Talk:Yahweh

Parke-Taylor and the question of etymology

I reverted this edit by Woscafrench because it's a misunderstanding of what Parke-Taylor actually says:

(It is the opinion of G. Parke-Taylor, but not M Noth that Ehyeh ašer ehyeh, or "I Am that I Am", the explanation presented in Exodus 3:14, is not an etymology but a late theological gloss invented to explain Yahweh's name at a time when the meaning had been lost.)(Parke-Taylor|1975|page=51)

Etymology is the question of the history of words. In Hebrew and Arabic, but not in English, words have very obvious root-systems - each word is constructed by adding vowels to an inalterable group of three consonants, producing nouns, verbs, and all other parts of speech. So in Arabic, the root KTB forms words dealing with writing - aktib, I write, kitab, a book, maktub, fate ("it is written..."). It's possible to work out, for example, that the word "mashkilah", meaning a problem, is derived from the same root as the word for a camel-hobble - presumably the hobble causes problems for the camel, which is an ingenious connection. Other words are so apparently unrelated that one cannot see what connection they have, but Semitic etymologies always come back to these three-consonant roots, no matter how disparate the meanings.

The problem with YHWH is that the root HWH doesn't exist in Hebrew. The Y is fine, it makes the verb in the "he" form - in Arabic, YKTB, "he writes", or with vowels, "yaktib". Parke-Taylor is saying that the author of Exodus, writing about 450-350 BC, long after the real origin and meaning of YHWH had been forgotten, constructed a theological meaning from a false root - but accidentally got it right, because it really does mean things associated with being. He got his etymology right by accident while really writing about theology.

Noth agrees with that - he also felt that the root was HYH, which is the root concerned with being and existing. But I can't find anything where he says that the intention of the author was other than theological. PiCo (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been told that some words rooted on two consonants persist in modern Hebrew. I've also been told that they are older words; the linked article points at pre-agricultural origins for them. Offered for what it's worth, this may or may not bear on the present discussion. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist (I'm a historian by training and a "writer" by trade) and so can't comment, but that's an interesting link. I also wonder how Berber languages fit into this - they're Semitic, but don't belong to either the Arabic or Hebrew branches. Their words have the odd property of both beginning and ending with the consonant /t/ - so you get "tashelhit", the language of the "shlueh", the name of the Berber people of the central Atlas region - note the sh-l-h root in the centre of both words. (I happen to know this because I lived in Morocco for 2 years - a wonderful experience). PiCo (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Some more interesting oddities: Arabic readily adopts non-Arabic words containing three consonants, so the English word "film" has become thoroughly Arabicised ("aflim", I film, "filam", a film). There are some quadrilateral roots- like "fonduk" a hotel, which I'm told is from Greek. And of course Arabic can form quite complex words from this simple base, as "istakurdi", meaning "do you take me for a Kurd?" (meaning an idiot - sorry to all those Kurds out there). PiCo (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

PiCo - our source isn't saying what you want it to say. You're claiming it is making a statement of fact, when it is actually stating an opinion. Phrases such as: "...which to me seems...", "...this runs counter to the view of..." and "...more probable..." should make that clear. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Woscafrench (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Woscafrench, thank you for coming to the Talk page. You say I haven't understood that Parke-Taylor is advancing an opinion/argument. So he is, but it's the most widely held one. More important than this, you yourself haven't understood what that paragraph is about. It's not about the etymology of the sacred name, it's about the lack of agreement on its origins. The first two sentences set this out: There is almost no agreement on the origins and meaning of Yahweh's name. It is not attested other than among the Israelites, and seems not to have any reasonable etymology. (There are citations in the original).

Personally I wouldn't mention Exodus 3:14 at all, but other editors wanted it in. I imagine they want this because they feel that the Bible's own explanation trumps modern scholarship. Perhaps they even feel these are indeed the words of God spoken to Moses. No modern scholar would accept that idea. If Exodus 3:14 is mentioned at all (and I repeat that my own opinion would be to leave it out), it must be explained that its purpose is theological, not scholarly. There's a strong tendency among conservative Christians and Jews to remove God from the Bible by denying the theology it expresses, and I want to put Him back in. PiCo (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(Of course, they don't intend to remove God from the Bible, and they're not even aware they're doing it, but that's the result of replacing the Bible's own theology with modern conecepts such as epistemology - the ancients had no idea such a thing existed).PiCo (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we are both agreed that what is written about Exodus 3:14-15 in our cited source consists of opinions, and not facts. It can be so difficult sometimes to find common ground. Woscafrench (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's an opinion. A scholarly opinion, arrived at after examining what knowledge is available. Note what opinion it is: that Exodus 3:14 is a statement of theology based on the perceived similarity between Y-HWH and the Hebrew root HYH, since HWH doesn't exist in Hebrew. Parke-Taylor happens to fell that this is correct, that HWH is indeed a form of HYH, but that's not the point he makes. Nor is it the point our paragraph makes. Our paragraph makes this point: nobody knows for sure what YHWH means. If they did, there wouldn't be all these scholarly books and papers on the subject. From which it follows: so if Exodus 3:14 feels that it comes from HYH, so what? It's just an opinion on the part of the author of Exodus.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm restoring this material; it's worth addressing Exodus because a significant portion of readers are going to wander in, skim the etymology section, and think to themselves "but wait, doesn't it come from...." -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Vulcan redux

Maybe less fringe now? See [1]. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but still not widely accepted (according to the piece in Haaretz). PiCo (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very clearly biased against any and all deeply held religious beliefs and is instead motivated by radical atheism which fundamentally hates religion and seeks to discredit the Biblical accounts of God. Anaijmjssdzsihjjenemjppjtmlmj (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of this supposed bias, and how you would propose to address it. General Ization ^Talk 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUCK of banned user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Making it seem like somehow they were polytheistic when the Bible is pretty clear Yahweh is the only God of the world and there are no signs at all of any polytheism in the Bible. Typical atheist you are. Anaijmjssdzsihjjenemjppjtmlmj (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bible is not a reliable source, and its monotheism is a fabrication post-dating the fall of the Kingdom of Judah (586 BC). If you want truth, consult archaeologists and not theologians. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I took him to ANI where his response was stfu, which plus his comment on my 3rr warning, "I don't care shows him irredeemable. He got an indef block. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

His wish is to make this article theologically orthodox. That's like asking Rational Wiki to embrace creationism. Our WP:PAGs simply do not allow this article becoming theologically orthodox, not without completely denying what Wikipedia stands for. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If anything this article has a clear Abrahamic bias that seeks to separate the Jewish god from his Canaanite origins. If we free ourselves from a religious bias, it is very clear that YHWH and El are the same god, with El just being the pre-Abrahamic form. There is ZERO evidence for the idea that YHWH was a separate god that was given El's role and epithets. YHWH is more obviously just an alternative name that the Hebrews had for El, probably one created to give El (which does just mean god) an actual name... a mysterious name to emphasise that human beings cannot know the true nature of god. The idea that YHWH is anything other than a later form of El is laughable, ahistoric swill based on years of Judaeo-Christian exceptionalism! The truth is that Judaism is simply a monotheistic reinterpretation of the religion of all the Semitic peoples, as are Christianity and Islam (being offshoots of Judaism). - The Mummy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.27.73 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Judaism and Christianity have always traditionally seen El and Yahweh as the same deity; the names are sometimes used interchangeably in the Hebrew Bible. It is modern critical scholars who distinguish them as having originally been separate deities, based on the principles of higher criticism and archaeological evidence, such as the tablets from Ugarit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Kuntillet Ajrud and Bes

We might want to discuss this more and rephrase, but this isn't an editor's assumptions. See these sources.[2][3][4]. I'm sure there are many more. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My original intent wasn't even to change the Bes description, but to point out that the "two bulls" (from the description) are clearly a calf feeding from a cow; calves don't feed from bulls. This is completely self evident. NC360 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Israelite and Canaanite distinction

There is a sentence in this description that reads “Israelites were originally Canaanites...etc”

I will first list a source that disputes that claim, then describe logically rather than scientifically, why the claim that they are the same, is contentious

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites

To summarize, a genealogical study was done on five 3700 year old skeletons found in Canaanite city in the Levant and they traced the genetic marker they found in those skeletons to the people in modern day Lebanon NOT Israel

So, scientifically speaking, the sentence is false

Now, i can fully understand why people would presume that a biblical study would be irrelevant when discussing ancient history But in the instance, were talking not only about science, which i believe my source backs its own claim But etymology And the term “Canaanite” has a primarily biblical source, “It is by far the most frequently used ethnic term in the Bible” and thats a direct quote from the Canaan wiki page

So we have a term that is “by far the most used” ib the bible

So what does the bible say about Canaanites and Israelites In short it says they are different people groups seperated by 11 generations of genealogy

Canaan, and his descendants, were from the line of Ham, cursed by Noah Israel, or Jacob, is a descendant of Shem, Hams brother

So the source from which we derive the word “Canaanite” tells us the are different people groups

So what do the Canaanites say about Israelites ± Well the Canaanites are not famous for being historically present, so we dont have alot to work with What we do have is a biblical story describing Canaanites coining the term “Hebrew” And feom what we can tell, the term means “foreigner” or “nomad” or “wanderers”

So we not only have scientific genealogical studies tracing the Canaanite marker to an Arab people group, not Israeli’s But we have the main source of the very word “Canaanite” describing the difference from both Israeli and Canaanite perspectives

Now, understand some archeologists would contend that the sentence is accurate because of similar dig sites, they two groups lived in a similar manner, i would suggest the similarities are attributed to geographic and time period conditions, ie, the both lived in the Levant atvthe same time BCE, it would be like saying Italian and French people from the 1500’s were the same because they lived in similar dwellings, but we know that they are separate and distinct people groups

Now, maybe this isnt enough evidence to have the sentence taken out, but at the very least, the genealogical study should be enough for an edit clarifying that there are differing opinions on the connection of Canaanite and Israeli peoples in the ancient world, rather than a statement that so blatantly disregard the views of literally millions of people, including orthodox Israelis