|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.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|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 so long as the latter page exists.|
|Threads older than 1 months may be archived by.|
|It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.|
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.
Kuntillet Ajrud and Bes
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)
Ineed in the original in Hebrew is a calf. But this wjole page isba lie.
יהוה does not mean Yahweh, there is no W in there.
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
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:C401:BA88:E19C:9060:17AC:80EF (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your source states clearly "Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today." All the DNA is saying is agreeing that the Canaanites weren't destroyed. They lived all over that area - the Levant, as our article says particularly the "Southern Levant that provide the main setting of the narrative of the Bible: i.e., the area of Phoenicia, Philistia, Israel and other nations." They survived, they weren't wiped out. It doesn't support your claim as it doesn't present a different opinion. You've completely misunderstood it. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The whole page "Yahweh" is a lie, and it does not put emphasis on the fact by which ALL the "information" here is just a theory by people like Mark S. Smith based on the lie, or "misconception",
יהוה can be read Yahweh, it cannot. There is no W letter in there. I don't know, how to request to erase this Wikipedia page/value
The page does not put emphasis on the fact that Yahweh was the God of the Jews is just a theory by people like Mark S. Smith and that in fact, the name of God un Hebrew יהוה cannot be read Yahweh, as there is not w letter there. Ronmar24 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ronmar24: The name "Jehovah" is an incorrect older misreading of the name. It is an Anglicized form of a Latinized form of a Hellenized form of the original Hebrew name and, through its transmission from one language to another, it has become radically distorted. For one thing, the Hebrew letter י (yod) can never make the "J" sound; it did not make it in ancient Hebrew, nor does it ever make it in modern Hebrew. Instead, it always makes the "Y" sound. The reason it is written as a "J" in "Jehovah" is because, in Latin, the name was written "Iehovah." They did not have the letter "J" in Latin and the letter "I" could be used as a consonant to represent the "Y" sound, but, in English, the Latin consonantal "I" became transcribed as a "J," which eventually took on the sound we know it to make today, which is completely different from the original "Y" sound it was used to represent.
- Another point of confusion is that, in ancient Hebrew, the letter ו (waw or vav) actually did make the "W" sound, but, in modern Hebrew, it makes the "V" sound. The reason for this is language change, which is natural and common, but which can make it confusing for laypersons to understand how ancient languages are reconstructed. The same thing, incidentally, happened with the letter "V" in Latin. Latin originally did not have the letter "W" and the letter "V" made the sound that is now assigned to the letter "W," a fact which is supported by a vast array of linguistic evidence from Roman writings, inscriptions, and transliterations between languages. Because of this, "Iehovah" (the Latin transliteration of the Hebrew name on which the English transliteration of "Jehovah" is based) would have actually, originally been pronounced "Ye-ho-wah" in classical Latin, which is much closer to "Yahweh" than "Jehovah."
- Therefore, "Jehovah" in modern English has two consonants that we know are definitely wrong. We do not know what the vowels of the sacred name were, because the scribes who later invented vowel markers for Hebrew did not know how "YHWH" was originally pronounced and therefore did not assign vowel markers to it. (I doubt they would assigned them, even if they did know what they were, since it was considered blasphemous by that point to even think the holy name in one's head, so they probably would have thought it better if no one knew how it was pronounced.) There are actually many different Greek and Latin transliterations of the tetragrammaton and the vowels used in them often vary considerably, but they are probably our best clue to how the name was originally pronounced, meaning "Yahweh" or something similar is probably the closest we will ever come to an accurate reconstruction. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- In short, saying that Jehovah (and not Yahweh) was the God of the Jews is like saying that Jesus (and not Yeshua) is the God of the Christians -- it gets different pronunciations from different languages and periods of history for the same name confused for completely distinct figures. It's like saying that "aqua" is not "water." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yahweh, Marduk, and national gods
@WikiEditorial101: My explanation on your user talk page was not original research. Here in The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (a source which is already cited multiple times in this very article), for instance, Mark S. Smith directly compares Yahweh to Marduk on multiple separate occasions, for reasons similar to what I outlined on your talk page. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@WikiEditorial101: I have seen the citations Katolophyromai uses to justify a link. If you still object to keeping Marduk after having verified them, please cite references that contradict those. Another option to the link would be a sentence or two linking to it while explaining with sources why (the see also link would then be removed to avoid overlinking). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)