Talk:Yahweh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Witnesses (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:BOLDTITLE#Format_of_the_first_sentence

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points— including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

YHWH and El are different[edit]

Hello. Regardless of your level of faith, you cannot deny that "YHWH" and "El" are not the same word, therefore not the same deity (by default, as described in Canaanite religion). There is no such thing as equality of contradictions, taking into account Judaism has always been versatile regarding meanings, this still now does not make any sense (it is obvious "El" is a different deity, that got destroyed by YHWH later, as described in the Book of Jeremiah 10:11, therefore YHWH "acknowledges" his creation of other deities or angels and the decision to destroy them). Would you like to equate Ahura Mazda and Allah and Eloah and Yahwah and Yahwaesh and Zeus as the same? Because that's what is being done here inadvertently. You do realise that it's what the text already says, while you reverted a simple correction for the sole sake of doing it.

To quote:

"Say this to those who worship other gods: "Your so-called gods, who did not make the heavens and earth, will vanish from the earth and from under the heavens." - Jeremiah 10:11

--Vitilsky (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk page guidelines and please read WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. WP is not a place for you to discuss your original research or theories. If there are secondary sources that reflect the mainstream scholarly position that the two gods were definitely distinct on this, please bring them. (I do not think there are, but am interested in seeing what you bring) Otherwise, please stop adding content about this to the article and please stop discussing it here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (make this more accurate, sorry for having been sloppy Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC))
Page 5, CANAANITE MYTH AND HEBREW EPIC, By Frank Moore Cross
"In this text there is a clear claim for the continuity between the religion of the Fathers and the Yahwistic faith of later Israel. At ::the same time the text, precisely in its insistence that Yahweh is to be identified with the god of the Fathers, discloses to the ::historian that the old religion and the Mosaic religion were historically distinct or, in any case, belonged to two stages in a ::historical development."
Page 90, The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, Judith Reesa Baskin
"(the mythological texts) use the title "Bull" for the chief god of the city, El. The representation of a god as a bull seems to have ::been a traditional component of Canaanite worship incorporated into Israelite religion in the northern kingdom of Israel, despite its ::strong condemnation in the Torah."
Note the strong condemnation in the Torah reference. These books can be found in Google Books, very easily and readily available. Greetings; --Vitilsky (talk) ::14:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that there is a big load of literature available on this fact, as opposed to your opinion of what you think which is baseless and unfounded, as I guessed, it's a big factor to take into account other people's scholarship, regardless of anyone's opinion. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
your personal scholarship has absolutely no place in WP per WP:OR. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say anything about Yahweh so is not useful. The Frank Cross reference is useful as he is very mainstream and he explicitly discusses Yahweh and El. What is also important is that he is careful (which is what good scholars are) and he writes that there was either historical development of a single god, or a merging of two gods. He also writes " there is a clear claim for the continuity" which means he very much acknowledges that El and Yahweh may indeed be different stages of one god. This is not reflected in the content you added, which was that El was a "a different deity" - period - with no acknowledgement that they may have been different stages of the same god or may have been two distinct gods that merged. There is little certainty in dealing with ancient history and the lack of certainty and difficulties are compounded by the fact that we are dealing with metaphysical beings.... this is not tangible like the question of whether Jericho was ever destroyed. More sources on this would be useful to flesh out the range of views and the nuances here. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, that is the point. There weren't the same god before they became one. I do sound critical but it is blasphemous to compare a pagan god to YHWH. Thank you for your understanding. --Vitilsky (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you suggest a different way to rephrase this, as to make it compatible with the scholarship provided? --Vitilsky (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
your personal feelings about blasphemy have no place in a discussion about a WP article. And you are again making a much more certain statement than can be supported; they may have been distinct and merged or they may be two stages in the development of a single god. The article is currently accurate and I do not support changing the lead. I think the Frank Cross reference could usefully be added to the discussion in the body and I will do so. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, aside from the fact that we all have "personal" feelings, otherwise you would be considered a mad man. I am eager to say, that, the problem arose with the words "may have originated". I suggest, villeicht it's better to put "probably" as it can proven regardless of what you say. Thanks --Vitilsky (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
again please read the WP:TPG. This is not a forum, it is a place to discuss content and sources per wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Personal feelings about content have no role in WP. your last revert probably pushes you past 3RR. I suggest that you do not change this further without discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem. Please, do not revert your talk page either, or I will request a block. I am not being disruptive here, you delete talk pages. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
not responding to discussion of user Talk pages here. please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The citation in the lead does not link El with Yaweh. The citation should be changed, or the claim should be eliminated. I'm not sure this article can rely solely on authors such as Dever who have a very particular scholarly view, which is in reality, is their own theory. Dever has the theory that Yaweh was married to another goddess, which is hardly the scholarly consensus. It's not hard to find scholarly opinions which disagree with his theories. The article presents these theories as facts when these theories should instead be prefaced with "According to professor William G. Dever..." Unless there is a scholarly consensus, the wikipedia article shouldn't really express a singular viewpoint. 24.190.51.21 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Francesca Stavrakopoulou stated in a BBC documentary that it is now consensually accepted among historians that God had a wife. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Something's wrong again![edit]

My gut feeling is that articles on religion in Wikipedia can never be trusted. Which pisses me off no end. F.ex., in the lede:

The name may have originated as an epithet of the god El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon ("El who is present, who makes himself manifest"),[1]

1 is:

The pronunciation "Yahweh" is actually a scholarly translation
...blablablabla...
Based on parallels with Amorite, another Semitic language, the Yahweh would be a causative form, meaning "the one who causes to be/creates."

Nothing about "El!" Nothing about "who is present". Misrepresentation of sources, and this is typical for religious articles.

Once there was a guy on wikipedia under the user name Jagged 85 who misused sources to invent his own fantasy history writing ... I won't go into details, but after an intense cleanup work, and a persistent cheating/I-wont-listen-attitude the Wikipedia community banned him as one of the most disruptive editors ever, sentence here WP:AN/I: JAGGED 85 BANNED. I suspect this was just an extreme example, and that there are many a jagged editor in religion inventing and reinterpreting sources to falsehood. Do the edits yourself! I'm sick and tired of all jagged ones. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is verifiable here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two theories on the origins of the god Yahweh, and I've never seen them reconciled. One is that he was an epithet of the god El - "El who is present, who makes himself manifest". The link will take you to an artlice by Meindert Dijkstra in a book edited by Bob Becking, but it's Frank Moore Cross's idea, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, which is available in Google Books. The other is that he originated from the Shasu nomads, as described in Egyptian sources - you can find that referenced all over the place. How, or even whether, these two are combined, or combinable, I do not know.PiCo (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Structure of the article - section titled "history of Yahweh worship"[edit]

I did a little editing of this section, largely cleanup of the structure, but it seems to me that the entire section is a structural anomaly - the preceding (very long) section is called History, so what does Histor of Yahweh Worship have to say that isn't properly included there?

On a slightly different subject, I don't think aniconism is covered in the article, and it should be - it was part of the development of monotheism and I guess needs to go with that. There are many good sources for this. Does anyone mind if I try to write a paaragrpah about it?PiCo (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Editor2020, Talk 03:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)