now? CUSH 18:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to drag this out (and it doesn't help that Seeker02421 has a problem being concise), but I felt that perhaps if a new user approached this from a different angle to get to the bottom of the concern, whether it's valid, and what to do to fix it, we may be able to move forward. I can understand patience runs out, and fresh eyes can help. I don't think we are at the point of shun yet, but I do realize there has been a lot of no progress above this post. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

In your 17:52, 20 December 2009 post, you wrote:

"perhaps we should consider renaming this article. It may not hurt to have a small section summarizing the spelling dispute detailed in Tetragrammaton as well. What, in your opinion, would fix this article?"

Andrew, I actually believe that this Article should remain with its present name, but with the text that used to be, until just recently, returned to its proper place.

Andrew, You seem to think that this present Wikipedia Article:Yahweh is actually an article that discusses "the God of the Old Testament, so why not create a new article called "The God of the Old Testament" and move all the text that is presently in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, to the new Article. That should satisfy all the present editors that don't want to discuss the 18th century roots of the name "Yahweh"

Then the text that was previously in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh can be returned to this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh where it was originally meant to be.

To be redundant, that solution should satisfy all the present editors who were not happy with the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh as it was originally written, and decided to change the original direction of this Article.

Assuming there are still editors around who would like to go back to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh and discuss the issues originally discussed in this Article which involved among other things Gesenius's part in proposing the name Yahweh, they can remain here .

Most of the original text that has just recently been moved to Tetragrammaton could be easily returned to this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh

Just my present thoughts,

Seeker02421 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Please consider proof reading your replies to see if you can cut down your redundancy and be more concise. That out of the way, it seems like you want to rename this article "God of the Old Testament" and create another "Yahweh" article discussing the 18th century stuff. My first question is "why"? Isn't "Yahweh" the most common English name for the "God of the Old Testament"? As I discussed above, WP:NC should dictate the article title. We need sources and evidence to back things up, and we need specific reasons for these changes. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeker, the text that was moved to Tetragrammaton was moved because it belonged there, not here. As the lead to this article makes clear, Yahweh is the general scholarly term for the deity described as YHWH in the Hebrew bible. That's what this article is about. Leave the vowel-pointing of YHWH to the other article.PiCo (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew,

This edit was written just before PiCo wrote his last edit, above

You wrote: "Well, I'd say that we wouldn't need to prove that Yahweh is in the Hebrew, but only that the mainstream or majority view of scholars is that the English transcription/translation is "Yahweh".

Andrew, Wouldn't it be great if in the introduction of this artice, the reader is told that Yahweh is a letter-by-letter English transliteration of יַהְוֶה‎, which is Gesenius' 18th century proposed Hebrew Punctuation of YHWH. Of course this sentence used to be the first sentence of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, until some editor moved it to the Article:Tetragrammaton.

I believe that the Introduction of this Article would be much clearer, if this short sentence was restored to the Introduction of the artice. This short sentence makes it rather difficult for a reader to be led to believe that "Yahweh" was the actual original pronunciation of the name of the God of the Old Testament, in the original Hebrew Manuscripts.

Andrew: Are you willing that this short sentence be restored to where it was originally [e.g. In the very first sentence in the Introduction.] Of course the present Introduction of this Article would have to be rewritten somewhat to merge with this added sentence.

Seeker02421 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit seems a bit too much, and poorly places/worded. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but instead still reads like you are adding a disclaimer to the top of the article. I think, especially for the lead, we do not need that much detail. I thought PiCo's short summary was perfectly adequate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeker, I took your 2 paras out, for the reasons outlined by Andrew. But if you wish, you might like to put something about Genesius back again as a footnote immediately following the bit I've added in brackets at the end of the first sentence.PiCo (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi PiCo,

In your post above you wrote:

"Seeker, I took your 2 paras out, for the reasons outlined by Andrew. But if you wish, you might like to put something about Genesius back again as a footnote immediately following the bit I've added in brackets at the end of the first sentence."

Hi PiCo,

PiCo are you saying that I can add a footnote to Gesenius at the end of the first sentence in the main article which reads:

"Yahweh is the sole Ancient Near Eastern god of Israel, the god found in the Hebrew bible, where it is rendered without vowels as YHWH, the tetragrammaton ("Yahweh" is a modern scholarly convention)."

PiCo, Did you mean that I could add a footnote after the BOLD parentheses mark above. I don't see any brackets at the end of the first sentence.

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. You add it, and I might edit it back a bit, because, as Andrew says, you do tend to use too many words. PiCo (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"About" tag

I've updated the "about" tag (head of the article) as follows:

This article is about modern scholarly interpretations of the deity of the Hebrew Bible. For the literary manifestations of the name of God in Hebrew (יהוה), see Tetragrammaton. For other uses, see Yahweh (disambiguation). See also: God in Judaism and God in Abrahamic religions

The line "for literary manifestations of the name of God in Hebrew (יהוה), see Tetragrammaton" is lifted from the Tetragrammaton article's definition of itself. It seems reasonable to me that discussion of theories on how YHWH was vocalised should go there - "Yahweh" is only one suggestion. It also seems very reasonable that this article should avoid covering the same subject-matter - hence the focus on modern scholarly interpretations of the deity himself, rather than his name. And then of course there are the related articles. Comments? PiCo (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. This should mostly be about the deity. It should include tangential reference to the name, with pointers to Tetragammaton. Leadwind (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Article scope

This article has unfortunate scope overlaps. This isn't, or shouldn't be, the article on God in Judaism. There is a separate article on that. The scope of this article can only be the theonym itself, and its ultimate origin as a deity separate from El. Obviously, in Judaism, there is no distinction between Yahweh and El, there is just God, as discussed in God in Judaism. The history of the taboo associated with the name is discussed at Tetragrammaton. It is unfortunate to have two articles on the name of YHWH, and the two articles (this one and the tetragrammaton one) do not do a good job in delineating their respective scopes. They should either be merged, or the scope should be cleanly divided, making this article about the pre-Judaism, Iron Age, Hebrew deity, and the tetragrammaton one about the name as it entered Judaism. If this article is to be at all useful, it should not focus on items of Judaism already treated elsewhere, it should focus on traces of the Iron Age weather deity in certain passages of the Hebrew Bible. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yah (with or without the -weh) is not synonymous with "God in Judaism". Christianity and Islam and a number of other religions happen to believe in the same deity. And that there is no distinction between Yahweh and El only applies to Judaism in its modern form. Also, this article should not be limited to the Bible as a source but include all references of Yah in Levantine cultures. CUSH 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

All very true. Look, the very top priority is to decide what this article is about: is it about a god, or is it about the name of a god? I vote for being about a god. PiCo (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should be about Yahweh, the god of the Hebrews, especially as he appears in J, the Yahwist source. It should include coherent references to Elohim and Tetragrammaton, as both topics are clearly relevant. Leadwind (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the restriction to "god of the Hebrews" ?? First of all, we have no clue what ancient Hebrews really believed in, but certainly not the biblical Yahweh. Secondly, Yahweh was not only worshiped by some Israelites and later by Jews. Heck, even today it is worshiped not only by Jews, but by Christians, Muslims, and a number of other religions.

This article should be about the deity in all aspects (not just Jewish POV). The Tetragrammaton article is about the etymology and the weird rules about pronunciation or prohibition thereof. CUSH 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

dab's concern about name overlap in this article and the Tetra article has been one of the things we have been attacking/correcting the last month. There is more to do in this article, but it's a huge improvement from a month ago.

I echo Cush's last sentiments. Concerning other peoples worshiping Yahweh, the Bible pretty much points out that at least some Midianite people worshiped Yahweh before the (pre-)Israelites even learned that name. I think their view of Yahweh (if it can be found), as well as by any others, should be within scope.

Concerning Leadwind's desire to emphasize J material concerning Yahweh, that could be tricky. While J acts as if the name was always known, E and P are consistent in using titles before the name revelation at the burning bush, but use Yahweh from that point on. E seems to be clear that it's the same god before and after, but the name is now suddenly known. Do we discount that in favour of J because we might assume J is closer the original Yahweh worship (even if it's possible it was the other way around)? — al-Shimoni (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to discuss Yahweh as a literary figure and consider his character attributes in the source documents much like one would discuss character development of Tom Sawyer, d'Artagnan, etc. However, other viewpoints that give the article a broader scope are certainly welcome, as long as they are reliably sourced, given due weight, and included in a manner that preserves an encyclopedic organization. There is no reason to exclude (or limit the article) to viewpoints dominated by source criticism (documentary hypothesis, etc.), archaeology, Jewish theology, Christian theology, historical viewpoints, sociological viewpoints, etc. The article can also reasonably contain a brief discussion (2-3 paragraphs) of issues covered in more detail (such as pronounciation) in other articles (Tetragrammaton). This inclusion is known as "summary style" and is common in Wikiedia articles when the scope of an article touches on issues that are covered in greater detail in other articles. (For example, the Ten Commandments article has a summary style synopsis of the much longer "Catholic doctrine concerning the ten commandmants" article.) Since Wikipedia policy supports the inclusion of reliably sourced viewpoints, the bigger question seems to be how to improve the article's organization to present the material improve the article's lede to better reflect the article's organization and summarize the article.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

MC, that sounds good to me. I'd like to see the article follow a historical rather than biblical progression. First, the Hebrews worshiped El. Then they adopted worship of Yahweh, perhaps from the Kenites. Then they developed henotheism, the exclusive worship of one god. Then they developed monotheism, and eventually stopped calling God Yahweh. Leadwind (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

They did not stop calling God Yahweh, they only stopped uttering the name. YHWH was still written but replaced with other words while reading aloud. And worse, they then started punctuating YHWH with the vowels of the respective replacement word. Hence we have all this dirty mess about the punctuation and the "right" pronunciation. CUSH 15:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Do any editors want to write an Introduction that Wikipedeia would approve of?

Wikipedia has established rules concerning the lead sentences in the Wikipedia Article:LEAD as shown in the Article Below [[8]]: The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

(Yahweh) William Gesenius's proposed Hebrew vocalization of YHWH.

The small image to the left displays "in a nutshell" the controversy concerning the name "Yahweh". The image to the left shows the vocalized Hebrew punctuation of YHWH that the 18th century Hebrew Scholar Gesenius proposed. Gesenius thought that this Hebrew Punctuation, which he based on the Greek transcription:IaBe might represent the original Hebrew spelling of the name of the God of Israel.

Seeker, you seem tomfeel outnumbered here, and I'm sorry for that. Wikipedia is above all else a social networking sire, and I want you to have as enjoyable a time here as anyone else. For that reason if no other, (well, also because it's Christmas), i repeat what I've said before: go ahead and put Gesenius into a footnote linked from the definition at the very top of the lead. But I hope you can also see my point of view: I'm not trying to bedy Gesenius his due, I'm just trying to create an article that doesn't repeat information that can be accessed through wikilinks to other and more appropriate articles. Like, say, Tetragrammaton. Anyway, enjoy the holidays with family and friends, which is what we should all be doing. And now I must go see if my cherry pie is cooling nicely - there's a real world out there :) PiCo (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905 the editors chose to define what Gesenius had only proposed as a "guess name" to be the actual original Hebrew pronunciation of the name of the God of Israel. [[9]]

And of course an accurate letter by letter English transleration of Gesenius's guess name also appears in the B-D-B Lexicon of 1905.

Should't this small amount of evidence, found in the B-D-B Lexicon of 1905, be presented in the Introduction of Wikipedia Article "Yahweh"?

These very few words explain quite accurately just where that very vague term "Scholarly Convention that God's name is 'Yahweh'" originated.

Seeker02421 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead we had last week was much better than the new lead we have now. Why the complete change? The current lead doesn't seem (to me at least) to fit the Wiki lead outlines — as quoted above by Seeker.

Can we go back to something similar to last week's lead? Maybe we can compromise and gracefully combine the current info and last week's lead, and maybe throw in an extra line to appease Seeker's concern that nobody confuse "Yahweh" as the definitively being the actual pronunciation of the Tetra. — al-Shimoni (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've undented Seeker's post - makes things easier on the rest of us.

I'm not a fan of the new lead, but I reverted it once and got re-reverted, so I'm leaving it alone.

For seeker:

1. Lead should define the topic. Thread above this shows pretty wide agreement that the topic is the god behind the name.

2. establish context. Dunno, what is the context?

3. explain why the subject is interesting or important. If the subject is scholarly consideration of the god known as Yahweh, that's important. Whether it's interesting is a matter of taste.

4. summarise the most important points, including notable controversies. Yep.

Now for the vexed question of Mr Gesenius and his thoughts. This is actually off-topic - the subject is everything but the pronunciation of YHWH. That belongs to the article Tetragrammaton. Why? because Gesenius wasn't talking about the pronunciation of Yawheh, he was about the pronunciation of YHWH. By all means put this in the Tetragrammaton article. And also in the Gesenius article. But not here. That's what wikilinks are for, to refer peole to articles where things are treated in depth. (But as I said once before, I don't mind if you make something in a footnote, once we settle on a good lead). PiCo (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Leadwind (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi PiCo,

You wrote:

"Now for the vexed question of Mr. Gesenius and his thoughts. This is actually off-topic - the subject is everything but the pronunciation of YHWH. That belongs to the article Tetragrammaton. Why? because Gesenius wasn't talking about the pronunciation of Yawheh, he was about the pronunciation of YHWH."

(Yahweh) William Gesenius's proposed Hebrew vocalization of YHWH

PiCo, Certainly it appears as if Gesenius is the first person to propose the Hebrew Punctuation of YHWH shown in that image to the left. And maybe someone else letter-by-letter translerated Gesenius's proposed punctuation of YHWH into English as "Y-a-h-w-e-h", but it was Gesenius that propsed those precise vowel points, which determined that his proposed punctuation would become the two-syllable word "Yahweh" which finds itself as the listed tittle of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.

Certainly some other Hebrew scholar might have reconstructed the Greek Transcription IaBe [pronounced Iave] into the proposed Hebrew punctuation shown in the image to the left, which William Smith spelled as Yahveh, in 1863, and which ended up being spelled as Yahweh, in 1905, the fact remains that the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh owes its very existence to what Gesenius did in the early 1800's.

PiCo, It seems incredible to me that you believe that Wikipedia would not want the information about Gesenius's part in the creation of the name "Yahweh" to be noted in the lead of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.

Who else are you going to credit with giving the English speaking world the name "Yahweh", except Gesenius?

Will the Wikipedia Article, be allowed to make known that information, or are you, and the two Administrators who are presently posting on this topic, going to prevent that information from being openly posted in the Introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh?

Seeker02421 (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

from AFAProf01

As I continue to research this topic, I find it quite a maze to be worked through. Most authors (at least that I have found) who use a literary-historical approach to Yahweh are self-proclaimed atheists with an agenda of showing how OT characters (Moses, et al) were "used" to paint various pictures of the Hebrew god. One author claims that Moses was the only one who didn't know the things that Yahweh told him by way of "revelation" on Mt. Sinai.

While this article should not be an apologetic of the reality of God, neither should it presume a POV that there is no god.

I also like MC's thoughtful and provocative proposed outline. Now, where can we find sources to fill in the blanks in an NPOV manner without attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God? Thanks to all for MUCH hard work on this! Afaprof01 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Consort" Problem

The article makes matter of fact assertions that Asherah is Yahweh's "consort." These assertions, however, disregard the various views of Yahweh. Even the Asherah article describes how some (the Hebrew elite) did not want to recognize Asherah, while others (the populous) did. To respect the various views, the article should qualify "consort" with "unofficial" or "alleged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finleydunne (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well universally accepted by contemporary experts that Yahweh did have a consort and that this was Asherah. The article is referencing William Dever, an eminent authority on the archaeology of the region. If further references were needed we could mention Smith and Day, who are probably the leading experts in their specific field. If you have contrary opinions, by all means tell us where to find them. PiCo (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an area where the naturalistic views of ancient near east historians ("the contemporary experts") who view religion as a creation of humans which evolves over time are bound to clash with the supernatural ("divinely inspired") views of scholars with faith-based worldviews who view certain faiths as divinely revealed. Concern for NPOV probably requires that the sources supporting the consort view be identified as contemporary ancient near east historians. The fact that Asherah was worshipped along side of Yahweh can also be supported by the Biblical texts, but NPOV is probably better served by also mentioning that the Biblical texts generally condemn such syncretistic practices, and nowhere in the Biblical texts is the worship of Asherah supported or portrayed positively. It would also seem more encyclopedic to be more specific about the historical time periods when there is evidence supporting Asherah as a consort so that the reader is not given the false impression that Asherah worship has been a prominent feature over as long an interval as Yahweh worship.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Yahweh, not about what the Bible says. Presenting the facts as they are is always NPOV. We don't need to care about how the Yahweh-Asherah union is judged by the Bible (and subsequently by the modern adherents of the biblical deity). CUSH 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The OP seems to have misunderstood what the Asherah article says - it's quite unequivocal that yahweh had a consort, and offers quite a few references.PiCo (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the Bible WITHOUT looking it up first!

In "History of Yahweh-worship in ancient Israel and Judah" it say "and the gods Resheph and Deber appear without criticism in Habakkuk 3:5 as part of the military retinue of Yahweh." But when I look up Habakkuk 3:5, Resheph and Deber do not appear at all. So I'm going to take it out.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They're there - they've been translated into English as Plague and Pestilence, but in Hebrew they're Resheph and Deber. PiCo (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So you've interpreted the text in a way that differs from at least some translations. You're supposed to cite a source for that. Peter jackson (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't interpreted the text at all. It's the Hebrew. PiCo (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord Don-Jam and PiCo are correct, and here are sources. The Hebrew is available at [10]. The two Hebrew words are "dever" and "reshef." "Dever" appears 48 other times in the Hebrew Bible and means "plague" or "pestilence" all 49 times. See [11]. The word is also known to every Jew because it is one of the ten plagues of Egypt recited every year at the Passover seder, from its appearances in Exodus 9:3 and 9:15. See the preceding link. See also [12]. As for "reshef," it appears 6 other times in the Hebrew Bible and is translated as flame, firebolt, hot thunderbolt, flaming arrow, or something similar, each time. See [13]. See also [14]. Please forgive me if my formatting is off because this is my first wikipedia post.BostonZarniwoop (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Organizational improvements

Per recent discussions, I’ve improved organization, added many references, expanded sections on documentary hypothesis and historical viewpoints, re-worked lede to better summarize article and reflect organization. Nearly all articles on characters in the Hebrew Bible discuss the Bible’s portrayal of the character before discussing historical background or modern scholarly views. Likewise, most articles on non-Biblical literary characters discuss the portrayal of the character in the most notable literature before discussing historical source material or contemporary scholarly views. Following this well-established pattern in the Yahweh article makes sense because Yahweh is much more notable and widely known for his appearance and portrayal in the Hebrew Bible than his depiction in archaeological findings or descriptions of modern historians. If not for the portrayal of Yahweh in famous literary works, would he be any more notable than other deities of the ancient near east? Should not sections discussing the most notable aspects of their subject come before sections discussing less notable aspects? Furthermore, the current organization makes sense because the section on the documentary hypothesis relies on material in the literary discussion and the historical discussion relies on both the discussion of the documentary hypothesis and discussion of the literary portrayal of the character. Some of the prior historical text was difficult to incorporate because references lacked page numbers which made the text unverifiable.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Adding properly referenced new material is of course welcome; but wholesale removal of what was there already is not. If you want more precise referencing, then use templates like {{Page needed}} or {{Request quotation}}, or some of the others listed at {{cn}}. But simply removing masses of well-cited material is not acceptable.

Can I suggest the way forward is for you to add what you want to add first, in and around what is already there; and then, once those additions have had a chance to be discussed and bed down, only then start restructuring the article. WP relies on collegiate editing, and IMO this was simply too big a change, with too many different dimensions, to push though all at once.

I also think there is quite a lot to be said for the structure of the article as it was. Articles like King Arthur, for example, set out the historical background first before the specific literary aspects.

Also, this article is meant to be on all aspects of Yahweh. As it is already getting on for well over 50k (70k on your revision, which deleted much of what was already here and useful), can I suggest it might be useful to create a sub-article God in the Old Testament, which could specifically cover the literary aspects which seem to be most of interest to you, and which this article could build on in classic summary/detail fashion, per WP:SUMMARY ?

Sorry to make such a total revert, but I think "little steps", one after the next, each with more collegiate discussion, are probably the way to get to a better, more all-inclusive article in the end. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The recent reversion by Jheald undid edits that addressed requested (including tagged) and previously discussed and supported edits. The recent edits had been discussed by several editors, were supported with a net addition of over 60 completely referenced secondary sources, and conform to Wikipedia standards. In contrast to Jheald’s comment, these edits were discussed in stages, and there was expressed support for the idea to reorganize the content. 16 citations (from 9 sources) lacking page numbers were removed (this was discussed and explained) and approximately 80 completely referenced citations were added. If removal of 16 incomplete citations requires discussion, then removal of five times as many completely referenced citations should require much more discussion. Reversion was not the right step. Corinne68 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is bullshit. There is no prior discussion of the edit above. And the article as it stood didn't contain a single tag requesting clarification of any of the sources.

I'm not objecting to new material being added. But it should be added carefully, without the wholesale undiscussed removal of previous carefully sourced material. Jheald (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The organizational improvements had been discussed previously and my suggestions enjoyed support from other editors. I also added improvements that had been mentioned by other editors at various points in the discussion: greater discussion of the documentary hypothesis, greater incorporation of references from Bible dictionaries, greater discussion of the archaeological findings, etc. The historical material that was removed has been re-added (as a separate section) and the two historical sections can merged when page numbers are provided to make the book references verifiable. Without page numbers, it is impossible to distinguish the editor’s ideas from the ideas in the source. For example, consider the text: Why do the Ten Commandments declare that there should be no other gods "before Me" (Yahweh), if there are no other gods at all? Why do the Israelites sing at the crossing of the Red Sea that "there is no god like you, O Yahweh",[Ex 15:11] implying that other gods exist? Are these rhetorical questions from the editor or investigational questions from the source quoted at the end of the paragraph (a 299 page book)? The same ambiguity exists in the discussion of Habakkuk 3:5; the construction makes it unverifiable whether the assertion is the editor’s interpretation (WP:OR) or attributable to a reliable source. The editor seemed to assert his personal knowledge of Hebrew as justification for restoring the text. This would violate WP:OR. The request on the talk page for improved citation went unanswered. Later editors adding material or attempting to merge cannot distinguish assertions of the editor (possibly OR or POV) and verifiable assertions of the reliable source. Most ideas from the old historical section are repeated in the new text, only the new text is more verifiable (includes page numbers), provides a wider variety of sources, provides both sides in cases where these is no scholarly consensus, and is organized differently.Michael Courtney (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please. I see no developed discussion of your proposed structural changes above, still less any agreement of a consensus for them. Jheald (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) I'm not aware of any Wiki policy that precludes massive edits, though I acknowledge that such a large volume of changes in one edit makes it more difficult for other editors to indicate consensus or concerns. Given that these edits are done—and they indeed are thoughtful, scholarly worded, well researched and cited, and significant—we should work with them one section at a time without more large reverts. (2) In reviewing earlier Talk entries, I don't find consensus to put the historical-archaeological material before the literary material. Given the article subject, it makes good sense to put the literary material first. Putting it first places the more notable content before less notable. It could make it easier to preserve neutrality. That order of things is more consistent with the organization of articles discussing both Biblical and non-biblical literary characters, King Arthur's precedence notwithstanding. (3) "History of Yahweh-worship in ancient Israel and Judah", though temporarily reverted, remains a major challenge. It should not be presented like it is—as factual history, rather than as reconstructions attributable to specific authors. I have not tried to edit it, but it appears it would be difficult to verify. Which assertions are editorial assertions, and which ones are contained in the source? It's very hard to tell. Most of the references lack page numbers, making it very timely to locate the source wording. I'm unaware of any scholarly consensus that Yahweh had a female consort (translation of Habakkuk 3:5). Historical inaccuracy? (4) The improved citations are most welcome and long overdue. (5) Again, let's avoid any more huge reverts. I get dizzy trying to match up the old with the new. Thanks! Afaprof01 (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I'd be happy to work within the framework suggested by Afaprof01, though I should warn that I'm not happy with the detail of what he's done. But to make a start, lets' take the framework of sections he's given us:

1 Yahweh and the Tetragrammaton

2 Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible

3 Views of Yahweh in source criticism (documentary hypothesis)

4 Development of Yahweh worship (contemporary historical viewpoint)

5 History of Yahweh-worship in ancient Israel and Judah

6 Contemporary Yahwism

Can we begin with Section 1: is anyone dissatisfied with this section? PiCo (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This section is fine by me. PiCo (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Since there are obvious points of debate that are not currently mentioned at all, I would not object to the expansion of this section to 2-3 paragraphs that BRIEFLY summarize the debate that should be described in more detail in the Tetragrammaton article, along with a link to that article. Hopefully, we can keep these points of debate limited to this section (and a 1 sentence summary in the first paragraph of the lede) and not let them become pervasive in the whole article.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that s summary of the history of the pronunciation should go in this section as a new paragraph? I'd be fine with that. I'll be bold and put something in. (Incidentally, this is the subject-matter of the thread immediately after this - perhaps we need to avoid confusion by continuing this discussion down there rather than here). PiCo (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Statements on Vocalization

Throughout the article, editors make statements that either directly or indirectly state, or they imply that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation of the Tetra"n, all these are POV as it is neither proved, nor scholarly believed that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation. "Yahweh" is merely the convention used by scholars, but they believe that the actual vocalization is — so far — unknown. These statements within the article should be edited so that they are no longer POV. — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this numerous times. If you want to elaborate the pronunciation of YHWH then go to the Tetragrammaton article. This article is about the biblical deity. CUSH 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully aware that discussion about Tetra"n should go to there, and I was one of the many who advocated the separation when there was still overlap between the two articles. That is not the issue here. The issue here is making statements in this article that seemingly declare or imply that "Yahweh" is the one and only true vocalization. Such statements are POV. Statements discussing the vocalization — that are found within this article — should be POV neutral. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Subsequently we should not use "Eve" in any articles about Adam and Eve because that is not even remotely a possible vocalization of HWH חוה and it is pure POV to use it thusly? CUSH 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you may still be missing my point. "Yahweh" is the current accepted convention, and it should be the term used within this article, as I have pointed out to others in this talk page who wished to go a different way. Same would go for "Eve" in your rhetorical Eve example (which I will use as an example in the rest of this reply): Most English speaking people understand "Eve" to refer to a certain character within the Abrahamic religions, thus primarily referring to her as "Chavvah," "Aoife," "Eva," or any other vocalization would make no real sense within an encyclopædic article for the English speaking general public. At the same time, you would not include statements in her article that implied that "Eve" or "Chawwah" or any other vocalization was the only correct pronunciation of her name when either it was known that it is not correct, it was uncertain, or that the vocalization was under heated debate. Instead, when making statements directly concerning the vocalization, a neutral statement would make clear that those vocalizations were opinions of certain groups, not as a flat-out universal fact (compare the POV statement "Her name is correctly pronounced as 'Eve'" to the neutral statement "English speakers generally pronounce her name as 'Eve'"). When not referring directly to the vocalization of her name, "Eve" would be used as normal (such as "Eve did such-and-such") since it is understood who "Eve" refers to and these statements are not making assertions/declarations directly concerning how the name should be vocalized. The same would apply to "Yahweh" in his article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

al-Shimoni, you say: "Throughout the article, editors make statements that either directly or indirectly state, or they imply that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation of the Tetra"n". Could you copy/paste exactly the passages that give you concern? That way we can begin to address your issues. PiCo (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I reread the article a few days ago and noticed a few scattered through the article, but where I notice some at a quick glance is within the first section ("Yahweh and the Tetragrammaton"). I can reread it again when I have more time if you like. At the moment I'll comment about the first section.

    On its own, the opening sentence is very iffy (depending on how you interpret it), but when combined with a statement near the end of the section which says "[...] scholars again began to use [...]", it limits the interpretation to one that, to me, seems POV. Concerning the later statement, it seems POV, but if you change the quoted section to read "[...] scholars began to use [...]" (dropping "again"), it would be more accurate as well as eliminate the POV (implying that "yahweh" was the original pronunciation, which we don't really know for certain).

    A side-note to this particular section: This section is generally ok, but I think it needs some slight editing and then it will likely be just right. Plus, can we add a section note to direct people to the Tetra article if they want more on the name so we can avoid people adding tons of name junk back in? Also, although "Adonai" and "Elohim" are mentioned, I notice there is no mention of the common Jewish usage of "haShem" (השם — "the name"), nor (but, I guess less importantly) the Samaritan usage of "Shem" ("name") or the their more common "Yabe" (יפה — "beautiful"). If we mention A and E, we might at least very briefly include "haShem" (perhaps a short phrase as part of the second sentence?).

    Apologies that this discussion thread ballooned sô much. Would making small edits and then discussing those changes be better and help alleviate such ballooning in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, in an earlier post you asked Imeriki al-Shimoni|al-Shimoni:

'you say: "Throughout the article, editors make statements that either directly or indirectly state, or they imply that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation of the Tetra"n". Could you copy/paste exactly the passages that give you concern? That way we can begin to address your issues.'

In my NPOV opinion the second sentence is now approximately 100% POV.

It reads:

"The Bible describes Yahweh as the one true God who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments, "Then God spoke all these words. He said, ‘I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of Egypt, where you lived as slaves. You shall have no other gods to rival me.’”[3] Yahweh revealed himself to Israel as a jealous God who would not permit his people to make idols or follow gods of other nations[4] or worship gods known by other names, "I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, or my praise to idols."[5] Yahweh demanded the role of the one true God in the hearts and minds of Israel, "Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one: and you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might."[6]

Why not write something NPOV like:

"the first English Bible to use the English name "Yahweh" [i.e. The Emphasized Bible by Rotherham] was written in about 1902 A.D. less than 100 years after the underlying Hebrew of the name "Yahweh" was first proposed by Gesenius. No evidence exists before about 1815 A.D., that the name "Yahweh" ever existed"

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is plain wrong. Gesenius proposed this vocalization based on the ancient textual evidence that shows that the divine name originally was indeed Yahweh and that the Jews of the Christian period, especially the Masoretes, messed up the divine name by inserting the vowels-punctuation of Adonai into the Tetragrammaton, based on the weird practice of writing YHWH but not uttering it in speech and instead replacing it with Adonai, HaShem, and whatnot, due to an asinine literal interpretation of the 3rd commandment. CUSH 14:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the lede introduces and summarizes the article and that the main discussion of translation, rendering, and vocalization are in the Tetragrammaton article. The "Yahweh and the Tetragrammaton" section can briefly treat the issue (2-3) paragraphs and refer to the longer treatment on the Tetragrammaton article. However, the first paragraph of the lede should introduce the topic and briefly summarize the first section. Per Wikipedia lede guidelines, it should not contain significant material on the vocalization/translation debate that is not contained in the main body. The purpose of the lede's second paragraph is not to say anything about the proper translation/vocalization, but rather to serve as a summary of the literary section of the article which describes how the Hebrew Bible characterizes the figure. A lot of the article simply uses the conventional rendering of the name to discuss literary,documentary, archaeological, and historical findings, and pausing each time to give a disclaimer is unencyclopedic. The debate can be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede, the first section, and any time the specific matter of vocalization/translation is being addressed, but this debate should not pervade the article.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. CUSH 15:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agree w/ MC, although i wd have said 1-2 para instead of 2-3. ☺ — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph which might meet your concerns. Of course feel free to suggest further changes. PiCo (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A thought on conventional spellings. The 16th century translators introduced a reasonably consistent system for transliterating Biblical names, which they applied wherever there wasn't a sufficiently well-known form for change. Similarly, the Jerusalem Bible keeps all these names but ignores the system when it comes to Yahweh. Peter jackson (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo,You wrote: "I've added a paragraph which might meet your concerns. Of course feel free to suggest further changes."

PiCo, I think that what you have written is basically good, but it doesn't deal with the issue that both I and Imeriki al-Shimoni previously brought up.

Imeriki al-shimoni previously wrote:

"Throughout the article, editors make statements that either directly or indirectly state, or they imply that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation of the Tetra"n, all these are POV as it is neither proved, nor scholarly believed that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation. "Yahweh" is merely the convention used by scholars, but they believe that the actual vocalization is — so far — unknown. These statements within the article should be edited so that they are no longer POV."

I've placed in italics above, Imeriki al-Shimoni's detailed complaint on this issue which in my opinion is very precisely written.

AND,

I repeat my original issue that, in my opinion, the second sentence in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh is almost 100% POV.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, consensus is a POV too, of course. But that does not keep us from using the consensus. Fringe opinions should not destroy the legibility of an article.a CUSH 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why the sentiments in bold (or similar) cannot be included in the "Yahweh and the Tetragrammaton" section IF AND ONLY IF they are supported with citations that meet Wikipedia standards, and the added text is careful to only describe the reliable sources and not move into synthesis or original research to draw conclusions not found in the sources. Once reliably sourced in the "Yahweh and the Tetragrammaton" section, it would be reasonable to tweak the summary of that section in the lede to reflect that material.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeker, the second sentence in the summary is: "This form [Yahweh] is a modern scholarly convention: in Hebrew it is written as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH)." Isn't that exactly what you're saying? PiCo (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo.

Have you dealt with the issues which Imeriki al-Shimoni raised in his first edit?

He wrote:

"Throughout the article, editors make statements that either directly or indirectly state, or they imply that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation of the Tetra"n, all these are POV as it is neither proved, nor scholarly believed that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation. "Yahweh" is merely the convention used by scholars, but they believe that the actual vocalization is — so far — unknown. These statements within the article should be edited so that they are no longer POV."

All those persons who make up what is being referred to as a scholarly consensus that God's Name is "Yahweh" have no actual proof that God's name is/was actually "Yahweh". All they do is provide an unnamed group of persons who have the same POV about the name "Yahweh". If only they found an extant Hebrew Manuscript in which "Yahweh" is found, all that would change, but for the moment this article continues to claim as a fact, what is only a common POV held by many people.

Seeker02421 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeker, I'm beginning to lose patience with you. Our article does not say that there's a scholarly consensus that God's name is Yahweh. It says there's a consensus that this the most probable option. I'd like to hear Imeriki al-Shimoni's views on whether we've met his concerns. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This article does not dwell on scholarly consensus anyways, but on usage. CUSH 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the first section (Y & the Tet section) that I feel brings it inline with NPOV, and — hopefully — is satisfactory to Seeker as well. Someone mentioned the lead section, but I haven't relooked at that. From what I remember, I thought there were some unnecessary quoting in that section (I think the quotes could be better left as references rather than directly quoted inline). — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Yahweh in the Torah" Sub-section

This section opens very abruptly, as if whatever came before it was clipped off. In the first statement of this section, it quotes from Gen, but there is no context for this quote for people follow what is going on. What had Yahweh said? What has Yahweh promised her? Who is Sarah, and why should we care? It just seems a bit abrupt and I think that if we are keeping this paragraph as is, then we should pad some context before it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This section has a major problem: it's no more than a collection of random incidents. Yes, they all mention Yahweh, but there are several hundred more incidents left out that also mention Yahweh. In fact, as the bible is a history of God's relationship with Israel, there isn't a single page that doesn't mention Yahweh. I think the first question has to be: what do we want this section to tell the reader? Ideas? PiCo (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are supposed to illustrate the character features of the deity. But somehow the quotes in the article are pointless. I would remove them entirely and go for a description. CUSH 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Made changes to Genesis paragraph per discussion. In the December discussion about block quotes, I noted that block quotes are common in literary articles, such as The Taming of the Shrew, Samuel Taylor Coleridge and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Al-Shimoni said that “block quotes themselves are not a problem.” The use of block quotes is now an appropriate proportion of the total article, and those remaining are justified with secondary sources. What is more notable in Exodus than the burning bush narrative and the Ten Commandments? What is more notable in Numbers than the Priestly Blessing? What is more notable in Deuteronomy than the Shema? PiCo commented on the almost ubiquitous presence of Yahweh in the Torah, saying, “… there isn’t a single page that doesn’t mention Yahweh.” In light of that, the Torah subsection reflects space limitations and is restricted to notable portrayals of Yahweh’s character. Corinne68 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR? Jheald (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Corinne68 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC), I've been giving a lot of thought to this section, not least because you've put so much work into it and because it's so clearly dear to your heart. (No, I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it). Yet I have serious problems with it. I really do wonder what profit it provides the reader that we simply place before him large slabs of quotation from the bible - he might justifiably ask, what does it mean, why this verse instead of another?

For this reason, I would suggest that you consider a different approach, thematic rather than literary. In other words, take the major things that Yahweh is in the bible, without regard to which section they are found in, Torah or Prophets or Writings. Without trying to be exhaustive, I would suggest: the God of Covenants (think how many covenants there are, from Noah to David); the God Alone (i.e., Yahweh as the jealous God of Israel); the God of Israel (i.e., the special relationship between Yahweh and Israel). As I said, is not an exhaustive list, but I'm trying to illustrate the idea: approach the section by theme rather than by location in the bible. Anyway, I'd like to hear your reaction. PiCo (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The section "Biblical Data" in the out-of-copyright article God from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia may also give some ideas. Far better, per WP:NOR, to start with what one or more reliable sources identify as significant, rather than your own essay. Though I can see some advantages in a more linear presentation, as it can feed into how the idea of God develops in the text.Jheald (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"In fact, as the bible is a history of God's relationship with Israel, there isn't a single page that doesn't mention Yahweh."

1. Interpreting references to other divine names as references to Yahweh is original research
2. The (Hebrew) book of Esther doesn't mention God under any name

Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, going by theme rather than location may be a good approach for another reason: If the TaNaK is composed of various different sources from different schools of thought, as many people believe (such as those who support Doc Hypoth, or the Toledoth theory for Gen), then for some or many of the books you will have a mosaic of sources with different outlooks. If that is the case, going strictly by location (as in by book or by book group) may be kind of pointless. Just a thought. — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The text and quotes are supported by secondary sources, therefore, not OR. The goal of this section is to be descriptive of highlights of Yahweh in individual books rather paint a coherent picture between books. How books relate to each other and whether they provide a coherent picture of Yahweh is an interpretive question that is reserved for later sections (Documentary Hypothesis and Historical development.) The choice from Exodus seems obvious, as the opening to the ten commandments summarizes the portrayal of Yahweh in the entire book, and the choice of passage is supported with secondary sources. Likewise, the Leviticus paragraph is a reasonable summary of Yahweh’s portrayal in the book as a whole, and is supported by secondary sources. The Numbers paragraph quotes perhaps the most well-known verse from Numbers, and its notability is established with a secondary source. The Deuteronomy paragraph is also supported with secondary sources and provides both a brief overview of Yahweh’s portrayal in that book as well as quoting the Shema, both well known as a Jewish prayer, as well as the focus of considerable scholarship on development of monotheistic views of Yahweh. The burning bush account is sufficiently notable for a separate treatment in its own sub-section. Recent edits to the Genesis paragraph are a substantial improvement and supported with ample secondary sources. Genesis gets a lot of discussion in the Documentary Hypothesis section later, and more than a paragraph here might be undue weight. Since that section treats Genesis 1-11, it is not unreasonable to begin here with the Abraham narrative. Thematic organization has its place, but should be treated separately from the more notable book-by-book organization. There is much more potential for bias/POV in choosing one or two secondary sources to draw from in a thematic organization, than using secondary sources to establish notability and accuracy of descriptions in the conventional textual organization. One is also more likely to skew the article toward “God in the OT” or “God in Judaism” with a thematic organization. If a section with a thematic organization can be added that is as well supported with secondary sources, unbiased, and hits as much of the major highlights as the current “Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible” section then we can discuss whether the article works better with only one of the sections, but wholesale removal of an existing section with a plethora of secondary and tertiary sources in hopes that a better organized section might eventually be written to replace it is unwarranted.Michael Courtney (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on "I am Yahweh"

In the section titled "Linguistic roots and meaning" is a statement that says, «A similar statement recurs throughout Leviticus, where God states with each law, "I am Yahweh."» On a quick browse I could find "I [am] Yahweh your god" (אני יהוה אלהיכם — ˀaniy Yahweh ˀeloheykem, literally "I Yahweh god-yours") but not an "I am Yahweh" (of the form אהיה יהוה — ˀehyeh yahweh — with an "I am" verb, which is the impression I got, in combo with the preceding text to this statement, that I should find there). Is my impression off, or am I looking in the wrong spot? — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is saying that "I am Yahweh" isn't a statement of the divine name, but of the divine nature: Israel's god is a strong and enduring god who will stay with his chosen people. So the "I am Yahweh your god" of Leviticus is a different but similar form of the same promise as the "I am that which I am" given to Moses. Unfortunately the ref given was completely wrong, and I don't know where to look for the right one. You can take it out if you like, until I can find the ref. PiCo (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeshua is GOD

The author leaves out the messianic Jews who were the first, the apostles and disciples of Yeshua, to start the "Christian church". The Way, and other groups. Just read the book of John,verse one on, then what Yeshua said to the Pharisees "I AM" and they tried to stone him (John 8:58-59)Do not talk about the religions, man made, in the same way & with the same weight as a strong and wonderful faith. These works are not of men. Have you read the "Jewish New Testament" by David H Stern? Yeshua a guide to the real Jesus and the original church, by Dr. Ron Moseley.?

To discuss two cult's that were started 300 and 200 years ago, in the same description of a deity, as these works is insane! Please if you wish to be believed try and quote and discuss mainstream!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustygiers50 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah! Take it easy, be happy! The article is written by many editors, not any author. I don't exactly understand what you're after, but if you think that the article reflects the emergence of the "Christian church" wrong, please specify where you think the article is incomplete, so we can consider improvements of the article. I as a "Christian" am quite aware of the intermediate steps of messianic Jews, Ebionites, and Paul between trinitarian christianity and judaism of antiquity. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"The article is written by many editors, not any author." Rather like the Torah itself, according to the documentary hypothesis :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.8.5 (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and Yahweh

At the end of the article what is written regarding the belief of many Christians that Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same seems to me totally ridiculous. The example of Mormonism is given, but every major branch of Christianity, as far as I know, regards this belief as heretical. The Mormons I've talked to are hesitant to directly identify themselves as Christians, so it seems no one really thinks Mormons are Christians. Yahweh is identified with God the Father, as part of the holy Trinity in Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex56l (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Trinity means exactly that Jesus and Yahweh and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. What do you think it means? · CUSH · 06:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Trinity," or "triune-ness," probably signifies "tri-furcation," as in the branchings of plants, shrubs and trees; this symbolic sort of observation of natural phenomena seems to be common to both Indo-European and specifically Celtic culture, as with Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva (note Shiva's and Poseidon/Neptune's standard fork) and some three-eyed Celtic goddesses. As such this could represent a natural progression from "bifurcation," as in say, the two-sided human body without the addition of human spirit. Even a Buddha sitting beneath a Bho-tree seems to be/symbol rather trifurcate. 69.69.21.99 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cruelties...

Does anyone dare to comment about the abominable CRUELTIES of Yahweh? A choice of the many cruelties in the Old Testament: Gen.: 34,25-29; Ex.: 12,12; 12,29-30; 15,3; 32,26-28; Lev.: 26,7-8; 26,21-22; 26,26-29; Num.: 15,32-36; 16,29-35; 16,46-49; 21,3-6; 21,24-25; 21,33-35; 31,7-10; 31,14-18; 31,31-32; 31,35; Deut: 2,32-34;. 3,1-6; 7,2-3; 9,35 13,9-10; 13,14-16; 20,10-17; 21,11-14; Joshua: 6,20-25; 8,2; 8,21-25; 8,29; 10,10-11; 10,17-40; 11,6-22 ; Judges: 1,4-11; 1,17; 1,25; 3,29-31; 4,14-16; 7,15-25; 8,17; 9,4-5; 9,43-45; 9,49-52; 11,30-40; 15,15-16; 18,27; 19,22-29; 20,2; 20,31-37; 20,41-48; 1 Samuel: 5,8-9; 6,19; 11,6-11; 15,3-9; 15,33; 18,7; 30,17; 2 Samuel: 5,8; 5,25; 8,1-5; 10,18; 12,31; 18,6-7; 24,10-16; 1 Kings: 20,28-30; 2 Kings: 1,9-14; 2,23-25; 5,25-27; 6,18; 10,13-25; 14,5-7; 15,16; 19,35; 1 Chron.: 20,2-3; Psalms: 137,9; Iesaiah: 13,15-18; 45,5-7; 49,25-26; Jeremiah 16,3-5; Lament.: 4,9-11; Ezekiel: 6,12-13; 9,3-6; Hosea: 13,15; 14,1. (Jan Erik Sigdell, Slovenia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.209.87 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this should be a section something like Criticism of belief in Yahweh. I think, by WP:NPOV, that such a section could be justified, but the sources you mention are primary, and as such not acceptable, especially since I've often heard Bible verses referred to out of context by anti-religious people who didn't care to check whether the immorality referred to was due to the commands of Yahweh, or to some condemned evil made by humans. It is better if we have secondary sources by a known Bible analyst that is rejecting belief in Yahweh in order to fulfill Wikipedias policies of secondary sources. So, if you find such secondary sources — preferrably bible analysts, not just blog statement — we can start such a section. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The possibily that Yahveh was a man

In 2008 in the city of Tijuana (Baja California, Mexico) a self-appointed philosopher "The Cosmic Man" (name unknown) publishes the book "Jehovah was a sorcerer who lived 3900 years ago." Almost unknown in this work is theorized under hermeneutic and anthropological arguments Yahweh (Jehovah known as a bad translation) was a sorcerer of African origin who lived for nearly four millennia in the Nile cernanías and Middle East. At his death, for reasons of respect and admiration, a tribe called Kenites made him god, this deity impact both the Jews and also needed a divided as to raise the morale of his people, when the tribe had contact with African nomadic, adopted this god politicians set in a monotheistic god. This controversial work ever released in bulk makes a historiographical study of the places where the Yahveh might be buried, as well as the origin of the first writings of the Pentateuch and as may have been the origin of the Jewish world before the religious belief Jehovah.

No signature and no sources? This section will get deleted pretty soon, I tell ya. · CUSH · 06:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

One could see an equally valid future claim for the "Empire State Building," as being an embodiment of New York, an apparently phallic symbol tower representing the fertility of some lost district in a "Man-hattin," culture. Or that a "Jesus" played for the Cleveland Indians in some sort of tribal ritual involving balls, bats and mitts. If Yahweh be omnipresent we actually need either to be looking for his presence in ourselves, or perhaps finding & restoring those from whom he or his eternal DNA has been somehow removed? And if he is not omnipresent, we ought to be working out the frauds with which he has been presented, and represented, and misrepresented, for he has come to be regarded as buried everywhere,in every man and woman, both living and dead. 69.69.17.28 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be written or spoken

I am curious as to why there is no mention or caveat that this word is actual not to be written or spoken according to Jews? I can somewhat swallow it's use as an encyclopedic reference but it is wholly unacceptable to be used by Jews or in conversation with Jews as it volates the prohibition to speak or write G-d's name. I am sure this is covered in the God in Judaism page but shouldn't it have a place here too? I think it would be helpful for people who are not educated on the proper usage. THDju (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it's not Yahweh that isn't to be pronounced, but YHWH - the point belongs in that article. PiCo (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Right... but the "y-word" is an attempt at pronouncing Yud Hey and Vav Hey (YHWH) which violates the intent of the law. I am not sure. Just a thought. As a Jew, I am always taken aback and offended when the see the "y-word" so I thought it would be important to note the response of many Jews (not just myself) can be offense. THDju (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess a sentence or mention in the appropriate section (the one talking about the theoretical nature of the reconstruction) wouldn't hurt. Feel free. PiCo (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews prefer using "the Name" (ha-Shem) where the Tetragrammaton is found, but the Tetragrammaton itself is not wrong to write. In fact, it is all over the Bible, and frequently written in an archaic script. So it's not improper to write it, just to say it, according to Orthodox Judaism. You just "read" YHWH as "the Name" instead. Ogress _smash! 06:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yahweh in Isaiah

in the section on Isaiah, it could be added that that Isaiah alone (in 12:2 and 26:4) makes use of a emphasized name by using the tetragrammatorn (YHWH) preceded by an abreviated form (YH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.135.218 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I need help with something

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) 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)