This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
|
Threads older than 1 months may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Contents
Jehovah not Yaweh was the God of the Jews
The page does not put emphasis on the fact that Yahweh was the God of the Jews is just a theory by people like Mark S. Smith and that in fact, the name of God un Hebrew יהוה cannot be read Yahweh, as there is not w letter there. Ronmar24 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ronmar24: The name "Jehovah" is an incorrect older misreading of the name. It is an Anglicized form of a Latinized form of a Hellenized form of the original Hebrew name and, through its transmission from one language to another, it has become radically distorted. For one thing, the Hebrew letter י (yod) can never make the "J" sound; it did not make it in ancient Hebrew, nor does it ever make it in modern Hebrew. Instead, it always makes the "Y" sound. The reason it is written as a "J" in "Jehovah" is because, in Latin, the name was written "Iehovah." They did not have the letter "J" in Latin and the letter "I" could be used as a consonant to represent the "Y" sound, but, in English, the Latin consonantal "I" became transcribed as a "J," which eventually took on the sound we know it to make today, which is completely different from the original "Y" sound it was used to represent.
- Another point of confusion is that, in ancient Hebrew, the letter ו (waw or vav) actually did make the "W" sound, but, in modern Hebrew, it makes the "V" sound. The reason for this is language change, which is natural and common, but which can make it confusing for laypersons to understand how ancient languages are reconstructed. The same thing, incidentally, happened with the letter "V" in Latin. Latin originally did not have the letter "W" and the letter "V" made the sound that is now assigned to the letter "W," a fact which is supported by a vast array of linguistic evidence from Roman writings, inscriptions, and transliterations between languages. Because of this, "Iehovah" (the Latin transliteration of the Hebrew name on which the English transliteration of "Jehovah" is based) would have actually, originally been pronounced "Ye-ho-wah" in classical Latin, which is much closer to "Yahweh" than "Jehovah."
- Therefore, "Jehovah" in modern English has two consonants that we know are definitely wrong. We do not know what the vowels of the sacred name were, because the scribes who later invented vowel markers for Hebrew did not know how "YHWH" was originally pronounced and therefore did not assign vowel markers to it. (I doubt they would assigned them, even if they did know what they were, since it was considered blasphemous by that point to even think the holy name in one's head, so they probably would have thought it better if no one knew how it was pronounced.) There are actually many different Greek and Latin transliterations of the tetragrammaton and the vowels used in them often vary considerably, but they are probably our best clue to how the name was originally pronounced, meaning "Yahweh" or something similar is probably the closest we will ever come to an accurate reconstruction. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- In short, saying that Jehovah (and not Yahweh) was the God of the Jews is like saying that Jesus (and not Yeshua) is the God of the Christians -- it gets different pronunciations from different languages and periods of history for the same name confused for completely distinct figures. It's like saying that "aqua" is not "water." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yahweh, Marduk, and national gods
@WikiEditorial101: My explanation on your user talk page was not original research. Here in The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (a source which is already cited multiple times in this very article), for instance, Mark S. Smith directly compares Yahweh to Marduk on multiple separate occasions, for reasons similar to what I outlined on your talk page. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@WikiEditorial101: I have seen the citations Katolophyromai uses to justify a link. If you still object to keeping Marduk after having verified them, please cite references that contradict those. Another option to the link would be a sentence or two linking to it while explaining with sources why (the see also link would then be removed to avoid overlinking). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The Manual of Style suggests adding annotations to See Also links when the relevance isn't immediately obvious, which might be a good idea here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I went ahead and did this for Marduk and Qos - feel free to adjust or remove if you don't like how it looks. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Cultural Sensitivity
In modern Judaism, it is considered highly disrespectful to state the name of God in this way. It was, in ancient times, only stated in the Temple on Yom Kippur. Since then, the original pronunciation has been entirely lost, with only the four consonants - yud hey vav hey - remaining. We do not know how those consonants are pronounced, nor what vowels belong between them. For Jewish people now, it is disrespectful to write out those letters irreverently, much less a hypothesis on the word; texts with those letters are usually buried (especially Torah scrolls) and in most concepts people use Adonai (Lord, for prayer) and HaShem (the name, for casual use). Utilizing some other terminology rather than a hypothesis on a possible pronunciation, which if it's true is very disrespectful to 14 million people to use, and if it's not true it's not useful to say, would behoove article writers on this page and others including this word. Heck, utilizing "yud-hey-vav-hey" would be more proper as it is for educational purposes and not making assumptions we have no real basis for. Dinostuck (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED. We haven't taken down pictures in the Muhammad or Dai Gohonzon articles for similar reasons. Those articles at least have the case that we're primarily text-based, not picture-based. In this case, it's simply not possible to explain how a concept is usually referred to in most academic circles without actually printing it at some point. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but there are alternatives that don't involve blatantly wrong information, especially since Jewish ppl do not think Y\\a\\w\\e\\h is actually the probable pronunciation. For example, doing YHVH would actually be more appropriate, given it is allowed in educational contexts. Furthermore, the word is utilized liberally across pages aside from this one, where it is not in fact necessary, especially since - and I cannot stress this enough - it is probably not even correct. Dinostuck (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think it’s fair to include y/ahweh in the article because, as Ian said, it is a term often used in academia. That said...it is wrong. And it shouldn’t be presented as correct. In my mind it would make the most sense to use “YHVH”, and then maybe devote a few sentences or a paragraph or so to explaining about the term y/ahweh. 144.91.201.5 (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.91.201.5 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- The answer by Ian.thomson is final: we do not maim an encyclopedia based upon mainstream scholarship because true believers may feel offended. This applies to all religions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I’m not arguing that it should be changed due to offending true believers. I’m not a true believer myself. I’m arguing that, while it is the term commonly used in academia, the term itself is not correct. Yahweh has as much legitimacy as a transliteration as Yahoo-Wahoo does. YHVH would hardly be less offensive to many Jews—but it would be more accurate, and that’s the important thing. 144.91.201.5 (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, at this point I have accepted the reasoning for having the term. It is more that YHVH is not necessarily pronounced Y\ahweh more than it is pronounced any other combination of vowels within those consonants, as the vowels are not included in ancient Hebrew, and the pronunciation was lost after the exile. Dinostuck (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Dinostuck. We have no way of knowing exactly how the term was pronounced in the original Hebrew, as all modern readings instead substitute the term "Adonai", but the probability of the pronunciation being Y\ahweh is completely zero, as Hebrew does not possess a "w" sound whatsoever. Furthermore, we do not know the pronunciation of the vowels, as they were only ever known by the High Priest, and have, as was previously stated, been lost after the exile. Y\ahweh is certainly incorrect, however, and YHVH would be a more factual term for the subject matter than a haphazard guess at the proper pronunciation that utilizes a sound that does not even exist in the source language. Castleofwarriors (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you look at the “Jehovah not Yahweh was the god of the Jews” section on this very page, you’ll find that someone pointed out, over a year ago, that “[w]e do not know what the vowels of the sacred name were”. They point out that “yahweh” is an approximation at best, drawn from other cultures’ recordings of the term. We don’t know how it’s pronounced. The tetragrammaton (YHVH), however, is something we do actually have. So we should use it. 144.91.201.5 (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's true that noone knows how it was pronounced and an interesting point is that it must not have been important to transmit it (as opposed to for instance some ancient Sanskrit words). As previously mentioned, we simply use the name that's used the most in scholarly works (but we do mention the roots and link to the tetragrammaton article). I don't think that it would be a problem to add another well placed mention of YHVH or YHWH however. —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Yahweh" is considered by scholars to be the most probable reconstructed pronunciation of the name. In ancient times, the Hebrew letter vav was pronounced like a "w" in modern English, but, in modern Hebrew it is pronounced like a "v" due to linguistic change. The same thing actually also happened in classical Latin; in classical times, the letter "v" was always pronounced like a "w," but, in modern ecclesiastical Latin, it is always pronounced like a "v." It is the vowel sounds, not the consonants, that are a matter of dispute, but, seeing as no one knows what the original vowel sounds were in the name YHWH, "Yahweh" is really just as good a guess as any. Regardless of whether the name was "Yahweh," "Yohaiwuh," Yehoowih," or some other combination of vowels, most scholars use the name "Yahweh" when writing about this ancient deity, so we must do the same. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Dinostuck. We have no way of knowing exactly how the term was pronounced in the original Hebrew, as all modern readings instead substitute the term "Adonai", but the probability of the pronunciation being Y\ahweh is completely zero, as Hebrew does not possess a "w" sound whatsoever. Furthermore, we do not know the pronunciation of the vowels, as they were only ever known by the High Priest, and have, as was previously stated, been lost after the exile. Y\ahweh is certainly incorrect, however, and YHVH would be a more factual term for the subject matter than a haphazard guess at the proper pronunciation that utilizes a sound that does not even exist in the source language. Castleofwarriors (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is a non-starter. WP is not censored, so we do not care if Orthodox Jewish readers are offended by our use of the term, just as we do not care if Christians are offended by evolution being presented as a fact, or if Muslims are offended by our depictions of Mohamed. Offense is internal, meaning it's the problem of the person being offended, not that of whatever the offense is directed at.
- Also, modern scholars all used "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation. Arguing that we should not because we can't prove it correct ignores not only one of our pillars, but the fact that we can't prove a large number of other things which we accept our sources to be reliable upon. This includes literally every science and historical article on this site. What you are suggesting is essentially that we adopt a hard solipsistic approach to knowledge, which is fundamentally at odds with the mission of an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
For Dinostuck, I'm aware that spelling out the name of God like this causes distress, and I'd like to avoid it, but I don't see any way. There's an article YHWH which is about the name, and it's already quite long - I don't see it being merged with this one. Plus this article has a particular focus, which is the history and nature of the god. So, if Dinostuck can suggest something I'd listen, but I have suggestions myself.PiCo (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly? In articles that aren't this one or articles specifically designated for the discussion of the concept, I would use YHVH or "The God of the Israelites" or some substitution that would link back to this page. This was inspired by me doing some research on Nebuchadnezzar (CIV V related) and being shocked to see Y\ahweh written out. I just don't see the need on pages that aren't this one. It seems to me that utilizing a more accurate phrasing (given that Y\ahweh is probably not right, according to rabbinical research) would kill two birds with one stone - making a marginalized group more comfortable, and not encouraging the spread of misinformation, PiCo. Maybe I'm wrong to suggest as such, but it was worth bringing up. Dinostuck (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Dinostuck (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- I must apologise: I see that I wrote above "I have suggestions myself", but I meant to write that I have no suggestions. To answer your points, I'd be happy to use YHWH in other articles, but the question remains what to do about this one. How can it be distinguished from the article YHWH, which is about the name? Perhaps it could be as simple as having this one titled YHWH (God) and the other YHWH (name}. It would need some discussion here, and it might be worth trying, but I fear that other editors will want to talk about how the name was pronounced.PiCo (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Dinostuck: Please see my explanation above about the name and the pronunciation of the letter vav. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- I must apologise: I see that I wrote above "I have suggestions myself", but I meant to write that I have no suggestions. To answer your points, I'd be happy to use YHWH in other articles, but the question remains what to do about this one. How can it be distinguished from the article YHWH, which is about the name? Perhaps it could be as simple as having this one titled YHWH (God) and the other YHWH (name}. It would need some discussion here, and it might be worth trying, but I fear that other editors will want to talk about how the name was pronounced.PiCo (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Pronunciation: There is quite some evidence that the pronunciation was "yahwe". As part of names at the end it was "yahu". The pronuciations "yave" and "yao" ware reported by greek writers who did not have an "h" between vowels at that time anymore. Moreover "h" at the end of a syllable at that time was lost in Hebrew anyhow. With the "e" at the end lost, "yahwe" would become "yahu", with also the "h" lost "yao or "yau", with the "h" in the middle lost "yawe", that later became "yave", as "w" became "v". All this lead scholars to the very substantiated assumption that the original pronunciation was "yahwe". See also Tetragrammaton. Dan Holsinger (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Dinostuck: I think you have a misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about: we tell the masses what scholars have written, and we have WP:RULES like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:IDL. This is not a place for our own opinions, it is not a place for the opinions of our own religious leaders (except as rendered by WP:SCHOLARSHIP), it is not a place where we try to make everybody happy, it is not a forum for religious chatter. If most mainstream Bible scholars write Yahweh, we have no way of avoiding such spelling, the choice is theirs, not ours: we have no voice in this academic debate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The troll has turned up on Spanish Wikipedia
I just thought I would point this out: [1]. Our resident troll friend left one of his characteristic insulting rants on my talk page on Spanish Wikipedia in English, presumably knowing that it would ping me with a "notification from another wiki." Apparently he is trying to get creative in finding ways to continue trolling and insulting people. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Katolophyromai I received the same disruption on the Japanese Wikipedia. From an ANI post I started last night, I can suspect this is all Grawp’s handiwork, as he’s been disrupting us for many years. However, please join us in discussing this issue at ANI instead of here. StormContent 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @StormContent: The death threats you and I both received are almost certainly from Wittgenstein123, a persistent troll and troublemaker who has been a nuisance on this article for over a year now. I have left a lengthy comment in the discussion explaining this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Katolophyromai I received the same disruption on the Japanese Wikipedia. From an ANI post I started last night, I can suspect this is all Grawp’s handiwork, as he’s been disrupting us for many years. However, please join us in discussing this issue at ANI instead of here. StormContent 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I get threats like this from time to time, and always from the same person (at least on wiki...). I generally ignore them, but every once in a while, I'll offer some helpful advice on how to actually intimidate someone. Trolls are some of the easiest people to troll, so this usually results in a brief flurry of activity followed by a long sulking period. I would recommend trying the same tactic yourselves, if you find yourself in need of a respite from the trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: I appreciate your advice, but the best thing I do from now on is report a troll once for blocking, then ignore it. Compare the Yahweh troll with an IP jumper that persistently harassed me 5 years ago. I reported him but I was told off due to WP:DENY or face a block. I had better things to do in my life than to watch myself getting vandalized, and I even thought the denying policy is disputed. StormContent 15:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- You were threatened with a block for reporting an IP jumper harassing you? That's seriously fucked up. Well, I guess maybe if the IP wasn't actually harassing you, or if you were cursing them out every time they commented at an article talk you watched or something, but even then... That's surprising to me, and sounds more like a problematic admin than anything. That being said: for the most part, ignoring the trolls is the way to go. Like I said, it's what I usually do, except when it's obvious that they're already pretty agitated, and ready to have their head explode, as it were. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: I appreciate your advice, but the best thing I do from now on is report a troll once for blocking, then ignore it. Compare the Yahweh troll with an IP jumper that persistently harassed me 5 years ago. I reported him but I was told off due to WP:DENY or face a block. I had better things to do in my life than to watch myself getting vandalized, and I even thought the denying policy is disputed. StormContent 15:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)