Talk:Yahweh/Archive 9

30 minutes

Mooters 1563 has 30 minutes to explain what he means before being reverted for WP:DRIVEBY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The article proposes a strand of secular scholarship that simply does not take the opposite view into account. I'm not saying the article should be devoted to a religious point of view, but any consideration of it is left out and criticisms of much of the current material is also not adequately provided. The article ultimately aims to promote the view that Yahweh was originally some kind of polytheistic god without consideration for other points of view. Mooters 1563 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is at least an explanation. Now, show me the WP:SOURCES which support it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

My explanation is sufficient, future editors will have to provide their own sources for whatever they edit in. Mooters 1563 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia 101: if you have no WP:SOURCES, you have no voice on Wikipedia articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources for what? I haven't edited in any new information, simply given a notice. Mooters 1563 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources claiming that Yahweh has been born as the monotheistic God from his very beginnings. Perhaps I should add: from his historical beginnings in Ancient Palestine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

But I haven't written about that in the article. I gave a notice, and told you why I gave you the notice due to the fact that I see no contrary point of view to that of what is written in the article. I also never said Yahweh has always been monotheistic either. There is no reason for me to provide any source due to the fact that I have provided no new information. Mooters 1563 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

But you do claim that the whole article violates WP:NPOV big time. If there aren't any sources claiming the opposite (mind you: as history, not as theology/apologetics), then our article does not violate WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why would I have to provide any sources? There is no reason. No new info has been added. Mooters 1563 (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Around here we do not discuss our own opinions, we discuss the opinions of WP:SOURCES. If the view that Yahweh has been born perfect, like Athena from the head of Zeus, is not a notable historical claim (among professors living by publish or perish) then we're done here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not my own opinion, a religious person would not view this in the same way and would also find it highly offensive. This stays like it or not. http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/the-challenge-to-bible-inerrancy-combating-biblical-scepticism.html Mooters 1563 (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it is a notable historical claim. The POV tag is not a free out of jail card, it does not exempt one from the burden of actually finding WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you want a source, there is no source I need to provide since I have given no new information. You're abusing. Mooters 1563 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I want sources because we, Wikipedia editors, trust no Wikipedia editor on his/her word of honor, but we always demand WP:SOURCES for verifying information. Perhaps I should stress: we're not discussing subjective religious beliefs, we discuss objectively argued historical facts. As Bart Ehrman says on [1], Ancient religion is really out there, like the stuff of any other academic field. Personal religious faith has no bearing on objective facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is right. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of mainstream academic scholarship. Unless you can provide sources indicating that the view of Yahweh having historically originated as a monotheistic God from the very beginning is a major position in mainstream scholarship, the NPOV tag is misplaced. As far as I am aware, the position of nearly all modern historians is that monotheism gradually developed out of polytheism through first henotheism and later monolatrism. Yahweh was originally the national god of Israel and Judah and only later came to be seen as the supreme God and creator of the universe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: NPOV is not about representing with equal weight the belief of everyone. It is actually sticking to NPOV to represent what the best scholarly sources say on the subject. For balance, it may be adequate to summarize the beliefs of large groups. Currently I see: "Finally, in the national crisis of the exile, the followers of Yahweh went a step further and outright denied that the other deities aside from Yahweh even existed, thus marking the transition from monolatrism to true monotheism". It's possible that we can do better. I'm still not sure that the POV tag is justified. —PaleoNeonate - 01:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article shouldn't just be devoted to the biblical criticism in regards to YHWH. He still has a great religious significance today and it should be me more focused the biblical narrative of YHWH and his religious significance. I also think it should be further reasserted that most of the scholarly views are hypotheses and not necessarily established history. Mooters 1563 (talk) 3:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is rehashing an argument which has been discussed to death (see the archives of this talk page). Basically, there are other articles about God, God in Judaism, God in Christianity, God in Islam. The article Yahweh is devoted to the Ancient god and it is a historical article, not a theological one. So it is irrelevant what Catholics or Pentecostals believe about Yahweh as a matter of true belief, this article is not concerned with such views. Trinitarianism and Kabbalah have no bearing on this article: we speak of Yahweh long before anyone claimed that there were a Holy Trinity. This article is concerned with historical facts about a national god. So, we only render historical scholarship. If some of the expressed views are not consensual among historians, this has to be shown through citing WP:SOURCES. As hinted above, the historical claim that Yahweh was the Universal God, God of all nations, the Unique God, from his very historical beginnings is a WP:FRINGE view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yahweh is the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. He isn't just an "ancient god", he is THE GOD for all three of these religions and thus pages like this should be handled with more care. I'm not saying to get rid of any of the current content, but at least including the traditional biblical narrative of him and a summary of his importance in all three of these major world religions which account for over 4 billion people world wide, something which ought not to be neglected in an article like this. And again, it should be further asserted in this article that much of the current biblical criticism are hypotheses which may or may not reconstruct ancient Israelite religion and that these are not necessarily established history. Mooters 1563 (talk) 4:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Yahweh from this article isn't the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In many years of editing Wikipedia I have noticed an obsessive compulsion to fill all articles about Ancient Israelite religion with modern religious orthodoxy (mostly Christian fundamentalism based upon biblical inerrancy); such compulsion is simply not done: there are historical realities which are independent of modern religious orthodoxy. Historical scholarship does not cater to modern orthodox dogma. The question is: what kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia heavily biased for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. We do have articles about modern religious dogmas, but this article is not concerned with such views. Information about modern Judaism, Christianity and Islam is welcome, but it should be inserted inside other articles. This article is concerned with a time when there were no such things as Christianity and Islam. And if you claim that there are other mainstream historical views about this Ancient god, then I tell you again: show me the WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is quite simply false. Abrahamic religions claim Yahweh as their God. The God that Elijah and Hosea and Isaiah and Amos spoke about is the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and all three religions claim these figures as prophets, with Judaism and Christianity claiming their writings as scripture inspired by God. It doesn't have anything to do with "fundamentalism" it has to do with basic religious beliefs. Your view that these things can be divorced is simply unfounded and is your own opinion not based on fact. You can't keep an article like this so restrictive. The fact that you do is why this is on the talk page and why there have been so many issues with this page. Mooters 1563 (talk) 4:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

As Tgeorgescu has already pointed out, the God of the three Abrahamic religions as we know Him today already has four whole articles devoted entirely to Him and His theology. This article is about the national god of Israel and Judah; whether or not they are the same God is a complex ontological issue that Wikipedia is in no position to address. Since the God of the Abrahamic faiths is thoroughly described elsewhere, there is no reason why we should include a description of Him here; it would just be redundant and confusing. Your claim that the scholarly views presented in this article are "just hypotheses" is not an apt description. Although the theories described in this article could theoretically be wrong, there is such a vast wealth of historical, archaeological, and Biblical evidence to support them, that, in mainstream scholarship, they are generally taken as established facts. Ever since the days of Julius Wellhausen, it has been widely recognized that the Torah and Judaism did not just fall out of the sky; they both took centuries of evolution and development to reach the state they are in today. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

They're not established facts, there is much debate over them within scholarly circles, and these are simply your opinions. You're keeping this article too restrictive and that's why there are so many issues surrounding it. If Yahweh wasn't the God of the Abrahamic religions, then there wouldn't be any issues like there constantly are on this page. As said, it's not based on "fundamentalism" it's based on the most basic religious truths in the Abrahamic religions. You handle this topic quite poorly on this page for your neglect of important facts relating to this subject. Mooters 1563 (talk) 4:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is legitimate scholarly debate on the subject, then provide us with reliable, scholarly sources supporting your position; we have already provided an entire article filled with sources supporting ours. Also, I would like to clarify that I never said anything at all about "fundamentalism"; that was only Tgeorgescu who said that. Your argument that the circular debates here at Talk:Yahweh prove there is legitimate scholarly discussion on the subject is unsound; these repeated skirmishes only prove that there is debate over this subject in the general public, not necessarily in scholarly circles. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about Abrahamic religions (plural). Once you have understood that, you realize that there are thousands of other Wikipedia articles concerned with Christian theology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it's about the God of the Abrahamic religions. The very least you could do is allow a section summarizing this or explaining their relations to each other. You're attempting to divorce something which cannot be separated at its roots. Mooters 1563 (talk) 4:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I had introduced a link to A History of God in order to appease such sentiment, but it was removed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Let us make this clear: this article is about Yahweh, the national god of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Whether or not Yahweh is the same god as the God of the Abrahamic religions is an ontological question that we are not at liberty to discuss. Since there are already tons of articles about the Abrahamic God, it only makes rational sense that we should restrict this article to only discuss the national god of Judah and Israel. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not an ontological question. You're making it into something it's not. The Abrahamic religions claim Yahweh as their God it's as simple as that. That is why there is so much issue with this article. Mooters 1563 (talk) 5:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mooters 1563, you say "Yahweh is the God of Judaism, Christianity." Yahweh had these characteristics (among others):

• He was a god of storms and wars
• He had a wife, named Asherah
• He was the chief god of a pantheon that included several other gods
• He did not create the world from nothing, but made an existing world habitable
• He lived in a palace located directly above Jerusalem

And much more. In short, he wasn't very like the modern gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nor are these three gods very like each other. For this reason he has a separate article that doesn't trace his story beyond the fall of Jerusalem, which is when he started to turn into the god of Judaism.PiCo (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

These are hypotheses, not established history. Jews, Christians and Muslim accept all pre-exilic prophets who preached Yahweh as God with Jews and Christians accepting their writings as scripture. Mooters 1563 (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There are polytheistic and henotheistic verses in the Bible. Scholars had to do something with such information. And they did. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to dispute a single point here. @Katolophyromai says that "there are already tons of articles about the Abrahamic God, it only makes rational sense that we should restrict this article to only discuss the national god of Judah and Israel." It seems to me like there are some steps missing in this argument. The articles about the Abrahamic God are called things like "God in Judaism" and "God In Christianity," despite the fact that Jews and Christians et al. may claim that "Yahweh" is the name of their god (and thus would have a claim to this article title). It is not obvious, therefore, that the article titled "Yahweh" should be about "the national god of Judah and Israel" as distinct from the God of Judaism, the God of Christianity, etc.. It seems to me like the content of this article would be better placed at an article titled "God in ancient Judah and Israel" or "Yahweh in ancient Judah and Israel" or something like that, and that turning this page into a disambiguation page, which allowed users to choose whether they were interested in that topic or in "God in Judaism" or whatever might actual solve some of the ongoing disputes and get us through what seems like an impasse. Does anyone have an objection to doing something like that? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: you can't fix a ping. You have to start afresh with a new, signed edit. I'll ping @Katolophyromai: for you now. I'm not sure I see the problem you see. In any case, at the moment it doesn't violate NPOV as it isn't meant to be about those other Gods, so I've removed the tag. The only real issue I see is whether the name is appropriate. I've seen no issues about the article except a disagreement about the article's name. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Doug Weller:. I think my point is that the issue seems to me to be in large part connected to the naming of the article, and that if the article were renamed and a DAB page provided at "Yahweh" instead, everyone might be satisfied. It is not in any way obvious from the title "Yahweh" that this article is intended to be a historical one resting on scholarly reconstructions of ancient Palestinian religion, as opposed to a religious one that incorporates an understanding of Jewish/Christian/etc. beliefs. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want that the name of the article be changed, but I also don't object to it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The hatnote, the very first text on the page, informs the reader that "This article is about the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Samaria and Judah. For the modern Jewish conception of God, see God in Judaism. For the vocalization of the term "YHWH", see Tetragrammaton. For other uses, see Yahweh (disambiguation)." The title is not broken, and does not need fixing, in my view. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there is any need to change the title of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, there's obviously a need to do something because of the persistent confusion/controversy that the article is engendering. I understand that the hatnote explains what the topic of the article is and suggests other possible articles that might be of interest to the reader; however, that does not mean that the text of this article would not be better located under a different title. Indeed, the very fact that a disambiguation page for "Yahweh" already exists suggests that this article text may not be in the right place. Why is this article considered so much the primary intended destination for people interested in the term "Yahweh" over any of the other things listed on that disambiguation page and over articles like "God in Judaism" that it gets the main namespace? It seems to me like the best practice here would be to move the disambiguation page to "Yahweh" and move this article somewhere else. If I am mistaken, someone please show me the evidence that supports the implication that the primary meaning of "Yahweh" Is "the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Samaria and Judah" in a scholarly historical sense apart from modern religious conceptions of monotheism. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If you really think that the title of the article needs to be changed, we could change it to either "Yahweh (national god of Israel and Judah)", "Yahweh (ancient god)", or perhaps "Yahweh in ancient Israel and Judah". I personally prefer the first option, but I would not be opposed to the second option. I disfavor the third option since the final section of the article discusses Yahweh's later importance in Graeco-Roman folk religion, which I think is an important aspect of his cult. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

LacrimosaDiesIlla, you say that "Jews and Christians et al. ... claim that "Yahweh" is the name of their god," and I gather this is the basis of your argument for a change of the article name. The statement is not true. To start with Christians, the Vatican has expressly forbidden vthe use of the name Yahweh, and it's certainly not used in any other mainstream denomination. Jews would disagree strongly with the idea that Yahweh is the name of their god - their god is HaShem, "the Name", and YHWH, consonants only, is never pronounced. The real point is that this article is not about theology but about the historical development of the Jewish god. It's one of the series, the next being Second Temple Judaism, and then Rabbinic Judaism. For my taste it already goes too far by hinting at developments in the Exilic period (the development of monotheism), and while I guess I have to live with that I certainly wouldn't like to see it become diluted any further.PiCo (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The germane WP:PAG is WP:COMMONNAME. Indeed, Yahweh is in WP:SOURCES the scholarly term for this Ancient god. "Appease religious POV-pushers" isn't a WP:PAG in respect to the names of our articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You could include some of the views of Yehzkiel Kaufman on the origin of Yahweh, he wasn't an Orthodox Jews nor was he an Evangelical Christian and he argued for a more revolutionary rather than evolutionary origin of Yahweh and monotheism. Mooters 1563 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Kaufman, like G.E. Wright and von Rad, belongs to an earlier generation of scholars and doesn't reflect the current consensus (i.e., that the exodus and the revelation of Yahweh to Moses is mythic, that Israel emerged from Canaan, and that Israelite monotheism was the result of unique historical circumstances during and after the Babylonian exile). However, since you mention Kaufman, can you give a book and page number?PiCo (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Kaufman's major work, The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (1960), had shown to be influential despite it going against the mainstream scholarly view of the day. Mooters 1563 (talk) 1:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Way up at the top of the thread you said; "The article ultimately aims to promote the view that Yahweh was originally some kind of polytheistic god without consideration for other points of view." From this I infer that you believe that the idea that Yahweh was not originally such a god - that ancient Israelite religion was monotheistic from its inception - is today notable enough that we should mention it. Tgeorgescu then asked you to produce a source for this. So far you haven't done it. Kaufman did advance the idea that Israel was always monotheistic, but the idea has had no following in his own time and still has none today. If you can't produce the sources, I'll remove the tag, as this has gone on long enough without real progress.PiCo (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PiCo. This discussion is completely pointless. You still have not provided any works by recent reputable scholars advancing the position that Israel was always monotheistic; in my view, the POV tag is completely unjustified. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mooters 1563, what you need is something like this passage from Walke, but saying the reverse - Waltke says there's a growing consensus that monotheism emerged in the exile, and you need something that likewise speaks of consensus or at the most a significant minority view. Like the Waltke passage, it has to be recent (Waltke is 2011). PiCo (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Reported to ANI

The last post was completely over the top so I've reported Mooters a WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag

• @Mooters 1563: Note that restoring the tag multiple times against consensus could be considered edit warring. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 05:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Too bad, these are your opinions, they are not established history, the tag will not be removed. Mooters 1563 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I also would like to note that I do indeed believe pre-exilic Israelites were probably more inclined towards henotheism. I am not necessarily disputing that. Mooters 1563 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the tag in view of the near-consensus here and lack of cooperation from the original poster. Mooters 1563, if you replace the tag at this point you'll probably end up facing some kind of disciplinary action.PiCo (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mooters 1563 restored the tag. Before going any further, can we have a straw poll on whether the consensus is to remove it or continue the discussion - which, in my opinion, has failed to get us anywhere.PiCo (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Remove tag PiCo (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove tag and agreeing that although 3RR hasn't been technically breached Mooters is editwarring and would probably be blocked if reported. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove tag because no constructive proposals have been made for sourced improvements to the article. William Avery (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove tag no recent scholarship has been provided in support of Mooters' view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove tag as the initial tendentious claim that sources were not needed has poisoned this well for me. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove tag — It is clear that this article is about the old deity and that we already have articles for more modern views. —PaleoNeonate - 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove tag I apologize for not responding sooner; I have been busy all day. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mooters 1563 has repeatedly defied consensus and restored the disputed tag, despite repeated warnings from Tgeorgescu and myself. I do not wish to further argue over this. Is there anyone with the authority to block him? --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comments here are completely inappropriate and, in my view, thoroughly un-Christian. By the way, just for your information, I am not an atheist. I have been a Christian my whole life; just because I do not believe that every word of the Bible is absolutely, literally historically accurate does not make me an atheist and I daresay that, in this dispute here, I have shown a great deal more Christian virtue than you have with your lewd taunts. I have tried to remain respectful towards you, but, since you clearly are not interested in improving this encyclopedia, I will not respond to any further comments from you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Seen his comments I think he is more of a Positive Christian than mainstream Christian believer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That would be my guess as well. I actually wrote the above statement before he posted the extensive Neo-Nazi rant, but it did not get posted until afterwards due to an edit conflict. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Another user has started up an edit war to restore the tag, despite the clear consensus above. I do not know if he is a sockpuppet of Mooters 1563 or not, but his editing pattern bears a very clear resemblance already after only just three edits, two of which have been the restoration of the POV tag. I really do not want to get tangled up in another mangled argument, but I thought I should at least notify you of this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

After seeing his recent edits, I think it is abundantly clear we are either dealing with a sockpuppet of Mooters 1563 or possibly a copycat vandal. In either case, the disruptive editor should probably be blocked. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-religion

Blocked as WP:SOCK (see SPI case). Thread can also be deleted per WP:DENY for WP:EVASION if other editors agree.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed the previous discussion, and while it seems like the last user who edited this was a bit of a troll it seems to me that this article is bias and anti-religion. Raskolinkover (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC) What changes to the article would you suggest, and what reliable sources would you offer to support those changes? Just plain Bill (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Just to let you know, as a Christian I am happy to take wikipedia persecution against us. Do what you will. I stand for God. Raskolinkover (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) That does not answer the question. How would you propose to improve the article? Just plain Bill (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Let the true God in. Atheism is a disease that creates false pages like this. Though I condemn the racist remarks of the previous user, he was right about this being anti-religion. Raskolinkover (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I completely disagree with your assertion that the article is "anti-religion"; this article merely acknowledges the simple historical fact that the ancient Israelites practiced polytheism and that monotheistic Judaism arose gradually out of monolatrism. These are conclusions agreed upon by most historians and Biblical scholars. This whole issue has been discussed to death and we do not need to discuss it anymore. Please, just drop the stick and back away slowly from the dead horse carcass. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC) No, this is fake history made up by atheist to discredit God and his Word Jesus Christ his Son who died for us. God is one and he revealed himself to Abraham and Moses. It's in the Bible! Read it! Atheist don't know the Bible and made up lies against it. These so called "scholars" are nothing but lying deceivers from Satan himself! They have deceived you! Hear O Israel, the Lord is God and the Lord is one! Raskolinkover (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I have read the Bible and I should mention that the information included in this article is largely formulated based on passages gleaned from the Tanakh itself. You reciting the "Shema Yisrael" does not prove that the people of ancient Israel and Judah believed it, especially since the "Shema Yisrael" is believed by modern scholars to have been formulated by a small circle of Jewish priests living in Babylon during the exilic period and is in no way reflexive of what the majority of the Jewish population believed hundreds of years earlier. Here at Wikipedia, we strive to represent the views of modern mainstream scholars. This page is not a chat forum and is only intended to be used to discuss proposed improvements to the article. Unless you have a suggestion for how this article could be improved and reliable, scholarly sources to support that suggestion, this whole argument is pointless. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I agree with Katolophyromai that this thread is off-topic. Wikipedia is not for WP:SOAPBOXing. This talk page is also not a general discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM) but to discussion specific points to improve the article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Reported to SPI, here Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Again this is all fake history. God is my witness and he knows your lies. Raskolinkover (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC) The Flying Spaghetti Monster will ease your worries with His Noodly Appendage. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC) I vehemently disagree with your assertion that modern scholars are secretly in league with Satan, but, even if your accusation were true (which it certainly is not), it would not matter; Wikipedia is still bound to represent the views of modern scholars, regardless of whether or not they are secretly Satanists. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about the "Destruction of the Second Temple" section

I have several problems with the current section entitled "Destruction of the Second Temple."

1. The section is extremely short and provides no details or background information.
2. As it is right now, it completely breaks up the flow of the article because it jumps straight from the Babylonian Exile to the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 AD, as if nothing at all happened in the nearly six hundred years that passed between them.
3. The section currently uses long-form citations, whereas the rest of the article uses shortened citations. This is an irksome formatting inconsistency that makes me feel really OCD, but which I have not yet had time to fix.
4. Depending on your epistemological viewpoint, the section may be off topic; the Jewish people stopped using the name "Yahweh" to describe their God during the Second Temple period, which means that, by the time the Second Temple was destroyed, they were only calling him names like "Adonai" ("Lord"), "Elohim" ("God"), and "HaShem" ("the Name").
5. Most secondary sources typically only use the name "Yahweh" to describe the national god of Israel and Judah up until the Babylonian Exile, after which point, they usually call him "God."
6. The sources currently used in the section are online sources not published by major universities and, although they seem to be accurate as far as the section is concerned, it may be better to replace them with more scholarly sources.

Once again, I am not necessarily opposed to the section's inclusion, but I think it may require some major reworking. All of my concerns above can be addressed without much difficulty, except for concerns #4 and #5, which I do not think are particularly pressing and which I am willing to ignore if all my other concerns here are met. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is the section:

The Temple of Jerusalem was demolished by Romans during the failed Jewish revolt in the 1st century AD. As a result the practice of ritual animal sacrifice came to an end.[65] The Western Wall, one of the few remaining sections of the old temple has now become a place of worship in its own right.[66]

Like Katolophyromai, I see numerous problems. I agree it's simply too short. But there's more: it deals with the destruction of the temple, not anything specifically to do with the god Yahweh; the modern role of the Western Wall is also nothing to do with the god Yahweh; and, [erhaps surprisingly, the way sacrtifices were done in Second Temple times (by the priests) was quite unlike the way they were done in First Temple times (by any head of family, and in any place, not just the Temple, at least until the reforms of Josiah). So, no real connection with the god Yahweh. PiCo (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PiCo. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

To quote the article: "the Jerusalem temple was always meant to be the central or even sole temple of Yahweh". I'm going to ignore you. Woscafrench (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

To remove an entire section and then claim that you did it because you want it to be more detailed is ridiculous. Are you expecting me to try and make it more detailed? Or are you just hoping I will go away? I do not think any of your concerns about the citations are legitimate either. You claimed in the past that you didn't think using Jewish sources were a problem, now it appears that you are trying to back-peddle on that claim.

If you are going to try and keep the section out by arbitrarily drawing a line between between Yahweh worship and Second Temple Judaism you will have to explain the distinction in the article - at the moment it seems almost as if you have pulled that problem out of thin air.

I think the real issue you're facing with that section I put in is that it was actually true. All of the rest of what is written is just meaningless conspiracy theories about "what the Bible didn't tell you". It's not even internally consistent. At the beginning the use of different names in the Bible is taken as evidence of polytheism, but the "Graeco-Roman syncretic folk religion" section justifies its inclusion in this article on the idea that the names "Iao, Adonai, Sabaoth, and Eloai" are all actually references to Yahweh. If you want to play dumb and keep this article fact-free by force, you may well succeed for the time being. I don't know. I'm not sure what you think you will accomplish by doing that however. Woscafrench (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Woscafrench: I still have not said anything about problems with using Jewish sources and I have no objections to using sources written by Jewish authors. I am not sure why you keep misinterpreting everything I say to make this false assumption that I have some kind of problem with Jewish sources. The only concern I have so far expressed about the actual sources currently used in the section is that it might be better to replace them with scholarly sources, as in sources published through reputable universities.

Despite your peculiar insistence otherwise, this article is not composed of "meaningless conspiracy theories"; the views represented in this article are those expressed by modern, mainstream biblical scholars. The article is not contradictory either. The parts at the beginning of the article you have referenced are describing the worship in Yahweh during the tenth through seventh centuries BC, whereas the "Graeco-Roman syncretic folk religion" section is talking about Yahweh's role in Graeco-Roman magical texts dating from between the second century BC and fifth century AD. There is a roughly five-hundred year gap between the two. Obviously, statements that are true about the cult of Yahweh in the early Iron Age are not necessarily true about the Graeco-Roman god Iao.

As I have emphasized above, I do not really have a problem with adding a section talking about the Second Temple period; Tgeorgescu and PiCo are the ones who seem most concerned with that. Actually, now that I have thought about it a little, a section describing the role of God in Second Temple Judaism may be a good idea; it could fill in the time gap between the end of the "Iron Age II" section and the "Graeco-Roman syncretic folk religion" section.

The reason I gave the "not detailed enough" explainer in my list of criticisms is because, if we are going to add a section about the Second Temple period, we should write the whole section out before posting it in the article; a three-sentence section will only confuse people. I appreciate your attempts at help and I am willing to try to cooperate with you. The only reason I have not written out a whole section already is because I am too busy with other things at the moment and have not had time. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Woscafrench: The two-line section you want to add doesn't mention Yahweh. It does mention the Second Temple/temple of Herod, and perhaps you could consider putting it there, though I suspect it already is. I might just point out that by the time the Temple was destroyed it was no longer the temple of the god Yahweh, as described in this article - the head of a pantheon, with a wife, the equal of many other similar national gods. This was a different religion, Yahwism, not Judiasm.PiCo (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yahweh Name

@PiCo: You should provide a reference to disprove that sourced content, otherwise you do not have the right to simply revert edits if they contradict with your believes ! Bigot 27 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Cory Baugher is not an academic (i.e. Bible scholar), so what he writes is not considered WP:RS for Wikipedia. This alone would do as reason for reverting your edits. The WP:BURDEN is upon he/she who adds information to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

::@Tgeorgescu: This is about the language itself nothing more, no rocket science here ! In Hebrew and other related Semitic languages, HWY means him or using indirect He ! like saying I was told by he or him ! This is not related to "religious academic studies" or manifesting a "holy spirit" to figure that out ! This is just a pure language issue ! it is obvious that there is a huge subjectivity here which is affecting this argument ! I do not want to waste my time in a castrated discussion with people who know nothing about Semitic languages. You keep reverting my main edits then you threaten me of blocking after three reverts ! Sad ! Bigot 27 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Right or wrong, edit warring (editing again and again against consensus) is never acceptable (WP:WARRING, WP:3RR). The reliability of the sources we use is important because we must avoid doing our own original research or synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). Perhaps also of interest to you would be I Am that I Am. —PaleoNeonate – 22:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Bigot 27 has been blocked as a sock, striking their remarks. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Since edits to the linguistic root of Yahweh's name seems to continuing, I just thought I'd point out that this article is more about the history of the god, while purely linguistic matters are handled at YHWH. For what it's worth, YHWH is apparently made up of two elements, the Y meaning "he" and the HWH, which is a verb - thus "He (whatever the verb is)". Unfortunately HWH is not a root found in Hebrew, and YHWH means nothing at all. "I am that which I am" is built on the assumption that the root is HYH, which means to exist, to be, but that changes the root and Exodus at that point is inventing an etymology. There's a good discussion here.PiCo (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. You're doing that thing you do where you aggressively state something you want to be true, as if it was true, and try to see if you can get away with it without engaging in any meaningful dialogue. It's really tedious. Obviously I have no way of forcing you to be a better person than you are, but please can you stop. @Katolophyromai: it has been well established that we cannot be trusted to think for ourselves here so what PiCo has to say is not relevant. Either criticise the cited source, or deal with it and grow up. Woscafrench (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Woscafrench: I was not just taking PiCo's word on all of this. Did you read the source he linked to? On page 47, it unambiguously states, "The phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh in 3:14 is not so much the revelation of a name as a subsequent attempt to explain the meaning of the name, through an etymological explanation." That is about as clear-cut as it gets. The source was published by the Wilfrid Laurier University Press, which is a reputable academic publisher, and it was written by G. H. Parke-Taylor, who is a reputable scholar. I would say that this book probably trumps the source that is currently cited in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The current source cited in the article is the second edition of The Reader's Encyclopedia by William Rose Bennet, which was originally published in 1834. It is nearly two centuries old and is contradicted by more recent sources, such as the one linked above. Therefore, I propose that it is probably outdated. The newer, academic source should take precedence over the nearly two-hundred-year-old encyclopedia entry. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ironically the principle being applied here (newer or later interpretations/theories are better and more trustworthy than earlier ones) is being used precisely to show that a purportedly newer or later interpretation/theory (namely, "Moses's" attempt to explain the name YHWH by the statement "ehyeh asher eheh") is not better or more trustworthy (compared to the previously inexplicable name of the deity). Consistency much? Basically, modern scholars get to say/think whatever they want about whatever they want, and as long as enough of them agree we're supposed to ignore anything anyone ever thought prior to that which is inconsistent with it. It's an aggressive form of recentist bias or the fallacy of the present being an especially privileged moment. It's tiresome. Isn't there enough room here to acknowledge both sides of what actual scholars have said, however recent they may or may not have been, and perhaps with appropriate qualifications about who said what when and how many people agreed with them? Everyone who has ever paid any attention to any scholarly field knows that scholarship is subject to fashions as much as any other area of human life. I'm not trying to say that this makes any particular fashion right or wrong, just that it would be nice to be a little more objective about the existence of such scholarly fashions and not try to pretend like scholars today, right now, at this very moment are somehow immune from them in a way that none of their predecessors were. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not been following the edits in the main article and I am not trying to defend any particular version of it or any particular language that has been added and removed. I just caught this discussion on the talk page, and like I said, the way the arguments are being made is tiresome. A citation to a single modern scholar should not be sufficient evidence for obliterating reference to what a different scholar thought 200 years ago. The fact that the former is more recent than the latter (even by 200 years!) is not, by itself, even by WP's standards, sufficient for making the former absolutely more authoritative or more reliable to the point of completely discrediting the latter. Just to drive this point home as clearly as possible, I could cherry-pick my references to show that 200 years ago people thought the earth was round and orbited the sun, but today people think that the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth, especially if all I needed was one example of each belief. The only dog I have in this fight is being fair to all sides that can be reasonably presented. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a possible compromise: we will present both views in the article as equally valid, providing a citation for each, unless PiCo can provide more sources to establish that the view of "I am that I am" as a folk etymology is the mainstream scholarly consensus, in which case we will still mention both views, but will make it clear that modern scholars reject the "I am that I am" etymology as spurious. Either way, the etymology will be mentioned in some form or another. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That sounds totally fair and reasonable to me. Thanks for the reply. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. In most cases, I generally prefer trying to reach a compromise rather than arguing in circles, which is think is most often pointless and nonconstructive. יבריב, what do you think of this proposed solution? It is, after all, the content you added that we are discussing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make a correction to an error I made earlier; the second edition of The Reader's Encyclopedia was actually originally published in 1965. The reason I thought it was published in 1834 was because I found a copy of the book on archive.org and the original date of publication was clearly listed as 1834. As I was looking up the information about the book to add it to the bibliography, however, I discovered that, apparently, whoever catalogued it on archive.org mistook the date when the publishing company was founded for the original date the book was published. It turns out, the book is actually much more modern than the cataloguing information led me to believe. Once again, I apologize for the mistake. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

יבריב, could you remind me what it is you want to add? There's so much on the article history page I doubt I can find it.PiCo (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have just added the following sentence to the beginning of the "Bronze Age origins" section: "The traditional etymology for the name Yahweh is from Hebrew ehyeh ašer ehyeh ("I Am that I Am"), but some modern scholars believe this to be a spurious folk etymology invented to explain the meaning of Yahweh's name." If anyone has objections to this sentence, or changes they would like to be made, feel free to voice them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Ummm, Katolophyromai, that's not an etymology, it's a theological gloss on the name - it explains its meaning, not its linguistic origins. And it's not "some" modern scholars who believe it to be spurious, it's all. If it's felt that ehyeh ašer ehyeh needs to be included it needs to go in a different section and to be properly explained. PiCo (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed the sentence you added - changed the page given for the source, deleted some misleading/unsupported wording, and reordered the sentences so that it fitted with the existing paragraph. PiCo (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Benet as a source - not academic. PiCo (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo: I do not disagree with you, but, since you are saying that all modern scholars agree that the "I am that I am" explanation is spurious, I think everyone here would greatly appreciate it if you could please provide a few more sources to support that claim. So far, you have given us one good source, but, as LacrimosaDiesIlla has pointed out above, that does not necessarily prove that all modern scholars would agree on this; it just proves what one scholar says (albeit, a scholar who has written a whole book on the matter). I figure that, the more citations we have to support a controversial statement, the less likely it is that we will find ourselves here on the talk page again in two weeks arguing back-and-forth on this exact same issue with someone new. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clear what I'm saying here. I wouldn't call ehyeh ašer ehyeh a spurious folk etymology, because it's not folk-based (it's quite sophisticated), and it's not an etymology - it doesn't try to tell you what the root of the name is, it tells you its theological meaning. See Bruce Waltke, who, incidentally, sees the verbal root as genuinely HYH: he goes to some lengths to describe how Yahweh at this point is telling Moses the meaning of his name, which up till now has been unknown to Israel. Anderson's recent (2015) "Monotheism and Yahweh's Appropriation of Baal" calls HYH a "pseudo-etymology" based on the passage in Exodus that Waltke is discussing. The difference as I see it is that Waltke is talking about theology and Anderson about linguistics I don't really see a conflict, as Waltke is explicitly discussing what Yahweh means in this passage from Exodus (i.e., the theological implications of the "pseudo-etymology"). But as the Expositors Bible Commentary says, there's endless disagreement on the etymology, so much so that it's not really worth going into for our article.

That said, I'm quite happy to have a line in the article about "I Am That I Am", so long as we make clear that it's a theological explanation of God's nature, not an account of his origins.PiCo (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sharing these with us. I really appreciate your cooperation. The reason I called it an "etymology" was mainly because that is what יבריב and Woscafrench were both calling it and that is what I have usually heard it described as. (To be frank, I have not really read that much about the etymology of YHWH until now, but I had definitely heard of the "I Am that I Am" explanation before.) From these sources you have so kindly provided, I see that the use of the word "folk etymology" is not entirely accurate and I have corrected the wording to say "theological gloss" instead of "folk etymology," which is probably a more apt description in this context. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Another sock?

The chances that Jokeragentofchaos is a sock seem pretty high. (See the edits done today). Can someone look into this?PiCo (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed... —PaleoNeonate – 07:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have already left a comment on the sockpuppet investigation page expressing my belief that Jokeragentofchaos is yet another puppet of Wittgenstein123. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for him to calm down. These things take time. Woscafrench (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Rising scholarly consensus: I would suggest that this page does a bit of research on the opposing side in relation to Richard Hess and Dr. Michael Heiser. Much of what is contributed has to have the presupposition of EL inserted into Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82, where in fact, based on the text itself(exclusion of pre-supposition) as well as the inclusion of verses that prior to the "hypothetical evolution" of Judiasm, equate to Yahweh as the Elyon and El. In fact, Elyon is never referred to as EL in Canaanite mythology, Baal is referred to it as twice, who is not EL. El is a common epithet among the semetic language. In addition, the "evolution" to monotheism is false, just given the fact that if you take much of the "post exile" scripture, Job, even Psalm 82 is considered this, Zechariah, they all mention the sons of God and a divine council, where Yahweh was in fact the head of. Not to mention within the Dead Sea Scrolls alone, which is prior to the Masoretic Text(which was more close to 100 AD) which is what the evolution idea is based upon, has over 200 references to elohim. And this is also inclusive of referring to dead spirits, demons, etc. So elohim is comparable to referring to where something resides, rather than a deity themselves.

Much of what is listed is based on Mark S Smith's theory, which is produced through presupposition and the insertion of EL into the story itself. After reading several dissertations on this, it makes absolutely no sense. What is even more fascination is yes we have items such as the Meshe Stele and Shasu items, but in ANE, Yahweh is really not conflated or adopted into other religions, where-as the mass of the other cultures indeed are. Prime example, are the Eygptians and their adoption of various gods into their culture. However, we now know they encounter Yahweh, but never adopted them nor wanted to worship him.

I believe, we just need to have a diverse set of research on this, and not base the sole distinction of a hypothesis that is a bit faulty based on the all the post exile and 2nd temple literature that seem to "forget to" remove all the polytheism in scripture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnShay928 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I insert this in?

I have an edit I'd like to make to the Bronze Age Origins, it has to do with a variation of the Kenite hypothesis put forth by OT scholar Marlene E. Mondriaan of the University of Pretoria in her 2010 book titled, "The Rise of Yahwism: Role of Marginalised Groups." The hypothesis, in her own words, goes like this:

"My hypothesis takes cognisance of the supposition that the peoples of the various nations of the Ancient Near East, continuously and extensively migrated from one place to another, wandering as far as from east to west and from north to south in the whole region, thus spreading religious and other beliefs, influencing one another.

If, as it seems to be, that deities over a vast area of the Ancient Near East, with cognate names and resembling the Canaanite goddess Asherah/Athirat (or the Canaanite god Ba‛al/Hadad) were actually the same deity with different, but similar names, the question could be asked whether there is any substantiation for the argument that deities were limited to a specific nation or area (or city/city-state). Scholars have attested that the various cities or city-states each had their own patron god and that the different nations had their own national god. It seems, however, that at least the mother goddess (and in some instances the creation god and storm god) was a global (in the sense of the Ancient Near East) goddess or god, familiar and accepted in the whole of the Ancient Near East. This leads to and substantiates my hypothesis that some form of Yahwism originated – or was inherited from migrating groups – at various localities of the Ancient Near East, such as in the South, in the Syro-Palestinian areas and even as far east and west as Mesopotamia and Egypt. Thus, over a long period of time, asemblance of Yahwism could have developed over a vast area.

I, furthermore, postulate that Yahweh was known and revered by the Midianites and Kenites from a very early period. A Moses-type figure had acquired knowledge about Yahweh through the Midianites and Kenites. He introduced Yahweh to a group migrating from Egypt into Palestine. This group in their turn acquainted the tribes in Judah with Yahweh, and also introduced Yahweh to those peoples who, over many decades, had infiltrated Canaan or were inherent in Canaan. Some tribes in Canaan also might have gained knowledge about Yahweh from travelling metalworkers from the South. During the late second and early first millennium BC, certain tribes grouped together establishing an Israelite nation in a monarchical environment. To substantiate the historical existence of such a nation, and thus earn credibility in the eyes of other kingdoms, various oral traditions were collected and a so-called chronological history of Israel compiled. A powerful exodus tradition authenticated Yahweh as the national God of this nation. Despite adopting Yahweh as a major god, the Israelites continued with a syncretistic-type religion previously practised in Canaan.

Related marginal groups – such as the Kenites and Rechabites – acknowledged as nomads and mainly practising metalwork, emanated from the South. The Rechabites, living in a kind of symbiosis with the Judeans, eventually merged with them. Their strong Yahweh-tradition – probably acquired from the southern Kenites – advanced Yahweh worship in Judah. In the North the Canaanite El initially held the highest authority, but was ousted in the course of time by the popular Canaanite Ba‛al who tipped the scale in favour of Ba‛al-worship in the North. Rechabite presence in the North is attested by the incident, in 841 BC, when Jehonadab ben Rechab aided Jehu in Northern Israel in a military coup during which all the members of the House of Omri were killed. Jehonadab ben Rechab was a descendant of the ancestor of the Rechabites and is mentioned as a contemporary of Jehu. Influence of the Rechabites – as well as the Kenites – that probably brought Yahweh to the North, is perceptible, inter alia, in the book of Hosea. Due to the nomadic lifestyle of the Rechabites and Kenites, and their particular craft, they moved over a vast area, inevitably spreading their traditions. The possibility can thus not be ruled out that a Ya-type – or Yahweh – religion elsewhere developed due to their influence, as well as that of other marginal groups and their families, such as the house of Heber, the Kenite.

In addition, I advance that during the Monarchical Period the Rechabites as traditionalist conservatives, as well as some analogous groups, influenced minority communities into monotheistic Yahweh worship. There were, probably, priests and Levites among these groups, while certain prophets were influenced by the Rechabites' characteristic maintaining of their traditions. Priestly and other Rechabites, together with some other marginal groups, were part of the Exile. Yahweh, the national God of Israel, ostensibly dwelled in the Temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. The Exile as well as the destroyed Temple – the indestructible abode of Yahweh – compelled Judeans to rethink their religious affinities, concluding that the Exile was a direct result of their idolatry and divergence from the Torah. Marginal groups, such as the Rechabites, who were unwavering in their monotheistic Yahweh-alone tradition, came forth as steadfast religious groups propagating Yahweh as the only God. They became the driving force in the strict implementation of the Law. Clans of particular scribes were Kenites "from Hammath", who are explicitly linked to the Rechabites in 1 Chronicles 2:55. The Hebrew Bible refers only sporadically to marginal groups; this could be ascribed to the vying among priests for a superior position in the recorded history of the Israelite nation and subsequent disavowing of minority groups. In the redaction process of the Masoretic Text – during the exilic and post-exilic periods – the history of Israel was fully or partially rewritten or adjusted, presenting Yahweh as the God of Abraham who promised the land to the descendants of Abraham. According to the Masoretic Text, the Israelite nation pursued a monotheistic Yahweh religion right from the beginning of their history. References in the text to the popular religion embracing Yahweh as well as other gods were minimised. Yahweh eventually emerged as the one and only God in whom all the attributes of the other gods culminated. He was presented with aspects of El, and was at the same time Creator, Storm, Solar and Warrior God.

Therefore, my hypothesis for this research is as follows: that the Israelite God Yahweh was originally a Midianite/Kenite deity and that marginal groups related to the Kenites, such as the Rechabites, played a significant and dominant role in the preserving of a pre-exilic Yahweh-alone movement, as well as in the establishment of a post-exilic Yahweh monotheism."

Sorry, I know that is a lot but I'd appreciate if references to this could be added in, possibly in other areas too. It doesn't even have to be me, someone else can edit it in. I just thought it was interesting. יהוה הוא האל היחיד (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi יהוה הוא האל היחיד. I can't really see how this is different from what's already in that section of the article - unless perhaps that it talks about the role of these Yahwhist marginal groups in the "Yahweh-alone" movement. The Yahweh-alone movement isn't mentioned at all in our article, and perhaps it should be.PiCo (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Perhaps this can be a starting point. The Yahweh-alone movement is important in the shaping of this deity, and I think perhaps a separate section could be made discussing them? The way this work presents it, the Yahweh-alone movement was influenced and ultimately originated among traditionalist of the Yahweh cult, being made up of certain groups of Kenites, like the Rechabites, and other groups like the Elijah-Elisha school. They sought to preserve their traditions in face of the monarchy who, although had raised Yahweh to the status of national-god, were still practicing syncretism. In response to the introduction and promotion of this syncretism, Yahweh-alone movements began, basically, a reactionary movement. יהוה הוא האל היחיד (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I might add that this hypothesis finds a certain degree of support in an earlier work titled, "Pluralism and Identity: Studies in Ritual Behaviour" edited by scholars Jan. G. Platvoet and Karel Van Der Toorn. יהוה הוא האל היחיד (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See if you can draft a sentence or paragraph. Use the best sources you can find. PiCo (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, let's have others improve it, edit it, and expand on it if necessary. יהוה הוא האל היחיד (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

" By the 9th century BC, Yahweh has been adopted as the national god of the Kingdom of Israel, and later by its southern neighbor, the Kingdom of Judah. Neither of these states practiced monotheism, and Yahweh as a deity had largely been absorbed into the polytheistic world of the ancient Levant. By the mid 9th century BC, the Kingdom of Israel, under the rule of King Ahab, began promoting the worship of foreign gods throughout the land, the most notable being the deity Baal, who had apparently been adopted by Ahab as part of his marriage to Jezebel, daughter of Ithobaal I, King of Sidon. This promoted the response of a reactionary movement who sought to preserve their traditions and the cult of Yahweh in the land. The prophets Elijah and Elisha are the most well known of this school, and both openly challenged the worship of Baal and other deities alike. The Bible records an episode where Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal to pray for fire to light a sacrifice, but with no avail. When Elijah offers a sacrifice, fire falls from the sky consuming it and the altar upon which it was being offered, leaving Elijah left to proclaim, "The Lord [Yahweh], He is God! The Lord [Yahweh], He is God!" Following this event, Elijah has the prophets of Baal executed. It has been hypothesized by some scholars, primarily in the context of the Kenite hypothesis, that groups related to the Kenites living in Canaan, like that of Rechabites and other related groups, heavily influenced the Yahweh-alone movement, hoping to preserve a kind of "pure Yahwehist" cult in the face of the monarchies syncretism. Scholar Marlene E. Mondriaan elaborates on this point, writing, "Related marginal groups – such as the Kenites and Rechabites – acknowledged as nomads and mainly practising metalwork, emanated from the South. The Rechabites, living in a kind of symbiosis with the Judeans, eventually merged with them. Their strong Yahweh-tradition – probably acquired from the southern Kenites – advanced Yahweh worship in Judah." She further advances, writing, "I advance that during the Monarchical Period the Rechabites as traditionalist conservatives, as well as some analogous groups, influenced minority communities into monotheistic Yahweh worship. There were, probably, priests and Levites among these groups, while certain prophets were influenced by the Rechabites' characteristic maintaining of their traditions." " יהוה הוא האל היחיד (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I would write more but it would probably be redundant within the whole of the article. Perhaps my paragraph can be integrated in one of the sections? Maybe Yahweh and the rise of monotheism section? Maybe we split that section up into one part describing the origin of the Yahweh-alone movement and then having the second part relate to the later development of the group and the ultimate rise of monotheism in the later prophets in Judah and in exilic times? Feel free to offer your critiques and edits to the paragraph. יהוה הוא האל היחיד (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice you cite knowthebible.net, you're not the First person to cite it? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

lol. You're right, meant to block earlier. Strike the sock's edits if you wish. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

My recent edit

I cut back some of the sections, and didn't realise till after I'd done it just how much I'd cut. I guess my basic reason is to make sure the article is readable - editors tend to add and add and add, and the more that gets added the less digestable the article becomes. Anyway, please tell me here if you think I've gone too far. PiCo (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I would conjecture an even more basic reason that you have a POV that you are trying to push. Woscafrench (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

We all have points of view, it's human. But if you think I have gone to far, can you describe where and why for me?PiCo (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

My view is that much of the material that PiCo deleted was rather redundant and is already covered better elsewhere in the article. I also suspect some of it may have indeed been misinterpreted, given that יבריב has, on occasion, misinterpreted sources previously in other articles. Nonetheless, I think that there may be some useful material in it, though I have not taken the time to sort through it all and decide what of it is unique and not covered elsewhere. I do not think that PiCo deleted the material as part of any sort of nefarious plan to impose an agenda, but rather I think he was merely trying to restore the article to its previous condition prior to יבריב's recent series of edits. Having looked back at the edit history of this article, it appears that PiCo has been active here for many years and seems to be at least partially responsible for the current state of the article, which explains why he may be more disinclined towards making changes than some of the other editors here. His edit may have been somewhat reactionary, but I do not believe that it was disingenuous. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm very conscious that I've worked on this article for years and so might well have a prejudice for the existing form. So I try to take it easy with editing. A lot of my edits are not so much about content as good writing, and I'd like to say a few words about that for יבריב, who I respect as an honest and well-intentioned editor. I said, and Katolophyromai has repeated, that some of his edits are repetitions of what's already in the article. Take for example the addition of the sentence "this is purely speculative" to the sentence on Frank Moore Cross's theory that Yahweh was originally a title of the god El. It's quite true and the source he uses (Day) is impeccable, but the sentence begins by characterising this as a theory and all theories are by their nature speculation. For this reason I don't think it's needed.

Then that's followed by his addition to the sentence dealing with the theory that the Egyptian reference to "Shasu of YHW" is a reference to the earliest form of YHWH. The addition, well sourced again, says that this is unlikely because YHW refers to a place. But everyone agrees that it refers to a place, and the sentence in the article is at pains to say that this "the earliest possible appearance" of the name, not that it actually IS the name. The next sentence says that "there is considerable but not universal support" for the idea - which is exactly what יבריב's addition says, so why say it again?

Next יבריב wants to have this paragraph:

Despite these passages identifying Yahweh as a son of El or some other affiliated deity, it is clearly shown from very early on, El was already considered synonymous with Yahweh, as merely different names for the same deity, as suggested in Exodus 6:3, despite being originally separate.(Smith|2002|pages=32-34) Historically, the identification of Yahweh as El by the Israelites was often presupposed;(Smith|2002|page=33) preserved texts rarely distinguish between the two,(Smith|2002|p=33) and there are no Biblical polemics against the worship of El.(Smith|2002|page=33) This contributed to the transformation of the Hebrew ’el into a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity.((Smith|2002|pages=33-34) Epithets such as El Shaddai are likewise applied to Yahweh alone in later contexts in order to strengthen the position of Yahweh as the people's deity.(Smith|2002|page=34)

This is the first sentence (Smith, by the way, is a perfectly acceptable source):Despite these passages identifying Yahweh as a son of El or some other affiliated deity, it is clearly shown from very early on, El was already considered synonymous with Yahweh, as merely different names for the same deity, as suggested in Exodus 6:3, despite being originally separate.(Smith|2002|pages=32-34) What Smith actually says is that El became identified with Yahweh at an early stage, not that these two were always synonymous: "Yahweh entered secondarily into the Israelite highland religion...(there was) an assimilation of Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, into the larger highland pantheism headed by El." (page 33 - "entered secondarily" means that he wasn't there from the beginning).

The material about El and Yahweh being "identified" (considered the same god) at an early stage is also on page 33. The point Smith is making is that Yahweh came from outside the highlands, joined the pantheon headed by El, and was considered to be El from an early stage. Not that El and Yahweh were two names for the same god from the beginning - Smith never says that.

The next paragraph יבריב wants concerns the "convergence" of Yahweh with the other gods of the older pantheon, meaning the way he absorbed them. This is sourced vfrom Smith and from Margaret Barker, who is also a valid source, although she has a theory about "enochic" religion which is not widely accepted. The thing is, the matter in this para is already covered in the article in the section "Yahweh and the rise of Monotheism" - "The original god of Israel was El, ...when kingship emerged the state promoted Yahweh as the national god of Israel, ... gradually Yahweh absorbed all the positive traits of the other gods and goddesses." I have no objection to the second paragrpah, but I don't think saying the same thing twice is a good thing.

יבריב, I do want you to keep editing, but we need to be scrupulous about reflecting what sources say, and we need to be careful about good writing. PiCo (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

In order to be fair, I’ll concede my point and I won’t just continue editing without having some discussion. However, I think the paragraph aforementioned has some valuable info nonetheless, and can be fixed to accurately portray the cited info as opposed to simply redacting the entire section. יבריב (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Going back to your earlier question PiCo, you went too far in removing the "Phoenician" from the article. Perhaps not many people understand Paleo-Hebrew, but so what? Would you tell a museum to cover up an inscription because you couldn't read it? Anyway, I'm sure plenty of people interested in Yahweh have familiarity with regular Hebrew. Your editing history generally seems a little inflammatory - you seem to be a little too hasty in deleting things other people wrote. Edits like this this can make you sound like you are looking for a fight. Woscafrench (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, PiCo is the man of the mainstream academic view (majority view or consensus view). He is rarely mistaken about that. Sometimes, he can be too radical about that, but he usually listens to valid input from other editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words Tgeorge :) יבריב, what would you like to see?PiCo (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo: My one major hangup is the inclusion of the identification of Yah with El as opposed to simply leaving it as a son of El, the paragraph that was listed after the Assembly verse in Deut. on the article. I feel like it’s substantial to note the two were considered the same god for most of early history regarding the subject. יבריב (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

יבריב I don't quite follow - both statements are valid, YHWH and El were originally two separate gods, YHWH was adopted into the pantheon as a son of El, gradually they became merged, and the merger was complete by the time the Biblical books came to be written. Isn't that what you mean?PiCo (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Allotting nations to other sons of El

@Katolophyromai: I think perhaps you missed the point I was making. I am going to assume that, in good faith, you are willing to hear me out and work with me to either (a) allay my concerns with this article in such a way that my objections are answered, or (b) find a compromise that we can both be happy with. So let me try to explain. The text in Deuteronomy (even given the "variant" that's being cited) does not, read on its face, clearly indicate that any other sons of El were allotted any other people. It does not name such sons, nor does it identify any peoples which were not assigned to Yahweh. That anyone actually believed there were other such sons of El is a mild inference from the passage as cited; that any other peoples were assigned to any of these other sons of El is a bigger inference from the passage. Pointing out that the passage does not name these other sons, nor allot any peoples to them, is not undue weight or emphasis, especially since it is not clear from the article text that the cited passage has been given in its entirety and thus that such explicit statements are not even to be found in other verses which have not been quoted. On the contrary, your version of the article might easily lead a reader to think that there are other verses in which there are other sons of El named and that they do receive nations. In fact, this is precisely what reading this version of the article made me think, and I pulled out my Bible to look at Deuteronomy and try to figure out what bizarre variant of the passage might be being referenced before I realized that there was no "there" there, so to speak. And I was misled despite the fact that I am a Biblical scholar trained in the Old Testament; how much more easily then might the non-scholar be misled. For that matter, let me point out that the "variant" in question is not even an actually attested variant in the manuscripts; it's a weird compromise conjectured by scholars working back from the Greek "angels of God" and the Hebrew (and Latin) "sons of Israel". So it seems to me that, if the only two options were yours and mine, it would be yours that is the more misleading and the less neutral, especially since it depends on a "variant" which is only a scholarly conjecture but which is not even identified as being a scholarly conjecture in this article. (I don't have a problem with scholarly conjectures, but they should be clearly identified as such. And if there is an ancient manuscript anywhere with this reading, please do correct me, but I've just checked all my sources in multiple ancient languages, and as far as I can tell, the situation is as I have described.) Now, I am happy to find some sort of compromise between the article as it was before (and is now) and the rewrite that I originally did, but I do not believe that the version of the article as written now is acceptably neutral. It's written with a bias in favor, not only of finding polytheism underlying the text, but also of normalizing such a finding of polytheism underlying the text. Your comment that explicit identification of other sons and their allotments is "not really what we would expect" is actually ironic in this context, because you're subtly admitting that no one would expect Deuteronomy to exhibit such obvious traces of polytheism: my point exactly. There are no obvious traces of polytheism here; all there is is a scholarly conjecture about how to reconstruct the original text which would imply that there were other (not named) sons of El who were also allotted nations. That's a lot of stuff that's not in the text. I don't see how being explicit about which things are directly stated, and which are conjectured, implied, or assumed constitutes undue weight. That seems like honesty to me. All I want is clarity about what the text says versus what scholars looking at it say. Is that really unreasonable? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not a scholarly conjecture; check page 32 of Mark S. Smith's The Early History of God, which is cited as the source of the information and is linked in the bibliography. In the third footnote on the page, he explains that the Masoretic text reads bēnē yiśrā'ēl ("sons of Israel"), the Septuagint reads aggelôn theou ("angels of God"), and the text from Qumran reads bny 'lym, which he translates as "divine beings." In other words, there is a real manuscript behind the translation given here, and a very early one at that. I went back and corrected the translation given in the article, which had a few minor deviations from the one given by Smith. The reason why I do not think it is necessary to state that the other "divine beings" are not named is because, in my view, the current wording of the passage does not seem to imply that they are. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

LacrimosaDiesIlla, the relevant passage (the one used as source in our article) is Smith's book of 2010, page 140 (although you should begin on page 139). There Smith gives four variations on Deut. 32:8-9's phrase "sons of Israel." They are:

*Sons of Israel (Hebrew, MT)

*Sons of God (Hebrew, DSS)

*Sons of God (Greek, LXX, one mss)

*Angels of God (Greek, LXX, most mss)

This means that the variant is an actual one, not a conjecture.

You seem to believe that ancient Israel was not polytheistic: the scholarly consensus is that it was. You also seem to doubt that El had sons who were the gods of Iron Age kingdoms: the scholarly consensus is that Qus, Milkom, Haddad and the like were exactly that. You also seem to be saying that the Hebrew Bible says that YHWH was/is the god of all humanity ("nor does it identify any peoples which were not assigned to Yahweh"): the HB is quite explicit about YHWH being the god of Israel, not of the nations, although that concept does develop in the late literature.

Overall, our article has to reflect scholarship, not our own ideas. Smith and Grabbe and others are used in the article to support statements we make: if you wish to argue with these, you need to show that the article misrepresents them, or that they are not reliable, or that there are other voices which we've missed. What you can't do is advance your own arguments.PiCo (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sánskrit

The Sanskrit language has a dual, first person, present tense form, in which: 'Yuhuwah Adonayanam'*, means: 'We (two) sacrifice -pray- to -towards- the setting sun', of course, from Babylon, where sometime an European rooted language was spoken, Jerusalem is towards West; also: 'Ghossanna', is a Sanskrit term, meaning: 'Proclamation', a formal salutation, being also an acknowledgement of authority of the one saluted, as in the Roman: 'Ave', the English: 'Hail', and the German: 'Heil'. Are there any other hints supporting these proposals, or do it deserve a place here? Regards. Salut +--Hijuecutivo (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC) *Source: 'Teach yourself: Sanskrit'

This is interesting, but I fail to find how this would be relevant since Sanskrit is unrelated to other languages from the Levant at the epoch (and there is no clear indication of influence or interaction). —PaleoNeonate – 18:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant to the subject of Yahweh. Sanskrit is an Indo-European language that was spoken in India, half a continent away from the country where Yahweh was worshipped; all the languages within the immediate vicinity of where Yahweh was worshipped were Afro-Asiatic. Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, Arabic, and other languages spoken in the region are all West Semitic languages, a subset of the Afro-Asiatic family. The ancient Babylonians spoke Akkadian, which is an East Semitic language. No Indo-European tongue was ever the majority spoken language in Babylon until after the Persian conquest. It is extremely easy to find similarities between words in different languages simply because there are so many different languages with so many words in each of them that random similarities in sound and meaning are inevitable. Mbabaram is an Australian aboriginal language in which the word for "dog" is "dog," but it is completely unrelated to English; the word just happens to be identical simply due to random coincidence. Besides, unless you have a reliable source to support your claims, they are original research and therefore not allowed here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Elyon

Although someone put Canaanite in the lead today, it isn’t mentioned in the article. I don’t know much about Elyon but I’m sure there should be some discussion of any Canaanite link in the article. Can anyone help? Doug Weller talk 20:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

? There don't seem to have been any edits on 2 November, and Elyon isn't in the lead as of this moment.PiCo (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Elyon was an epithet of head of the pantheon, whoever that head might be - El, Baal or Yahweh. The Greek equivalent was applied to Zeus, and other ANE gods/goddesses likewise.PiCo (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pico: apologies, too tired last night. I’m looking for help at the article on Elyon. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Barker, "The Great Angel"

Margaret Barker's "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God" advances the thesis that ancient Israel worshiped two gods, El Elyon ("El the Highest"), the supreme god of all gods, and Yahweh, the son of El and god of Israel. Yahweh sometimes appeared among his people, on which occasions he was the Angel of God, meaning the messenger of El. This, she believes, was the understanding of most Jews down to the time of Jesus, and when Jesus's earliest Jewish followers called him the Son of God they meant that he was an Earthly manifestation of the god Yahweh, son of El - that is, he was Yahweh the son of El. Barker's idea has not gained wide acceptance among scholars. You might also like to read the summary and review on the Vridar blog.PiCo (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about this. Has it ever really been definitively established that "El Elyon" was actually ever a distinct deity as opposed to merely a title for El? That seems like saying 'Adonai' and 'Yahweh' were separate deities. I mean, if you have more sources that support that conclusion, you could present them, but as it stands now IDK if I can really cast my support for this. Plus, the source mentions the consideration that Yahweh was a son of El, which the article starkly contrasts by showing the opposite is true and that Yahweh was El himself. יבריב (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The article says that Yahweh was originally a distinct god from northern Arabia, that he was assimilated into the Canaanite pantheon as one of the 70 sons of El, and that later he and El became identified as a single god. This is sourced from Smith and others and is the general view among scholars. Barker is saying that El and Yahweh were not assimilated and remained distinct gods (Yahweh a son of El) down to the time of the first Christians, allowing those Christians to view Jesus as identical with Yahweh the son of El (hence "son of God"). As for Elyon, I believe the general belief among scholars is that this was a title of the leader of the pantheon, not a separate god.PiCo (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The word "etymology" (again)

I noticed that there is an ongoing dispute between two editors regarding whether or not to call the "I Am that I Am" explanation an "etymology." As far as I am concerned, the word etymology simply refers to an explanation of a word's derivation, which makes "I Am that I Am" an etymology; I think that the real question here is not whether or not it is an "etymology," but rather whether it is a correct etymology. Based on the sources which have already been presented, I am well enough convinced that modern scholars do not regard it as such and I would like to refer Woscafrench to this recently archived discussion in which all of us debated precisely the issue that he is now edit-warring over. He seems to have taken part in the beginning of the conversation, but stopped responding towards the end of it. Given his recent changes, I am guessing he probably never read any part of the discussion past his last response. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps delusional was a harsh word to use. But going back to what you said, yes, my attention did wane a little towards the end of that discussion. But please explain to me what is wrong with the sentence that I have put in? Woscafrench (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How does it contradict the consensus you and PiCo agreed with each other about? Woscafrench (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not see your changes as necessarily contradicting the ultimate consensus that we reached (a consensus, which - I might note - involved several more editors other than just PiCo and I). Although the editors involved in that discussion did (at least seemingly) reach something of an agreement that we would not use the word "etymology" to describe the "I Am that I Am" explanation, the last sentence of my statement above was actually referring more directly to your edit summary, in which you remark "If you don't want to wake up from your delusional sense of certainty, you're going to have to do better than one citation from 1975." If you read the old conversation, however, you will find that PiCo actually provides multiple sources to support his statements other than the one to which you alluded in your edit summary. I am not sure why those sources have not been added to the article, but I thought it would be worthwhile to direct you to them so you can see that the wording of the statement in question is based on more just "one citation from 1975." --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted back to Woscafrench's edit, because - well, it doesn't actually change anything. Both versions, PiCo's and Woscafrench's, say that ehye asher ehye is a late theological gloss and not an actual etymology. Honestly, I kind of prefer Woscafrench's revision, if only because it words the phrase a little better, in that the one thing it adds (literally) just says scholars have grown to doubt the viability of Ex. 3:14, which while is by no means not clearly indicated by PiCo's edit, is probably a better fit. יבריב (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I shortened the sentence a little by removing the mention of etymology. I know I must be sounding a bit pedantic, but an etymology is an exploration of the verbal roots of a word - the English word "god", for example, can be traced back to a reconstructed root meaning "to pour out", or so I understand. That is not, of course, the present meaning of the word. Etymology is not about meanings, it's about histories. The author of Exodus 3:14 was explaining what he believed to be the meaning of YHWH, not its history. PiCo (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Visible and Invisible

There are passages in the Old Testament describing Yahweh's physical appearance (likely a male) and footsteps. My favorite is: Deuteronomy 23:12-14. Yet this entry contains nothing but a questionable physical portrayal on a coin. I would like to see some improvement. I would also like to know about Yahweh being visible and invisible. Miistermagico (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What changes are you wanting to be made to the article? Please be more specific. Right now it is unclear (to me at least) what "improvements" you think the article requires. If you are hinting that there are other extant representations of Yahweh from ancient times with better veracity than the Yehud coin, I can say that, to my knowledge, there are none of the sort that have been conclusively verified. The cult of Yahweh seems to have been largely aniconic, even from an early stage. The Israelites, of course, saw Yahweh as anthropomorphic and there are descriptions of him as such in the Tanakh, but all of them are extremely vague and no surviving representations have been determined beyond a doubt to be intended to represent him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism

The ancient Israelites regarded all their gods, including Yahweh, as anthropomorphic. This is evidenced by the large number of descriptions throughout the older sections of the Tanakh that describe Yahweh in clearly anthropomorphic terms. Obviously, modern Jews and Christians do not regard their God as anthropomorphic in any sense, but rather as an incorporeal being (which is the third of Maimonides's thirteen principles of faith and a core tenant of Christian theology). I do not know if anthropomorphism in the ancient cult of Yahweh needs to be mentioned in the lead or not, but if we do mention it, we certainly need scholarly sources, not just any random sources off the internet. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Katolophyromai (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A quick search on Google Books turned up these sources, which, if we decide to mention anthropomorphism, would be good ones to use: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. They are all from reliable, scholarly publishers and would be useful in providing more information. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

My only issue is conflating anthropomorphic descriptions with actually being anthropomorphic. Just because there are occasional anthropomorphic depictions doesn't mean the object in question is actually anthropomorphic. That being said, I'm not saying Yahweh wasn't anthropomorphic, I'm just saying we oughta find something that actually pegs him as anthropomorphic as opposed to citing an anthropomorphic representation (ex. the 'hand of God' is anthropomorphic, but obviously God's hand =/= God himself) יבריב (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Another verse suggesting anthropomorphism may be the one where he walks in the garden (which could be considered symbolic or not)... I'll copy below a discussion that should ideally have occurred on this talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 03:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear PaleoNeonate, How about a little help on anthropomorphic Yahweh. Can you offer any suggestions? jewishvirtuallibrary/anthropomorphism. Perhaps this will work.Miistermagico (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: Normally per WP:BRD you should not restore the same edit by reverting when it is contested, but first discuss it to reach WP:CONSENSUS. But thanks for communicating, that's the most important part. The Jewish Virtual Library is indeed a secondary source, and has previously been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) (one of the discussions being this one). It seems to be usable, I recommend to use it along with the Biblical verse ({{Bibleverse}} can be used to cite the verse. We'll then see if other editors accept or contest it. If you want to pursue this discussion further, it should be done at the article's talk page for others to see and participate (consensus is not one or two editors, obviously). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks for updating us on the missed conversation. I still would prefer the academic sources I have supplied above over using jewishvirtuallibrary.com, since I suspect the latter will be more likely to discuss modern Jewish conceptions of God rather than ancient Israelite conceptions of Yahweh. Furthermore, I think it is always better to use academic sources when they are available, especially in cases such as this where it is a subject that seems to attract so much controversy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the Jewish Library source is considered less reliable (that RSN thread mentions that it is very variable). —PaleoNeonate – 04:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If man is made in the image of God, then God is also in the image of man. God is the chief of the Tribe of God (one way of translating beni-elohim), the other members of which, the angels, are consistently described as human in form. PiCo (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand of course, Yahweh is also a bull. PiCo (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point about God smelling the pleasant odour of burnt offerings. The odour was the spiritual essence of the sacrificed animal. (Flowers also had this spiritual essence, but flower-offerings don't seem to be a Middle Eastern thing. The essences of living things were breath (the odour of burning was associated with that), blood, and flesh/clay. All this got lost when Judaism became intellectualized in the rabbinic period.PiCo (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On 2nd temple Yahweh

On the (non)-pronunciation of the Name, this might be useful (unfortunately someone has copied it upside down). Blenkinsopp is a highly regarded scholar.

We have to remember that this article is about Yahweh, the god, not Judaism - we need to avoid going too deeply into that side of it.PiCo (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo: Yes. That is actually exactly what I was looking for. I knew I had read that, during the Second Temple Period, only the High Priest was permitted to utter the divine name and he was only allowed to do it once in the Temple on the Day of Atonement, but I was having troubles finding a source and I could not remember where I had read it. Thank you very much for providing one.

I do realize that this article is about Yahweh, not Judaism. As I have already stated in my edit summary, the new section I added will require a great deal of editing. What is written here right now is just a baseline to start with. I will remove parts that do not pertain directly to Yahweh and will add more information specifically about him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Yahweh (well, not much), but I thought I'd share :) PiCo (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And this essay from the Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel could be useful.PiCo (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Earliest possible

Katolophyromai - on this edit note you say you're "reinstating the word "recorded" since saying that it is the "earliest possible occurrence" implies that there cannot possibly have been any earlier unrecorded instances, which, of course, we cannot know." (Relates to the Egyptian reference to Shasu YHW) What the original wording meant by "earliest possible" was not that there could not be any earlier record, but this record is not a certain one - it's a "possible" reference to YHWH. I know what you're getting at, and you're right, but we have to avoid giving the impression that this Shasu-YHW is a definite reference to YHWH. I leave it to you if you want to do anything. :) PiCo (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@PiCo: The wording I implemented in the passage states "the earliest possible recorded occurrence." All that I changed was I inserted the word "recorded." The possibility that the Egyptian reference to Shasu YHW has nothing to do with Yahweh is still left open by the word "possible," which I did not remove. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, “earliest possible” in the vernacular entails “impossible to be earlier thsn that.” How about “earliest purported” or “earliest assumed” instead? Just plain Bill (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Oldest plausible"?PiCo (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That conveys the intended meaning adequately, IMO. Edited into the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yahwism

used to be a disambig page but is now a redundant fork of this article created by יבריב, who has since been indeffed as a sock of BedrockPerson. It's pretty long, but at a glance nearly everything I'm seeing is duplicated material from this article. Is there any reason to keep it? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(One portion that's unique to that article is an unsourced snippet that mentions (but does not really address) the development of Samaritanism, which would be very interesting to touch on here.) -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to a disambiguation page like it was before. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the disambiguation page restoration; if that is contested we can then CSD G5, if contested, AfD... The current way allows to keep Samaritanism in the history in case it's considered useful. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh I just noticed the revert and that the article is older than I thought. We could consider a merge discussion too. —PaleoNeonate – 20:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please ignore my previous remarks about having restored it to a disambiguation page; another user just reverted my edit. The article is now back. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The article in its current state is about a month and a half old, all of the material is either copied/paraphrased from this one or is unsourced. Its prior forms (before it was turned into a disambig in 2010) bear no resemblance to its current form and aren't really relevant. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge

• Support - A lot of duplication, problematic article; My impression is that it would be best to merge any adequate material and keep the information here. —PaleoNeonate – 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my explanations above, at Talk:Yahwism#Samaritans, and in my edit summary, with the emendation that my edit summary was partially wrong because the complaint about the article's quality was actually from ten years ago before it was initially made into a disambiguation page. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it would not hurt for that page to continue as a redirect dab page while this discussion proceeds, with its history available for merging here. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yahweh and Jehova

These shouldn't be two separate articles. These are both two different Hebrew pronunciations of the exact same word. 139.138.69.196 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, to be specific, Jehovah is an inaccurate Anglicized version of a Latin transliteration of the tetragrammaton, which is written with the Hebrew letters corresponding to YHWH, and which most modern scholars choose to vocalize as "Yahweh." --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This article discusses the Iron Age deity who (after being merged with El) became the transcendent being in Judaism and Christianity, while the article Jehovah discusses how the Latinized name was used in history. It's like how we have different articles for Dyeus and Deus. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Parke-Taylor and the question of etymology

I reverted this edit by Woscafrench because it's a misunderstanding of what Parke-Taylor actually says:

(It is the opinion of G. Parke-Taylor, but not M Noth that Ehyeh ašer ehyeh, or "I Am that I Am", the explanation presented in Exodus 3:14, is not an etymology but a late theological gloss invented to explain Yahweh's name at a time when the meaning had been lost.)(Parke-Taylor|1975|page=51)

Etymology is the question of the history of words. In Hebrew and Arabic, but not in English, words have very obvious root-systems - each word is constructed by adding vowels to an inalterable group of three consonants, producing nouns, verbs, and all other parts of speech. So in Arabic, the root KTB forms words dealing with writing - aktib, I write, kitab, a book, maktub, fate ("it is written..."). It's possible to work out, for example, that the word "mashkilah", meaning a problem, is derived from the same root as the word for a camel-hobble - presumably the hobble causes problems for the camel, which is an ingenious connection. Other words are so apparently unrelated that one cannot see what connection they have, but Semitic etymologies always come back to these three-consonant roots, no matter how disparate the meanings.

The problem with YHWH is that the root HWH doesn't exist in Hebrew. The Y is fine, it makes the verb in the "he" form - in Arabic, YKTB, "he writes", or with vowels, "yaktib". Parke-Taylor is saying that the author of Exodus, writing about 450-350 BC, long after the real origin and meaning of YHWH had been forgotten, constructed a theological meaning from a false root - but accidentally got it right, because it really does mean things associated with being. He got his etymology right by accident while really writing about theology.

Noth agrees with that - he also felt that the root was HYH, which is the root concerned with being and existing. But I can't find anything where he says that the intention of the author was other than theological. PiCo (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been told that some words rooted on two consonants persist in modern Hebrew. I've also been told that they are older words; the linked article points at pre-agricultural origins for them. Offered for what it's worth, this may or may not bear on the present discussion. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist (I'm a historian by training and a "writer" by trade) and so can't comment, but that's an interesting link. I also wonder how Berber languages fit into this - they're Semitic, but don't belong to either the Arabic or Hebrew branches. Their words have the odd property of both beginning and ending with the consonant /t/ - so you get "tashelhit", the language of the "shlueh", the name of the Berber people of the central Atlas region - note the sh-l-h root in the centre of both words. (I happen to know this because I lived in Morocco for 2 years - a wonderful experience). PiCo (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Some more interesting oddities: Arabic readily adopts non-Arabic words containing three consonants, so the English word "film" has become thoroughly Arabicised ("aflim", I film, "filam", a film). There are some quadrilateral roots- like "fonduk" a hotel, which I'm told is from Greek. And of course Arabic can form quite complex words from this simple base, as "istakurdi", meaning "do you take me for a Kurd?" (meaning an idiot - sorry to all those Kurds out there). PiCo (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

PiCo - our source isn't saying what you want it to say. You're claiming it is making a statement of fact, when it is actually stating an opinion. Phrases such as: "...which to me seems...", "...this runs counter to the view of..." and "...more probable..." should make that clear. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Woscafrench (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Woscafrench, thank you for coming to the Talk page. You say I haven't understood that Parke-Taylor is advancing an opinion/argument. So he is, but it's the most widely held one. More important than this, you yourself haven't understood what that paragraph is about. It's not about the etymology of the sacred name, it's about the lack of agreement on its origins. The first two sentences set this out: There is almost no agreement on the origins and meaning of Yahweh's name. It is not attested other than among the Israelites, and seems not to have any reasonable etymology. (There are citations in the original).

Personally I wouldn't mention Exodus 3:14 at all, but other editors wanted it in. I imagine they want this because they feel that the Bible's own explanation trumps modern scholarship. Perhaps they even feel these are indeed the words of God spoken to Moses. No modern scholar would accept that idea. If Exodus 3:14 is mentioned at all (and I repeat that my own opinion would be to leave it out), it must be explained that its purpose is theological, not scholarly. There's a strong tendency among conservative Christians and Jews to remove God from the Bible by denying the theology it expresses, and I want to put Him back in. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(Of course, they don't intend to remove God from the Bible, and they're not even aware they're doing it, but that's the result of replacing the Bible's own theology with modern conecepts such as epistemology - the ancients had no idea such a thing existed).PiCo (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we are both agreed that what is written about Exodus 3:14-15 in our cited source consists of opinions, and not facts. It can be so difficult sometimes to find common ground. Woscafrench (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's an opinion. A scholarly opinion, arrived at after examining what knowledge is available. Note what opinion it is: that Exodus 3:14 is a statement of theology based on the perceived similarity between Y-HWH and the Hebrew root HYH, since HWH doesn't exist in Hebrew. Parke-Taylor happens to fell that this is correct, that HWH is indeed a form of HYH, but that's not the point he makes. Nor is it the point our paragraph makes. Our paragraph makes this point: nobody knows for sure what YHWH means. If they did, there wouldn't be all these scholarly books and papers on the subject. From which it follows: so if Exodus 3:14 feels that it comes from HYH, so what? It's just an opinion on the part of the author of Exodus.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm restoring this material; it's worth addressing Exodus because a significant portion of readers are going to wander in, skim the etymology section, and think to themselves "but wait, doesn't it come from...." -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The letter W does exist in Hebrew. וו، 2 times V is WW in the word יהוה there is no W, there is a V, so the name cannot be read Yahweh, this is a lie, the whole narrative here is a lie developed by people like Mark S. Smith

I don't know how to report & erase liar page, it does not put emphasis on Mark S. Smith There is a Jehovah page in Wikipedia explaining the real facts. Ronmar24 (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Vulcan redux

Maybe less fringe now? See [7]. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but still not widely accepted (according to the piece in Haaretz). PiCo (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

indeed! and this page does not put emphasis on the fact that is just a dumb invention by people like Mark S. Smith.

It can not be accepted at all, because in the יהוה world there is no W. Further more, the word means "the eternal": was is & will be: היה הוה יהיה in here also, there is no W. The God of the Jews was not "Yahweh" but Jehovah, Jehovah has a Wikipedia page, and I don't know how to request to erase this one Ronmar24 (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very clearly biased against any and all deeply held religious beliefs and is instead motivated by radical atheism which fundamentally hates religion and seeks to discredit the Biblical accounts of God. Anaijmjssdzsihjjenemjppjtmlmj (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of this supposed bias, and how you would propose to address it. General Ization ^Talk 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUCK of banned user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Making it seem like somehow they were polytheistic when the Bible is pretty clear Yahweh is the only God of the world and there are no signs at all of any polytheism in the Bible. Typical atheist you are. Anaijmjssdzsihjjenemjppjtmlmj (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bible is not a reliable source, and its monotheism is a fabrication post-dating the fall of the Kingdom of Judah (586 BC). If you want truth, consult archaeologists and not theologians. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I took him to ANI where his response was stfu, which plus his comment on my 3rr warning, "I don't care shows him irredeemable. He got an indef block. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

His wish is to make this article theologically orthodox. That's like asking Rational Wiki to embrace creationism. Our WP:PAGs simply do not allow this article becoming theologically orthodox, not without completely denying what Wikipedia stands for. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If anything this article has a clear Abrahamic bias that seeks to separate the Jewish god from his Canaanite origins. If we free ourselves from a religious bias, it is very clear that YHWH and El are the same god, with El just being the pre-Abrahamic form. There is ZERO evidence for the idea that YHWH was a separate god that was given El's role and epithets. YHWH is more obviously just an alternative name that the Hebrews had for El, probably one created to give El (which does just mean god) an actual name... a mysterious name to emphasise that human beings cannot know the true nature of god. The idea that YHWH is anything other than a later form of El is laughable, ahistoric swill based on years of Judaeo-Christian exceptionalism! The truth is that Judaism is simply a monotheistic reinterpretation of the religion of all the Semitic peoples, as are Christianity and Islam (being offshoots of Judaism). - The Mummy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.27.73 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Judaism and Christianity have always traditionally seen El and Yahweh as the same deity; the names are sometimes used interchangeably in the Hebrew Bible. It is modern critical scholars who distinguish them as having originally been separate deities, based on the principles of higher criticism and archaeological evidence, such as the tablets from Ugarit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark S. Smith and his "Yahweh" theory is totally bias. and the page does not mention that.

"El" in Hebrew, is the genetic world for God. In order to refer to "the" God, the Bible says El Echad, God (only) 1.

יהוה cannot be read Yahweh, is a lie. it can be read Yehovah or Jehovah, with a V, and this word already has a Wikipedia page. This page does not mention that all this "information" is 'disputed', not to mention, a lie.

There is no W in the word יהוה,

 it means the eternal:

היה הווה יהיה

was, is in present, will be
No W in those words neither 

Ronmar24 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Kuntillet Ajrud and Bes

We might want to discuss this more and rephrase, but this isn't an editor's assumptions. See these sources.[8][9][10]. I'm sure there are many more. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My original intent wasn't even to change the Bes description, but to point out that the "two bulls" (from the description) are clearly a calf feeding from a cow; calves don't feed from bulls. This is completely self evident. NC360 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ineed in the original in Hebrew is a calf. But this wjole page isba lie.

יהוה does not mean Yahweh, there is no W in there.

Mark S. Smith developed this lie. This is a lie page, and I don't know to request to erase ot Ronmar24 (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Israelite and Canaanite distinction

There is a sentence in this description that reads “Israelites were originally Canaanites...etc”

I will first list a source that disputes that claim, then describe logically rather than scientifically, why the claim that they are the same, is contentious

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites

To summarize, a genealogical study was done on five 3700 year old skeletons found in Canaanite city in the Levant and they traced the genetic marker they found in those skeletons to the people in modern day Lebanon NOT Israel

So, scientifically speaking, the sentence is false

Now, i can fully understand why people would presume that a biblical study would be irrelevant when discussing ancient history But in the instance, were talking not only about science, which i believe my source backs its own claim But etymology And the term “Canaanite” has a primarily biblical source, “It is by far the most frequently used ethnic term in the Bible” and thats a direct quote from the Canaan wiki page

So we have a term that is “by far the most used” ib the bible

So what does the bible say about Canaanites and Israelites In short it says they are different people groups seperated by 11 generations of genealogy

Canaan, and his descendants, were from the line of Ham, cursed by Noah Israel, or Jacob, is a descendant of Shem, Hams brother

So the source from which we derive the word “Canaanite” tells us the are different people groups

So what do the Canaanites say about Israelites ± Well the Canaanites are not famous for being historically present, so we dont have alot to work with What we do have is a biblical story describing Canaanites coining the term “Hebrew” And feom what we can tell, the term means “foreigner” or “nomad” or “wanderers”

So we not only have scientific genealogical studies tracing the Canaanite marker to an Arab people group, not Israeli’s But we have the main source of the very word “Canaanite” describing the difference from both Israeli and Canaanite perspectives

Now, understand some archeologists would contend that the sentence is accurate because of similar dig sites, they two groups lived in a similar manner, i would suggest the similarities are attributed to geographic and time period conditions, ie, the both lived in the Levant atvthe same time BCE, it would be like saying Italian and French people from the 1500’s were the same because they lived in similar dwellings, but we know that they are separate and distinct people groups

Now, maybe this isnt enough evidence to have the sentence taken out, but at the very least, the genealogical study should be enough for an edit clarifying that there are differing opinions on the connection of Canaanite and Israeli peoples in the ancient world, rather than a statement that so blatantly disregard the views of literally millions of people, including orthodox Israelis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:C401:BA88:E19C:9060:17AC:80EF (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your source states clearly "Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today." All the DNA is saying is agreeing that the Canaanites weren't destroyed. They lived all over that area - the Levant, as our article says particularly the "Southern Levant that provide the main setting of the narrative of the Bible: i.e., the area of Phoenicia, Philistia, Israel and other nations." They survived, they weren't wiped out. It doesn't support your claim as it doesn't present a different opinion. You've completely misunderstood it. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole page "Yahweh" is a lie, and it does not put emphasis on the fact by which ALL the "information" here is just a theory by people like Mark S. Smith based on the lie, or "misconception",

by which 

יהוה can be read Yahweh, it cannot. There is no W letter in there. I don't know, how to request to erase this Wikipedia page/value

Ronmar24 (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yahweh vs Jehovah

The page does not put emphasis on the fact that Yahweh was the God of the Jews is just a theory by people like Mark S. Smith and that in fact, the name of God un Hebrew יהוה cannot be read Yahweh, as there is not w letter there. Ronmar24 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronmar24: The name "Jehovah" is an incorrect older misreading of the name. It is an Anglicized form of a Latinized form of a Hellenized form of the original Hebrew name and, through its transmission from one language to another, it has become radically distorted. For one thing, the Hebrew letter י (yod) can never make the "J" sound; it did not make it in ancient Hebrew, nor does it ever make it in modern Hebrew. Instead, it always makes the "Y" sound. The reason it is written as a "J" in "Jehovah" is because, in Latin, the name was written "Iehovah." They did not have the letter "J" in Latin and the letter "I" could be used as a consonant to represent the "Y" sound, but, in English, the Latin consonantal "I" became transcribed as a "J," which eventually took on the sound we know it to make today, which is completely different from the original "Y" sound it was used to represent.

Another point of confusion is that, in ancient Hebrew, the letter ו (waw or vav) actually did make the "W" sound, but, in modern Hebrew, it makes the "V" sound. The reason for this is language change, which is natural and common, but which can make it confusing for laypersons to understand how ancient languages are reconstructed. The same thing, incidentally, happened with the letter "V" in Latin. Latin originally did not have the letter "W" and the letter "V" made the sound that is now assigned to the letter "W," a fact which is supported by a vast array of linguistic evidence from Roman writings, inscriptions, and transliterations between languages. Because of this, "Iehovah" (the Latin transliteration of the Hebrew name on which the English transliteration of "Jehovah" is based) would have actually, originally been pronounced "Ye-ho-wah" in classical Latin, which is much closer to "Yahweh" than "Jehovah."

Therefore, "Jehovah" in modern English has two consonants that we know are definitely wrong. We do not know what the vowels of the sacred name were, because the scribes who later invented vowel markers for Hebrew did not know how "YHWH" was originally pronounced and therefore did not assign vowel markers to it. (I doubt they would assigned them, even if they did know what they were, since it was considered blasphemous by that point to even think the holy name in one's head, so they probably would have thought it better if no one knew how it was pronounced.) There are actually many different Greek and Latin transliterations of the tetragrammaton and the vowels used in them often vary considerably, but they are probably our best clue to how the name was originally pronounced, meaning "Yahweh" or something similar is probably the closest we will ever come to an accurate reconstruction. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In short, saying that Jehovah (and not Yahweh) was the God of the Jews is like saying that Jesus (and not Yeshua) is the God of the Christians -- it gets different pronunciations from different languages and periods of history for the same name confused for completely distinct figures. It's like saying that "aqua" is not "water." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yahweh, Marduk, and national gods

@WikiEditorial101: My explanation on your user talk page was not original research. Here in The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (a source which is already cited multiple times in this very article), for instance, Mark S. Smith directly compares Yahweh to Marduk on multiple separate occasions, for reasons similar to what I outlined on your talk page. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@WikiEditorial101: I have seen the citations Katolophyromai uses to justify a link. If you still object to keeping Marduk after having verified them, please cite references that contradict those. Another option to the link would be a sentence or two linking to it while explaining with sources why (the see also link would then be removed to avoid overlinking). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The Manual of Style suggests adding annotations to See Also links when the relevance isn't immediately obvious, which might be a good idea here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this for Marduk and Qos - feel free to adjust or remove if you don't like how it looks. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, 165.234.252.11. —PaleoNeonate – 09:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)