Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive

Merged
Considering the many requests on both entries, Yahweh and Tetragrammaton are now merged together. See below and Talk:Yahweh. --Wighson 05:02, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

I find the information on this page redundant with regard to the page Yahweh, and so I'm considering replacing it with a redirect. What do you think about it? --Uri

I think that while redundancy may be high right now, this page could contain a lot of information not suited for placement in Yahweh: Metaphysical meaning of the letters, polymorphism in pronounciation, relation to the various sephiroth of the tree of life and so on. Too bad i'm not knowledgable enough to write about it myself, being an engineer, rather than a doctorate in comparative religions ;-) --Anders Törlind


 * Yes, but what can go into Tetragrammaton that can't into Yahweh?


 * Well, I just thought that Yahweh would get a bit inflated by a future discussion on how the various parts of the letters correspond to the Ain and the sephira, the role of the tetragrammatron in kabbalistic charms and so on. Seems like a subject worthy of an article by itself to me, thats all. --AT


 * Yeah, but considering the fact that Tetragrammaton and Yahweh are two different names for almost exactly the same thing, I think it would be best to cut the total bloat of having two articles with a very unclear difference between them and have only one. I think that having two articles is justifiable only as long as we propose some criterium to differentiate between them --Uri


 * Ah, that's rather simple actually: Everything that is about the godhead of judaism that does not pertain to the actual lettering of the tretragrammatron and interpretations of it should go under Yahweh. This is actually a quagmire to enter, as the tetragrammatron has aquired meaning outside the original "textual representation of the jewish god", and entered the mainstream of western occultism (via syncretism and the kabbalah, no less :-). That in itself should warrant an article of itslf... --AT

Er, no. Yahweh is G-d. The Tetragrammaton is the name of G-d. A thing is not the same thing as its name (unless it's a fixed point!).


 * True, but since now most of Yahweh deals with the name, I feel that it (and The name of God in Judaism) is redundant, and should be merged into a single article ("The Name of God in Judaism" is the best). I volonteer to re-write Yahweh about the subject. --Uri


 * Some suggestions here. The tetragrammaton is Yahweh (Jehovah) and should be identified as such. However, the way the two terms are used today calls for some distinction to be made. I suggest the following: Tetragrammaton focus on the religious and mystical aspects of the name, i.e., the refusal by Orthodox Jews to write or even pronounce it, the role it plays in the sephirot of Jewish mysticism, its role in the Temple ritual (surmised), its relationship to the seventy letter name of God in Jewish mysticism, the divine atribute of mercy (Elohim is justice), etc. Yahweh, on the other hand, can be a more historical survey of the name, including the history of its pronunciation (Yahweh is wrong), the grammatical structure of the word as an indication of omniscience (its all-important Hebrew root is based on the verb "to be"), its role in biblical criticism (J documentation vs. E documentation), and even the LDS (Mormon) hypothesis that Jehovah and Elohim are two distinct persons. Sure there would be overlap, but together the two articles could offer very thorough coverage of the topic. Danny


 * I broadly agree with Danny about the need to separate out various aspects, some historical/factual others specific to particular religious groups. Unfortunately with religious texts the same words have differing significance and use in various traditions. It would seem useful to put in a section that which is commonly shared, and use a different one to outline the differing uses and rationales, ~I would be interested to see Uriyan's draft, perhaps a brief systematic outline would be a useful first step rather than see the proposal as a completed article which might have a variety of proposals for re-structuring. An outline; followed by redrafting to the skeleton would seem the way to get, and most efficient. [[User:Tedclapham]


 * I have noted, ironically, that folks spell the word "God" as G-d, and then go on to spell out the full word "Yahweh", thus compromising their own custom! See, the rationale behind spelling the word in English as "G-d" is to caution against "pronouncing" the sacred Name. When one spells the word (in transliterated Hebrew), one is kinda "pronouncing" the Name. Now, I'm not criticizing anyone here, I just find it humorous. As for the controversy over the Name, I believe Tedclapham's idea is a good one - a common POV, followed by the POVs of disagreeing sides, is a good way to approximate NPOV. Rickyrab 06:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't want to do revert edit, but I think this statement is not NPOV.


 * Jehovah's Witnesses differ sharply from peer-reviewed scholarship and custom and use only Jehovah as God's personal name. Thus, they will use Jehovah to name God, even in New Testament contexts.  This reflects an important item of faith to Jehovah's Witnesses; nonetheless, it is an anachronistic interpolation, since the New Testament was written almost entirely in Greek, and not at all in Hebrew.  Although the headquarters of this religion (the Watchtower Society) recognize that Jehovah is no longer an accepted representation of the ancient word, they maintain their own spelling since it is the most familiar to their followers who must study their materials.


 * Jehovah's Witnesses think that the Tetragrammaton was written on the Greek Text of New Testament in 1st Century, and that Today's Greek Text was interpolated by manuscripts. And Gospel Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and readers could see the Tetregrammaton in New Testament. No Witnesses recognize that Jehovah is no longer an accepted representation of the ancient word, because they think it's not important what is true pronunciation. K.M. 13:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * A non neutral point of view is not the only problem with this (since excised) paragraph. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I think I can provide some clarification.  The writer seems to think that Jehovah's Witnesses as a group take a firm stand on the question of how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced by the ancient Hebrews and have ranged themselves against the 'peer-reviewed scholarship' in some sort of battle to the death.  In fact they do not take so firm a position.


 * The writer also seems to have a mistaken idea about the authority and applicability of peer-reviewed scholarship. One should remember that the peer review process is designed to weed out poor quality work and help the community to refine its knowledge.  It represents current concensus, not immutable truth.


 * In fact, the question of which vowels belong in the divine name is a matter of ongoing research, with a number of scholars expressing doubts about the linguistic plausability of "Yahweh" and pointing to the antiquity of "Yahowah".  There is also ongoing examination of other Hebrew names which may contain initial or trailing parts of the name to see if their vowel pointing provides clues as to the vowel pointing of the name from which they borrow.  I am disappointed that this work is not mentioned in the article.


 * Finally, K.M. is correct in stating that Jehovah's Witnesses do not regard the ancient Hebrew pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as an issue of overriding importance for English speakers. The English pronunciations of proper names are quite often significantly different from the native pronunciations.  I should also point out that Jehovah's Witnesses are an international organizations with publications in over 200 languages.  We try to use a pronunciation accepted in each language's liturature rather than attempt to reconstruct ancient Hebrew pronunciation.


 * --David Chappell

Protected page & arbitration
It is a good thing we are in discussion now. Here are some points I would like to make.

1. There are many differing opinions on the subject of the divine name. Anyone trying to submit their opinion as the only one of merit to the total exclusion of even the mention of other opinions or research, is working against the idea of free thought and NPOV. To be honestly academic an article should include many points of view. The article "Yahweh" did include many inputs, even including the viewpoints of relgious scholars who are not of the "Judeo-Christian" variety, and this made for a flavorful reading as well as an informative piece of reference. Just before the merge to "T" someone had gone a little too far in promoting a particular line of thought - the JW one. This did not cal for an entire removal the information, just and edit.

2. Theological differences will always color a person's input, I am as guilty as anyone in my sole contributions as anyone. We must realize however that to completely remove another person's work because we don't agree with it or because it is not a majority opinion, is not honest. It reveals a fear of a search for truth. So here are the problems I have with the article as it exists:

A. "This is the ineffable name of God in Hebrew, and it is so holy that observant Jewish people read it as "[Adonai]" to mean "My Lord" in their prayers and when learning and studying the Torah or Talmud."

should be "This is the ineffable name of God in Hebrew, and it is believed to be so holy by observant parcticers of Judaism that they read it as "[Adonai]" to mean "My Lord" in their prayers and when learning and studying the Torah or Talmud."

Obviously, we avoid promoting the Jewish religion excusively by changing the wording of this sentence, I have not been allowed to make this adjustment, it has been removed twice.

B.This practice reflects the oldest Jewish tradition: Judaism both at the time of the writing of the Tanakh and today believe it blasphemy to utter this name of God; it was encrypted in Hebrew script in Aramaic texts, and was pronounced Adonai, or "The Lord." Indeed, the commandment of the Decalogue not to take the name of "THE LORD thy God in vain" literally means not to utter the name.

Recommended change: This practice reflects the Jewish tradition that it is blasphemy to utter this name of God; it was encrypted in Hebrew script in Aramaic texts, and was pronounced Adonai, or "The Lord."

I have changed these comments because they are speculation influenced by theology rather than established fact. Again, is it our goal to promote the Jewish religion?

C. Peer-reviewed scholarship proved that "Jehovah" was a completely erroneous rendition of the word, and subsequently, scholars have adopted Yahweh, Yahwe, or Yahveh.

Recommended change: Modern theology has influenced the belief that "Jehovah" was a completely erroneous rendition of the word, and subsequently, the majority of scholars have adopted Yahweh, Yahwe, or Yahveh.

Like it or not this is more honest. Opinions change. This is a contested point and not just by JW's. Therefore the suggested change.

D. These facts are also relevant: The KJV contained the name "Jehovah" in four places has continually been removed. The article was being written in such a way as to hide this fact. I did not try to include the fact that near the turn of the century many bibles were including the divine name in the form of Jehovah in most places THE LORD appeared. Another point I have not included until now is that J.P. Green's interlinear translation (which is a modern translation) contains the form "Jehovah" in all the places THE LORD appears in the KJV.

My argument is for balance, not my own opinion. All attempts I have made to balance out the article have been quickly removed. Please, let us work this out in a fair and intellectual manner, regardless of our theological biases.

george m

OK, so is there going to be discussion on the page or what?
I posted my argument several days ago, there has been no response... How long will the page be protected with no dialogue?

george

so, I'll talk to myself
I think the page should be divided clearly into sections bearing the titles:

1. Meaning

2. Pronounciation

3. Theology Surrounding The Name

Each section should give an overview of the Historical and Current views & developments surrounding the topic. The information should include a wide variety of viewpoints because, quite obviously....there are a wide variety of viewpoints.

can anybody hear me? george

I agree, the current article is poor.

 * Yes, the current article leaves us with the impression that aside from a use in the 16th century it had no currency until the publication of the American Standard version around 1900. I think we are meant to believe that it is some sort of new invention.


 * It appears that the article has been cleansed by a rather pedantic person who is offended at the idea of a spelling widely accepted in liturature which is at odds with the current scholarly concensus. The result is an article with strong assertions but few hard facts.


 * This article really needs some material on how the Tetragrammaton has historically been rendered in a variety of languages in Bible translations, in art and liturature. It should also cover the origins of the scholarly spelling "Yahweh" with the arguments for and against the misconstrued vowel points theory.


 * There should also be some mention of the specific issue of transliteration, such as whether to transliterate the Tetragramaton YHVH, YHWH, JHVH, or JHWH. I used to wonder how it could be done so differently, but then I found out that in many languages, such as German or Polish, j is pronounced y as in the English word "hallelujah".


 * -- David Chappell

Alright, I intend to produce a draft soon of inclusions that would be helpful.

george


 * I notice that the article is much improved. Debious absolutist statements have been removed or properly qualified.  There has also been a healthy injection of hard information to replace opinions.  Is this your doing?


 * I have two suggestions. At the end of the first paragraph we find this odd sentence (which remains from an earlier revision):
 * When they refer to the name in conversation or in a non-textual context such as in a book, newspaper or letter, they call the name "Hashem" which means simply "The Name".


 * I think the writer is using the word "textual" in an escoteric sense. Clearly, books, newspapers, and letters are texts.  I can only assume that "textual context" here refers to a particular set of religions texts such as the Bible and commentaries upon it.


 * At the end of the second paragraph we find the sentence:
 * Because of the strictures in Judaism, the pronunciation is controversial.
 * This can be taken two ways:
 * Since these strictures in Judaism have discouraged pronunciation, the precise ancient pronunication is uncertain.
 * Because of these strictures in Judaism, the propriety of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton is a controversial question.
 * I think both statements are appropriate at this point in the article.


 * Finally, I would suggestion the addition of the following sentence at the end of the last paragaph (which discusses the Tetragrammaton in English Bibles):


 * Changes in English-language orthography occuring shortly after the release of the first edition of the Authorized Version transformed IEHOUAH into JEHOVAH.

does someone have a magical power?
To remove an entire change from the server? I made and edit to the page and it is now completely gone. No trace of it in the page history.

george


 * Ah, you have seen the hand of God.--Administer

Seriously, that has happened to me sometimes, too. I've found that leaving Wikipedia entirely and then reloading the page restores my recent edits. Fire Star 22:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, although it disappeared two days later, not immediately. I am sure you understand my curiosity now.-george m