![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
to the extent of being almost comical. In fact, it's wide usage is not considered offensive by traditional Jews precisely because of its inaccuracy; hence it is deemed as not taking God's name in vain. It does, however, do injustice to the Hebrew language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Think again, it's like asking is the Bible important; there are roughly 270 other names in the Bible that refer to the translated (not transliterated) name of the god of the Bible. And they themselves have also been translated using the "J" of the english language rather than the transliterated "Y" of the hebrew alphabet: Here is a small sample: [
Search: Jeho*].
I'm not a Jehovah's Witness or even a Christian, but as a child I was made to memorize "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be you Name..." (Matt 6:9) and even I know what that means.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Examples of English Bible translations of the Hebrew letter 'yod' as "J" rather than the "Y":
Jacob, Japheth, Jerico, Jesse, Joshua, Jethro, Jezebel, Jordan, Josiah, Judah, Jerusalem, Jeho, Jehoshaphat, Jeremiah, Job etc!
Different langauges have different pronunciations for foreign proper nouns. The Dutch Nayderland becomes The Netherlands, La Fransay becomes France, Espanya becomes Spain etc .
So, returning to the differences of opinion regarding the 'proper' pronounciation of Bible names, let's consider the more widely known name "Jesus", a Jew living in Israel. How was 'Jesus' pronounced in Bible times? We don't know, but if we can draw any clue from modern day Hebrew, it certainly wouldn't have been Jesus!
And when the accounts of Jesus' life were written in the Greek language, the inspired writers did not try to preserve the original Hebrew pronunciation. They rendered the name in Greek, I·e·sous′. Now, in the wider world, it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soos′). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zoo′). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yay′soos).
Similarly, the rendering of the divine name differs from country to country. Some modern scholars and translators prefer the form Yahweh. Is it, then, wrong to use a form like Yahweh? Not at all. But the form Jehovah is a more familiar form in the English language. It is in English Bibles, it is used in this way in English hymns, poetry and literature, and it has also been “naturalized” in a similar form into most other languages. --
Lepton6 (
talk)
15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand there's IsIAH, ConIAH, HezekIAH, etc. all of which use "IA" not "JE". Really, the significance of English translation only comes into play when you take a fair sample.
Clinkophonist (
talk)
20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To expand and provide more comprehensive examples regarding customary English versions of Hebrew Bible names:-
However, I am not aware of any Hebrew Scripture proper name that starts, in the Hebrew, with a yud/yod/yohdh, that is translated in the KJV to an English version of that name but that begins with a 'Y' in the English text. But, as always, I may be wrong! -- Lepton6 ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked that the article on Allah and it is just as I thought, it's the arabic word for God. So according to the fact that this is an article about the hebrew NAME of God, I deleted the changes adding Allah. GabrielVelasquez ( talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The diff is here
[1] that shows that this user is insistant on placing "Allah" near the top of the list
and keeping the list short, to the point of violating the 3RR.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
19:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
can we get consensus on the "See Also" to avert vandalism?
The section immediately above covers the requests content in more detail.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
19:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, Allah is "al"+"Ilah", the Arabic for "the God", and "Ilah" is a form of "El", the word the bible uses for God. Ie. "Allah" isn't just "God", its the same "God" that the bible has.
However, this article is about one particular transliteration of "YHWH", the name the bible gives to God. When you see "the LORD" in the KJV its usually translating "YHWH", when you see "God" its usually translating "El". "El" can also be a name - a different name to YHWH - but the bible uses it as an improper noun.
"El" is distinct, as a word, from "YHWH", and therefore this article should only cover the latter, ie. it should exclude discussion of "Allah". But, since "El" is closely connected in the Bible to "YHWH", the See Also section should include both El (god) and Allah. The YHWH-related terms should be above the El-related terms, but Allah should be near the top of the El-related terms.
I also want to point out that "Yahweh" is the modern transliteration of "YHWH", and therefore should be the number 1 "see also" link. "Yah" is extremely closely connected to Yahweh - its either a contraction of it, or an earlier form, and therefore should go at number 2. Theophory should go towards the bottom, since Theophory in Yah/Yahweh/Jehovah (eg. Jo-nathan / Nethan-yahu) is not particularly different from theophory in El (eg. Nathan-iel) Clinkophonist ( talk) 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I note that a duplication of information has arisen:- compare the data in sub-section 1:"Modern usage of the rendering Jehovah" with sub-section 9: "Use of Jehovah in English." The layout therefore appears to be in need of careful editing to rectify the matter. Unfortunately, I cannot readily see a quick yet suitable solution. Can any other editor help and intervene! The integrity of the article is at stake! Many thanks. -- Lepton6 ( talk) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Pasting large chunks of material is "NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC". Referencing yes, but not whole pages cut-and-pasted. I have moved the NWT quote here for preservation.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Editor2020 (
talk •
contribs)
20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I consider this vandalism,
but I'll play along considering you probably have not read all of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Quotation_templates
and once I've gotten through it all your playing around will probably have to be undone.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
I'm having trouble finding if there is a limit of size on Wikipedia for BlockQuotes?
(amend) and if the above removal should be condsidered vandalism if there is not a limit?
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No that doesn't quite cover it completely, are you saying this action above is vandalism?? GabrielVelasquez ( talk)
This whole section above and below the request for help is what I am refering to, but if you need the exact diff here is is: diff.
There is an inherent conflict of interest involved here in keeping this article as a part of the JW Project. Wikipedia should be about what is true and accurate, and despite what the Witnesses passionately believe, no serious student of Hebrew thinks that the divine name was ever vocalized as Jehovah. The Q're Perpetuum is well known and is included, usually in the first chapter, of every Hebrew grammar I have ever seen.
As it is currently written (29 Feb 2008 14:31 EST) the first section of this article has many misleading, inaccurate and downright false allegations in it.
1) It is *not* the most frequent vocalization as vocalized by the Masoretes. They, knowing Hebrew, and knowing that one never pronounced the divine name, and seeing the impossible pointing, would have used the accepted circumlocution of Adonai. No Masoretic Jew would have ever uttered "Jehovah."
2) As far as I can tell, serious scholars *are* in agreement as to the slight differences in the pointing between Jehovah and Adonai. It's explained well later in the article in the section on Kethib and Q're Perpetuum.
3) Referring to Strong's 1890 concordance is hardly buttressing the use of Jehovah by modern scholarship.
4) The reference to Webster's is extremely misleading. What it actually says is
Jehovah and Yahweh are the two most common ways to transliterate the personal name of God in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament). This proper name for God is rendered as LORD or GOD (in small capitals to distinguish it from Adonai, another word translated as "Lord") in most modern translations of the Bible. Most scholars believe "Yahweh" to be most near the original pronunciation, but "Jehovah" is still more commonly used today.
Also problematic is that Webster's Online Dictionary cites Wikipedia as the source for this, so it is hardly an independent reference.
5) The reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia is, again, misleading. The edition cited (published in 15 volumes between 1907 and 1912) and largely available online, has been superseded by many more modern works that draw on modern scholarship, particularly after the encouragement of serious Catholic scripture scholarship after Vatican II. No serious modern Catholic scripture scholar would agree with the assertion, without serious qualifications, that Jehovah is the name of God. See for example, The New Catholic Encyclopedia.
6) There are also misleading references to Brown-Driver Briggs, throughout the article which, as a work of serious non-fundamentalist scholarship, is clearly aware of the Q're Perpetuum and does not intend to support the "Jehovah" transliteration.
I had more than 24 semester hours of theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati, including numerous courses on Old Testament. I also took some courses in Hebrew from the Athenaeum in Cincinnati. One of my professors was the first Roman Catholic nun to get a doctorate in scripture from Hebrew University. At neither of these Catholic institutions did I ever hear the name Jehovah except as an example of bad scholarship.
There are many other examples in this current article which I think is a mess.
I don't want to deprive the Witnesses of an opportunity to state what they believe, but it should be clearly labeled as such. What do the folks behind the JW project think about splitting off the sections which give their point of view and calling the second article "Jehovah: What Jehovah's Witnesses Believe." They could express their own viewpoint as freely as they wish then. I know this is a POV fork, but I see no way to achieve consensus because the underlying premises are so different. If you accept Jehovah as the name of God as a matter of faith, no amount of scholarly argument can possibly be convincing.
JohnGHissong ( talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The following statement can be found on the first page of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah:
Seeker02421 ( talk) 12:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Adon (אֲדוֹן) is the Hebrew word for lord. Adoni is the possessive form of the same word, and means "my lord". Jews do not, ever, include vowel marks with YHVH (יהוה), neither is the name pronounced. Since this article is written from a Christian point of view, the same rules do not necessarily apply....but it would be helpful to have a few words that make clear the difference.
Malcolm Schosha (
talk)
15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The early edits of this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah tried to deal with the early transliterations of the Hebrew spelling יְהֹוָה which occurs 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D.
This Article started out presenting a Protestant Christian view of the name "Jehovah". Thus the article notes that Tyndale believed that God's name was actualy "Iehouah", when he wrote his Pentateuch.
However very quickly this article notes that "Iehouah" [aka Iehovah and "Jehovah"] was being critiqued by John Drusius in 1604. John Drusius wrote that neither "Iehouah" or the form of YHWH which had the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" represented God's actual name. So the article starts out noting how early "Jehovah" was being critiqued.
And this article notes that there were 3 men who supported the name "Jehovah" in the 17th century, as well as 5 men who opposed the name "Jehovah" in the 17th century.
This same article notes that a major controversy existed in the 17th century concerning the name "Jehovah"
This article notes how so many scholars believe that the vowel points of "Jehovah" are not the actual vowel points of God's name.
Under the direction of a Wikipedia Moderator, attempts were made to limit any mention of the name "Yahweh" in this article, since "Yahweh" had it's own separate article.
This was successful at first, but somewhat less successful as time went on.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not appear to have made too many edits in this article. Generally speaking this article presents the name Jehovah as it is believed by Southern Baptists in the USA, and by KJVO Christians all over the world.
The Jehovah's Witnesses view the name "Jehovah" differently.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI: KJVO = King-James-Only Movement. 75.0.9.209 ( talk) 08:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The editors of "Wikipedia:Describing Points of View" write:
Since the neutrality of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah is being disputed, a question that the editors of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah need to answer is:
Seeker02421 ( talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a paragraph from the introduction of the article:
Following long-standing tradition, in modern Jewish culture the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced, instead the above vocalization indicates to the reverent Jewish reader that the term Adonai is to be used. In places where the preceding or following word already is Adonai, the alternative term vocalized for the Tetragrammaton is differently indicated by the vocalization markings, indicating that the reading Elohim is to be used. Details of these vocalization markings differ between the various extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible.
Is this correct? I am not frum, and may not understand tradition correctly. But it is my understanding that if the text is to be read Elohim, then Elohim is written; and if Y-H-V-H is written there would be a silent space in the reading, or it would be replaced with Adonai. It is also my understanding that vowel marks are not used for Y-H-V-H in Torah scrolls.
This article should be read through by someone knowledgeable, and if necessary corrected, to make sure (at minimum) it does not represent Judaism. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is about reading of the name of God in Hebrew scripture. For other renderings of the name, see Tetragrammaton. For the deity of monotheistic religions, see God. For other uses of Jehovah, see Jehovah (disambiguation). See also: Yahweh
NB: A serious problem this article is that it discusses Jewish tradition from a Christian POV; and that is done without explanation that the POV is Christian, and that it contradicts Jewish belief. If that problem is not be corrected, nomination for deletion might be justified. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Content forking. This article seems to be a content fork from the Yahweh article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I just took a look at this article's reference list. It is not as good as might be hoped, and does not seem to give the article strong scholarly support. For instance #4 is a link to a forum with a statement by someone called Peter Kirk. But, after doing some searching on Google, I can not find anything to indicate Peter Kirk's qualifications, or if he has published in scholarly journals on this subject. Or, in #5, two sources are shown next to eachother, but there is no way to know what either source is -- or what they prove. etc... Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I still have no idea why this article exists as a separate article from the Yahweh article. If this article is nothing but a content fork from the Yahweh article, this article should be nominated for deletion. Am I missing something? Could someone please explain to me why this article and the Yahweh article need to exist as separate articles instead of being merged? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The following text can be found in the "Redirecting Tetragrammaton to Yahweh" section of Talk Wikipedia Article:Yahweh: It was written by Richard on 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time I thought that Richard was a moderator. Maybe he wasn't.
Of course ultimately the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton ended up being deleted.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I put a request for editorial assistance on this question here [7]. The editor who fielded it apparently agreed with me and redirected the article, but without mentioning it here on the talk page. If other editors disagree with the redirect, it can be undone here [8]. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm,
You wrote:
>>>
the main differences I see is that it is not written as well, and is less neutral.
>>>
Malcolm,
Wikipedia gives you every oportunity to edit this Article, so that it is just as neutral and well written as the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.
Are you willing to fight for your right to continue improving the neutrality of this article, by continuing to edit this article.
OR
Do you yourself feel that the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah should be deleted, even though you yourself are aware of how easy it is to correct a neutrality problem.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this content fork for deletion. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect so, and if do we just have to mark it as such in the AfD tag at the top of the page.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an editorial dispute concerning the neutrality of the introduction to the article. One version is:
Jehovah is an English transliteration of יְהֹוָה, the Tetragrammaton YHWH with the vowel pointing of the word "Adonai". According to long-standing Jewish tradition, YHWH (יהוה) is not pronounced.
The other proposed version is:
Jehovah is a Christian transliteration into English of יְהֹוָה, which is the most sacred Hebrew language name for God. According to long-standing Jewish tradition, YHWH (יהוה) is not pronounced.
Rather engaging in an edit war, I think it would be better to discuss, and resolve the issues here before returning the paragraph to the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is the problem. In my view you are claiming something for this article that is unfounded. The article is about an aspect of Christian theology. There is no way around that. You may believe that the article represents both Christian and Jewish thinking, but it does not. As far as established Jewish theology is concerned, Y-H-V-H is not pronounced. An article about how it is pronounced, is by its nature not Jewish. As I said there is nothing wrong with an article that discusses Christian views on the subject, but there is something wrong in saying that it represents also Jewish views. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Right there is a Jewish POV of the name "Jehovah",
but it doesn't really say anything about the vowel point issue found in Jehovah.
However the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia
do recognize the Hebrew vocalization of Jehovah
that is being discussed in this Wikipedia article.
There is some common ground.
The editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia, seem to see no problem in discussing vowel points in the first paragraphs.
Apparently Jewish persons who read the Jewish Encyclopedia, have enough knowledge of Biblical Hebrew to understand the explanations found in this Article.
Of course that may not be true as far as the average person who reads the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.
Just Some Thoughts
Seeker02421 ( talk) 01:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malcolm.
You made the following edit to the introduction.
I can only assume that you did not mean to imply that:
Yet that is how I read your Introduction.
Did you mean to write that:
The Wikipedia Article:Jehovah is an article about יְהֹוָה,
which is a specific vocalized rendering of the unvocalized Tetragrammaton (i.e. יהוה).
Do you equate יְהֹוָה and יהוה )
or do you see them as distinct?
Seeker02421 ( talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
StAnselm, why did you add the citation tag to that? All I tried to do in that edit was add some explanation to make an unreadable paragraph readable. The phrase that you tagged was there before my first edit to this article, and is not my doing:
Jehovah is an English transliteration of יְהֹוָה, which occurs 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D., which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. According to many scholars Jehovah (a.k.a. Iehouah and Iehovah) is a pseudo-Hebrew form, which was mistakenly created when Medieval and/or Renaissance Christian scholars misunderstood the common Qere perpetuum of the partial vowel points of Adonai, written together with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton YHWH (in order to indicate that written YHWH should be pronounced aloud as "Adonai", as was the usual Jewish practice at the time of the Masoretes).[1]
I have italicized the part, already in the earlier version, that you tagged. Why was it okay before and bad now? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
After Malcolm added the tag that said:
I made the revision below:
Revision as of 18:18, 16 April 2008 (edit) (undo) Seeker02421 (Talk | contribs) (Hopefully this new edit of the Introduction will resolve some of the issues that have been made against this article. More editing of the introduction will be necessary.)
Apparently my revision did not live up to my stated hope above!
The revision I added included the 3 sentences that presently seem to be causing so many problems!
The sentences I added are shown below:
The material I added was cut and pasted from another Wikipedia Article, and further edited, but it appears that I made a poor choice.
Maybe we can start over again
Maybe Malcolm, starting from scratch, would like to write a new Introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah from a Jewish Point Of view.
Meanwhile, I will go back to the drawing board myself, and re-evaluate what is allready available in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 23:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
________________________________________________
I have added the first sentence from the Jewish Encyclopedia Article:JEHOVAH into the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.
The Introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah now reads:
Section #1 still contains the remainder of the text from the first paragraph of the Jewish Encyclopedia Article:Jehovah.
The Introduction and the first section can be easily merged, by removing the "==" marks.
For the moment I am leaving the Article as it is.
Anyone should feel free to edit the Introduction of Artcle, or to edit any other part of the Article, as far as I am concerned.
I assume that Malcolm will make the final decision as to when and if this article is finally ready to meet some type of test.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 00:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
StAnselm,I have merged your last edit of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah, with my last edit.
I put the Introduction back into your hands to do with as you wish. [e.g. edit or delete and start all over.]
I will sit back and watch, although if you decide to keep my edits,
I will provide the missing verification of text that I have added.
It appears that ultimately the Introduction,
and possibly the entire artcle,
will have to be approved by Malcolm,
before any tags can be removed.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 15:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeker, resolving the problem that my tag points to, will not do much good if no one who reads the article can actually understand it.
Perhaps part of that problem is that most people who will come to read the article are likely to understanding "Jehovah" as a name referring to God. But the article does not discuss that. Instead it launches into a rather detailed discussion of the different possible ways of pronouncing Y-H-V-H (although the Jews -- who's text it is all based on -- do not pronounce it), and without explaining that, and also assuming that readers understand something about Hebrew and the use of vowel points in Hebrew (which few will understand without a good background explanation). Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There have been an awful lot of edits made to the introduction now, but it doesn't look like we're agreed as to what should be there. Any thoughts? How about we all read WP:LEAD to refresh our minds as to what's required in a lead section. Then we talk about the essential points that need to be in it, and what should be left to another section. Because the article is steadily getting worse, if that's possible. StAnselm ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Jehovah [a.k.a. Iehouah and "Iehovah" citation needed] is an English name for God which was first used after the Protestant Reformation. [2]
Jehovah is an attempt to pronounce יְהֹוָה, a vocalized Hebrew form of יהוה the Tetragrammaton. יְהֹוָה was formed when the Masoretes added the vowel pointing of Adonai to the consonants of YHWH, thus creating a "hybrid form". [3] The name Jehovah was seriously critiqued by John Drusius in 1604 A.D. [4] and has since been regarded by both Jews and Christians as a mispronunciation, [5] Despite this, it has found a place in Christian liturgy and theology. It is the regular English rendition of יהוה in the American Standard Version, [6] and occurs four times in the King James Version. [7] It is also used in Christian hymns such as "Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah". [8]
The name "Jehovah" is used as the name of God by Jehovah's Witnesses.
At this stage, if things do not improve within the next three days, I intend to blank the page and start the article again. That will be 04:00, 25 April, UTC. StAnselm ( talk) 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"04:00, 25 April"?! What's the rush? Even if the AfD succeeds, and the article is deleted, it can still be recreated. I understand that this editing process has been frustrating, and I regret that I may have contributed to the sense of pressure, but there is no reason to think that this process can not work out well. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
An explanation of the decision to not delete the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah can be found on Skomorokh's Talk Page, in the "Jehovah" section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skomorokh Seeker02421 ( talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What can we learn from the first few sentences of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Article:Jehovah.
Do any editors here want the Wikipedia Article"Jehovah" to resemble this text?
Do we want to use this text as the Introduction of the Wikipedia Article?
This text is in the Public Domain and can be freely copied.
This text explains the issue concerning the name "Jehovah" without using any Hebrew Text.
Is that good?
Are many of the complaints against the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah the result of the use of Hebrew font?
_____________________________________________________________________________________ JEHOVAH (Yahweh), in the Bible, the God of Israel. "Jehovah" is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word ădōnāy, "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 he 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 Jěhōvāh.
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 I4th century.
The form Jehovah was used in the 16th century by many authors, both Catholic and Protestant, and in the 17th was zealously defended by Fuller, Gataker, Leusden and others, against the criticisms of such scholars as Drusius, Cappellus and the elder Buxtorf.
It appeared in the English Bible in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (1530), and is found in all English Protestant versions of the 16th century except that of Coverdale (535). In the Authorized Version of 1611 it occurs in Exod. vi. 3; Ps. lxxxiii. 15; Isa. xii., xxvi. 4, beside the compound names Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-shalom; elsewhere, in accordance with the usage of the ancient versions, Jhvh is represented by lord (distinguished by capitals from the title "Lord," Heb. adonay).
In the Revised Version of 1885, Jehovah is retained in the places in which it stood in the A. V., and is introduced also in Exod. vi. 2, 6, 7, 8; Ps. lxviii. 20; Isa. xlix. 14; Jer. xvi. 21; Hab. iii. 19. The American committee which cooperated in the revision desired to employ the name Jehovah wherever Jhvh occurs in the original, and editions embodying their preferences are printed accordingly.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking what has happened recently I see that Malcolm removed his tag - good - Jehovah is not a subject that belongs to Jewish tradition. But people are struggling in strange, unencyclopedic ways. I read in some version: "Hebrew scholars believe that". That is not the scholarly way to put such things. The author of this article should talk with authority.
Right now it says: "Jehovah is an English name for God which was used at Exodus 6:3 in a 1761 Edition of the King James Bible." On the one hand there is a discrepancy between the 1761 in the text and the 1671 under the image. On the other hand, this sounds like Jehovah is a historical topic, which it certainly isn't. Not: was used centuries ago, but is used today. (Things already improve by just starting a new sentence: ... for God. It was used ...)
Also: for some "God" is very well-defined. But an encyclopedia is not religious, and plain "God" cannot be used. Some epithet is needed. (The God of the Bible, the God of Israel, ...) 213.84.53.62 ( talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Can this Article be accurate without using יְהֹוָה in the Introduction?
The issues about the three different English transliterations of יְהֹוָה
[i.e.Iehouah,1530 A.D. and Iehovah,1611 A.D. and Jehovah,1671 A.D.]
found in early English Christian Bibles,
are all based on one misconception:
The Jewish point of view of this issue appears to be that יְהֹוָה was not given by inspiration of God. and that יְהֹוָה most definitely does not represent the correct Hebrew spelling of the name of the God of Israel!
It seems to me that יְהֹוָה most defintely does need to be discussed in the Introduction of this Artcle, as well as in the Body of the Article.
The entire controversy about "Jehovah" is based on what appears to be a false belief by early Christian translators that יְהֹוָה "was given by inspiration of God".
Seeker02421 ( talk)
OK - the somewhat silly Afd expired, and Jheald greatly improved the intro. Good. I removed the POV tag: if I understand correctly it was added by Carlaude who gave as main motivation that the interpretation of the vocalization (namely as Adonai, rather than as vowels belonging to YHWH) was insufficiently discussed. Today there is some clear discussion of this. 213.84.53.62 ( talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence
Jehovah is an English reading of יְהֹוָה, the most frequent form of the Tetragrammaton יהוה, the name of God in the Hebrew Bible, in the text with vowel points handed down by the Masoretes.
is unreadable. Try to remember that there will be people reading this article who do not know Hebrew, much less what a vowel point is. It would be nice if such readers could have at the first a sentence that is understandable, rather than an exercise in postmodernist incomprehensibility. (For the postmodernist generator see [10]) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Below are two lead sentences
that might be a starting point for a new Introduction:
Jehovah is an English translation of the Tetragrammaton (i.e. the Hebrew name of the God of Israel), which is found at Exodus 6:3 in a 1671 edition of the King James Bible [see image to the right].
Although Jehovah is a direct phonetic transliteration of a specific vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, that occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, the English name Jehovah is arguably believed to be a mispronunciation of the name of the God of Israel.
According to a long Jewish Tradition, add new text etc., etc.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm,
Since there are 3 different English translations of the specific vocalization of the tetragrammaton that is found 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text of 1525 A.D. I will start again, and try to explain,in the lead sentences, the other two English translations that were written in 1530 A.D. and 1611 A.D., long before "Jehovah" was written for the first time in about 1671 A.D. :
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jehovah is an English translation of the Tetragrammaton (i.e. the Hebrew name of the God of Israel), which is found at Exodus 6:3 in a 1671 A.D. edition of the King James Bible [see image to the right].
Although Jehovah is a direct phonetic transliteration of a specific vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, that occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, the English name Jehovah is arguably believed to be a mispronunciation of the name of the God of Israel. The same is true for the earlier English translations "Iehouah" and "Iehovah"
By long tradition, in modern Jewish culture the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced. Instead when the reverent Jewish reader observes the above mentioned vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, he or she substitutes the Hebrew word Adonai.
It is generally agreed therefore, in line with Jewish teaching, that "Jehovah" is a translation of "hybrid" Hebrew spelling of the name of the God of Israel. The "hybrid" spelling of the name of the God of Israel was created when the Masoretes added the vowel pointing of Adonai to the consonants of YHWH.
Early English translators, unacquainted with Jewish tradition, read this "Hybrid" word as they would any other Hebrew word, and transliterated it (in very few places, namely those where the Name itself was referred to) into the English language of that day. [e.g. Iehouah in 1530 A.D.; Iehovah in 1611 A.D.; Jehovah in 1671 A.D.] Seeker02421 ( talk) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
__________ Hi Jheald,
The edit below was written before you edited your previous edit.
Certainly any Wikipedia editor has a right to edit or revert previous edits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah
Malcolm has complained about the previous unreadability of this article. Malcolm specifically complains about the use of Hebrew font in the previous Introductions. Malcolm notes that the average reader, who has no knowledge of Hebrew, would be unlikely to understand this article as previously written with Hebrew Font.
In my opinion, due to previous complaints I have heard about this article, not only should an attempt be made to eliminate all Hebrew Font from the Introduction, but section #1 and section #2 should both be moved to the end of the article, where readers with knowledge of Hebrew would still have easy access to them, but the average reader would not be confused by the Hebrew Font used.
The Jewish Encylopedia clearly explains the Jewish viewpoint on יְהֹוָה but the average Wikipedia reader does not understand what the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia are writing.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 12:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Jheald,
You previously wrote:
Jheald,
I strongly disagree with you.
In my opinion, explaining the source of Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah explains more clearly what the so called controversy about the name Jehovah is all about.
The Jewish issue is in effect that the Masoretes not only did not provide early Christian translators with a Hebrew Text that preserved God's Name accurately, but that the Masoretes deliberately printed the Tetragrammaton with the improper vowel points.
When the reader realizes that Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah are all considered mispronunciations of the name of the God of Israel according to Jewish tradition, the reader is more likely [in my opinion] to truely understand what the Jehovah controversy is all about.
I believe that the Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah information definitely should be explained in the introduction, and that the image of the 1761 edition of the King James Bible helps to more clearly explain the Jehovah controversy.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm
You quoted the present Wikipedia Article:Jehovah as saying.
StAnselm.
The present Wikipedia Article:Iehovah is incorrect in section #3
"Iehouah" is found in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (Exodus 6.3)
In the 7th paragraph of "Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible", Sir Godfry Driver wrote,
Seeker02421 ( talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm,
The Bible Compared : Exodus. is a 2nd source that verifies that Tyndale wrote "Iehouah" at Exodus 6:3
The Bible Compared : Exodus. is also a source that verifies that "Iehovah" not "Jehovah" is found at Exodus 6:3 in the KJV of 1611.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If editors wish to make a clear statement in the lead sentence/paragraph that indicates that the form 'Jehovah' is a mispronunciation of a Hebrew word, then to be consistent, similar etymological qualifying comments should be added the lead sentences/paragraphs referring to other Hebrew names such as Jacob, Jesus, Jerusalem, Jeremiah, etc etc which appear in Wiki! It is interesting to note that, to date, not one of those articles says that the English name of the article is actually a mispronunciation of the Hebrew name! How many dictionaries and Encyclopedias in articles about 'Jesus' start by explicitely declaring that the name is actually a mispronunciation of a Jewish word! We all know that the Hebrew and the English alphabets are different from each other, and that there is no direct equivalence between some of the letters. And that every English version (customarily written with a J) of any Hebrew name is 'incorrect' in that it is not the Hebrew pronunciation! If we were Jewish and editing the Hebrew version of Wiki, we might well object to using the English versions of Hebrew names in a Hebrew Wiki. But as this edition of Wikipedia is the English language version, could it be that we simply state the English word 'Jehovah', give its meaning and uses, and show the etymology, as we do with all other words. Any arguments about its 'correct' pronunciation surely (perhaps?) belong to Hebrew linguists discussing/explaining/arguing the matter with/to a Jewish readership! -- Lepton6 ( talk) 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you enlightening me about the purpose of of article entitled 'Jehovah'. In my ignorance I thought it was about Jehovah! If the article is solely about the etymology and pronunciation of this English word, and the hatnote indicates that this would be so, then perhaps the article should be re-named.
In the article there are many references to the extensive usage of the word 'Jehovah'. However, if the article is only concerned with etymology and pronunciation, then such references would appear to be largely irrelevant here, and should more appropriately be moved elsewhere, perhaps to a Wiki article entitled 'Jehovah'!-- Lepton6 ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lepton6,
The following text is from the introduction of the Article "JEHOVAH (Yahweh) found in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
Lepton6,
A major controversy surrounds the name "Jehovah". As noted above the editors of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica immediately deal with this controversy in the introduction of their article:JEHOVAH (Yahweh).
The editors of the Jewish encyclopedia of 1901-1906 likewise write about the controversy concerning the name "Jehovah".
Seeker02421 ( talk) 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says, under 'Modern Usage of the rendering Jehovah':- "Similarly well-established English substitutions for Hebrew personal names include Joshua, Isaiah, Jesus, and others, the precise pronunciations for many of which have also been lost."
Comments:
(i) What relevance is the name Isaiah in this list?
(ii) Every Hebrew proper name that includes the English letter 'J' is 'wrong' if it is considered incorrect to use anything other than the 'original' (Hebrew) spelling and language. The sentence implies that the precise pronunciation of words such as Jesus has been lost. Surely we know how to pronounce Jesus in English! (Other languages vary). Perhaps the paragraph should make reference to the fact that the English J is not the exact equivalent of any Hebrew letter. Furthermore, it is not the 'precise pronunciation' which has been lost, but rather, taking 'Jehovah' as an example, it is the 'original pronunciation' that has been lost!
I think re-edit would improve this part of the article. Any suggestions?--
Lepton6 (
talk)
08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article should maybe try to explain the identification of Jehovah with the Trinity in 99 % of Christian churches (ie Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, etc). This would simply show what the majority and orthodox belief is. In fact, Jehovah is usually identified with Elohim, and the Elohim are usually understood to imply the Trinity. 69.157.229.14 ( talk) 08:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"{{Identification with Trinity}}
Trinitarian Christians, who are often called Orthodox Christians, usually invoke the
Nicean creed and the
Chalcedonian creed .
citation needed"
- Removed this drivel as it has nothing to do with the article and the writer is clueless to the topic.
205.200.19.57 (
talk)
21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
to the extent of being almost comical. In fact, it's wide usage is not considered offensive by traditional Jews precisely because of its inaccuracy; hence it is deemed as not taking God's name in vain. It does, however, do injustice to the Hebrew language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Think again, it's like asking is the Bible important; there are roughly 270 other names in the Bible that refer to the translated (not transliterated) name of the god of the Bible. And they themselves have also been translated using the "J" of the english language rather than the transliterated "Y" of the hebrew alphabet: Here is a small sample: [
Search: Jeho*].
I'm not a Jehovah's Witness or even a Christian, but as a child I was made to memorize "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be you Name..." (Matt 6:9) and even I know what that means.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Examples of English Bible translations of the Hebrew letter 'yod' as "J" rather than the "Y":
Jacob, Japheth, Jerico, Jesse, Joshua, Jethro, Jezebel, Jordan, Josiah, Judah, Jerusalem, Jeho, Jehoshaphat, Jeremiah, Job etc!
Different langauges have different pronunciations for foreign proper nouns. The Dutch Nayderland becomes The Netherlands, La Fransay becomes France, Espanya becomes Spain etc .
So, returning to the differences of opinion regarding the 'proper' pronounciation of Bible names, let's consider the more widely known name "Jesus", a Jew living in Israel. How was 'Jesus' pronounced in Bible times? We don't know, but if we can draw any clue from modern day Hebrew, it certainly wouldn't have been Jesus!
And when the accounts of Jesus' life were written in the Greek language, the inspired writers did not try to preserve the original Hebrew pronunciation. They rendered the name in Greek, I·e·sous′. Now, in the wider world, it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soos′). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zoo′). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yay′soos).
Similarly, the rendering of the divine name differs from country to country. Some modern scholars and translators prefer the form Yahweh. Is it, then, wrong to use a form like Yahweh? Not at all. But the form Jehovah is a more familiar form in the English language. It is in English Bibles, it is used in this way in English hymns, poetry and literature, and it has also been “naturalized” in a similar form into most other languages. --
Lepton6 (
talk)
15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand there's IsIAH, ConIAH, HezekIAH, etc. all of which use "IA" not "JE". Really, the significance of English translation only comes into play when you take a fair sample.
Clinkophonist (
talk)
20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To expand and provide more comprehensive examples regarding customary English versions of Hebrew Bible names:-
However, I am not aware of any Hebrew Scripture proper name that starts, in the Hebrew, with a yud/yod/yohdh, that is translated in the KJV to an English version of that name but that begins with a 'Y' in the English text. But, as always, I may be wrong! -- Lepton6 ( talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked that the article on Allah and it is just as I thought, it's the arabic word for God. So according to the fact that this is an article about the hebrew NAME of God, I deleted the changes adding Allah. GabrielVelasquez ( talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The diff is here
[1] that shows that this user is insistant on placing "Allah" near the top of the list
and keeping the list short, to the point of violating the 3RR.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
19:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
can we get consensus on the "See Also" to avert vandalism?
The section immediately above covers the requests content in more detail.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
19:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, Allah is "al"+"Ilah", the Arabic for "the God", and "Ilah" is a form of "El", the word the bible uses for God. Ie. "Allah" isn't just "God", its the same "God" that the bible has.
However, this article is about one particular transliteration of "YHWH", the name the bible gives to God. When you see "the LORD" in the KJV its usually translating "YHWH", when you see "God" its usually translating "El". "El" can also be a name - a different name to YHWH - but the bible uses it as an improper noun.
"El" is distinct, as a word, from "YHWH", and therefore this article should only cover the latter, ie. it should exclude discussion of "Allah". But, since "El" is closely connected in the Bible to "YHWH", the See Also section should include both El (god) and Allah. The YHWH-related terms should be above the El-related terms, but Allah should be near the top of the El-related terms.
I also want to point out that "Yahweh" is the modern transliteration of "YHWH", and therefore should be the number 1 "see also" link. "Yah" is extremely closely connected to Yahweh - its either a contraction of it, or an earlier form, and therefore should go at number 2. Theophory should go towards the bottom, since Theophory in Yah/Yahweh/Jehovah (eg. Jo-nathan / Nethan-yahu) is not particularly different from theophory in El (eg. Nathan-iel) Clinkophonist ( talk) 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I note that a duplication of information has arisen:- compare the data in sub-section 1:"Modern usage of the rendering Jehovah" with sub-section 9: "Use of Jehovah in English." The layout therefore appears to be in need of careful editing to rectify the matter. Unfortunately, I cannot readily see a quick yet suitable solution. Can any other editor help and intervene! The integrity of the article is at stake! Many thanks. -- Lepton6 ( talk) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Pasting large chunks of material is "NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC". Referencing yes, but not whole pages cut-and-pasted. I have moved the NWT quote here for preservation.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Editor2020 (
talk •
contribs)
20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I consider this vandalism,
but I'll play along considering you probably have not read all of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Quotation_templates
and once I've gotten through it all your playing around will probably have to be undone.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
I'm having trouble finding if there is a limit of size on Wikipedia for BlockQuotes?
(amend) and if the above removal should be condsidered vandalism if there is not a limit?
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No that doesn't quite cover it completely, are you saying this action above is vandalism?? GabrielVelasquez ( talk)
This whole section above and below the request for help is what I am refering to, but if you need the exact diff here is is: diff.
There is an inherent conflict of interest involved here in keeping this article as a part of the JW Project. Wikipedia should be about what is true and accurate, and despite what the Witnesses passionately believe, no serious student of Hebrew thinks that the divine name was ever vocalized as Jehovah. The Q're Perpetuum is well known and is included, usually in the first chapter, of every Hebrew grammar I have ever seen.
As it is currently written (29 Feb 2008 14:31 EST) the first section of this article has many misleading, inaccurate and downright false allegations in it.
1) It is *not* the most frequent vocalization as vocalized by the Masoretes. They, knowing Hebrew, and knowing that one never pronounced the divine name, and seeing the impossible pointing, would have used the accepted circumlocution of Adonai. No Masoretic Jew would have ever uttered "Jehovah."
2) As far as I can tell, serious scholars *are* in agreement as to the slight differences in the pointing between Jehovah and Adonai. It's explained well later in the article in the section on Kethib and Q're Perpetuum.
3) Referring to Strong's 1890 concordance is hardly buttressing the use of Jehovah by modern scholarship.
4) The reference to Webster's is extremely misleading. What it actually says is
Jehovah and Yahweh are the two most common ways to transliterate the personal name of God in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament). This proper name for God is rendered as LORD or GOD (in small capitals to distinguish it from Adonai, another word translated as "Lord") in most modern translations of the Bible. Most scholars believe "Yahweh" to be most near the original pronunciation, but "Jehovah" is still more commonly used today.
Also problematic is that Webster's Online Dictionary cites Wikipedia as the source for this, so it is hardly an independent reference.
5) The reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia is, again, misleading. The edition cited (published in 15 volumes between 1907 and 1912) and largely available online, has been superseded by many more modern works that draw on modern scholarship, particularly after the encouragement of serious Catholic scripture scholarship after Vatican II. No serious modern Catholic scripture scholar would agree with the assertion, without serious qualifications, that Jehovah is the name of God. See for example, The New Catholic Encyclopedia.
6) There are also misleading references to Brown-Driver Briggs, throughout the article which, as a work of serious non-fundamentalist scholarship, is clearly aware of the Q're Perpetuum and does not intend to support the "Jehovah" transliteration.
I had more than 24 semester hours of theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati, including numerous courses on Old Testament. I also took some courses in Hebrew from the Athenaeum in Cincinnati. One of my professors was the first Roman Catholic nun to get a doctorate in scripture from Hebrew University. At neither of these Catholic institutions did I ever hear the name Jehovah except as an example of bad scholarship.
There are many other examples in this current article which I think is a mess.
I don't want to deprive the Witnesses of an opportunity to state what they believe, but it should be clearly labeled as such. What do the folks behind the JW project think about splitting off the sections which give their point of view and calling the second article "Jehovah: What Jehovah's Witnesses Believe." They could express their own viewpoint as freely as they wish then. I know this is a POV fork, but I see no way to achieve consensus because the underlying premises are so different. If you accept Jehovah as the name of God as a matter of faith, no amount of scholarly argument can possibly be convincing.
JohnGHissong ( talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The following statement can be found on the first page of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah:
Seeker02421 ( talk) 12:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Adon (אֲדוֹן) is the Hebrew word for lord. Adoni is the possessive form of the same word, and means "my lord". Jews do not, ever, include vowel marks with YHVH (יהוה), neither is the name pronounced. Since this article is written from a Christian point of view, the same rules do not necessarily apply....but it would be helpful to have a few words that make clear the difference.
Malcolm Schosha (
talk)
15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The early edits of this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah tried to deal with the early transliterations of the Hebrew spelling יְהֹוָה which occurs 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D.
This Article started out presenting a Protestant Christian view of the name "Jehovah". Thus the article notes that Tyndale believed that God's name was actualy "Iehouah", when he wrote his Pentateuch.
However very quickly this article notes that "Iehouah" [aka Iehovah and "Jehovah"] was being critiqued by John Drusius in 1604. John Drusius wrote that neither "Iehouah" or the form of YHWH which had the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" represented God's actual name. So the article starts out noting how early "Jehovah" was being critiqued.
And this article notes that there were 3 men who supported the name "Jehovah" in the 17th century, as well as 5 men who opposed the name "Jehovah" in the 17th century.
This same article notes that a major controversy existed in the 17th century concerning the name "Jehovah"
This article notes how so many scholars believe that the vowel points of "Jehovah" are not the actual vowel points of God's name.
Under the direction of a Wikipedia Moderator, attempts were made to limit any mention of the name "Yahweh" in this article, since "Yahweh" had it's own separate article.
This was successful at first, but somewhat less successful as time went on.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not appear to have made too many edits in this article. Generally speaking this article presents the name Jehovah as it is believed by Southern Baptists in the USA, and by KJVO Christians all over the world.
The Jehovah's Witnesses view the name "Jehovah" differently.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI: KJVO = King-James-Only Movement. 75.0.9.209 ( talk) 08:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The editors of "Wikipedia:Describing Points of View" write:
Since the neutrality of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah is being disputed, a question that the editors of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah need to answer is:
Seeker02421 ( talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a paragraph from the introduction of the article:
Following long-standing tradition, in modern Jewish culture the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced, instead the above vocalization indicates to the reverent Jewish reader that the term Adonai is to be used. In places where the preceding or following word already is Adonai, the alternative term vocalized for the Tetragrammaton is differently indicated by the vocalization markings, indicating that the reading Elohim is to be used. Details of these vocalization markings differ between the various extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible.
Is this correct? I am not frum, and may not understand tradition correctly. But it is my understanding that if the text is to be read Elohim, then Elohim is written; and if Y-H-V-H is written there would be a silent space in the reading, or it would be replaced with Adonai. It is also my understanding that vowel marks are not used for Y-H-V-H in Torah scrolls.
This article should be read through by someone knowledgeable, and if necessary corrected, to make sure (at minimum) it does not represent Judaism. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is about reading of the name of God in Hebrew scripture. For other renderings of the name, see Tetragrammaton. For the deity of monotheistic religions, see God. For other uses of Jehovah, see Jehovah (disambiguation). See also: Yahweh
NB: A serious problem this article is that it discusses Jewish tradition from a Christian POV; and that is done without explanation that the POV is Christian, and that it contradicts Jewish belief. If that problem is not be corrected, nomination for deletion might be justified. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Content forking. This article seems to be a content fork from the Yahweh article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I just took a look at this article's reference list. It is not as good as might be hoped, and does not seem to give the article strong scholarly support. For instance #4 is a link to a forum with a statement by someone called Peter Kirk. But, after doing some searching on Google, I can not find anything to indicate Peter Kirk's qualifications, or if he has published in scholarly journals on this subject. Or, in #5, two sources are shown next to eachother, but there is no way to know what either source is -- or what they prove. etc... Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I still have no idea why this article exists as a separate article from the Yahweh article. If this article is nothing but a content fork from the Yahweh article, this article should be nominated for deletion. Am I missing something? Could someone please explain to me why this article and the Yahweh article need to exist as separate articles instead of being merged? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The following text can be found in the "Redirecting Tetragrammaton to Yahweh" section of Talk Wikipedia Article:Yahweh: It was written by Richard on 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time I thought that Richard was a moderator. Maybe he wasn't.
Of course ultimately the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton ended up being deleted.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I put a request for editorial assistance on this question here [7]. The editor who fielded it apparently agreed with me and redirected the article, but without mentioning it here on the talk page. If other editors disagree with the redirect, it can be undone here [8]. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm,
You wrote:
>>>
the main differences I see is that it is not written as well, and is less neutral.
>>>
Malcolm,
Wikipedia gives you every oportunity to edit this Article, so that it is just as neutral and well written as the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.
Are you willing to fight for your right to continue improving the neutrality of this article, by continuing to edit this article.
OR
Do you yourself feel that the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah should be deleted, even though you yourself are aware of how easy it is to correct a neutrality problem.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this content fork for deletion. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect so, and if do we just have to mark it as such in the AfD tag at the top of the page.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an editorial dispute concerning the neutrality of the introduction to the article. One version is:
Jehovah is an English transliteration of יְהֹוָה, the Tetragrammaton YHWH with the vowel pointing of the word "Adonai". According to long-standing Jewish tradition, YHWH (יהוה) is not pronounced.
The other proposed version is:
Jehovah is a Christian transliteration into English of יְהֹוָה, which is the most sacred Hebrew language name for God. According to long-standing Jewish tradition, YHWH (יהוה) is not pronounced.
Rather engaging in an edit war, I think it would be better to discuss, and resolve the issues here before returning the paragraph to the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is the problem. In my view you are claiming something for this article that is unfounded. The article is about an aspect of Christian theology. There is no way around that. You may believe that the article represents both Christian and Jewish thinking, but it does not. As far as established Jewish theology is concerned, Y-H-V-H is not pronounced. An article about how it is pronounced, is by its nature not Jewish. As I said there is nothing wrong with an article that discusses Christian views on the subject, but there is something wrong in saying that it represents also Jewish views. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Right there is a Jewish POV of the name "Jehovah",
but it doesn't really say anything about the vowel point issue found in Jehovah.
However the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia
do recognize the Hebrew vocalization of Jehovah
that is being discussed in this Wikipedia article.
There is some common ground.
The editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia, seem to see no problem in discussing vowel points in the first paragraphs.
Apparently Jewish persons who read the Jewish Encyclopedia, have enough knowledge of Biblical Hebrew to understand the explanations found in this Article.
Of course that may not be true as far as the average person who reads the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.
Just Some Thoughts
Seeker02421 ( talk) 01:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malcolm.
You made the following edit to the introduction.
I can only assume that you did not mean to imply that:
Yet that is how I read your Introduction.
Did you mean to write that:
The Wikipedia Article:Jehovah is an article about יְהֹוָה,
which is a specific vocalized rendering of the unvocalized Tetragrammaton (i.e. יהוה).
Do you equate יְהֹוָה and יהוה )
or do you see them as distinct?
Seeker02421 ( talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
StAnselm, why did you add the citation tag to that? All I tried to do in that edit was add some explanation to make an unreadable paragraph readable. The phrase that you tagged was there before my first edit to this article, and is not my doing:
Jehovah is an English transliteration of יְהֹוָה, which occurs 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D., which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. According to many scholars Jehovah (a.k.a. Iehouah and Iehovah) is a pseudo-Hebrew form, which was mistakenly created when Medieval and/or Renaissance Christian scholars misunderstood the common Qere perpetuum of the partial vowel points of Adonai, written together with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton YHWH (in order to indicate that written YHWH should be pronounced aloud as "Adonai", as was the usual Jewish practice at the time of the Masoretes).[1]
I have italicized the part, already in the earlier version, that you tagged. Why was it okay before and bad now? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
After Malcolm added the tag that said:
I made the revision below:
Revision as of 18:18, 16 April 2008 (edit) (undo) Seeker02421 (Talk | contribs) (Hopefully this new edit of the Introduction will resolve some of the issues that have been made against this article. More editing of the introduction will be necessary.)
Apparently my revision did not live up to my stated hope above!
The revision I added included the 3 sentences that presently seem to be causing so many problems!
The sentences I added are shown below:
The material I added was cut and pasted from another Wikipedia Article, and further edited, but it appears that I made a poor choice.
Maybe we can start over again
Maybe Malcolm, starting from scratch, would like to write a new Introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah from a Jewish Point Of view.
Meanwhile, I will go back to the drawing board myself, and re-evaluate what is allready available in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 23:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
________________________________________________
I have added the first sentence from the Jewish Encyclopedia Article:JEHOVAH into the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah.
The Introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah now reads:
Section #1 still contains the remainder of the text from the first paragraph of the Jewish Encyclopedia Article:Jehovah.
The Introduction and the first section can be easily merged, by removing the "==" marks.
For the moment I am leaving the Article as it is.
Anyone should feel free to edit the Introduction of Artcle, or to edit any other part of the Article, as far as I am concerned.
I assume that Malcolm will make the final decision as to when and if this article is finally ready to meet some type of test.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 00:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
StAnselm,I have merged your last edit of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah, with my last edit.
I put the Introduction back into your hands to do with as you wish. [e.g. edit or delete and start all over.]
I will sit back and watch, although if you decide to keep my edits,
I will provide the missing verification of text that I have added.
It appears that ultimately the Introduction,
and possibly the entire artcle,
will have to be approved by Malcolm,
before any tags can be removed.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 15:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeker, resolving the problem that my tag points to, will not do much good if no one who reads the article can actually understand it.
Perhaps part of that problem is that most people who will come to read the article are likely to understanding "Jehovah" as a name referring to God. But the article does not discuss that. Instead it launches into a rather detailed discussion of the different possible ways of pronouncing Y-H-V-H (although the Jews -- who's text it is all based on -- do not pronounce it), and without explaining that, and also assuming that readers understand something about Hebrew and the use of vowel points in Hebrew (which few will understand without a good background explanation). Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There have been an awful lot of edits made to the introduction now, but it doesn't look like we're agreed as to what should be there. Any thoughts? How about we all read WP:LEAD to refresh our minds as to what's required in a lead section. Then we talk about the essential points that need to be in it, and what should be left to another section. Because the article is steadily getting worse, if that's possible. StAnselm ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Jehovah [a.k.a. Iehouah and "Iehovah" citation needed] is an English name for God which was first used after the Protestant Reformation. [2]
Jehovah is an attempt to pronounce יְהֹוָה, a vocalized Hebrew form of יהוה the Tetragrammaton. יְהֹוָה was formed when the Masoretes added the vowel pointing of Adonai to the consonants of YHWH, thus creating a "hybrid form". [3] The name Jehovah was seriously critiqued by John Drusius in 1604 A.D. [4] and has since been regarded by both Jews and Christians as a mispronunciation, [5] Despite this, it has found a place in Christian liturgy and theology. It is the regular English rendition of יהוה in the American Standard Version, [6] and occurs four times in the King James Version. [7] It is also used in Christian hymns such as "Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah". [8]
The name "Jehovah" is used as the name of God by Jehovah's Witnesses.
At this stage, if things do not improve within the next three days, I intend to blank the page and start the article again. That will be 04:00, 25 April, UTC. StAnselm ( talk) 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"04:00, 25 April"?! What's the rush? Even if the AfD succeeds, and the article is deleted, it can still be recreated. I understand that this editing process has been frustrating, and I regret that I may have contributed to the sense of pressure, but there is no reason to think that this process can not work out well. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
An explanation of the decision to not delete the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah can be found on Skomorokh's Talk Page, in the "Jehovah" section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skomorokh Seeker02421 ( talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What can we learn from the first few sentences of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Article:Jehovah.
Do any editors here want the Wikipedia Article"Jehovah" to resemble this text?
Do we want to use this text as the Introduction of the Wikipedia Article?
This text is in the Public Domain and can be freely copied.
This text explains the issue concerning the name "Jehovah" without using any Hebrew Text.
Is that good?
Are many of the complaints against the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah the result of the use of Hebrew font?
_____________________________________________________________________________________ JEHOVAH (Yahweh), in the Bible, the God of Israel. "Jehovah" is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word ădōnāy, "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 he 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 Jěhōvāh.
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 I4th century.
The form Jehovah was used in the 16th century by many authors, both Catholic and Protestant, and in the 17th was zealously defended by Fuller, Gataker, Leusden and others, against the criticisms of such scholars as Drusius, Cappellus and the elder Buxtorf.
It appeared in the English Bible in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (1530), and is found in all English Protestant versions of the 16th century except that of Coverdale (535). In the Authorized Version of 1611 it occurs in Exod. vi. 3; Ps. lxxxiii. 15; Isa. xii., xxvi. 4, beside the compound names Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-shalom; elsewhere, in accordance with the usage of the ancient versions, Jhvh is represented by lord (distinguished by capitals from the title "Lord," Heb. adonay).
In the Revised Version of 1885, Jehovah is retained in the places in which it stood in the A. V., and is introduced also in Exod. vi. 2, 6, 7, 8; Ps. lxviii. 20; Isa. xlix. 14; Jer. xvi. 21; Hab. iii. 19. The American committee which cooperated in the revision desired to employ the name Jehovah wherever Jhvh occurs in the original, and editions embodying their preferences are printed accordingly.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking what has happened recently I see that Malcolm removed his tag - good - Jehovah is not a subject that belongs to Jewish tradition. But people are struggling in strange, unencyclopedic ways. I read in some version: "Hebrew scholars believe that". That is not the scholarly way to put such things. The author of this article should talk with authority.
Right now it says: "Jehovah is an English name for God which was used at Exodus 6:3 in a 1761 Edition of the King James Bible." On the one hand there is a discrepancy between the 1761 in the text and the 1671 under the image. On the other hand, this sounds like Jehovah is a historical topic, which it certainly isn't. Not: was used centuries ago, but is used today. (Things already improve by just starting a new sentence: ... for God. It was used ...)
Also: for some "God" is very well-defined. But an encyclopedia is not religious, and plain "God" cannot be used. Some epithet is needed. (The God of the Bible, the God of Israel, ...) 213.84.53.62 ( talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Can this Article be accurate without using יְהֹוָה in the Introduction?
The issues about the three different English transliterations of יְהֹוָה
[i.e.Iehouah,1530 A.D. and Iehovah,1611 A.D. and Jehovah,1671 A.D.]
found in early English Christian Bibles,
are all based on one misconception:
The Jewish point of view of this issue appears to be that יְהֹוָה was not given by inspiration of God. and that יְהֹוָה most definitely does not represent the correct Hebrew spelling of the name of the God of Israel!
It seems to me that יְהֹוָה most defintely does need to be discussed in the Introduction of this Artcle, as well as in the Body of the Article.
The entire controversy about "Jehovah" is based on what appears to be a false belief by early Christian translators that יְהֹוָה "was given by inspiration of God".
Seeker02421 ( talk)
OK - the somewhat silly Afd expired, and Jheald greatly improved the intro. Good. I removed the POV tag: if I understand correctly it was added by Carlaude who gave as main motivation that the interpretation of the vocalization (namely as Adonai, rather than as vowels belonging to YHWH) was insufficiently discussed. Today there is some clear discussion of this. 213.84.53.62 ( talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence
Jehovah is an English reading of יְהֹוָה, the most frequent form of the Tetragrammaton יהוה, the name of God in the Hebrew Bible, in the text with vowel points handed down by the Masoretes.
is unreadable. Try to remember that there will be people reading this article who do not know Hebrew, much less what a vowel point is. It would be nice if such readers could have at the first a sentence that is understandable, rather than an exercise in postmodernist incomprehensibility. (For the postmodernist generator see [10]) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Below are two lead sentences
that might be a starting point for a new Introduction:
Jehovah is an English translation of the Tetragrammaton (i.e. the Hebrew name of the God of Israel), which is found at Exodus 6:3 in a 1671 edition of the King James Bible [see image to the right].
Although Jehovah is a direct phonetic transliteration of a specific vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, that occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, the English name Jehovah is arguably believed to be a mispronunciation of the name of the God of Israel.
According to a long Jewish Tradition, add new text etc., etc.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm,
Since there are 3 different English translations of the specific vocalization of the tetragrammaton that is found 6518 times in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text of 1525 A.D. I will start again, and try to explain,in the lead sentences, the other two English translations that were written in 1530 A.D. and 1611 A.D., long before "Jehovah" was written for the first time in about 1671 A.D. :
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jehovah is an English translation of the Tetragrammaton (i.e. the Hebrew name of the God of Israel), which is found at Exodus 6:3 in a 1671 A.D. edition of the King James Bible [see image to the right].
Although Jehovah is a direct phonetic transliteration of a specific vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, that occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, the English name Jehovah is arguably believed to be a mispronunciation of the name of the God of Israel. The same is true for the earlier English translations "Iehouah" and "Iehovah"
By long tradition, in modern Jewish culture the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced. Instead when the reverent Jewish reader observes the above mentioned vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, he or she substitutes the Hebrew word Adonai.
It is generally agreed therefore, in line with Jewish teaching, that "Jehovah" is a translation of "hybrid" Hebrew spelling of the name of the God of Israel. The "hybrid" spelling of the name of the God of Israel was created when the Masoretes added the vowel pointing of Adonai to the consonants of YHWH.
Early English translators, unacquainted with Jewish tradition, read this "Hybrid" word as they would any other Hebrew word, and transliterated it (in very few places, namely those where the Name itself was referred to) into the English language of that day. [e.g. Iehouah in 1530 A.D.; Iehovah in 1611 A.D.; Jehovah in 1671 A.D.] Seeker02421 ( talk) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
__________ Hi Jheald,
The edit below was written before you edited your previous edit.
Certainly any Wikipedia editor has a right to edit or revert previous edits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah
Malcolm has complained about the previous unreadability of this article. Malcolm specifically complains about the use of Hebrew font in the previous Introductions. Malcolm notes that the average reader, who has no knowledge of Hebrew, would be unlikely to understand this article as previously written with Hebrew Font.
In my opinion, due to previous complaints I have heard about this article, not only should an attempt be made to eliminate all Hebrew Font from the Introduction, but section #1 and section #2 should both be moved to the end of the article, where readers with knowledge of Hebrew would still have easy access to them, but the average reader would not be confused by the Hebrew Font used.
The Jewish Encylopedia clearly explains the Jewish viewpoint on יְהֹוָה but the average Wikipedia reader does not understand what the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia are writing.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 12:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Jheald,
You previously wrote:
Jheald,
I strongly disagree with you.
In my opinion, explaining the source of Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah explains more clearly what the so called controversy about the name Jehovah is all about.
The Jewish issue is in effect that the Masoretes not only did not provide early Christian translators with a Hebrew Text that preserved God's Name accurately, but that the Masoretes deliberately printed the Tetragrammaton with the improper vowel points.
When the reader realizes that Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah are all considered mispronunciations of the name of the God of Israel according to Jewish tradition, the reader is more likely [in my opinion] to truely understand what the Jehovah controversy is all about.
I believe that the Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah information definitely should be explained in the introduction, and that the image of the 1761 edition of the King James Bible helps to more clearly explain the Jehovah controversy.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm
You quoted the present Wikipedia Article:Jehovah as saying.
StAnselm.
The present Wikipedia Article:Iehovah is incorrect in section #3
"Iehouah" is found in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (Exodus 6.3)
In the 7th paragraph of "Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible", Sir Godfry Driver wrote,
Seeker02421 ( talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm,
The Bible Compared : Exodus. is a 2nd source that verifies that Tyndale wrote "Iehouah" at Exodus 6:3
The Bible Compared : Exodus. is also a source that verifies that "Iehovah" not "Jehovah" is found at Exodus 6:3 in the KJV of 1611.
Seeker02421 ( talk) 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If editors wish to make a clear statement in the lead sentence/paragraph that indicates that the form 'Jehovah' is a mispronunciation of a Hebrew word, then to be consistent, similar etymological qualifying comments should be added the lead sentences/paragraphs referring to other Hebrew names such as Jacob, Jesus, Jerusalem, Jeremiah, etc etc which appear in Wiki! It is interesting to note that, to date, not one of those articles says that the English name of the article is actually a mispronunciation of the Hebrew name! How many dictionaries and Encyclopedias in articles about 'Jesus' start by explicitely declaring that the name is actually a mispronunciation of a Jewish word! We all know that the Hebrew and the English alphabets are different from each other, and that there is no direct equivalence between some of the letters. And that every English version (customarily written with a J) of any Hebrew name is 'incorrect' in that it is not the Hebrew pronunciation! If we were Jewish and editing the Hebrew version of Wiki, we might well object to using the English versions of Hebrew names in a Hebrew Wiki. But as this edition of Wikipedia is the English language version, could it be that we simply state the English word 'Jehovah', give its meaning and uses, and show the etymology, as we do with all other words. Any arguments about its 'correct' pronunciation surely (perhaps?) belong to Hebrew linguists discussing/explaining/arguing the matter with/to a Jewish readership! -- Lepton6 ( talk) 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you enlightening me about the purpose of of article entitled 'Jehovah'. In my ignorance I thought it was about Jehovah! If the article is solely about the etymology and pronunciation of this English word, and the hatnote indicates that this would be so, then perhaps the article should be re-named.
In the article there are many references to the extensive usage of the word 'Jehovah'. However, if the article is only concerned with etymology and pronunciation, then such references would appear to be largely irrelevant here, and should more appropriately be moved elsewhere, perhaps to a Wiki article entitled 'Jehovah'!-- Lepton6 ( talk) 12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lepton6,
The following text is from the introduction of the Article "JEHOVAH (Yahweh) found in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
Lepton6,
A major controversy surrounds the name "Jehovah". As noted above the editors of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica immediately deal with this controversy in the introduction of their article:JEHOVAH (Yahweh).
The editors of the Jewish encyclopedia of 1901-1906 likewise write about the controversy concerning the name "Jehovah".
Seeker02421 ( talk) 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says, under 'Modern Usage of the rendering Jehovah':- "Similarly well-established English substitutions for Hebrew personal names include Joshua, Isaiah, Jesus, and others, the precise pronunciations for many of which have also been lost."
Comments:
(i) What relevance is the name Isaiah in this list?
(ii) Every Hebrew proper name that includes the English letter 'J' is 'wrong' if it is considered incorrect to use anything other than the 'original' (Hebrew) spelling and language. The sentence implies that the precise pronunciation of words such as Jesus has been lost. Surely we know how to pronounce Jesus in English! (Other languages vary). Perhaps the paragraph should make reference to the fact that the English J is not the exact equivalent of any Hebrew letter. Furthermore, it is not the 'precise pronunciation' which has been lost, but rather, taking 'Jehovah' as an example, it is the 'original pronunciation' that has been lost!
I think re-edit would improve this part of the article. Any suggestions?--
Lepton6 (
talk)
08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article should maybe try to explain the identification of Jehovah with the Trinity in 99 % of Christian churches (ie Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, etc). This would simply show what the majority and orthodox belief is. In fact, Jehovah is usually identified with Elohim, and the Elohim are usually understood to imply the Trinity. 69.157.229.14 ( talk) 08:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"{{Identification with Trinity}}
Trinitarian Christians, who are often called Orthodox Christians, usually invoke the
Nicean creed and the
Chalcedonian creed .
citation needed"
- Removed this drivel as it has nothing to do with the article and the writer is clueless to the topic.
205.200.19.57 (
talk)
21:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)