Talk:Names of God in Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Names of God in Judaism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 15, 2005.
Peer review This Philrelig article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Judaism Portal
Names of God in Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Archive 01

Contents

[edit] G-d

Someone should add the bit about why it is sometimes written G-d or L-rd in english. "G-d" redirects here. I couldn't find a relvanat place to add it. Also, I don't remember how to sign things.

Use four tiles '~' Larklight 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From peer review

I came to this article from the peer review page. I did a whole lot of little tidying jobs on the article, and I hope that the contributors here are happy with what I've done. It is clear that there have been a few different authors of the article text, and I've tried to smooth out the differences in style. I've removed referrences to the Old Testament as it seems more NPOV to use Hebrew Bible in all but purely Christian contexts. There is quite a bit of work that still needs done on tidying the article. Gareth Hughes 23:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, Gareth! What other tidying-up tasks you propose? Could you make up a list? --Zappaz 04:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The cleanup looked good to me. Regarding tidying-up, is there too much about the Tetragrammaton here? Should the section be summarized further, with a "Main article Tetragrammaton" sentence at the start? Jayjg (talk) 15:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been through the article again. Considering the conversations here about the Tetragrammaton, I've changed the multiple instances of YHVH and Yhwh to YHWH, and acknowledged YHVH as an alternative. I've tried to deal with a few grammatical issues, and I've changed a couple of instances where 'they' is used to refer to Jews (non-inclusive POV). I've straightened out the list of lesser used names so that they all follow a similar format now. I've also linked references to biblical books to their relevant articles. I hope all of that is okay, and that the article is a more unified read. Gareth Hughes 16:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great work again, Gareth. The article has benefited a lot from your intervention. Regarding Jayjg comment about the Tetragrammaton, I think that although there is already a full article on the subject, we need here a good summary, as the one we currently have, given its relevance. --Zappaz 21:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raul's thoughts

Just to CC my comment on the FAC here - I really like this article (it's one of my favorites on Wikipedia, and I don't say that lightly). I think it would benefit *greatly* from having someone record themselves saying these Hebrew names and upload them (ogg format) for use in the article. →Raul654 04:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Files to be added

Nadav did some wonderful work. He recorded these ogg files, which need to be added to their relavant sections →Raul654 14:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Nadav and Raul654 for the addition of the ogg files!
Question: Is there a way to make the "listen" template to take less space? Is there a "smaller" version of the template? As it stands now it may disrupt the flow of reading the article. --Zappaz 05:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are less obstrusive ways of putting it into the article. You can link it inline with some text, or use the smaller speaker icon on commons. However, I would prefer to keep it as is (at least for the time being) because the listen templates is becoming the standard (albeit it might not be the best for this particular artilce). →Raul654 05:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Godd idea Raul. Thanks. I am looking at creating a tiny version of the template for articles like this in which there are so many ogg links. --Zappaz 05:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about judaism

not knowing s much s I would like about this religion I ask: Isn't the existence of this article some kind of profanity in the judaism? Aren't some names of god (and the same applyis to islamism) just too sacred to be teached to those who are not initiated, or, even worst, to any atheist? --Alexandre Van de Sande 17:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, one of the reasons for not writing the name of God is that so it will not be destroyed. As Wikipedia: wikipedia is not paper, this does not apply to us.



טז ונקב שם יהוה מות יומת רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה כגר כאזרח--בנקבו שם יומת


וְנֹקֵ֤ב שֵׁם־יְהוָה֙ מֹ֣ות יוּמָ֔ת רָגֹ֥ום יִרְגְּמוּ־בֹ֖ו כָּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה כַּגֵּר֙ כָּֽאֶזְרָ֔ח בְּנָקְבֹו־שֵׁ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃


ויקרא 24:16 "He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." Lev 24:16;
Cf: Lev 24:11 for Moses Ruling capital punishment sentence on a son of an Egyptian father and Israelite mother; Outside the camp, Witnesses lay hands on the blasphemer's head, and let the congregation stone him.
[User:bwildasi] Leviticus 24:16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwildasi (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The name of god (specifically, the tetragrammaton) is regarded with special reverance and is typically not used except under special circumstances (if at all). On the other hand, this is not a jewish encyclopedia, and we are not obligated to follow their custom of not displaying it. →Raul654 17:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

××× I think this is a truth with modification. I have in my possession a laser copy of a Victorian Mizrach (created 1870 - 1880 by the well-known German-Jewish graphic artist Henry Schile, who emigrated to the U.S.A.) where the sacred name of God,YHVH, is written in Hebrew characters immediately below the Magen David. I shall try to cut and paste it, so all of you can see what I mean. Also, according to one of the Rabbis on Aish.com, it is quite acceptable to write God, rather than G-d, because this word/name is English, not Hebrew, and it is therefore not included in the prohibition. Borsey379 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that Jewish encyclopedias also display and discuss the tetragrammaton.[1] --Zappaz 01:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Learning and teaching are important in Judaism so an article like this, which serves to inform, would be smiled upon.

So, are we just saying now that Judaism has always been monothistic? Even though this flies in the face of evidence? So, these are all different names of the same god? Really? How convenient? When did that become so? What evidence do we have of that? Is it a normal thing to have several names for the same thing?

Well... to answer your question, I was going to look the answer up "online" - that is to say, on the "net" - I mean of course the "Internet" - sometimes referred to as the "Information Superhighway" - y'know, on the "World Wide Web", which we usually call the "Web"... To be less tongue-in-cheek, it's pretty common to have several terms to refer to a thing. Moreso when the thing is important, and even moreso when the most exact name is proscribed, or even just in polite company requires euphemisms to avoid profanity. 207.103.48.236 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, it's not cool to pop in and state something like "this flies in the face of evidence" and then give no evidence! People, and me up to a short time ago, took it for granted that Judaism has always been monotheistic. But like Borsey below mentioned, all religions are constantly changing. There's been some work done that indicates that the Jews who invaded and settled in Israel absorbed the religious traditions of the canaanites the previously lived there (they may have even co-existed?) The pantheon of Canaanite gods included El, Ashera, others. And so if god sounds a little schizo in the old testament and they keep calling him by different names, it is because those are the stories of several different gods with different personalities that were adopted, mashed together, and reforged in to a monotheistic Jewish religion.
The web doesn't contain everything (especially the less popular stuff that doesn't sit well with people's fragile religious beliefs), apparently all that stuff I just said is contained in scholarly work including these books:
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-8624789-2362320
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel
http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-8624789-2362320
But I said scholarly work, and from just reading the little preview amazon let me have those look like a pain to read. Their references take up as much and more space on page as what the author actually wrote! Anyone want to have a go at them? I might someday... Barnetto 01:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The internet and the world wide web are different things- the internet runs on the world wide web, which also is used by emails etc. Larklight 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the point that was made in one of the previous posts. Is this Wiki entry suggesting that for example "El" is simply another name for the monotheistic "God" of contemporary Judaism? If it is I would like to see how this conclusion was drawn, as I have read a significant amount of information to the contrary. Even in the Old Testament we there are a number of references to other gods that were honored by the different tribes of Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.224.42.6 (talk)

××× I would like to make the highly relevant point that Judaism is a very OLD religion, which has been in existence for some 4.000 years, and IT HAS EVOLVED and CHANGED considerably with the passage of time! Furthermore, it is STILL evolving and changing! The Torah was written over a very long period of time, and Judaism changed in that span of time. It is rather a sweeping generalization, really, to talk about "Judaism", as though it is one, single, unified faith, when the truth is, that there are a great many variant forms of Judaism. What is acceptable to the Reform Jews, or the English Progressive Jews, would perhaps not be acceptable to, say, the Hasidim, or even to the Conservative branch of Judaism. And, please, stop referring to it as the "Old Testamente"! In terms of Judaism, it is called the Torah! Borsey379 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am rather new to this whole wiki scene but happened to happily stumble across this discussion and would like to throw in my 2 cents on the subject of Judaism's alleged polytheistic origins. It seems to me that being born from dessert dwelling semi nomadic people, Judaism was probably originally a conglomeration of previous religions and tribal beliefs that were realized to be the work of one creator and merely different manifestations of the almighty. Much along the same lines as Hindu's view their myriad of gods as different transmogrifications of the god head. So i don't know if it is fair to claim the origins as polytheistic or to better to view their original concept of the creator as polythalamous. Of course this is all conjecture on my part, the true beginnings seem to be lost to forgotten history. (I haven't learned yet to put my electronic signature to documents but my wiki moniker is svaangus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.207.156 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listen for YHVW

I will delete the listen link for YHVW, as there are so many interpretations of how this should sound. To be fair to all sides we will have to create ogg files for every and each one of these interpretations. --Zappaz 16:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no, horrible idea. (I've reverted). I'd prefer to have a sound and say that we're not sure it's correct than not to have one and say we don't know how. More informative is better than less informative. →Raul654 17:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
The way I pronounced it in the recording is (one of) the most common pronunciation. Since there is no single "correct" way to pronounce a word we're not supposed to pronounce, I agree with Raul. I'd be glad if we had recordings of other common ways to pronounce it, but there's no reason we shouldn't have the current one. Nadavspi | talk 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK. Then please add an appropriate disclaimer, so that it is clear we do not really know how this is pronounced. Thank you. --Zappaz 20:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] small version of listen template

I have created a smaller version of the {{listen}} template (see it in action on the YHVW ogg file). Raul, let me know what you think. If OK, I will replace all the other opnes. --Zappaz 23:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like the tiny listen template after you changed it, but I wanted to give it time to see if it would 'grow' on me and I would like it more. So I waited two weeks, and I liked it even less later, so I switched it back on the 19th. Today, you switched all of the templates to the tiny version.
I think I have a better idea than either template:listen or template:listen-tiny. What about using template:multi-listen, which is already used on pages like Ludwig van Beethoven for pages that have lots of ogg files? (don't look at the template itself, because it invovles several others --- check out the Beethoven page and tell me what you think) →Raul654 19:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent idea, Raul. I will check how the template works, give it a go and see how it looks.... My main concern was that these big speaker pics all over the article, reduced readability and were too unappealing visually. template:multi-listen may resolve this! --Zappaz 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) --Zappaz 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical Number and Gender: Adonai, Elohim

My College Hebrew classes were long ago (before the birth of my grandchildrens' parents) so recollection may be faulty - I don't read it anymore. I was taught that Adonai is in the (archaic) Dual Number (as seen in the Hebrew name for Egypt: Mizraim) and that Elohim is a masculine plural of a feminine root Eloah (which becomes plural Eloth if gender is retained.) I'll skip the metaphysics of that. (Here, at least) Can someone please confirm or refute my memory? If correct, should this be placed in the article, or linked elsewhere? oreb 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adonai as a name is grammatically singular, meaning that it takes singular verbs and singular pronouns. As a syntactic form it is plural with first person possessive suffix identical to the way one would say "my lords". (There would be no distinct dual form when using the possessive suffix.) The form Adonaim (if it existed) would be dual, but it does not exist - only things that naturally come in twos like arms, legs, eyes etc have distinct dual forms. Mizraim looks like a dual and can be rationalized as such (upper and lower Egypt) but it is uncertain if it really is a dual or merely accidentally looks like one, similarly with the place name Aram Naharaim (can be rationalized as referring to two rivers but may merely look like a dual.
Elohah as a name for God is grammatically masculine but looks uncomfortably feminine because of the ah ending so it is hardly used, the preferred form is the syntactic plural form Elohim (which is nevertheless grammatically singular) or El (also masculine). Eloth is the feminine plural of El not of Elohah which would be Elohot.
In both Elohim and Adonai the plural form is probably intendeded to denote abstraction - Elohim meaning Divinity (or Authority, el seems to have meant something like judge or magistrate originally not necessarly a divine being) and Adonai meaning my Lordship. The popular explanation is that it is a plural of majesty or excellance but perhaps this is more accurately abstraction (via plural syntactic form) of majesty or excellance analogous to English, Lordship, Highness, Majesty Kuratowski's Ghost 15:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"el" means strength. The linked page on "El" states this.
With this pluralistic ending, it means "many strengths". This can be translated as many strengths working together or one with many strengths, refering to the "all powerful" aspect. (This is my own personal belief.) -- Chacham 5:00, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)


I would appreciate if you make suggestionss here before making changes to the article. We have worked and researched this article for many months, and it received Featured Article status last month. I am inclined to revert your edits, but I would wait until you have a chance to explain the removal of text and the changes you introduced. --Zappaz 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well lets see:
  • The explanation about a meaning of breathe or blow is a conflating of the standard explanation of the name as a form of the verb of being and an alternative explanation from the good old days of 19th century / early 20th century pseudo-scholarship which alleged that the God of the OT was a wind god. The word simply does not mean breathe or blow in Hebrew, plain fact.
  • Jamaican Jah is known to come from Yah as in Hallelujah, no mystery here so why say "may".
  • The Greek Adonis is generally understood to come from Adoni = my lord, not completely identical to Adonai which is plural, I merely expanded on this info didn't really say anything new.
  • Adonai is syntatically plural (i.e. it has the construction of a plural), what the article meant to say is that it isn't grammatically plural (i.e. it doesn't take plural verbs and pronouns). Kuratowski's Ghost 16:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Grammatically plural is rather vague. In fact, both names are morphologically plural and syntactically singular. I thought the first verse of Genesis showed that quite clearly. --Gareth Hughes 21:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok we obviously understand the term syntactically differently :) Kuratowski's Ghost 21:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Technically, syntax governs relationships between words: if a noun takes a singular verb as predicate, it is syntactically singular. Morphology, however, governs the internal formation and alteration of words: if a word takes a recognised plural shape, it is morphologically plural. Usually, the two are the same, but many languages have exceptions to this. The Hebrew Bereshith bara' 'elohim has 'elohim as its subject (which is masculine plural in form), but uses the singular verb bara', which makes the subject syntactically singular. In some old grammars syntax is used to describe word class, and thus is as vague as grammatically plural. --Gareth Hughes 21:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs more work

No offence, but this article just doesn't seem to be of Featured Article quality yet. It's often repetitive and even contradictory. In case I don't have time to fix these issues, let me try to be concrete:

  1. Under Tetragrammaton, first "Modern scholars conjecture that it was pronounced "Yahweh"" followed by "The name YHWH is often reconstructed as Yahweh"
  2. Under Tetragrammaton, first "Because Jews have, for a long period of time, considered it blasphemy to pronounce, the correct pronunciation of this name has been forgotten" followed by "The prohibition of blasphemy, for which capital punishment is prescribed in Jewish law, refers only to the Tetragrammaton". Surely these could be combined. Then in the next section, "All modern denominations of Judaism teach that the four letter name of God, YHWH, is forbidden to be uttered except by the High Priest, in the Temple ... Instead of pronouncing YHWH during prayer, Jews say Adonai.". Then again, under Adonai, "Since pronouncing YHWH is considered sinful, Jews use Adonai instead in prayers". This all seems quite redundant.
  3. Under Tetragrammaton, "This name is first mentioned in the book of Genesis and is usually translated as "the Lord""; then under Pronouncing the tetragrammaton, "English translations of the Bible generally render YHWH as "the LORD" (in small capitals)". Surely these could be combined.
  4. The Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh section seems quite piecemeal as it is.
  5. The Kabbalistic use section needs extensive copyediting, especially (but not only) the 42-letter name paragraph.
I'm also confused by the rastafarian reference under the Yah heading. This is names for god used by Judaism, not the world. Also, the link to Yam there seems extraneous. Any comments?Fcsuper 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

××× I agree that this article needs tightening up, editing, here and there. There is another, completely redundant, duplication, i.e. "Seven names of God" and "The tradition of seven divine names". These two sections, both of which are also very, very short, need to be merged. Unfortunately, I don´t yet know enough about the practicalities of editing Wikipedia, so I can´t do it until I´ve worked out how to actually go about it. Borsey379 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elohim

[quote]Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God, is grammatically singular, and regularly takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible[/quote]

This is an opinion. The use of 'Elohim' in Gen 1 can also be understood as being a reference to "The Gods", or "The Spirits". Thus, the gods created the races of man (each in his own image and likeness), and after this background Gen 2 discusses the activities of that elohim who was the tribal deity (YHWH elohim).

However, the article is specifically about in Juadism, so perhaps this need not be pointed out. Ie: it's an opinion, but the opinion of modern Judaism.

Its not an opinion of modern Judaism its typical smart-ass pseudo-scholarship. It can't be understood to mean Gods or spirits, it takes the singular verb bara' not the plural bar'u. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have lso read recently a rather, umm, interesting view of the "taking gods name in vain" commandment. By that view the commandment proscribed priestcraft and religion in general, this being a holdover from their time as slaves in Egypt.

Pmurray bigpond.com 03:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to include a discussion of the understanding of the -im plural form as abstraction. There are several examples of this in Hebrew: e.g. chayah = animal, ordinary plural chayot = animals, but plural form with -im chayyim = life. betulah = virgin, betulot = (female) virgins but betulim = virginity, mayah = a body of water, mayyim = water in general. Similarly elohim can be understood to mean divinity from elohah denoting a god. Similarly with the plural form Adonai Kuratowski's Ghost 18:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That is good, Kuratowsky. Why don't you be bold and add it? Thanks . --Zappaz 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I edit articles based on bursts of motivation, too lethargic at the moment to think how to word it nicely, besides I'm meant to be working :) Kuratowski's Ghost 20:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G-d

Should we not replace God in the article with G-d (this link goes to the 'God' page)? Of course, it explains in the article that this is not necessary - but should we not follow the lead of, for example Religious Studies Textbooks, Encyclopaedias and other Books. --A.K.A.47 16:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to do that, especially since we're not about to start going that on every page of Wikipedia. --P3d0 20:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand. The article is about the Names of God in Judaism - it doesn't imply the need to go to every page on Wikipedia to do this. In Judaism, isn't it very common to spell the English name, G-d? Isn't it a conscientious matter? Do we really mean to block Jews with a conscience about this issue, from writing here on an issue that they are self-evidently passionate about? or more to the point, is it necessary to be insensitive, in order to be neutral? Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not very common to spell God as G-d, since this is a custom found only among religious jews. Even the Jewish encyclopedia writes "God" not "G-d" [2]. --Cypherx 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've seen Catholics and Greek Orthodox also using G-d. BTW the so-called Jewish Encyclopedia is from 1910 and despite its name seems to mainly represent the views popular amongst atheists of the time. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think is is better to keep it as is: "God", capitalized. --Zappaz 14:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

G-d is sometimes used in books so that should something happen to it the name of God will not be harmed. Since wikipedia isn't paper there is no problem here.

While I believe the previous poster was correct as to the original purpose of writing G-d in this way, I see little reason in continuing the practice. The English word God is not the Name of the Jewish god. It is a generic word to describe a deity in a language that was created at least 3000 years after God purportedly told Moses His true name on Sinai. As far as I know, many Orthodox authorities write God as such. I believe the practice is related to the fact that writing the actual Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script is strongly discouraged because of its sanctity and the requirement that the document containing the Name never be destroyed, but afforded the honor of a deceased body (i.e. being buried in a Jewish cemetery). However, this leads to another question: Does the fact that the Tetragrammaton appears in this article constitute a violation of this precept? When I clear my browser's cache, will I be violating this principle by deleting the files that contain the written Name of God? --Spem 05:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, as it would destroy His name and thereby, defeat the point of writing "G-d" in the first place. XYaAsehShalomX 12:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this page should use the spelling "G-d", I think it should at least discuss that spelling, especially since G-d redirects here. As a Gentile, I don't understand enough of the details of the history of this usage to write the section myself, but I hope someone else can add a section on it. What is the first recorded instance of the spelling "G-d" in English? Do Jews do something similar in other languages (French "D--u", Russian "Б-г", Spanish "D--s", Yiddish "ג-ט", Hebrew "א----ם" etc.)? Angr (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Good question. In Hebrew, devout Jews do in fact substitute consonants so as not to use the Holy Name in a non-prayer context, but that sort of makes sense. I don't know about other languages. "Al_ah"? Gzuckier 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jews are only allowed to write G-d, without the o. WIkipedia is probably just respecting the Jews since this is an article about Judaism.

××× I would like to refer all of you who have written above re "G-d" to the aish.com web site, click on "Ask the Rabbi" and call up the question "Writing the name". It appears that according to modern Rabbinic consensus, "God" is not a holy name, or word, as it is not Hebrew. Furthermore, when we type something on a p.c., it is being neither created, nor erased, as it is all just electro-magnetic impulses, which are being repeatedly created and destroyed, many times per minute. Therefore, it is quite all right to type God, or any other name for God, on a computer. Anyway, do read the question and answer; it is all very interesting. Any of you who are non-Jews, if you are interested in Judaism, you will find a great deal of interest on that site (and on Chabad.org)! Borsey379 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption on Priestly Benediction Picture

I can't see the Y of the YHVH on the priestly benediction picture. Does anyone else see it? To me it appears to show Heh (possibly Samech?) Vav Heh. Is it inferred the Yud was once there or is it just very faint? --Cypherx 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, It is there. just that the first letter (yud) can hardly be seen. See the bigger image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tetragrammaton_benediction.png --Zappaz 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plurals of majesty:

I changed the word "fact" to "hypothesis" in the statement that plurals of majesty only appear in late Hebrew. They may only have become common in late Hebrew, but they do appear occasionally in biblical Hebrew- i.e. "Behemoth" would mean "animals," but as it is used in the Book of Job, it refers to a single animal of immense size.

[edit] Shadai shadayim

Something needs to be said about the possible connection between Shadai and the word shadayim that means breasts and the interpretation that it thus means something similar to English "bountiful". Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Interesting concept, but unless we find some references of such connection made by scholars or rabbis, I am afraid we will be getting into original research, and outside of the WP policies. --Zappaz 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
Nothing original about it is a known view popular amongst Reconstructionists. Will see what I can dig up Kuratowski's Ghost
Ok I've added some stuff, cheating a bit cos I haven't actually read the reference I added but used an article that referenced it [3]
Fascinating angle... A feminine aspect of God... excellent find. Thanks... --Zappaz 7 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
I think there is a confluence of the various meanings of Shaddai in the title The Humbler. It gets around Volcano-Chthonic perceptions that are misleading (at least in Judaism). 210.50.176.10 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Ian Ison

[edit] hashem duplicated

This is a great article, BTW. I see Hashem has two separate sections. I'm loathe to change it myself so as not to louse up a well crafted page, but maybe somebody who's more familiar with the history of the page could investigate? Gzuckier 15:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ogg format?

THe ogg format is inefficient and pointless. No one (except advanced computer users) use it.

I recommend converting all the .ogg files to .mp3 as this will make the files universally listenable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.245.54 (talk • contribs) .

As practical as that would be, the patents on the mp3 format unfortunately make it impossible for Wikipedia to use mp3's. Out of the formats which are unencumbered by patents, Ogg Vorbis is by far the most widely supported. —Gabbe 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qumran scroll Tetragrammaton

The caption currently reads "...The Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew can be clearly seen five times in this portion." I'm no scholar, so I didn't change it, but I count 6 of what may be the Tetragrammaton. On the 7 lines shown, (top=1, bottom = 7): line 2: twice line 5: once line 6: twice line 7: once?

Anyone who can actually read Hebrew, feel free to implement this change (if I'm actually correct).Mayor Of France 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still curious, paleo-Hebrew readers/scholars, is it 5 or 6?Mayor Of France 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely six. Eliyak 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadavar

What is the source for the section on Had'var/Hadavar? I have never heard of that term used as a name of God by anyone, nor have I seen it in any traditional texts. --DLandTALK 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has responded to this, I have removed the sentence in the article that refers to Hadavar. --DLandTALK 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Señor DLand, I think that the name "HaDavar" might be the source for writing God's name as 'ד, although I have never heard it used, so it may be obsolete. Also, I find that non-Jews are veery interested in Jews writing "G-d" instead of "God," so I think you should put that back too. Eliyak 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the bit about G-d removed, G-d redirects to this page. Epson291 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add something, but it needs to be edited. Epson291 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't YHVW Ja-O-Va?

In which case it should be translated into english as JOB. The book of JOB dealt with people that used the lords name, or more pressisly a name that sounded like the word "I Am", for their own benifit. Many names have many similairities, I have heard the middle easterners pronounce john similairly to Ja-O-Va{which incidently sylibalisticly means son of the light of the moon son of light, JOB that is]. So why don't people spell YHVW as JOB? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.14.129.251 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 May 2007.

Because it's wrong. Try learning Hebrew, then you'll understand that איוב is nothing like the Tetragrammaton. — Gareth Hughes 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Printing

Trying to print preview this pages causes Firefox to lock up. Is this some sort of encoding error? --CableModem^^ (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)