Talk:Yahweh/Archive 10

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

Capital God

The concept of Yahweh is that of the full-fledged God of current monotheistic religion, not a small-g god of any of various pantheons, such as Thor. No one ever worshipped Thor as the one true God, but people today do worship Yahweh, many of whom reside in the country of Israel. The article on Judaism is clear: "Unlike other ancient Near Eastern gods, the Hebrew God is portrayed as unitary and solitary; consequently, the Hebrew God's principal relationships are not with other gods, but with the world, and more specifically, with the people he created.". Notice the use of the big-G "God" to describe Yahweh. Therefore it is correct to introduce the concept without incorporating the belief or non-belief of the Wikipedia editor who wishes to introduce the concept accurately. Yahweh is one of the vocalizations of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, a special word of the Tanakh. There are languages besides Hebrew, such as Latin or Greek, and so in English, the great borrower language, that there are two words for YHWH doesn't mean there are two separate concepts. It's the same with many concepts, such as the Pentateuch and Torah - different words because of the different routes the concept took to be rendered in English . They are the same concept. The way this article has emphasized Yahweh as only a historical deity worshipped by "Iron Age kingdoms", complete with use of the past tense "was", is not in line with the concept as explained in articles such as Jehovah and the ones I have linked to and quoted.Sotuman (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You're close to WP:TE. See WP:RNPOV for details, see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

@Sotuman: You placed templates for a merger discussion but did not initiate it. Please indicate here, why the articles should be merged, so that editors can WP:!VOTE below. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: The articles should be merged as they are two different words that refer to the same concept. Seems to me to be a case of potato patata. Christianity is rooted in Judaism. The words "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" are different transliterations of the same word.Sotuman (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This article isn't about an alternative spelling, it is about a Pagan god, which much later became/was transformed into the monotheistic God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The two topics are clearly distinct from each other. Smowo (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:@Smowo: Thanks for your kind consideration. I see that there is already an about template at the top of the article to help readers navigate to the relevant article, so that's good.Sotuman (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The article is about a god, not a word.PiCo (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

---

This is not a "Pagan god". And The One TRUE God should have the "G" capitalized when referring to HIM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.13.146 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a WP:!VOTE? About capitalizing "Him", this would contradict the manual of style (MOS:ISMCAPS). —PaleoNeonate – 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

why this article dont use the Infobox deity like the Ganesha and Dionysus Articles? (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)).

Can people please take a look at Talk:Tetragrammaton#Frank Moore Cross doesn't mention the Tetragrammaton?

This is to do with a recent edit I reworded to match more closely what Cross wrote. I'm not convinced it belongs in that article rather than here. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Dionysus

This article has Dionysus listed as a catego, at the botttom. I tried to remove it myself but I couldn't. I don't think it belongs there, as Dionsysus isn't mentioned in the article 98.109.9.54 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The category is a little unexpected, but the Graeco-Roman syncretism section does mention that some classical authors interpreted Yahweh and Dionysus as the same god. Smowo (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This sentence is confused

The first sentence of the section Bronze Age Origins says: "There is almost no agreement on the origins of Yahweh,[10][11] although the current scholarly consensus holds that this deity was a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".[12]" This is not an accurate reflection of the sources, which say that there is no agreement on the origins of the name Yahweh. ("On the origins and etymology of the name Yahweh, there is almost no agreement" - Kaiser, reference 10 in the article). As the next section of the same sentence says, "the current scholarly consensus holds that this deity was a divine warrior from the southern region ...". The first phrase needs to be adited to say that there "is almost no agreement on the origins of the name..." (Reference 11 is not needed and can be deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.138.122 (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with this article.

I have a problem with this article. The quote “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.” I couldn’t find any sources directly saying this. I think a source took a quote he found and took it too literally.

I think doing can mislead people because not every line in a holy book or any religious text is meant to be literally.

Like a quote “But I will sing of your strength, in the morning I will sing of your love; for you are my fortress, my refuge in times of trouble.” Doesn’t literally mean someone is a fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:3C9F:DC32:A66D:A416 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Storm an d warrior deity?

I have a problem with this article. The quote “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.” I couldn’t find any sources directly saying this. I think a source took a quote he found and took it too literally.

I think doing can mislead people because not every line in a holy book or any religious text is meant to be literally. Like a quote “But I will sing of your strength, in the morning I will sing of your love; for you are my fortress, my refuge in times of trouble.” Doesn’t literally mean someone is a fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:F86F:4835:4204:D4BF (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

See as an example this Oxford University Press book.[2]. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I read it and it states some scholars believe Yahweh was El and others think Yahweh was a storm god. So there is obviously no full scholarly consensus on what Yahweh originally was. Doing this is heavily misleading and can cause misinformation. I think there should be a note of some kind.

Wrong Name

A good portion of this article is from the modern Christian interpretation of texts from an ancient, loosely Jewish, type of mysticism known as Kabbalah, which is not taught in most modern Jewish religions. Jews don't have a bible; they have the Torah and the Tanakh. In fact the name "Yahweh" itself resulted from a complex series of misinterpretations. The Ancient Hebrews, who were not allowed to write the name of God, "Adonai", had contact with the Ancient Romans, who could not say the name of God. When the Hebrews dictated the name of God for the Romans to transcribe, they spelled out his name with the Hebrew letters "יהוה", pronounced "Yud, Hei, Vav, Hei". The Romans then wrote down the first letters of what they heard using their own alphabet, "YHVH". After being copied many times over the years, this eventually became "Yahweh". Interestingly enough, the origin of the name "Jehovah" is a very similar story. 2606:A000:8148:D800:7841:9A2C:6610:CAED (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Your do not make the call. Modern WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes the call. WP:COMMONNAME is part of our WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

He's right, though. The name of this article is the traditional interpretation of the full, spelled-out, True Name of God and, as Jews and hardline Christians can attest, is never to be written out. Ask an Iron Age or Bronze Age Jew what their God was and they would NOT tell you the Name in this article, for that name is not to be repeated because it is so holy. "YHWH", the Tetteragram, is acceptable in its place, as is Adonai and The LORD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not pamper true believers, it always sides with WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, i.e. with WP:CHOPSY. You have to obey our WP:RULES if you want to edit here. We don't have to obey your rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the only thing Wikipedia always sides with is WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is with mainstream scholarship for the foreseeable future, but WP:Consensus can change. Scripture and religion articles such as this one are owned by a small cabal of editors who are fiercely attached to mainstream, modern "scholarship" for sources, which are not necessarily the most accurate, or the best, by many measures, but they are often the easiest to access, search and cite. They are also the best to support wacky, never-seen-before ideas. What I am saying is if the controlling cabal changed substantially, WP:CONSENSUS about "what Wikipedia sides with" could change. That's all I am saying. Elizium23 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a cabal. We are simply aware that there is a distinction between history (of Christianity, of the Bible, etc.) and theology. In matters of theology we have simply agreed to disagree. E.g. Seventh-day Adventist theology isn't WP:FRINGE, but SDA Bible scholarship is, because it is preaching to the choir and only gets traction from true believers. It is fine and dandy that they preach their theology to their own choir, but that does not fly in historical scholarship. Wikipedia will never say that SDA theology is false, because that's in the eye of the beholder and we could never reach a consensus upon the true religion and its true theology. But in matter of historical facts, Wikipedia sides with mainstream historians, not with those who consider that history is ancilla theologiae. History has simply emancipated from the nonage of theology, and this also holds for Ancient Near East archeology and for Bible scholarship. There is no anger against theology, it is simply that being theologically orthodox has become irrelevant for Bible scholars. They are no longer concerned with keeping up appearances of piety. They perform hard-core scholarship and are not bothered by accusations of heresy. They go where evidence leads them. Wikipedia sides with historical criticism because that's what major universities do with the Bible. So, as usual, Wikipedia is merely a reflection of what happens outside of Wikipedia, in this case in major universities. So, no, a majority opinion among Wikipedia editors does not trump Ivy Plus. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Good god can y’all settle down. I feel like y’all are pushing agendas which is technically against Wikipedia’s policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:3C9F:DC32:A66D:A416 (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

My only agenda here is that of Wikipedia, namely that we should render WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP according to WP:DUE. See WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020

I believe the line “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.[5]” should be removed because there is little evidence supporting this. And many scholars are still divided on this. Like some scholars claimed he is El and others claim he was a storm god. Or there should be a note telling people there is no known origin of Yahweh or what he originally was. 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to cite some professionally-published mainstream academic sources (like the ones cited at [4] and [5]) that support your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources in themselves have problems, this article literally admits there is no known origin of Yahweh’s name.

Like one of the books admit the issue is divined. Some scholars say he was El, others say he was a storm god, and others said he was a god of the forge. So there are tons of contradictions on what he originally was.

So it feels have assed to say he was a storm god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to cite some professionally-published mainstream academic sources that support your claims. Not just your analysis of existing sources or WP:CIRCULAR. The blue links are to policies explaining why. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it better to put a note stating that there isn’t a fully accepted scholarly consensus on the matter than say this is absolutely the case? I feel like some people might read that line and it accept as fact without reading further into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Also this isn’t personal observation. The source that claims he was a warrior/weather god says some scholars say he was El and others say he was a weather god. So that source admits that there isn’t much scholarly consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Plus this is basically the only article that argues Yahweh was a weather god you most likely misinterpreted the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:5100:646F:A705:D121 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

He was a weather god, then conflated with El. Both are true, at different times. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have heard many sources saying Yahweh conflated with El. But I couldn’t find many sources saying he was originally a storm god.

Some sources say he was a god of metallurgy.

Other sources don’t mention him originally being a storm god.

So I think relying on one source isn’t good enough the source that claims this might need a peer review or it the source could be outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:E982:26D6:8B56:D235 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also one of the sources cited state that scholars are divided on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:E982:26D6:8B56:D235 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I do think that line saying in “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.[5]” should be updated or removed to avoid any confusion.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020

The beginning of this can already be misinterpreted. Kindly refer to the book of Genesis in Judeo-Christian Holy Bible please. That's the first most important source for this, why look all over the place, it's all in there already. Maybe mention on the article that it would help if the reader just referred to the Holy Bible instead of here. Of course we wouldn't be proper researchers if we didn't have many sources. (I could understand that.) but the Holy Bible is composed of many books written by many writers spanning a great amount of time.

Moses (the reported writer of Genesis), already wrote that God (Yahweh) created the Heavens and the Earth. The Hebrews lived in Egypt in ancient times and helped build the pyramids with slave labor, which would explain why there are mentions of Him in Egypt. Also early people were already conversing with God (Yahweh) so most people knew Him already then. Whether they chose to obey Him is another matter.

Also El also refers to Yahweh, as in El Shaddai, it is one of His other names. (This is mentioned in current article.) Please do not confuse people with statement regarding consorts like Asherah, these are part of the foreign gods, that deceive people.

the article might have gotten it wrong regarding EL. the Israelites already knew Him as creator, one true God. The Canaanites are the ones that confused Him with other Gods (conflated is the article's term). Of course Israelites were also led to false foreign God worship by copying people around them. But Yahweh was the God of Abraham and Jacob (Israel).

The article does have good parts like this: By the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the one true God of all the world.[12] -(as even the conquering nation's kings discovered that Yahweh was the one true God.) 207.102.153.95 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

We do not cater for true believers, see WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying I couldn’t find sources showing proof Yahweh was originally a storm god. I know it seems like I’m trying to push a goal here, but the sources cited on this article literally admit that whether or not he was originally a storm god or El is debatable.

Plus I couldn’t find many sources stating he was a storm god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be edited saying Yahweh have originally been a storm god instead of saying he was originally a storm god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. First, it's not clear what exactly you want to do. Second, whatever it is, is almost surely going to require consensus first before making an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Check the last edit. I just made an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020

CycoMa (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey I think this specific line needs to be edited. “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4]” I wasn’t very specific in my last request, but I think it should be edited to Yahweh might had originally been a storm/warrior god instead of saying he was originally a storm/warrior god. When looking at the sources cited on this article, they state that the debate about the origin and original character of Yahweh is unknown. This article even admits that this claim doesn’t have universal support.

You conflate different historical periods. So: no. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

How am I conflating different historical periods. I just read the cited sources on this article that claim this.

And the article literally said this view of him originally being a storm god isn’t universally accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Citation, please. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Well the source that states “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4]”

4. Smith 2001, pp. 146.

These quotes from the same page of that cited source can summarize it like this.

“What was Yahweh’s original character? Many scholars including W.F. Albright, D.N. Freedman, and more recently J.C. de Moor, M. Dijkstra, and N. Wyatt identify Yahweh as a title of El. Other scholars, such as T.N.D. Mettinger, note how this view contradicts the early biblical evidence for Yahweh as a storm-and warrior-god from the southern region of Edom.”

“What was the precise nature of this storm? The presumed original location of Yahwistic cult in the far southern region (in southern Edom or the Hegaz), if correct, does not seem propitious as a home for a storm-god such as Baal, because this region has relatively low annual rainfall in contrast to the high rainfall for the Levantine coast.”

“The momentous evidence provided by the Ugaritic text may have steered research toward El and Baal to seek Yahweh’s original profile; this direction may be partially misleading. In fact, part of the original profile of Yahweh may be permanently lost, especially if the earliest biblical sources reflect secondary developments in the history of this deity’s profile.”

Basically, the source admits there are flaws with that claim Yahweh was a storm god. So I think there should be an edit saying something of the lines of Yahweh was probably originally a storm god but his original characterization is currently unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Do you realize that there is a difference between Yahweh was ... originally a storm god and Yahweh was a storm god (during a later historical period)? The later does not imply the former. So, yeah, the section Bronze Age origins should not be conflated with the section Iron Age I (1200–930 BCE): El, Yahweh, and the origins of Israel. You have conflated these two sections. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I must ask is there any earlier mentions of his name before early versions of biblical literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:2D79:E519:77F1:743E (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The article states “The current scholarly consensus is that Yahweh was originally a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".”

This article is claiming he was originally a storm god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:2D79:E519:77F1:743E (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also another source cited states this. “As a brief survey of views shows, the current scholarly consensus on the issue of YHWH’s original profile holds that this deity was a divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Tenam. Otherwise, scholars are divided on the question.”

This more evidence that the matter is split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My overall problem with this is article is that it comes off as not showing the entire picture. I feel like giving more clarification would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this quote “The current scholarly consensus is that Yahweh was originally a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman"

Should be changed to “As a brief survey of views shows, the current scholarly consensus on the issue of YHWH’s original profile holds that this deity was a divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Tenam. Otherwise, scholars are divided on the question.”

To give people a better picture on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The germane WP:PAG is WP:RS/AC. Find a contrary academic consensus claim or leave it as it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand with my problem with this article.

The line that says “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4]”

The source cited never says this. It could be possible that the person who edited that claim into this article didn’t read the whole thing.

The quote that says.

“divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".[20]

The whole quoted from that source cited actually says. “As a brief survey of views shows, the current scholarly consensus on the issue of YHWH’s original profile holds that this deity was a divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Tenam. Otherwise, scholars are divided on the question.”

Theses claims are literally in the sources cited on this article.

I feel like leaving out some of theses details misrepresent what the author was originally saying.

This is my problem with this article. I’m not the one making this up, theses sources literally say theses things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@CycoMa: So, in the first phrase the author says there is a consensus and in the second phrase that there isn't a consensus. Is that your point? It sounds rather awkward if you put it like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not the one who wrote those sources, that’s what the source says.

Isn’t this site about sources, because it feels like someone might had misinterpreted the source provided.

My overall point is that not showing the full quote can change the entire meaning of what the author was saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

CycoMa, you've misunderstood what Smith is saying. He says "many scholars [gives names] identify Yahweh as a title of El." Note" as a TITLE of El, not as El. What he's talking about here is the theory put forward by Frank Moor Cross that the name (NAME) Yahweh originated as a phrase, "ˀel ḏū yahwī ṣabaˀôt", applied to El during worship. We mention this in the article, in the first para of the section "Bronze Age Origins". We also mention that the argument has weaknesses; what we don't mention, but should, is that it's been abandoned by modern scholars. Smith then mentions one of the weaknesses that led to its being abandoned: it "contradicts the early biblical evidence for Yawheh as a storm-and-warrior god." That should be added to the end of that first paragraph. Anyway, the lead, which is what you're criticiing here, does a good job of summarising contemporary thinking.Achar Sva (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources never directly say he was a storm god in older literature. The sources connect characteristics of him to characteristics of a storm gods, so saying in oldest biblical literature he was a storm god has it’s probably. The sources cited even say this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 07:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Please read WP:RS/AC. That's part of the rules of this website. That answers your question and dissent from it is futile. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not the one who said, theses are the ones who are saying there are problems with him being a storm/warrior god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 07:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC has been fulfilled means WP:RULES have been fulfilled, end of the story, end of the debate. Find an opposite academic consensus claim if you even want to have a debate with us. Otherwise, the power of WP:RULES is against you and no experienced editor will allow you to prevail. We are a hive mind in that respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine, what I have been saying is literally in the sources. I’m not the one making this up.

But have it your way if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 07:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Also side note, I have seen sources that say his origin is unknown and don’t mention what is original characterization was or where he came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 07:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the WP:RULES and you misunderstood the cited WP:SOURCES. The quoted page is available from Google Books at Jürgen van Oorschot; Markus Witte (26 June 2017). The Origins of Yahwism. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 42. ISBN 978-3-11-044822-1. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t misread. I read it and that’s what it said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying how I’m misreading the sources or how I don’t have sources to prove me arguments.

The sources cited in this article admit and say theses things I’m saying. But you keep throwing shit about consensus and rules.

When theses things I have been saying are literally addressed in the sources provided.

I just think there should be a note of some kind saying theses things about Yahweh to avoid misrepresentation. CycoMa (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

To sum up what they say: Yahweh's

• southern abode
• warrior nature

are accepted by academic consensus. And that's what our article says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this debate is over. CycoMa (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. it should be spelt 'YHWH'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

the vocalization is adding insult to injury. religions need be respected, period. only christians pronounce this day in a rather antisemitic way, period. I am not jewish, but this is cultural, not only religious, and it's more than saying 'fuck', but rather speakingly hatefully and deridingly, so to say. the full spelling is wrong wrong. FURTHERMORE, it is OUTRAGEOUS for there to be SO MANY articles about the same thing, "jehovah, yahweh, tetragrammaton" and even "el". all dealing with caananite religion should be in one spot, caananite or semitic religion, that's it. it's like if we did us many articles for all the germanic tribes, englihs, frankish, german, nordic, and then by time. it'd be too many articles an should all be one, germanic religian an then maybe one on neo paganism. too many articles bout the abrahamic 'god' or whatever is wrong and dumb. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 14:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We're not interested in your opinion, since WP:RNPOV is the germane policy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

NO, religions do NOT "need to be respected, period". This is an encyclopedia. It's beholden to fact and nothing else. FilthiestOfPeasant (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, a serious encyclopedia does not pander to piety. We side with objective historical facts and with mainstream academic learning, we do not pamper true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a serious encyclopedia nor a real one; there are plenty of examples of bias and baked in exclusions of unpopular viewpoints (my favorite being "give the most weight to the one with the most coverage", which penalized me for adding the coup d'etat template to the Mishima Incident). This said, I will give Wikipedia credit on this one, Yoandri. Look on the Muhammad page and you will see many pictures of his actual face. --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "Wikipedia is neither a serious encyclopedia nor a real one", I and many other editors work hard to remove bias and be inclusive. Instead of ranting, why not register as a user, pull your own weight, and continue laboring to improve its quality?Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, on the second point, the original Yahweh and El and the canonical Abrahamic God overlap significantly but are not identical. Combining all those articles would be like combining the articles on Zeus and Jupiter or Cronus and Saturn. Or, to use a non-religious example, it would be like combining the articles on Hungary, the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and the Magyars. FilthiestOfPeasant (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. YHWH is the True Name of God; this article's title is the Name Jews cannot and Christians should not write or spell out. The God in this article remains the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He also remains the God of the Christians and, technically, is Allah as well. Wikipedia is not presenting a neutral point of view here (and that entire claim is itself a myth).

Splitting the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament (or in this case, pre-Exile Judaism in the Kingdom of Israel) is a Gnostic concept equal to the Demiurge and certainly not representative of the Judeo-Christian God or the canon of the Bible. I've seen many Atheists claim that Judaism was retroactively altered after Babylon, but no Jew or Christian acknowledges such things.

To list God as He was seen by Ancient Israel as separate from, well, God, is a matter of opinion not backed by Abrahamic tradition or any Jewish or Christian source. Judaism has always been monotheistic. That doesn't mean the Jews were. God is a jealous God, the Bible says, and He constantly punished them when they syncretized with the other Canaanite and Levantine deities.

This is basic Judeo-Christian theology, and Wikipedia, as usually, prefers its narratives and its ivory tower snobbery over any serious attempt to listen to the common man. Those who say Wikipedia is neutral ignore that its most devoted editors and authorities are a cabal of volunteers sharing left-of-center (on the American scale) political viewpoints.

In short, the name of this article should be the name that Ancient Israel would have called the Lord. That's YHWH, Adonai, I AM, or The LORD.

--2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Of all the massive, biased, spiteful problems with this despicable article, an article SEETHING with hatred from the first line to the last, THIS is what you get hung up on? A relatively young taboo on saying or writing the name, which clearly didn't exist at the time the scriptures were written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

Please remove depiction of God! Inaccurate, and grave sin. 2600:1700:FC10:EDD0:EC13:94EF:27E:506 (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is not censored. El_C 04:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"seems not to have any plausible etymology"

Regarding the first stance of the Bronze Age origins section:

There is almost no agreement on the meaning and origins of the name Yahweh, which is not attested other than among the Israelites and seems not to have any plausible etymology: Ehyeh ašer ehyeh ("I Am that I Am"), the explanation presented in Exodus 3:14, appears to be a late theological gloss invented to explain Yahweh's name at a time when the original meaning had been forgotten.

This is awkwardly written, and wrong in several ways (contradicted in the same section of the article):

• "not attested other than among the Israelites" - the very next paragraph contradicts this statement and talks about "land of Shasu of yhw" appearing in an Egyptian inscription, saying that "In this case a plausible etymology for the name could be from the root HWY".
• another plausible etymology is offered in another sentence in the same paragraph, translating the name as a shortened form of "El who creates the hosts". In this case, the translation of YHWH is "Creates", which comes from the same root as the one proposed in Exodus 3:14 (HYH)
• the Exodus 3:14 etymology has many supporters in academia, and there is no strong evidence for it being a late gloss regardless of the text's date of composition (at the very least, there is no consensus on this).
• even without using the Biblical text as a source and treating YHWH as an unknown Semitic word, the root (HYH - "to be") is at the very least a valid candidate for the word's etymology. In my opinion it is also by far the most plausible, and I am not the only one who thinks so (see below).
• "...in this case a plausible etymology for the name could be from the root HWY, which would yield the meaning 'he blows', appropriate to a weather divinity" - there is nothing that connects this sentence to the previous one. In what way does the deity's origin among the Kenites of Midianites suggest this specific etymology?

The article should have a section for etymology, presenting the arguments for and against the most popular etymologies. A good resource here would be The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter), where the entry for Yahweh includes several etymologies (including references to the scholars who support them).

From that book:

Scholars who do not regard the tetragrammaton as an abbreviated theonym usually follow the Israelite interpretation insofar they interpret Yahweh as a form of the verb 'to be'; opinions diverge as to whether the form is basic or causitive (one school interprets 'He is', the other argues in favour of a causitive meaning: 'He cause to be, calls into existence')

I have access to that book and can help rewrite that section.

IYY (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

There are no depictions of God. Please remove the ridiculous stone carving made by an ignorant old world human, and cease spreading further ignorance. 2600:1700:FC10:EDD0:8D19:E5A0:D040:DDFC (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Doing so would violate Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOTCENSORED. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The prior image of Yahweh and his Asherah was defaced - someone's bad humor.

File:Yahweh and his Asherah.png

Original jar fragments.

Defaced drawing.

I haven't made many edits, so this page's protection status prevents me from making an edit. Would someone else please make the edit for me?

The image of Yahweh and his Asherah, fragments of a jar found in 1975 by Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze’ev Meshel that is included on this page has been defaced. In the original, the two central figures are not supporting scabbards or appendages between their legs, only the left figure has such. Thus leaving up for debate as to whether the second figure is female or not.

Would you change File:Ajrud.jpg to File:Yahweh and his Asherah.png?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcrown (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

I attempted o make the edit, then came here to make a discussion, thinking it must have been an error that someone was simply unaware of. But it seems there has already been several edit attempts and discussions. The name of the God of israel is not supposed to be written out under jewish law. Thats what the tetragrammaton is for, YHWH. And while i understand this isnt an american law/tradition, neither is the muslim law of not depicting Mohammed, but i need not ask if you would allow that to stay up. Or if anyone else would. Can we please get together and set this up where people who are simply unaware and are looking for it by searching the full name vowels and all, still get to the target page with out necessitating that the name of God be written out on the page forty times? Please? I love wiki and am a donating member thanks. Nero1911 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nero1911: I suppose you could go to the Village pump and ask if they can set up a filter, similar to what we have for the images of Muhammad. Users will have to opt-in and turn it on, and it will only be available to registered users. —C.Fred (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, I wonder though. Does the Jewish faith (splintered as it is) prohibit reading the name of God spelled out or does it prohibit writing the name of God spelled out? Because we are not Jews, we are not hindered by any prohibition on writing the name of God. I have often seen Jews write "G-d" or similar to avoid writing it out. But I have never, ever, ever heard before this of someone offended because they read a name spelled out by someone else. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'd be quite happy to replace the full (and hypothetical) spelling with YHWH, but I doubt it would help - someone would be bound to come along and ask what those letters stand for. Achar Sva (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: The prohibition is against defiling the name of God. Writing it out is thus taboo because of the chance of the paper being damaged or destroyed. Likewise, displaying it on a computer screen causes it to be erased. That said, Wikipedia is not censored, so we do not have to follow religious taboos. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanskrit etymology?

Is this related to the Sanskrit word Yahva, which means "great, mighty, powerful, restless"? It is said of Agni, Rudra and Soma. Also note Sanskrit yudh "to fight, combat, oppose in battle"; see the legendary kingdom of Judaesaptan (saptan is seven, thus something like "seven warriors", weird stuff). I'm asking because in the Slavic pantheon, there are many Sanskrit names (Svarog, Svantevit, Perun, Dazhbog). Also, Anglo-Saxon ealh (Gothic alhs) means "temple" (Hebrew elah is a terebinth, tree-worship). Could that be related to the Arabic god Allah? BTW, the article "Jehovah" in the McClintock-Strong Cyclopedia is a good addition to this article. --83.137.6.248 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Short answer, no. See False cognate, WP:No original research, and any modern academic work on the subject.

There are no Sanskrit names in the Slavic pantheon, both Sanskrit and the Slavic languages have Proto-Indo-European roots.

The Arabic word Allah, the Hebrew Elah (which just means "deity"), and various other Semitic words for "deity" go back to the proto-Semitic root ʔil-. The Anglo-Saxon Ealh goes back to the Proto-Indo-European h₂lek- ("to protect").

While there certainly loans between the Indo-European and Semitic languages, the Semitic language family is far older and so you're likely to find Semitic words in IE languages rather than the other way around. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yahweh as a god of metallurgy

I’m no bible scholar but I have seen some sources claim that Yahweh was a god of metallurgy.

https://www.ancient.eu/Yahweh/

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-jewish-god-yahweh-originated-in-canaanite-vulcan-says-new-theory-1.5992072

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240714570_Yahweh_the_Canaanite_God_of_Metallurgy

I’m not 100% sure if this is outdated or not.

I also found a source saying he wasn’t Canaanite in origin.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Yahweh_and_the_Gods_and_Goddesses_of_Can/2xadCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=yahweh+origin&pg=PA15&printsec=frontcover

CycoMa (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

False information

Deuteronomy 33:27 has been misquoted; else please provide the Bible version from which the verse is quoted. Otherwise please amend.

If amended, the preceeding paragraphs definitely need amendments to remove the content that was based on this misquote. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

English Standard Version? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is quoting academics, not translations available online. Please read Hackett, the scholar being quoted in this case.Achar Sva (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Can it therefore be made clear as such (I.e. it a variation or quoted from scholars); just like the quotation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 above it has been clarified as a variation.

As it is currently, it remains misleading and/or false information. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Especially because it doesn't match the English Standard Version either. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

So, why? If it is not endorsed by the Church is automatically fake? Are you going to report it to the Inquisition? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Vusi Dlamini, can you look at the source for me? It's p.160 of the book by Hackett, which is linked in the bibliography. I can't see that page because it's fallen down the google-hole.

The verses as quoted in our article are like this:

There is none like God, O Jeshurun (i.e., Israel)
who rides through the heavens to your help ...
he subdues the ancient gods, shatters the forces of old ...
so Israel lives in safety, untroubled is Jacob's abode ...
Your enemies shall come fawning to you,
and you shall tread on their backs. (Deuteronomy 33:26–29)

The elliipses indicate verses left out, so those aren't misquotes. Achar Sva (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

All I am saying is, after reading this quote, I have checked most Bible version (because it is defaultely assumed that a verse is always quoted from the Bible) but I didn't find it. So, instead of explaining in this talk where it came from, just include it in the article. It is about unambiguous information; and nothing to do with church endorsements. Shortly, I am not finding a Bible version that says "he subdues ancient Gods". So there is a need for the article to direct us where this quote came from. Just like the quote about seperating the nations according to the sons of God; I didn't need to verify it with any Bible version because it's clearly, and right qualified as a "variation". Vusi Dlamini (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2033%3A27&version=NRSV Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Buy the way, your jumping to inquisition and church endorsement when I'm just making a simple point (right or wrong) makes me not so optimistic that you are an objective responder to queries - you seem to be quick to jumping to wrong conclusions; thus missing the point of discussion. For your information, I was reading this article for the history part of it; not religion; hence your jumping to inquisition and church is really out of place. I got to this article as an "by the way"; otherwise I was reading about El. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vusi Dlamini: You have stated As it is currently, it remains misleading and/or false information. I didn't get that wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. But do you also realise that you had initially told me that it is from the English Standard Version. I checked, but it wasn't there? Originally (before I queried) there was a link to a certain Bible version; which I checked but was inconsistent? If it makes any sense to you, I still opine it appropriate to indicate the Bible version from which a verse is taken from. It serves one from reading hundreds (whatever number is there) of versions; just trying to verify something which a good article must give. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be from an official Bible translation? She did not read a translation for that article, she read Ancient Hebrew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, the point is to indicate the source; whatever it is. Right now I said Bible version because your response has directed me to a Bible version. If there are different sources, the article must direct us to atleast one. The fact that it took you two shorts to easily get me to verify the quotation is proof that there is a challenge which needs to be mitigated. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The source is of course given in the footnotes of this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Vusi Dlamini: The source is Jo Anne Hackett's article "There Was No God in Israel", as is indicated in the source-note in the article. You can download it here (p.160). Achar Sva (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That article doesn’t have that title, obviously. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of the scholarly sources quoted in this article misinterpret early Judaism’s relationship with other deities than the G-d of the Tanakh. Judaism did not “absorb” the qualities of the other gods worshipped at the time such as Ba’al and Asheira etc. 18adamfish (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Says who? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of Yahweh

How come that this page says that "seems not to have any plausible etymology […], the explanation presented in Exodus 3:14, appears to be a late theological gloss invented to explain Yahweh's name at a time when the original meaning had been forgotten". This seems to imply that we don't know the origin but that the Jewish interpretation is a later construct and thus most likely wrong.

Meanwhile, the page on the Tetragrammaton says: "Modern scholars generally agree that YHWH is derived from the Hebrew triconsonantal root היה (h-y-h), “to be, become, come to pass”, an archaic form of which is הוה (h-w-h),[6] with a third person masculine y- prefix, equivalent to English “he”. They connect it to Exodus 3:14, where the divinity who spoke with Moses responds to a question about his name by declaring: "I am that I am" or "I will be what I will be"

So which is it? Do scholars agree that his name derives from the Hebrew verb, or not?

BurnBird1 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that "I am that I am" (meaning something like "mind your own business") is a later Judaic explanation for the name Yahweh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

BurnBird1, this article says there's almost no agreement - the source is Kaiser, 2017, so pretty recent. It also says: "Ehyeh ašer ehyeh ("I Am that I Am"), the explanation presented in Exodus 3:14, appears to be a late theological gloss invented to explain Yahweh's name at a time when the original meaning had been forgotten.", with two sources. But essentially, when articles disagree like this, the best thing is to go to the underlying sources, which should be given in the article(s). Achar Sva (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The sound of h-y-h does sound like ia or ea (Enki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.111.235 (talk • contribs)

Original research. Not allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

United Monarchy

@Karma1998: To establish the existence of the United Monarchy, archaeologists would have to answer to http://www.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm . And such answer can only be a smoking gun. AFAIK, no such smoking gun has been found. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. I did not raise an objection because I'm not very familiar with that particular controversy, but the change raised the hairs on the back of my neck, as it were. Judging by a quick overview of the relevant articles and a read through your link, I think this change is a bit problematic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, for the existence of David we have a late mention of bytdwd (House of David) on a broken piece of rock, for Solomon we don't have even that much! Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The existence of the United Monarchy is supported by the majority of mainstream archaeologists, who adhere to Amihai Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology. Recent archeological discoveries by Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel at Jerusalem and Khirbet Qeiyafa also support Mazar's position. Even the Israeli Antiquities Authorities has clearly stated that "it can no longer be assumed that urbanisation began in Judeah only from the 8th century BCE" -Karma1998 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that David and Solomon did exist; however, my agreement does not constitute archaeological evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, both of you. I've been looking into this by checking on sources from the articles listed below, as well as doing some google scholar searches. I've found why the mention tweaked my nose: this is a more controversial subject than either of you are portraying it to be, and there are certain facts that are really hard to nail down.

With that in mind, there's a third option I'd like to see: instead of referring to the theoretical polities of the region, we should refer to the people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I'll grant you it's complicated. The mainstream Israeli archaeological guessiology seems to agree there was a United Monarchy; however there is little evidence to back up such leaps of faith. I don't say there will never be a smoking gun, just that smoking gun has not been found yet. So, about David or Solomon having a state, there is a multitude of learned opinions, but not enough evidence to decide the matter convincingly, so that we can call it settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That was essentially my point. The issue with the way it is now is that it refers to something that may not have ever existed. But, that was done by Karma to change a reference to something that didn't exist until much later than the events described.

Right now, the text references the national god of the region, and worship of the god coming to the region. In both cases, we can replace mention of the polity with the people, thus referring to the national god of the people, and worship of the god coming to those people.

I'm still going through some literature to try and get a better handle on it, but honestly, this seems like an issue it's better to sidestep than to pick one of the two options. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This line needs more explanation

In this article I noticed this specific line.

“Asherah, formerly the wife of El, was worshipped as Yahweh's consort[65] or mother;[66] potsherds discovered at Khirbet el-Kôm and Kuntillet Ajrûd make reference to "Yahweh and his Asherah",[67][68]”

How is it possible that Asherah could be Yahweh’s wife and/or mother.

(I don’t research that much on israeli mythology or religion. And I don’t research on Bible scholarship in general. So do forgive if I’m not educated on this.)

But as someone who researches on mythology and religion, I am aware that tellings do vary. But this comes off as weird. Can you maybe add a sentence or two that explains why this is the case.CycoMa (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the statement is based on a book by Margaret Barker. I've skimmed the relevant pages and they're very dense with mythology. It will take a while. In the meantime, I suggest that perhaps in the earliest period when Yahweh was a son of El, Asherah was his mother; later, when he absorbed El and became the supreme figure in the pantheon, she became his wife. Achar Sva (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

“god” should be “God” 98.24.206.209 (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See next request. Sam Sailor 07:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021 (2)

When referring to (YHWH) national “god” should be national “God” 98.24.206.209 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Um this article is about the evolution of monotheism in Judaism and the god Yahweh.CycoMa (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor 07:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GOD: "God" is a proper name, while "a god" or "the god" are written without caps. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly biased

Not helping the article, do not continue to this discussion.

Discussion text to be put into box. I can see that Wikipedia is obviously lead by liberal ideology, but this is simply disgraceful. It has blatantly obvious bias and misguiding information. I wish that it was neutral on the topic of God, but this is clearly the writing of an atheist and skeptic. The introduction makes sure to claim Yahweh was an Israelite cult and makes zero reference that He is the Judao-Christian God and the center of their monotheism. This article is already vandalized by an atheist, you just decided to let them get away with it. There is no viable source that indicates an "Edomite" translation of "YHW". Turns out, it isn't even a Semitic origin, but Indo-European for "He-weh-yu". This is an encyclopedia, last time i checked, not propaganda. 2600:1014:B00C:3BE8:492D:9713:193C:4A15 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC) The hatnote makes very clear that the Judeo-Christian God is covered in a separate article. If you want to conflate the two gods together, please site reliable sources beyond the similarity of name. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC) That was my intent: to cite reliable sources. But the page is locked, and I am unable to edit AT ALL. It's not that I want to "conflate the two", they are literally the same. The form "Yahweh" is even a form used in Judeo-Christian Bibles to transliterate the Tetragrammaton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.186.52.208 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Nope, Yahweh was a Pagan god who is the ancestor of the Judaeo-Christian God. The Abrahamic God evolved from the Pagan god Yahweh. See 2.5 Atheism: A History of God (A) on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC) "Yahweh" is not a transliteration of the tetragrammaton. "YHWH" is. See Tetragrammaton. The use of "Yahweh" is not a transliteration, but an actual translation, based on widely accepted scholarship about the pronunciation. Also, conservative atheists also believe what's written here. As do liberal Christians, and indeed, most educated Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Jains, Sihks, Agnostics and probably even a few Scientologists believe basically what's written in this article. It's only Christians who don't have any real education in the history of the Levant and Judeo-Christian religions who don't, and even then, it's only when they ignore the first sentence: "Yahweh was the national god of Ancient Israel." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC) all these responses i just read are opinionated. And thats fine, as long as they are stated as opinions. 140.186.52.208 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC) tgeorgescu Please don’t use YouTube videos as way to convince other editors to your worldview. Also all the sources presented in that video are all from Wikipedia. I mean ever heard of WP:CIRC.CycoMa (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC) CycoMa That is a thoroughly ridiculous request. tgeorgescu was providing a simple, explanatory link to the IP editor, and there's no reason for you to imply that he did so for the purposes of proselytization. Please read WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC) MPants at work I’m merely just stating that the video he presented isn’t ideal. I have no idea how you interpreted that to bad faith behavior.CycoMa (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC) You accused tgeorgescu of trying to "convince other editors to [his] worldview", instead of assuming the more likely case that he was trying to help the IP user understand the subject better. That's why I advise you to read those pages. And for the record; WP:CIRC is about sources in articles, not about talk page discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Then you are overthinking what I was saying. It’s more ideal to present reliable sources. I mean come on that video isn’t even from university or a scholar on the matter, it’s just some video made by an amateur. When I present sources in a talk page I make source the sources are written by sources and not random users on the internet.CycoMa (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC) It was not presented as a source. How could you possibly have trouble understanding this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Enough of this, a discussion like this doesn’t belong here anyway.CycoMa (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Hey -- this was not meant to cause problems. You can believe what you want, I just wanted the wikipedia article to suggest that. Many of what were opinions by specific scholars were presented as fact. It said things like "it is widely believed" and "the current model", which is obviously not true -- considering 2.4 billion Christians would beg to differ. If it is "widely believed by scholars", thats a different thing. It qualifies the origin of the belief and allows the reader to choose what they believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranovafiles (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding vowels is presumptuous as is gendering

It seems strange that a deity only named as the tetragrammaton in Jewish scripture is granted vowel vocalizations, as only certain Christians are wont to do, in this article. Nowhere in Jewish scripture are vowels guessed at or written.

Why not simply refer to it as YHVH (the English equivalent to the Hebrew tetragrammaton) in this article, instead of abiding by Christians'/ex-Christian atheists' guesses as to the vowels?

Also: why is, in English, YHVH referred to as "He"? Unlike Hebrew, a grammatically gendered language, English has the concept of a non-gendered "it". I understand Christians see their God as masculine, but if you're talking about the deity of Israel, there is no gender. It uses "he" in Hebrew because there is no "it" in the language; everything must be "he" or "she" according to grammatical gender.

Oaklandj (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Oaklandj: WP:COMMONNAME. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Lord God's name

The Lord's name can be found in any Hebrew prayer book, or Bible. Yahweh and Jehovah are both mispronunciations of the name יְהוָה which when transliterated is Yehovah. Jews are forbidden from taking the Lord's name in vain, so translations are generally "the Lord" and Jews would always say the Hebrew word for the Lord in prayer rather than risk the anger of the Lord. The mispronunciation is largely due to the absence of vowels in many Hebrew texts.
Exodus Chapter 6 verses 2 & 3 can be translated as-
2. And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him: 'I am יְהוָה Yehovah
3. and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as "אֵל שַׁדָּי" God Almighty, but by My name "יְהוָה" Yehovah I made Me not known to them.
Another reason why the the name is mispronounced is because other countries may have different phonetic to English, e.g. Germans generally pronounce the letter "J" as an English speaker would pronounce the letter "Y". Similarly a German would pronounce the letter "W" as an English speaker would pronounce the letter "V".
I hope that the Lord God is not offended that I have revealed the truth here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:EC6D:F100:C4AC:B262:CE80:BFEF (talk • contribs)

You should know that for Wikipedia claims of having WP:THETRUTH are totally worthless. We prefer citing WP:RS to listen endarkened cavemen, I have the truth every time. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Weren’t a minority of Israelites monotheistic before the Exile?

I have seen some reliable sources that mention a minority of Israelites before the exile were monotheists or pro-monotheists.

[this source] from Princeton mentions this on page 240.CycoMa (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean even [this source on page 145 mentions this.CycoMa (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Their views are complex:

1. Was the pre-exilic Israelite religion monotheistic? Answers vary in both sources.
2. Is the Bible monotheistic? Answers vary in one source, and the other source redefines monotheism to fit the Bible.
3. What does monotheism mean? Is monotheism vs. polytheism is a useful distinction? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this referring to the statement in the lede Towards the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the one true God of all the world.? This probably dates the emergence of strict monotheism too precisely: a much wider range of dates could be found in the sources. I don't think it's very helpful to ask about "pre-exilic Israelite religion": the religion of the 7th century was very different from the religion of the 10th century. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Havelock Jones: and @Tgeorgescu: what I am trying to say is that a lot of articles on this topic mention ancient weren’t actually monotheistic.

Although yes there are tons of reliable sources that say this. But, none of the articles on this topic mention that monotheism did exist among the Israelites before the Babylonian exile. When there are a good amount of reliable sources mentioning this. I can’t say much because I don’t research much on this to be honest.CycoMa (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Havelock Jones: this is kinda a response to that statement in the article.CycoMa (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You may have a point. I've been reading a lot on this topic recently, and I think our coverage skews towards a later date for the emergence of monotheism than the academic consensus. I may make some edits, but given the potentially contentious subject matter, I want to be cautious and check that everything can be backed up by RSs. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Christine Hayes, in her YouTube Yale courses, says something about the Yahweh only party or Yahweh alone party. In how far that party was monotheism rather than henotheism or monolatry remains to be seen. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That's uncontentious, and is partly reflected in the section Yahweh and the rise of monotheism, but as written this entirely skips the role of Josiah and Jeremiah, both of which seem fairly major omissions. The monotheism vs monolatry question is vexed, and as you say, may depend in some part on definitions, but at present we're more confident than the RSs in dating true monotheism to the crisis of the Exile. There's considerable support for the proposition that there already existed some group of monotheists in Judah before it fell. Havelock Jones (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Change

appearing to be a late theological gloss invented at a time when the original meaning had been forgotten.

to

appearing to be a relatively late attempt to explain the divine name by appeal to the root hayah, the verb "to be", at a time when the original meaning had been lost.

The latter, not the former, matches the Parke-Taylor source cited. It is important to be precise. 2001:569:7D8E:5300:844:32AB:8A19:49AA (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems to me an acceptable paraphrase. Both to avoid plagiarism and to avoid burdening our readers with the full technicality of a scholarly work, we generally do paraphrase RSs. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a bit close to the actual wording? I.e., it might be too close to plagiarism. Achar Sva (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bacchius Iudaeus.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

Just thought I'd mention that ISBN numbers are a stock-control device - a publisher will bring out a print run and buy an ISBN for it. If he's lucky the run will sell out and he'll order another, for which he'll need a new ISBN. These are the same book and the same edition, the only difference being the print run. There's no Earthly reason for including them in the bibliography. Achar Sva (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC) I mention this because I've just added a useful recent book to the bibliography (the one by Lewis), without the ISBN. If any editor feels like looking it up, go ahead, but it's a waste of time. Achar Sva (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merger failed. Zhomron (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Reason: Personally I see no reason to have Yahweh and Yahwism as separate articles. Also the article on Yahweh is odd compared to other deity articles. It doesn't discuss characteristics of him, it does not tell what myths or legends he is in.CycoMa (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Note that I am writing this at a point where the user has not actually posted their reasons for proposing a merge, so I'm sort of winging it at this point, assuming they do eventually clarify why they think merging is a good idea, I'll tweak my response accordingly. While I can see that at first glance it does not appear to depart from the content of the proposed merger article, the Yahwism page is still warranting of being a separate entity as it touches upon subjects that I feel might not actually fit being tied under the entry for the deity itself (such as actual worship practice, reform, discussion of the pantheon, etc). Much like, say, God in Judaism is a separate page from Judaism, the ancient and extinct religion which centered around Yahweh should remain a separate page from Yahweh himself. That said, yeah, we definitely should diversify the Yahwism page a tad so that its history section isn't what is essentially just an abridged version of Yahweh's page... that is, assuming that is the main tenet behind the proposal. Zhomron (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Also, just for clarification, Yahweh and God in Judaism are separate articles because one is the ancient image of the deity and its progressive evolution, and the other is just a general description of the roles and concepts he currently embodies in modern Jewish thought. Think like how Iron Age sword and Sword are separate entries. Zhomron (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zhomron: I have written articles about how certain deities evolved overtime as well. Like I written about Haurun (The article still needs work tho) Haurun changed over time from different parts of the Middle East. But he was still the same deity nonetheless even when all the changes.CycoMa (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Yahweh was a polytheistic deity. God in Judaism is a monotheistic deity. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: doesn’t mean they weren’t the same deity. Another issue is that this article is too focus on the Evolution of Yahweh rather the Yahweh figure himself.

This article feels like it is going against WP:CFORK. I have written articles about Cizin, Takamimusubi, and others. In these articles I mentioned these deities various names, their temples, their myths, and etc. But this article doesn’t provide any of that.CycoMa (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Wikipedia takes no stance upon whether Yahweh is or isn't God in Judaism, same as it takes no stance upon whether the Judaeo-Christian God is or isn't Allah. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: do the majority of scholars think Yahweh in this article is the same Yahweh worshipped in Judaism? Or is the Yahweh in this article a different deity from the Jewish god but with the same name?CycoMa (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Is God the same as Allah? is a question for true believers rather than one of encyclopedic knowledge. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I mean yeah, religious beliefs in a nutshell can basically mean whatever a person wants it to mean.

I am also aware that sometimes gods can go under many names, there are even times where there is confusion whether or not certain deities are the same god or separate gods.CycoMa (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I mean that's a deep theological dispute masquerading as fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That’s not my opinion. Look at Taweret, there are scholars who argue whether or she and Ipet are the same goddess or not. But I guess that’s kinda getting off track, maybe we should look for sources that discuss whether or the Yahweh in ancient Israel is the same Yahweh in the current Jewish faith.CycoMa (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you even find a source which explicitly connotes that? As far as I’m aware it’s pretty much unstated fact that the god called Yahweh worshipped by Jews is the same deity as the god called Yahweh worshipped by Jews. It’s like trying to find a source for “the sky is blue.” If something is so clearly axiomatic why would anyone actually posit it as if they aimed to prove it? Zhomron (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zhomron: that’s what I am kinda saying, since the Yahweh before the exile is the same Yahweh after the exile there is no reason to have separate articles on them. Unless there is a good reason for that. I mean I can sorta understand why there is an article for god in Islam and god in Judaism, although they both are basically the same god.CycoMa (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If you try to merge Yahweh and God in Judaism you will end up with a page that is way too long and way too bloated to be readable. What would then be the solution? Splitting the pages. And then we’re right back to where we started. Yahweh focuses on the deity (the header literally contains a note directing you to “God in Judaism” if you want to read on how Yahweh currently factors in to religion), God in Judaism is how that deity actually integrates into Judaism, and the modern conceptions and rites. Why is God the Father separate from God in Christianity? Why is Holy Ghost separate from God the Father? Why is Allah separate from God in Islam? It never ends. Also you need to make a totally new merger proposal for God in Judaism and Yahweh. This is the proposal for Yahweh and Yahwism, and even then, I’m the one who actually bothered to draw the talk up. Zhomron (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zhomron: maybe a name change to this article would be a good idea. Maybe change it to the evolution of Yahweh or something. Plus as I said earlier @Achar Sva: was the one who originally proposed the idea of merging Yahwism and Yahweh. I was merely agreeing with him and having my own reason for merging and moving things around.CycoMa (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Yahwism also includes the Jewish pantheon prior to the Babylonian exile, and the existence of priests and prophets for several Jewish deities. It does not seem particularly relevant to Yahweh himself. Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Are there sources that say whether or not the Yahweh in Judaism is the same Yahweh before Babylonian exile? Although I must admit I haven’t read through all the sources on this article or the article of Yahwism. But, the few sources I have read through don’t indicate the Yahweh in Judaism after exile or the Yahweh before are separate deities.CycoMa (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As written, the current article is clearly not about God in Judaism. I think there is a possible problem because the lede is written as if there were an Iron Age deity Yahweh with no connection to the contemporary deity יהוה‎, which is certainly not the case, but merging this with God in Judaism would be a disaster. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Havelock Jones: uh, to clarify, the proposal is to merge Yahweh with Yahwism, not God in Judaism. Zhomron (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zhomron: I am also okay with merging this article with God in Judaism as well. It’s just this article focuses way too much on the evolution of Yahweh rather than the deity himself.CycoMa (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If your merge proposal fails to make clear which articles you are proposing to merge, consider that it may not be sufficiently articulated. Nothing in your proposal gives any reason for the merger you are actually proposing! My instinct is to oppose that also because a religion and its chief deity are different subjects, but I might take a different view if you provided some rationale for the proposal. I agree that this article could be improved, but I think the solution is to improve it rather than merge it. Havelock Jones (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to be overwhelming opposition to a merge. In that case, I think we need to define clearly the scope of each article to avoid unnecessary overlap. (Some overlap, of course, is going to be necessary). Achar Sva (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Additional comment: At the moment this article says it's about "the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Samaria and Judah." In that case, the sections on the rise of monotheism and Graeco-Roman synthesism seem out of place.Achar Sva (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC) The section on the exile and second temple is also out of place if the article is about the Iron Age kingdoms. Achar Sva (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Iron Age deity was a centerpiece of the rise of Abrahamic monotheism, in what possible way is that misplaced? Zhomron (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't follow. The Iron Age deity wasn't the "centrepiece" of the monotheistic God, he was the predecessor. This article deals with the Iron Age Yahweh, some other article will deal with the monotheistic YHWH of the post-exilic period.Achar Sva (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I ought to have clarified a bit more, so that’s my bad. As for what you say, while I understand what you’re trying to convey, I think it may be just a bit too limited. For one, while it is no argument that Yahweh of the Iron Age is very much from the Yahweh of today, we need to be careful of what words we use to describe the relationship between them. After all, modern Yahweh and Iron Age Yahweh are the same deity, just with radically different contexts and interpretations. Secondly, I think you might be taking the concept a bit too literally; that the article focuses on Yahweh in the Iron Age does not necessarily mean it should only cover Yahweh in the Iron Age. After all, the Greco-Roman syncretism pertained to Yahweh, so even though it occurred after the Iron Age, it shouldn’t be wiped from the page. The characterization of this page’s content as “Iron Age Yahweh” is just an arbitrary label meant to illustrate that it is separate from modern-day interpretations (hence the various separate “God in…” pages). The lede definitely needs to be rewritten, if only partially, since it seems to give off the impression that the site is trying to claim YHWH back then is not YHWH right now, strictly in terms of the deity itself. Zhomron (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree (again) that there are many issues with this article, but I don't see any problem with the basic scheme. Yahweh is universally used in the RSs to refer to the historic deity and (in the unusual circumstances of the taboo) very rarely used in RSs writing about modern Judaism. Yahwism is often (though far from universally) used for the religion of early Israel. I could possibly support a move of that article to Early Israelite religion, though I would want to see the argument. Our current article is essentially on the developing understanding of Yahweh from LBA to the destruction of the Second Temple, which seems as good a point as any to stop (although the name ceased to be uttered during the Second Temple period). I don't think it would help to fork this article. What we need is clearer scoping. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• I do agree that the section on Graeco-Roman syncretism can go. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merger failed. Zhomron (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

---

I am also fine with merging this with God in Judaism. My overall point is that this article focuses way too much on the evolution of Yahweh rather than the figure himself I am not against having an article about the evolution of a certain deity. Also @Achar Sva: technically was the one who suggested this merge. I think they have a reason.CycoMa (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose One among many of the reasons I oppose: Yahweh’s about the deity, God in Judaism is how the deity is interpreted in the religion. Plenty of other examples on the site. (Also sorry Achar if me moving this to a new section pinged you again) Zhomron (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Achar Sva (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As written, the current article is clearly not about God in Judaism. I think there is a possible problem because the lede is written as if there were an Iron Age deity Yahweh with no connection to the contemporary deity יהוה‎, which is certainly not the case, but merging this with God in Judaism would be a disaster. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Poorly thought out merger. Modern Judaism has nothing to do with the Iron Age or with the evolution of a pagan god into a monotheistic deity. 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
• Oppose God in Judaism is a huge topic, this article is far narrower.Achar Sva (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Avoid edit warring

By and large the editors on this article show the best of behaviour and avoid edit warring in favour of discussion. I would like this to continue. Let us avoid edit wars and discuss our different approaches in a civil manner. Achar Sva (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

First line of the article: defining Yahweh as a subject

I've looked up a few options for the first line, which should define the subject of the article for the lay reader.

• "Yahweh is the proper name of the biblical God." ("Proper" means personal - Yahweh is the name of the god of the Bible).
• "Yahweh ... the god of Israel"(rather than some foreign god - and "Israel" means the religious community of Israel, not the kingdom).

Neither is quite encompassing enough in my opinion. The first tells us only that the God of Israel had a name; the second that he was a national god.Achar Sva (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that, for the lay reader, the most important thing is to know that Yahweh was the God of Israel in the Ancient Hebrew religion ("Israel" conceived both as the ethno-religious group of the Israelites and the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah), the God of the Hebrew Bible (for Jews and Samaritans) and the Old Testament (for Christians), and also the monotheistic God of modern Judaism. GenoV84 (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of that is fine, but the Berlin ref is talking about a modern Jewish interpretation of the Bible that doesn't square with the way the Iron Age Israelites saw Yahweh (for example, he wasn't the creator of the Universe in Genesis 1 until the 2nd century). That modern Jewish God is so different from the Yahweh of the Bible that it needs (and has) its own article, God in Judaism. Achar Sva (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some of the differences between Yahweh and the modern Jewish God:

• God created the universe from nothingness, Yahweh did not (he gave order and meaning to pre-existing but chaotic matter, the waters and earth that existed prior to the beginning of Genesis 1);
• God is single, there is no other god, Yahweh was one of many gods;
• God is the god of all humanity, Yahweh was the god of Israel alone (until rather late in the post-exilic period);

and there are many more. The two are so different that I don't think they can be contained in a single article. Achar Sva (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point but in light of the continuous sources I have provided which clarify that continuous nature of Yahweh as God of (at the very least) Judaism, your logic, while understandable, does not hold up in the face of WP:REF. If people once thought I had brothers, and now think I never had brothers - does that mean I am no longer me? If people once thought I had a wife, and now think I was never married, does that mean I am no longer me? If people once called me by my name, Zhomron, but they forgot how to spell it and for a while just called me something like "Zhom", does that mean I am no longer me? No one (at least I hope) is trying to argue that the ancient picture of Yahweh is 1:1 with modern Abrahamic religion, but there is a reason that the Shema, the most important prayer in modern Judaism, says "Yahweh is our God" and not "Yahweh was our God, back when we were in the Iron Age, but around the 6th century BC we figured that only he existed instead of just being one of many, and so we've somehow found it logical to decide to stop worshipping him as our God and replace him with a monotheistic deity whose name is exactly the same and did all of the things other Yahweh did in this book and the ones before and after it, but don't get confused, this Yahweh is Yahweh, and not Yahweh, because as we all know nothing whatsoever can change or evolve, it must be wholly replaced and we will not entertain any of the overwhelming evidence that we just started ascribing different qualities to Yahweh and instead indirectly assert that Yahweh is Yahweh but not Yahweh because Yahweh is not exactly a one-to-one correspondence with Yahweh. Understand? Alright, amen." Hope this doesn't sound snarky or anything.

Also just like Dante's Satan is just a rundown of how the pre-existing concept of Satan factors in to the works of Dante (and not some sort of proof that Dante's Satan was a completely original character from Satan), God in Judaism is just a rundown of how Yahweh factors in to the works of Judaism. It's not implying the two are different. As stated above in reasoning for opposing the merge between the two, Yahweh covers material which no longer applies to God in Judaism and thus it would be inappropriate to merge them; and likewise, even if that were not the case, there is so much on God in Judaism that to merge it with Yahweh would result in the page becoming functionally unstable and far too long to navigate. That is why they are separate. Zhomron (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Zhomron when they say that it would be inappropriate to merge the two articles. Moreover, I'd like to point out that, contrarily to the modern conception of God in the Jewish religion and its peculiar aspects (Jewish mysticism, philosophy, ethics, theology, etc.), Yahweh hasn't always been the monotheistic, exclusive God of the Ancient Hebrew religion during the Iron Age, as most historians and biblical scholars today agree that the polytheistic religion of the Israelites gradually shifted from monolatry/henotheism, in which Yahweh/El was the supreme Creator deity of the Hebrew pantheon, into a strict monotheism entirely focused on the worship of Yahweh, which progessively assimilated many of the distinguishing features and characteristics of the former deities in the Hebrew pantheon (El, Baal, Asherah, etc.). GenoV84 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that this article be merged with God in Judaism. Zhomron, you say: "If people once thought I had brothers, and now think I never had brothers - does that mean I am no longer me?" That's a false analogy: you are real, in the sense that you have an existence independent of the perception others have of you, but Yahweh is not. Yahweh is only an idea, or collection of ideas. In Iron Age Judah and Israel people put that collection in a bag and labelled it "Yahweh"; over the centuries some of the original ideas have been taken out of the bag, and new ones added - even the bag itself was changed (the bag is now called Hashem). This is why you'll never find a source saying that Yahweh is the god of any modern religion. Achar Sva (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a metaphysical debate between Achar Sva and Zhomron which I'm not sure is going anywhere, and is probably not something on which Wikipedia can take a view. What does it even mean for one god to be the same as another god? Is Zeus the same god as Jupiter? Is he the same as Thor? Are they all Dyeus ph₂tēr? We don't express any views on that in our articles, but we do say in the lede of Jupiter "The Romans regarded Jupiter as the equivalent of the Greek Zeus".

It's easy to find references saying that the personal name of the Jewish God is YHWH. Orthodox Jews say Hashem, but I think we're all aware that simply means the name: it refers to the name of God, rather than being the name of God. Wikipedia's policies don't exactly cover the case of unutterable names, but most Jews would understand that their god YHWH is the same YHWH described in the Bible. It's right of course that the Iron Age god Yahweh differed in many respects from the modern Jewish conception. Our article covers roughly 1550-332 BCE, and over that period the understanding of Yahweh shifted very significantly. The understanding of Yahweh during the Second Temple period is still very different from the modern Jewish understanding, but perhaps more similar to that than the LBA understanding.

Our difficulty is that we explain how Yahweh was understood and worshipped in different periods in the body of the article (although some of that requires expansion, e.g. we don't say anything about his consort), but we need a first sentence which introduces the core idea. I don't object to "national god" as the central idea, even though it's really only correct during Iron II. I do think we should communicate that Israel has a double meaning as a nation state and as an ethno-religious group. We should also make clear that we don't mean the modern state, so including "ancient" serves some purpose.

I quite like "Yahweh is the proper name of the biblical God", as it immediately clues the reader in as to which god this article is about. We can explain more in the following sentences. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, we have put the Hebrew and pronunciation in a footnote. Other articles put this in paratheses per MOS:LEADLANG and MOS:LEADPRON:, i.e. "Yahweh (pronounced /ˈjɑːhweɪ/ or /ˈjɑːweɪ/; ‬Paleo-Hebrew:𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄; Hebrew: יַהְוֶה‎) is the proper name of the biblical God" (or whatever). Havelock Jones (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Achar Sva is the most competent and experienced editor in respect to the history of the Bible. And I agree that Wikipedia should not take a stance upon whether Yahweh is/isn't God. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, do really need both pronunciations here? Most English speakers pronounce /hw/ as /w/, because of the wine-whine merger. Havelock Jones (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "Yahweh is the proper name of the biblical God", although we need somehow to distinguish this article from the article title [[YHWH], which is about the name. That's what lies behind my preference for defining the scope of this article so that it refers to the god rather than the name. The argument with Zhomron is similarly about scope, as he wants to expand it from the Iron Age kingdom to take in the 2500 years that have passed since then. Achar Sva (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with you about the scope of the article. However, Bible scholars cannot show that Yahweh isn't the God of Jews and Christians. Because who are the authorities in this matter? Believing Jews and Christians, not mainstream Bible scholars. So, saying that Yahweh isn't the God of Jews and Christians goes beyond the turf of Bible scholars. Jews and Christians recognize Yahweh as their own God, and Bible scholars cannot deny that Jews and Christians recognize Yahweh as their own God. Yahweh being in this case merely a word, rather than some particular polytheistic ancient god. They think that Yahweh is the name of God Almighty, rather the reality of a polytheistic god from ancient Israel. So, they worship a name rather than an ancient god. But yes, they don't think they just worship a name, they think that their own god has always existed. So, this leaves us with an etically unfalsifiable emic thesis, and an etic description of an ancient god. So, yeah, the article should describe the etic POV but also shortly admit that the emic view is unfalsifiable. Since one cannot prove that God Almighty hasn't always existed. Scholars speak the idiom of historical existence, while believers speak the idiom of eternal existence: they don't even speak the same language. Yahweh isn't God is a truth of history; Yahweh is God is a truth of theology. These statements are both true, but in different academic fields. Achar Sva wants to write about history and Zhomron wants to write about theology. This begs the question whether the supreme monotheistic deity of modern Judaism is an ancient polytheistic god. I.e. do modern Jews worship a polytheistic god or merely its name? Modern Jews will say We're not polytheists, but of course this isn't true for ancient worshipers of Yahweh. All such paradoxes appear from conflating history with theology. So, what is my solution? Establish and enforce boundaries between academic fields. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with tgeorgescu above. I also agree that the current scope of the article is fine, although it runs well past the end of Iron Age. At present it runs to 332 BCE, i.e. the conquest of Yehud by Alexander. That seems fairly arbitrary from the perspective of this article, and I would mildly support extending to 70 CE, which seems to be roughly the period usually covered by generalist sources. I don't read Zhomron as saying that the article should be rescoped, and certainly all they've done is edit the lede, albeit by inserting the unfalsifiable emic view referred to by tgeorgescu.

In terms of identifying the scope of the article, WP:LEDE covers this situation: "In some cases the definition of the article topic in the opening paragraph may be insufficient to fully constrain the scope of the article. In particular, it may be necessary to identify material that is not within scope." So all we need to do is include a sentence that this article does not cover understandings of Yahweh after the conquest of Yehud (or destruction of the Second Temple, as the case may be). Havelock Jones (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that would follow naturally from "... after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE the original pronunciation was forgotten." Delete the following sentence (which gives undue weight to a very marginal aspect of the topic) and replace with something like, "This article does not cover later understandings of the god so identified, for which see God in Judaism." Havelock Jones (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)