Talk:Tetragrammaton

On the Etymology

@Iskandar323: The article in its present version claims that modern scholars reject the traditional explanation of the etymology of YHWH as "a later theological gloss", even though the source used does not support this assertion (Parker is simply giving his personal opinion, not that of the majority of scholars) and we have a source that explicitly says that the consensus among scholars is exactly the opposite of what this article claims. What is the reason not to correct this gross error in the article? Potatín5 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relation of roots היה (HYH) and הוה (HVH) , consistency of sentences

Achar Sva deleted the sentence The name may be derived from a verb that means "to be", "to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass". and the attached citation with the summary contradicted by the next sentence, and in any case the Hebrew verb HYH is not the HWH of Yahweh. This needs further work. In fact, the second sentence refers to a lack of consensus and in no way contradicts the deleted sentence.

The roots היה (HYH) and הוה (HVH) are both to be; in modern Hebrew the first is seen in past tense, future tense and infinitive while the second is seen only in present tense. The linquistic connection between יהיה (YHYH) and יהוה (YHVH) is clear -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Not only that, but the sentence removed had a legitimate reference for the wording, hence shouldn't've been removed. I shall revert and point to this discussion. Stephen Walch (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Transliteration of silent final consonant

A recent series of edits removed, reinstated and removed again the final ה (He) from several places in the text. I believe that is important to retain all consonants in a tranliteration, but in any case I'm asking whether there are wikipedia guidelines for this. The question applies to other final consonants besides ה. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I doubt there's any Wiki guidelines on this, however doesn't matter if a letter is silent, it's transliterated (anyone want to go around removing English transliterations of French words which contain silent letters such as X in deux or s in words like nous and vous?). Believe this is a daft chain of edits and the person doing it needs banning from editing this page. Does it need to be locked down again? Stephen Walch (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll quote from the Transliteration page on wiki: "Transliteration is not primarily concerned with representing the sounds of the original but rather with representing the characters, ideally accurately and unambiguously." I'll go with that. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

yahweh is "universally" accepted??

extremely controversial thing to say and should be amended, in my opinion. two christian texts are cited as well as one translation of a german-jewish hebrew text from the 80s - not really consistent with how modern jews feel about the word yahweh. American jews particularly avoid even trying to say the name of God and especially dislike "yahweh" - on a personal note, using that terms tends to be an indicator to me that someone is not jewish. muslims also dont use yahweh, so saying its universal purposefully excludes 1/3 of the abrahamic religions. either needs a better source or should be amended to say "most christians" or some such. 2600:100D:A107:33A8:9296:7106:E026:ACD (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's by far the most accepted hypothesis for the early pronunciation of YHWH among Biblical and Semitic linguistics scholars (certainly more so than "Jehovah", which originated from a late medieval or Renaissance mistaken misunderstanding). Of course, it being a valid technical linguistic reconstruction doesn't mean that it's part of the religious practices of any group (mostly it isn't, though it did appear in the Catholic Jerusalem Bible translation). AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)