Talk:Yahweh/Archive 1

message: I know something about the subject of this article, but if I didn't, the opening lines would lose me entierly. It jumps straight into the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexacon, never pausing to explain that Yahway is (one translation/transliteration of) the name of God in the Hebrew Bible.
I might find the time to write a proper introduction myself, but probably no time soon.
TRiG 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An introduction would be nice

message: This article only covers the name Yahway. Nothing about Yahway himself, the history, the characotoristics, the changing "understanding".  I have been led to believe that Yahway was one of many gods of the pre-jews people, that he was specificly the war god.  I don't know if its true, but it would be interesting to adress what history is known.
Steve kap 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not much Subject here

message: Any ideas what is most accurate and least misleading? Dlugar
----
My understanding is that "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" are alternate English transliterations of the Hebrew word written with the so-called tetragrammaton, "YHVH" (actually, its equivalent in the Hebrew alphabet), which was the proper name for God among the ancient Hebrews. The existence of multiple transliterations for a single foreign word is not unusual; consider "Peking", "Peiping", "Beijing", which are alternate transliterations of the Chinese word which names the capital of modern China. (Note: These aren't different transliterations; the pronounciation ascribed to the characters denoting the city was officially changed, and the three variations represent the old name, a sort of loca mixture, and the new name, respectively.) The problem in this case is complicated by the fact that the ancient Hebrew alphabet didn't include letters for vowels, and by the time vowel marks were introduced the sacred name was not spoken for religious reasons (the word "Adonai" meaning "Lord" was substituted). Evidently the vowel marks for "Adonai" were used with the tetragrammaton, which led to the transliteration "Jehovah". This obviously was a mistake. The modern transliteration "Yahweh" is generally believed by scholars to reflect the actual pronunciation. - Hank Ramsey
:Alternate transliteration is a factor, but the real debate is about how many syllables there should be.  The Hebrew letters are YHWH.  Those who believe that it was pronounced with two syllables tend to favor "Yahweh", while those who favor three might pick "Yehowah".  The vowels in the latter are the way it is often vowel pointed in Hebrew manuscripts.  Though it is often claimed that the manuscripts which vowel point it this way to so to remind the reader to substitute "adonai", this is probably just speculation.  The counter argument is that numberous proper names in the Bible contain part of the divine name either as a prefix or a suffix and that if we take the vowel pointing from these we arrive at "Yehowah".
::Actually, it might be more consistent to use the letters YHVH.  There was no vowel pointing at all in the old texts, either.--~~
:: For vowel points, see Niqqud. --Jerzy (t) 20:33, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
:Every transliteration I have seen has only TWO syllables. The vocal sheva is a non-vowel in Hebrew, and it does not hold a syllable of its own. Thus, Jeho- is one syllable in Hebrew (יְהוֹ־). -vah would constitute a second syllable. Also, Yahweh is a two syllable transliteration. The disagreement results from the following:
::1. Opinions over which vowels represent the sounds of the name originally. Some people are convinced that the vowels sheva, holam, qamatz are original to the name. Most agree that these are representative of a perpetual ktiv-kri (written v. read) in the Hebrew Bible (and this is supported by remarks from the Massoretes, who invented the vocalic system). Some scholars propose the vowels as patach, sheva, segol (Yahveh) or patach, hatef-patach, segol (Yahaveh).
::2. Opinions over the proper transliteration of the consonants. Due to the long history of the Hebrew language and the evolutions that it went through, it is absolutely impossible to determine for sure the pronunciation of the letters at a given time in the language's history. We know that at one time Vav was pronounced with a W sound (this sound is represented in Latin by the v). The Germans use J to represent our semivowel Y. This also comes from late Latin (note that J and I are interchangeable in Latin: xij = xii = 12; Iulius = Julius). In order to be certain about the transliteration of יהוה we must first be certain about the timeframe in which the word was first used and how the language sounded at the time. We are left only with conjecture on this point.
:Hope this helps to clarify something. Yonah mishael 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems of transliterating from another language

message: :"Yehowah", when transliterated according to the system used in the KJV for other proper names such as Yerusalem (Jerusalem) and Eliyah (Elijah) becomes Jehowah or Jehovah. -- David Chappell
::No; the vowels are harder to discover since the word wasn't uttered in normal speech. --~~
----
As I understand it, the KJV used just "LORD", never "Jehovah"; the usage "Jehovah" was introduced by the American Standard Version. -- Simon J Kissane
:The KJV uses Jehovah four times as the name of God (at Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4).  It also appears as a component of a number of place names (at Gen. 22:14, Exodus. 17:15, and Judges 6:24).
:The first (1611) edition of the KJV spelled Jehovah "Iehovah".  Similiarly, Jesus was spelled "Iesus".  The use of the letter j (a recent addition the English alphabet) was introduced in the 1629 edition, however it represented the y sound.  In other words, the reader was expected to say "Yehovah" when he saw "Jehovah".  As the English language evolved, the letter j aquired its modern pronounciation.  As a result, the English pronunciation of names such as Jesus, Jehovah, and Elijah changed.
I took Biblical Hebrew for a year at the University of Minnesota under Dr. Bernard Levinson and Dr. Lauren Monroe (taught by Dr. Mark Smith - New York University) and we were always taught that it was Yahweh.  The reason the J comes in in Jehovah is because the Hebrew letter "yod" was translated as a J in German first.  The J in German makes the same sound as the English Y.  Therefore, for English speakers it should be spelled Yahweh, while German speakers may prefer Jahweh.  The "waw" can be pronounced as either a "v" or a "w," this is one another place where we just can't really know how the language was originally spoken.  It is correct that the combination of the vowels from adonai and the consonants from YHWH were combined to remind the reader to say “adonai.”
:This was simply the opinion of your professors. I think the Jewish stance is wiser, not to pronounce the name since we are not certain about its pronunciation. It seems like a waste of energy to argue about these things when the answers will always elude us given our historical setting in comparison with that in which it was first put on parchment/vellum. We should simply say "HaShem" השם or "Adonai" אדני instead of the Tetragrammaton. It's just a better practice, in my opinion -- which I know doesn't count for much. ;) - Yonah mishael 16:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The King James Version

message: Wighson  it is not appreciated that you continue to remove this information that also appears under the Tetragrammaton article.  It  is most appropriate to give another side of an issue.  This has nothing to do with a religion or with the name Jehovah.  It deals directly with this article and the name Yahweh. Please refrain from reverting, it would be appreciated if you restore it back or at least discuss why it is inappropriate.  Explain what you mean by a POV.  Is it just that you might not like it?
:Johanneum,
:I think it was probably correct for Wighson to remove the sentence that I wrote in Wikipedia:Tetragrammaton:
::[ e.g. ""The main criticism of the name "Yahweh" is that the vocalized Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" is found in no extant Hebrew Text""]
:I think that that sentence could be critiqued for being "original research" or possibly it could be critiqued for being personal point of view.
:I think if some Hebrew scholar published an article in which he wrote that in his personal research he had discovered that no extant Hebrew text on the planet earth preserved the vocalized Hebrew spelling "Yahweh", I think that portions of his research found in that article could be posted in a Wikipedia Article.
::However Johanneum, you or I cannot do that. Even if you or I had researched every extant Hebrew text in the world, and discovered that not one of them preserved the vocalized Hebrew spelling "Yahweh", we could not by Wikipedia rules add that comment to a Wikipedia Artcle.
:First we'd have to publish that article, and it would have to undergo peer review. But since I don't think either one of us is a scholar we probably could not get our article published.     
:However I don't think that Wighson should have removed that portion that had been added to Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton by a differenr editor, and was referenced to ""BAR 21.2 (March-April 1995),31 George W. Buchanan, "How God’s Name Was Pronounced" ""    
:That is merely posting another point of view on the name "Yahweh" that has allready been published in a verifiable source.
Seeker02421 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the name "Yahweh"

message: :On June 6, 2006, an editor cut and pasted almost the complete Wikisource Article:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jehovah Wikisource into the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.
::Wikisource rules state:
:::The wiki pages on most Wikimedia projects are designed to evolve forever. 
:::Typical examples are Wikipedia articles or Wikibooks study guides.
:::By contrast, Wikisource is a library of static texts that have already been published elsewhere. 
:::In many or most cases, these texts are not meant to change and evolve, 
:::and it would deeply hurt their integrity if they did!
:Does Wikipedia approve of a complete ["almost" complete] Wikisource Article being brought into a Wikipedia Article, and then having that Wikisource article freely edited by Wikipedia editors? 
:Wikisource would not approve of edits being made to that article while it was  posted on their site, if those edits resulted in changes being made to the actual original text.
:Seeker02421 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the "Wikisource" portion of this article be freely edited?

message: The previous Section #4 in the main article [e.g. Footnotes for Section #3.1 thru Section # 3.8] has been deleted.
A new section: "References [Includes 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Footnotes]" has been created. Footnotes 1 thru 12 from page 312 of the original 1911 Encyclopedia Article; JEHOVAH[YAHWEH] can now be found in this new section.
There are still about another 16 Footnotes from the original 1911 Article that need to be placed in this new Section.
Seeker02421 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References [Includes 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Footnotes]

message: Can the above statement found in Section # 8.3 of the main article be verified?
:יָהּ (Yah) is a normal form of the name of God. Hallelujah is written as two words in Hebrew:
::הַלְּלוּ־יָהּ Hallelu-Yah
:Praise, the singular imperative form of which is הַלֵּל hallel, is found here in the plural imperative. Yah is joined to it with a maqef (־), functioning to join the two words into one expression and to remove the trope/accent from hallelu. In other words, the trope (how you sing the word) treats this as one unit.
:There is no record of a form הללו־יהוה hallelu-YHWH (or anything similar). It is always found with the shorter form unless the words are divided, which case you might find it with the name of God written fully, thus:
::הללו את יהוה Hallelu et YHWH (Praise YHWH) OR
::הללו את שם יהוה Hallelu et shem YHWH (Praise the name of YHWH)
:In other words, this claim is not based on what is found in the Hebrew Bible. הללו־יהוה is not found in the Bible. See [blacklisted link removed] on Mechon Mamre to analyze the verses that have הללו and יהוה together. Yonah mishael 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Halleluyahweh has been shorten to be halleluyah [verification needed]

message: "The attempts to connect the name Yahweh with that of an Indo-European deity (Jehovah-Jove, &c.), or to derive it from Egyptian or Chinese, may be passed over."
In the case of Egyptian or Chinese, I agree. But why is it so in the case of Indo-European? Their chief god's name *di-yauwo, *di-euwo- could pretty much be considered the original source for YHWH. There is, for example, some evidence that Abraham might either actually be a Hittite or at least have had close contact with Hittites, and so would the early Hebrews. Besides, the very name of the Hebrew priestly tribe, the Levi, sounds similar to Luwi, or Luvites, another tribe nearby who spoke an Indo-European language. It could well be that the priestly elite among the Hebrews descended from Indo-European speakers (this has happened in several other cases, cf. India) and so would have transmitted a form of the name of their chief deity to the Israelites.Giorgioz 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a game of "sounds-alike", which is almost always misleading. No such connection has ever been shown. Connections with other Semitic deities are far more likely. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YHWH = *dyeuwo ? 

message: ok, well I wanted to find some information on Yahweh and I couldn't read this this page, it poorly constructed and badly written, seemingly because of all the viewpoints? I learnt more from the discussions page actually. But i wanted to know about the traditions and development of Yahweh and this article is all about the etymology of the name. Can you all focus on a cleanup operation, think of the children....! Ciriii 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: I am also an active Jew, and I can say that to the best of my understanding the pronunciation "Yahweh" is false and inaccurate. If there were any degree of truth in it, then the theophoric names Yehoshaphat, Yehonatan, Yehoyachin, Yehoshuah, etc. would all be pronounced Yahweshaphat, Yahwenatan, Yahweyachin, Yahweshuah, etc.. which they are not in either the Masoretes or Septuagint.
It is also significant that in all these theophoric names, the vowel sequence E-O-A is preserved (like in Ye Ho Ah).
It is also significant that if the vowel points were meant to signify ADONAI, then the name of God would be written Yahovah, not Y'hovah.
It is also significant that in the oldest Masoretic texts, eg. Codex Aleppo and Leningrad,
usually the middle vowel -O- is omitted. Why would this be done if the vowel is simply meant as an aide to the read to say 'ADONAI' out loud? However, there are plenty of examples in both texts which clearly indicate the -O- vowel in the middle.
In short, it is clearly irrelevant what the "scholarly opinion" is at the moment. The pronunciation "Yahweh" borders on the comical.
:Well, I'm not a Hebrew scholar of any kind, but I've often thought the same thing, and for the same reasons. This is among the issues raised in Tetragrammaton. However, "Yahweh" is less a fraud than a convention. This kind of misunderstanding is a good argument for merging the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The vav plays differing lexical roles, depending on the grammatical lexical contexts. Your point about Hebrew names containing a portion of the Tettragramaton is not dispositive, for this reason. The convention about the pronuciation Yahweh has too many reasons in its favor, although we can indeed never be completely certain. If you know Hebrew, you should realize that the vowels commonly used in the Massoretic text under YHWH make no sense. A name in Classical Hebrew with that spelling would almost certainly be pronouned "Yahweh," and no other way. Your point about the Aleppo and Leningrad codices also indicates that the pronunciation did not contain the middle "o" of "Jehovah." The problem simply is that "Jehovah" has been used for about two hundred years, and has accumulated a validity of sorts. In any case, this is an issue which will probably never be completely resolved. 66.108.105.21 05:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree, the pronunciation "Yahweh" is a fraud 

message: the letters YHVH is Jehovah.  Yahweh is not the same thing and also is a negative entity, while Jehovah is positive.  These 2 things should be separated so that they can be elaborated upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.91.165 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahweh is not Jehovah