Talk:Yahwism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOVA[edit]

@Zero0000: While I agree that NOVA itself is not WP:RS, mainstream Bible professors speaking at NOVA are. The difference is subtle. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: As someone who has been on TV "documentaries" multiple times, I sure would not like the broadcast clips to be taken as a reliable source of my opinions. That's not how they work. Although NOVA is better than most, it would still be much better to quote writings of said professors. And if there are no such writings you should doubt the expertise of the professors on the subject. Zerotalk 06:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinion is itself reliable, then there will be reliable sources. Achar Sva (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yahwism and the emergence of Judaism[edit]

I am deleting this paragraph from the lead of the article and putting it here for discussion:

By the 5th century BCE, Yahweh had absorbed or subsumed the functions of the other deities within the Israelite pantheon, and monolatrism had developed in a minority of the Israelite population. Upon the Babylonian exile, monotheistic thought gained ascendancy, and Yahweh was declared the sole deity in all of existence,(sourced Albertz|1994|p=64) giving birth to Judaism.

I'm not opposed to covering the transition from Yahwism to whatever came after (personally I'd call it Second Temple Judaism rather than simply Judaism), but there are problems:

  • This is in the lead with nothing in the body of the article;
  • The first sentence is unsupported by a source;
  • The final clause, "...giving birth to Judaism", is also unsupported.

I assume that the section sourced to Albertz is correct, but the three other matters need to be dealt with first. Achar Sva (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few things.
    • By the 5th century BCE, Yahweh had absorbed or subsumed the functions of the other deities within the Israelite pantheon, and monolatrism had developed in a minority of the Israelite population. is very clearly stated in the article. The first statement is addressed by the entire third paragraph of the body ("During an era of religious syncretism,... Exodus 6:2–3") and the second statement is sourced and explored by the paragraph after ("The worship of Yahweh alone... response to Neo-Assyrian aggression"). Both paragraphs have ample sources.
    • As for the following 2 points: MOS:LEAD stipulates that you don't need to add sources to claims in an article's lede section that are later clarified and cited in the article's body. This is why there is no citation on the matter.
Recommend reading the Albertz citation just so that we're on the same page and we aren't missing anything. Zhomron (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Balance[edit]

As is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahwism, the article is rather unbalanced in content and tone. It accepts a kind of mainstream "liberal" (I use the word descriptively, not pejoratively) biblical scholarship as the only word on the topic and ignores "orthodox" perspectives, which still exist rather robustly in the scholarly community. Jahaza (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bible also mentions that the Israelites worshipped other gods, in fact, that is why God judged Israel. 100.16.157.193 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that wasn't a relapse from (speaking anachronistically) Orthodox Judaism, in fact Orthodox Judaism was a relapse (i.e. radical rejection of tradition) from Yahwistic Paganism. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: This source disagrees. Potatín5 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Hess believes in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.
"His notes fit into a long line of traditional/conservative responses to these issues that for the vast majority of biblical scholars in the academy are largely settled issues." From [1].
"Foundationally evangelical, Denver Seminary is a body of Christ – followers guided by our beliefs based on the inerrancy of Scripture and its authority as the Word of God." From [2].
So WP:FRINGE applies. Biblical inerrancy is a way-out extreme position in Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Hess has rejected those accusations.
"For more than a decade my Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Baker, 2007) has illustrated how I do “accept” a variety of critical positions but I also have my own interpretation." From [3].
And seriously, I doubt how an article from the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion can qualify as WP:FRINGE. Potatín5 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he challenges biblical inerrancy he gets fired ASAP. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: We are not talking about Hess' seminary, we are talking about his article in an OUP encyclopedia. Where does the encyclopedic article display anything that remotely sounds like what a biblical inerrantist would say? Potatín5 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Judaic monotheism appeared in the 10th or 9th century BCE is extremely maximalist. Even if that is relegated to minority followership (i.e. the remnant). And Judaic monotheism in 13th century BCE is simply put a pathological lie. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Richard E. Friedman holds that the concept of monotheism/monolatry was present in the Israelite people since the 13th century BCE, possibly inspired by the monotheistic reforms of Akhenaten. Israel Knohl has made a similar argument based on his identification of Moses with Irsu, who was apparently a sort of monotheist. Do you think that any of them is a "pathological liard"? Potatín5 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Monolatry is not monotheism. By "Judaic monotheism" I mean the monotheism of Yahweh; I didn't mean Sun worship.
And we know this from the fact that the Bible is not a fully monotheistic book: it contains famous or less famous verses which are definitely henotheistic or monolatric, rather than monotheistic. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day Wikipedia is a website heavily based upon mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, if you seek a rule of thumb see WP:CHOPSY.
It is also a question of who's the boss over Wikipedia: the church or the secular university? If you say "the church", somebody else will substitute it with "the mosque", since Wikipedia is religiously neutral. They will be inclined to think that Salafism trumps secularism, here at Wikipedia (see e.g. the pictures from Muhammad). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not how biblical and theological scholarship works. The places where the "orthodox" scholars teach are also often mainstream universities. The analogy between secularism and Salafism is not fitting.--Jahaza (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then name these biblical literalists who are supposedly teaching at mainstream universities please. What sources are you referring to? If it is a religious-internal description that simply affirms the holy book, it has no place on Wikipedia except in a discussion of the perspectives of that religion and its own accounting of its origins.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, sometimes we do render WP:INUNIVERSE views, but we do not give them WP:FALSEBALANCE with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also Jahaza seems to conflate between history and theology: this isn't an article in theology. So, it's completely irrelevant to this article what the theologically orthodox perspective is. Since the discussed events happened some 1000 years prior to anything that resembles our theological orthodoxy (meaning the Council of Nicaea and the Talmud). So, it's again the question: who decides the historical facts from that time, the church or mainstream historians? E.g. Michael D. Coogan is a Catholic scholar, but also the source of many unorthodox (or at least modernist) statements about the Bible. History and theology are different academic fields: what is good orthodox theology is often lousy history. So Coogan, while wearing the hat of a historian, does not kowtow to Catholic dogmas. It would be inappropriate for a mainstream historian to do so, since he is not preaching to the choir.
And I strongly doubt that Christians churches have dogmas regarding the ancient polytheistic god Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the traditionalist movements in several Abrahamic religions have significantly different perspective than the one presented in this article, I think that it would be worthwhile to mention at least in passing that the predominant perspective presented in this article is at odds with those perspectives. If carefully written, I believe that this could be done without violating any of the Wikipedia policies you mentioned. 74.83.67.36 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samaritanism and Yahwism[edit]

Ref the removal of this 'Following the split from other Israelites, Yahwism also influenced Samaritanism via their continued belief in Yahweh as the one true God.[1]' The source is the Jewish Encyclopedia and is in the references list. In this article Yahwism is desrcibed as the religion of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Whilst on the Samaritans page we say that they are an ethnoreligious group who originate from the ancient Israelites. The Jewish claim is that the Samaritans veered from the path of Yahwism, the Samaritan claim is that they were its true inheritors. Both deserve equal mention. Here are some more sources https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/769/htm = Exploring Samaritanism—New Insights and Fresh Approaches Department of Classics and Religious Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada Religions 2021, 12(9), 769; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12090769 Received: 19 August 2021 / Accepted: 23 August 2021 / Published: 15 September 2021

https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=9f6c867c-a2c8-493f-a60e-51c1ee2c15a3%40redis&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZW4tZ2Imc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=edsbas.8426B015&db=edsbas

Also Authors: Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme Source: Religions ; Volume 11 ; Issue 2 Publisher Information: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Publication Year: 2020 Collection: MDPI Open Access Publishing See the reference to Southern and Northern Yahwism here.

Also https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=9f6c867c-a2c8-493f-a60e-51c1ee2c15a3%40redis&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZW4tZ2Imc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=138634291&db=edb Authors: Hensel, Benedikt Source: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament; Sep2019, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p19-42, 24p Publication Year: 2019

Which states that 'The relationship of Judah and Samaria in the period from the 6th to the 2nd century B.C.E is currently still being described as an uninterrupted period of ongoing conflicts between Samarian and Judean YHWH-worshippers. This article examines evidence which offers an entirely different picture of Samarian–Judean relations in the post-exilic period: in the Levant in post-exilic times, there were two homologous Yahwisms in Judah and Samaria which existed side by side. It is for this reason that, when studying this formative period, scholars should give due consideration not only to Judah, but also to the North as well.'

I don't mind if we restore the removed wording, or add something to state that there are other views that Samaritanism can be regarded as emerging from a separate branch of Yahwism. However we do have to include the Samaritan view in some way. RegardsPngeditor (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Pngeditor (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting here. First, sources. Have a look at the way the references section of the article works: first a citations subsection giving basic info, then a bibliography giving full book details. When you add a source, the book needs to be added in the bibliography.
More on sources: try to use reputable academic books, rather than online sources. It's just more professional.
As for the idea that you're trying to express: sure, Samaritanism is a descendant of Yahwism and a brother of Judaism, I don't think that's controversial. Is that what you're trying to say? But if so, then that's all you need to say: Yahwism gave rise to both Judaism and Samaritanism. I'd be surprised if Matassa actually says that this happened AFTER the split from "the Israelites". And you need better and more mainstream sources. Start with Gary Knoppers, "Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History ..." etc.
Anyway, I have no problem with saying that the Samaritan religion descended from Yahwism, but you need better sources and you need to express the idea more simply. Achar Sva (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I though that online versions of scholarly articles were just as valid as what you refer to as mainstream. (Benedikt Hensel is Full-Professor of Hebrew Bible at the Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (Germany). Here's the bio for Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme https://www.tf.uio.no/english/people/aca/akgudme/index.html Here is what I added as a precis of the Jewish Encyclopedia article 'Following the split from other Israelites, Yahwism also influenced Samaritanism via their continued belief in Yahweh as the one true God.[1]' Here is the source, (I got the wrong page number it is actually 719. Apologies.)

Another Samaritan tradition claims Samaritan origins lie in the pre-exilic period, at the very beginnings of Israelite history, and that the split between Samaritanism and Judaism only arose when the heretical priest Eli stole the Ark of the Covenant and established a rival cult. Until that time, the Ark of the Covenant had been kept at the sanctuary of YHWH on Mt. Gerizim. According to this tradition, the priest Eli was prevented from rising to the high priesthood because he was of the family of Itamar, not the high priestly family of Eleazar. Nevertheless, he took the Ark of the Covenant from Mt. Gerizim to Shiloh and established a rival cult there. As a result of this, two centers of the priesthood arose. One center was on Mt. Gerizim, at whose head stood the legitimate high priest, Uzzi (a descendant of Phineas and of the family Eleazar). The second (heretical) priesthood was at Shiloh, and the priest Eli, a descendant of Itamar, was at its head. Thus, according to Samaritan tradition, Samaritanism is a perpetuation of the true Israelite faith, and Judaism only the continuation of Eli’s heresy. This is the case, the Samaritan tradition claims, all the way through Samuel, Saul, David, and the Judaean monarchy, with the rival cult of Eli eventually shifting from Shiloh to Jerusalem and continuing up to this day.

I.e., Samaritanism isn't a useful term BEFORE the split with Judaism for Samaritan claims, as they state that their beliefs did not change. That is why I tried to reflect their view. How about I add this as 'Following the split from Judaism, Yahwism also influenced Samaritanism via their continued belief in Yahweh as the one true God.[2]' Or shall I can simply add the word Samaritanism after Second Temple Judaism? Wouldn't it be more helpful to direct me to where I can see how to use this method of sourcing, rather than a general explanation? There are so many methods used, I can't find the exact one used here.RegardsPngeditor (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this controversy seems to keep going on on the page, I tried to look at the sources given above. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) is being referred to multiple times above, but there is no link to the precise entry there that is being referred to. It also has to be kept in mind always, that while it is still a valuable resource, there is much scholarship on any issues related to Judaism or Jewish history that has been published in the 100+ years since. It can be used, as long as more recent literature on a particular issue is also used to control and verify how much the scholarship on that particular issue has changed or evolved since. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 22:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the references I added to the Jewish Encyclopedia were to the Second Edition 2007, not the 1901-1906 version. I included the source text that I based my addition on above and the page numbers were also included.Pngeditor (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the 2007 Second Edition is for the Encyclopaedia Judaica, not for the Jewish Encyclopedia. Please don't confuse two important but very different sources for Jewish studies. You mean to say that this Matasha source you're pointing to is used in the bibliography of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd edition, 2007) entry on "Yahwism"? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Encyclopedia is only referenced by me as a typo above, I misread it again. Pngeditor (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref this revert (Reverted 1 edit by Emir of Wikipedia (talk): Theres no reason to discuss on the talk what several other editors have already reverted. The onus is upon the individual who is making the disputed change.) This claim is not correct. The text reverted was only reverted by one author, and it was reverted three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahwism&diff=next&oldid=1116593662 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahwism&diff=next&oldid=1116664145 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahwism&diff=next&oldid=1116695370 The author may be confused with other reverts also referring to Samaritanism. I suggest that the Talk Page should have been used in this case.Pngeditor (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Matasha 2007, p. 718.
  2. ^ Matasha 2007, p. 719.

I don't know much[edit]

I don't know much but even I can tell this article is a bunch of nonsense. I wish I could do something about it, but like I said, I don't know much. I barely found this place to comment. 2600:1700:6B1:5EE0:F043:99CE:8DE6:42BD (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We tell it the Ivy League way, the Tel Aviv University way and the Bar Ilan University way. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of falling afoul of WP:FORUM, I'm going to summarize this complaint as follows: "Don't know much about history, / don't know much about biology, / don't know much about a science book, / don't know much about the French I took, / But I do know that the Bible's right, / And if I only could edit it, / What a wonderful world it would be!"--Ermenrich (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Bible's right" This is one sentence that I rarely encounter. Its lack of historicity and reliability is well known. Dimadick (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must not be traveling in the "right" circles.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a saying,”if you want something screwed up, let the government handle it”. The same applies to explaining the Bible, if you want it screwed up, let the scholars handle it. 2600:1702:1271:1840:7862:E38C:6C99:61FB (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, Wikipedia sides with mainstream scholars, not with the WP:POV of the Bible (if it can be said that such a POV exists). If you do not like it, you are free to contribute to Conservapedia or OrthodoxWiki. Since if you do not like the WP:RULES of Wikipedia, we have no reason for accepting your edits. This is not a "free encyclopedia", in the sense of allowing you to write whatever you please; we simply kowtow to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Don't like that? Then leave. You want us to follow scholars writing about the Koran, the Vedas, the Buddhist texts, but not about the Bible. Sorry, that's subjectivism, we cannot allow that.
In case you missed the point: this isn't an article about the Bible, it is an article about Ancient history and archaeology. So, it was never the intention of this article "to explaining the Bible" (according to religious fundamentalism). This isn't Sunday school, it is a hardcore encyclopedia based upon WP:BESTSOURCES, and you lack any power of turning Wikipedia into Sunday school.
There is no such thing as explaining the Bible according to the Bible. There is such a thing as explaining the Bible according to religious fundamentalism. Or as explaining the Bible according to liberal theology. Or as explaining the Bible according to mainstream Bible scholarship.
If you dislike mainstream historical research: fine and good, that's your legal right, and I have no authority for changing your opinion. But the conclusion of your dislike is that you should not edit Wikipedia, at least upon historical matters. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this will help you but here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za260DIsgzQ 46.120.97.106 (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either there was no historical Moses, or we can merely know that he existed, everything else is lost to the historical/archaeological record. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh the original god of Israel[edit]

This thread is about sourcing for the following sentence: " Yahweh, however, was not the 'original' god of Israel; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name "Israel"..." The source is Smith, "The Early History of God" (2002), page 32. That page begins: "The original god of Israel was El." (Note the absence of a capital for god). If El was the original god of Israel then it follows that Yahweh was not. Skipping the next sentence, then third says: "[...]the name of Israel is not a Yahwistic name [meaning not a name formed on the divine name Yahweh], but an El name [one formed on the name El], with the element 'el". So far as I can see, that supports our sentence. Achar Sva (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Israel (name) also specifies that the name derives from El, with the probable meaning being ""El fights/struggles" ". Dimadick (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a troubling lack of attention to the fusion of northern and southern Canaanite polytheistic traditions in this article. Mistamystery (talk) Mistamystery (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be renamed to "Ancient Israelite religion" or similar[edit]

"Yahwism" is not the appropriate term for the polytheistic religion practiced in the area for most of the kingdoms' history. Yahwism should be used to refer to the henotheistic/monolatristic religious ideology centered on Yahweh alone, expressed by prophets and culminating in the reformed religion established during Josiah's reign. Mnd5trm (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Yahwism is a scholarly interpretation of a certain period of Ancient Israelite religious history prior to the Babylonian exile and Second Temple period.
The emergent Israelite identity is the crossroads separating the religion and culture from its Canaanite forbears. While Yahwism most certainly deserves its own article, it is not a catch all for the religious practices of Israelite peoples.
Mistamystery (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. WP:PAG is WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name most commonly used in WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redefinition by Szirtyu[edit]

@Szirtyu: this has been discussed numerous times. Most recently "Article balance" and several other places on current on this talk page and in the archive. Why should your attempt to redefine the article be treated differently?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively defined as a monotheistic religion[edit]

Hello,

I have attempted to make the following edit to the lead. It has been reverted as it is described as a “fringe view”, however I disagree with this assertion. Yahwism is understood to have been polytheistic in its earlier form, and monotheistic in its later form. However, the lead currently begins by defining Yahwism as ‘essentially polytheistic’, which I find misleading. My suggestion for the lead reads as follows:

Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel and Judah. According to one definition, Yahwism was essentially polytheistic, with a pantheon of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israeland Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah, and second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, each of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees. According to another definition, Yahwism is monotheistic and corresponds to the religion of the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible, involving the worship of Yahweh as the God of Abraham.

The practices of Yahwism in its polytheistic state included festivals, sacrifices, vow-making, private rituals, and the adjudication of legal disputes. Contrary to the depiction of Yahwism in the Hebrew Bible, polytheistic Yahwism held that the Temple in Jerusalem was not the sole, or even central, temple of Yahweh, but the king was the head of the national religion and thus the viceroy on Earth of the national god, a role reflected each year when he presided over a ceremony enthroning Yahweh in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.

References provided in the 21 December 2023 16:51 version:

1. https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1272&context=wes_theses

2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030908929201705415

3. https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4290/Spangenberg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

4. https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/World_History/Western_Civilization_-_A_Concise_History_I_(Brooks)/04%3A_The_Bronze_Age_and_the_Iron_Age/4.08%3A_The_Yahwist_Religion_and_Judaism

5. https://www.gotquestions.org/Yahwism-Yahwist.html

6. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/717990

7. https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/a58a069e-60fc-42f0-b778-ce934c4cb241/content Szirtyu (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sourcing:
And so on.
Another problem: WP:CHERRYPICKING. Why? See Pakkala 2017:

The Deuteronomists and nomists did not represent the entire society. We are mainly dealing with a small group of people, whose ideas were adopted by all Jewish communities only slowly, perhaps only after centuries. It is thus probable that the worship of other divinities continued in many Yahwistic contexts much after these texts were written. For example, it is unlikely that Asherah would have been abandoned in all contexts immediately after 587 bce. For everyone her cult was not dependent on the temple in Jerusalem.

Quoted by tgeorgescu.
I hope I'm not committing WP:FRANKIE, but J.C. de Moor died almost a century ago.
Jong Jin Choe's thesis is a Master's degree thesis. If we were upholding such standard, I could liberally WP:CITE my Master's thesis (doctorandus degree) inside Wikipedia for WP:V claims about religion. I see the University of Bucharest at place 851-900 at [3], but I don't see the Western Theological Seminary on that list.
Hilarious statement: "The JEDP theory has no basis in reality". Regardless of whether it is true or not, its basis lies in three different plot threads spinning through the Pentateuch, which do not make rational sense when conflated, but each makes sense on its own (when disentangled from the other two), plus a fourth plot thread in the Deuteronomy. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient "Judaism" (that Yahweism is Judaism is also a retroperspective view) is either polytheistic or henotheistic, but, at least from a historical view point, not monotheistic. I thought this was commonly known. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context please[edit]

I checked a few of the sources given, and wow, context is important people. You can’t just make a source say what you want it to say, if it in fact DOES NOT SAY THAT. This whole thing clearly has a motive to disprove the Hebrew religion and i would say even could be called anti-semitic. it takes things vastly out of context and pushes a narrative that IS included in the bible, but misrepresents it. all the god’s of this so called “hierarchy” are commonly mentioned as worshipped by the people, and incorporated into a false religion, but that was just it, it was a false bastardized version of the Hebrew religion. This bastardized religion was not the true form of the religion that worshipped Yahweh. Most of the sources cited are used out of context to suggest this is the case. There are also articles of “Yahwism vs Baalism” which, if Baal is a 2nd tier God of Yahwism, doesn’t even make sense.

this article is a pathetic attempt to slander and discredit the Hebrew religion (Judaism) and Christianity. This is dangerous and needs to be fixed. 71.201.50.216 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific examples of how the article misrepresents its sources so they may actually be addressed. — Remsense诉 21:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few examples of scholarly opinion not acknowledging Biblical evidence:
"Contrary to how it is envisaged in the Hebrew Bible, the Temple in Jerusalem was not the sole or central place of worship dedicated to Yahweh."
However, YWHW, according to the Hebrew Bible, demands worship the Temple of Jerusalem once it is completed (Deuteronomy 12:7), (2 Chronicles 6:6).
"Yahweh, however, was not the "original" god of Israel. Rather it was El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon whose name forms the basis of the name "Israel" (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל), and none of the Hebrew patriarchs, tribes of Israel, Judges, or early monarchs have a Yahwistic theophoric name."
This is not entirely untrue, but also neglects to mention that according to the Hebrew Bible, YHWH says he is the same God of the patriarchs (Exodus 3:6).
"Various biblical passages indicate that statues of the goddess were kept in Yahweh's temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria."
This ignores the fact that these passages, such as 2 Kings 21, condemn the kings who built these temples as evil and leading the nation astray.
Ultimately, this article, which seeks to explain the precursor religion of Judaism and Christianity, does an extremely poor job of presenting multiple viewpoints. Ntfriedrich (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for specific examples of how scholarly sources misrepresent the Bible, I asked for specific examples of how this article misrepresents scholarly sources.

this article, which seeks to explain the precursor religion of Judaism and Christianity

And therein lies the rub: that's the teleology you seem to be imposing on it. Is it so difficult to accept that this is a subject that should be discussed on its own terms, not merely as a "precursor religion"?
Remsense诉 04:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not think attempting to isolate a topic from other topics is logical nor fits within the concept of an interconnected encyclopedia. You could isolate a topic like the 13 colonies of North America from the history of the United States, but how would this be an intelligent decision? I am not saying every line has to mention the Bible, Judaism, or Christianity. What I am saying is that a topic of significance to such a large group should not be so glaringly biased. And I do believe I have proved that it is, on at least one occasion, not sharing the source author's viewpoint accurately. Ntfriedrich (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but one may isolate the topic of mercantilism from the English Reformation, because those are two separate topics with two separate bodies of reliable sources. We don't get to connect the dots unless there is reason to do so in the sources, that would be original research. Remsense诉 06:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I conceded that these topics can and should be isolated, this does not address my legitimate concern of misrepresentation of source material, as expressed but not explained by the original commenter. I below have explained twice how the article misrepresents the source material. Ntfriedrich (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also now read through your other remarks regarding this page. I believe regarding this principle of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View page:
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."
I do believe, unless I have missed it in the article, a disclosure such as this is entirely absent from the article, though not from the articles sources. From Philis R. Dav, 2010: "Many biblical books give the clear impression that Jerusalem was always supposed to be the central, even exclusive, temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem and Judah." The article instead from this source only mentions this line: "Contrary to how it is envisaged in the Hebrew Bible, the Temple in Jerusalem was not the sole or central place of worship dedicated to Yahweh." Ntfriedrich (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: is this a theology article or a history article? Because the two academic fields have different assumptions and different rules. Theology meaning the knowledge of God, and history meaning the knowledge of real-objective historical facts. So, I'm not sure that modern theological views are germane to Ancient historical facts. I'm not sure that modern theological views have any place in this article. Same as modern theological views have no bearing upon the facts about Julius Caesar. Therefore this article is the wrong place for parading modern theological views. It's like asking which are the Christian dogmas about the Yellow Emperor. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was interested in adding theology to this page I no longer am. I have already displayed that the source material on this page is not fairly represented. Here is another example, from Benjamin D. Sommer: "An ancient Semitic religion of the Iron Age, Yahwism was essentially polytheistic and had a pantheon, with various gods and goddesses being worshipped by the Israelites." This same source states "Another group of scholars, however, argue that the exclusive worship of Yhwh as the only true deity was widespread in ancient Israel well before the exile, perhaps even well before the rise of the monarchy." Why is this omitted? Is it an acceptable standard on Wikipedia to classify some of the source material as "real-objective historical facts" and other parts "modern theological views?" I would argue there is nothing distinctly theological about what I have advocated. Perhaps earlier I misunderstood, but unless I am still missing something this is not about history vs. theology. Ntfriedrich (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fair to add this to the article, sure. No problems here. Remsense诉 14:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It begins with "It is a commonplace of modern biblical scholarship" and ends with the remark that the difference between polytheism and monotheism has been (severely) overestimated. To unpack this, Wikipedia abides by WP:FRINGE, so the minority of scholars who go against the "commonplace" are not given WP:GEVAL with the majority view. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative perspectives[edit]

While I appreciate that Wikipedia tends to take a fairly skeptical, post-enlightenment view of religion, I would suggest that this article should at least acknowledge the fact that major contingents of the various Abrahamic faiths disagree with much of what is written in this article. While I don't expect for Wikipedia to endorse their disagreement, I would argue that their disagreement is noteworthy and should at least be prominently mentioned in passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.67.36 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that Wikipedia tends to take a fairly skeptical, post-enlightenment view of religion

Then you potentially appreciate Wikipedia for some of the wrong reasons. All we can do is reflect the sum total of what reliable sources have to say on a subject, hopefully no more, even if it's for some very real flaw we may perceive in said body of sources. What is there to say that's actually on-topic, exactly? Has a university press published a palaeographer's take-down of the evidence from a standpoint agreeable to apologists? Our job isn't to right great wrongs, not even smaller wrongs. Unless I'm mistaken and there is a body of sources to work from that this article ignores, there's not what you want here because it simply does not exist. Remsense诉 18:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this response addresses my point at all. I am simply stating that the large social and cultural phenomena of religious traditionalists not accepting the perspectives shared in this article is in of itself noteworthy. With some careful editing, this noteworthy dissension could be mentioned without violating Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:RNPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. 74.83.67.36 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using what sources? Wikipedia reflects sources. Remsense诉 19:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find any source where a noteworthy traditionalist religious leader argues against modern religious scholarship. Again, the goal is not to promote something that violates WP:FALSEBALANCE, but to simply share significant and noteworthy cultural responses to mainstream academic findings. 74.83.67.36 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I can more clearly articulate now: this is an article about a historical theory, and therefore primarily the work of historians, archeologists, and other related professions. To pretend that anything published is equally worth space like that is false NPOV: it would be the same as citing a quip from an archeologist about how problematic Joel Osteen's prosperity gospel: it's simply not what the article is about. Where you might get what you're interested in is a different article that gives its subject the space it deserves in the appropriate context, Islamic view of miracles is almost the right one that I just plucked out of the search results. Science articles can mention culture and vice versa, but it is false NPOV to insinuate they are doing the same thing in the same article, without even getting into who you think is more interesting or notable. Remsense诉 19:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Abrahamic faiths disagree with much of what is written in this article"
What exctly does interfaith dialogue disagree with and how does this question of social-political category have to say about historicity, according to your objection? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't describe it as "interfaith dialogue disagree[ing]" with anything (also you took my quote out of context). I am simply pointing out that the traditionalist orthodoxies of several Abrahamic religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity and Islam plus some others that I don't know that much about) disagree with the perspectives of this article. I would suggest that significant cultural responses to the findings of academics are inherently noteworthy, and should be mentioned at least in passing. I believe that this can be done by a skilled editor (which I do not claim to be) without violating WP:RNPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. 74.83.67.36 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that significant cultural responses to the findings of academics are inherently noteworthy, and should be mentioned at least in passing.

Again, based on what? What you are describing is quite literally original research in order to prop up a specific POV if it doesn't correspond to any reliable source. The article is not going to become more amenable by massaging the available research until a credible counterbalance pops out. Remsense诉 19:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to manufacture "a credible counterbalance" (as any careful reading of what I have written can demonstrate). I am not claiming that there is "a credible counterbalance" that would meet muster with Wikipedia's standards. I am simply pointing out that the continued popularity of alternative, traditionalist non-academic viewpoints is in of itself noteworthy. 74.83.67.36 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I agree that may be the case. I've better articulated above how the issue is more that "that should be in its own article". Remsense诉 19:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abrahamic religions do have reactions upon the discovery of Yahwism by historians and archaeologists. However, these reactions are a mixed bag, rather than coherent (their reactions are aligned with the fundamentalist–modernist controversy). I reiterate my position: I don't think that Abrahamic religions have dogmas about this discovery. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"traditionalist orthodoxies of several Abrahamic religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity and Islam plus some others that I don't know that much about) disagree with the perspectives of this article"
Okay, but one is academic research, the other side make up pseudo-history along a mytholocal narrative (which is also subject to change. Example, the pope and his perception on Islam in 1965)
For some theologicans, the world is also not older than 6000 years, however, this is not an alternative perception of equal possibility, but a mythological narrative derived from a literal interpretation of the text. As linked previously, we have an article to shed light on that idea, however, with the historical concept of worship of Yahweh as a Bronce Age deity has nothing to do with that, except that it later involved into the Creationistic account. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yahwism&oldid=1219894515"