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.

Yahweh in contrast to polytheism

This article completely unacademically equates Yahweh as "a god" as if it were in a universe of various polytheistic religions. Should one approach religious beliefs even as a "myth" one must at least respect that, in the perspective of this particular "myth" and the religions that believe in this "god", there really aren't "gods", there is just "to be" (or "I Am"), and meanwhile believers of Yahweh have struggled to reconcile an understanding of this all-encompassing intelligence among people who believed in their "gods". In the religions that recognize Yahweh (Judaism and Christianity), there are powerful spiritual beings--demigods at best--but these religions have never recognized them as "gods". Essentially, in the universe--mythical universe or not--of Yahweh, it is incompatible academics to identify Yahweh as "a god", as this one God is not "a being" (as in something that is measurably powerful, big, etc) but is actually calls Himself "to be". That is actually the meaning behind the name "Yahweh"--"to be", or "I Am". The name infers a unique role of this deity, that the deity inherently not only created everything but indeed contains everything (and everyone) that exists, and as such is not something to point at as an external object of interest (as with any polytheistic "god") but as the single one reason and substance behind everyone and everything. The critical difference here is that it is an acute deviation of not only theology but of philosophy and perception of the universe. The name of Yahweh ("to be" / "I Am") uniquely expresses this concept of containment of the universe within itself. As such, "Yahweh, which means 'to be', or 'I Am'", belongs in the very first sentence of this article. Jon (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2013

This page has many inaccuracies. This page talks about Jews, who were never called the Cult of Yahweh. Yahweh is a transliteration of a name for G-d, the true pronunciation of which has been lost over time. Jews were also never polytheistic. G-d never had a consort, Asherah is not a Jewish god, and there were not seventy children. In fact, Jews have always believed that there were no divine beings other than G-d. The seventy names that this article refers to as G-d's children are actually different names for G-d. Jews believe that G-d has so many attributes that one name is not sufficient. They are all names of the same entity, like nicknames (you can have more than one without being more than one person). (http://www.thehealinggift.com/chart/)

However, the names that were used as examples in this article are not names of G-d or even Hebrew. Some were members of a pantheon, but it was a polytheistic, Canaanite, pagan pantheon that didn't include the G-d that is worshipped by the Jews. The Jews did not believe in these gods and thought they were false. Jews would refer to the G-d they believed in as "better than any god" to refer to the fact that their G-d was the only G-d, and no other gods should be believed in. For example of the Canaanite non-Jewish gods mentioned in this article, Astarte was a god who had a cult that was looked upon contemptuously by Hebrews (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39661/Astarte); Resheph is not mentioned in the Bible as a god (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0017_0_16653.html); Shapshu was Phoenician (http://www.thaliatook.com/OGOD/shapash.html); etc. The only accurate examples were Yahweh and El. Baal was a Canaanite "god" who was worshipped by polytheists while Israelite Hebrews were sharing the land with them. In a Jewish story (the only time Baal is mentioned in Judaism), a Jewish prophet, Elijah, challenges a Canaanite priest to a contest, in which he disproved Baal's existence and simultaneously proved the Jewish G-d's existence. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18&version=NIV)

There were so many inaccuracies in this page that practically nothing in it is true. This page should either be very heavily edited by someone who has multiple real sources, or deleted. DFarmAdventurers (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of your assertion are flat out wrong. See the following quote Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— Prof. Dr. Herbert Niehr, Tübingen University, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011

Niehr's statement is about Jews having been monotheists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DFA, this article is written to describe Yahweh as he was understood or worshiped by every party at all points of history. It's hardly deniable that various parties understood Yahweh in a polytheistic context. Had this not been true, than the monolatrist Yahwist prophets would never have written half of the Jewish prophetic works condemning these parties for idolatry. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with edit. This page is ridiculous - Yahweh is a word not used at all in Judaism and somewhat impossible to say or write in Hebrew, it is certainly not the word claimed in this article, and Adonai is spelt very differently. This has no business being filed under a Jewish subheading or being associated with Judaism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:31D6:1900:D098:138F:B302:40F4 (talk • contribs)

Read WP:VER and WP:NOR. Bible scholars use the name Yahweh, so Yahweh it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the validity of the Shasu of Yhw connection has been contested

A cursory search through JSTOR this morning on the subject of the Tetragrammaton recorded in Egyptian led me to the following sources suggesting the identification of the Soleb inscription's YHW with YHWH:

• Avner, review of LaRoccaPitts' "Of Wood and Stone," 2006.
• Goedike, The Tetragram in Egyptian, 1994.
• Gorg, Jahwe, Ein Toponym? 2000.
• Hess, The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources, 1991.
• Mettinger, The Elusive Essence, YHWH, El, and Baal and the Distinctiveness of Israel's Faith, 1990.
• Nakhai, Israel on the Horizon, the Iron I Settlement of the Galilee, 2003.
• Raskovich, You Shall Have no Other Gods Besides Me: A Legal-Economic Analysis of the Rise of Yahweh, 1996.
• Weinfeld, The Tribal League at Sinai, 1987.

And the following source calling the position merely inconclusive:

• Hasel, Merneptah's Inscription and Reliefs and the Origins of Israel, 2003.

Since Avner(2006) presents the identification as uncontested fact, I think it's fair to say this represents the present state of opinion on the Soleb inscription. I would be happy to add any mention to more recent articles actively disputing this thesis, but any blanket removal is obviously unwarranted. Thanatosimii (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The validity of the Shasu of YHW has not been contested: what's been contested is the quality of your writing. PiCo (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not according to your edit summary. Beyond which, you're free to edit anything you think could be written better, and I didn't write that paragraph to begin with; I merged it from Shasu. Thanatosimii (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Banned the use ... in vernacular worship since 2008"

This sentence sort of mischaracterizes the situation in the Catholic Church. The facts are that the official liturgical books have never, ever used this rendering of the Tetragrammaton in their texts. The only parts affected by the 2008 decree were certain local prayers and some popular songs which had been composed by third parties and not by the Church. The decree did not mark the start of a ban by any means, but merely reaffirmed the reality that the name was never to be used in continuity with its tradition as unpronounceable. This has always been the position of the apostolic Churches. The real genesis of the 2008 ruling is the document Liturgiam Authenticam which is the core instruction for new vernacular translations of the liturgy. I am however finding some trouble tracking down the verbatim text of the Vatican decree. All I can find are news reports in secondary sources. I am not sure if they go into this detail so I do not want to introduce WP:OR in this article, but as it stands, it is inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to Aronzak (talk · contribs) for adding the reference and clarifying. I have added some material which I feel is well-supported and verifiable about the history of this, and I have cleaned up the timeline so it is not out of order. I hope this section now accurately represents the situation as it was. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries Elizium23 (talk · contribs), and thanks for adding the link to Liturgiam Authenticam. It's interesting that early Christian sources seem to have used the tetragrammaton in Hebrew versions of the OT, and used Kyrios in the NT, leading to the old Jerusalem Bible using "Lord" in NT passages quoting OT passages as "Lord Yahweh" Eg:

NJB Is61.1 "The spirit of Lord Yahweh is on me for Yahweh has anointed me. He has sent me to bring the news to the afflicted, to soothe the broken-hearted"

NJB Mk4.18 "The spirit of the Lord is on me, for he has anointed me to bring the good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives, sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free."

I've added a link to the article Septuagint manuscripts that suggests that the Tetragrammaton was substituted for Kyrios in some versions of the LXX. There's a longer article Tetragrammaton in the New Testament that describes the inconsistency of tetragrammaton use in OT and NT, but mostly relies on JW sources, as the JWs justify using the name 'Jehovah' in the NT claiming that no NT manuscripts contain the tetragrammaton, but critics of JWs [criticise this http://jehovah.net.au/jehovah.html]. If anyone can find a reliable and verifiable source for NT use of the tetragrammaton it could help this article. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"god" as a common noun is NOT to be capitalized - this is not a work of theology!

‎Thanatosimii, I see that you are still engaged in pushing your own particular orthodox theological viewpoint here. You have been warned numerous times that you are acting in direct violation of several important Wikipedia policies, and obviously you do not care. Consensus in the discussions which followed was firmly against your rather free interpretations of various policies. You have now once again improperly reverted corrections. I include here the pertinent section of policy for your review:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents

"Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as the Prophet. Common nouns not used as titles should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god. In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, and prophet is generally not capitalized.

Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. Nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, are not capitalized." [emphasis mine]

The following section of this article illustrates the main thrust of your unproductive activities here:

"Over time Yahwism became increasingly intolerant of rivals, and the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as God of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses. With the work of Second Isaiah (the theoretical author of the second part of the Book of Isaiah) towards the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and true God of all the world." [emphasis mine]

These incorrectly-capitalized "gods" are absolutely NOT titles, and are clearly used in a historical context.

I urge all editors to fully read through the attached archives.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. In the paragraph quoted, clearly the text refers to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. Unless you're suggesting that the Jewish scribes suggested that Yahweh was some other religion's deity. Thanatosimii (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Yahweh is God" should be capitalized, but "Yahweh is a god" and "Yahweh is the god of..." shouldn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there precedent to your knowledge in any major MOS of making that kind of differentiation? "Yahweh is the god of storms" or "Yahweh is the god of war" or something to that effect would be an example of a common noun, but in the two instances in question, "God" is being used in its monotheistic sense, with the modifiers being further articulations of monotheism. It strikes me as a little odd that modifiers which semantically indicate that we aren't talking about a god in a common noun sense, but about God the singular deity, would syntactically indicate that we are using god as a common noun. My working definition for common noun (admittedly taken from Wikipedia itself) is a non-unique instance of a class, which "God of the entire world" is not. Cf. the capitalization of "City" in "City of London"Thanatosimii (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are twisting words and definitions to suit your purpose! In the two examples I gave, "god" is obviously used as a common noun and not part of a title. Heavenlyblue (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue, if your sole tactic in interacting with me is to be as abrasive as possible to make me want to just stop participating in the project, well, you're succeeding. I can only hope better editors recognize how devoid of value your comments are when you choose not to interact with anything I actually write, but with what you've decided my sinister true motives are. The specious attack on my intellectual honesty, alleging that merely by disagreeing with you I must also ascribe to positions X, Y, Z, and whatever else, makes no difference to the actual debate we're having - even if I did ascribe to any of these views, that doesn't affect a debate on MOS. Have you even thought through the ramifications of the accusations you're making? If this were a work of theology, if "God" isn't a proper noun, I hope you do realize it still couldn't be capitalized, yes?

Doug, your opinion carries great weight in my book, but I wonder if you could flush that out a little. Is there a particular reason you wouldn't take "God of the entire universe" as a unique instance of a class, or do you object to my concept of noun-commonality? I'll grant that "god of" almost invariably has to be a common noun, but only because modifiers of any type, appended to a word, are typically used to distinguish between which of many members of a class to which we refer. It's a little different here. If "God of the entire universe" is not conceived of as a reference to something akin to a Platonic ideal, a singular uniqueness that doesn't come in various instances, then how does this even work as an expression of a monotheistic sentiment? Thanatosimii (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Would you disgraee with the (inaccurate) statement "Zeus was seen as god of the entire universe but Mars was the god of Mars being written with a lower case 'g'? Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in the cases mentioned god is a common noun, as it is qualified and in a historical context, not as part of a title. So it should not be capitalised. BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This can be difficult with phrases like "G/god of Israel", which could be either a title or a descriptive phrase. Here, though, they're clearly descriptive. — kwami (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be a highly borderline case in my book, as I admit the subject of this debate itself is. If a particular hypothetical sect began arguing that Zeus was simply God of the entire universe in a monotheistic sense, I would keep that capitalized. I have a vague recollection that some of the ancient philosophers did start moving in a monotheistic direction with Zeus so far as to be accused of atheism by denial of the other gods, so I could see a justifiable context wherein the sentence should use "God." In another context, wherein the rest of the pantheon is not actually being crowded out of their own godhood by Zeus's hypothetical aggrandizement, and Zeus is still just a god - an important god, but not the God - I would not support capitalization there.

The issue I see here is that this sentence occurs in a part of the article discussing Yahweh's transformation in the minds of his adherents from a god to God. If the same concept could be expressed by either writing "This is when Yahweh became God" or "This is when Yahweh became God of the entire universe," then we are in either case no longer making reference to Yahweh as a member of the class "god," which is required for commonality.

That said, I admit that this argument is technical, and if the body of consensus thinks I'm being pedantic, then I cede. Blue struck the capitalization because he went on a purge of what he took to be honorific capitalization, and I restored it mainly because that concept doesn't apply here, though I do also view that noun as proper. If I'm being lengthy in my defense of my edit, it's only because I feel compelled when I edit this page to carefully and precisely document my thought processes so as to defend my integrity against charges of nefarious fundamentalist conspiracies. I don't really care. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)