Talk:Jehovah/Archive 2

The vocalization "Yahweh" is wildly improbable
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)
 * So bold and brave a comment begs to be addressed: A for Adonai and E for Elohim, not so "wild" if you, think, about it. Especially since Jews had the nerve to skip the name and effectively read aloud "Lord, LORD." GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 205, could you please provide a source? ... said: Rursus ( m b o r k² ) 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Unknown Importance." - Excuse me?!
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)

Translation of biblical Hebrew proper names into English:
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:-
 * If the first Hebrew letter of the name is the yud/yod/yohdh, then it seems that that letter is often translated as a 'J', followed by a vowel. This is true of such names as in Japheth, Jacob, Jerusalem, Joshua, etc. The are over 170 Hebrew bible names which are translated this way. Writing those names with an initial J is current English usage, in the Bible, literature, the media and in Encyclopedias. It is pronounced the same way as the J in the English word 'jam', i.e. pronounced like the soft 'g' in Germany/gerund/etc.
 * In some Hebrew names, such as Ishbosheth (as it is written at 2 Samuel 2:12 in English), the initial Hebrew letter in the Hebrew word is actually an aleph, followed by a yud/yod/yohdh, but traditionally this name has been written as Ishbosheth.
 * The English spelling 'Ezekiel' is another way that a Hebrew name beginning with a yud/yod/yohdh has traditionally been translated into English. This time the yud/yod/yohdh is rendered as an 'eh'.
 * However, when the yud/yod/yohdh is in final positions or before consonants it is traditionally translated into an 'i', (See Hebrew Alphabet) e.g. Hophni, Gerizim, Goliath, Isaac, Isaiah, Issacher, Ishmael, Israel etc . There are about 50 Hebrew Bible names with this construction that are translated into English this way.
 * Additionally, the contruction to which Clinkophonist particulary refers, when the yud/jod/johdh appears in the middle or at or near the end of the word, we commonly see it translated as having a 'y' sound, such as Hallelujah (as written in Hebrew text at Psalm 104:35 and in 23 other places in the Hebrew scriptures), which is often pronounced as 'a-lay-lew-yah. The last syllable of Isaiah ('I-zay-yuh') would be another good example.
 * Interestingly the biblically abbreviated name 'Jah' (e.g. in Psalm 68:4 (KJV) and 25 other places in the Hebrew scriptures) also starts with a yud/yod/yohdh. In this case it is followed by the Hebrew letter 'heh'. The name Jah is well known in the English speaking world.

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)

Allah, what?!
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)
 * Is it so surprising that a reader looking at this article may wish to look up Allah or God subsequently. These are related topics and I have put them back in the very inoccuous position "see also". What possible harm can there be in that? Abtract (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the one who started with the deleting. "Iah disambiguous" has nothing to do with this article, and you deleted the prefex search on "Jeho," "iah," and "ijah" which are all Theophoric names. Those have more relevance than Allah in this case. It says right at the top of the article "This article is about reading of the name of God... .in Hebrew scripture" and what does the Arabic word for God have to do with that?? - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Can we get consensus on the "See Also" to avert vandalism?

 * Jehovah's Witnesses
 * Theophoric name: eg.
 * Jehoshaphat
 * Jehonadab


 * | Search: Jeho*
 * | Search: *iah
 * Jah
 * Yahweh
 * Names of God in Judaism
 * Names of God
 * Yahweh
 * God
 * God in Judaism
 * Gott
 * Allah

The diff is here 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)


 * I'm responding to the RfC on this,
 * I'd suggest keeping the list at the long length but doing it in alphabetical order. Any other order will result in a thirty years war you don't want.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 23:49, 10 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)


 * Seems to me that we can sort alphabetically, or by relevance. Sorting alphabetically has the advantage that it avoids excessive squabbling and scales well, should the list grow. Sorting by relevance may be of some benefit, but if no consensus can be formed then an alphabetical sort may offer more closure. – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of information!
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)

NWT 'Divine Name' quote
''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)

'''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, there is no size limit. Hope that helps, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No that doesn't quite cover it completely, are you saying this action above is vandalism?? GabrielVelasquez (talk)
 * Sorry? What above removal are you referring to, if I may ask? Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Hi there! Chances are, most "large quote" pastings are copyright infringements and should not be added to wikipedia. However, there is no policy on the usage of the blockqutoe template. Take a look at Spotting possible copyright violations. The information may need to be rephrased, but addition of information is never considered unconstructive and, thus, not Vandalism. Best regards! -- omtay 38  02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Using a blockquote to quote an entire appendix, entered as an entire subsection of an article on Wikipedia is almost certainly still a copyright violation. Unless there is no other way to convey the same message, there is no valid reason for using the entire passage. The information should be summarised, and simply provide a reference to the source material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Inherent Conflict: What about splitting this article into two?
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 neutrality of this article is disputed
The following statement can be found on the first page of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah:
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed.
 * Please see the discussion on the talk page.(April 2008)
 * Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated the other day with the POV tag. This page states many unimporant facts and omits important facts. For example here StAnselm (talk) who made a number of POV undos of my referenced material in the lead claims refers "Jehovah."


 * Those vowels are for the vocalisation "Adonai" (Lord) for the that Jews substitute for saying the Tetragrammaton aloud. It is was only this misunderstanding that lead people to use them with the Tetragrammaton to read it as Jehovah.


 * I do not have time to overhaul this whole article but this basic information seems to be missing from it.--Carlaude (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I need some help here. I can't revert Carlaude's edit under WP:3RR. does indeed tranliterate - it is the Tetragrammaton plus the vowels e-o-a, which yields "Jehovah". Even the addition of those vowel points is misguided, the transliteration is not. Finally, in any case this is not what the cited reference is talking about, so I was correct to revert Carlaude's edit. Thus, it was unfair for him to claim that this was a WP:POV edit. StAnselm (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See also our discussions: User_talk:Carlaude and  User_talk:StAnselm. "...those vowels are for the vocalisation "Adonai" (Lord) for the that Jews substitute for saying the Tetragrammaton aloud. It is was only this misunderstanding that lead people to use them with the Tetragrammaton to read it as Jehovah." See also --Carlaude (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I indicated on Carlaude's talk page that this article refers to, which is the Tetragrammaton with a particular vocalisation, in this case, one that gives "Jehovah". I also asked him he would transliterate if he thought "Jehovah" was a misguided transliteration. StAnselm (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Qere and ketiv. The vocalisation belongs to a different set of consonants, not the consonants of the Tetragrammaton.  Reading the Tetragrammaton with this vocalisation is a mistake.  The vocalisation is there as an indication that the word "Adonai" is what should be spoken.  Jheald (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right - but the point here is whether we can say the transliteration is misguided. That is, do you mean that it's a mistake to use as the Divine Name, OR do you mean that it's a mistake to say that the origin of the name "Jehovah" is through an attempt to pronounce ? I labelled the adjective "misguided" as dubious, not because Jehovah is a valid pronunciation of the Divine Name, but because as a transliteration, it merely indicates how  winds up being pronounced, if you don't know the secret about these vowel signs. StAnselm (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should use Wikipedia terminology to discuss this issue.


 * It was definitely the "point of view" of the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 that it was a "blunder" by early Christian Scholars to pronounce  as Jehovah (a.k.a Iehouah a.k.a. Iehovah-KJV]


 * The editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 wrote:
 * 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.


 * I wonder if the moderators of Wikipedia might believe that the 1911 Encyclopedia Article:Jehovah, shown above, might need to be written over in a more NPOV manner.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 11:47, 16 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)


 * It would be more accurate to say this article is written from one particular (non-Jewish/ Christian) point of view. While the errors were made and carried on by Christians, many Christians are already are fully aware for the errors in this article. There is nothing particularly Christian about its view. --Carlaude (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite correct. See eg, the ten commandments in the Hebrew Bible, here. Copies of the scriptures not for ritual use, eg the early handwritten Masoretic codexes, or printed copies of the Hebrew Bible; or printed prayer books, all include vowel points with the Tetragrammaton.   A torah scroll will not include vowel marks with YHVH, but only it does not include any vowel points at all. Jheald (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Jewish sources never include the vowel marks for YHVH. (There are many sites on the web that claim to be Jewish that are not -- frequently the efforts of missionaries trying to convert Jews). Even if there were Jews who wanted to include the vowel marks, since no one knows the pronunciation no one knows what the vowel marks would be either. Even writing the word without the vowel marks on paper is rather restricted, and usually would be written with dashes separating the letters (י-ה-ו-ה). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you call the Aleppo Codex not a Jewish source? Nor the BL codex  ?  (Ten commandments again, note eg line 2 of the central column) Nor the JPS?  Nor the Singer Siddur?  Please...


 * The relevant point is that the vocalisation which is written with the Tetragrammaton is not intended as the vocalisation for the Tetragrammaton. Rather, as Carlaude has indicated, it is used to indicate the word which should be spoken instead of the name of God.


 * What I said is correct according current usage that is taught by the rabbis . It is not my personal POV, nor have I made it up. If you read a little about the subject from reliable Jewish sources you will see. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything on the page you've linked about never including the vowel marks for the Tetragrammaton. Rather, it says that you don't try to pronounce the Tetragrammaton as written -- just as Carlaude and I said above.  Indeed, that very site is the one hosting the electronic version of the JPS bible I linked above -- with vowel points.   Jheald (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It says a little more than that. I have no wish to get involved in editing this article, but just responded to a question....which I have done to the best of my ability. I have noticed that this article is a part of JWProject, and I assume that it presents that Christian teaching. Whatever the case, the source should be made clear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "presents that Christian teaching". The article needs to be neutral of course - it should say why JWs use "Jehovah", and the reasons for and against that. StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My own concern is that if this article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses that the introduction should be written to make that clear. An article should be balanced, but not to the extent that it sounds like politically correct nonsense (for instance, like this ); and the Jehovah's Witnesses should be allowed to say what they have to say on the subject of Jehovah without -- for instance -- every agnostic, and atheist objection given complete exposition, or all the objections of Neopagans may have to monotheism, because those views can be fully discussed in their own articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The early edits of this Wikipedia Article:Jehovah tried to deal with the early transliterations of the Hebrew spelling 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)


 * Yes, Wikipedia articles seem to undergo a process of continual change. I think that an explanation of the the article's Christian orientation in the introduction would help in avoiding misunderstanding or accusations of misrepresentation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles shouldn't have "orientations". All articles should aim to be NPOV.  There is no place for POV forks on Wikipedia.


 * This isn't a "Christian" article or a "JW" article (though as their tags indicate, those projects may have a strong interest in this article). Rather, this is a Wikipedia article.  Jheald (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again-- many "Southern Baptists in the USA" are already are fully aware for the errors in this article. There is nothing particularly Southern Baptist about its view and the Southern Baptist Convention has no position on this. I certainly hope you don't think that the Southern Baptist Convention is even mostly KJVO. KJVO baptists would be find the SBC a bit liberal. You must be thinking of fundamentalist baptist or Independent Baptist.  --Carlaude (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: KJVO = King-James-Only Movement. 75.0.9.209 (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles always have an orientation or focus. If you think this particular does not, you are deluding yourself. Or, for example, the article on Exodus, which focuses on the biblical story, without any even mentioning the lack of archaeological support for the story of Exodus. That information is in another article: The Bible Unearthed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The editors of "Wikipedia:Describing Points of View" write:


 * Hard facts are really rare.
 * What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs).
 * Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs.
 * An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy.

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:
 * "Does the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah fairly describes all the major points of view

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

theName is not pronounced

 * I have copied this from talk:WikiProject Judaism for discussion here.

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)


 * See eg, (second instance),  (second instance),  for examples where the Tetragrammaton is written with a vocalisation indicating that Elohim (rather than Adonai) should be read.
 * In each case, this avoids reading "Adonai Adonai" ("Lord Lord"). Jheald (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, looking in my Stone Edition Chumash, I see that Bereishit (genesis) 15.2 haShem has vowel marks. But I also see that the following use of haShem does not. The article gives the incorrect impression that Y-H-V-H always has vowel marks, when in fact it is extremely rare.


 * In fact, at the top of the article's introduction, there is this statement:


 * "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"


 * The subject is "Hebrew scripture", but discussed in a way that is (according to my understanding) unacceptable to Jews.


 * I am going to copy this to the article's talk page so that it can be discussed there also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * I think most (but not all) of the article could or should be deleted, but if anyone is able rewrite it better please go ahead. --Carlaude (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly would have no problem with Jewish editors adding their POV on this issue, from a Wikipedia "Neutral Point Of View. Why doesn't some Jewish editor add a new secction to the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah. That seems to be the way that different POV's are usually added to a Wikipedia Article, in a neutral point of view" manner.


 * I certainly don't think that this Article should be deleted, because of how it is presently written. There seem to be other options to deal with this issue, before the deletion option is considered.


 * I will try to determine who the Wikipedia Moderator was, who was very much involved with this article, about 12 months ago.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See Content forking. This article seems to be a content fork from the Yahweh article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article received Wikipedia's "seal of approval" about 12 months ago, when Wikipedia Articles: "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" and "Tetragrammaton" were all analyzed and changes were made while one or more Wikipedia Moderators looked on!


 * Content forking issues were dealt with about 12 months ago!


 * The Wikipedia Article:Yahweh was approved at the same time!


 * However it is obvious that, in April, 2008, this Article is presently being being disputed on more than one issue!


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Stay calm. Nothing is about to go off the edge of the cliff. Disputes over article content are rather common, and usually the problems are resolved....as long as everyone is acting in good faith, which I am sure is so here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yahweh
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)


 * You're missing what went on about a year ago. The Wikipedia Article Tetragrammaton and possibly a Yahweh Article that included Jehovah information existed at that time.


 * Try looking in the history of the "Jehovah" article and the "Yahweh" article.


 * I believe that an attempt was made to eliminate the possibility of there being a Jehovah Article at that time, but the final decision was to eliminate the "Tetragrammaton" Article, and to create a separate "Jehovah" Article, and a separate "Yahweh" article.


 * Anthony Appleyard wrote a new "Yahweh" Article plus a new "Jehovah" article, under the watchful eyes of one or more Wikipedia moderators.


 * You might try posting a comment to:


 * Maybe it is time for Wikipedia Moderators to re-examine this situation!!!!!!


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep on mentioning these Wikipedia Moderators! Who are these mysterious people? It's just us, my friend. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is obvious that, by "moderators", he means "administrators". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 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.


 * User:Anthony Appleyard redirected Tetragrammaton here because he has merged all of the content in Tetragrammaton here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having Tetragrammaton redirect to Yahweh.
 * User:Anthony Appleyard redirected Tetragrammaton here because he has merged all of the content in Tetragrammaton here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having Tetragrammaton redirect to Yahweh.


 * It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)


 * I think a more neutral stance would be to have Jehovah and Yahweh merged into Tetragrammaton. Among other issues, if there is no Tetragrammaton article, how do we link to Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton?


 * I don't object to there being separate articles on Jehovah and Yahweh but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the Tetragrammaton, I think we should keep the Tetragrammaton article even if it doesn't discuss Jehovah or Yahweh in much detail.


 * --Richard 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course ultimately the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton ended up being deleted.

Seeker02421 (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I still do not understand what intent differentiates this article from the Yahweh article. To me it appears that they are discussing the same thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I put a request for editorial assistance on this question here. 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. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fleetflame's redirect has gone in effect [at least partially].


 * What are your present plans?


 * Are you now going to delete the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah and start anew by editing the present Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, which appears to have the same issues that you did not approve of in this Article?


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The redirect can be reverted if you feel it is unjustified. But, to paraphrase the first question from the Passover seder, in what way does this article differ from the Yahweh article? So far I have not gotten an answer to that question, and the main differences I see is that it is not written as well, and is less neutral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:03, 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.


 * I assume you are aware that this article has been nominated for deletion,

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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Malcomb,


 * You asked:




 * in what way does this article differ from the Yahweh article?
 * So far I have not gotten an answer to that question,
 * and the main differences.




 * Malcomb


 * Jehovah is a Biblical Hebrew name (i.e. ),
 * that occurs 6518 times
 * in the underlying Hebrew
 * of the Old Testament of the King James Bible


 * Yahweh (i.e. יַהְוֶה),
 * is a "Hebrew punctuation" proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius
 * in about 1815 A.D.


 * יַהְוֶה occurs ZERO times
 * in any Hebrew texts, but many scholarly sources,
 * possibly even the Jewish Encyclopedia,
 * believe it is likely to represent the actual pronunciation of God's Name.


 * These two Articles are lightening rods for controversy
 * when treated individually
 * These two Articles are lightening rods for controversy
 * when attempts are made to merge them into one article.


 * In the case of Jehovah, editors are trying to make the case that:
 * God's name is actually (i.e. Jehovah),
 * while probably every Hebrew scholar in the world is telling them
 * that:
 * (i.e. Jehovah), is a Hybrid name that means nothing.


 * In the case of "Yahweh", editors are trying to make the case
 * that God's name is actually Yahweh (i.e. יַהְוֶה),
 * even though יַהְוֶה is found in no extant Hebrew text on :the planet earth.


 * To add to the problem it appears at least possible
 * that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes
 * [e.g. "Yehonathan"]
 * may not be able to be derived from "Yahweh",
 * while they can be derived from "Yehovah"


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone Know if this is the 2nd nomination?
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)

Introduction
There is currently an editorial dispute concerning the neutrality of the introduction to the article. One version is:

Jehovah is an English transliteration of, the Tetragrammaton YHWH with the vowel pointing of the word "Adonai". According to long-standing Jewish tradition, YHWH is not pronounced.

The other proposed version is:

Jehovah is a Christian transliteration into English of, 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)


 * Great. Now the article doesn't have an introduction. Let's resolve this soon. It's a transliteration, for goodness' sake. There's nothing Christian about it. The name is used by both Christians and non-Christians. And saying "most sacred" is hardly POV. I really don't know what you're going on about. I really want to work on this article, but I'm waiting for the issues be be resolved, because I don't want all my edits reverted. StAnselm (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is Christian. This article gives Christian views that are contrary to established Jewish theology. The Christians have a right to interpret Jewish religious texts as thay wish, but it needs to be clear that this entire article is Christian theology about Jewish religious texts, and that the Jews and Christians are not necessarily in agreement on the subject of this article. I have no interest in involving myself in the rest of the article, which gives the views of Christian theologians. I think one sentence that makes clear that this article is about what Christians think, and that these views do not necessarily reflect Jewish views, is minimally necessary for fairness, and for neutrality. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No way! Large chunks of the Jewish Encyclopedia have been added. It can give Christian views, but the article needs to be neutral. There is no place on Wikipedia for either "Jewish" articles or "Christian" articles. We certainly should be clear that Jews reject both the possibility and the desirability of pronouncing the Divine Name. We need to be clear as to why the pronuncation "Jehovah" as been rejected on linguistic grounds. We need to describe how the name "Jehovah" has been used by Christians. But all these things must be presented from a neutral point of view. StAnselm (talk) 00:40, 19 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)


 * The article is not about an aspect of Christian theology. It is about a liguistic (mis)understanding by some Christians and non-Christians. It has no theological basis and is never covered, for example, in a (Christian) theology textbooks, nor covered in theology courses. It would cease to be any issue if-- for example-- all English speakers began using other langages, langages without a word with like Jehovah.


 * I am not sure what you even mean by "[In] established Jewish theology... Y-H-V-H is not pronounced." since it seems dubious no matter how I try to understand it. Current Jewish ethics is that it is not pronounced, but it was pronounced (sometimes) when the temple was standing. If you mean that it cannot be pronounced-- that is a belief-- but does not seem to be a theological belief unless you believe God was involed in the pronounation being lost. Even in this case it cannot be said to be "established Jewish" belief since the Jewish Encyclopedia states the pronounation was never lost.--Carlaude (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * _____________________________________________________________
 * Just Some Thoughts


 * http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=J&artid=206
 * The above URL takes you to the Article Jehovah
 * found in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906.


 * Concerning the name Jehovah,
 * The first sentence of the Article provides a definition of "Jehovah"
 * that possibly could be used in the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah


 * A mispronunciation
 * (introduced by Christian theologians,
 * but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews)
 * of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God
 * (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash").
 * (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash").

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)


 * What I am trying to make clear is that religious Jews do not engage in speculation over how Y-H-V-H is pronounced. It was Christians, not Jews, that used the name "Jehovah", and other variations. I think a statement to that effect belongs in the introduction, and do not understand the resistance to putting such a statement there. What is the problem? If, for some reason, my wording of this is offensive to other editors, then feel free to suggest an alternative. But please remember, "Jehovah" -- the name of this article -- is not Jewish; but, rather, is a Christian name for God. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Malcolm's points seem reasonable to me - the separate existence of this article is surely only justifiable if it is indeed the/a Christian view or history of of an originally Jewish topic, where the other article represents the Jewish tradition/topic. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm.

You made the following edit to the introduction.


 * Revision as of 23:37, 18 April 2008 (edit) (undo)Malcolm Schosha (Talk | contribs) (changed intro to more balanced and neutral version)Newer edit →


 * Jehovah is a Christian transliteration into English of ,
 * which is the most sacred Hebrew language name for God.
 * According to long-standing Jewish tradition,
 * YHWH (יהוה) is not pronounced.
 * YHWH (יהוה) is not pronounced.

I can only assume that you did not mean to imply that:
 * , is the most sacred Hebrew language name for God.

Yet that is how I read your Introduction.

Did you mean to write that:
 * the "unvocalized" Tetragrammaton (i.e. )
 * is the most sacred Hebrew language name for God.

The Wikipedia Article:Jehovah is an article about , which is a specific vocalized rendering of the unvocalized Tetragrammaton (i.e. ).

Do you equate and  ) or do you see them as distinct?

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. I am just trying to get the introduction to the article into acceptable shape. I just did some re-writing on the part of the introduction still in the article, to make it point easier to understand. If that change is okay with other editors, I have no objection to returning StAnselm's preferred version of the first two sentences, and I will also remove the tagg I added to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 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)


 * Well, I thought we agreed that it wasn't OK before. The article has had problems for quite a while. Hey - we need these citations! Please don't remove the tags willy-nilly. Of course, Qere and Ketiv is completely unreferenced as well. For example, who are the "many scholars"? StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please undo what you did. The intro of this article has never been in so bad a shape before. What should the intro say? Jehova is the name some (many) people use as the name of their god. That is the importance of this name today. Next after that is the question about the origin of this name. Well, it was an English reading of the vocalized tetragrammaton by people unacquainted with Jewish tradition. Your complaint that "Jewish tradition is discussed exclusively from a Christian POV" is entirely misguided. This is not about יהוה or Yahweh, but about Jehovah, a name Jews would never use, and also unusual among Christians in many countries, but traditional in English.213.84.53.62 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are unhappy with the edit, improve it. But don't blame this mess on me. This was, and remains, one of the most poorly written articles I have seen. It comes close to being unintelligible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do want to add that your making this article even more POV than it was when I started editing is a serious mistake. Please think for a while before you do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I appear to have made the Introduction worse
After Malcolm added the tag that said:


 * The topic of dispute is that Jewish tradition
 * is discussed exclusively from a Christian POV.
 * is discussed exclusively from a Christian POV.

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:


 * According to many scholars, Jehovah is a pseudo-Hebrew form, which was mistakenly created by Medieval and/or Renaissance Christian scholars.
 * According to many scholars, Jehovah is a pseudo-Hebrew form, which was mistakenly created by Medieval and/or Renaissance Christian scholars.


 * The mistake resulted from a misunderstanding of how Hebrew was read according to traditional Jewish practice.


 * The error was caused by a misreading of the common Qere perpetuum of the partial vowel points which indicated that the name was to be pronounced "Adonai". written together with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton YHWH which indicate that written YHWH should be pronounced aloud as "Adonai", according to the usual Jewish practice at the time of the Masoretes).



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:


 * JEHOVAH is a mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash").
 * JEHOVAH is a mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash").

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)


 * Obviously in this situation, an intro from the Jewish Encyclopedia would be inappropriately POV. I'll have some time in a few days to do a complete rewrite, and we'll see how it stands up to criticism. I'm also gathering some scholarly citations. StAnselm (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made another attempt at writing a NPOV Introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As have I. Look, this is really tough. Please persevere at this, and we'll get there in the end. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again I have made an attempt at writing a NPOV Introduction. Hopefully Malcolm will offer some input on what he would like the Introduction to look like.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 12:25, 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)


 * I do not have more authority over this article than any Wikipedia editor. I put the tag on the article in the hope that pointing out a problem in strong terms would result in an effort to improve the article. There are two other tags that are not my doing. The tag for the AfD was put there by an administrator who is also a member of the Arbitration Committee, but any editor can initiate an AfD. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Malcolm


 * While you may not have any more authority over this article than any other Wikipedia editor, you probably have a greater understanding of what a Wikipedia Artcle;Jehovah looks like, that discusses Jehovah from a Christian point of view, rather than from a Jewish point of view.


 * In many cases the evidence against Jehovah found in the Jewish Encyclopedia, looks very much like the evidence against Jehovah found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.


 * However I am beginning to feel that the evidence found in the Jewish Encyclopedia probably makes a stronger case against the name "Jehovah" because it is the Masoretes who added the points to YHWH, and the Masoetes who were themselves Jews.


 * The Jewish people do seem to have more more authority in this issue, in that it is the Masoretes that pointed YHWH as they did


 * I would truely like you to correct some portions of this article,
 * where you would like to see something discussed from a Jewish
 * POV, that is presently being discussed from a Christian POV.


 * And then, if after you make the correction, you could come back to this TALK section, and explain just what you had done, that had made this into a better article, or possibly into a more neutral article, from your point of view.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 18:10, 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)
 * Yes, for that reason, I got rid of from the introductory sentence. Seeker, I really think you added things back to the introduction that belong in the main body of the article. Like the reference to the Jewish and Catholic encyclopedias. Introductions need to be short and to the point.
 * And yes, anyone can remove tags. People have been constantly removing the ones I've placed there. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * StAnselm


 * You wrote:
 * The name "Jehovah" is honored as the actual name of God by Jehovah's Witnesses.
 * The name "Jehovah" is honored as the actual name of God by Jehovah's Witnesses.


 * I don't believe that is a true statement.
 * I don't have the link, but I believe that the Watchtower Society
 * acknowledges "up front" that "Jehovah" has the vowel points of Adonay.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Going around in circles
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)


 * StAnslm


 * Below is the Introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah,
 * as it looked early this morning, before I made any edits.


 * Except for the Fact tag that Malcolm added,
 * this introduction had been previously approved by you.


 * However Malcolm did not think that this Introduction was acceptable, at least not to him,
 * He wrote:
 * used by exactly who?
 * if it is not in current usage,
 * this information may not belong in the intro.


 * No, Seeker - is was certainly not "approved" by me - what gave you that idea? StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence that Malcolm added a request for citation tag to
 * was definitely a sentence that I had written:
 * Jehovah [a.k.a. Iehouah and "Iehovah" ] is an English name for God which was first used after the Protestant Reformation
 * Seeker02421 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [The above edit was not signed till after it was posted]


 * I think that the issue of there being three different English transliterations of ,
 * [e.g. transliterations which were written in three different time periods],
 * needs to be addressed somwhere in this Article,
 * but not necessarily in the Introduction.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah [a.k.a. Iehouah and "Iehovah" ] is an English name for God which was first used after the Protestant Reformation.

Jehovah is an attempt to pronounce, a vocalized Hebrew form of the Tetragrammaton. was formed when the Masoretes added the vowel pointing of Adonai to the consonants of YHWH, thus creating a "hybrid form". The name Jehovah was seriously critiqued by John Drusius in 1604 A.D. and has since been regarded by both Jews and Christians as a mispronunciation, Despite this, it has  found a place in Christian liturgy and theology. It is the regular English rendition of in the American Standard Version, and occurs four times in the King James Version. It is also used in Christian hymns such as "Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah".

The name "Jehovah" is used as the name of God by Jehovah's Witnesses.


 * I will take a look at Wikipedia Article:Lead Section


 * Seeker02421 (talk)

Starting again
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)


 * StAnselm,


 * Editing of this article is approved,
 * during the time that this article is being considered for deletion.


 * However the blanking of this article is not approved
 * during the time that this article is being considered for deletion.


 * See the text of the deletion tag below:


 * This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
 * Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
 * Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.


 * I hope to reply to you first post in the next few minutes.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 14:34, 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)

Explanation of the decision to not delete the Article:Jehovah
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)

Can the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Article:Jehovah help us?
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 (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)

Intro today
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)


 * Yes, to put it bluntly, Seeker changed it and introduced a number of errors. It was I who inserted the unadorned "God", though, and I take your point. I was trying to be as neutral as possible, and I still can't see a better option. "Biblical God," maybe. But I can see what will happen. People will see "name of the biblical God," and mis-read it as "biblical name for God" and argue that it's not really biblical, and the whole process will begin again. StAnselm (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have corrected my "1761 date" error in the present Introduction.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful work from User:Jheald. Four thoughts arising from it:
 * 1. I think we should summarise the JW quote (it can appear in full later in the article).
 * 2. It may still be inaccessible for someone who doesn't know any Hebrew.
 * 3. The last paragraph needs to referenced or cut, of course. But it's probably such a minority opinion that it doesn't deserve a place in the intro, and thus should appear later in the article.
 * 4. Looking ahead, I was thinking we could rewrite the rest of the article under four headings: i) Linguistics, ii) History, iii) Usage, iv) Criticism. StAnselm (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll keep on going:
 * 5. Of course, "generally agreed" needs to go per WP:AWW.
 * 6. The sentence "Early English translators, unacquainted with Jewish tradition, read this word as they would any other word..." needs a citation. The idea has appeared in the article before, but was never substantiated. StAnselm (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to the JW quote, I'd prefer to keep it as it is. I think it's nicely written, and gives a good nutshell sense of why many people (not just JWs) might be happy to use "Jehovah" in their worship, regardless of whatever might or might not have been an ancient Hebrew pronounciation.


 * I also think, stylistically, the change of voice and change of pace works quite well as a transition to ending the section.


 * With regard to the "minority opinion" coda, I think (per WP:NPOV) it is useful to have a mention of this in the lead if it's going to be examined further down in the article; and also it should take away any contentiousness from the rest of the lead. In terms of references, AFAICS it's merely summarising material considered in more detail further down the article.  But any additional direct reference(s) to RSs setting out this POV would of course be good.  Jheald (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this Article be accurate without using יְהֹוָה in the Introduction?
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:


 * Early English translators of the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text, mistakenly believed that יְהֹוָה was "a Hebrew name that was preserved in Hebrew Scriptures "that were given by inspiration of God."

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)


 * The following text is found
 * In the Wikipedia Article:Lead section:,


 * The first paragraph needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader.
 * It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered,
 * by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. For example:
 * snip/snip
 * The first paragraph should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence.
 * Readers knowing nothing at all about the article's subject
 * should immediately find the answer to
 * 'What is it?'
 * or
 * 'Who is he/she?'.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro today (2)
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)

lead sentence
The lead sentence

"Jehovah is an English reading of, the most frequent form of the Tetragrammaton, 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 ) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Maybe I cannot judge, since I read Hebrew. On the other hand, I am assuming that so do you.
 * If one doesn't know what is, this is explained immediately: the name of God in the Hebrew Bible.
 * If one doesn't know what is, this is explained immediately: a vocalized form of the previous.
 * If one needs further explanation, very extensive explanations are given farther down in the article.
 * But be this as it may, if you think you can say things more clearly, in a way that is both correct and easier to understand, please go ahead: anyone can edit Wikipedia. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Editing this article is something I am not inclined to try again....unless I return the tag that I took off a few days ago. If you think my observation about the lead sentence is wrong, as well it may be, I am sure you will ignore it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:45, 28 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)
 * Well, the reference to the picture is rather silly - "Jehovah" was used in English Bibles long before 1671. StAnselm (talk) 03:17, 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].


 * It should be noted that in the King James Bible of 1611 A.D. the English spelling "Iehovah" was used, and in William Tyndale's Pentateuch of 1530 A.D., the English spelling "Iehouah" was used. All three of these English translation were accurate in the first year they were written, as the English language was in a state of flux during the period 1530 A.D. through 1671 A.D. and even later.

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.
 * In places where Adonai already immediately follows or immediately precedes the Tetragrammaton Elohim is substituted. In this instance the Tetragrammaon is voacalized differently.

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)


 * Seeker, I've reverted your edit because IMO it made the page a lot *less* readable. Jheald (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In more detail: the lead is already long, and before adding anything else, IMO we should think really hard as to whether it is actually really useful in the lead, or whether it is detail that can be left to the main body of the article. Frankly the difference between Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah is detail -- just a matter of the typography being used.  IMO, it may have a place lower down the article, but in the lead it only serves to get in the way of the main story.


 * (2) "which is found at Exodus 6:3 in a 1671 A.D. edition of the King James Bible" This is completely gratuitous, unnecessary text given that the information can already be found in the image caption.


 * (3) The apparently randomly floating left margin. Not good.


 * (4) Removal of the Hebrew.  I think this is a big mistake.  Given that the article goes on to discuss in some detail the detailed consonants and vowel points, I think it's useful to show what they look like - useful even (maybe especially) to people who don't read Hebrew.  All the discussion about the "Tetragrammaton" is much clearer and more concrete if we show that it means four Hebrew letters, and what they look like.  Jheald (talk) 11:55, 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.


 * However this article has just been through a "Nomination for Deletetion" where it can be observed that some editors who added comments noted that "readability" was an issue, AT THAT TIME.

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 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)


 * I think Malcolm's complaint is more directed at the sentence structure of the first sentence, than its content. I don't think he's calling for the Hebrew to be removed, and I don't think anybody else is either.  And I repeat, that IMO removing the Hebrew letters makes the article harder to interpret, not easier.  Jheald (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jheald,


 * You wrote:


 * And I repeat, that IMO removing the Hebrew letters makes the article harder to interpret, not easier.


 * I FULLY AGREE, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT MALCOLM WILL ALLOW AN INTRODUCTION WITH HEBREW FONT IN IT TO STAND!!!!!


 * If Malcolm will agree to an Introduction with Hebrew font, I certainy will agree.


 * Malcolm previously wrote:
 * 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 ) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * However Malcolm also wrote:
 * If you think my observation about the lead sentence is wrong, as well it may be, I am sure you will ignore it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Jheald,

You previously wrote:


 * "Frankly the difference between Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah is detail -- just a matter of the typography being used. IMO, it may have a place lower down the article, but in the lead it only serves to get in the way of the main story."

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)
 * Actually, nowhere is this Iehovah/Iehouah referenced, so I think you're making all of it up. Indeed, the article contradicts itself on this point:
 * transcribed "Iehouah" (1530 A.D.), "Iehovah" (1611 A.D.), or "Jehovah" (1671 A.D.)
 * William Tyndale, in his 1530 translation of the first five books of the English Bible, at Exodus 6:3 renders the divine name as Iehovah.
 * StAnselm (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) The image is good. But it has a clear caption, which clearly says what it is, and so doesn't need repeating in the main text.


 * As for Iehovah, Iehouah and Jehovah, surely this is an unnecessary complication for the lead section. The important story for the the lead is the idea of making the transliteration "Jehovah" at all -- rather than using eg "Adonai" as found in the Vulgate, or "LORD" as found in other translations. "Iehovah" and "Iehouah" are just different typographical conventions of their time for writing the word "Jehovah".  That's the kind of unnecessary, complicating detail that can go much further down the article.


 * Anyhow, let's see what other editors think. Jheald (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi StAnselm

You quoted the present Wikipedia Article:Jehovah as saying.


 * William Tyndale, in his 1530 translation of the first five books of the English Bible, at Exodus 6:3 renders the divine name as Iehovah.

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,
 * "The Reformers preferred Jehovah, which first appeared as Iehouah in 1530 A.D., in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (Exodus 6.3), from which it passed into other Protestant Bibles."

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)


 * You'll also find Bibles of this period tend to write eg "Iesus" rather than "Jesus", or often "haue" rather than "have". It doesn't signify anything -- it's just their way of writing the same word.  Often the spelling may even vary in the course of a few lines; and may vary quite arbitrarily even at the same verse from one printing to the next.  They're just equivalent ways of writing "Jehovah" in the typography of the time.


 * There's enough of substance to discuss in the opening as it is. This spelling variation is a detail, aptly dealt with (as it is now) in a footnote, or later on.  But in the lead it would just be a distraction, as irrelevant as the difference between "haue" rather than "have".  Jheald (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is, unfortunately, a problem with reading "Iehouah" which results from the Helvetica type style used in Wikipedia articles. The problem is that with that particular configuration of following letters, the Helvetica capital "I" reads as a small "l" (that is, a small "l" as in "look"). I don't know of any way to solve the problem, but thought it might be worth pointing it out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence/paragrah (2)
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)


 * There's a qualitative difference between the two cases - I don't think your comparison bears water.
 * Sure, there's a difference between Jacob and Ya'akov - but both are direct systematic transliterations of the same consonants and vowels.
 * On the other hand, with Jehovah, the point is that the consonants are being taken from one Hebrew word, but the vowels are coming from a completely different word altogether. So Jehovah is *not* a systematic transliteration (not even modulo the swapping of Js and Ys) of anything close to how the Name might originally have been pronounced.
 * I trust you can see the difference. Jheald (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, perhaps a more fundamental point is that Jacob is an article about the biblical character. But this article is not about the nature and character of God.  As the hatnote explicitly disclaims, that is treated in other articles, elsewhere.  Rather, this article is specifically about Jehovah as a word.


 * You are welcome to propose the article for deletion if you don't think the subject is worthy of discussion; but somehow I don't think that would achieve consensus... -- Jheald (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehovah is considered to be a mispronunciation of God's name, because the Jewish people teach that the Hebrew Vowel points from which the letters "e" and "o" and "a" [in Jehovah] have been transliterated are not the actual vowel points of God's name.


 * Jewish teaching is that the Masoretes pointed "YHWH" with those particular vowel points mentioned in the previous sentence, only to indicate to the Jewish reader that he or she was to read "Adonai"


 * In spite of the concensus found in Jewish sources concerning the vowel points of there are Christians on the planet earth that believe that the vowels of Jehovah are correct.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 10:46, 17 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:


 * 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.


 * Snip/snip

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)


 * An image of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text can be found here:


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Jesus'
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?


 * Any anglicized Hebrew name would be relevant in this list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the "IAH" in Isaiah refers to -jah (see also -ijah), the short from of Jehovah (English translation) therefore, as 270 other name's meaning in the bible, it refers to Jehovah. 270+ names man, try looking at the specific articles. here is a bad example: Adonijah - "Jehovah is Lord" GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(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 word 'precise' should be replaced with the word 'original'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Trinity
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)

" Trinitarian Christians, who are often called Orthodox Christians'', usually invoke the Nicean creed and the Chalcedonian creed ." '' - 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)