This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A westman (talk | contribs) at 15:37, 15 April 2023 (Undid revision 1149971033 by Trilletrollet (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:37, 15 April 2023 by A westman (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1149971033 by Trilletrollet (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yahweh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Yahweh was copied or moved into Documentary hypothesis with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
 Archives | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
God needs to be capitalized. There is only One and its a formal name also In Gods name. Thanks Crystal. 199.231.118.232 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done: MOS:GOD General Ization 23:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- "There is only One" No there is not. The Israelites were polytheists. Dimadick (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Early Iron Age bull figurine from Bull Site at Dhahrat et-Tawileh (modern West Bank, ancient Ephraim), representing El, Baal or Yahweh
El or Maleachi, is not a god or goddes, they dont have son and kid also they dont do marriage.
as the picture in wikipedia, yhwh is not a bull or baal or moloch. he doesnt created or have a child, he only have a prophet. please seek on genesis. also quran
please dont compare in adonai, elohim and yhwh with baal and moloch. it is such full disgrace and neglecting 10 commandment
Best regard's QuaMbear (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CRYBLASPHEMY. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- You've got a good point. The root problem is that this article is really about "Religion in Iron Age Israel" (as reconstructed by modern secular scholars), and that should be its title. "Yahweh" is a lot of things, most prominently an important theological concept for Jews, and also for Christians. An article title "Yahweh" should certainly discuss the term's theological meaning. RogerBurk (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- WP:SCOPE is
This article is about the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
- Otherwise, all our ancient or medieval history articles are
as reconstructed by modern secular scholars
, why should be this article singled out? - Anyway, the ancient polytheistic god Yahweh has to have a place within Misplaced Pages. And true believers are seeking to deny it such a place. The Misplaced Pages Community will never make peace with such true believers, since obviously, the ancient polytheistic god Yahweh passes WP:N. So, it is a match (i.e. dispute) between true believers and WP:PAGs. The true believers are seeking to bully the god Yahweh out of Misplaced Pages, and the Misplaced Pages Community simply won't allow that. The true believers think that real, objective archaeological discoveries, such as that bronze bull, are blasphemy against their own religion. To any well-educated person appreciating WP:SCHOLARSHIP, their opinion seems exceedingly preposterous. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- The bronze bull thing is interesting - it might explain why there is such a specific Golden Calf narrative in exodus: it wouldn't be the first time a theological narrative was positioned to dislodge a pre-existing worship practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be an article on Yahweh. The problem I have is that the article as currently written violates WP:NPOV. Whether or not Yahweh was a storm-god or that Israel used to be polytheistic is an extremely contentious claim. There are plenty of scholars who disagree with this reconstruction, sticking with the more traditional view that Abraham at least was monotheistic. That is the reason to treat this article differently than you might other reconstructions that have less contention.
- There is precedent for how to deal with this sort of thing. Look, for example, at the various articles on the books of the Bible. On issues that are contentious among scholars, you will see multiple POVs given. For example, Book of Genesis mentions the traditional view that Moses wrote the book, only then going on to assert that the majority of modern scholars date it later. It follows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, attributing the POV in the text, rather than just asserting things. It continues to do this with when it describes its composition. It doesn't say, for example, "The five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came from four sources." It specifically points this out as the POV that is most common in the 20th century among scholars.
- It is my impression that the "true believers" (who often are just as much a part of the Misplaced Pages community as anyone else) do not tend to object to those articles. They still contain information that they may not believe is correct. Fixing up this article to be more NPOV would likely help.
- Though, honestly, I also think having Yahweh link to the disambiguation page and rename this article to show its scope in its title might also help. I suspect that most people who stumble on this page are actually looking for an article on the tetragrammaton or the modern Abrahamic concept of God. Article names on Misplaced Pages are supposed to reflect what the reader would most likely be looking for. This sort of thing is also mentioned in WP:NPOV when it discusses titles.
- — trlkly 23:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to agree although I'm not sure what the exact answer is. We have this article and we have Yahwism, God in Judaism, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton etc. It may well all hang together theoretically/academically but it's a mess for the general encyclopedia reader. DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, no. Scholarship from the Ivy League and similar universities posits that Abraham was completely unhistorical, or, if he ever existed, he is irretrievably lost to history. There's not a shred of evidence that Judaism existed in the time of David and Solomon, let alone Moses or Abraham. That gullible people think so does not make it a fact any more than flat Earth is a fact because millions of uneducated people still believe it. In the supposed time of Abraham (whose mileage varies with a thousand years only counting major archaeologists who believed he existed) there was no such thing as Hebrew language. I can grant you that inchoate Hebrew language existed in the 11th century BCE, but no more than that. Nothing like Classical Biblical Hebrew existed back then.
- There are too many disciplines involved for the denial to be credible: archaeology, source criticism, linguistics, and so on. I don't say that we know all there is to know about the composition of the Bible, but mainstream Bible scholars are zooming on something.
- While the consensus that the Pentateuch was based upon four big documents is crumbling, it isn't going in the direction gullible people would desire, but in an even more "radical" direction. The main merit of the Documentary Hypothesis was that it could provide an orderly account of the composition of the Bible—now even that can no longer be taken for granted.
You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know of any serious body of scholarship that disagrees with the pagan and polytheistic origins of the worship of Yahweh. I looked up the bull thing after reading this, and it turns out that bulls were not just tangentially but strongly associated with worship of Yahweh, and this is a matter of not insignificant scholarly attention. It is known. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- "strongly associated with worship of Yahweh" By its own or through identification of Yahweh with El? El's symbol was the bull, and his depictions in Ugarit feature him as a horned god, or at least with horns on his headdress. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think you have an excellent idea here. There definitely should be an article on Yahweh, which should identify what it unarguably is: the consensus scholarly reconstruction of the name of the God of the Jews as recorded in the Bible. Then there should be links to articles on what the name refers to: to God Himself, according to those who for religious reasons give special weight to the Biblical account, and to a reconstructed storm god of ancient Palestine according to those who do not. Neither account should be excluded or slighted by Misplaced Pages. RogerBurk (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- WP:SCOPE is
Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The name Yahweh literally means "he who exists" TheDonquavious (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- Catholic.com https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/yahweh. Retrieved 3.3.23.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|access-date=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help)
Sun worship
I was trying to add more links from this to other articles (it was poorly wikified), when I noticed that the article mentions condemnation of sun worship in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE. Whose cult was this? I don't see any solar deities mentioned in the article, and I don't recall any particular solar deity associated with the Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- One might assume some likely candidates for such ire would be Ra or Shapash. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
"an ancient Levantine deity worshipped first in Edom"
The definition of Yahweh given in the first line of the article says he was "an ancient Levantine deity worshipped first in Edom". The source is page 17 of Mark Smith's contribution to an edited volume of 2017 (I like that it's recent), but unfortunately that page doesn't say what is claimed. The sentence needs to be re-written. Achar Sva (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The correct page is 42 (the meaning of life?) - I've amended that now. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Are you thinking of this passage?: "...the current scholarly consensus holds that this deity was a divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman." That's a bit wider than Edom. It's also useful that it (a) identifies a consensus, and (b) identifies him as originally a warrior. You might like to revise the introductory sentence to take this into account. Achar Sva (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's the one, though it's not obvious to me that it is wider than Edom. Seir was in Edom, Teman was in Edom, and the Desert of Paran is an ill-defined biblical term that no one has really been able to place geographically, so that's a rather moot point. It's possible in the Sinai desert, as in Judges 5, but again, that's not a supposition that's particularly supported. Otherwise, I suppose the 'divine warrior' part could be added to the opening summary. It is typical for deities to have their function outlined. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- One more thing: you have " an ancient Levantine deity that emerged..." Shouldn't it be "who emerged?" Achar Sva (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's a bit of an either/or situation. 'Deity' can be personalized or impersonalized. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: And what about Midian? Potatín5 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This seems less attested, and in the references that do exist, the relationship seems unclear. The Edomite connection is seemingly repeated much more redundantly in scripture and also supported by archaeology. The Midian connection is more speculative. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- But many scholars would include Midian among the sourthen regions where YHWH first emerged, so at least some reference to that region should be included. Potatín5 (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, why not. No real issues with mentioning it (albeit more tentatively). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- But many scholars would include Midian among the sourthen regions where YHWH first emerged, so at least some reference to that region should be included. Potatín5 (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- This seems less attested, and in the references that do exist, the relationship seems unclear. The Edomite connection is seemingly repeated much more redundantly in scripture and also supported by archaeology. The Midian connection is more speculative. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- One more thing: you have " an ancient Levantine deity that emerged..." Shouldn't it be "who emerged?" Achar Sva (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's the one, though it's not obvious to me that it is wider than Edom. Seir was in Edom, Teman was in Edom, and the Desert of Paran is an ill-defined biblical term that no one has really been able to place geographically, so that's a rather moot point. It's possible in the Sinai desert, as in Judges 5, but again, that's not a supposition that's particularly supported. Otherwise, I suppose the 'divine warrior' part could be added to the opening summary. It is typical for deities to have their function outlined. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Are you thinking of this passage?: "...the current scholarly consensus holds that this deity was a divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman." That's a bit wider than Edom. It's also useful that it (a) identifies a consensus, and (b) identifies him as originally a warrior. You might like to revise the introductory sentence to take this into account. Achar Sva (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
This name is wrong.
This page's title is not the name of God in Judaism and Christianity. No. The Masoretic codices wrote this: יְהֹוָה. Two dots, one above another each under the yod, representing the half-vowel sheva, pronounced as a SCHWA. If the Jews put the vowels of 'adonai (euphemism for God's true name) in the Tetragram, the hataf patah would be under the Yod. In addition, the holam was also often omitted. Even if somehow the hataf patah became a schwa, then why is יְהֹוָה never listed as a ketiv-kere (placing vowels of another word in another word's consonants)?
"Yahweh" is a false name. This clearly indicates "Yehowah" the the name of the Judaist and Christian God. Thewikipedian7534 (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
- Mid-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Top-importance Mythology articles