Talk:Jehovah/Archive 3

The article's False reference to the name "Jehovah" in the Revised Standard Version in 1952
While I am in favor of the use of the name "Jehovah" I do not approve of deliberately making false statements to support the name Jehovah or any other view. I am therefore concerned by one of the comments in the article and I ask for proof to be provided for that comment, otherwise the comment needs to be removed.

The article says that the name "Jehovah" is used in the Revised Standard Version in 1952, however I believe that is a false statement unless one if referring to the Preface of that edition, in which case it is a misleading statement. That is because I have several printing editions of the Revised Standard Version bearing the copyright of 1952 (and printed before 1971), including one which specifically says it was printed in 1952, and no where in the scripture text (nor the translator's footnotes) of those Bibles have I found the name "Jehovah". Further the Prefaces of those Bibles are antagonistic towards the name "Jehovah" being in the Revised Standard Version Bible. The edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible (Old and New Testaments) which has the copyright of 1946 for the New Testament and the copyright of 1952 for the Old Testament and published by Thomas Nelson & Sons with the printing date of 1952 on the title page and which shows on the copyright page that the copyrights were still owned by the "Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America" says the following in its Preface in a paragraph (the first part of the paragraph and the last part of the paragraph) which begins on page vi and ends on page vii: "A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard Version used the term "Jehovah"; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. ... For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there are other gods from whom he had to be distinguished was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."

In this 1952 printing of the Revised Standard Version Bible, Exodus 3:15,16, 6:2,3, and even Psalms 83:18 say "The LORD" (or "the LORD") instead of "Jehovah". In Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4 it says "the LORD GOD". Even the three place names which included the name "Jehovah" in the KJV don't include "Jehovah" in the 1952 Revised Standard Version Bible. For example the Revised Standard Version Bible of 1952 says "The LORD will provide" at Genesis 22:14, at Exodus 17:15 it says "The LORD is my banner", and at Judges 6:24 it says "The LORD is peace". 67.150.2.242 (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit
I have removed a substantial amount of duplication, as well as text that is not in an appropriate form for an encyclopedia. I have not verified sources, nor do I necessary endorse various positions stated in the article. However, please do not recreate lengthy sections that duplicate information already in the article. The article still needs a bit of cleaning up, but it's a start.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

John Hinton, "Ph.D"
The contents of http://av1611.com cannot be accepted as a source because this is a self-published material. If this man, John Hinton, trully has a Ph.D. in Biblical/Religious Studies, if he has something really important to say, he should have written at least few articles in academic magazines. If you can find such articles, we can use them in the article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to want to deny any argument for the name of "Jehovah" as God's name. Who are you to claim whether or not someone's info has a valid point of scholarship or not? Why are not all sides of the issue allowed? One can only conclude your mission is to hide some sides of the issue, which is not the basis of dictionaries.Christopher1X (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My deletion has nothing to do with my personal views on the matter. On the contrary, there are specific rules for the sources in Wikipedia. Self-published material and personal web-sites are not accepted. The reason is simple and I mention it above.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Um...all scholar material are "self-published" by some form or another. No documentation could ever be allowed by that rule. The "William Robertson Smith, in his A Dictionary of the Bible (1863) summarizes the results of these discourses, and concludes that "whatever, therefore, be the true pronunciation of the word, there can be little doubt that it is not Jehovah".[51]" is self- published, as well as "(editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder")", as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica was "self-published by it's editors. Even Noah Webster's Dictionary was self published. Don't tell me your deletion had nothing to do with your views.Christopher1X (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This article on "Jehovah" seems to be controlled by those attacking the name of God as Jehovah
Why are those who keep changing the documented facts in this article, i.e. John Gill & John Hinton, changing the information to set bias against the name "Jehovah"? It can only be concluded that "they" are attacking the name of God, "Jehovah", which is not the basis of the article on "Jehovah" nor of ANY DICTIONARIES PURPOSE. Why is it that on an article about "Jehovah", only the scoffers and claims of the modern scholarship that attack the name of GOD as "Jehovah" are allowed? WHY ARE THE ARGUMENTS AND FACTS FOR GOD'S NAME, "JEHOVAH", NOT ALLOWED TO BE STATED WITHOUT BEING REWRITTEN BY THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT "JEHOVAH? What a sham this is. These people who are doing this want to hide the arguments and documented facts even though they never give resources. THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE FOR BIAS BUT OF FACTS. QUIT BIASING AND CONTROLLING THE FACTS AND LET THE INFORMATION STAND FOR THE READER TO RESEARCH! LET ALL SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT BE UNADULTERATED IN IT'S PRESENTATION!!! THIS VANDALISM NEEDS TO QUIT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1X (talk • contribs) 10:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, you need to go and review what constitutes vandalism, because even if bias has been introduced into the article, that doesn't necessarily indicate any vandalism. It is unclear what specifically in the article you are complaining about. There was previously much repetition in the article, and the redundancy has been removed, though the original points remain. Regarding Hinton, you will need to take that up with others, though it isn't quite clear how removing that particular paragraph correlates with your claims of bias or vandalism. If you have (correct and lucid) facts to include in the article, be bold.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that this article, similarly to the majority of the religious/biblical articles, is very poor. I believe that this happens due to the fact that people that would have much to offer with their scholarship are discouraged by the edit-warring with many fanatic amateurs who want to propagandize their religious views. Oh yes, I believe that for the moment, fanatics have the control in many religious articles.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro & Vassilis78, the information I posted on John Gill and John Hinton was the straightforward facts of their viewpoints and documentation. Why is it that on every bit of information posted that agrees to (John Gill) documentation that "Jehovah" is the name of God is "hounded" by comments saying "scholars believe this letter now to be a fake" without any evidence or documentation, or, "scholars now believe this to be wrong", or "Early English translators followed the practice (editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder")" or "We know now that this is not the case"? These statements are opinion/ belief based and should not be allowed to "color" EVERY documented point of every viewpoint. Or the removal of arguments of John Hinton Ph.D on the fact that Hebrew cannot be discerned clearly without the vowel points, which is an important factual argument? Why is it that a viewpoint cannot be unadulterated in it's presentation so that people can research the viewpoints of ALL SIDES and decide for themselves? Bias is inherent with many viewpoints. But vandalism of a viewpoint should not be allowed. You can state your viewpoint with your documented information in YOUR section and it should not be tampered with. Another viewpoint should also be allowed in another section THAT IS NOT COMPROMISED OR VANDALISED or TAMPERED WITH. This is only fair and just to the whole discussion. It seems now that you have hi-jacked and LOCKED DOWN the article and refuse to allow other viewpoints to be presented without compromise and vandalism. Explain why this is being done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1X (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the commentary on Gill's views, so you'll need to take up that with whoever changed it. However, if Gill's views are not supported in the mainstream, then Wikipedia should not give undue weight to a fringe theory per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro, the "mainstream" scholars can and have been wrong before on many issues. the issue still needs to be addressed as to why a viewpoint cannot be given without being vandalized by those with opposing viewpoints. it should also be addressed why those of one viewpoint can "control" and "lockdown" the article by "Semi-Protecting" it so that only their viewpoint is given in the article. all need to address this issue in fairness to all viewpoints. I WOULD LIKE ANSWERS FROM THOSE WHO HAVE "Semi-Protected" THIS ARTICLE on "Jehovah", for they are the one who are not being fair so that all sides of the issue can be given. Since they have "Semi-Protected" this article they are now the only ones who can "Edit", and are systematically going through and "Coloring" viewpoints to their viewpoint. How is this in any way fair to ALL viewpoints? Christopher1X (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's purpose is to present verifiable information, giving primary focus to mainstream views, with a smaller but suitable amount of coverage given to minor viewpoints. Wikipedia is not a judge of whether the mainstream views are correct.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

jeffro, you never addressed any of the issues brought up. If you are "not judging mainstream viewpoints" for correctness, why is the "Jehovist" "mainstream viewpoint" being systematically colored by judgment of correctness to the "non-Jehovist""mainstream viewpoints"? It would seem that "judgment" IS being rendered by control of the what the article is and is not allowed to present. Is it "suitable" to not allow a different "mainstream" (Jehovist)viewpoint to be presented unadulterated? The "Jehovist" viewpoint IS a "mainstream viewpoint" also. Yet those of you who don't want it heard, presented or recognized have semi-protected this article to refuse the hearing of the "Jehovist" argument. The premise of your argument is to remove "viewpoints" with which you don't agree with, which i OBJECT to. All "viewpoints" should be allowed to be presented without being "colored" by an opposing "viewpoint. That is the only way to be academically truthful to the whole subject.Christopher1X (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea who you addressing when you say "those of you who don't want it heard, presented or recognized", and I haven't bothered to check who semi-protected the article. (If you are an established editor, the semi-protection doesn't affect you anyway.) No one has said that the 'Jehovist' view cannot be presented. It is entirely valid to indicate that old or incorrect views have been shown to be false if the major view supported by neutral reliable sources indicates such to be the case. See flat earth.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked the Wikipedia Article:Jehovist which lists the following definition:
 * Jehovist, n. Among critics, one who maintains that the vowel-points annexed to the word Jehovah in Hebrew, are the proper vowels of the word and express the true pronunciation.


 * I guess I am sort of a Jehovist, yet I recognize there is a strong case against the Jehovist view point.


 * Since I believe there are some loose ends in the case against "Jehovah", I certainly try my best to point out these loose ends as I perceive them.


 * Hopefully I post my views from a Wikipedia neutral point of view.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gill
The amount of detail about Gill seems to be a bit much when it is considered that his views are not broadly supported by current experts in the field. Previous attempts at indicating that Gill's contentions are known (or widely considered by experts) to be false have been deleted from the article, leaving the impression that Gill's views may be widely supported. This would seem to constitute undue weight to his views.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it help if the section that deals (above all else) with Gill had his name in the heading? Or if even more detail were given of his arguments with the result of showing how far-fetched they generally are?  Or if (unlikely though it seems) the editor who objected to the indications previously given of non-acceptance of Gill's views by the consensus of modern scholars were to withdraw his objection?  Soidi (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing Gill's name in the heading would give even more focus to Gill, and the value to the article of doing so is questionable. More detail about far-fetched arguments is also unnecessary, for reasons which are self-evident. The objections as listed for each entry are probably unnecessary (as are the specific entries themselves), as the section only requires an overview of Gill's theories without superfluous elaboration about theories that are widely regarded by experts in the field as untrue.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Jehovist" viewpoint is not outdated in scholarship or in accuracy. Scholars who want to attack the documented history from Jewish sources do so by reasons of wanting to tamper with the Word of God and throw out It's authority. Karaite Jews who have keep the vowel-pointed Tanach since 120 BC agree with the "Jehovist" viewpoint and hold it as their own. It is the Rabbinic "oral law", the catholics, and unbelievers, who want to subvert the Scripture so that their "priests" can make rules as they want. Gill is also not outdated or inaccurate in the historical research he has documented. It is the same people who want to subvert the authority of God and His word that try to smear Gill and others who declare the Authority of Scripture. Jesus Christ talked about the vowel-points and accents in Matthew 5:18. Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, who is our Saviour, and author of the Scriptures, old and new testaments, is He wrong as well?Christopher1X (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A view doesn't need to be outdated to be minor. Assigning motives of 'tampering' to scholars who disagree with the Jehovist view is simply an ad hominem attack on those scholars, as are your comments about the motives of "unbelievers". It is entirely speculative that Jesus (alleged to be god) was referring to "vowel-points and accents" at Matthew 5:18. The appeal to authority of an entity whose existence is unproven is also humorous. If it can be proven that god exists and that Jesus is god and that Jesus was talking about Hebrew vowel points, you may have a point.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Jeffro, you are too severe in your judgement on Christopher's editing. As I see it, Christopher is not appealing directly to God as a reliable source, but is only citing sources that say that the Hebrew vowel points are indeed "God-given".  As you well know, that is quite legitimate in Wikipedia.  I was even tempted to suggest that what Christopher wrote just above could be put into the article, with citations of Gill and maybe others, as a summary of what his "Jehovists" say.  But I doubt that any reliable source could be found for Christopher's statement that Rabbis, Catholics, unbelievers limit the antiquity of Hebrew vowel points for the precise purpose of subverting the authority of God and His word.
 * Since Christopher insists on his lengthy exposition of Gill's views, I think the best solution is to balance that exposition with a slightly less lengthy exposition of the contrary views of some other authority. I intend to add such matter later today, when I find time for it.  Soidi (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the speculative reference about Jesus allegedly referring to vowel points. The word translated 'tittle' refers to elements of Hebrew writing analogous to serifs in Latin typography. The word translated 'jot' (from Greek iota) refers to the corresponding letter of the Hebrew alphabet, yodh (י).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Vowel Points
I would like to commend and give applause to everyone as of 10/09/09 for the section "Hebrew Vowel-Points"on the "Jehovah" wikipedia page. It shows that both sides of the argument can be given in full for people to research and process without one point being undercut by the other. Allowing both sides of the argument to be presented without subversion by the other it seems is the fair and honest way to debate on any issue. Again, applause to everyone for allowing the debates full arguments to be given.Christopher1X (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
I do not understand how your recent edits improve this article. Please clarify. Bwrs (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

An Accusation of Ignorance
I'm not personally going to alter this statement, because it appears that this article is the center of quite a bit of controversy, but I think I'll weigh in on what I believe is an unfair statement. The following is found in this article: "Early English translators followed the practice (editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 called it a "blunder") of the Christian scholars who first began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew and who, being unacquainted with Jewish tradition, read יְהֹוָה as it stood, and transcribed it as 'Jehovah'.[12][13]"  I realized that there is a citation for this material, but let's look carefully at this claim. We are told here that the earliest Christian users of the English form "Jehovah" were ignorant of the Jewish tradition of not pronouncing the name, but of pronouncing it "Adonay" (Lord). However, a survey of Christian translating practices from the earliest times shows that Christian scholars have always been acquainted with the practice, and usually have followed it. In the New Testament, written sometime between 30 and 200 A.D., depending on one's viewpoint, quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures invariably translate the tetragrammaton as "kurios," the Greek equivalent of Lord (Hebrew "Adonay"). The Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, used by Christians from the beginning of Christianity, also follows this practice. The Latin Vulgate, the Bible of Roman Catholicism from 400 A.D. until now (although it has been revised) also translates the tetragrammaton consistently as "Dominus" (Lord). During the early period of English Bible translation, the few Christians who did know some Hebrew had often learned it from Jewish Rabbis, who would have followed the Jewish tradition on this point. Early English translations do this also, except in a few places (seven in the King James Version) where the translators felt the need to make it clear that the tetragrammaton was being referred to, as opposed to Adonay.

I think it would be much more fair to say that the early Christian scholars disagreed with or disregarded this practice. To say that they were ignorant of the Jewish tradition is nothing but an unfair and prejudiced statement against the use of the term "Jehovah."Mitchell Powell (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the first pro-Yahweh sentence's first references
I am concerned with the first reference following the this sentence: "It is used as an alternative to Yahweh, which sources based on Christian and pagan texts of the early Christian era indicate to be a more accurate pronunciation.[1][2][3]"  The source [1] cited here is entitled "Greek Magical Papyri Texts," but no page number is given, making it very difficult to check the reference. I've tried to, and I've found only one reference to the word Yahweh, on page 66, where it has the following: "(cf. line 591, SEMESILAM: Eternal sun; and line 593, IAO: Yahweh)." So what is apparently being claimed here is that the use of the word "IAO" in the Mithras Liturgy implies the Hebrew word Yahweh. However, other forms are also used in the Mithras Liturgy as cited in this source, including (I'm presenting these in alphabetical order): AEEIOYO, EEO OEEO IOO OE EEO EEO OE EO IOO OEEE OEE OOE IE EO OO OE IEO OE OOE IEO OE IEEO EE IO OE IOE OEO EOE OEO OIE OIE EO OI III EOE OYE EOOEE EO EIA AEA EEA (615) EEEE EEE EEE IEO EEO OEEEOE EEO EYO OE EIO EO OE OE EE OOO YIOE, EIOAE, EY EIA EE, EYE YIA EEI AO EIAY IYA IEO, OAI, IE OE IOEIO, OEY AEO EYA EOE YAE IAE, OOO AAA EEE, YEI AYI EYOIE, YE YOE, and this is only a fraction of what can be found in the Mithras Liturgy. Therefore to pick out "IAO" from this mass of vowels and say that it supports a particular pronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH is quite a stretch. Why pick IEO and say that support the Old Latin spelling IEHOUAH? Because the pronunciation Yahweh is accepted and therefore any resemblence to Jehovah (IE, IO, IEO, YE, YO, YOE) is ignored. So this source only supports "Yahweh" if we start with the assumption that "Yahweh" is the correct pronunciation. Far from being scholarly support, this source does not directly address the issue of the tetragrammaton, and only means something to a reader who is already decided as to its pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Mitchell Powell (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitchell Powell may disagree with Meyer, but Meyer does identify "IAO" with "Yahweh", and is cited in the article as doing so. MP is right in saying the location of this identification should be indicated better. Unfortunately, the website does not show page numbers.  I will try to give some kind of indication.  And while I'm at it, I had better add other witnesses, serious academic ones, to dispel any doubt.
 * I added this material in response to the statement that Pvasiliadis inserted on 5 November 2009: "Semitic and Greek phonetic renderings found in magical texts of the early Christian era indicate this vocalization (i.e. as "Jehovah") of the divine name." For this statement he cited, presumably in good faith, an article that said nothing of the sort.  Soidi (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tone of introduction
The current tone of the introduction seems inappropriate. Basically, the first paragraph says 'This article is about Jehovah. Use of the name is wrong.'. The article is primarily about the name Jehovah, not about how Yahweh may be a better title. Though that should be mentioned, the current presentation is unnecessarily smarmy.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the substance of what Jeffro says. As already mentioned, the part that Jeffro objects to was inserted in response to Pvasiliadis's unsourced insertion of the contrary point of view. Now that Pvasiliadis's insertion has been removed, that well-sourced part could best be moved outside the lead, in line with Jeffro's comment that it should be mentioned. Soidi (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) -- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro is stupid. It tells me that Jehovah is יְהֹוָה but it doesn't actually offer an explanation of what יְהֹוָה is! If a person doesn't know what Jehovah is then this article is completly pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarjunkie66 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the first sentence.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Pvasiliadis's unsourced insertion of the contrary point of view", said Soidi. Please, explain. -- pvasiliadis   20:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This insertion. The stated source turned not not to have made the claim.  Or am I mistaken?  Soidi (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer to The Harvard Theological Review quote request
As an answer to the, I quote from the referenced source:
 * "Although most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (ca. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai (the traditionally pronounced version of יהוה), many magical texts in Semitic and Greek establish an early pronunciation of the divine name as both Yehovah and Yahweh." (Roy Kotansky, Jeffrey Spier, "The Horned Hunter on a Lost Gnostic Gem", The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), p. 318.)

-- pvasiliadis   08:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked again at The "horned hunter" on a lost gnostic gem (Harvard Theological Review, July 01, 1995, Kotansky, Roy; Spier, Jeffrey and failed to find this quotation. No doubt there is some logical explanation. Soidi (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the logical explanation is that the website does not give the full text of the article. Even so, the summary placed in the lead of the Wikipedia article does not accurately reflect what is given in the above quotation.  It ignores the quotation's statement about the view of most scholars and its statement that "Yahweh" is attested in many magical texts in Semitic and Greek.  And the quotation says nothing about text-less "artifacts".  Soidi (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you do not have available the full article. If you want to use this reference to the Yahweh article it's up to you --or me whenever I find more time. The statement of the reference is more than clear about the Jehovah form. When the term "text" is used it is not only the books that are meant. "Artifacts" might include amulets, Bible verses written in parchments, etc. Brevity is basic at the introduction. -- pvasiliadis   13:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I willingly accept your word for what is in the part of the article that is not at my disposal. Including what it says about the general view among scholars and the signs of the pronunciation "Yahweh" in the non-recent texts, a word that, as you say, covers writings on whatever surface, parchement, papyrus, metal ... the may appear.  Soidi (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am just setting out on a journey and am unsure when I can continue this discussion. Please bear with me.  Soidi (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bon voyage. -- pvasiliadis   14:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced (and false) statements inserted in lead

 * 1) "Jehovah is a proper name of the Biblical God" - The proper name in question is יהוה.  Jehovah is an interpretation of that proper name, not the proper name itself, not the name itself revealed according to the Bible by God to his people.
 * 2) "It is a transliteration of the Hebrew term Yehowah יְהֹוָה -  יְהֹוָה is one of two or more vocalizations of יהוה, not a Hebrew term.
 * 3) "This three-syllable form of the Tetragrammaton is testified by Semitic and Greek phonetic texts and artifacts since the early Christian era."  - The source given for this appears not to make this claim.  In addition, the claim is peculiar in that it says that the three-syllable form (Jehovah? or Adonai?) is testified in Semitic and Greek phonetic texts (what are "phonetic texts"?) "since" the early Christian era.  Semitic and Greek texts from then until 2009?  And, before recording of sound was possible, how could a text-less "artifact" indicate a pronunciation?
 * 4) "It (Jehovah/Yehowah) is found, along with slight variations of it, over 6,800 times in the surviving copies." - What is found that number of times in six different Masoretic variations is YHWH. Jehovah/Yehowah (traditionally pronounced as Adonai) is one of the variations.  Yehowih (pronounced as Elohim) is another, not exactly a slight variation, and above all a variation of YHWH, not of Yehowah.

The previous text will have to be restored. Soidi (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehovah, the Hebrew form, and any other variations of the name are all 'proper names', as opposed to other things that aren't 'proper names', such as 'god' or 'cat'. Whether the textual basis is entirely accurate (or even completely wront) is irrelevant in this sense of the term 'proper name'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jehovah" is a "proper noun", a "proper name" in the grammatical sense, as opposed to "common noun" or "common name". But you can't say that all the names that President Obama has been called, whether flattering or unflattering or simply mistaken, are "proper names of President Obama".  (I believe he has been called something like "Barak Mohammed Obama", which grammatically is a proper name, but would you call that "a proper name of President Obama"?)  With "of", "proper name" is clearly not meant in the grammatical sense.  So too in this case.  Soidi (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Entirely dissimilar. Use of Jehovah or any other personal name translated from יהוה, is more analogous to using Stefan or Stefano etc for Steven.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, though none of these is "mistaken", as "Barak Mohammed Obama" is. Soidi (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an entirely normal part of language evolution for words, including names, to sometimes become corrupted as various forms are introduced into a new language. However, once they are in common use in a particular language, it is not necessary to consider them 'mistaken'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Answers:
 * 1. Soidi said: "Jehovah is a proper name of the Biblical God" - The proper name in question is יהוה. Jehovah is an interpretation of that proper name, not the proper name itself, not the name itself revealed according to the Bible by God to his people.
 * "Jehovah" is an English form of the יהוה, it is a "proper name itself" and it is entirely wrong to say that it is "an interpretation". It must get clear that Jehovah is the name of a Person and not a form of the name of a person.
 * 2. Soidi said: "It is a transliteration of the Hebrew term Yehowah יְהֹוָה - יְהֹוָה is one of two or more vocalizations of יהוה, not a Hebrew term.
 * The word (יְהֹוָה), like יהוה, is a Hebrew term of course, neither English nor Greek.
 * 3. Soidi said: "This three-syllable form of the Tetragrammaton is testified by Semitic and Greek phonetic texts and artifacts since the early Christian era." - The source given for this appears not to make this claim.  In addition, the claim is peculiar in that it says that the three-syllable form (Jehovah? or Adonai?) is testified in Semitic and Greek phonetic texts (what are "phonetic texts"?) "since" the early Christian era.  Semitic and Greek texts from then until 2009?  And, before recording of sound was possible, how could a text-less "artifact" indicate a pronunciation?
 * One of the few basic differences between "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" is that the former is made of three syllables and the latter of two syllables. "Je-ho-vah" is far closer to the original Four-Lettered name of God, as Buchanan et al have pointed out a long ago. "Phonetic" are the texts that reveal the way/ways that the original non-vocalized term (יהוה) was read. Probably for dogmatic reasons --but not only for that-- we do not have such texts surviving from the early Christian community itself.
 * 4. Soidi said: "It (Jehovah/Yehowah) is found, along with slight variations of it, over 6,800 times in the surviving copies." - What is found that number of times in six different Masoretic variations is YHWH. Jehovah/Yehowah (traditionally pronounced as Adonai) is one of the variations. Yehowih (pronounced as Elohim) is another, not exactly a slight variation, and above all a variation of YHWH, not of Yehowah.
 * When we write, for example, the words "come", "came" and "coming" or "Peter" and "Peter's" we do not have other words but they are the same words (that is, "come", "Peter") formed according to the grammatical and syntactic rules of the English language. "Jehovah/Yehowah" (the Tetragrammaton, more exactly) is not "traditionally pronounced as Adonai" but it is traditionaly replaced or substituted by other terms, like "God", "Lord", "the Name", "the Eternal", etc. But this is information for the Tetragrammaton article.

-- pvasiliadis   14:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

term "יְהֹוָה"
Please note that it is unnecessary to elaborate on the word term when referring to יְהֹוָה (or any other word). The default English meaning of term in the context used can refer to any word or phrase, and whether the particular term in question is special in some way, such as being a 'hybrid form' is superfluous.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I would say it is unnecessary to insist on using the word "term" for what, in the opinion of most scholars, is a hybrid form, such as has been compared to producing the form "Gormuna" by combining the consonants of "Germany" with the vowels of "Portugal". Would everyone be happy with calling "Gormuna" a term?  How much simpler it would be just to omit the unnecessary and question-raising word "term"!  Soidi (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just trying to make a point. However, even a nonsensical construction,'Gormuna' is still a term in the basic sense of the word, even if it has no particular meaning, and even more so if it came into common usage, regardless of its original etymology.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, what is the point in insisting on using the word "term"? What does "Jehovah is a transliteration of the term יְהֹוָה" add to "Jehovah is a transliteration of יְהֹוָה"?  Your insistence on the word "term" shows that you judge it to be getting across some idea that you dearly wish to be included.  What is that idea?  Is it the idea that יְהֹוָה is a genuine Hebrew word?  You are of course free to entertain that idea.  You are free to insert it, in sourced form, in the article.  But if you do, then the article must also mention the contrary view, the view of the majority of scholars: that יְהֹוָה is a "term" in the same sense as Gormuna is a "term", or (to put it in your own words), יְהֹוָה is only "a nonsensical construction" like Gormuna.  Indeed, these words of yours are practically the same as those that the Jewish Encyclopedia applies to יְהֹוָה: "a philological impossibility".  Soidi (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are assuming far too much here. And of course you don't know the answers to your questions regarding what you imagine to be my possible intentions, because your questions are misguided. It is a very simple issue of a grammar. The article says 'the Hebrew term יְהֹוָה', not 'a transliteration of יְהֹוָה'. It is of course helpful for readers unfamiliar with Hebrew text to state that the language is 'Hebrew', and in such phrasing, in English we use a noun to describe what follows, hence the word 'term'. We could leave out the phrase 'Hebrew term', but it would be less helpful for a worldview. Feel free to replace 'term' with some alternative noun such as 'word' or 'form' if you insist.-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for no insisting on "term". Soidi (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Form" cannot stand in isolation: it has to be "form of" something. Soidi (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. A 'form' can be any thing having shape or structure. It is not the case that it can only be used with 'of' (which would apply to form in the sense of type, kind, or manner). However, I can go back to using 'term' if that is less awkward for you.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have added "in this context". In this context, the absolute use (without relation to something else, without "of") of "form" has no meaning.  You wouldn't call "Jeffro" a form, would you?  And would your really call יְהֹוָה or "Jeffro" a kind, rather than a kind of something?
 * Leaving that aside, must I ask you again what for you is the difference between saying "Jehovah is a transliteration of Hebrew יְהֹוָה" and "Jehovah is a transliteration of the Hebrew form (or term) יְהֹוָה"? Unless you see in the difference some idea you want to get across, you wouldn't be inisting on it.  So what is the idea that you see in it?  The expression seems to be an attempt to get across the idea that יְהֹוָה is a genuine historical form of YHWH, and not, like Gormuna, a hybrid, a philological impossibility, a nonsensical construction (the last phrase is yours).  The POV that you are thus inserting must be balanced by the opposing view of most scholars.  You may perhaps deny that that idea exists in the difference, but then what is the idea that you so dearly want to have included?  Whatever idea you see in the difference will require balancing.  Wouldn't it be easier to say simply in NPOV fashion that Jehovah is a transliteration of יְהֹוָה?  There would be no need then to give the view of scholars on matters not raised.  You can say with perfect grammar that "Gobryas" is a transliteration of Greek "Γωβρύας", whether this is a genuine Greek word or not.  You don't have to say: "Gobryas" is a transliteration of the Greek word or term or form or type or kind or manner "Γωβρύας". Soidi (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tire of your misguided insinuations about alleged ulterior motives and having to explain grammar, so I'm taking the article off my watchlist. Do what you like.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)