Talk:Yahweh

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

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.

The article is inaccurate and insulting

1) According to Judaism it is forbidden to pronounce this name of g-d. Hence, the use of "Yahweh" in the article is insulting to any religious and many non-religious Jews. "YHWH" should be preferred instead, firstly, because "Yahweh" pronunciation is only a speculation, secondly, because "YHWH" is the direct transliteration of the original Hebrew word (Hebrew language does not have vowels).

2) The sentence "Yahweh (pron.: /ˈjɑːweɪ/ or /ˈjɑːhweɪ/; Hebrew: יהוה), is the name of the national god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible." implies that "YHWH" was a local god for Israelites in TANACH. But this is not true, because according to TANACH there is only one g-d both for Israelites and other peoples. I don't understand why the article treats a name of g-d as a separate god. There are many names for the g-d in Judaism however it's ridiculous to claim that each name represents a separate god.

3) "The second looks for the origins of Yahweh to the southeast of Israel, in Edom and Midian or even further, in South Semitic languages like Arabic. HWY in Arabic is connected with falling or causing to fall, leading to an interpretation of Yahweh as a storm god whose name means "He who causes to fall" (meaning rain, lightning, and his enemies) or "He causes storms"." I would strongly like to see an academic reference to this because on the face of it this is plain nonsense. The first written records of Hebrew date back to 950 BCE while those of Arabic date back to 512 CE. Also Islam draws heavily on the Hebrew Bible not the other way around.

4) "According to a widely accepted theory (the "Kenite hypothesis"), the Edomite god YHW could have been brought north to the Canaanite hill country and the early Israelites by migratory Edomite desert tribes, of whom the Kenites were one.[10]" In the phrase "the Edomite god YHW could have been brought north to the Canaanite hill" is the author referring to "YHW" as a name of g-d or referring to a local Edomite god with his relevant local Edomite features? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isppeks (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A few points. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is buit upon what reliable sources say about a subject - see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. So far as the Edomite god YHW question goes, I read that as referring to a local god, the predecessor of Yahweh. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

POV issues due to undue weight

As a general rule of thumb, when you read an article that starts it's second paragraph with "despite," you know you're going to be in for a bad read. This article was argumentative and tendentious in the extreme. It seems to have been written by proponents of the most radical theories about the origin of Yahwism, portraying these arguments as having conclusively devastated conservative and religious arguments and positions. I have no special expertise in Late Bronze Age Levantine religion, but at some point someone's going to have to straighten out this article, dealing with the undue weight put on the most skeptical theses. Until that happens, I suggest a POV tag remain up. Thanatosimii (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a chapter in a work of theology. Your comment suggests that you feel that traditional theological perspectives should predominate over evidence-based historical analyses. Now that would be a "POV issue due to undue weight". Remember that in scientific and historical circles, 'skeptical' is not a dirty word. Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

My comments don't actually suggest anything of the kind, but I can now see how it was that the article came to be so tendentious. This is an encyclopedia article. It's not a chapter in a book with a thesis. This article argues that traditional views are wrong. That's totally acceptable for a journal, but not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia can report that these arguments have been made, but it can't make them. And it's flat out disingenuous to have an article which makes no mention about the arguments that those who hold to traditional views make and then claim the article is somehow balanced. I return to my original objection - you can't possibly be defending an article that starts its second sentence with "despite" and then argues theses the whole way through! Thanatosimii (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What traditional views do you have in mind? PiCo (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That there was an Exodus, that there was a conquest, that Israel worshiped Yahweh prior to either of these events, etc., etc. I'd suggest the following basic outline for describing the history of Yahwistic study:

A) The theological understanding (Antiquity - 1800)

B) The understanding of early to early modern historians (1800-1950)

C) Revolutionary Theses of the recent decades

1) Why they challenge traditionalists

2) Why traditionalists challenge them

There will probably need to be some mention of the Albright School at the end of point B, and the more recent work by James Hoffmeier under C)2). Thanatosimii (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds a bit detailed for this article - more Historicity of the Bible. This is just Yahweh, part of a series about the gods of the Ancient Near East. We do need to describe the historical background, but not beyond the broad consensus among modern scholars (no need to go into the depth you sketch in your outline).

As for what that broad consensus is, I suggest Moore and Kelle's "Biblical History and Israel's Past" - it's very recent, and gives an approachable overview of current thinking. (Hoffmeier is an honest and scrupulous scholar, but his views are definitely not mainstream, as he admits). PiCo (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see detail as a problem per se, and an article on Yahweh is necessarily deficient if it doesn't outline the history of Yahwistic scholarship. The identity and origins of Yahweh necessarily vary drastically in one's theories based on the amount of credence one gives the historical and theological statements of the Penteteuch, and these have been held much higher in the past. As I have objected before, this article is tendentious, but it doesn't even seriously cover the theses which it is arguing against. Indeed, this article seems to entirely overlook the curious place Yahweh has occupied in western scholarship due to his continuing identity as the Judeo-Christian God. Perhaps this could be alleviated if Yahweh were merged into Jehovah (or vice versa). The fact we have two articles on different pronunciations of the same character makes about as much sense to me as having a separate article on Aluminum and Aluminium.

As far as the broad consensus goes, I'll grant you that things are moving in that direction in recent years, but unless we drum out all the Biblical Archeologists and other descendants of the Albright school, we still have a majority-minority split, not a mainstream-fringe split. Beyond which, I'm foundationally uncomfortable about these distinctions working their ways into articles as a form of endorsement. Rather than saying "A says B because of C and D, whereas E denies B because of F," there's a tendency on Wikipedia to try to boil that down to "B is true because of C and D" once a party has been labled as "not mainstream." The former is a more intellectually honest presentation of things, and the latter really should only be done in cases where that party is truly out to lunch. Every ascendant theory invariably claims that it's destroyed its predecessors and that anyone still holding those views is such a fool, but I am not prepared to grant them that. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The theories presented in the article are certainly not "minority" or "radical" and attention to them is not "undue weight", quite the opposite. 71.82.49.78 (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For a theory held as valid by less than 100% of the scholarly community to hold 100% of the attention of the article is undue weight. I fear you have misread my use of the word "minority," and as far as "radical" goes, perhaps I belong to the old school on this one, but when I was trained I was told not to make definitive statements on periods that are so poorly attested as the late bronze and early iron in the Levant. Thanatosimii (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait till I've finished this current revision of the lead, then you can do you own version and we can compare them. PiCo (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The changes I've seen so far seem vast improvements already. Thanatosimii (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This article does not have to "[argue] that traditional views are wrong". It is not an article about traditional theological perspectives, though they certainly belong here... in a neutral context. This is an article about the god called Yahweh - in any and all forms, incarnations, and from any point of view that can be backed up by citations of acceptable quality. To those accustomed to privilege, the lack of it can seem like persecution.

And talk about disingenuous! Throwing around the term "scholarly consensus", as if this is an article about DNA or geological strata! Established churches have spent hundreds to thousands of years (depending on the particular sect) producing documents promulgating their orthodoxies. Any scholar in any way connected with these organisations, including by membership, may be under doctrinal compulsion, or at least under pressure of various sorts, to toe the official theological line. As far as I can see, at least insofar as neutrality is concerned, one hundred papers of that sort are not worth one that arises from neutral scientific investigation in the realms of historical, textual, linguistic, or archaeological analysis.

I can't help but notice, Thanatosimii, that your proposed scheme gives the last word to traditional orthodoxy, even though it also gets the first word in these matters! "C) 1) Why they challenge traditionalists", "C) 2) Why traditionalists challenge them ".... I'm going to propose, then, a section C) 3) "Why neutral scientifically-oriented scholars challenge the traditionalists right back, and with actual evidence". A rigid, unchanging theologically-based viewpoint cannot be given the same weight, in an encyclopedic article, as one based on a neutral, reasoned examination of evidence. But in the proposed 'new and improved' scheme, traditional, orthodox theology would predominate, wiping away newer, non-mythological, reason-based alternatives with brute force and a mound of paperwork.

Let's not forget here, in weighing these matters, the incredible personal, social, and even legal hurdles that many of these researchers into the roots of religious belief have faced in pursuing their inquiries over the last few hundred years. Some have been excommunicated, imprisoned, or even (going back a little further) killed for their rational, scientific approach to what were previously, and still are for many, forbidden subjects. So the notion that since the number of traditionalists overwhelms the number of modern scholars, their viewpoint should make up most of this article (or any other concerning religion), holds no water.

This is an encyclopedia. The traditional mythology should certainly be presented here, but so should all competing points of view that share a modern, rational approach. The subject here is not 'cats'! Religion is a subject like no other, and that fact must be taken into account. A conventional approach here will, counterintuitively, certainly lead to bias in favour of a traditional orthodox theological account. In this context, I can't help but suspect that the whole 'minority POV/scholarly consensus' fixation is simply a red herring, a ploy to squeeze out alternative points of view. It wouldn't be the first time that sort of thing has been tried. Read the talk pages for some of the Christianity and Judaism articles, including the archives for this one, and you will soon note the plea/demand for special treatment for Yahweh and Christianity, in stark contrast to the treatment of other gods in their respective articles, and in clear violation of Wikipedia policy and the spirit of this whole great enterprise. Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You're being obtuse, and moreover, flinging mud at entire swaths of the population and questioning their motives and not their argumentation is intellectually dishonest. I could go into this point by point, but since you haven't said anything to address my original complaint, I'll just put that again. Making blanket statements of fact is par for the course in argumentative writing. Argumentative writing is supposed to be tendentious. Neutral writing is not. This article is tendentious because it repeats as facts things which are, strictly speaking, contentions. Therefore it has to change. If A contends B because of C and D, by all means write that. But do not use the authoritative tone every work with a thesis has. For what it's worth, several of the more contentious aspects of the article have already been improved significantly, so I don't think it's unlikely my standards will be met. But I was just rereading Redford's Egypt, Israel, and Canaan the other day on this specific subject, and while he's pretty clear that he thinks his side has won the debate, he's also pretty clear that dissent was still quite strong at the time he wrote - at the least, strong enough to warrant him complaining about it. Which also means strong enough to mention in a neutral treatment of the subject. Thanatosimii (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of lead

I'm going over the third para of the lead, checking what's said against the sources. This is what I've done:

• Removed the first half of the first sentence, which said something like "Contrary to the bible's picture of the Israelites originating in Mesopotamia via slavery in Egypt...", as the source (Gnuse) doesn't say that; and revised the remainder to bring it closer to what Gnuse does say. Note that on this page Gnuse is describing "recent models", so I think it's safe to keep this as representative of scholarly thinking at the time Gnuse was writing (late 1990s). I also added a new passage from Dever regarding Israel's Canaanite origins which serves as a segue into the next sentence.
• Removed Gnuse p.78 as a source for the second sentence, "Yahweh, however, was not a Canaanite god, and modern scholars see him originating in Edom, the region south of Judah", as at that point Gnuse is discussing the theories of Ahlstrom as part of a range of scholarly thinking - we need something generalises about the consensus, not one scholar's ideas.
• I also removed Smith 2002 as a source for the second sentence - the footnote gives no page number, and on a quick search I can't find Smith saying anything about Yahweh not being Canaanite or originating in Edom or the south.
• I deleted Michael Coogan's "Illustrated Guide to World Religions" as a source for the statement in the third/last sentence that Yahweh was originally head of the pantheon and later became sole god of Israel as it's certainly not on page 6 of that book and isn't clearly present anywhere else that I can find.
• I hived off a separate sentence about Asherah as possible consort of Yahweh as the Butz book clearly says this - but other books make the point more clearly (the point being that Asherah was originally the consort of El and later became associated with Yahweh, either as consort or as some form of religiously charged symbol).

So that leaves a rather weakened para about the origins of Yahweh and Yahwism.

This is the paragraph as it now stands, after my review of sources: The archaeological evidence suggests that the Israelites arose peacefully and internally in the highlands of Canaan;[4] in the words of archaeologist William Dever, "most of those who came to call themselves Israelites ... were or had been indigenous Canaanites."[5] Yahweh, however, was not a Canaanite god, and modern scholars see him originating in Edom, the region south of Judah. He was originally the head of the Iron Age pantheons of Israel and Judah, but worship of Yahweh alone (monotheism) became entrenched in Judaism in the exilic and Persian periods. The goddess Asherah may have been his consort in the earliest period.[6]

Up to footnote 5 is pretty solid, in terms of sourcing. Footnote 6 is also solid, but refers only to the last sentence, not to the material about Yahweh not being a Canaanite god etc. I'd like to fix this by replacing everything after footnote 5 with something along these lines: The name of Yahweh is not found in any text or archaeological source earlier than the 12th century BCE; the original god of Israel was the Canaanite god El, as evidenced by the name Israel itself; Yahweh became the god of Israel during the Iron Age, but exactly how is not known; there are two major theories regarding this, the first the Kenite hypothesis (the most widely held), which is that Yahweh came from outside Palestine, the second that Yahweh began as a descriptive phrase applied to El. I can provide sources for all this. PiCo (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2013

This article claims Yahweh to "possibly" be a consort, meaning "spouse" or "partner of" Asherah", assuming His being associated with Sumerian theological representations of reality. This is not only highly offensive, but beyond words in the effect it has on the reader. My request is that the appropriate adjustments be arranged to entirely remove mention of Asherah from Yahweh's page. Sincerely, and beyond all doubt, Kellen Boyd. Lou.asinskiptomy (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would we do that? This is a significant view held by a number of scholars. Wikipedia articles do not cater to any religious, philosophical or political viewpoints - the relevant policy is at WP:NPOV. Also see WP:NOTCENSORED. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Vacation9 21:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Progress report

Progress: not much. Finding sources is surprisingly hard. But thanks everyone for your patience. PiCo (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased

This was an incredibly biased article. If one understand the difference between monotheism, typically about a god over the heavens and the earth, (the universe and earth), beneficient, god of truth, god of eternity, just, etc. And polytheism, God of the waters (male/orgasm), God of fertility (female), and simpler stories attached to these sometimes, really caused by LSD-like substances (elixir of life/soma/fruit of the tree of life/holy grail/etc), you can tell a lot of what gods are originally monotheistic and what are distortions, because many of the same gods, are told and preserverd more or less in various stories.

Ea, one of the earlier or earliest Gods, may be related to an original monotheism about a tree of life, symbolizing that all life is divine, or as later religion states "God breathed some of himself into you, and gave you life". Psychedelics drugs, then, as now, is so perplexing that people thought they were about God, and so you have an assocation with the tree of life, that spread to Norway, as well as China. But it created only idols, and is seen early on as deified variants of "heaven and earth".

Ea though early is a God of beneficience. But associated with god of the waters, and even in the Bible "gods spirit move upon the waters" which is distortion. Ea though is better preserved as Ptah in egyptian polytheism, where he has many positive attributes usually not related to psyhcedelic distortion. More of a Buddha-figure, but with is polytheistic distortions also. One who creates the world, with thought and word.

Ea no doubt later become Yah, and Yahwe. And also as we can see, has its distortions in The Bible. But God still says "Be" and it is. And The Bible still teach of the divine Ruach, the breath of life, that gives everyone life, and is some of his nature. The teachings of immanence, and the divine soul.

The Bible also speaks of the God of Abraham, which is the founder of Hinduism. But better retained in Judaism. In Hinduism, Brahma (Abraham) states The Word created everything. And his wife is Saraswati (Sarai). But as "Soma" is considered a sacred drink/holy grail, Abrahams religion is severely distorted now in Hinduism, and often associated with psychedelic imagery. But still the soul (atman) is considered divine.

Jesus ofcourse also later reiterates this, and says "I am in the father, and in you, and you in me etc", really talking about all being branches of "the tree of life". (original monotheism).

Which also Islam restates as, the Abrahamic teachings on divine breath.

Religion, really is a countermeasure to psychedelic drugs, and idolatry, that caused much confusion in early times. It worked and decent society was established.

Praised Be God over the universe and earth.

For more of this research, visit www.paradoxuncreated.com

Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.28.14 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)