Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

See technical note on viewing special characters.

This Article needs verifable evidence that Clement of Alexandria actually wrote Ιαουε

All Wikipedia Articles are unusual, in that editors from all over the world can add their edits to any article.

Much evidence has been presented in this Wikipedia Article:Transcribing YHWH in an attempt to prove that God's name is "Yahweh", and it has been stated as a fact that Clement of Alexandria used a form like "Yahweh" [e.g. "Iaoue"] in the 2nd century.

However no evidence has been presented that there is any extant ancient Greek text on the planet earth, in which the Greek spelling "Iaoue" is preserved.

While there seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6. these same modern scholars present no ancient Greek manuscript evidence to back up their beliefs.

Contrary wise, there is an extant 11th century Greek Codex "L" that preserves the Greek spelling "Iaou" NOT "Iaoue" at Stromata Book V. Chapter 6., and there is a documented 800+ year period from the 11th century to after 1850 A.D. during which there seems to be a consensus among those particular scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou" not "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chaper 6. And during this 800 year period Greek scholars could point to existing documents, as evidence that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou" and not "Iaoue"

This does not appear to be the situation that exists in 2006. While there definitely seems to be a consensus among modern scholars that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" not "Iaou", no verifiable evidence [written before 1850 A.D.]has been presented by these same modern scholars for their belief.

Since Wikipedia has potential editors all over the world, it is hoped that in the near future, evidence may be added to this present Wikipedia Article that Clement of Alexandria may actually have written "Iaoue" in his original writings.

FOR A START IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF ANY WORLDWIDE EDITOR COULD PROVIDE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, THAT ANY DOCUMENT EXISTS THAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE 1850 A.D. [OR EVEN BEFORE 1900 A.D.],THAT INDICATED THAT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA WROTE "IAOUE" AND NOT "IAOU" IN HIS GREEK STROMATA BOOK V. CHAPTER 6.

Seeker02421 11:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Six Greek catenas exist that quote Clement as writing IAOUE

In an email, Gerard Gertoux provided me with the following information:

In his article entitled Iaw ET Iawe (in: Hommage à Georges Vajda Ed. Peeters 1980 Louvain pp. 73-78) Pierre Nautin quoted several Catenas which have Iaoue:

Monac. gr. 9

Monac. gr. 82

Paris. gr. 1825

Paris. gr. 1888

Coislianus 133

Taurin. III, 50

Gerard Gertoux also wrote:

"(Unfortunately Catenas are badly known because these manuscripts are seldom published)".

It seems at least possible that only a Greek scholar can gain access to detailed information about these six catenas, from the sources that preserve them.

These six catena's may or not provide evidence that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6. If it turns out that all six of these catenas were written recently, they appear to mean almost nothing.

However, if it turns out that one or more of these catena's were written before the 11th century, than extant evidence exists, written before the 11th century, that Clement of Alexandria wrote Iaoue in his Greek Stromata Book V., chapter 6.

Seeker02421 11:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views.

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.

It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates.

When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

Seeker02421 17:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION: The Article "Jehovah" was m-o-v-e-d to Transcribing YHWH

Apparently no "Speedy Deletion" of the Article Jehovah took place.

On 29 March 2006 at 15:10 Wighson moved the article "Jehovah" to the apparently newly created article :Transcribing YHWH. The move was defined as a "minor" (m) edit.

15:10, 29 March 2006 Wighson m (moved Jehovah to Transcribing YHWH: "Jehovah" by definition is a content fork of Tetragrammaton. Wikpedia does not allow duplicate articles or articles that make a point of view more forcefully.)

Seeker02421 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The following information appears when you click on [MOVE]

Move page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed; be sure to check for double-redirects (using "What links here") after the move. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go.

Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, unless it is a redirect to the old title and has no past edit history. This means that you can rename a page back to where it was just renamed from if you make a mistake, and you cannot overwrite an existing page.

WARNING! This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page;

please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding.

Please read meta:Help:Renaming (moving) a page for more detailed instructions.

I think that it is safe to say that:

This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page;

please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding.

Seeker02421 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Does a Wikipedia "Speedy Deletion" normally take place without any warning?

Does Wikipedia's "Speedy Deletion" policy, allow an Article like Wikipedia:Jehovah to be deleted without warning??????

Was a warning label ever placed on the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah before the deletion took place??????

Seeker02421 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:53, 29 March 2006

Duffer1 (Talk | contribs)

(→Jehovah's Witnesses - - removed, that article has been deleted under WP:SPEEDY)

On 29 March 2006, Duffer1 writes that:

"removed, that article has been deleted under WP:SPEEDY"

I could find no evidence that those words had previously been in the article.

Seeker02421 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No reason to have a transcribing YHWH

There is no soild reason to have a transcribing YHWH that is what the article Tetragrammaton covers! This only allows a certian person to further their agenda. If someone wants to add info about how to transribe YHWH then they can add it to Tetragrammaton. The Jehovah article should be restored!

• "("Jehovah" by definition is a content fork of Tetragrammaton. Wikpedia does not allow duplicate articles or articles that make a point of view more forcefully.)" What is this? Can not the same be said of this article, Transcribing YHWH? The main article Tetragrammaton covers this too! We need to be consistent.

Religion and Wikipedia

I understand that the spelling "Jehovah" (especially its vowels) is of paramount importance to followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. If it were not, this article would not exist.

However, Wikipedia policy is explicit that articles must follow scholarly convention and scholarly consensus. One cannot make an article on Wikipedia conform to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor may one compel editors to conform their edits to any religion whatsoever.

Convention and the scholarly consensus are quite clear in regard to the use of the word "Jehovah" and official statements from official sites of the Jehovah's Witnesses differ markedly. This version of this article here: [1] is sourced and cited. It also incorporates the contributions of numerous editors, including that of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Each Jehovah's Witness is certainly welcome to his own point of view. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own websites and there is even a section in this article allowing for discussion of these views. The overwhelming majority of editors do not follow that religion, but the community has been generous and even indulgent in incorporating these sectarian views in the article.

Thus, in the interests of Policies and Guidelines particularly Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Jehovah's Witnesses are strongly urged to cease conforming articles against scholarly convention and consensus. More importantly, kindly cease from demanding that editors follow sectarian religious doctrine. Editors take offense at such tactics and are unlikely to comply.

We consider it rude and it reflects badly on Jehovah's Witnesses.

There are ample websites already owned by Jehovah's Witnesses for followers to contribute to. All are welcome to contribute here inasmuch as each follows the rules.  - C. dentata 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Castanea dentata

You wrote:

I understand that the spelling "Jehovah" (especially its vowels) is of paramount importance to followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. If it were not, this article would not exist.

You are absolutely correct in what you said in your second sentence. This Wikipedia Article:Jehovah exists because a small group of editors, who wanted to write what they believe about "Jehovah" fought for it. For several years this small group of editors tried to start a Wikipedia Article on which they could write what they believe about Jehovah or write about what they believe about the name "Jehovah".

It wasn't easy as the article they tried to create kept getting reverted to Tetragrammaton, but they finally suceeded in creating the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah. They did not fight to start a Wikipedia Article so that others could write about their beliefs concerning "Yahweh", but that is certainly allowed here. And they did not fight for this article named Jehovah so that you and I and other Wikipedia editors could turn it into what appears to be a POV article for "Yahweh".

I am certainly guilty of trying to express my beliefs on the name "Yahweh" as well as on the name "Jehovah" ( in a NPOV manner ) on this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah. And Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales encourages us to write about what we believe and what other people believe as long we do it according to Wikipedia NPOV rules.

But take a look at what has happened here:

The first 13 sections of this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah have been commandeered by editors who for all practical purposes will not allow anything positive to be written concerning the name "Jehovah" in these first 13 sections.

It appears that we who want to write edits about what we or others believe about "Yahweh" on this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah here need to reach some sort of consensus with those who want to write what they or other people believe about "Jehovah" on this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.

And to be redundant it is a fact, that editors who wanted to write about their beliefs about "Jehovah" have previously fought to start this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.

However there is the possible option of creating a new Wikipedia Article named "Yahweh or Jehovah" or possibly "Jehovah or Yahweh" or something similar. The option of starting a Wikipedia Article:Yahweh does not seem to exist, as it immediately gets redirected to Tetragrammaton.

If the second option was successful, this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah would still exist along side the newly created Article. However the newly created Article could openly encourage the writing of the beliefs of both those who wanted to write about Jehovah and of those who wanted to write about Yahweh. It might be easier for that hypothetical group of editors to agree to disagree as they hopefully worked together to write an accurate, but controversal article on "Jehovah or Yahweh" or on "Yahweh or Jehovah". They would realize ahead of time they were writing a very controversal article, which would require the cooperation of all who posted there.

However that situation does not presently exist on this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah. Does anyone who edits here believe that it would be possible to agree ahead of time to try to write an accurate controversal article on the "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy, recognizing how much we all disagree with each other at the present time?

Seeker02421 01:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What is important is YHWH, whatever form that name takes when translated into respective languages, and His role as "God" to millions of people throughout all of recorded history. I am absolutely mystified at how you can say: "However, Wikipedia policy is explicit that articles must follow scholarly convention and scholarly consensus. One cannot make an article on Wikipedia conform to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor may one compel editors to conform their edits to any religion whatsoever." I have proven several instances in the article to be fallacious, had you actually bothered to endeavor in any form of consensus before RVing in the face of substantial evidence.

I appreciate the communities' "generosity", however, accurately criticisizing an article is neither rude, nor does it reflect badly on Jehovah's Witnesses. Now, what on Earth do you mean by: "kindly cease from demanding that editors follow sectarian religious doctrine. Editors take offense at such tactics and are unlikely to comply."? Who are you talking to, and what does it have to do with my substantial criticism of this article? Substantial criticism that you have yet to address despite, ironically, your noble assertion: "Wikipedia policy is explicit that articles must follow scholarly convention and scholarly consensus." If you do not want to address the facts surrounding my edits, that is your prerogitive, but if that is your choice then please stop RVing. The reasons why this article is a failure:

• Despite the origin of "Jehovah", the etymology of the name is only one aspect of what "Jehovah" is, not only as a name, but as the Israelite's God of Moses. This article, ABOUT the Israelites' God "Jehovah", makes no mention of His being the Israelites' God of Moses.
• This article only focuses on three issues (in order of Weight given to each):

• The Etymology of "Yahweh" is currently the primary focus of this article. Why is that? "Yahweh" is "Jehovah's" Hebrew counterpart, it deserves only the briefest of mentions, or none at all, and etymology itself is only one aspect of "Jehovah".

• The information on "Yahweh" is largely available on the Tetragrammaton Wiki, some even cut and paste straight from there.

• Jehovah's Witnesses. A group that is responsible for propagating the Tetra and it's respective translations (anglicization) into world languages as the one and only True name of God ("Jeová" in Portugeus; "Jéhovah" in French; "Jehovových" in Czech; etc...). I can understand mentioning them but to not only mention them, but to criticize them - their translation - and their beliefs is just rediculous. The article goes so far as to call verified fact "dogma", directly after it vilifies their NWT for erroneous reasons (followed by some entirely irrelevant ad-hom regarding Matt. 4:7 and the Trinity doctrine); all of this is proceeded with further criticism directed at Witnesses as IF THEY themselves came up with "Jehovah". Casta if you want to sit there, look this whole board in the face and tell me this article is the product of "scholarly convention" and "consensus" then all I have to say to that is: "horse pucky".
• Jehovah - the actual subject of the article finally gets ONE brief mention, and that's in regards to it's etymology. What a shining example of scholastic achievement this article is.

I'm left to wonder why this article is even seperate from the Tetragrammaton Wiki; and left seriously doubting your claim: "If it were not, this article would not exist." It seems that those interested in attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, and the etymology of "Jehovah" are the ones responsible for the existance of this article. Casta, justify your RVs of my heavy editing of the Witness section of the article, after you fail to do that, stop RVing. Duffer 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

JEHOVAH

I must say that I am very happy to see an abundance of information showing up on this article. Thank you "Seeker" for your additions. Michaelkrewson 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a page on the subject of the name Jehovah would be effective and that "tetragrammaton" is too broad to include a full essay on the subject. I mean that God as a person needs a page to himself. If people want to know a bunch of technical information or they need to be informed of the origin of the name and the various contrversies surrounding its' use and pronounciation then "tetragrammaton" should be linked to in the article.george m

If you want a NON-ERASABLE Defintion and history please see this website at watchtower.org.

I figure that the definition and information I post will be erased by him within the hour. To think someone so young destroying articles so easily is allowed to do so really brings into question the viability of the idealisic wiki purpose.

Sir. If you wish to invoke the "idealistic wiki purpose", you should be aware that one of the primary tenets of Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a platform for opinions, beliefs, philosophies, or attitudes; it is, on the other hand, a place where multiple opinions might be cataloged, where multiple beliefs might be compared, where multiple philosophies might be contrasted -- all under the rubric of that neutral point of view. Hence, articles beginning with "The personal name of the only true God" are unacceptable, as they reflect the point of view (in this case) of people who believe (a) that there is a God; (b) that there is a true God; (c) that there is only one true God; (d) that God has a personal name; and (e) that "Jehovah" is his own designation. An article about this particular set of beliefs would certainly be acceptable, as long as it was not espousing this particular set of beliefs. PS: I'm not User:Grunt, nor am I a "young teenage user". --jpgordon {yammer} 03:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Try writing an article that isn't espousing any particular religious point of view. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be attempting to edit religious articles for Wickipedia. --jpgordon {yammer} 05:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please excuse me if my language was confusing. I said nothing about 'talking about religion'; I suggested you try writing without espousing a particular religious point of view. Your particular religious viewpoint could appropriately be incorporated in it. "The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah is..." would work fine. --jpgordon {yammer} 17:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe this article is plagarized. I suspected it while reading and Googled a paragraph which brought up this site: link. It is almost identical to the article. The website in question has several sources at the bottom, but does not include Wikipedia, so I'm pretty certain that this was copied from that website, both for the identicality of content and the unusual formatting of the article. I am therefore listing this in the copyright problems section. FilthMasterFlex

Shouldn't this entry be redirected to Yahweh, and then described there? Print encyclopaedias would do this, and with good reason. Just because we can make an infinite number of pages and hyperlink between them doesn't mean that we always have to do so. This is a case in point. (In fact, there are MANY duplicate Wikipedia pages that need to be brought together). RK

--- is this a new (8/16/01) entry? see Yahweh and its talk, Name of God in Judaism, and under the "Religion" header on the home page, God --MichaelTinkler

Probably Jehovah, given that is the accepted form used by one not negligible religious group (Jehovahs witnesses) deserves its own page. --AN

---

i've brought this article more in line with the one on Yahweh. But it still feels somewhat weird. Needs more work. perhaps merge with Yahweh? -- Asa

---

Don't the Jehovah's Witnesses assert that Jehovah is the only legitimate name for God, as a point of distinction? --Wesley

No. That is a common misconception. We do "assert" that God has a personal name as revealed in the Scriptures. That personal name is represented by the Tetragrammaton and appears about 7,000 in the Hebrew scriptures.

The complete etymology of the Name in its English form is a detailed and interesting history. Two salient points are these:

1 - The name first appeared in an English Bible in 1530, when William Tyndale published a translation of the first five books of the Bible. In this he included the name of God, usually spelled Iehouah.

2 - In 1611, the King James Version of the Bible was published which used the spelling, "Jehovah" in four places in the main text, and several other places in place-names such as "Jehovah-jireh."

Since then, "Jehovah" has been the most common English language form of the Name. This is, of course, long before the formation of the modern religious organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses. --DannyMuse 08:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More than one religion places emphasis on the correct way to say the name of God. Mine doesn't: we figure He's smart enough to figure out when He's being addressed, and kind enough not to be picky about it. --Ed Poor

I thought I'd add that Jehovah's witnesses defend the use of God's name as it is commonly spelled and pronounced in their own language. Since Jehovah's Witnesses speak hundreds of different languages earthwide, depending on their locale, it isn't entirely correct to say Jehovah's Witnesses defend the use of "Jehovah" specifically. In English we use Jehovah, since that is the common English pronunciation. In Spanish-speaking congregations it is pronounced Hay-oh-vah'. However, Jehovah's Witnesses are well aware that the exact pronunciation of His name cannot be stated with any certainty. We find what and who the name represents is far more important than how it is spelled or pronounced. I'm going to clarify this on the page, altho I haven't decided the best way. The point is merely that we aren't dogmatic about it - whereas it could be construed that way as it is presently written. - d16tuner-don't remember my login :/

---

If some feel that we should merge the English name Jehovah with the Hebrew version Yahweh, why doesn't someone request that we merge the name Jesus with the Hebrew version of his name. We might end up with a Hebrew Encyclopedia after all. Let's face it, the English language is very NEW compared to Hebrew. Why not start redirecting all kinds of English names to thier Hebrew counterparts. I might suggest Jeremiah's name also. - :-D Honestly, though, I enjoy the conversation and the interest in the Divine name from all.Michael Krewson 04:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstand in thinking that Jehovah is an ENGLISH name while Yahweh is a HEBREW name. These two are, rather, differing pronunciations (transliterations) of the same Hebrew name, יהוה. To compare this to the issue of Jesus' name — whether it should be Yeshua ישוע or Yeshu ישו or Yehoshua יהושוע or Iesous Ιησους — is like comparing apples with oranges. In the case of the latter, there are many different forms of the Hebrew name, and the Greek name is something yet different. In the former (which is our current topic), it is all about how the same name is pronounced. (A little late in the game.) Yonah Mishael 04:21 -6:00GMT 10 Jan 2006.

In my opinion Jehovah is not a transliteration of "יהוה",

rather it is a transliteration of "יְהֹוָה".

The English letters "e" and "o" and "a" in Jehovah, have been transliterated from the "simple shewa" and "holem" and "qamets" in "יְהֹוָה".

"יהוה" has no vowel points to transliterate into English.

Seeker02421 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You think that יהוה and יְהֹוָה are two separate words? This is not the case. It is the same word, the second one has simply been "pointed" or "vocalized." It is no different to say the one or to say the other. תפוח and תַּפּוּחַ both with and without the vowels mean "apple." שלום and שָׁלוֹם both mean "peace, wellbeing, etc." I guess that is a serious disadvantage of not knowing Hebrew. - Yonah mishael 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This revert war is getting silly. Sort it out here on the talk page. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My feelings on this matter

Sorry for not responding earlier, as sleep and school have kept me busy for the past 12 hours or so. Most of this is addressed to Michael, but still it's an open topic for discussion. I'd venture that the edits to the article by the 67.* IP were Michael prior to his signing up for an account, since the comment style seems similar and their additions were the same.

Unfortunately, despite getting many helpful links from Sam Spade regarding neutral point of view, wikiquette, etc. he has not adhered to them. Specifically, let me point out what he did wrong with respect to policy:

• If the IP is him, then he did 5 reverts in one day
• He repeatedly added copyvio'ed information to the article, even acknowledging that there was a copyright
• He argued that we should wait until the copyright owners complain before removing the information
• He claimed, in an article, that wikipedia editors are trying to do something subversive

Furthermore, although these are not violations of policy, the represent conclusions reached on faulty assumptions or incorrect logic:

• That Michael has an understanding of the "idealistic wiki purpose" *He referred to "adolescents" in a negative light, specifically focusing on Grunt [Only when they act as such - I think adolescents are great.....except when they act without insight and understanding - *He claims that we are somehow trying to hold him to a different standard by, in his eyes, making him "write about God without writing about religion"

Regarding some of the POV additions he has made to this article, let me point out a few things, such as:

• Including rhetorical questions at the end of the article to persuade people to use Jehovah as the name of God
• Writing an article claiming that there is a "correct" name for God and trying to persuade people to use what he thinks is the correct name [I think this is actually the crux of the matter with you. Should I redirect the page on Jesus becuase I feel it is an INCORRECT name for him? Obviously not. Therefore, Just preface the entire article like you wish and let the info stand. Let the reader make up HIS mind without you there to keep him from ever seeing it. Michael Krewson 19:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

Some of the information is good, but it should be discussed in one central article with all the others, and from an NPOV. [Then HELP me to do so without destroying the GOOD info that I have posted. Michael Krewson 19:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)] If you want to say in the article on the Tetragrammaton WHY Jehovah's Witnesses use that name, fine. If you want to provide a quote or two from scholars, that's fine. Something like "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the name of God is Jehovah and some scholars believe this to be true. Noted theology scholar so and so said ...". Of course, a good treatment of this is already given in the article on the Tetragrammaton, but you are welcome to add more, as long as it's NPOV. If you put a link in to an article from watchtower.org about what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe regarding the true name of God, that would be fine as well. A more thorough treatment including other aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs could be given in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses, but please remember to maintain a NPOV.

Some of the people that have stepped in here are very experienced users. Grunt, Adam Bishop, and myself are all administrators. If you'd like to provide information about something you're knowledgeable about, that's great, but if you try POV-pushing on articles, you will ultimately end up just getting in fights about it and your contributions will be reverted by other users and administrators. CryptoDerk 17:04, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sorting out the disambiguation

Please do try to sort out whether the Christian use of Jehovah to mean Jesus or the Jewish use to mean the Tetragrammaton is most common. Redirecting the name one religion uses for its god to the name another religion uses for its god, without any disambiguation, seems unwise. Worth noting that Jews are apparently discouraged from typing the name Jehovah, so observant Jews seem unlikely to use the word to find an article about it. That appears to make the Christian use most likely to happen. Jamesday 00:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first bullet currently says: Jesus or God: the name used for their single, omnipotent God by many Christians, notably Jehovah's Witnesses, but also commonly used by many others.

Two related problems with this. First, it is mainly the Jehovah's Witnesses who use the name Jehovah; outside of them, it's used relatively rarely. Second, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God, so this item doesn't even reflect their views well. I'll try to amend it with this in mind; I expect further edits to take place, but hope they will take these observations into account. Wesley 03:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But this result is no good -- it implies Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, which I do believe is POV again. Also, Mormons use Jehovah for Jesus, which is what the previous language (from your most recent change) was referencing. --jpgordon{gab} 04:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that the use of the word Jehovah in English goes way back to long before the Jehovah's Witnesses were ever formed. The Puritans in New England used it as well as John Milton in his writings. It can be found on churches all over the English speaking world. I believe Tyndale coined it in his version of the The Holy Bible.67.137.235.6 02:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) makes the statement that: '[The form "Jehovah"] is found in Raymond Martin's "Pugio Fidei," written in 1270.' If it appears in a text from 1270, it could HARDLY have been created by either Tyndale or by someone in the 18th-Century. This article needs some serious revision in certain sections. - Yonah mishael 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Martini wrote "yohoua" not "Yehoua".

On page 152 of Gerard Gertoux's book:

"The name of God

Y.EH.OW.AH

which is pronounced

as it is written

I_Eh_oU_Ah"

is found a photo of a manuscript written in 1278 A.D. by Raymond Mantini, a Spanish monk. The right half of the manuscript is written in Hebrew, and in the bottom line "יְהֹוָה" [ i.e. Hebrew word #3068 ] can be observed.

The left half of the manuscript is a Hebrew to Latin translation of the right half of the manuscript. Raymond Martini translates "יְהֹוָה" as "yohoua"

The simple shewa under the "yod" in "יְהֹוָה" can be seen clearly, but Raymond Martini translated it as an "o".

Seeker02421 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Jove?

Can somebody verify this roman thing? I can't even understand it. Does it claim that Jupiter comes from Jove which comes from Jahovah? If not what does it claim? Gadykozma 17:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Jove (pronounced properly HO-VAY or something like that) and YHWH are cognates. There are those who believe that both Zeus and Jove are derived directly from YHWH. But the language in the article is a bit puzzling. "The head god of

he Romans, Jove, or Iove, as pronounced (or written) by a Hebrew speaker" -- well, no. A Hebrew speaker would not pronounce Jove "Jehovah", at least not with the English "J" sound (which doesn't exist in Hebrew.) I'm not sure that entire paragraph belongs there, since this is discussing the word "Jehovah", not the Tetragrammaton per se. --jpgordon{gab} 19:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, such speculations belong on either the Jupiter/Zeus page or on the Tetragrammaton page, not in a disambiguation page which is supposed to be a navigational aid. So I rewrote the page accordingly. How does it look? Gadykozma 20:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I like. It's a lot cleaner. --jpgordon{gab} 20:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so crazy about this version, though my issues are more of style rather than substance. I would say pages should not mention "you," as though engaging the reader in a personal dialog. Further, even disambiguation pages should use the word or phrase being disambiguated as their textual starting point, and more directly relate the various proposed destination pages to that word or phrase. --Gary D 22:46, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, and good style lesson. Thanks! --jpgordon{gab} 22:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for "you", the disambiguation template contains a reference to "you" so I thought it would be OK to put it in the page as well. As for your other objection, I am not quite sure I understand it: do you object to the list of pages recommended or to the formulation of the recommendations? Gadykozma 02:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not like the "Alternatively" comment. If I were to say that 'Alternatively, the Jews....' or Alternatively, some...' it would come across as biased. Also the reader, looking for information on Jehovah is redirected to information on a religion that worships that God. The reader has to DIG to find any info on who or what Jehovah is and its connection with Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be much simpler to state something like Jehovah's Witnesses use this name to signify thier eternal, omnipotent and omniscient God.Michael Krewson 23:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My intention was that someone writing "Jehovah" in the search box could conceivably be looking for information on Jehovah's witnesses (say he was not sure if they were Jehovah's witnesses, followers, or belivers, he just write Jehovah and hopes the search results would contain the Jehovah's witnesses page). Gadykozma 02:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Can someone summarize the dispute? Maurreen 07:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know it is old and the page can be removed from RfC. Any objections? Gady 14:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, as I only came here via the Requests for comments page, I will explain how I see the dispute.

• Should this page be merged with Yahweh?
• Should this page be merged to redirect to Tetragrammaton

CheeseDreams 20:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yahweh is a redirect to Tetragrammaton. Gady 20:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also came here via RfC. I moved this page to the RfC archive. Maurreen 05:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article represents the current "mainstream" "scholarly" belief as to the pronunciation of the Name, but certainly does not represent all of the information regarding the history and accuracy of the transliteration of the name Jehovah in English (or it's comparative similar transliterations in a host of other languages.) There is much evidence supporting an ancient Hebrew pronunciation of the Name as Ye-ho-wah (similar to the Jehovah transliteration in English) including the names of ancient Hebrew kings and so forth (Jeho-shaphat, etc.) The "Yeho" prefix in Hebrew was commonly used in names; this "Yahweh" concept was only devised very recently by scholars whose motives and real knowledge on the subject are questionable. This article is a stub; why is it, I wonder, that every time further information is added to an article like this, people remove it? Seems strange that an online encyclopedia, supposedly with the purpose of having interesting information, is just basically a bunch of fluff with blatant Brittannica plagiarism throughout; hilariously, (sadly also) then it's content is fiercely guarded by a crew of "administrators" dedicated to maintaining the third rate status of the work overall. Good work, guys.

My sentiments exactly and the same reason that I have decided to leave this discussion 70.178.58.150 01:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

POV reversion

Referring the the POV reversion. I feel that the well documented external citations from various scholarly sources is needed in the article. I would ask user JPGORDON to mention which parts he feels are POV and revert those. Leave the historical/scholarly citations from various universities and professors in place. I would also ask that you not abuse your power as a Sysop and revert every change I make. Is it possible that everything I add is not worthy in your POV as being a part of this article? Michaelkrewson 04:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, I'm not using any "power as a sysop"; any editor could do what I did, any time. Secondly, you're simply cutting and pasting copyrighted material from http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/article_02.htm. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a certain bias against a certain source of information/religion? I believe the Catholic Encyclopedia[[2]]is [quoted extensively within wikipedia]. Is that wrong? I don't believe so. Why would it be wrong for me to make a quote from another respected worldwide religion's reference material? What I posted earlier were documented quotes from professors from many universities and time periods concerning the very same article and not POV comments from Jehovah's Witnesses. If I were to dogmatically state that what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe is the LAST word on the subject then I would agree with your POV contention. Michaelkrewson 05:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• If you wish to put something in saying, "The Jehovah's Witnesses believe XXX", please do so (though other editors may disagree). The etymology of the word is very specifically a disputed subject (obviously.) Cutting and pasting from copyrighted sites is just not acceptable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the article has a decent basic structure now. I think that it could be expanded now below under different subheadings. I think that a section regarding Jehovah's Witnesses POV regarding the name would be nice but I doubt other editors would allow it and I am not sure how I would want to structure it yet. Any ideas? Michaelkrewson 16:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between "cutting and pasting" and attribution to a reference work. I believe everything I posted was attributed correctly earlier. I was still in the process of attribution when you reverted EVERYTHING I had placed. We seem to have gotten past that problem for now. Michaelkrewson 16:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The opening statement "the English translation of [YHWH]" is surely overstating the case. "one possible rendering" of the word would surely be closer the the mark, no? DJ Clayworth 18:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Variants of "יהוה" in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.

The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D. is the oldest "c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e" Masoretic Text that exists on the Planet Earth.

Various editions of the BHS text have been derived from the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.

Both the Leningrad Codex, and the various editions of the BHS text which have been derived from the Leningrad Codex, are presently being discussed by Hebrew scholars on the b-Hebrew discussion board.

Below are listed some, but not all, of the variants of "יהוה" that are found in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.

"יְהוָה" [YeHVaH] (occurs 4488 times)

"יְהוָה --" [--YeHVaH] (occurs 1187 times)

"יהוָה --" [--YHVaH] (occurs 788 times)

"יְהֹוָה" [YeHoVaH] (occurs only 44 times)

"יְהֹוָה" [i.e. YeHoVaH] is also refered to as Hebrew word #3068.

The number of occurances of each of the above four variants has been provided by Peter Kirk, a Hebrew scholar who posts on b-hebrew.

Note that the modern English translation "Jehovah" is derived from "יְהֹוָה" [i.e. Hebrew word #3068] which occurs only 44 times in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.

Hebrew is written from right to left, so the first two consonants of these words are "י" and "ה" in that order.

Note that in the first three variants, there is no small dot [called a "holem"] between the 2nd and third Hebrew letters. Note also that a small dot [i.e. a holem] does exist between the 2nd and 3rd letters of the fourth variant [i.e. YeHoVaH]

What does "word #1068" mean?? Are you referencing Strong's dictionary? Thanks. Yonah Mishael

Yonah,

In section # 1 of the Wikipedia Article: "Jehovah", it states:

>>>

James Strong's "A concise Dictionary of the words in the Hebrew Bible" [ first published in 1890 A.D. ] lists every word that is found in the Hebrew Bible in alphabetical order [ according to the Hebrew Alphabet ]. Since the Biblical Hebrew word "יְהֹוָה" is the 3068th word on the list, it is known as Strong's Hebrew word #3068

>>>

Seeker02421 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense, seeker, but in my experience people who refer to Hebrew (and Greek) words by numbers pulled from Strong's dictionary/concordance do nothing to add to the usefulness of an article or a discussion. Generally, those who use such numbers do not know the language that they are attempting to deal with, nor should they be considered authorities on the matter. - Yonah mishael 15:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Name of God?

Jehovah is the name of the God of the Old Testament. An encylopedic article cannot state it as the name of God, as there are many other gods. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One would think that that would be pretty obvious, but apparently not.Tommstein 06:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

URGENT WARNING: The suffix "hovah" in the word "jehovah" means "ruin, mischief" (See Strongs Hebrew Concordance 1943). This alone is surely sufficient grounds for not applying the name "jehovah" to "the God of the Old Testament". Submitted by Patrick Geaney Email: patricksgeaney@hotmail.com [3].

Excellent work, Patrick! Another example of fine scholarship! Castanea dentata 15:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This is absolute nonsense. In this case, "hovah" is NOT a suffix. Perhaps the contributor doesn't understand what a suffix is. הוה (hvh) is the root of the word. It would be more appropriate to state that י־ (y-) is a prefix in this case.

According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (1997, Hendrickson), this root is shared by the substantive form הַוָּה (in Arabic هَوًى), meaning "desire" (cf. Proverbs 10:3). In figurative language, this is extended to mean "destruction" (cf. Psalm 57:2). Another substantive form derives from this root: הֹוָה, "ruin" or "disaster." This is surely what this poster is referencing, mislabeling it as a suffix. The name יהוה has nothing to do with this form. — Yonah Mishael, 04:35 -6:00GMT, 11 Jan 2006.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Yonah Mishael

If "יְהֹוָה" actually was God's Hebrew name, what might this name mean in Hebrew?

Seeker02421 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeker, I cannot say with authority that יהוה is God's name, but it is the name that exists in the Torah and the name by which the Jewish people have always regarded their God. We've already discussed the meaning of the name (and that is inherent in the article itself). It means both "he exists" and "he causes to exist." - Yonah mishael 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the welcome. :D

SEEKER: Why did you change the article's introduction? It was actually to a point of STRENGTH, but you reverted it to say that Jehovah is a translation of יהוה!! Jehovah is not a translation of ANYTHING. It is a transliteration or vocalization. You simply added to the imprecision of this article. Why don't we do as we had already said and DISCUSS the article before adjusting it?!? - Yonah mishael 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

I am seriously thinking of stepping back, and just watch you write the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah that you want to write, unobstructed, at least unobstructed by me. We definitely disagree on the first sentence. My old Webster's Dictionary gives this as one definition of "Vocalize":

3. To add the diacritical marks of vowel sounds to the characters of Hebrew, Arabic, or other languages lacking alphabetical letters for the vowels.

Thus I wrote Jehovah ( Latin Iéhoua ) is an 18th century English translation of "יְהֹוָה", which is a Masoretic vocalization of "יהוה", ( i.e. the Tetragrammaton ).

Note: The main problem is between TRANSLATION and TRANSLITERATION. You said translation, but "Jehovah" is not a translation of יהוה. A translation of יהוה would be something like "he is" or "he causes to be." - Yonah mishael 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

In my opinion "he is" or "he causes to be" would be the meaning of a particular vocalization of יהוה, not the translation of a particular voccalization of יהוה.

And I assume that each different vocalization of יהוה would have its own unique meaning.

Seeker02421 15:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that my sentence is 100% true.

Jehovah ( Latin Iéhoua ) is an 18th century English translation of "יְהֹוָה", which is a Masoretic vocalization of "יהוה", ( i.e. the Tetragrammaton ).

In my opinion, your statement:

Jehovah (or Yehovah) is a vocalization of יהוה, the name of the Judeo-Christian God as found in the Old Testament (or Tanakh).

is just plain incorrect.

IN MY OPINION, NOBODY WOULD/COULD VOCALIZE THE UN-VOCALIZED TETRAGRAMMATON [i.e."יהוה"] AS "(Y)JEHOVAH" UNLESS THEY ALREADY HAD THE VOCALIZED HEBREW SPELLING "יְהֹוָה", IN FRONT OF THEM!

YOU CAN'T GET FROM "יהוה" TO (Y)JEHOVAH WITHOUT AN INTERMEDIATE HEBREW SPELLING OR AN UNBROKEN ORAL TRADITION FROM MOSES, AND THIS WOULD ASSUME THAT GOD REVEALED HIS NAME TO MOSES AS "(Y)JEHOVAH"!

Seeker02421 23:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah is a vocalization transliterated into English. That is all it is. And, knowing Hebrew, I know that this is a correct statement. It is equivalent to saying that KELEV is a vocalization (because it has the VOWELS) of a transliteration (because it is in the English alphabet) of the Hebrew word כלב.

Process:
כלב (unvocalized Hebrew text)
כֶּלֶב (vocalization)
kelev (transliteration)

Comparatively, the process fits the word Jehovah, thus:
יהוה (unvocalized Hebrew name)
יְהֹוָה (vocalization -- adding of vowels/diacritics)
Jehovah (transliteration -- writing the vocalization in English letters)

If you disagree, I'm sorry. But that is precisely what is happening here! And in the same vein, you state that no one would go from an unvocalized word to a vocalized word to a transliteration without having the vocalization in front of them. Perhaps you are simply ignorant of Hebrew orthography altogether. Hebrew DOES NOT include vocalization in normal orthography. Beyond that, there were NO VOWELS on the Torah text until the 10th Century CE! What you are suggesting flies in the face of the very nature of Hebrew language. - Yonah mishael 06:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Yonah,

You write often about preciseness.

Wouldn't it be more precise to write:

Yehovah is a letter-by-letter transliteration of the Masoretic vocalization "יְהֹוָה", which is preserved 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible.

And of cource you could quote a well known verifiable source such as Strong's Concordance, as the source of the transliteration Yehovah.

And then you could explain that the 1762-1769 editors of the King James Bible letter-by-letter transliterated "יְהֹוָה", into English as "Jehovah".

It is unnecessary to say a "letter-by-letter transliteration," because that is what transliteration is! Transliteration is the attempt to represent the sounds of a language in an alphabet other than the one in which it is normally written. I do not understand your insistence on placing references to the "King James" and to "Ben Chayim" and to "Strong." This article can exist quite separately from those things, except that they be placed in a separate subsection. - Yonah mishael 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

After all this is an article on "Jehovah", and it seems to be importent to know where the spelling "Yehovah" and "Jehovah came from.

Thus your previous example might be edited slightly, as shown below:

Thus Comparatively, the process fits the word Jehovah, thus:

יהוה (unvocalized Hebrew name)

יְהֹוָה (vocalization -- adding of vowels/diacritics)

Yehovah (James Strong's transliteration -- writing the vocalization in English letters)

Jehovah {The 1769 Edition of the King James Bible's transliteration -- writing the vocalization in English letters)

James Strong did not have that much of an influence in the evolution of this word. - Yonah mishael 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

Do you know of one verifiable source, before 1890, that used the English transliteration Yehovah for "יְהֹוָה"? Of course to be precise, James Strong wrote "Y^ehovah" not "Yehovah" in 1890.

Seeker02421 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Yonah,

Do you know of any Hebrew Scholar on the planet earth that can vocalize יהוה using only his or her knowledge of Hebrew Grammar?

Don't the best Hebrew Scholars on the planet earth have to go to some source, other than Hebrew Grammar, to either pronounce יהוה or to vocalize יהוה ?

Seeker02421 14:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There would be no controversy concerning what God's name is, if Hebrew scholars could vocalize יהוה, merely by examining the four Hebrew letters.

I assume that vocalizing כלב is easy because I assume there is an oral tradition, for that word, and I assume if two Hebrew scholars ever disagreed on the proper vocalization of כלב , one of them just might take a peek at a Masoretic text.

However I am led to believe that in the synagoge, the person who fluently reads the unpointed Hebrew scriptures, is able to do that because of his hours of study of the pointed Hebrew scriptures. I am led to believe that studying the pointed Hebrew scriptures does not help a Hebrew scholar to vocalize יהוה , because Hebrew scholars do not believe that any extant Masoretic text preserves the correct vocalization of יהוה . Thus we have a controversy about (Y)Jehovah. - Seeker02421 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize that written vowels are NOT inherent to the Hebrew orthographic system? Hebrew existed without any written vowels for a couple thousand years. Do you realize this? - Yonah mishael 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah

Of course I do. That is why I wrote: "There would be no controversy concerning what God's name is, if Hebrew scholars could vocalize "יהוה" merely by examining the four Hebrew letters."

I specified one particular unpointed Biblical Hebrew word in my comment. That specific unpointed Biblical Hebrew word was "יהוה". As far as I know no Jewish person on the planet earth claims to be able to accurately vocalize that one specific unpointed Hebrew Biblical word [ merely by examining the four Hebrew letters ], because there is no preserved "Jewish" oral tradition telling a Hebrew Scholar how to correctly vocalize that word. All extant Masoretic texts seem to have been rejected as sources for the correct vocalization of "יהוה" which leaves us only with presumed vocalizations of "יהוה", such as "יַהְוֶה".

Seeker02421 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Note 2: You inserted in the article the following sentence:

Most scholarly sources believe that "יהוה" may have been originally pronounced" Yahweh" (as if it was pointed יַהְוֶה).

Do you not see the imprecision in the underlined phrase?

Yonah,

You are correct, possibly I should have said "Many sholarly sources state" etc.

Seeker02421 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We need to work on the preciseness (in the details) of each sentence in the article. This sentence is quite poorly written. Sources (books, magazines, etc.) do not believe anything. It should read, "Many scholars believe" or better "many scholars advocate." Rather, I think this should be removed and placed in a more appropriate location in the article.

Yonah,

You, not me introduced the scholarly reconstruction [i.e. יַהְוֶה into the introduction.

Seeker02421 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that not everything needs to be addressed in the introduction? That is why we have other points in the article. Let's work together on this. It will get a lot further than trying to advocate through the article. It is a source of information, not a propaganda tool. If we don't do something RIGHT, the article will continue to suck. - Yonah mishael 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Request

Can we, please, stop commenting in the middle of another person's comments. It breaks things up as far as consistency, and I never know if I am missing something from my original statement. Please, comment at the END of my comment, and I will comment at the END of yours. It makes the conversation easier to follow. Do you mind doing this for me? This talk page is getting WAY too unmanageable. Thank you. Yonah mishael

They are unmanageable because someone is trying to beat you through exhaustion. When you get tired of correcting the JW propaganda, they will have one less person's edits to revert. I mean, look at the comments below, they are pedantic and distracting ramblings. Castanea dentata 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

When I view the edits that were added on 11:48 of 11 January 2006,

It indicates to me that you added the line:

>>>>

Thus, some choose to transliterate the word as "Yahweh" (as if pointed יַהְוֶה).

>>>

Yonah,

Am I correct in understanding that you are the first editor to add the sentence:

"Thus, some choose to transliterate the word as "Yahweh" (as if pointed יַהְוֶה).""

to the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah?

Seeker02421 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

Of cource I did modify your sentence to:

Most scholarly sources believe that "יהוה" may have been originally pronounced" Yahweh" (as if it was pointed יַהְוֶה)".

Seeker02421 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Theophoric Names starting with "Yeho"

The Data in the table below is found in a 1958 reprint of the 1890 Edition of James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of The Bible. All the Hebrew names listed are Theophoric Names starting with "יְהוֹ" [ i.e. "Yeho" ]. James Strong believed that all of these Theophoric names were derived from Hebrew word # 3068, [ i.e. "יְהֺוָה" = Yehovah ]. Even Gesenius who personally believed that God's name was Yahweh, believed that Yehowah better explained the Theophoric Names starting with YWH [Yeho].

In a post made on 08/22/03 at 12:36 am the following information is found:

Gesenius in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures agrees saying:

"Those who consider that YHWH [Yehowah] was the actual pronunciation are not altogether without ground on which to defend their opinion. In this way can the abbreviated syllables YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo], with which many proper names begin, be more satisfactorily explained."-George Wesley Buchanan Professor Emeritus, Wesley Theological Seminary Washington, DC

[ Note! Hebrew reads from right to left ]

Strong's #	Hebrew word	Strong's Transliteration	Strong's Definition	KJV Translation
3059	יְהוֹאָחָז	Yehow'achaz	Jehovah-seized	Jehoachaz
3060	יְהוֹאָש	Yehow'ash	Jehovah-fired	Jehoash
3075	יְהוֹזָבָד	Yehowzabad	Jehovah-endowed	Jehozabad
3076	יְהוֹחָנָנ	Yehowchanan	Jehovah-favored	Jehochanan
3077	יְהוֹיָדָע'	Yehowyada	Jehovah-known	Jehojada
3078	יְהוֹיָכִינ	Yehowyakiyn	Jehovah-will establish	Jehojakin
3079	יְהוֹיָקִימ	Yehowyaqiym	Jehovah-will raise	Jehojakim
3080	יְהוֹיָרִיב	Yehowyariyb	Jehovah-will contend	Jehojarib
3082	יְהוֹנָדָב	Yehownadab	Jehovah-largessed	Jehonadab
3083	יְהוֹנָתָן	Yehownathan	Jehovah-given	Jehonathan
3085	יְהוֹעַדָּה	Yehow'addah	Jehovah-adorned	Jehoaddah
3086	יְהוֹעַדִּין	Yehow'addiyn	Jehovah-pleased	Jehoaddin
3087	יְהוֹצָדָק	Yehowtsadaq	Jehovah-righted	Jehotsadak
3088	יְהוֹרָם	Yehowram	Jehovah-raised	Jehoram
3089	יְהוֹשֶבַע	Yehowsheba'	Jehovah-sworn	Jehosheba
3091	יְהוֹשֻעַ	Yehowshu'a	Jehovah-saved	Jehoshua
3092	יְהוֹשָפָט	Yehowshaphat	Jehovah-judged	Jehoshaphat

Technical note

The Hebrew-alphabet and Greek-alphabet text in this article may be displayed in some browsers at a size too small for clarity; printing the article out, or cutting-and-pasting text from the web-browser into a word processor and increasing the font size, may help. Some browsers also have a text- or pagezooming feature.

Referencing Hebrew/Greek terms

I am just wondering if there is any way that we can ask people to refrain from referring to Hebrew/Greek terms as if they were just numbers. I have seen the "Hebrew word #3068" thing several times on this article (which will have to be edited out), and such a thing does NOT exist in the scholarly world. I appreciate that those who are not well-trained in reading Hebrew and Greek rely on Strong's dictionary for the majority of what they guess about the meaning of the original language, but should these people be posting as if they knew anything about the languages in the first place?

Just reference the word, if you would, and leave the NUMBERS in the book. After all, people do not speak in numbers when they are communicating, nor is the Tanakh written in numbers. ;-) This only facilitates an unnatural view of the text. Speak of them as words. תודה — Yonah mishael 11:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Did you notice that "Hebrew word #3068" even appears in one of the subheadings?!? OY! - Yonah mishael

Yonah,

I did notice that Hebrew word # 3068 appears in the headings of at least five different sections of the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah, in fact I wrote Hebrew word # 3068 in each of those headings, because I thought that Hebrew word # 3068 best described the issue being raised in each of those sections.

1. Jehovah as an 18th-Century English Transliteration of יהוה [edited today]

3. KJVO Christians defend the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" and the name "Jehovah"

5. "יְהֹוָה" is found only 44 times in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.

6. Latin Translations of "יְהֹוָה" from 1278 A.D. to 1518 A.D.

7. English Translations of "יְהֹוָה" from 1530 A.D. to 1890 A.D.

What word could be used in place of "יְהֹוָה", that would more clearly state what the sections were about?

Do you believe that your replacing "יְהֹוָה" with "יהוה" in section # 1, more clearly explains what section # 1 is all about?

In my opinion the purpose of this article includes explaining precisely where the "translations / transliterations" Yehoua and Iehouah and Iehovah and Jehovah and Yehovah are derived from.

B-Hebrew would probably state that all of these "translations / transliterations" were derived from "Y:HOWFH" or from "yod-shewa-heh-holem-waw-qamets-heh", but Wikipedia is not B-hebrew.

We can't ask the reader to go to Hebrew Lexicons, because as far as I know they choose not to list this Hebrew word [i.e. "יְהֹוָה"], even though it is found 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text of 1525, that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible.

When you show the preview of or save your edit it says:

>>>

Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable.

>>>

Strong's Hebrew word #3068 is a verifiable source of the name "Jehovah".

Yonah, however, having said all this, the rules of Wikipedia, allow you or any one else, to delete or modify any section in the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah. And Wikipedia is requesting that this article be cleaned up, and I sincerely believe that you,Yonah, can probably make many edits that will improve this article.

However, in my opinion, changing "יְהֹוָה" to "יהוה" does not improve the article.

Seeker02421 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference exists in basic assumption and base knowledge. If you understood the intricacies of Hebrew vocalization, יהוה/יְהֹוָה would not be an issue. It is just like בָּרוּךְ/ברוך. Strong may be a "verifiable" source, but it is not a SCHOLARLY source. One would not let a high school student write an encyclopedic entry using their limited resources. Along the same lines, it is not wise for someone to write an article about something (linguistic morphology, orthography, and semantics) when they are completely unfamiliar with that thing about which they are writing. Citation of Strong's dictionary indicates naught buy ignorance of the biblical languages. Someone who knows the languages quotes better scholars. Strong's dictionary is a tool used mainly by the illiterate.

As regards the rest of the article, the first part was hard enough to wade through and to make sense of. I have a feeling that the rest of the article needs to be rehauled. The seconds need to be reconfigured -- some deleted altogether; the content needs to be rethought. I assume, though, that we need to agree on this discussion page about certain parameters. In order to minimalize argument, we probably will have to agree to vocalize יהוה consistently, to adhere to certain rules of decorum/etiquette regarding the deletion of others' posts, etc. This is something that needs to be worked out here before hammering out the rest of the article. - Yonah mishael 15:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

I am quite aware that my knowledge of Hebrew is at a kindergarten level, or maybe first grade level. However in spite of this obvious limitation, I do have email communications with a Hebrew Scholar, who obviously is aware of my limitations. And I do post and observe posts on b-hebrew where I observe that there is much debate but no concensus on how "יהוה" is pronounced.

I am quite aware that b-hebrew scholars have a very low opinion of "Strong's Concordance".

I repeat my assumption that your knowledge of Hebrew should allow you to make edits that may greatly improve this article. Hopefully your knowledge of Hebrew does not prevent you from making edits that will be understood by persons who are likely to have little ot no knowledge of Hebrew.

Wikipedia has a NPOV [neutral point of view] policy, so care must be taken in editing articles.

On Wikipedia: Jehovah, I have definitely tried to defend the KJVO viewpoint, from a NPOV.

The image in section 2.1 is the work of AnonMoos. In another Wikipedia Article, he and I have tried to work together to add text to go along with this image. As far as I know AnonMoos is making no attempt to edit this "Jehovah" Article, however many of his words are in the text of section 2.1, because we previously worked together.

Section 2:1 is very difficult to follow because two different NPOV's are in conflict with each other, sometimes in the same sentence.

On the article that AnonMoos and I tried to agree to disagree on [ and I think that we were sucessful ] AnonMoos would sometimes edit my comments in mid-sentence. I chose to accept his method of editing my edits, and work within these parameters.

Seeker02421 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Jehovah" as an Article for Propagandists

This page has a very hard time remaining neutral as far as POV.

Yonah

Yonah, you are right. The page was created as a recruiting tool for the Jehovah's Witness religion. It is dishonest. Currently, Seeker is the one who seeks fresh recruits. When he/she is gone, others will come. Castanea dentata 16:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Castanea dentata

I am not a Jehovah's Witness however I am definitely trying [from a neutral point of view] to make a case for the name Jehovah, which is found in all editions of the King James Bible since 1769.

Seeker02421 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's found all of seven times in the course of about 800,000 words -- and three of those occurrences are in placenames! AnonMoos 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

To write: "The original pronunciation of God's name is Jehovah" is POV.

To write: "KJVO Christians are dogmatic in their belief that the original pronunciation of God's name is "Jehovah" is NPOV. [I think]

Seeker02421 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No. That is propaganda from the Jehovah's Witness religion. "KJVO" is not a term that anyone but a Jehovah's Witness would understand. Further, it is a term of derision. Since there is no group by that name, it is deceptive even to use it. Castanea dentata 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Castanea dentata

As far as I know "KJVO" is not a term of derison.

http://www.participatorystudyseries.com/kjv.shtml

At the link above is found the information below:

What does KJVO mean?

KJVO stands for King James Version Only.

There are a number of positions about the King James Version and its place in the Christian church.

Some people grew up with the KJV and they prefer to read it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Some people think the KJV is the best translation available. While this position is technically incorrect, it still does not prevent people from reading the Bible unless it is forced on someone else. It is especially important that folks who prefer the KJV remember that many people cannot understand it.

Some people believe that the KJV is the sole word of God in the English language. Often they also conclude that one cannot even be saved through reading another version or by hearing the gospel preached from another version.

KJVO refers to the third group of people.

While this pamphlet will argue that the KJV is not the best translation available today, it is not intended to attack anyone for use of the KJV. The KJV is a fine version, perhaps the greatest single accomplishment in the history of Bible translation. It deserves our great respect.

But it is still only a translation.

Seeker02421 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Whoever suggested that it be removed probably labored hard and wisely, hoping to neutralize the propagandist feel of the page, only to have it reverted by those who are not so wise in their dealing with scholarly source material.

Yonah

I am not aware that Wikipedia has suggested that the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah be removed.

I do NOT think that "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup" indicates that Wikipedia wants to remove this article, at least not at this time.

Seeker02421 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Added the word "NOT" to my previous edit.

Seeker02421 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If this page were deleted for the fact that it lacks any semblance of professionalism, I would not be disappointed. The page is a propaganda sheet, filled with JW and KJVO references rather than scholarly discussion of the topic.

Yonah

It is my opinion that all the JW and KJVO references are acceptable under Wipipedia's NPOV policy.

Read each JW and KJVO reference carefully, and explain why you believe that any one of them is POV.

Seeker02421 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be beyond revision, unless it be completely wiped and restarted. How can the page be neutral when people admittedly want to "defend" their beliefs through it?

Yonah,

Again in my opinion, I may be wrong, most if not all JW and KJVO comments have been written in a NPOV manner, according to what I understand about Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please correct me if I am wrong, by quoting a particular JW or KJVO comment that you believe to be POV rather than NPOV.

Seeker02421 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

- Yonah mishael 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The truth is that this matter is much better covered at YHWH, but that some of the editors of this page refuse to admit the connection. DJ Clayworth 22:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth,

Recently editors of the Wikipedia Article: Tetragrammaton deleted large sections of the Article that dealt with the name "Jehovah". No Wikipedia moderator chose to revert those deleted sections. Some editors of the Wikipedia Article: Tetragrammaton would like to see sections on "Yahweh" deleted.

This particular Wikipedia Article: Jehovah just might be the Wikipedia Article in which the "Jehovah" / "Yahweh" controversy might be allowed to be discussed from a neutral point of view!

Seeker02421 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Seeker: It is NPOV also to write the following: "A brown dog walked across the floor until it had scuffed it up and it needed to be cleaned!" However, adding such a sentence to the article would not make sense because, as true as it may be, it brings nothing to bear on the discussion. Paragraphs and the sentences that comprise them should be well-thought and weighed for the relevance. If they are found to be irrelevant, then they should be removed. What I see in all of the "KJVO/JW believe such-and-such" sentences is irrelevance. We need to discuss what it is apart from what they believe, and their beliefs may be added in separate sections entitled "Distinct Religious Perspectives on the Word Jehovah" or something. The religious side of it should be separated from the scholarly side of it, IMHO. - Yonah mishael 06:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah says:

However, some KJVO Christians place great emphasis on the fact that the vowel points of Jehovah and Adonay are not precisely the same (Adonai having a hatef-patah vowel point under the aleph in its first syllable, while the Masoretes placed a simple shewa under the yod in the first syllable of YHWH, when YHWH stood alone in the Hebrew text. ), and take this as an indication that "Jehovah" is the actual name of God.

In my opinion this is not irrelevant. Probably close to 95% of Scholarly sources state that the Masoretes pointed "יְהֹוָה" with the vowels of "אֲדֹנָי".

Obviously this is not precisely true, and one small group of Bible believing Christians on the planet earth do their best to make known that the vowels of Jehovah and the vowels of Adonay are different both in English, and in the underlying Hebrew. KJVO Christians may be in error, when they defend the name "Jehovah", but I believe their defence of "יְהֹוָה" deserves to be made known in the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.

Imagine a world in which 100% of Scholarly Sources admitted up front that the Masoretes did not place the precise vowel points of "Adonay/Adonai" into "יְהֹוָה", and then starting from that point, wrote why they believe that God's name is not preserved correctly in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text. What a refreshing change that would be!

Seeker02421 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Jehovah" as a "neutral point of view" Article

Is it possible that the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah was actually written from a neutral point of view.

Let's briefly examine each of the sections of the Article.

Introduction

The introduction presents mostly NPOV evidence that modern scholars believe that "Jehovah" does not have the actual vowels of God's name, but that the Masoretes pointed YHWH with the vowels of "Adonai".

NOTE! The evidence presented is not entirely true [ e.g. The Masoretes did not point YHWH with the precise vowel points of Adonai] but the evidence, which is not entirely true, has been presented in a NPOV manner!

NOTE! No critique of this erroneous evidence was presented in the Introduction.

1 Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910-1911’s Case against Jehovah

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presents POV evidence [e.g. The evidence written by the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1910-1911 is obviously POV evidence], from a neutral point of view. Like the evidence presented in the Introduction, this new evidence presented continues to state that the Masoretes pointed YHWH with the vowels of "Adonai".

NOTE! The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presented this erroneous evidence from a neutral point of view.

NOTE! No critique of this erroneous evidence was presented in Section 1.

1.1 Qeri-Perpetuum [a.k.a.Qere Perpetuum]

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presents [from a neutral point of view] evidence written by the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910.

This new evidence presented acknowledges that the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" and the vowel points of "Adonai" are not precisely the same.

An image of "יְהֹוָה" and "Adonai" is presented to help in making the point that the Masoretes did not place the precise vowel points of "Adonai" into "יְהֹוָה".

2 KJVO Christians defend the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" and the name "Jehovah"

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presents [from a neutral point of view] evidence concerning the beliefs of KJVO Christians.

The article explains in some detail, with the aide of an image, that the vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" and the vowel points of "Adonai" are not precisely the same.

'3 "יְהֹוָה" is found 44 times in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D.'

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presents some factual evidence about the Biblical Hebrew word "יְהֹוָה".

4 Latin Translations of "יְהֹוָה" from 1278 A.D. to 1518 A.D.

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presents some factual evidence about Latin translations of the Biblical Hebrew word "יְהֹוָה".

5 English Translations of "יְהֹוָה" from 1530 A.D. to 1890 A.D.

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presents some factual evidence about English translations of the Biblical Hebrew word "יְהֹוָה".

6 Translations of "YHWH" found in writings of the Greek Fathers

The Wikipedia Article: Jehovah presents [from a neutral point of view]some evidence from the Greek fathers that YHWH might have been pronounced "Yahweh".

At the present time no mention is made of Clement of Alexandria's Greek spelling "Iaoue".

7 See also

8 Articles that defend the Name Jehovah

9 Articles that critique the Name Jehovah

10 Footnotes

11 Technical note

What evidence exists that the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah has not been written in accordance with Wikipedia's "Neutral Point Of View" policy?

Comments welcome.

Seeker02421 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering about the why behind all of these citations. (1) Most people do not know what ketiv and qeri mean. This needs to be better titled and better described. (2) What makes the Encyclopedia Britanica of 1910-1911 any better than, say, the most up-to-date edition? (3) Why are we breaking so many points down as if they are significant while overlooking the fact that since the very beginning of biblical translation word (the Septuagint and the Targumim), the name יהוה has been left untranslated (it reads יְיָ in the Targum Onkelos) or substituted (it reads Κυριος in the Septuagint). Does this count for nothing? (4) Perhaps an actual HISTORY of the name is more appropriate and telling than an examination of that a couple of religious groups who are not considered mainstream by anyone have to say about it. The name יהוה does not belong to the Jehovah's Witnesses or the KJVO clan. It means more than they understand it to mean, and its history is richer than any English (or Latin) transliteration is worthy of expressing. This is why I get frustrated with having to deal with this information. It has all been perverted, and the actual history of the word is being neglected. Yonah mishael 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah

Why don't you make the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah better by adding some edits. Try editing some sections that are allready written, or add some new sections or some new sub-sections yourself, that make known your POV, while writing in agreement with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Good Luck.

4.156.96.227 21:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OOPS, I wasn't logged in when I made my post directly above

Seeker02421 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The above link takes you to the article "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

The original formulation of NPOV

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

The above is just part of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

Seeker02421 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is acceptable to write:

"KJVO Christians dogmatically believe that God's name is Jehovah".

In my opinion it is not acceptable to write:

"God's name is Jehovah"

Seeker02421 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would totally support what Seeker wrote above, except that 'dogmatically' is not a neutral word. "KJVO Christians believe that God's name is Jehovah" is much better, and reasons should be given (in accordance with what Jimbo wrote above). DJ Clayworth 14:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Jimbo Wales [i.e. Wikipedia founder] writes that it is quite acceptable to write what people believe in a Wikipedia Article. Jimbo Wales writes:

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

It appears that Jimbo Wales would not only approve the sentence: "KJVO Christians believe that God's name is Jehovah", but he would approve explaining KJVO beliefs on Jehovah from a neutral point of view, in a Wikipedia Article.

Seeker02421 17:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite of the introduction of Wikipedia Article Jehovah

This morning Castanea dentata added [citation needed] in many places in the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah.

I responded to some but not all of those requests. I hope to respond to all of these [citation needed] requests in the future.

I also decided to quote Jimbo Wales own words in the Introduction, to establish that quoting what people believe is an accepted policy of Wikipedia.

However since I believed that the beliefs of some persons and sources quoted were in error, I chose to critique what I believed to be errors, while trying to leave the original quotes intact. However, I may not have left the original quotes intact, in all cases.

Seeker02421 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is not what you did. You simply removed whole sections you did not like and replaced them with material from the Jehovah's Witness religion. What Yonah says below is entirely right. Castanea dentata 16:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Castanea dentata,

If you check the edit by 70.178.58.150 at 04:40, 23 January 2006, you will find that that editor, who appears to be a Jehovah's Witness, added about 80 % of the Watchtower material that is presently in section 1.1. I am responsible for only the last four sentences plus the last word "original".

I did reposition that information, but a Jehovah's Witness [not me] is responsible for 80 % of that quoted information.

I did remove entire sections which supported the KJVO position, but that was because I couldn't locate verifiable KJVO sources. The primary source for that information that supported the KJVO poition was Scott Jones, and Scott was not a KJVO Christian, but he definitely supports the name "Jehovah" sources. And Scott Jones is not a Jehovah's Witness, either.

Seeker02421 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

As if this article were not already sloppy and bad on the eyes, it took a turn for the worse. Wonderful! There is no continuity in the article. It is full of citations of what BOOKS "believe." Books do not BELIEVE anything. Sources do not BELIEVE anything. A scholar, in fact, can advocate a certain position without saying ANYTHING about his or her beliefs. This article is officially garbage, IMHO. A complete rewrite is necessary at this point. Yonah mishael 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

You obviously have a vision of what a better Wikipedia Article:Jehovah should look like. Of cource as soon as you write it, other editors are very likely to want to critique it.

Would you be willing to write your idea of a better introduction to the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah and your idea of a better section #1, on Talk:Jehovah.

Also would you be willing to provide an overview of what the Table of contents might look like in your vision of the article:Jehovah?

I still think you have much to add to the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah, but ordinarilly editors edit Wikipedia Articles without deleting every thing that has been written previously.

Yonah, I may be wrong but I assume that you want to introduce evidence for the name "Yahweh" in your vision for this Article. If that should be true, you could write a new article from scratch titled "Jehovah or Yahweh?" [or something similar] I would like very much to see a well written article on the "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy.

Seeker02421 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me greatly. I am not a "sacred namer." I don't believe that there is a magical way that one should pronounce the Tetragrammaton in order to be more accepted before God. I do not believe that ANYONE authoritatively knows the actual pronunciation, and all attempts at reconstruction are little more than conjecture. Personally, I think it may have been something like Yahaveh (with the second -a- being a khataf patakh ֲ), but I do not know if there is enough evidence for it. I don't think there's really enough evidence for ANY of them, but simply providing an article that talks about the views of two religious camps is not sufficient description for this article, IMHO. Yonah mishael 08:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yonah,

Thank you for making known your views.

Seeker02421 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

This article had a lot of formatting problems (and still has some). For one thing, the huge single "=" headers are not supposed to be used in an article. For another, Headers (between "==" or "===") are not supposed to be whole sentences -- they're supposed to be brief descruptive phrases). AnonMoos 11:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeker, please use two equals in headers!

A normal header has TWO equals signs "==", and a subordinate header has more. Single-equals headers should not normally be used within the body of an article. AnonMoos 11:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

I must say, all the misspellings, the bad logic, the misstatements of fact, the arm-bending, the evasions, and the ramblings in the information pasted from the Watchtower Society have me rolling on the floor laughing. I know 12 year olds who lie better. I think I will attend a JW cult meeting just for the hilarity. It's got to be better than Saturday Night Live -- and totally deadpan. On second thought, I'll just hang around here and enjoy the show. This is really side-splitting funny. Surely they don't take themselves seriously do they? A friend of mine says they are positively evil. I just see Carrot Top.

Keep up the good work! Castanea dentata 16:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If Jesus is God, why would Satan waste time trying to trick him to sin? Not once, but tree times? It is impossible for God to commit a sin...He is the Lawgiver! Jesus said many times that "the Father is greater than I am..." Thus, Jesus is the Son of God, even as he admits...and God the Father is the "One True God" of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. The Trinity doctrine came into belief long after the last apostle- John- died. Neither Judaism nor First Century Christianity believed in such a teaching as the trinity. You may thank the Catholic church for inventing the trinity. If Jesus' name is to be honored, then, How much more so is The Almighty One worth honoring? Since Babel, there have been many languages spoken. We do not know the exact long-ago spoken NAME. But we do know several reasonably close pronunciations of HIS NAME.[John chapter 17] I will continue to use the name "Jehovah", and, as previously stated by someone, God knows when you want to "draw close to HIM." And, I will continue to thank Jehovah, the God of tender mercies, for giving us a leader, a man like us, Jesus Christ; who, though he died for our sins, was resurrected to be with his Father in heaven again.

Thank you, wikpedia, for giving everyone a voice to express their own beliefes.

jnrbuckeye

Massive POV

I just cleaned up some POV language in this article which very clearly implied that the JW point of view on questions surrounding the name "Jehovah" is the right one. It looks to me like some JWs are trying to use both this discussion page and the article itself as a medium for proselytisation. Now of course their point of view belongs on wikipedia as much as anybody else's, but it's got to be clearly described as their opinion and not presented as if it was the definite fact of the matter.

There was one bit of editorialising which I don't feel qualified to comment on since I haven't seriously studied Hebrew. Could a disinterested and Hebrew-educated party take a look and try to produce something non-POV from this? Here's how the text stood before my edits:

Many modern scholars believe that the Masoretes placed the vowel points of Adonai ( "אֲדֹנָי" my Lord) over the consonants of the Tetragrammaton to remind readers to reverentially substitute the name Adonai, instead of pronouncing "יהוה" , since an interpretation of such texts as Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 24:11 led to the name "יהוה" being regarded as too sacred for expression. However, if the Masoretes had actually done that the result would have been "Jahovai" not Jehovah. The vowel points of "יְהֹוָה" and "אֲדֹנָי" are not precisely the same.

When the Masoretes placed vowel points over "יהוה", or over any other Biblical Hebrew word, the integrity of the original consonantal [i.e. unpointed] Hebrew text was maintained.

The bold text is the part I deleted instead of trying to salvage from POV.

--Kenji Yamada 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make too much sense -- the last part of "Adonai" may be spelled with two vowel letters in English, but the "i" there is actually a consonant letter yod in Hebrew, and not part of the vowel pointing. There's really no possibility of producing "Yahowai" (or "Jahovai", as some would loosely and inaccurately transcribe it). AnonMoos 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos,

Why do some scholarly sources transliterate the "qamets yod" in "אֲדֹנָי" as "ai" and not "ay"? . Seeker02421 11:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the choice of analyzing the second half of a raising diphthong as a vowel element or a consonant element is a longstanding ambiguity or minor point of contention in phonological transcription practices. As long as the overall context of a particular transcription system makes it clear that Adonai (however transcribed) is three syllables, not four, then it's hard to say that it's outright "wrong". Some works, such as the classic Bauer-Leander "Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache", use an i symbol with a little curved arc under it (to make clear that the sound is non-syllabic) to transcribe ALL "y" sounds, whether part of a diphthong or not.

Within the phonological system of Hebrew, it makes more sense to analyze the second element of "diphthongs" as consonants, not vowels, for a number of reasons -- including the fact that the [y] or [w] element is frequently preceded by a long vowel, etc. AnonMoos 11:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

AnonMoos

I asked:

Why do some scholarly sources transliterate the "qamets yod"

in "אֲדֹנָי" as "ai" and not "ay"? .

You responded:

Because the choice of analyzing the second half of a raising diphthong as a vowel element or a consonant element is a longstanding ambiguity or minor point of contention in phonological transcription practices.

Aren't we mixing apples and oranges here?

Why have rising diphthongs been brought into your answer?

Isn't discussing "rising diphthongs" the result of someone writing an invalid transcription of a "qamets yod" [i.e. "ai"]

and then a second party trying to analyzing this invalid transcription as if it was the dipthong "ai", rather than acknowledging that it was an erroneous transcription of a "qamets yod".

What am I missing?

I am assuming that when James Strong or a Hebrew scholar on b-hebrew uses the spelling "Adonay", the "y" represents a "silent" yod that was first used to indicate the vowel "a" in a consonantal text, and in the process has lost its consonantal "y" sound.

Seeker02421 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Two points:

1) The fact that the last sounds of Adonai should be analayzed phonologically as a vowel+consonant sequence in terms of Hebrew phonology doesn't mean that they would have been pronounced differently from ordinary diphthongs in other languages.

2) The ending in Adonai historically comes from earlier [ayy] sequence (i.e. an "a" vowel followed by a "y" consonant which is pronounced double or geminated); here "ay" is the basic form of the masculine plural suffix before an attached suffix (or in construct state), while the second "y" is a form of the first person plural possessive suffix. The letter yod in this form was never silent. AnonMoos 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

---

It appears to me that James Strong's transliteration "Adonay" is more correct where by his convention a "qamets yod" is transliterated as "ay" and not "ai".

It seemed to me that it is mostly Jewish sources that tranliterate דֹנָי" as "Adonai", so I did not try to change "Adonai" to "Adonay", although my personal preference is "Adonay".

I personally would like to see "Adonai" replaced by "Adonay" in this article, but I think that Wikipedia's neutral point of view demands that "Adonai" be respected, since so many scholarly sources that are being quoted use the spelling: Adonai. Seeker02421 11:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Adonai" is a convenient traditional form for use by scholars who are concerned with other matters than phonological analysis. "Adonay" may be more technically phonologically correct, but it's pointless to try to impose phonological correctness in other areas when the existing consensus desn't support it. When we're discussing phonology, then we can use whatever linguistic transcription we think is most useful, and so are not bound by "Adonai" in that case... AnonMoos 11:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's witnesses pov

18feb06 changes were made to reflect the Jehovah's witness view with greater accuracy as the original seems to have no direct connection to any JW view I have ever seen, being A JW for over ten years. also JeHoVaH is a transliteration of the tetragramaton into english, it is a textual not vocal element and should be catagorized as such... saying Jehovah outloud would be a vocalization...not writing it. also the original text gives no indication that the name JHVH is found in the hebrew text of the bible more than any other name or title combined, which of course many religions seems to hide in their effort to up play the name of Jesus and down play the name of Jehovah.

Jiohdi,

You wrote: "saying Jehovah outloud would be a vocalization...not writing it."

While your above statement is true, there is more than one definition of "vocalize".

In my particular edition of Webster's Dictionary, definition # 3 of "vocalize" reads:

"To add the diacritical marks of vowel sounds to the characters of Hebrew, Arabic, or other languages lacking alphebetical letters for the vowels."

Thus in the Masoretic text, יְהֹוָה is indeed a vocalization of יהוה and

Jehovah (or Yehovah) would definitely be an 18th century English vocalization of יְהֹוָה

Seeker02421 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

the word Jehovah, however is a transliteration, meaning it is the equivalent of a word from a foreign language not a translation of the orginal. While the vowel points were definitely placed on the original hebrew letters to tell jews to say Adonai instead, the hybrid that they caused in english was not the intended vocalization. --Jiohdi 021806

Does the name Jehovah prove the New testament, Qoran, and Book of Mormon are all false?

the hebrew/aramaic parts of the bible are accepted by all major religions, yet there is a significant difference between them and all the claimed add ons, namely the absence or near absence of the name YHWH. The New Testament has JAH only as part of halleluJAH. the Name is absent from the Qoran and appears about 8 times in the book[s] of Mormon, in like style to the KJV bible which it was modelled on... yet how could a god so vain as to include his name over 6700 times (more than all names, titles and personal designations combined in all books) in one part, suddely change and abruptly stop using it altoghter and allow its memory to nearly pass out of existance?
I think this is an important point, but will leave it out of the main page.

accuracy about the name Jehovah and Jehovah's witnesses

I would think accuracy is the most important value that those of us who read the wikipedia want in all articles. I will fight anyone who tries to make false or misleading statements such as the ones that I found when I first read this article. the statement about Jehovahs witnesses use of the name was inaccurate and basicaly false. as it was presented. the name is not just one of the many names, it is the most often used of all names and titles in the bible, 6700 times is far more than all others combined and that is given no indication by the misleading statement, just one of many. 022006 Jiohdi Seeker02421 --I like what you have done with the place (^_^) 022006:21:10ut Jiohdi

if you are not or never have been a Jehovah's Witness, dont put words in their mouths that you are totally ignorant about, ok? Jiohdi 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be editing much of what is said regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and the use of "Jehovah", if anyone takes exception please bring it here instead of RV waring. Duffer 03:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The titles in this article are very long and confusing, and do not adhere to encyclopedic standards. Someone should clean these up, as well as make the actual context less confusing (more wordy?)Doggydoo 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sections

I deleted the section: The Jewish reader read יהוה [or יְהֹוָה] as "Adho·nai". It reads:

The Watchtower Official Website of Jehovah’s Witnesses attributes that any other versions of the Tetragrammaton are the result of "Jewish superstition." Following is the official dogmatic statement from the headquarters of the religion:

"The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced (sic). Why not? Well, the first language used in writing the Bible was Hebrew, and when the Hebrew language was written down, the writers wrote only consonants—not vowels. Hence, when the inspired writers wrote God's name, they naturally did the same thing and wrote only the consonants.

"While ancient Hebrew was an everyday spoken language, this presented no problem. The pronunciation of the Name was familiar to the Israelites and when they saw it in writing they supplied the vowels without thinking (just as, for an English reader, the abbreviation "Ltd." represents "Limited" and "bldg." represents "building").

"Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious (sic) idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their Bible reading they uttered the Hebrew word 'Adho·nai' ("Sovereign Lord"). Further, as time went by, the ancient Hebrew language itself ceased to be spoken in everyday conversation, and in this way the original Hebrew pronunciation of God's name was eventually forgotten.

In order to ensure that the pronunciation of the Hebrew language as a whole would not be lost, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, both vowels and consonants were written down, and the pronunciation as it was at that time was preserved.

When it came to God's name, instead of putting the proper vowel signs around it, in most cases they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say 'Adho·nai'(sic). From this came the spelling Iehouah [but oddly, not "Jahovai], and, eventually, Jehovah became the accepted pronunciation of the divine name in English. This retains the essential elements of God's name from the Hebrew original (sic)."

It claims that the above statements are "dogmatic", even though the smallest amount of actual research shows each statement to be independently verifiable fact:

• Saul Lieberman - M.A., D.H.L., Ph.D. - Jehovah - MS Encarta Reference Library 2004:

"What its original vowels were is a matter of speculation, for because of an interpretation of such texts as Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 24:11, the name came to be regarded as too sacred for expression; the scribes, in reading aloud, substituted “Lord” and therefore wrote the vowel markings for “Lord” into the consonantal framework JHVH as a reminder to future readers aloud. The translators of the Hebrew, not realizing what the scribes had done, read the word as it was written down, taking the scribal vowel markings as intrinsic to the name of their God rather than as a mere reminder not to speak it. From this came the rendition Jehovah."

• Jason David BeDuhn - Ph.D. - Truth in Translation pg. 170:

"From "Jehovah" to "Lord" and back again

In ancient Judaism, the Biblical commandment not to profane God's name developed into a taboo against pronouncing it aloud except in very special circumstances. In ordinary reading from the Bible, therefore, it became customary to substitute the euphemistic title adonai, "lord," whenever one came to YHWH in the biblical text. This development restricting the pronunciation of YHWY in turn caused the text of the Bible itself to be modified. It became common practice to mark the biblical text wherever YHWH appeared in a way that reminded the reader not to pronounce the name, but to substitute "Lord."

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online -Yahweh:

"As Judaism became a universal religion through its proselytizing in the Greco-Roman world, the more common noun Elohim, meaning “god,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel's God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament."

I feel this evidence adequately justifies the deletion of the section. Duffer 05:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Casta, the RV you made is erroneous and POV. Whoever says that "the Greek Septuagint which did not contain the word Jehovah" is being deliberately misleading. No, the WORD "Jehovah" is not found in first century Septuagints, but the Tetragrammaton IS (see LXX^{P. Fouad Inv. 266}, George Howard "The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy"). Also the following comment about the Trinity is entirely ad-hom this article is not the place for nonsense about Jehovah's Witnesses. Duffer 08:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I deleted the section: "A major 20th-century critique of "Jehovah"" which reads:

As mentioned previously, the Watchtower Official Website of Jehovah’s Witnesses states:

" When it came to God's name, instead of putting the proper vowel signs around it, in most cases they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say 'Adho·nai'."

Similarly the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910-1911 also believed that the Masoretes had pointed "יְהֹוָה" with the vowel points of Adonai, and as a result these same editors wrote that the first Christian translators of the Masoretic text had made a serious error when they had transliterated "יְהֹוָה" as "Jehovah" .

On page 311 of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910-1911 it states:

JEHOVAH ( Yahweh ² ), in the Bible, the God of Israel.

"Jehovah" is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of the name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word Adonay, (sometimes, "Lord"), which the Jews substituted for this proper name in reading their scriptures."

This isn't really a major critique of anything, besides being highly convoluted, the final reference to Encyclopedia Britannica seems rather out of place, besides, Encyclopedia Britannica Online (Yahweh article) now states: "The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh." They no longer state "mispronunciation", though both articles (oddly enough for an encyclopedia) miss the point that Jehovah is a Latinized transliteration of Hebrew.

Anyways, there's no salvageable, non-reduntant, data in the above two deleted sections, please discuss objections here. Duffer 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Duffer,

The original posting of the first section of the Article "Jehovah",

which is found in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910-1911 read:

>>>

On page 311 of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910-1911 it states:

JEHOVAH ( Yahweh ² ), in the Bible, the God of Israel.

"Jehovah" is a modern pronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of the name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word adonay, "Lord," which the Jews substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures. In such cases of substitution the vowels of the word which is to be read are written in the Hebrew text with the consonants of the word which is not to be read. The consonants of the word to be substituted are ordinarily written in the margin; but inasmuch as Adonay was regularly read instead of the ineffable name Jhvh, it was deemed unnecessary to note the fact at every occurrence. When Christian scholars began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, if they were ignorant of this general rule or regarded the substitution as a piece of Jewish superstition, reading what actually stood in the text, they would inevitably pronounce the name Jehovah. It is an unprofitable inquiry who first made this blunder; probably many fell into it independently. The statement still commonly repeated that it originated with Petrus Galatinus (1518) is erroneous; Jehova occurs in manuscripts at least as early as the 14th century.

>>>

In my opinion this text belongs in the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah, although the section probably should be once again titled:

The Encyclopedia Britannica's critique of the name Jehovah

In my opinion this full text should be restored, if only because the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:

When Christian scholars began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, if they were ignorant of this general rule or regarded the substitution as a piece of Jewish superstition, reading what actually stood in the text, they would inevitably pronounce the name Jehovah. It is an unprofitable inquiry who first made this blunder; probably many fell into it independently.

It my opinion it is important for the reader to realize that modern scholars believe that the first English translators BLUNDERED when they transliterated "יְהֹוָה" "as it was written". Christians are so used to being taught that all scripture is "given by inspiration of God" , that they need to be "SHOCKED" by an article such as this into realizing that very few scholars believe that the vowel points of God's name are "given by the inspiration of God".

Now once the reader realizes that modern scholars to not believe that the Masoretic pointing of "YHWH" is given by inspiration of God, the article can then try to explain what sources the editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon utilized to warrent making the statement that "Yahweh (is) the proper name of the God of Israel"

"(is)" was added for clarity in the final sentence above.

The reader may or may not be shocked when they realize that "Yahweh" is preserved in no extant Hebrew Text, however I think it is importent for the reader to understand that "Yahweh" is preserved in no extant Hebrew Text.

Just because יַהְוֶה is found in The Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, doesn't mean that יַהְוֶה is found in any extant Hebrew Text!

Seeker02421 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica no longer says those things though, Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Edition: (Yahweh):

"The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh. Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used a form like Yahweh, and this pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was never really lost. Other Greek transcriptions also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh.

The meaning of the personal name of the Israelite God has been variously interpreted. Many scholars believe that the most proper meaning may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists” (Yahweh-Asher-Yahweh). In I Samuel, God is known by the name Yahweh Teva-ʿot, or “He Brings the Hosts Into Existence,” the hosts possibly referring to the heavenly court or to Israel."

We already know that scholars agree that "Jehovah" is not the correct HEBREW pronunciation of the word. "Jehovah" is not Hebrew, it is English. Britannica's characterization of "blunder" has been abandoned. Just as my true name in English is "Matthew", but in Spanish is "Mateo". This article is about "Jehovah", not "Yahweh". The way the article is currently written seems to focus too much on how scholarly "Yahweh" is but misses the point entirely that this article needs to primarily focus on the history, development, and usage of "Jehovah" (the actual SUBJECT of this article). Besides, a great deal of this articles information is copy/paste straight from the Tetregrammaton article. But back to the main point: "blunder" has been abandoned by Briticannica. Duffer 08:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Castanea dentata, What is the problem (at least) with my insertion of this source: "According to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, the form "Jehovah" is often attributed to Petrus Galatinus in ca. 1520 C.E. Tranlations like King James Version and American Standard Version chose this form to transcribe in english the Tetragrammaton"? --polB 09:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Focus of this article

This article is about "Jehovah", it's conception, origin, history, and usage. This article is not about "Yahweh", this article is not a dump for copy/paste information straight from the Tetragrammaton article. Why is this even seperate from the Tetra article? That article already adequately deals with the usage, history, development, and criticism of Yehovah; I believe this article is nothing but an Attack Page. There's no relevant information in this article that isn't already in the Tetra article. If this article is to be taken seriously then we need a viable format that we can all agree on, and we must be able to adaquately expound on the information already available on the Tetra article (but not with more off topic spam about how accurate "Yahweh" is).

• Focus - The topic is Jehovah, "Yahweh" needs very little, if any mention in the entirety of this article.
• Conception - Can we expound upon the Tetra articles handling of "Jehovah's" origins?

• "Christian theologians1 introduced the pronunciation Yehovah, which is generally held to be implausible, based on the written form יְהֹוָה (read normally, "Yehovah") that was used to indicate to the reader of the Bible in Hebrew to pronounce it "Adonai" (אֲדֹנָי)."
• "The first English transcription of the Tetragrammaton appeared on the title page of William Tyndale's translation of 1525 as "IEHOUAH." Thus began a period where the word was rendered: "Jehovah". The Jerusalem Bible (1966) uses Yahweh exclusively."

• Historic through modern usage - If we cannot come up with a comprehensive overview of this specific topic then there is absolutely no reason for the Jehovah article to be seperate from the Tetra article.

Regardless of the above, this article needs to change. There are some fundemental flaws with the article itself:

• It does not distinguish the fact that "Jehovah" is ENGLISH. Just as my name is "Matthew in English, it is "Mateo" in Spanish. Just as "Jesus" is English, it is "Yeshua" in Hebrew, and pronounced Hay-soos in Spanish (but still spelled Jesus).
• It doesn't even mention "Jehovah" until halfway through.
• It copies large portions of information from the Tetragrammaton article, information that redundantly validates the scholarship of the reconstructed, HEBREW, vocalization of the Tetra; information that does NOT pertain to "Yahweh"'s anglicized counterpart: "Jehovah."
• It's overlly critical of one aspect of the use of "Jehovah" namely "Jehovah's Witnesses". I think it is appropriate that Witnesses are mentioned in this article as they are largely responsible for propagating the name, but I don't believe mentioning their translation of the bible is appropriate for this article. If there is disagreement over this, then keep the mention brief and point to the main article that discusses the issue (as I have already done).
• BOLDED text. There is no need for this.

There's alot of work that needs to be done on this article. Well... deleting off topic, unsourced, paragraphs is fairly easy... but lets do this with consensus and alot of talk. Duffer 09:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Neatly expressed, Duffer. --polB 10:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Duffer1 -- This article definitely needs work, but "Jehovah" is NOT merely and simply the English for Hebrew YHWH in the same sense in which Jesus is the English for Hebrew Yeshu`. This is because the majority of scholars in the field think that "Jehovah" resulted from an erroneous joining together of the consonants YHWH with interpolated vowels that were not ever actually originally intended to be pronounced with those consonants, something which was due to a Christian misunderstanding of Jewish qre perpetuum notations. By constrast, few if any reputable scholars regard English "Jesus" as being a mistaken or garbled version of the original Hebrew (as opposed to a word that has gone through a number of changes -- but normal and expected changes -- over the course of its long linguistic journey from Hebrew to Aramaic to ancient Greek to Latin to medieval French to medieval English to modern English).

Also, the JW's make themselves stand out when their offical translation changes the Greek word kurios (or "Lord") which is found in all attested Greek New Testament manuscripts into the word "Jehovah" in English -- something which was not done before them, and which has not been followed by any other group. Please reply to the comment I made on the Talk:Tetragrammaton page with regards to your deletion from the Tetragrammaton article. AnonMoos 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

R.H.Pfeiffer: "Whatever may be said of it's dubious pedigree,"Jehovah" is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh, the God of Israel who revealed his name to Moses in the burning bush."-Introduction to the Old Testament, 1952, p.94. Duffer 02:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a large number of scholars disagree with him. The late 19th-century American Standard Version translation of the Bible is regarded as an overall failure for many reasons, and one of them is that it translated YHWH as "Jehovah" in most cases in the Old Testament. All modern scholarly Bible translations scrupulously avoid this glaring negative example. In fact, "Jehovah" is pretty much a vernacular layperson's term, which is not very often used by actual scholars in the field. Therefore to claim that it's an uncontroversial "Anglicization" (of the same order as Isaiah for Yisha`yahu, Joshua for Yehoshu`, etc. etc.) is simply false. In this context, "anglicization" is a weasel-word. AnonMoos 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

They scrupulously avoid rendering ANY instance of YHWH as a name (be it "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"), instead opting to replace it with the ambiguous title: "Lord", so that argument doesn't fly at all, and personally I wouldn't call that "scholarly". I never once claimed "Jehovah" to be "uncontroversial", "YHWH" is Hebrew, "Jehovah" is English, what other word would you use to describe the process of rendering a Hebrew name into English (despite controversy)? Duffer 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not the subject of this article, neither is their translation of the bible, and neither is "Yahweh". Write about "Jehovah's" conception, how and why it came to be, but we cannot allow this article to be derailed by off-top trivia regarding "Yahweh" that is already largely available on the Tetragrammaton article. Do you have anything on-topic to contribute?

Your claim: "something which was not done before them, and which has not been followed by any other group" is false.

• -The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ- John Eliot - 1661 (Matthew 21:9):

"Kah modtaanukeg negonfácheg, kala afukauon heg wuttauatonkquifuog, kah noowaog, Hofauna wunnaumonug David, onanumau noh paont ut oowefuonganit Jehovah, Hofanna quanunkquifit."

• -A literal Translation of the New Testament.. From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript - Herman Heinfetter - 1863 (Mark 12:29, 30)L

"The Jesus answered him, verily first it exists, hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God, one Jehovah he exists, (30) and thous halt love Jehovah they God, with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all they mind, and with all they strength,"

See also Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi - Elias Hutter (Hebrew) - 1599 ex: Ephesians 5:17; Sämtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments, - Johann Jakob Stolz (German) - 1781 ex: Romans 15:11; The Emphatic Diaglott 19th cent. - Benjamin Wilson several places, particularly where the NT quotes the OT. Just to name a few. Duffer 02:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatver, dude -- those are generally Old Testament translations embedded in the New Testament. The JW's are the first and only ones to translate Greek kurios EVERYWHERE in the New Testament as "Jehovah" (when referring to God), and to claim that the Hebrew letters YHWH must have originally been written in these locations in the New Testament (despite the complete lack of any attested Greek manuscript which follows this hypothetical speculated practice). AnonMoos 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Rendering 'kurio/s' as "Jehovah" in the New Testament (NWT) occurs 237 times, that is not "everywhere". Besides, the point is, you made a false claim, regardless of what you believe those bibles to be, their NTs do use "Jehovah". And yes, it is true that those bibles, as well as the NWT do this despite any extant manuscripts that affirm their assumptions. Duffer 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're quite good at raising technicalistic lawyering objections which evade the main substance of an argument. The NWT translation translates Kyrios as "Jehovah" everywhere where the NWT translators thought that Kyrios corresponds to YHWH in the Old Testament, and the JW's were and are the first and only ones to adopt such a systematic and thoroughgoing practice. There, does that phrasing manage to dot every i and cross every t sufficiently to leave you no further wiggle room? AnonMoos 03:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is not quite true, there were hebrew version of the NT long before JWs existed and they do use the Tetra where it is quoted from the OT and the JWs are not so honest as they do not translate Kyrios in Hebrews as Jehovah but instead as Lord as it seems to be directed at Jesus and their anti-trinitarian view would not do well in that verse.Jiohdi 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew translations of the New Testament would use the letters Yod-He-Waw-He in Hebrew, NOT "Jehovah". AnonMoos 07:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

AnonMoos

I have a Pocketsized Hebrew New Testament produced by:

THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY

Israel Agency

At Matthew 1:24 is found "יְהֹוָה"

The Messiahs name is "Yeshua" at Mattthew 1:25Seeker02421 15:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nice -- "יְהֹוָה" is the standard Massoretic pointing (though יְהוָה would be even better, of course), and therefore raises all the old questions of interpretation involving Qre Perpetuum etc., which you're very well aware of. It doesn't mean that the translation "contains Jehovah" in any uncontroversial sense. By the way, is it the old Delitzsch translation, or updated for modern Israeli Hebrew? AnonMoos 08:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

---

AnonMoos

Yes, On the page before the book of Matthew begins, it says:

Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament

PRINTED IN ISRAEL

At the bottom of a previous page written totally in Hebrew it says:

1963

On the next to the last page from a Hebrew reader's point of view, or on the second page from an English readers point of view it reads:

Produced by

THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY

Israel Agency

For

Then there is an image:

A very large letter M, and large letter C,

with an even larger letter T [possibly a cross] between them.

A lit lamp is at the top of the T or cross.

At the bottom left of this page it says:

Hebrew New Testament

I once had a parallel English-Hebrew New Testament, with the English text of the KJV on the left pages, while the Hebrew New Testament was on the right pages.

Seeker02421 11:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S.

AnonMoos, I have a copy of a page from the "printed" Ben Chayyim Hebrew text of 1525 on which Judges 16:28 is found. In both the variants "Yehovah" and "Yehovih" the holem is found centered in the space between the upper left of the first heh and the upper right of the waw/vav. In the Hebrew New Testament the holem is directly above the waw/vav.

I have a facsimile of the "hand written" Leningrad Codex in which in many of the verses I have checked, the the holem is also found centered in the space between the upper left of the first heh and the upper right of the waw/vav. In some cases in the Leningrad Codex it is possible that a cantillation mark may have forced the author to write the holem in the space between the waw/vav and the heh.

Back in 2001 and 2002 when I used to post on the "Why KJV Only" KJVO discussion board, the underlying Hebrew of "Yehovah" was being critiqued because there was a holem directly above the waw/vav and a qamets directly beneath the waw/vav.

AnonMoos. At the present time I can not cite any evidence that in 2006 KJVO Christians are defending the vowel points of "Yehovah". At this time no one on the Why KJV Only KJVO Discussion board is defending the vowel points of "Yehovah", nor is anyone on the Which Version KJVO Discussion board. Possible the Wikipedia Article:King-James-Only Movement should be edited to remove the edits that I myself made that KJVO Christians defended the vowel points of Yehovah. The major defender of the vowel points of Yehovah in 2002, was a non-KJVO editor named Scott Jones. I followed his lead, and defended the vowel points of "Yehovah" on two different KJVO Discussion boards, but I did not consider myself, either then or now, to be a KJVO Christian.

Seeker02421 11:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Should a Wikipedia Article: "Jehovah or Yahweh" be started?

It seems doubtful there there will ever be much consensus in this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.

Is it possible that the present information in Wikipedia:Jehovah could be used to start a new Wikipedia Article, possibly titled "Jehovah or Yahweh?"

Then hopefully this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah could continue to exist and be primarily edited by those who are not happy with so many edits concerning "Yahweh".

Possibly some sort of redirect could appear on the first page of this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah indicating that those persons who want to discuss both "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" should go to the [yet to be created] Wikipedia Article: "Jehovah or Yahweh?" ((07:06, 25 February 2006 Seeker02421))

I think that would just be shifting the problem and likely the concerns I raised about his article would just be moved to the new one (what Wiki-policy refers to as a "POV Fork". "Jehovah" is an anglicized name for YHWH. The question: "Jehovah or Yahweh?" is misleading when the accurate distinction is made that one is English, and the other is Hebrew. I'm not necessarily unhappy about all the edits concerning "Yahweh", I just take exception to them as they -1 give undue weight to an entirely offtopic subject -2 are largely already available on the Tetragrammaton article. Casta, read this article please. Duffer 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Tag on Section # 3 of the main article

Section 1.1.2 says:

The Greek name Ιαουε is found in the writings

of Clement of Alexandria (ca 140 AD - ca 215 AD).

What scholarly evidence exists, written before 1850 A.D. that states that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" and not "Iaou"?

19th century Migne P.G.---------------------Iaou

Smith's 1863 A Dictionary of the Bible-----Iaou

1715 A.D. Greek Manuscript-----------------Iaou

Gilbert Genebrard 1568 A.D.-----------------Iaou

11th century Greek Codex L------------------Iaou

The above 5 sources, covering about an 800 year period say Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaou" not "Iaoue".

Where are the sources that claim that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue"?

This issue has been discussed with a Hebrew scholar on b-Hebrew who no longer believes that it is safe to trust that Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced Iaoue.

Seeker02421 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is section # 3 that now has a dispute tag on it.

Since Galatinus introduced the spelling "Iehoua" in 1520 A.D., it would be helpful to find evidence written before 1520 A.D. where the author wrote that Clement of Alexandria had used the Greek spelling "Ιαουε".

Seeker02421 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The text in section # 3 was relocated to other sections, thus effectively deleting section # 3 with its "dispute tag". Questioned text was moved to Section # 2.3 where a note advised the reader that Migne's edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria disagreed with the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906

The issue still exists in that no evidence from before 1520 A.D. has been noted in this article, in which the author wrote that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Ιαουε".

Seeker02421 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag on Section # 2 of the main article

Section # 2 [ i.e. Ancient Greek transcriptions of the tetragrammaton ] of the main aricle says:

"In its article Church Fathers and Magic Papyri, The Jewish Encyclopedia gives a thorough account of the forms of the word that appeared in a group of ancient papyri:"

"It was in connection with magic that the Tetragrammaton was introduced into the magic papyri and, in all probability, into the writings of the Church Fathers. These two sources containing the following forms, written in Greek letters: "Iaoue," "Iabe,"... It is evident that [such] represents 'יהוה'."

"[4]"

The issue being disputed is whether or not it is indeed a fact that the Church Fathers truely did write "Ιαουε".

The information quoted was found in the Jewish Encylopedia of 1901-1906.

What evidence exists before 1520 A.D., in which the author of the evidence writes that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Ιαουε"?

Seeker02421 15:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Added the following text to Section # 2 of the main article:

Note: In Migne's 19th century Edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria,

in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6, the Greek spelling Iαου is found.

Thus Migne's 19th century edition of of the writings of Clement of Alexandria disagrees with the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia as to which Greek spelling Clement used in Stromata Book V, Chapter 6.

See Section # 3, that follows this section.

The new Section # 3 that follows discusses Migne's 19th Century edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

Removed the Dispute Tag.

Seeker02421 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Significant absence corrected

seems to me that an obvious omission needing correction was the bible definition of the name given in Exodus 3:14 Jiohdi 23:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jiohdi, though it helps to clarify the meaning of the Tetragrammaton, Ex 3:14 is not the Tetragrammaton itself. So it cannot be used for the main definition of the name "Jehovah". --polB 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pvasiliadis Ex 3:14 is not the NAME, but the MEANING of it, which is made clear by Exodus 3:15, where God repeats himself and instead of the meaning uses the NAME itself. No Discussion of the name Jehovah would be complete without the meaning given to it by the bible itself, so if you feel that my grammar is off or something modify it, but do not remove this from the article as it leaves the article lacking.

Jiohdi 15:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

speaking of absences, why is the table of theophoric names lacking Jesus or its hebrew version Jehoshua? I find it very dishonest, btw, for translators to have Joshua in the bible for several different people but Jesus for only one of them when its the same name and a very common name at that.Jiohdi 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jiohdi

There was no attempt to be dishonest on my part. There is no shortened form of Yehoshua [e.g. Yoshua] preserved in the Masoretic Text, so I couldn't very well post that form in the table. beneath Yehoshua.

I originally had Yehoshua" in the table, but it seemed out of place, without "Yoshua" right beneath it.

The shortened form "Joshua" seems to have been derived from the Catholic Vulgate, not from any Hebrew text.

I will add "Yehoshua" to the table, and I hope to add some comments by Gerard Gertoux, [ on Talk:Jehovah ] as to how "Jehoshua" was derived.

While the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Yehoshua and the Greek spelling of Christ's name are both "Iesous", it seems at least possible that Christ's Hebrew name may have been "Yeshua" not "Yehoshua"

Seeker02421 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jiohdi,

On May 23, 2004 Gerard Gertoux posted the message below on the jehovahbible discussion board, which no longer exists:

The pet name “Yah” was to be added to “Yeshua’” not “shua” and the result was the name Yeshayah ( Isaiah ) “He saved Yah”, with the name Yehowah the result was Yehoshua ( Jesus ) “[ Yeho is ] salvation”.

There are not Hebrew Grammar rules that do not allow the first syllable of a 3-syllable Hebrew word, to have a vowel “a”.

For example, the name Yanoha, ( Jos 16:6 ) remains Yanoha, not Yenoha,the name Manoah ( Jg 13:2 ) remains Manoah, not Menoah, and so on.

If you want to get a further answer concerning the point see my book pages 279 to 283.

Concerning the name Jesus I wrote ( p. 185 ):

Hoshea’ means “to cause salvation” or simply “salvation”, which is close to Hoshia’ ( He caused salvation ). The construction of this theophoric name should have been Yeho-hoshea’ ) ( Yeho [is] salvation ) or Yeho-hoshia’ ( Yeho caused salvation ), but the writing would have included the Tetragram, because Yehoshea is spelt YHWH-WS(E; so it was abbreviated to Yehoshua’.

This last version, as well as its vocalization resulting from the Masoretic text, seems very reliable, because the identical form is found on several seals dated from the eighth to the sixth century before our era.

However, the form Yeho-shua’ is not theophoric in a classic way. The word shua’ means “noble, generous” and not “salvation”. Futhermore, the abbreviation Yeshua, which appears very early, ( 1Ch 24:11 ) is surprising, because the form Yoshua would have been much more logical Y (eh) o- becoming Yo- with the classic drop of the H.

Some Hebraists, to explain this oddity, suppose that this name was not theophoric at first, but that rather it was the name “He will prove to be magnanimous”, that is Yehi-shua’, which changed to Yehe-shua’ then Ye-shua’, but this theory remains nevertheless hypothetical. Furthermore, it contradicts all Jewish and Christian authors from the beginning of our era, who always explained that this name meant “salvation”.

For example, in the Greek version of Ben Sirach written towards the end of second century before our common era, is found the following remark: “Josue son of Nun (….) he who, well deserving his name, proved himself great to save the elect ( Si 46:1 ).”

Philo (-20 to 50 ), a Jewish philosopher, explained in one of his books that Osee means “so-and-so is saved” and Iesou “Lord’s salvation” ( De Mutatione Nominum, 121 ).

In the Talmud of Babylon, this explanation of the name Yehoshua’ is found “Yah, He will cause your salvation” ( Sotah 34b ).

Christian authors of the first century also always connected this name to salvation without specifying whether if it was theophoric. For example, in Matthew 1:21 the author says that this name means “He will save”. Justin also pointed out that this name means “Savior” ( Apologies I, 33:7 ) but regretted that the Jews had forgotten the meaning of it ( Dialogue with Tryphon 113:2 ).

It would seem therefore that in the first century only the divine meaning of this name posed a problem; but the explanation of shua” meaning “noble” was never retained.

Because this word has another meaning which is “to call for help” being close to “to cause salvation” commentators apparently agreed to merge these two meanings. For example, Eusebius around 320 CE, in his book The Evangelical Demonstration IV, 17:23, indicated that name Iesu in Greek, becomes Iosoue in Latin, but that in Hebrew it is read Isoua and means “Iao is salvation”, since Iao is God’s name in Hebrew ( Evangelical Demonstration X , 8:28 ).

Sincerely yours

Gerard

Seeker02421 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't know if I'm too impressed with his erudition -- Isaiah almost certainly does not mean "He saves Jah"! AnonMoos 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

according to several references

Isaiah means "Yahweh is Salvation,” “Salvation of Jehovah," or "Jehovah saves"

Jiohdi 13:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Info on "Iaoue"

Shouldn't this be on the Iaoue page rather than the "Jehovah" page? Yahnatan 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yahnatan

I have moved Subsection # 3.4 and Subsection # 3.5 to Wikipedia Article:Iaoue

Seeker02421 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Merge?

I don't know if this is up for discussion but I would really favor trimming down this article and making it a section in Tetragrammaton. Kenji Yamada 07:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kenji Yamada

It is my opinion that the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah exists because many editors of the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton did not want Jehovah to be discussed in detail in a section in Tetragrammaton.

How would you trim this article down, to where it mmight be accepted by the editors of the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton?

Seeker02421 10:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What were their reasons for not wanting a "Jehovah" discussion under Tetragrammaton? I don't have enough relevant knowledge to say what trimming should be done, but I think a summary of the strongest arguments for and against the name (i.e. for the view that it's a historical mistake and the view that it isn't) should be possible.

Kenji Yamada 10:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Because "Jehovah" inherently by its very nature attracts many strongly-held and strongly-clashing opinions, which those who have a more scholarly interest in the Tetragrammaton don't really want to have to continually deal with. Currently, Jehovah is to some degree a kind of controversy-flypaper in order that Tetragrammaton may be kept relatively clean. I don't think anything would be gained by attempting to merge the two at this time. And in addition to all this, "Jehovah" is in fact only one interpretation of the Tetragrammaton -- it's not identical with the Tetragrammaton. AnonMoos 19:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Kenji Yamada.

This Revision of the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton"as of 21:39, 3 December 2005" included sections:

1.4 In English

1.5 Transcriptions in other languages

Both sections were deleted in the next edit. Section 1.4 is copied and pasted below:

===In English===

The first English transcription of the Tetragrammaton appeared on the title page of William Tyndale's translation of 1525 as "IEHOUAH." Sir Godfrey Drivers’ Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible states:"The Reformers preferred Jehovah, which first appeared as Iehouah in A.D. 1530 in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (Exodus 6.3)," Subsequent translations into English, including Miles Coverdale's (1535), the Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), and the Authorized Version of 1611, also used IEHOUAH in several places, while most translations substitute the title THE LORD in place of the Tetragrammaton. Some argue that this practice reflects the Jewish tradition that it is forbidden to say the name of God. Many modern Christian translations of the Bible continue to use THE LORD (in small caps); some notable exceptions are American Standard Version (1901) which used Jehovah throughout the text, the New World Translation (1950) which used Jehovah extensively (including in some instances within the New Testament where the tetragrammaton is not present), and The Jerusalem Bible (1966) which used Yahweh similarly.

It is likely that Tyndale's IEHOUAH comes from an interlace of YHWH and the vowels of Adonai as explained above, but it is difficult to substantiate this claim since we do not know which codex he used for his translation. The King James Version's IEHOUAH was definitely influenced by the Ben Chayim codex, which was the source used for the translation. The spelling Jehovah appeared first during the 1762-1769 editing of the King James Bible. Hence there is a certain basis to the claim that the transcription Jehovah is nothing but a misunderstanding by Christian translators of Jewish reading traditions. As of 2005, this is still the most common spelling of the Tetragrammaton in English.

In contrast, there are various arguments why Jehovah actually is the original pronunciation. For example, other transcribed names in the Bible containing portions of the name such as: Jeho-ram and Jeho-shaphat give linguistic support of this transcription. This point of view is occasionally associated with believers in the "King James Version Only" point of view. Recently Gerhard Gertoux advanced the pronunciation Yehowah and has gained a certain following.

I think that an attempt could/should be made to prepare a trimmed section on "Jehovah" to post in the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton.

Seeker02421 14:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

---

"Content fork"

Jehovah isn't/wasn't really a "content fork", it was controversy-flypaper (though both may be against Wikipedia policies...). AnonMoos 14:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)