Talk:Yahweh/Archive 1

An introduction would be nice
I know something about the subject of this article, but if I didn't, the opening lines would lose me entierly. It jumps straight into the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexacon, never pausing to explain that Yahway is (one translation/transliteration of) the name of God in the Hebrew Bible.

I might find the time to write a proper introduction myself, but probably no time soon.

TRiG 17:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much Subject here
This article only covers the name Yahway. Nothing about Yahway himself, the history, the characotoristics, the changing "understanding". I have been led to believe that Yahway was one of many gods of the pre-jews people, that he was specificly the war god. I don't know if its true, but it would be interesting to adress what history is known. Steve kap 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Formating of Article
The issue needs to be addressed: WHAT IS THIS AN ARTICLE ON? The history of the use/spelling of YHWH, or a history of the proposed ancestry of the native god/s that became the god of Jews/Christians/Muslims?


 * On June 6, 2006 a user cut and pasted the article "JEHOVAH (YAHWEH")" from the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 into this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.
 * Today, for all practical purposes, Sections 11 through 13 of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh contain the verbatim text found on pages 311 [starting in the 2nd paragraph of the right column] to 313 in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911.
 * In my opinion sections 11 through 13 of Wikipedia Article:Yahweh should be deleted.


 * Seeker02421 15:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be just the opposite. The start of this article is almost identical to Tetragrammaton.
 * The article Tetragrammaton refers here only for discussion of the god thus designated.
 * So, all except the sections you mention could be merged into Tetragrammaton.

This article needs drastic re-writing and reformating as it seems to jump all over the shop. It makes no mention of the findings of the theophoric element *Yah at Ebla, nor the suggestion by Bottero that *Yah is a west Semitic form of the Mesopotamian God E'a. There is nothing of the findings at Ugarit regarding Ya'a and the struggle with Baal (which figures in the Biblical struggle reported at Mount Carmel). And what about Yahweh's wife = Asherah? Come on you people get your act together. John D. Croft 17:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yahweh did not have a wife or companion, neither Asherah nor anyone else: By the time of his invention, the Hebrew faith (proto-Judaism) was probably already monotheistic. Asherah was the spouse of one of the Baals, in the Canaanitic pentheon of deities, I believe. 66.108.105.21 05:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

This article is the worst formated one I have yet to see on Wikipedia, and this is a disgrace for this important of a topic.


 * I agree, it is in bad shape. But that is Wikipedia: different people "improve" things in different directions. The final result satisfies nobody.
 * The problem is not so much the formatting as the content: Inaccurate, omitting much of importance, incomplete, and in some cases flat-out incorrect. 66.108.105.21 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Merge This to Tetragrammaton?
No, Don't merge. However Bold textJHVH is also ok. NO, these should not be merged. Two reasons: 1)  "YHWH" is not the correct transliteration, the correct is "YHVH", and 2)  Judaism does NOT recognize "Yahweh" as the correct pronunciation of this name. This is SOLELY a modern Christian interpreation of the name, not a Jewish one!

It doesn't matter if you feel these are the same topic because they are not the same interpretations within each of the religions, which recognize this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.255.158 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, these should be merged. 1) YHWH is the correct transliteration (since waw is transliterated as W), and 2) Judaism opinion is mentioned in the Tetragrammaton article, please read it more carefully; this interpretation is not Christian, it simply based on the non-Judaistic (non-biased) point of view. --Yms 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No they most certainly should not be merged. Yms, if you had look at the "waw" article you would see that the w sound is not native to Hebrew (most Hebrew speakers anyway) and that it is actually vav, YHWH is a bastardization of YH-VH based largely upon English, German and Christian sources. Therefore it should stand alone as the Christian viewpoint. Also, if you talking about Hebrew and Jewish concepts it is rather unwise to trust "unbiased" non-Jewish sources as they usually miss the point entirely.


 * Funny how people talk about the 'correct' transliteration. A transliteration is done by convention. Some will use b and v for beth with and without dagesh, and w for waw. Others use b and bh for beth with and without dagesh, and v for vav. Nobody is wrong. It is a mistake to think that one can learn the pronunciation of ancient Hebrew from a transliteration. One cannot recover the pronunciation of modern Arabic or Russian or Chinese from an English transliteration either.

This article is beginning to resemble both The name of God in Judaism and Tetragrammaton very closely, but I'm no biblical expert or even all that interested. Should these three articles be merged into one?


 * Yes. The articles on Jehovah, Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton and "The name of God in Judaism" are all precisely the same topic. It makes no sense to have separate entries. All of those other topics need a redirect to one page that we choose as a master page, and they can be discussed there. Without bringing together these virtually identical articles, Wikipedia will continue to become more (unnecessarily) disorganized. RK


 * They are not "precisely the same topic": Jehovah *is* different than Yahweh, and is different than Tetragrammaton, etc. If there had to be one article (I think there should be, to eliminate so much redundancy), there should be subheadings and explanations for each.


 * Whoah, you've lost me. When did the four-letter name of God in the Bible suddenly begin referring to two totally different gods?!? "Jehovah" is how 19th century German scholars translated the tetragrammaton into Roman characters; "Yahweh" is how modern-day scholars translated it into Roman characters. Are you saying that there exists a Christian sect that believes there are two different gods, one being Jehovah and the other being Yahweh? If not, then they are the same, and this is true by definition. RK


 * No, I mean the words Jehovah and Yahweh are different! No sect considers them as two different gods.  You just said the difference: different translations.  Jehovahs Witnesses believe that the true name of God is Jehovah, not Yahweh.


 * Not true. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the original name is completely lost in translation. They believe the name "Jehovah" is the english pronunciation of whatever the original name is... it's the same way the name "John" is the English pronunciation of its original form "Iohannes". Don't be so quick to assume.


 * Remembering that this is not a dictionary that needs every seperate word or synomym to have its own article, it makes sense to merge these articles into one. The other article names should be redirected to the merged article.  It is fine to explain in the merged articles the history behind Jehovah versus Yahweh, but it just seems to me that it is really just one topic.


 * Oh, I see what you mean. I agree. I was thinking that you were alluding to something else, because gnostics do believe that there are two gods, and this kind of theology is something that pops up time and time again. RK


 * I, too, agree that this article naturally belongs to Tetragrammaton.--

I agree that it belongs to Tetragrammaton. Both Yahweh and Jehovah are interpretations on the pronunciation of the four letters of the Tetragrammaton. Because the Torah does not have vowels, the "correct" way to say it was lost at some point.

- My Vote goes for having an interesting and FULLY informative page on each. Each can be a full discussion in it's own right. Michaelkrewson 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC) -

My vote goes for moving everything into the Jehova article, simply because if I wanted to read about that particular god that's the first name that would come to mind for me. Yahweh might be the "modern" translation, but I suspect it isn't as widely known or thought of first.


 * Not to everyone - I learned about Yahweh first. - dreamyshade

I vote for merging. Even if more people have heard of Jehovah than Yahweh, that can easily be fixed with redirects. Any article on 'Yahweh' will mention all there is to know about 'Jehovah', and any article on 'Jehovah' will mention all there is to know about 'Yahweh'. Use by Jews of 'Adonai' and 'haShem' can be mentioned, as examples of how holy they consider the Tetragrammaton to be. I suppose we could even mention 'Elohim'.-- SJK

If someone moves this article to one of the others, they should just use the information and rewrite it. The quality of this writing is really poor and loses the interest of the reader. The sentences go on forever and the reader loses the original point of the sentence. Try to put less information into one sentence and make it state the point clearly. - Sweaterman


 * Keep. I'm not sure how far back this merge debate goes, but I think it would be wise to keep it separate. While the Tetragrammaton, Yahweh, and Jehovah all come from the same letters, there are some interesting history and beliefs unique to each.  It also would make it easier to discuss things in a religiously respectful way, while remaining NPOV.  A separate Jehovah article can address Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, lessening the problems with POV edits.  I also see that all three articles have the potential to be a bit long, and might eventually need to be split, anyway.  Some see also links will suffice, rather than merging the articles. Sxeptomaniac 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite absurd that there are two separate articles talking about the various interpretations of the Tetragrammaton. Because that is all the "Yahweh" article is right now, except for a small portion of the "Attributes" section. If they remain in their present form, why shouldn't "Yahweh" be merged into "Tetragrammaton"? The latter is inclusive of the former (as a name).GSTQ 04:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

JW revisions
The last revision was just plain inacurate. "Jehovah" was an incurate tranliteration of YHWH used in the middle-ages. The KJV uses the convention "LORD" in small caps throught. - Asa


 * It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses are using the page as a recruitment device. That should be left to an external link from the Watchtower Society page--


 * That is quite an accusation toward millions of Jehovah's Witnesses. Be careful with your accusations. If you knew them well enough then you would know that they do not need wikipedia to spread thier message worldwide. I am sure they would like to see an accurate representation however of the name of the God they worship. Michaelkrewson 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Yahweh Yah"weh, Yahwe Yah"we, n. Also Jahveh Jah"veh, Jahve Jah"ve, etc.

A modern transliteration of the Hebrew word translated

Jehovah in the Bible; -- used by some critics to

discriminate the tribal god of the ancient Hebrews from the

Christian Jehovah. Yahweh or Yahwe is the spelling now

generally adopted by scholars.


 * I agree. --

The NIV preface states: In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord", for which small letters are used.

Yet another Bible Dictionary I have states regarding "Jehovah": ''The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it, but substituted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai. Probably it was pronounced Jahveh, or Yahveh. In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by LORD or GOD, printed in small capitals.''

destroyed the article
I dont' know enought to revert the article to where it was before theis "administer person removed everything of substance and turned into a onesided article about his/her view of the divine name. The article is now a synopsis of why the name should/should not be used a certain way. Wikipedia has been a place where differing views come together to make great articles, this person is working against that.
 * Maybe Admin doesn't want Wikipedia to be a recruitment page for the Watchtower/Jehovah's Witnesse, either.--Wighson 02:26, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Problems of transliterating from another language
Any ideas what is most accurate and least misleading? Dlugar

My understanding is that "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" are alternate English transliterations of the Hebrew word written with the so-called tetragrammaton, "YHVH" (actually, its equivalent in the Hebrew alphabet), which was the proper name for God among the ancient Hebrews. The existence of multiple transliterations for a single foreign word is not unusual; consider "Peking", "Peiping", "Beijing", which are alternate transliterations of the Chinese word which names the capital of modern China. (Note: These aren't different transliterations; the pronounciation ascribed to the characters denoting the city was officially changed, and the three variations represent the old name, a sort of loca mixture, and the new name, respectively.) The problem in this case is complicated by the fact that the ancient Hebrew alphabet didn't include letters for vowels, and by the time vowel marks were introduced the sacred name was not spoken for religious reasons (the word "Adonai" meaning "Lord" was substituted). Evidently the vowel marks for "Adonai" were used with the tetragrammaton, which led to the transliteration "Jehovah". This obviously was a mistake. The modern transliteration "Yahweh" is generally believed by scholars to reflect the actual pronunciation. - Hank Ramsey


 * Alternate transliteration is a factor, but the real debate is about how many syllables there should be. The Hebrew letters are YHWH.  Those who believe that it was pronounced with two syllables tend to favor "Yahweh", while those who favor three might pick "Yehowah".  The vowels in the latter are the way it is often vowel pointed in Hebrew manuscripts.  Though it is often claimed that the manuscripts which vowel point it this way to so to remind the reader to substitute "adonai", this is probably just speculation.  The counter argument is that numberous proper names in the Bible contain part of the divine name either as a prefix or a suffix and that if we take the vowel pointing from these we arrive at "Yehowah".


 * Actually, it might be more consistent to use the letters YHVH. There was no vowel pointing at all in the old texts, either.--
 * For vowel points, see Niqqud. --Jerzy (t) 20:33, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)


 * Every transliteration I have seen has only TWO syllables. The vocal sheva is a non-vowel in Hebrew, and it does not hold a syllable of its own. Thus, Jeho- is one syllable in Hebrew (יְהוֹ־). -vah would constitute a second syllable. Also, Yahweh is a two syllable transliteration. The disagreement results from the following:
 * 1. Opinions over which vowels represent the sounds of the name originally. Some people are convinced that the vowels sheva, holam, qamatz are original to the name. Most agree that these are representative of a perpetual ktiv-kri (written v. read) in the Hebrew Bible (and this is supported by remarks from the Massoretes, who invented the vocalic system). Some scholars propose the vowels as patach, sheva, segol (Yahveh) or patach, hatef-patach, segol (Yahaveh).
 * 2. Opinions over the proper transliteration of the consonants. Due to the long history of the Hebrew language and the evolutions that it went through, it is absolutely impossible to determine for sure the pronunciation of the letters at a given time in the language's history. We know that at one time Vav was pronounced with a W sound (this sound is represented in Latin by the v). The Germans use J to represent our semivowel Y. This also comes from late Latin (note that J and I are interchangeable in Latin: xij = xii = 12; Iulius = Julius). In order to be certain about the transliteration of יהוה we must first be certain about the timeframe in which the word was first used and how the language sounded at the time. We are left only with conjecture on this point.
 * Hope this helps to clarify something. Yonah mishael 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The King James Version

 * "Yehowah", when transliterated according to the system used in the KJV for other proper names such as Yerusalem (Jerusalem) and Eliyah (Elijah) becomes Jehowah or Jehovah. -- David Chappell


 * No; the vowels are harder to discover since the word wasn't uttered in normal speech. --

As I understand it, the KJV used just "LORD", never "Jehovah"; the usage "Jehovah" was introduced by the American Standard Version. -- Simon J Kissane


 * The KJV uses Jehovah four times as the name of God (at Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4). It also appears as a component of a number of place names (at Gen. 22:14, Exodus. 17:15, and Judges 6:24).


 * The first (1611) edition of the KJV spelled Jehovah "Iehovah". Similiarly, Jesus was spelled "Iesus".  The use of the letter j (a recent addition the English alphabet) was introduced in the 1629 edition, however it represented the y sound.  In other words, the reader was expected to say "Yehovah" when he saw "Jehovah".  As the English language evolved, the letter j aquired its modern pronounciation.  As a result, the English pronunciation of names such as Jesus, Jehovah, and Elijah changed.

I took Biblical Hebrew for a year at the University of Minnesota under Dr. Bernard Levinson and Dr. Lauren Monroe (taught by Dr. Mark Smith - New York University) and we were always taught that it was Yahweh. The reason the J comes in in Jehovah is because the Hebrew letter "yod" was translated as a J in German first. The J in German makes the same sound as the English Y. Therefore, for English speakers it should be spelled Yahweh, while German speakers may prefer Jahweh. The "waw" can be pronounced as either a "v" or a "w," this is one another place where we just can't really know how the language was originally spoken. It is correct that the combination of the vowels from adonai and the consonants from YHWH were combined to remind the reader to say “adonai.”


 * This was simply the opinion of your professors. I think the Jewish stance is wiser, not to pronounce the name since we are not certain about its pronunciation. It seems like a waste of energy to argue about these things when the answers will always elude us given our historical setting in comparison with that in which it was first put on parchment/vellum. We should simply say "HaShem" השם or "Adonai" אדני instead of the Tetragrammaton. It's just a better practice, in my opinion -- which I know doesn't count for much. ;) - Yonah mishael 16:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very true that the English pronunciation of YHWH said Jehovah because of German transliteration. It is also true that the original pronunciation can never be known because it was forbidden to say the true name of YHWH. To simply translate YHWH is impossible in the English language, thus "I Am what I Am," or "I Am what I shall be", etc... I fully agree that it is not the wisest thing to play around with the full spelling and pronunciation of YHWH (which I will now write out as "the Lord"). In my BTS undergraduate Old Testament program I was taught to be culturally sensitive to the Jewish tradition of not spelling out or saying the Hebrew word for "the Lord" and this is partly why English translations say "the Lord." Yonah Mishael has a strong point, which, as a Christian I fully agree with and recommend to all who are dealing with the Hebrew word for "the Lord." It is always amazing when Christian and Jew alike can agree and work together on understanding the Hebrew Bible!--Monasticknight 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Misc

 * As far as I have been able to determine, "Iehovah" was first used in an English Bible in 1530 by William Tyndale. He used it more than twenty times in his translation.  -- David Chappell

added a "historically speaking" to the last paragraph so that it sounds like less of a theological assertion. -- clasqm

Strange Spirits
I also believe that they should remain seperate because I believe that Yahweh and Jehovah have come to be two different names and with two different meanings completely. For example, 'hovah' in Hebrew means RUIN and MISCHIEF. See: http://eliyah.com/jhovah.htm. I have noted in other encyclopedias that th tetragrammaton and the name Yahweh or Jehovah are in diiferent subject categories. Also, Jehovah sounds an awful lot like the pagan god Jove or Jovis.
 * In classical Latin, Jove sounds more like Yahweh, as classical Latin has J pronounced as a I or Y, and V as a W or U. So Jove becomes Yo-weh. Which is almost identical to the pronunciation in ancient hebrew.

If anyone is interested... I have a site with MANY LINKS to various sources, groups and individuals that "make mention of" the Name Yahweh and the Name of His Son, YAHshua at: http://www.maxpages.com/yahshua
 * "Yahshua" also sounds like Devil sneezing. I like "Yahweh" myself, because it sounds like a friendly Amish man surfing (Ja, way!). Amish are Christians, aren't they?  I think I'll set up a web site about my theories of surfing Amish and ask people to send me money.  Or maybe I'll just post it all on Wikipedia -- lower overhead.--


 * This is just plain wrong. These two names have certainly not come to mean two totally different things. The vast majority of English speaking individuals in the world understand they both are English renditions of the four-letter Biblical name of God. As for your entymology lesson, it is misleading and irrelevant. You can play root-word similarity games all you like, but these two particular names are just different spellings of the same god. It seems to me that your point is from an extreme fundamentalist point of view, and you are advocating one point of view based on your religion, rather than on the academic consensus. RK
 * You are right. But you are not confronting a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, but a Jehovah's Witness'.  JW's must believe exactly as they are taught or they risk extreme embarrassment in front of or total shunning from the only friends they may admit to having those in their local "Kingdom Hall."  It seems this page has become a recruitment device for that religion.--


 * "Yahweh and Jehovah have come to be two different names and with two different meanings completely" most definitely does not represent the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. They seem to agree that they are two forms used in English for the same Hebrew name, while inclining to the use of Jehovah due to its greater familiarity to English speakers. See, for example, their publication Reasoning From the Scriptures, page 195 (Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?).


 * By the way, has anyone thought of how the name is pronounced in languages other than English and Hebrew? In my experience, people who speak English as a second language frequently have idiosyncratic pronounciations of j/y and v/w and nobody seems to think it matters in the least. British people also sometimes pronounce the name Jehovah as "Jehover", as if there were an 'r' at the end.

Linguistic Speculation

 * It is not uncommon for two Hebrew roots of completely different meaning to be spelled the same way. DBR means word (davar), plague (dever), and wilderness (midbar - if that isn't from a root DBR, please correct me). And vowels have little to do with which root a word belongs to. The root of "Yahweh" and of "hayah" (was) is HWY; waw often changes to yod in conjugation, and third-radical yod shows up as he or tav depending on the verb form. As to "Jehovah" and "Jove", any resemblance is purely coincidental. -phma


 * Regarding roots in Hebrew: The same is true of Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic and a number of other languages. Meaning is based upon a consonant root of several characters, generally three.  To this root is added vowels, prefixes and suffixies to refine the general meaning into particular words. Any linguists present?  I am sure that a linguist can do a much better job of describing this more completely and surely more accurately. OneVoice 16:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In regards to a comment of "Jehovah" being introduced in the American Standard Version, it can be found in a much earlier version of the Bible. It can be found all the way back in to the King James version of the Bible. Just check Psalms 83:18. But it is in the older ones..."Jehovah" has been recently edited out of the the King James version.
 * No; I've seen facsimiles of the first editions. There was no such use.--Wighson 02:18, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.148.206.70 (talk • contribs).

Jehovah among the Hindu
I have never heard of references to "Jehovah" as Agni in trhe Rig Veda. I'd like to see the citations. RabbiBurt---
 * Wow! That's a good one; did somebody really say there were references to Jehovah in Hindu mythology?!--Wighson 02:18, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Jehovah is merely a mispronunciation of the same name. I reverted and edited the Yahweh entry to reflect that. Nahum 06:21, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding.--Wighson 02:18, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Salibi, The Arabian Volcano God
The following description of one theory, while it may have a place, seems far too long and contentious. If no one objects in the next few days, I propose to prune it down to manageable size, introduce other theories and contextualize them all with a dose of vitamin NPOV.


 * Please, 'please', PLEASE do so!! All that stuff is very much a minority view.  It also presents it as fact, i.e., "Salibi discovered this objective fact," rather than "Salibi investigated this idea and found the following evidence."  I propose putting it into the Salibi article with a link noted here, e.g., Kamal Salibi proposed a possible origin for Yahweh as a development from a volcano god in Arabia, or something like that.  Or else making a separate page on Salibi's theory of the origin of Yahweh.  There's just way too much said here; it's almost half of the article.  If you're going to spend that much time in this article discussing one piddling minority view, you should spend at least that much time discussing the majority view.  I didn't even see a discussion of whether YHWH was truly used before Moses or if the Bible just interpolated that name into earlier accounts, which is a far more interesting question to me. Jdavidb 03:56, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed the whole point of Wikipedia. It's not a case of, "please do so&hellip;", "there's just too much said here; it's almost half the article&hellip;", "If you're going to spend that much time&hellip;", "you should spend at least&hellip;", I didn't even see&hellip;". As a Wikipedian, you have the right – almost the obligation – to contribute to an article with further information. It's easy to defame, denounce, destroy and delete other people's work. Instead of you going into historics [sic] on this talk page, get off your ass and do some constructive research into Yahweh's origin. Something you can be proud of!


 * In the future it would be more pleasurable to read comments from you such as: "I contributed the major point of view, which, through its accuracy and NPOV is far superior to that written on Salibi's theory", "As so much effort has been put into one piddling minority view, I felt it my duty to put as much effort into writing an informative section on the majority view", "I researched, and wrote, an enlightening article on the origins of the name YHWH, which has always been of interest to me. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it was not eligible for inclusion". Come on now. Pull your finger out! Tell 09:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Or, since someone asked a question, I could give my opinion about it on the talk page, which is also another point of Wikipedia. That way he could make the change he's planning before I step in and take things in a different direction.  There is, after all, a point to the talk pages. Jdavidb 13:45, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"During the 1980s, Kamal Salibi, who later took up the position of Director of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies in Amman, Jordan (Refer link below), revived a number of credible nineteenth century propositions that suggested the Old Testament was in fact set in western Arabia, as opposed to the then accepted location of Palestine. During his investigations, which employ state of the art decoding methods on the original Hebrew consonantal text - as opposed to the usual, less arduous, practice of employing vocalised translations made by Jewish Masoretes as a base -, he not only found that Biblical locations existed in western Arabia, but that they were logically situated with respect to biblical events. This discovery, which explained why nothing convincing had ever been found to link Palestinian locations with biblical records, spurred him on to decode an untold wealth of information relating to the Old Testament. Refer The Bible Came from Arabia (1985), Secrets of the Bible People (1988) and his later work The Historicity of Biblical Israel: Studies in 1 & 2 Samuel (1998).

In Exodus, it states that the Israelites, while under the guidance of Moses, had many gods, many of which they represented by gold and silver idols. It was not until Moses and the Israelites had their encounter with a dynamic, smoke covered and potentially retributional, mountain, that they adopted its local god as their own God, Yahweh. He was too good to be true - a god with a thunderous voice, of trumpets and fiery tantrums that proved him far more powerful than all of their other gods put together. But most importantly, a thunderous cloud covered the mountain - a feature that Moses' god had possessed throughout Exodus.

As Salibi points out in Secrets of the Bible People, it doesn't take much imagination to realise that Yahweh's mountain home was in fact a volcano, summit engulfed in smoke. Later we find Yahweh as a 'devouring fire' on top of the mountain, and some weeks later, after Moses had returned from his second stint on the mountain, he warns his people that whoever touches the mountain it shall stone to death, be it beast or man. Three days later we find the mountain quaking. There were thunder and lightning. The mountain was all in smoke. Yahweh had descended on it in fire, and smoke rose as the smoke of a furnace. A better description of a volcano is hard to imagine.

For the conventional biblical scholar, the major shortcoming of these passages is that Palestine, the conventional setting for all of these events is, and was not, a volcanic area! Salibi, on the other hand, is handed Mount Elohim ['mountain of the gods'; which the bible mentions in relation to Moses, and is located in volcanically active area of Yemen] on a plate, as the home of Yahweh. A river having essentially the name of Sinai still exists in the vicinity, not far from a ridge (possibly biblical Mt. Sinai) where the Israelites watched the 'fireworks'.

When the Israelites headed back into what is now western Arabia, such an omnipotent god - the undisputed creator of the entire world - was too good to leave behind. Moses therefore 'persuaded' him to leave his volcanic home and join them, which he did, deposing the original pantheon of Israelite gods [making them the first monotheists in recorded history] and travelled with them in unheard-of luxury, as described in Exodus 25-31. To this day, Jews, Christians and Muslims still worship Yahweh, even though He has been an invisible God since being divorced from His once mighty volcano.

[Note that Salibi's Arabian theory of biblical historicity, of which the above comprises a minute amount, has not been disputed by scholars of any of the abovementioned religions in any material way whatsoever. The total of their objections, since Salibi first published his findings in 1985, are that: as Salibi's theory departs from the accepted Jewish translations of the original Hebrew - which had been a dead language for a thousand years before their translation - they don't like it! Therefore, it is inconceivable to them that it could have the slightest merit. Equally, it should be realised that Salibi's theory is simply that, and eligible to be disproved at any time. At present though, it is the only theory to unite the bible as written, to its writers, their lives, and their environment.]"

Does anyone else see this as a problem?

Fire Star 15:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes. Perhaps it is better placed in an article devoted to Salibi? Do you know of any scholarly discussion of his writings? What kind of acceptance as possible, plausible, probable has his work achieved? OneVoice 16:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Salibi's "propositions that suggested the Old Testament was in fact set in western Arabia" is credible? What support do we have for this statement...not us saying yeah or nay but rather scholars. I have removed the word credible pending comments from folks on what is available to support or contradict his writings. OneVoice 22:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think God is an Amish surfer dude. See "Strange Spirits" above and you'll be saved from Hell.--Wighson 02:35, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

This quoted section is highly judgemental, poorly written, and divisive. Further, this article is not the place for this discussion, as commented by "OneVoice" and would be better served in relation to an article on this Salibi.

I've done a bit of reading on the subject (see documentary hypothesis for some good references) and this is the first time I've heard of a theory such as Salibi's. Undoubtedly, the Hejaz (modern NW Arabia on the Red Sea coast) was an important cultural area related to late Bronze/early Iron Canaan, but it was associated with the federation known as Midian according to most Biblical scholars, not Israel. There is some textual evidence that Israel and Midian were allied at an early point.
 * Actually, that Yahweh worship came from the deserts of western Arabia has much currency among scholars. No volcano's though.--Wighson 02:35, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

I don't mind the theory being presented, but since there is an external link to Salibi's organization I'm wondering if the paragraphs could be more concise. I would also like to soften what I perceive as a somewhat dismissive approach to any potential critics of Salibi's theory, as well as presenting an overview of some other thinking on the matter. Eventually...

Fire Star 03:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the word &#8216;credible&#8217;, as mentioned above, was not in relation to Salibi&#8217;s writings, but to a &#8216;number of credible nineteenth century propositions&#8217;. I admit that, as written, it was misleading, but instead of being deleted it should have been rewritten to indicate that it was Salibi&#8217;s opinion that they were credible. In regard to the comment that Israel was not associated with NW Arabia; Salibi shows in his writings that far from Israel not being associated with north-western Arabia, Old Testament Israel was part of north-western Arabia! Modern-day Israel having no place in the geography of Biblical history at that time. I believe that the idea of &#8216;Presenting an overview of some other thinking on the matter&#8217; is a good idea, in fact the more the merrier. I will endeavour to flush some out for future addition. In the meantime, as long as Salibi&#8217;s theory has not been disproved, I believe it should be left where it is, possibly as the first of many theories explaining Yahweh&#8217;s origin. When all's said and done, he/she/it must have come from somewhere! Tell 13:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The section is rather long, contains much that is not specific to the article, might it not be better placed in an article dealing specifically with Salibi's work? OneVoice 19:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Tell,

I'm glad you are here, yours is a nice bit of work, and I didn't want to mess too much with it without some discussion. I like the idea of a separate article on Salibi, as well as on other theorists (Mendenhall and Friedman come to mind) on our present subject. There are many, many credible sources, archaeological, textual, linguistic and cultural, not to mention traditional, that place ancient Israel in modern Israel and Palestine. Indeed, there are many who place the origins of Arabic culture in the early Bronze age Levant as well, not the Hejaz. The most accepted version of the story is that the West Semitic speakers speaking what was later to evolve into Arabic moved into the Hejaz starting aroung 1400 B.C. or so, moving away from the complete collapse of the Hittite empire and its concomitant wars, plagues and famines. As well, the followers of Moses, taking advantage of Egyptian political impotence around the same time (there was even a brief interregnum in the Pharaohs around 1200 B.C.) moved into that power vacuum created by the collapse of Hittite and Egyptian influence. The textual evidence that I am aware of seems to indicate that Moses first moved into the Sinai at Kadesh-barnea, and after 40 years or so gradually began to convert some of the peoples of Trans-Jordan to his new religious federation. A few generations after that, more and more groups in Palestine began to convert, and eventually the majority of "Israel" could be located pretty much in what we today call Israel. Salibi may have a well-researched alternate version, but he is only one theorist stacked against the weight of hundreds, and my questions about claims as to whether his theories definitively "show" this or that, especially since no one else in the field that I am aware of seems to agree with him, were informed by those hypotheses.

Cheers, Fire Star 20:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair call both One Voice and Fire Star. The only reason I thought the article would be better left where it is was that it explains Yahweh's 'birth', and as a birth is ultimately connected more to that which was borne than its biographer, its connection with Salibi seemed somewhat tenuous. If you feel that in this case the biographer is of greater importance than the biographee, then maybe it would sit better in an article dedicated to Salibi's work; though keep a look-out for the fire and brimstone ;-).


 * Fire Star: You state that 'There are many, many credible sources, archaeological, textual, linguistic and cultural, not to mention traditional, that place Israel in modern Israel and Palestine'. All of these are inherently subjective in nature, and therefore, with regard to Exodus, Yahweh, Moses and the Israelites, are quickly negated by the complete lack of historic volcanic activity in Palestine. This simple fact, when linked with the unmistakable volcanic nature of Exodus, must surely leave no doubt that Exodus and Palestine are geographically divorced.


 * Your "unmistakeable volcanic nature" of Exodus is disputed. Since in the context the Almighty creator of the universe is speaking and revealing Himself to Israel, it is obvious that miraculous doings are afoot in the story (whether you accept it as historical or not).  One doesn't even need to accept the miraculous to see no reason to see the volcanic speculation as "unmistakeable"; one could just as well assume that the lying Israelite priests inserted all the stuff about fire, smoke, and mountains quaking at the same time they inserted the stuff about God talking.  You may be left with no doubt that the mountain was volcanic and the OT occurred elsewhere, but that is not accepted by a large number of scholars.  It may be objective fact to you, but it is not NPOV.
 * Also, let me point out that if you think Exodus places the smoking, flaming Mt. Sinai incident in Palestine you have misread it. The episode with God descending on the the mountain in smoke occurred between Egypt and Palestine (hmmm, western Arabia, perhaps?) before the Israelites ever arrived in the promised land.  The Bible never depicted this incident as taking place in Palestine, so trying to argue that the entire Old Testament occurred outside of Palestine on the basis of this event doesn't make sense.  It is universally agreed that the giving of the Law occurred outside of Palestine, although the location of Mt. Sinai is disputed; read Exodus again and you will see. Jdavidb 04:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * To be NPOV, all I can say is "what a load of verbal diarrhoea".


 * O.K. you've roped me in. Following are a few explanatory notes, please read them in conjunction with your preceding misconceptions:


 * It is not "My" unmistakable volcanic nature. Exodus simply reports it as such.
 * Of course it is disputed! Your disputation is proof of such.
 * If the miraculous doings were 'obvious', the volcanic hypothesis would not exist.
 * Your next sentence disputes your previous assertion; leaving me with the conclusion that you would rather believe a Bible riddled with lies than one flowing with geographic logic.
 * It is true that a large number of scholars do not believe the mountain was volcanic; as it is that a large number of scholars are afraid their mother will not pick them up after school.
 * As the result of extensive research, its publication and scrutiny, Salibi's views are far more NPOV than your current contribution.
 * I'm not sure where you picked up the Sinai\Palestine thing. I've stated that Salibi places Mt. Sinai in Yemen!
 * Your argument that Mt. Sinai could not be in Palestine, because it was between Egypt and the Promised Land, holds little water. The Promised Land has never been undisputedly located; so who's to say Palestine was not on the way?
 * It was not indicated that the Old Testament must have taken place outside of Palestine because of the assumption that Mt. Sinai was volcanic. Its volcanicity is but an interesting Biblical observation that Salibi's theory does not disprove.
 * When it comes to Yahweh's followers, nothing is "universally agreed". All the time we have Christians fighting Christians; Moslems fighting Moslems; Christians fighting Moslems, and Jews fighting everyone; the only thing we have in common seems to be disagreement!
 * Rereading Exodus would prove little. If Mt. Sinai is in Yemen, we already agree that it's not in Palestine!


 * Please reread my reply to your comment above Tell 09:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where are the Arabian Volcanos?

 * Hmm....there are many events related in Exodus that are explained away has not having happened or being very different from the text...perhaps the same is true of the "volanic activity". It seems that Salibi's thesis requires this volcano.  It might to easier to dismiss the volcano, just as others have dismissed the manna or any number of other events. OneVoice 14:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I&#8217;m not sure exactly what you&#8217;re getting at here. If you mean that you won&#8217;t believe the Bible until much of it has been disproved, then stay with twentieth century dogma (nineteenth century being much more unrestricted by organised crime). Salibi&#8217;s push is simply to show that the Old Testament is ostensibly a true history of a people. Tell 07:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * As you mention in your preamble to the said article 'Yahweh is first introduced by name to Moses in a theophany on Mount Sinai. Before Moses' time the exact name "Yahweh" is not attested'. This tends to indicate that the Israelites did not take Yahweh to Mount Sinai, yet took him with them on leaving (I would have thought Moses would have been introduced to Yahweh during the burning bush episode; during his pre-exodus, fugitive, period. Without checking, I feel Exodus 20 would be much later than this, probably the voice-of-trumpets and golden-calf extravaganza; although you may wish to correct me on this). If the Israelites adopted their new God in this manner (as per Exodus) it follows that mention of it should be made on his page. It also follows that Mount Sinai was not in Palestine - a thought worth considering - and that my original title 'Yahweh's Likely Ancestry' (revised to 'Yahweh's Possible Origin' by Llywrch), although on the edge of NPOV, was probably more apprpriate. After all; the locals probably had him first, and who's to say he was not the son of another GGod!(sic)


 * As far as I know, no one contends that Mount Sinai was/is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterrean Sea. I believe that you are correct regarding the first use of the name, it was prior to the return of Moses to Egypt, not during the events at Mount Sinai. (your memory may vary ;) OneVoice 14:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don&#8217;t think the Jordan River or the Mediterranean have had a mention until now, but as an aside - and staying with the Salibi theme -, his Arabian theory strongly indicates that the Jordan was in fact an escarpment on the eastern side of the Red Sea, and not a river! The Biblical Mt Sinai therefore being logically placed in Yemen. Tell 07:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyway; I've nattered on far too long. The sum of the words in this and your previous response equate to more than the article we're discussing, which One Voice assures us is far too long. I leave the fate of the said article in your capable hands, just try not to stuff it up too much (you write with an English accent, so I have complete faith in you [I think!]). If you move it, try to find a spot it can be easily found by those wanting to learn, yet adequately hidden from narrow-minded fundamentalist wickedpedians :-). Before I go, just a note on a more personal note. Fire Star, you seem like a fairly knowledgeable and open-minded person and recommend that, as you'd never heard of Salibi, you check out his Arabian theory a bit more. I accidentally came across his writings some years ago, not from the biblical direction but from the etymological direction, which forms the basis of his theory. From that point of view he made perfect sense, and in addition settled my previously uneasy feeling for Old Testament geography into a landscape that fitted like a glove. If you should read any of the three books that I've mentioned, The Bible Came from Arabia (1985) is more in-line with my original etymological interest, and therefore pretty hard going; Secrets of the Bible People (1988) is mainly of Salibi's re-translations and explanations of early Old Testament - including Moses meets Yahweh -, and can be read independently of the above; and The Historicity of Biblical Israel: Studies in 1 & 2 Samuel (1998) is just a damn good read, so full of blood and guts that it makes Rambo pale into insignificance. Tell 13:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Tell, Well thank you, I will read Salibi further. Most of the writers I am familar with place Moses' theophany in a thunderstorm on Sinai (or Horeb as some books of the Bible call it), but I have heard of the volcanic allusion before, too. Some think the collapse of the Hittites was partly due to the environmental consequences of a massive eruption at Santorini in the Aegean. Off subject, one of my favourite bits in the entire Old Testament is 1 Samuel 8, which should be diverting if you aren't a royalist... Fire Star 15:12, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I&#8217;d be interested to hear from you on my talk page some time about what you think of Salibi. Take your time when reading him though (no speed-reading), rearranged mental geography takes a while gell :-) Tell 07:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"It has already been pointed out and long since accepted, that the Mitanni state was largely dominated by a thin superstratum of Indo-European aristocracy, with a population of Hurrian and Semitic speaking peoples (see R.T. O'Callaghan, Aram Naharaim (Rome, 1948), pp. 51-74)." -George E. Mendenhall "The Tenth Generation - The Origins of the Biblical Tradition" The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The Mitanni aristocracy could have just as easily been an Anatolian group as an Indo-Aryan. In any event, they were mostly Hurrian and Amorite by weight of numbers. To say they were definitely "Hindu" is not supported.

Fire Star 04:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, the linguistic evidence indicates that they were specifically Indo-Aryan. They did worship some gods mentioned in the Veda; however, to call them "Hindus" would be pretty anachronistic. Mustafaa 07:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Btw, there's some editing that doesn't even try to be NPOV going on at this article - be warned... - Mustafaa 07:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Mustafaa, Would you say that the Mitanni aristocracy were possibly proto-Persian or perhaps early enough to be undifferentiated proto-Indo-Persian? I do know that dispossessed Mariannu were used as mercenaries throughout the region in the Late Bronze, and there are many similarities between some later Hindu and earlier Hurrian myths. Fire Star 01:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of the name "Yahweh"
Wighson it is not appreciated that you continue to remove this information that also appears under the Tetragrammaton article. It is most appropriate to give another side of an issue. This has nothing to do with a religion or with the name Jehovah. It deals directly with this article and the name Yahweh. Please refrain from reverting, it would be appreciated if you restore it back or at least discuss why it is inappropriate. Explain what you mean by a POV. Is it just that you might not like it?


 * Johanneum,


 * I think it was probably correct for Wighson to remove the sentence that I wrote in Wikipedia:Tetragrammaton:
 * [ e.g. ""The main criticism of the name "Yahweh" is that the vocalized Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" is found in no extant Hebrew Text""]


 * I think that that sentence could be critiqued for being "original research" or possibly it could be critiqued for being personal point of view.


 * I think if some Hebrew scholar published an article in which he wrote that in his personal research he had discovered that no extant Hebrew text on the planet earth preserved the vocalized Hebrew spelling "Yahweh", I think that portions of his research found in that article could be posted in a Wikipedia Article.


 * However Johanneum, you or I cannot do that. Even if you or I had researched every extant Hebrew text in the world, and discovered that not one of them preserved the vocalized Hebrew spelling "Yahweh", we could not by Wikipedia rules add that comment to a Wikipedia Artcle.
 * First we'd have to publish that article, and it would have to undergo peer review. But since I don't think either one of us is a scholar we probably could not get our article published.


 * However I don't think that Wighson should have removed that portion that had been added to Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton by a differenr editor, and was referenced to ""BAR 21.2 (March-April 1995),31 George W. Buchanan, "How God’s Name Was Pronounced" ""
 * That is merely posting another point of view on the name "Yahweh" that has allready been published in a verifiable source.

Seeker02421 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is true that "Yahweh" (יַהְוֶה or יַהֲוֶה) does not appear in any Hebrew text. It has been the practice as long as Hebrew texts have been preserved NOT to write a pronunciation for the name of God. In the oldest Hebrew texts of the Bible (among the Dead Sea Scrolls), the text is unpointed, which means that it does not bear a vowel tradition. In fact, at that period there was no written vowel system for the Hebrew language. It was only later that people began to develop various ways to represent vowels above and below Hebrew consonants. One such system was the Tiberian Massoretic tradition, which has been standardized and included on all Hebrew Bibles published since that time. So, it would be quite unnatural to see vowels written on any Hebrew text before the Massoretes, since a written vowel system did not exist then; and it would be just as unnatural to find a vocalized/vowelized version of the Tetragrammaton after the Massoretes, since the tradition of not speaking the Name had arisen well before them and was part of the regular custom of Second-Temple Judaism. Yonah mishael 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote
The first paragraph appears to contain extensive quoted material; this should be separated out and indented as a quote. AnonMoos 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The introduction of this article does not accurately quote the original "JEHOVAH (YAHWEH)" article from the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, in several places. (See link below)


 * http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-7/264290/BritannicaJehovah600.JPG


 * The Wikipedia Article:Yahweh fails to note that the quoted article was titled "JEHOVAH (YAHWEH)" not "Yahweh1 (ya·'we) ".


 * Also Footnote #2 in the Wikipedia:Yahweh article reads:
 * (e.g. Though the original pronunciation of the consonantally-written name YHWH is not known with certainty, linguistic scholars generally consider Yahwheh to be most probable, and this form is the one generally used in the separate articles throughout this encyclopedia.)


 * Footnote #2 in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "JEHOVAH(YAHWEH)" actually read:


 * "This form, Yahweh, as the correct one, is generally used in the separate articles throughout this work"

Seeker02421 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing was bizarre and completely inappropriate for the article, so I have removed it. Here's what it said, for the record: On June 6, 2006, this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh was basically a cut and paste of the Wikisource Article:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jehovah.

Since June 6, 2006 many edits have been made to this article, that attempted to correct differences between the text brought into this article on June 6, 2006, and the actual text that is found in the Article:"JEHOVAH" (YAHWEH) as it is preserved in original copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911.

However some Wikipedia editors have treated this article like any other Wikipedia Article, and have made edits to this article in an attempt to make the article more accurate as determined by their particular neutral point of view.

Thus, the present Article no longer accurately represents the article "JEHOVAH (YAHWEH}", as it is preserved in original copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911.

Does Wikipedia have any specific rules for editing an article such as this article? ___________________________________________________________________________________ Like I said...bizarre and completely inappropriate. Tom e rtalk 05:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a big Comment thing in the middle of an article? Highlandlord 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's annoying...I have no idea how this article is supposed to read, so I put a wikify tag on it. Hopefully someone can help. Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the "Wikisource" portion of this article be freely edited?

 * On June 6, 2006, an editor cut and pasted almost the complete Wikisource Article:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jehovah Wikisource into the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.


 * Wikisource rules state:
 * The wiki pages on most Wikimedia projects are designed to evolve forever.
 * Typical examples are Wikipedia articles or Wikibooks study guides.
 * By contrast, Wikisource is a library of static texts that have already been published elsewhere.
 * In many or most cases, these texts are not meant to change and evolve,
 * and it would deeply hurt their integrity if they did!


 * Does Wikipedia approve of a complete ["almost" complete] Wikisource Article being brought into a Wikipedia Article, and then having that Wikisource article freely edited by Wikipedia editors?


 * Wikisource would not approve of edits being made to that article while it was posted on their site, if those edits resulted in changes being made to the actual original text.


 * Seeker02421 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Any article on Wikipedia must be edited in accord with Wikipedia's policies. The original version from the Britannica should be preserved on Wikisource. It's fine to import a copy of a public domain article to Wikipedia, but once here, it is expected that the article will be edited and improved. That said, the quality of this article is terrible. It is by far one of the worst articles I have seen. --Srleffler 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) Is there some particular reason part of the article uses YHWH and another part uses JHVH? They are the same hebrew letters, so only one should be used, right? Considering the article title, YHWH strikes me as the best version, except when explaining the origin of Jehovah.
 * Possible answer: All these spellings are equally incorrect and correct. The problem is transliteration. I agree however, that it would be best if there was a common spelling throughout.


 * 1) Why is there a footnotes section in the middle? Is that necessary? Sxeptomaniac 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, and should be edited if it hasn't been.


 * Sxeptomaniac,
 * Page 311 of the original Encyclopedia Britannica had 5 Footnotes
 * Page 312 of the original Encyclopedia Britannica had 16 Footnotes
 * Page 313 of the original Encyclopedia Britannica had 7 Footnotes
 * Page 314 of the original Encyclopedia Britannica had 0 Footnotes


 * Sections # 3.1 thru Section # 3.8 were all from page 312 of the original article.


 * Section #4:Footnotes for Section # 3.1 thru Section # 3.8, has the 16 Footnotes that were on page 312 of the original article.


 * The 12 remaining footnotes for the other pages are here and there and everywhere at the present moment.


 * Labeling the consonants JHVH for "Jehovah"
 * and
 * labeling the consonants YHWH for "Yahweh"
 * is probably necessary when discussing "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" in the same article.


 * And the W / V issue seems to be be inherant in the Hebrew Language at the present time.


 * Was it King David or was it King Dawid in Old Testament times?

Seeker02421 00:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, a lot of the translation issues come from centuries of translating names, just as Yeshua became Iesus became Jesus. It doesn't really matter whether YHWH, JHVH, or some other combination is used, so long as it is clear and consistent.  I just was reading the article and noticed several points where JHVH was used even though there didn't seem to be a clear reason for it.  I wanted to check if there was a good reason for it or if it had just evolved that way and needed to be fixed. Sxeptomaniac 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Was it King David or was it King Dawid in Old Testament times? (Seeker02421)


 * Chances are that when David was alive his name was [Dawíd], since at that time in the Hebrew language it is believed that Vav represented the semiconsonant [w]. This is consistent with the Arabic pronunciation of Waw (و) and the Aramaic/Syriac pronunciation of Waw (ܘ), both of which correspond directly to the Hebrew ו. Yonah mishael 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

References [Includes 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Footnotes]
The previous Section #4 in the main article [e.g. Footnotes for Section #3.1 thru Section # 3.8] has been deleted.

A new section: "References [Includes 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Footnotes]" has been created. Footnotes 1 thru 12 from page 312 of the original 1911 Encyclopedia Article; JEHOVAH[YAHWEH] can now be found in this new section.

There are still about another 16 Footnotes from the original 1911 Article that need to be placed in this new Section.

Seeker02421 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The name of God, Arabic and Islam
In islam the mountain of god is Arafat (south of Palestine) in the arabian peninsula close to mecca where, in islam, Abraham sacrificed the ram. In arabic and in Islam there are 99 names or attributes to god with one hidden name. God is almost allways refered to as Huwa (or He, as in Him) so that you say huwa Allah. Allah of course is just a condensed form of El-Illah or The God; so that Huwa Allah means He The God; "The" because there is only one. The Arabs Moses and the Israelites met at the mountain south of Palestine(Arafat?) would have talked of God as He or Huwa. He the God; or Huwa Allah. The use of Allah and Huwa in Islam is because we do not know the hidden name of god and the 99 "names" are only attributes really (The Compassionate; The Merciful; etc) The names are almost allways in sentences mentioned as they are but when talking of god in attriibute one says e.g. Huwa Allah Al Raheem (He The God The Merciful) etc

Islamic belief maintains that The God; Allah; Huwa; He; is one; the same who talked to Moses and sent Jesus and Mohamed


 * Just wanted to agree that Allah is a condensed form of Al-Illah. Allah (God) is written الله and Al-Illah (the God) is written الإله. The alif of لإ disappears (actually, it becomes the dagger alif written above the shadda), and the two laams combine with the already doubled laam. The first is not pronounced, since ل is a moon letter. The resultant form is اللـه, which is completed by the addition of the shadda and the dagger alif: الله. :) How fun! - Yonah mishael

Halleluyahweh has been shorten to be halleluyah [verification needed]
Can the above statement found in Section # 8.3 of the main article be verified?


 * יָהּ (Yah) is a normal form of the name of God. Hallelujah is written as two words in Hebrew:


 * הַלְּלוּ־יָהּ Hallelu-Yah


 * Praise, the singular imperative form of which is הַלֵּל hallel, is found here in the plural imperative. Yah is joined to it with a maqef (־), functioning to join the two words into one expression and to remove the trope/accent from hallelu. In other words, the trope (how you sing the word) treats this as one unit.


 * There is no record of a form הללו־יהוה hallelu-YHWH (or anything similar). It is always found with the shorter form unless the words are divided, which case you might find it with the name of God written fully, thus:


 * הללו את יהוה Hallelu et YHWH (Praise YHWH) OR
 * הללו את שם יהוה Hallelu et shem YHWH (Praise the name of YHWH)


 * In other words, this claim is not based on what is found in the Hebrew Bible. הללו־יהוה is not found in the Bible. See [blacklisted link removed] on Mechon Mamre to analyze the verses that have הללו and יהוה together. Yonah mishael 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

YHWH = *dyeuwo ?
"The attempts to connect the name Yahweh with that of an Indo-European deity (Jehovah-Jove, &c.), or to derive it from Egyptian or Chinese, may be passed over."

In the case of Egyptian or Chinese, I agree. But why is it so in the case of Indo-European? Their chief god's name *di-yauwo, *di-euwo- could pretty much be considered the original source for YHWH. There is, for example, some evidence that Abraham might either actually be a Hittite or at least have had close contact with Hittites, and so would the early Hebrews. Besides, the very name of the Hebrew priestly tribe, the Levi, sounds similar to Luwi, or Luvites, another tribe nearby who spoke an Indo-European language. It could well be that the priestly elite among the Hebrews descended from Indo-European speakers (this has happened in several other cases, cf. India) and so would have transmitted a form of the name of their chief deity to the Israelites.Giorgioz 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a game of "sounds-alike", which is almost always misleading. No such connection has ever been shown. Connections with other Semitic deities are far more likely. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A dreadful article...
...it seems to have ben lifted in toto from an outdated version of the Encyclo Britannica, with maybe a dash of equally antiquated Jewish Encyclo. Someone who knows the subject (and from the discussion page there seem to be some around) should junk the whole thing and start again. PiCo 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, it is annoyingly redundant. I have removed some redundancy and corrected a few very minor things, but much more remains to be done. On the other hand, the antiquated sources you mention are good, reliable sources free of copyright.


 * I'm sure the EB 1911 and the JE of the same period were reliable in their day, but that's a century ago - scholarship has moved on. The article needs to be based on the most recent sources - the latest EB and JE for starters, and the more important books and journal articles from the last ten years or so. Sources don't need to be free of copyright in order to be used as sources, provided they're properly used (i.e., direct quotes should be brief, they should be acknowledged, etc). But please, I'd love to see this article improved, keep at it! PiCo 12:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * PiCo
 * Why don't you add a few edits to this article?
 * I would like to read more modern scholarship on the "Yahweh/Jehovah" issue.


 * However I see all sorts of red flags when 20th century scholarship seems to agree almost 100% that Clement of Alexandria wrote "Iaoue" (= Yahweh) not "Iaou" (= Yahu) in his Greek Stromata Book V. Chapter 6, while scholarship from the 11th century through 1850 A.D. and possibly later seemed to agree almost 100% that Clement wrote "Iaou" (= Yahu).


 * Wikipedia's policy is "Verifiability not Truth", which means that
 * Wikipedia cannot quarantee any article is true just because a scholarly article [either modern or outdated] is quoted.


 * Seeker02421 13:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

jahweh / jehowa
so the tetragrammaton is JHWH. how do we know that jehowa is the wrong name and jahweh is the correct? ok, jehova has the vowels of "Adonai", so that may be a clue, but what about jahweh? doesn't it have the vowels of "HaShem"?--  ExpImp talk con 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't know. It can be proved (argued convincingly) that "Jehovah" arose as a mistake.
 * Part of the proof goes as follows: the prepositions be, ke and le have shwa, but get hireq before another shwa, and the corresponding vowel before a hatef vowel. (And cere before alef with hatef segol.) Now before JHWH they get patah, showing that JHWH has (that is, is pronounced with) hatef patah. Jewish tradition and the details of pointing agree: where JHWH appears and is pointed in the way that naive readers would read as Jehovah, one should read Adonai.
 * Jahweh is just a guess - other people guess differently. There is good evidence (but no "proof") for the start Jah. There are at least a dozen proposals for the full name.


 * Hmmm
 * Let's see now, if "jehova has the vowels of "Adonai",
 * then "e" and "A" would have to be the same.
 * Hmmm
 * Just maybe jehova does not have the vowels of "Adonai" [a.k.a.Adonay]
 * Seeker02421 17:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in fact it has, as one sees from the shape in combination with prepositions, see above.

Yahweh??? I don't think so.
I am a very active, Jew. I have never heard of such a name for G-d as Yahweh. I have heard Jehovah (Yehovah), Ha-Shem, and most commonly Adonai. I am from an all Jew family, and none of my relatives, not even ones in Israel would say that G-d's name is pronounced as Yahweh, they would all say Adonai first. If asked, they would say a second name is Ha-Shem, but never Yahweh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.19.102 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * If you are really a very active Jew, then you would know that the Name itself is never pronounced aloud, and that the Hebrew letters that comprise it could possibly be the literal spelling of neither "Adonai" nor "haShem". It is the ineffability of the Name that leads pious Jews to avoid fully spelling out "God", which in English also functions as a name for Him of sorts.


 * Since the four letters of the Name are never pointed, its pronunciation cannot be determined from texts, and if there exists a Rabbinic tradition as to its pronunciation those who know of it have not chosen to reveal it. As Tetragrammaton explains, "Yahweh" is the standard scholarly pronuncuation which may or may not be actually correct. "Jehovah" is certainly wrong whether the "J" is spoken as originally intended or not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

cleanup
ok, well I wanted to find some information on Yahweh and I couldn't read this this page, it poorly constructed and badly written, seemingly because of all the viewpoints? I learnt more from the discussions page actually. But i wanted to know about the traditions and development of Yahweh and this article is all about the etymology of the name. Can you all focus on a cleanup operation, think of the children....! Ciriii 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the pronunciation "Yahweh" is a fraud
I am also an active Jew, and I can say that to the best of my understanding the pronunciation "Yahweh" is false and inaccurate. If there were any degree of truth in it, then the theophoric names Yehoshaphat, Yehonatan, Yehoyachin, Yehoshuah, etc. would all be pronounced Yahweshaphat, Yahwenatan, Yahweyachin, Yahweshuah, etc.. which they are not in either the Masoretes or Septuagint. It is also significant that in all these theophoric names, the vowel sequence E-O-A is preserved (like in Ye Ho Ah). It is also significant that if the vowel points were meant to signify ADONAI, then the name of God would be written Yahovah, not Y'hovah. It is also significant that in the oldest Masoretic texts, eg. Codex Aleppo and Leningrad, usually the middle vowel -O- is omitted. Why would this be done if the vowel is simply meant as an aide to the read to say 'ADONAI' out loud? However, there are plenty of examples in both texts which clearly indicate the -O- vowel in the middle. In short, it is clearly irrelevant what the "scholarly opinion" is at the moment. The pronunciation "Yahweh" borders on the comical.


 * Well, I'm not a Hebrew scholar of any kind, but I've often thought the same thing, and for the same reasons. This is among the issues raised in Tetragrammaton. However, "Yahweh" is less a fraud than a convention. This kind of misunderstanding is a good argument for merging the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The vav plays differing lexical roles, depending on the grammatical lexical contexts. Your point about Hebrew names containing a portion of the Tettragramaton is not dispositive, for this reason. The convention about the pronuciation Yahweh has too many reasons in its favor, although we can indeed never be completely certain. If you know Hebrew, you should realize that the vowels commonly used in the Massoretic text under YHWH make no sense. A name in Classical Hebrew with that spelling would almost certainly be pronouned "Yahweh," and no other way. Your point about the Aleppo and Leningrad codices also indicates that the pronunciation did not contain the middle "o" of "Jehovah." The problem simply is that "Jehovah" has been used for about two hundred years, and has accumulated a validity of sorts. In any case, this is an issue which will probably never be completely resolved. 66.108.105.21 05:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Yahweh is not Jehovah
the letters YHVH is Jehovah. Yahweh is not the same thing and also is a negative entity, while Jehovah is positive. These 2 things should be separated so that they can be elaborated upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.91.165 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC).


 * That would be the POV of Gnostic Christianity, add it at the appropriate article concerning the Demiurge. Also, you are treating this as "fact."  It is not 'fact' that YHVH exists, let alone that he is one of multiple entities.  Childe Roland of Gilead 10:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)