Talk:Yahweh/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Yahweh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Pronounciation

How common is it to pronounce "Jehova"(Ji Ho Va) as "Zjao ve"? Has that ever been considered? Also, I'm assuming it would be wrong to pronounce "YHWH" as "eww"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.187.55 (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"History of Yahweh-worship in ancient Israel and Judah" needs a rewrite

This section primarily reflects doctrine of Judaism and Christianity but fails to present scientifically secured actual history of Yahweh-worship. The first sentence is indicative of this: what is traditionally believed has no relevance in establishing history whatsoever. ≡ CUSH ≡ 09:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange website in external links section

Is this site in the external links section a reputable source of information? If not it should be removed. Lily20 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Text duplication

The section, Yahweh by historians duplicates almost word-for-word the last two paragraphs of the article's introduction (or vice-versa if you prefer). — Tonymec (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

article scope, cleanup

The article "Yahweh" as separate from both YHWH and God in Judaism should stick strictly to discussing the historical (Iron Age) deity. From the 3rd century BC "Yahwism" develops into Judaism proper, and the associated theology should be discussed at God in Judaism. The text keeps tiptoeing around the topic. Even the "early development" part, which discusses the Bronze Age, is apologetic towards Jewish tradition in every other sentence. It is impossible to discuss the topic in this weasly way. This is the "Yahweh" article, and it should focus on the early development during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Of course there should be a discussion of the Torah, and even of developments in later Judaism, but these need to be confined to their own sections, with pointers to the dedicated main articles. --dab (𒁳) 11:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article must be balanced according to the notability of the viewpoints without giving undue weight to either traditional religious or contemporary historical perspectives. What other deities from the ancient near east have comparable notability to Yahweh? Yahweh’s notability is as much or more attributable to the character by this name in the Bible and to the Jewish and Christian faiths than to modern historical views, as relative sales volumes of the books easily attest. Furthermore, recent changes state many things as undisputed facts, when they should be attributed to specific scholars (or in some cases groups or schools of thought). For example, there is no scholarly consensus that Asherah was Yahweh’s consort, which the main text points out. However, the lede, which should summarize the main text, distorts and grossly oversimplifies as if it is a matter of fact or scholarly consensus. There is scholarly consensus on very little related to the Biblical character known as Yahweh, and compared with the volume of Biblical texts, there are very few pre-biblical sources which unambiguously refer to the same deity. This article should give a balanced treatment of notable viewpoints, take care not to state “facts” without giving sources of the viewpoint (“according to . . .” and similar language), and keep the traditional perspectives on equal footing with modern historical theories.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"viewpoints" or neutrality are one thing, simple questions of article scope are another. We have plenty of articles on traditional religious perspectives, such as Jehovah, YHWH, God of Israel, etc., etc. It stands to reason that we should have one article about the Iron Age deity and its history.

To address possible confusions relating to article scope, we have a disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article. This is not the God of Israel topic, nor is it the Jahwist topic, nor is it the names of God in Judaism one.

Once we can agree that this is about the Late Bronze Age to first temple period deity, and not about later religious tradition, we can begin to address questions such as that of Asherah. It is my understanding that it is perfectly undisputed that Asherah was the consort of Jahweh. The Asherah pole may later have become some sort of "attribute" of Yahweh rather than being understood as a goddess in her own right, before it was finally removed from the temple in the 7th century.

As long as you keep insisting that this is about a "biblical character", we cannot even begin to discuss such questions. I don't see what any "traditional perspectives" have to contribute to this article. If you want to discuss Jewish perspectives, I strongly recommend you go to God of Israel as advised in the hatnote. If you want to discuss "traditional perspectives" on the Tetragrammaton, I recommend you go to the Tetragrammaton article. There is no need to duplicate these discussions here. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This article Yahweh should not be limited to a modern scholarly view of a short time period, and the information contained in the most notable texts is an essential part of a representative article. The discussion of this article in late 2009 yielded substantial agreement that the YHWH page would be about the translation of the tetragrammaton and that this page would be about the character Yahweh. It is appropriate to express notable specific viewpoints as long as reliable references are cited and attribution is included. However, it is by no means “perfectly undisputed,” as “dab” wrote, that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh; rather, it is well documented in the article that this is a disputed opinion and additional points of view are included. The lede should reflect this as well.

The WP:synthesis tag placed under the “Elohist view of Yahweh” section was wrongly added. Did “dab” look up all the references that were used to document the statements? Those sources DO say what was written in that section.

In other articles of notable characters, such as Othello (character), major literary works are used as sources and that character is described using information from those sources. This is appropriate because, even though Othello was a character in at least two works prior to Shakespeare’s play, he would not be notable apart from it. The reader of an encyclopedic article on a literary character expects the article to address the character’s identity, role and influence by discussing the most notable sources. Scholarly assertions included in this article should not be presented as fact or truth; each needs to be supported by reliable, verifiable sources and attributed in the text. Corinne68 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There was considerable discussion on article scope in the latter half of 2009, and many editors agreed that the YHWH article would treat the translation/pronounciation issues and that the scope of the Yahweh article would treat the character of the deity, including literary development, documentary hypothesis, historical background, etc. Would it be reasonable for the d’Artagnan article to focus more on the historical background which provided source material for than on the character development in the more notable literary work? As in the case of all literature, relevant background of a main character should be included in an article in proportion to its notability, but the main focus of an article whose subject is most notable as a literary character (and in this case the object of faith of major world religions) should be how that character is depicted in the most notable sources, rather than the historical “back story” which is less notable. Does the article on the deity that presided over the Greek pantheon focus on the “back story” or on the texts and modes of worship which have the most historical notability? Does the article on the best-known Babylonian goddess concentrate on the “back story” or on descriptions based on the most notable source texts? The most encyclopedic treatment of both deities and literary characters is to focus on their depiction in the most notable sources, not on scholarly discussion related to origins and “back story.” The article suggested by dab can exist, since it is notable and there are ample scholarly sources, but it should be called something along the lines of “Early history of Yahweh” or “Bronze age history of Yahweh” with a summary style section included here. The scope of an encyclopedia article on a deity should be even handed in its treatment of that deity giving appropriate weight to all historical periods where there are sufficient sources. It would be unencyclopedic to artificially constrain the scope of the main article on a deity (or other literary character) to the pre-literary history, when most of the notability is closely related to the literature.Michael Courtney (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but where is the article on the historical (Iron Age) deity if not here? If you want to make this an article about Judaism or the Hebrew Bible, perhaps we need to split this. Then there will be only, like, five separate articles about God in Judaism, leading to severe problems of WP:CFORK.

What do you mean "early history of Yahweh"? "Yahweh" ceased to be in 300 BC, as Judiasm developed, "Yahweh" was phased out. After 200 BC, there was only "YHWH" or "Adonai", i.e. Jewish monotheism, and the deity "Yahweh" was forgotten until reconstructed by 19th century philology. Of course the Hebrew Bible is a main source for Yahweh, but as a historical document, not as sacred scripture of Rabbinical Judaism. Any "viewpoints" this article needs to take into account are scholarly viewpoints on the Iron Age deity.

This article stands on equal footing with other articles on NW Semitic deities, see Baal, Hadad, Moloch, etc. Of course the fact that Judaism received the theonym and then made it taboo is notable, but it is so notable that it has its own articles at God in Judaism, YHWH, Jehovah, Jahwist etc., points that only need to be given the briefest summary here (WP:SS). By contrast, this is the main article for the NW Semitic deity.

I must also ask why you restored File:YHWH.png, which I removed on grounds of being a complete anachronism in violation of WP:SYNTH. The entire point is that there is no record of a vocalization "Yahweh" in Jewish tradition, this is a reconstruction of a theonym predating Judaism. Of course you can write "Yahweh" using Hebrew script and niqqud, but that isn't any more pertinent than writing "Yahweh" in Klingon script, as the niqqud were developed only centuries after the name "Yahweh" had been lost. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We can make some important inferences regarding the encyclopedia's expectations of this article from the other articles that link here. A quick counting of the first 100 articles from the main article space that link here, excluding simple redirects, shows the following: Bible articles = 53, Judaism articles = 5, Christianity articles = 4, Other religion articles = 17, General Theology/Religious Studies articles = 8, Psychology articles = 1, Mythology articles = 1, Philosophy articles = 2, Other History articles = 2, Other Literature articles = 2, Other = 5. Pre-Biblical Bronze Age Semitic Religion articles = 0. In fairness, about 8 of the “Other Religion” and “General Theology/Religious Studies” articles have significant content related to pre-Biblical Semitic Religion. However, this analysis makes it clear that there is a considerable encyclopedic expectation in articles that link to “Yahweh” that the main emphasis of this article is discussion of Yahweh as a Biblical figure. Michael Courtney (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to make major edits without editorial consensus. Recent edits have changed content that used well attributed language. For example, an earlier version of the lede was written as, “Some scholars, including William G. Dever, have asserted that the Asherah was worshipped as a consort of Yahweh, until the 6th century BCE, when strict monolatry of Yahweh became prevalent in the wake of the destruction of the temple (two sources cited). However, the consort hypothesis has been subject to debate with numerous scholars publishing disagreement (six sources cited).” This well attributed and well documented content was changed to “The consort of Yahweh was Asherah, until the 6th century BCE, when strict monolotry of Yahweh became prevalent in the wake of the destruction of the temple.” The single “reference” for this statement is not a source at all, but a parenthetical historical comment which itself is not documented.

Also, a recent edit added the text, “A later[citation needed] shortening of the name was Yahu YHW, preserved in epigraphy, in theophoric names such as Yesha'yahu "Yahu saved" or Yahu-haz "Yahu held", and in the early Jewish Elephantine papyri.” This statement asserts three things as fact without any attribution or sources: a common abbreviation of the name Yahweh as Yahu, equivalence of the names “Yahu” and “Yahweh,” as referring to the same deity, and examples of theophoric names along with definitions. Moreover, the picture of the Hebrew tetragrammaton was replaced with an image of the “YHD drachm.” The interpretation of the latter image as a depiction of “Yahweh” rests on both the equivalence of “Yahweh” and “Yahu” as well as one of two possible readings of the legend. This is no less speculative than the vowel points on the picture that was removed. The content in these recent edits uses unattributed language to try to make specific, debated scholarly opinions appear as the consensus view. This is in violation of WP: Attribution as well as WP:NPOV since documented additional points of view were removed in favor of a single point of view.Corinne68 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for all the heat over whether or not Asherah/asherah was or was not a goddess - there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, and both can be represented. (Incidentally, if Yahweh had no consort, he wouldn't be the only ANE god in that position - Ashur didn't have one either in his earliest manifestation). Ditto for the origin of Yah/Yahu. These things can be mentioned in the article without going into long arguments. PiCo (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Yahweh is a biblical term, the extrabiblical text should be almost marginal, rather than so prominent in the article. It actually is a distraction when reading the article. So many nonbiblical names are introduced in an article that wouldn't be encyclopedia-worthy were it not for its significance to the history and development of Judaism, and ultimately Christianity. It would seem far better to move the nonbiblical legends and opinions to their own section rather than the potpourri insert of things like the "Levant" have replaced "Historians of the ancient near east describe worship of Yahweh as originating in pre-Israelite peoples of the Levant rather than in a divine revelation to Moses." Where is the attribution? Claiming Asherah as the consort of Yahweh is so "far out" that I cannot find any evidence of anything close to scholarly consensus among secular historians of the ancient Near East. While some of these theories may be interesting, at best they are worthy of their own section regarding speculations from other sources. While a separate article would answer some of the objections I've raised, (a) there is not enough major, significant material for two articles (IMO); (b) I seriously doubt that a new one would get the readership that does this one; and (c) in scanning several other encyclopediae articles, the major focus is on reporting and sorting out what can be gleaned from the Bible itself. Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations used in the Introduction may be flawed

The introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh boldly states "The Bible describes Yahweh as the one true God who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments [citation needed].

The citation given for the above comment is 1.^ Exodus 20:1-3, New Jerusalem Bible. The underlying Hebrew for the New Jerusalem Bible is a BHS Text that has six different variants of the Tetragrammaton, none of which supports the translation "Yahweh".

This issue could be discussed openly on Wikinfo, which allows "personal research", however since Wikipedia does not allow "personal research" this issue can probably not be discussed effectively on Wikipedia.

Seeker02421 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have cut and pasted much of the text from section 2.2.5 [ i.e. The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D. ] as it is found in Tetragrammaton.

While the six variants of YHWH shown in the table are all found in the extant Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D., these same six variants of YHWH are also found in the BHS Hebrew Text that underlies the Old Testament of The New Jerusalem Bible.

To be redundant, I will repeat [in slightly different words] a comment that I made in my previous post in this section.

Not one of these six Hebrew variants of YHWH, that occurs in the specific BHS hebrew text that underlies the English Old Testament of "The New Jerusalem Bible" can be legitimately transliterated into English as "Yahweh"

This raises a very interesting question. Since there is no variant of YHWH found in the BHS text, that can be legitimately letter-by-letter translated into English as "Y-a-h-w-e-h", where is the Hebrew support for those 6823 occurances of "Yahweh" that can be clearly found in the English Old Testament of the "New Jerusalem Bible"

Six Hebrew spellings of the Tetragrammaton are found in:
The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D. as shown below [Note that all six of these Hebrew Spellings [ i.e. Hebrew variants] can be observed in the Online Leningrad Codex, by clicking on the corresponding Codex L. Link provided] ( Also note that the entries in the Close Transcription column are not intended to indicate how the name was intended to be pronounced by the Masoretes, but only how the word would be pronounced if read without q're perpetuum):

Chapter & Verse	Hebrew Spelling	Close transcription	Codex L. Link	Explanation
Genesis 3:14	יְהֹוָה	Yǝhōwāh	[1]	This is the most common set of vowels, which are essentially the vowels from Adonai (with the hataf patah reverting to its natural state as a shewa).
Judges 16:28	יְהוָה	Yǝhwāh	[2]	This is the same as above, but with the dot over the holam/waw left out, because it is a little redundant.
Judges 16:28	יֱהֹוִה	Yĕhōwih	[3]	When the Tetragrammaton is preceded by Adonai, it receives the vowels from the name Elohim instead. The hataf segol does not revert to a shewa because doing so could lead to confusion with the vowels in Adonai.
Genesis 15:2	יֱהוִה	Yĕhwih	[4]	Just as above, this uses the vowels from Elohim, but like the second version, the dot over the holam/waw is omitted as redundant.
1 Kings 2:26	יְהֹוִה	Yǝhōwih	[5]	Here, the dot over the holam/waw is present, but the hataf segol does get reverted to a shewa.
Ezekiel 24:24	יְהוִה	Yǝhwih	[6]	Here, the dot over the holam/waw is omitted, and the hataf segol gets reverted to a shewa.

FWIW

Seeker02421 (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What extant hebrew source preserves God's name as "Yahweh"?

The Wikipedia article: "Yahweh" ia a rather unusual article, in that it claims to discuss some God whose name is "Yahweh", yet it absolutely refuses to provide any Hebrew evidence that God's name actually is "Yahweh".

Of course this article sites several English Bibles in which the English Spelling "Yahweh" can be found to occur up to 6823 times, but when the underlying Hebrew of these Bibles is examined, it is quickly discovered that the underlying Hebrew does not support the name "Yahweh".

Of course it is a well known fact that the Hebrew Scholar Gesenius proposed the Hebrew Punctuation יַהְוֶה‎ in the 19th century, and it can be clearly shown that יַהְוֶה‎ can be letter by letter transliterated into English as "Y-a-h-w-e-h"., but there seems to be a solid concensus among those who post on this article, that this article should not discuss the actual source of the English name "Yahweh".

Something doesn't seem right that discussing the actual 19th century source of the English name "Yahweh" is strongly discouraged on this site.

FWIW

Seeker02421 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times now, and you know it. You can drag out your little game about Jewish rules on punctuation and vocalization of the Tetragrammaton all you want in the article about the Tetragrammaton. It really has no relevance in the article about the Levantine deity as such. If YHWH had been changed to Henry for usage in English you would not be asking questions about Hebrew sources either. Hebrew sources are dubious at best anyways. The subject matter of this article is the persona of the deity that in modern parlance is referred to as Yahweh by the majority of English-speakers (and by users of other languages as well, such as German, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Russian, French, and whatnot). Meaning the deity that is described at length in the Bible, but also in pre-biblical sources. It does not even really matter whether the deity is referred to by the same name. ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

Can we please have the "Early history of Yahweh-worship" section before all the biblical stuff sections, so that we can sort out the origins from the later (ab)use? Let's not forget that we are writing an article about Yah(weh), and not only about the biblical deity. So the article should at least try to follow some chronological order of the forms of worship: with Jewish, Christian, and Muslim worship after earlier forms of worship. Preferably distinct from worship of El / Elohim. ≡ CUSH ≡ 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

An alternative view is that we should put fact before speculation: so keep the article as it is, with what is definitely said in the scriptures before scholarly views on the underlying religion-historical background. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, when you say fact you mean doctrine? Of course we know what current doctrines of the various Abrahamic religions hold, but is that not also speculative in the interpretation of the biblical texts? Should we not present the worship from an outside view and compare it to forms of worship throughout history? E.g. the shift towards monotheism becomes a lot clearer when earlier theologies involving Yah(weh) are presented. Although it is mentioned in the lead section it should be elaborated on early in the article instead of at the end of the article body. Just a suggestion. ≡ CUSH ≡ 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think an article should build from the more familiar to the less familiar. You're right, a review of what the Bible has to say is not just going to be a factual account of the text. It's inevitably going to be somewhat coloured by views as to what aspects are the more important and worth giving the most weight to. But I don't think that's enough to write the whole effort off as doctrine. On the other hand, I do think it helps people to review first what may be more familiar, that they can look up in the relevant chapters and verses, before widening the discussion to consider the somewhat wider, and inevitably more conjectural question of what is not in the Bible.

I did previously argue for the other way round (see comparison with King Arthur above), but I've come round to the view that the development pretty much in the order we have it at the moment does I think work, and so I think is something worth keeping with. Jheald (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi CUSH. You wrote: Let's not forget that we are writing an article about Yah(weh), and not only about the biblical deity.

Let me see now, early in the article you quote from the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible, apparently because it was important for this article to claim to be an article about the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

That sounds like this article is most definitely claiming that "Yahweh" is not just any God, rather this article is claiming that the Yahweh which is being discussed in this article, is none other than the God of the Jewish people, who however DO NOT RECOGNIZE THEIR GOD BY THE NAME "YAHWEH".

One poster quotes: "Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one: and you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Cush, am I mistaken or is that another obvious attempt to try to convince the reader that this article is discussing first and foremost the God of Israel. It almost sounds like this article is trying to discuss the biblical diety worshipped by Israel. while being absolutely sure that the reader is not informed that the Jews in Israel do not accept the name "Yahweh".

Why not explain to the reader that the Jewish people [with rare exceptions], to not honor their God by the name "Yahweh"

Cush, Just some food for thought!

Seeker02421 (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again CUSH, you had previously written:

This has been discussed a million times now, and you know it. You can drag out your little game about Jewish rules on punctuation and vocalization of the Tetragrammaton all you want in the article about the Tetragrammaton. It really has no relevance in the article about the Levantine deity as such. If YHWH had been changed to Henry for usage in English you would not be asking questions about Hebrew sources either.

Hebrew sources are dubious at best anyways.

CUSH. At this particular moment, it is at least possible that "Yahweh" is not derived from any Hebrew text. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be basing their belief that God's name is "Yahweh" on the Greek transcriptions "IaBe" or "Iaouai"

And of course Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation of YHWH is also based on "IaBe" but at least [at this moment] this article has that possibiity covered in the Introduction.

I would like to add the Roman Catholic Information, to the main article, but it is copy righted, and I am not sure that "Wikipedia" would allow that information to be posted in the main article.

Seeker02421 (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia naming conventions, it does't matter whether "Yahweh" is an accurate English rendering of the underlying Hebrew, since Yahweh is a common English form of the name. Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name. It has also been long decided that the "Yahweh" article will treat the character/diety by that (English) name and the Tetragrammaton article will treat translation issues. Bringing an extensive discussion to the lede of the Yahweh article is inappropriate, though it can (and perhaps should) be mentioned briefly that "Yahweh" is simply a common English rendering/translation of the name and might not be an accurate vocalization.

Regarding article structure, notability, common usage, and encyclopedic expectations (links here) all suggest it is more appropriate to keep the literary treatment before the historical background.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) states:

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 notable controversies."

I have added an edit to the main Article which I hope meets Wikipedia requirements for explaining notable controversies, such as the controversy concerning the name "Yahweh', in the first few sentences of the Article.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added an edit to "Wikipedia:Yahweh"

There are no "notable controversies" here. You only don't like that you don't get to change the subject matter of this article, that's all.

Yahweh is the name used in English for a certain Levantine deity that today happens to be the subject of several religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as their offshoots. It is completely IRRELEVANT how this name came to its usage or from what it is derived actually or supposedly. Live with it. ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs work. Especially, the list-like discussion of mentions in the Torah must be worked over. I am prepared to invest work in fixing this article, but it will be very difficult to make progress if people just stubbornly revert to back to the completely broken stage.

Yahweh was an Iron age Semitic deity. In origin he was probably identical with Hadad. Yes, his name came to be the proper name of the God of Israel, and this is very notable indeed, but this is not the God of Israel article. People wishing to discuss the God of Israel and the Hebrew Bible should edit articles that are actually pertinent to that topic. Of course the Hebrew Bible is an important source for reconstructing the cult of Yahweh, but this does not make this a topic about the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible is just an important primary source. What this article needs to do is citing academic secondary sources that make use of the text of the Hebrew Bible to reconstruct aspects of this deity. This is NOT a place to indulge in discussions of the primary source directly, or to go off on tangents about Judaism or monotheism.

Everyone who is able to contribute competently to this topic is very welcome indeed in helping to build the article. But it is not helpful to make this a WP:BATTLEGROUND about your monotheist beliefs just because of the later history of the name "YHWH". Please either stick to discussing the Iron Age or else choose some different article to contribute to. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed above in some detail, and you failed to generate consensus for your major changes to the article's scope. You also missed the point that the majority of Wikilinks to this article expect considerable discussion here of the Biblical character. There is not that much overlap with the God in Judaism article, since this article focuses on the literary character with little explicit discussion of how God is worshipped or understood in Judaism after completion of the Bible. There is only a very brief treatment at the end on contemporary worship of a deity by this name, and even less of historical Judaism.

Some of the relevant comments to retain significant Biblical focus are:

Seeker, the text that was moved to Tetragrammaton was moved because it belonged there, not here. As the lead to this article makes clear, Yahweh is the general scholarly term for the deity described as YHWH in the Hebrew bible. That's what this article is about. Leave the vowel-pointing of YHWH to the other article.PiCo (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this article should also describe the pre-Herbrew Yahweh, as well as the characteristics of Yahweh as he appears in the J source of the Torah. Leadwind (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

An alternative view is that we should put fact before speculation: so keep the article as it is, with what is definitely said in the scriptures before scholarly views on the underlying religion-historical background. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

did previously argue for the other way round (see comparison with King Arthur above), but I've come round to the view that the development pretty much in the order we have it at the moment does I think work, and so I think is something worth keeping with. Jheald (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Yahweh is a biblical term, the extrabiblical text should be almost marginal, rather than so prominent in the article. It actually is a distraction when reading the article. So many nonbiblical names are introduced in an article that wouldn't be encyclopedia-worthy were it not for its significance to the history and development of Judaism, and ultimately Christianity. It would seem far better to move the nonbiblical legends and opinions to their own section rather than the potpourri insert of things like the "Levant" have replaced "Historians of the ancient near east describe worship of Yahweh as originating in pre-Israelite peoples of the Levant rather than in a divine revelation to Moses." Where is the attribution? Claiming Asherah as the consort of Yahweh is so "far out" that I cannot find any evidence of anything close to scholarly consensus among secular historians of the ancient Near East. While some of these theories may be interesting, at best they are worthy of their own section regarding speculations from other sources. While a separate article would answer some of the objections I've raised, (a) there is not enough major, significant material for two articles (IMO); (b) I seriously doubt that a new one would get the readership that does this one; and (c) in scanning several other encyclopediae articles, the major focus is on reporting and sorting out what can be gleaned from the Bible itself. Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AFA Prof01 that Yahweh is most notable because of the Bible. In the page on Odysseus, the character’s role in Homer’s works is emphasized and summarized. In the page on Hamlet, the focus is the character’s role in Shakespeare’s play, which is why Hamlet is notable today. The Hamlet article also includes content describing that Hamlet-like legends are widely found, and that a popular theory is that Shakespeare’s source was an earlier (but lost) play. These views are attributed and sourced, appropriately brief and placed lower in the article. Also, what other literary article includes as much support from secondary sources as the material currently presented in the Yahweh article? It would be a big step backward to lose this level of scholarship in favor of a theological discussion of unknown quality. As in other articles on literary characters, it is appropriate that the prominent role and actions of Yahweh in literary texts are summarized early in the article. The links to the Yahweh page that were recently summarized make a clear case that this is the kind of content Wikipedia editors expect when they link to this page. Current content is brief considering the quantity of the literary sources, and use of the sources to develop the character are in line with the development of Elijah and David, for examples, on their respective pages. The Documentary Hypothesis (DH) meets the criterion of reliably sourced notability and has been influential among biblical scholars. The material on the DH was added after editorial support was expressed on the discussion page (Dec ’09 – Jan ’10). This article could be improved, especially in a more consolidated treatment of extrabiblical information about Yahweh as suggested by AFA Prof01. It does not need a major reorganization.Corinne68 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article must be balanced according to the notability of the viewpoints without giving undue weight to either traditional religious or contemporary historical perspectives. What other deities from the ancient near east have comparable notability to Yahweh? Yahweh’s notability is as much or more attributable to the character by this name in the Bible and to the Jewish and Christian faiths than to modern historical views, as relative sales volumes of the books easily attest. Furthermore, recent changes state many things as undisputed facts, when they should be attributed to specific scholars (or in some cases groups or schools of thought). For example, there is no scholarly consensus that Asherah was Yahweh’s consort, which the main text points out. However, the lede, which should summarize the main text, distorts and grossly oversimplifies as if it is a matter of fact or scholarly consensus. There is scholarly consensus on very little related to the Biblical character known as Yahweh, and compared with the volume of Biblical texts, there are very few pre-biblical sources which unambiguously refer to the same deity. This article should give a balanced treatment of notable viewpoints, take care not to state “facts” without giving sources of the viewpoint (“according to . . .” and similar language), and keep the traditional perspectives on equal footing with modern historical theories.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This article Yahweh should not be limited to a modern scholarly view of a short time period, and the information contained in the most notable texts is an essential part of a representative article. The discussion of this article in late 2009 yielded substantial agreement that the YHWH page would be about the translation of the tetragrammaton and that this page would be about the character Yahweh. It is appropriate to express notable specific viewpoints as long as reliable references are cited and attribution is included. However, it is by no means “perfectly undisputed,” as “dab” wrote, that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh; rather, it is well documented in the article that this is a disputed opinion and additional points of view are included. The lede should reflect this as well. The WP:synthesis tag placed under the “Elohist view of Yahweh” section was wrongly added. Did “dab” look up all the references that were used to document the statements? Those sources DO say what was written in that section.
In other articles of notable characters, such as Othello (character), major literary works are used as sources and that character is described using information from those sources. This is appropriate because, even though Othello was a character in at least two works prior to Shakespeare’s play, he would not be notable apart from it. The reader of an encyclopedic article on a literary character expects the article to address the character’s identity, role and influence by discussing the most notable sources. Scholarly assertions included in this article should not be presented as fact or truth; each needs to be supported by reliable, verifiable sources and attributed in the text. Corinne68 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We can make some important inferences regarding the encyclopedia's expectations of this article from the other articles that link here. A quick counting of the first 100 articles from the main article space that link here, excluding simple redirects, shows the following: Bible articles:53, Judaism articles:5, Christianity articles:4, Other religion articles:17, General Theology/Religious Studies articles:8, Psychology articles:1, Mythology articles:1, Philosophy articles:2, Other History articles:2, Other Literature articles:2, Other: 5. Pre-Biblical Bronze Age Semitic Religion articles:0. In fairness, about 8 of the “Other Religion” and “General Theology/Religious Studies” articles have significant content related to pre-Biblical Semitic Religion. However, this analysis makes it clear that there is a considerable encyclopedic expectation in articles that link to “Yahweh” that the main emphasis of this article is discussion of Yahweh as a Biblical figure. Michael Courtney (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of your OR has also been previously discussed, esp. in regards to the picture, but your lede has many other uncited and unattributed assertions as well. In contrast, the lede you deleted is well cited and well attributed, including reliable, scholarly secondary sources every time a primary source is cited. The fact that you repeatedly reinsert material regarding the female consort as if it is a conclusion of scholarly consensus suggests that you have not even bothered to carefully read the entire article, or even check the citations in the lede that you have removed.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus supporting the change of the lede from well-supported material to uncited statements that leave out previously documented and notable points of view. The entry for Yahweh in most print encyclopedias focuses on the biblical development of the character with very minor (if any) discussion of the “backstory.” It has been made clear on this discussion page that this is what other editors of Wikipedia expect as well when they link to this page. Corinne68 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the first sentence of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh actually true?

The first sentence of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh presently reads:

"Yahweh is the name of a god in ancient Semitic religion,

and notably the personal name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible."

Is the first sentence actually true?

OR

Does the first sentence merely consist of two controversies in conflict with each other, with the controversy about whether "Yahweh" m-i-g-h-t be the actual name of the God of Israel being more notable to the average reader?

Seeker02421 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see a conflict between the two statements. Nor do I see any case for a "controversy" here. Can you elaborate? Are you implying an uncertainty in the reconstruction of the vocalization? Or are you disputing that the name is the proper name of God in Judaism? Are you aware of the Names of God in Judaism and the YHWH articles? --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

@Seeker02421: Stop opening thread after thread over the same topic. And yes, the sentence you quote is actually true. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

dbachman writes:

I fail to see a conflict between the two statements.

Nor do I see any case for a "controversy" here. Can you elaborate?

dbachman: How many Gods with the name "Yahweh"is this particular Article attempting to discuss?

Is this article just trying to discuss the God of Israel?

Or is this article trying to discuss some other God,

who is most definitely NOT "the God of Israel,

while merely noting that there is a notable controversy concerning

the God of Israel.

Seeker02421 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Israelites adopted Yah(weh) worship from other peoples and later Jews changed it from monotheism to henotheism and finally to the pseudo-monotheism of modern abrahamic religions. This article is about Yah(weh) in all contexts, not just as the "God of Israel". What is your problem with that? That it indicates that "God of Israel" is just as any other old deity? Or that the bible is not the only and not an accurate source? ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cush,

You wrote:

>>>

This article is about Yah(weh) in all contexts,

not just as the "God of Israel".

What is your problem with that?

>>>

What bothers me CUSH is that Wikipedia recognizes that:

"There is a notable controversy concerning the correct pronunciation

and most appropriate English spelling of the name."

Yet Copyright Rules, as well as various Wikipedia Rules,

do not allow this "Notable Controversy" about the name "Yahweh"

to be written about in a 100% honest manner.

I guess that I have to stop posting on this article,

because various rules prevent me from writing about the name "Yahweh:"

in a 100% honest manner.

Seeker02421 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's possible that since no Hebrew Manuscript exists that preserves the name of the God of Israel as being "Yahweh", that this WIkipedia Article:Yahweh is just pure and simply in error when it tries to make the case that God's name is "Yahweh".

It is at least possible that the reason that "the Notable Controversy about the name "Yahweh" exists is pure and simply that the name of the God of Israel is not "Yahweh"!

Seeker02421 (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

English-speakers use "Yahweh" for the deity of Israel. That's completely sufficient. What exactly is your point? Names are determined by usage: they are references and not inherent properties. And whether or not Israelites actually used "Yahweh" or any other close vocalization is utterly irrelevant. "Yahweh" refers to the deity of Israel, of Judaism, of Christianity, or Islam, and of their many offshoots. It also refers to pre-Israelite versions of the deity. A deity is an abstract concept, not a real thing, and it is of no importance by what name the deity is referred to when the target of the reference is known. If I write a book today and use "George" to refer said deity then "George" is a name of the deity.

"Yahweh" is unambiguous in the target it refers to. And it does refer to only one deity and not to a variety of deities, although some fundamentalist religionists try to imply the latter because they want some kind of exclusivity for the name of the god in their own religion and they try to demonstrate that differences in the vocalization would hint at differing deities. But that is just an indication that these people have no understanding how usage of language works.

As I had said before, you can discuss usage of "Yahweh" and whether the modern vocalization is any good all you want in the Tetragrammaton article, but not in the article about the deity. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Section "In the Hebrew Bible"

This section seems very strange to me - I can't understand why it picks the incidents that it includes, and leaves others out. For the subsection "In the Torah" is deals with the burning bush - but nothing to say that Yahweh Elohim is responsible for creating the world (Genesis 2), or that he intervened with Abraham over the sacrifice of Isaac, or that he was involved in the Exodus - why? Same for all the others. What's going on? PiCo (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not every act of the main character can be included. The article seems to be including instances of particular notability and in most cases does a good job citing secondary sources. Is the intervention wrt Isaac as notable as the account of the bush as a source for understanding Yahweh's character? Certainly, if an editor thinks other events are sufficiently notable, these can be included if verifiable secondary sources are cited that support notability and usage. Genesis 2 is mentioned in the "Jawist" sub-section of the "Documentary Hypothesis" section. Yahweh's role in the Exodus is discussed as part of the "In the Hebrew Bible" section ("Torah" sub-section).Michael Courtney (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. You asked "What's going on in the first section of this Article..

What a great question for you to ask!!!!!!

In my opinion, the editors of this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh have chosen not to discuss the "Notable Controversies" concerning "Yahweh" in the Introduction of this Article and in the first section of this article, as recommended in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Lead Section)

In my opinion, if some Wikipedia Editors could be influenced to agree with the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Lead Section)" concerning using the first section of this article to continue discussing "The Notable Controversies about "Yahweh", you would not be asking the question that you raised: [e.g.] What's going on?

In my opinion this article is not doing what Wikipedia recommends that it do. To be reunndant, this Wikipedia Articvle:Yahweh article is not starting out by seriously d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-n-g "any notable conntroversies that exist: concerning "Yahweh". Wikipedia seems to have realized that the Introduction of some Wikipedia Articles might not be large enough to contain all the discussions that could exist concerning certain notable controversies, and appeared to recommended that the first section of the contents of this article could then be used for the editors to continue to discuss "Notable Controversies about "Yahweh". Seeker02421 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The "controversy" only consists of your dislike of one aspect that is not even relevant to this article. Please stop your annoying disruptive editing. This is not a one-man-show. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you offered verifiable sources establishing this notable controversy, or only your own original research? I've found sources for a lack of consensus, but it might be an exaggeration to represent a lack of consensus as a "notable controversy." Furthermore, you have exaggerated Wikipedia lede policy to assert that notable controversies should be discussed in detail in the lede, the Wikipedia policy is only that they should be summarized, and this one is, even though sources are lacking. Finally, you are apparently the lone voice trying to move the scope of this article back toward translation/vocalization issues when there is considerable editorial consensus for those issues to be treated in the YHWH/Tetragrammaton article.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael Courtney, I'm still puzzled why some things are in and others not - the burning bush, for example, is Yahweh's revelation of his name to Moses, but but he reveals his name again to Moses a bit later (Exodus 6 I think), and then way back in Genesis we have Eve already kinowing his name anyway. Not that I'd want to get into that, but I'm just saying that the selection seems arbitrary. As for the Sacrifice of Isaac, it's pretty important because it establishes Yahweh's mercy - although if you want there's also the beautiful conclusion to the Flood story where Yahweh vows never again to destroy all life. I'm just saying that with so much to choose from, it's not clear why these particular episodes, worthy as they are, are in and others are not. Seeker02421, we've been through all this: the article Tetragrammaton is the proper place to talk about the pronunciation of the name, this article already has a brief mention and that's enough.

Hi PiCo While you didn't sign your post, I assume that it is you that wrote:

>>>

Seeker02421, we've been through all this: the article Tetragrammaton is the proper place to talk about the pronunciation of the name, this article already has a brief mention and that's enough.

>>>

PiCo, May I assume that you will not have a problem if I support the God of Israel, throughout this Article, by the name "Yahweh". After all that is a large reason why the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh exists at this time. If you and CUSH insist that there is no notable Controversy concermning the name "Yahweh" I hope that you and I and CUSH can stand together in this Article in our common belief that the Name of The God Of Israel, has been settled once and for all, IT IS "Yahweh"!!!

And of course that also indicates that the name of the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, not only was called "YAHWEH" in the Old Testament but that "Yahweh" will be His name forever. Refer to Exodus 3:15.

PiCo, Please feel free to remove the comment which presently exists in the Introduction. If you and other members of Wikipedia, are absolutely certain there is no "Notable Controversy" about the legitimacy of calling the God of Israel by the name "Yahweh", it probably doesn't belong there.

We of course would know for a fact that "Yahweh" is (and always has been) the name of the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, if there is no notable controversy about the name "Yahweh".

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what your point really is. I repeat myself: Yahweh is the name of a Levantine deity that happens to be the subject of a literary work today called Tanakh or Bible. It is the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and a bunch of other biblical characters (please note that those are with de-facto-certainty not actual historical persons). It is of no relevance whatsoever if these folks (if they existed) really pronounced the name as we do today. It is just like discussing whether to refer to Thoth as Theut or Thoout or Thoot or Djehuty or whatnot. It is just utterly immaterial to the subject matter.

Oh, and please stop messing up the indentation of responses in this talk page. You are destroying legibility. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again CUSH. You wrote:

>>>

I repeat myself: Yahweh is the name of a Levantine deity that happens to be the subject of a literary work today called Tanakh or Bible. It is the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and a bunch of other biblical characters (please note that those are with de-facto-certainty not actual historical persons). It is of no relevance whatsoever if these folks (if they existed) really pronounced the name as we do today.

>>>

I assume that you recognize that there are millions of Jewish people and millions of English speaking Christians who immediately think of "The God of Israel" when they read the words at the beginning of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh as shown below:

"This article is about the character and history of the Hebrew deity, whose name is often transliterated as Yahweh, as depicted in the primary literary and other sources."

Cush, Are you deliberately trying to deceive people who would like to discuss the God of Israel, that Hebrew Diety whose name is "Yahweh".

Are you actually going to allow Wikipedia Editors to discuss this Hebrew Diety, the God of Israel, or are you restricting this Wikipedia Article to some other Hebrew Diety.

Have you thought about starting a completely new Wikipedia Article, which discusses only some Levantine deity that you actually want to discuss.

It seems it would be much better for all involved if you started your own article, and left the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh to deal with that Hebrew Diety called: The God of Israel.

Just My Thoughts

If you don't think much of my idea, would you please rewrite the Introduction of this article, in such a way that any person who wants to discuss "The God Of Israel" will realize immediately that they are not welcome, unless by some chance you do want Jewish persons and English persons who believe that the God of Israel is named "Yahweh" to be able to post their views about "Yahweh" on a Wikipedia Article:Yahweh?

Seeker02421 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What?? Can you re-write that in English?

Yah(weh) is a Levantine deity that was not only worshiped by Hebrews and Israelites (even according to the bible) but by numerous other peoples as well. The fact that Jews much later assembled a book about that deity and give it some kind of special emphasis does not somehow make it distinct from its former forms of worship.

≡ CUSH ≡ 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Cush. When this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh is finally completed, or at least when the Introduction is written the way you want it to be, may those who choose to post on this article be able to quote freely from English Bibles that use "Yahweh" in their English Text, in order to explain the documented activities of the Hebrew deity, who is referred to as the God of Israel, and whose proper name is "Yahweh"? Aaccording to the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon of 1905: יַהְוֶה‎ n.pr.dei Yahweh, is the proper name of the God of Israel. Seeker02421 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you indent your remarks like everybody else?

And what the heck is the point you are trying to make??? "Yahweh is the proper name of the God of Israel" does not preclude that Yah(weh) is also the god of numerous others. Also, "Israel" is an extremely vague designation. Although "God of Israel" is a term that religionists like to throw around, it has no historical meaning at all.

And there is no punctuation on the ancient tetragrammaton. ≡ CUSH ≡ 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First para of lead

The first para of the lead is a monster. It's got lots of sources, but while having sources is a Good Thing, it's not necessarily enough.

Here's the para:

Yahweh (yä`wĕ) was the personal name of the God of the Israelites. Though God has many names in the Bible, Yahweh is the one name that is uniquely his own.[1] According to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the name was revealed to Moses as the four Hebrew consonants (YHWH). Ancient Hebrew scribes wrote only consonants and no vowels. It is called the tetragrammaton[2] meaning "the four-letter word."[3] In Exodus 3:15, God told Moses to tell the Israelites:

"Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob has sent me to you. This is my name for all time, and thus I am to be invoked for all generations to come."

The form Yahweh is a modern scholarly convention for the Hebrew יהוה, YHWH. There is a notable controversy concerning the correct pronunciation and most appropriate English spelling of the name. It was pronounced something like 'Yahweh' in early Christian times.[1] The most likely meaning of the name may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists," but there are many theories and none is regarded as conclusive.[4] The Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh after the Exile (6th century BC), and most especially from the 3rd century BC on.[5] They generally regarded God's name as too holy to be spoken, and substituted the title 'the Lord', which is also the common term for God in the New Testament.[1]

It needs to be made concise, needs to just get the essential info across. Would anyone care to try? PiCo (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo.

You said

"It needs to be made made concise, needs to just get the essential info across. Would anyone care to try?"

How about

In the 19th century a notable controversy was reaching its peak, among Hebrew Scholars, as to whether or not God's name was actually Jehovah. A consensus was building among Hebrew scholars that Jehovah was not actually God's name. One of these scholars, who was named Gesenius thought that the Greek Transcriptions "Iaoue" or "IaBe" might accurately represent the actual original pronunciation of God's name.

Gesenius decided that he would convert "Iaoue" and or "Iabe" into a vocalized Hebrew name. Gesenius ended up creating the vocalized Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה‎

It appears as if a concensus must have existed at the end of the 19th century that Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה‎ m-i-g-h-t be accurate.

Thus in 1905 the editors of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon

wrote יַהְוֶה‎

" n.pr.dei Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel."

Since 1905 more and more Hebrew scholars have had a chance to look closer at Gesenius's "proposed Hebrew ounctuation, and appear to have had second thoughts about the accuracy of יַהְוֶה‎

n.pr.dei Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel."

In 2010 the expression "a notable controversy" is said to exist concerning the guess-name that Gesenius created in the early 1900's.

Of course "Yahweh" may turn out to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name, but in the meantime it is awful difficult to write a "CONCISE" article about a "quess name", proposed by Gesenius in about 1815 A.D.

If you ever notice a weasel word being used in the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, there is probably a good reason for it being used.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is no article about a "quess name", because it is no article about a name in the first place. It is an article about a deity. Please take all your arguments to the Tetragrammaton article. I think it is time to open an ANI thread about your persistent pushing of a single issue that is irrelevant to the article's subject matter. ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cush

You wrote:

This is no article about a "quess name", because it is no article about a name in the first place. It is an article about a deity.

Cush: I seem to be confused about the first sentence in this article:

It says:

Yahweh (yä`wĕ) was the personal name of the God of the Israelites. Though God has many names in the Bible, Yahweh is the one name that is uniquely his own.[1]

That one sentence refers to a specific name (e.g Yahweh) three times. What is going on here?

If this article is not about a specific Hebrew Diety [e.g. The God of the Israelites] that has the rather well known name "Yahweh" why does this article continually remind us that you are discussing a Hebrew Diety who is the God of the Israelites and has a special name "Yahweh"

Again I asak you why don't you consider starting a new Wikipedia Article which discusses some no-name Hebrew Diety, and leave this article to discuss a very specific Hebrew Diety, the God of Israel, whose name is thought to be "Yahweh"?.

Wouldn't that eliminate the huge problem you s-e-e-m to have with the name of "Yahweh"?

Seeker02421 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So Seeker is suggesting that we clarify the first sentence in the lead by removing the reference to Yahweh as name. His suggested sentence reads: "Yahweh was the personal God of the Israelites." The second sentence would also be deleted. I think that's a good suggestion. Cush? PiCo (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. Thank you for your willingness to co-operate.

Will you and CUSH BOTH Please create a new Wikipedia Article that is not concerned in any way with the name "Yahweh", so that this Wikipedia Article"Yahweh may once again be edited as it was intended to be edited years ago,

when it was started to discuss "Yahweh", the God of Israel.

To be redundant. After you create a new Wikipedia Article that covers your particular interest, this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh may once again be edited to discuss "Yahweh", The God of Israel, while you BOTH will have a new Wikipedia Article to edit just as you please.

Thank you BOTH in advance for your willingness to start a specific Wikipedia Article, concerning a specific topic {NOT YAHWEH} that you BOTH have a special interest in editing.

Seeker02421 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So you want an article just about the name? I think the one you're looking for is YHWH, since Yahweh is just a proposed addition of vowels to those four consonants. An additional section, of course, not the whole article. And this article can be about the god, rather than the vowels. Frankly, I don't think most people much care how YHWH was pronounced - but they do care what this god was like. PiCo (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

@PiCo: Yahweh was the personal God of the Israelites." is simply not accurate. Yahweh *is* the personal God of Jews, Christians, Muslims and numerous others even today. However, the actual belief of Israelites was somewhat different, as there was no mono- or even henotheism prior to the 6th century BCE, which is the period when Israelites ceased to exist and their "role" was taken over later by Jews. Yahweh-worship did *not* happen as the bible describes it, because in the periods of such characters as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon (even though these never existed) Hebrews and later Israelites were all polytheists. And what does "personal" god really mean? All deities worshiped in the ANE are personal gods. I don't see how this characterization holds any information value. This whole article is a mess, because some editors with no understanding of Levantine history take the Bible at face value. We can see that by the many Bible references in the article, as if those would produce any accuracy. ≡ CUSH ≡ 07:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So suggest a revision (the the intro para I mean). PiCo (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid, as long as Seeker keeps pushing his issue with the "God of Israel" and its name, any revision will be short-lived... ≡ CUSH ≡ 09:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I cut back the lead a little in line with the suggestion that Seeker never made; the idea is to define the topic as the god Yahweh, not the word itself. Like you, I am not optimistic about the prospects, but we can try. PiCo (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Which specific Hebrew deity YHWH, [ worshipped in Judaism and Christianity ] is this article proposing to discuss?

Could somebody provide evidence of which Hebrew Deity YHWH,[ who is worshipped in Judaism and Christianity ] is this article proposing to discuss.

Oh yes. this diety's name MUST be Yahweh to meet all of the requirements listed in the Introduction!

Seeker02421 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Abrahamic religions all worship the same deity. The deity is a conflation of a number of older deities (cf. Yah(weh), El, Elohim, etc). But when the other religions split off from Judaism the deity was already streamlined. Said deity is the subject of this article, which is why we do not narrow the article to the Hebrew biblical deity but also include pre-Jew-ish and non-Jewish worship as well as modern worship. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cush, your claim about Islam is very highly debated, and you cite no source, much less a very reliable one. (I cannot find such a source.) Re: Abrahamic religions, we have all kinds of alleged offshoots now trying to claim that they are Abrahamic. I am unable to find any encyclopedia, either secular or religious, that backs up your claim. They uniformly limit Yahweh to Hebrew and Christian.

This is a further problem with saying it's about the God and not the name. What about the other names of what the Bible calls "the one true God" such as Jehovah, Adonai, etc.? To make this article about the deity and not the name will require a whole lot of discussion of YHWH's attributes, records of interactions with humanity, creator, relationship with Jesus Christ─in fact, an entirely different article IMHO. Christians, for example, believe that since Jesus became God in human form, Jesus' example and teachings reveal the true nature of God. As the article now stands, it somewhat includes some name focus and attribute focus, but necessarily spends a lot of space on the name and its evolution and why.

Please review the Table of Contents for the present article. Ninety-plus percent is about YHWH's relationship to the Hebrews, almost nothing about Christianity, much less Islam. Then, since the Bahai's are adamantly pushing their being an Abrahamic religion, there would also need to be a section about their understanding of Yahweh. Then there are the Jehovah's Witnesses, and on and on.

So long as it's mainly about the name, how it was revealed, how understanding of it developed according to the OT, and how and why it morphed into Jehovah, Adonai, and Lord, we can avoid a lot of problems. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? The abrahamic religions all worship the same god. Period. Of course they hold different views about the nature of this god and they assign different characteristics, but it is still the same deity. There are many traditions about the Easter Bunny in different parts of the world, and yet it's the same bunny. Same goes for the biblical deity. If you don't even have very basic knowledge of the history of the abrahamic religions, you really shouldn't edit anything in this article. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTCUSH

CUSH, I can't tell how much of your above missive is sarcasm since it begins that way. I am very sincere and don't waste your time or my time kidding or writing from ignorance. The classical definition of Abrahamic religions lists Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I am open to your point of adding Islam to the list in the lead to "Yahweh." I still believe a reliable source is in order. Whether Yahweh and Allah are one and the same has been debated considerably. Abrahamic religion and definition of God are not inherently the same thing. When something may be questioned or doubted, Wiki says to include a citation in the lead. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Your appeal to ignorance fails with me. I could not care less about what you are open to. Islam being a religion focused on the god of the biblical patriarch Abraham is not a matter for your approval. We are not altering the meaning of words and actual meaning because you lack understanding of the history of religion in the last 4000 years.≡ CUSH ≡ 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

CUSH, I don't recall such personal slamming from you when we've edited together before. It is very offensive and unprofessional of you to write "you lack understanding of the history of religion in the last 4000 years." And "I could not care less about what you are open to" That's just rude and what I thought was beneath your dignity. So much for civility. Just because you are an atheist and I am a Christian shouldn't mean we can't get along and treat each other with respect. I'm very disappointed.─AFA Prof01 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall having edited anything together before. And I am losing my patience over editors like you and Seeker who are very obviously unable to treat the Yahweh article as any other article on a Levantine deity due to your personal beliefs. The messing up of this article, especially the lead, has been going on for months now. This article is about the deity that is called Yahweh in English today, and which happens also to be the deity that is the subject of the abrahamic religions. Yet you and Seeker keep introducing stuff that is irrelevant to this article's subject and are better dealt with in other articles. And to claim that Islam does somehow worship a deity different from Judaism and Christianity is not only silly but obviously driven by your own religious motives. That is not acceptable as a basis for editing WP articles. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit the Seeker is right in one sense: there is no god called Yahweh. There's one called YHWH - you can find him mentioned in the Hebrew bible and in the archaeological record - but not Yahweh. The trouble is, Seeker wants to turn the article into a discussion of whether Yahweh (the name) is really how YHWH was pronounced way back in the Iron Age. This is pointless and boring. Afaprof, you say, "What about the other names of what the Bible calls "the one true God" such as Jehovah, Adonai, etc?" The Hebrew bible never calls god Jehovah or Adonai - in Hebrew, it's always YHWH. That name is frequently linked with others - YHWH-elohim, YHWH-saboath, and so on, but there's never any doubt that elohim is YHWH, or that saboath is describing YHWH in a particular aspect. Very occassionally you get unlinked names like shaddai - but there's no doubt there that YHWH is the same god. Anyway, if we follow Seeker, we'll have a very boring article about Gesenius or whatever his name was. PiCo (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

PiCo writes:

"I have to admit the Seeker is right in one sense"

PiCo continues by writing his own beliefs about "Yahweh"!

"there is no god called Yahweh. There's one called YHWH - you can find him mentioned in the Hebrew bible and in the archaeological record - but not Yahweh."

PiCo IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU JUST ADMITTED TO BELIEVING, YOU WOULD SEEM TO OWE IT TO WIKIPEDIA TO MAKE MANY CHANGES TO YOUR INTRODUCTION.

You wrote your opinion [not mine] that; "There is no god called Yahweh. There's one called YHWH - You can find him mentioned in the Hebrew and in the archaeological record - but not Yahweh."

PiCo Will you please edit the first two sentences of this article, so that they agree with your present beliefs. You just admitted to us you that you don't believe that "Yahweh (yä`wĕ) is the deity worshiped in Judaism and Christianity.' PLUS you just admitted to us that you don't believe that: "In the Hebrew Bible Yahweh is the one true God who delivered Israel from Egypt and entered into a covenant with his chosen people"

PiCo. Have you and or "CUSH" considered recreating the Wikipedia Article:YHWH and moving all the text that exists in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh into the newly created Wikipedia Article:YHWW. A Wikipedia Article titled: "YHWH" would seem to be perfect for the text that You and CUSH believe is true.

P.S. If you and CUSH are willing to move all of the text that is presently found in this Wikipedia Article:YAHWEH" into a newly created Wikipedia Article:YHWH, I'd be willing to do the dirty work of trying to rewrite the text of this article so that it would be appropriate for a Wikipedia Article with the Title:Yahweh.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There already is a YHWH article. So take your stuff and put it there. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi CUSH.

You wrote: "There already is a YHWH article. So take your stuff and put it there."

CUSH I have no stuff to put in a YHWH article.

Actually YHWH is now merged into Tetragrammaton. I was just looking for an option for you and PiCo if you can't get your text together so that it will work on the present Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and still agree with Wikipedia Rules.

Hopefully you and PiCo will be able to work through the obvious glitches you continue to encounter as you try to use the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh to try to discuss topics that were never intended to be discussed on the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.

The new poster may cause you some new difficulties that you will have to try to work around, to meet Wikipedidia rules.

Good Luck,

Seeker02421 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Now Seeker, that's not like you to let bad temper show. Yes, I do believe that "Yahweh" is a scholarly reconstruction of the way YHWH was pronounced. So does Cush, and possibly so does AFA Prof01. That's not the question. The question is, what should this article discuss, given that there's another article called YHWH? (Ok, called tetragrammaton - same thing with a Greek name). Cush and I believe it should be about the literary/theological qualities of the aforementioned deity, and you, if I've got it right, want to talk at great length about the correct pronunciation, possibly with a few thousand words on Gesenius or whatever his name was. This seems to Cush and me, and maybe AFA Prof01, who has yet to tell us his views, to hold the makings of a very boring article. PiCo (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

@Seeker, your stuff is exactly what the Tetragrammaton article is about. Your whole issue of pronunciation and Gesenius and whatnot is best elaborated on in the YHWH/Tetragrammaton article. But said issue has no relevance in this article about the deity as such. The name of this article is determined by usage of the deity's name in English, while the origin of the name is utterly unimportant. There are no parallel deities or possible mix-ups as you want to propose. There is also no controversy as to the identity of the deity called Yahweh. It is the deity worshiped in abrahamic religions, no matter what the actual ancient vocalization may or may not be. Yahweh, Jehova, Yihwoh or Fred. It does not change the subject matter of this article. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again PiCo, or CUSH

My present thoughts are to start a "Personal Research" article on Wikinfo. Possibly it would be titled.

"Is Gesenius's Proposed Punctuation יַהְוֶה‎ Accurate?"

I have allready proven to myself that I could create this same article on Wikipedia. However Wikinfo allows much more freedom.

Would you or CUSH be interested in posting on such an article if I chose to create it on Wikipedia.

The article might be very boring to you and CUSH, but quite enjoyable to me, I think.

I would discuss a lot of hypothetical questions such as "Is it possible that God's name could actually be "Yahweh" even though יַהְוֶה‎ occurs in no extant Hebrew text.

Do either you or CUSH wish to join me in such an endeavor. Of course the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh remains as it is, if you and CUSH can edit it in such a way as to legitimately discuss what you and CUSH want to discuss and still meet "Wikipedia" Rules.

An article such as I am proposing would be much easier to edit if it was created on Wikinfo, than if it was created on Wikipedia!!!!!

FWIW

Seeker02421 (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation Seeker, and I'm genuinely touched that you ask me to join you. Unfortunately I don't think I have the knowledge of Hebrew and Hebrew scholarship that your suggestion needs. You do get a bit irritated sometimes, and of course that's veru understandable when it seems everyone else is rejecting what you want, but I'm really not personally hostile to you. Wikipedia should be fun - if you don't enjoy it, what's the point? It also needs to be companionable - we need to get along with like-minded others. So again I thank you, and I wish you well with anything you write. If you like you can contact me when you've got something and I can maybe help with matters of style, but not content. PiCo (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but whether Gesenius' proposed punctuation is accurate is completely irrelevant to me and anyone else who is interested in the deity itself, but not what it is called. I care for substance and essence, not labels. This article is about the substance. The Tetragrammaton article is about the label.

Btw, whether extant Hebrew texts contain Gesenius' punctuation is a highly illogical consideration, because extant Hebrew texts are no indication for ancient pronunciation. Extant Hebrew texts are all messed up because of the rather weird custom of Jewish fundamentalists to avoid the divine name. ≡ CUSH ≡ 01:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is proposing to discuss the worship of the Iron Age Canaanite/Hebrew deity Yahweh, originally a storm god, also known as Yahweh-Hadad or Yahweh-Baal-Hadad. Historical worship of this god is reflected in the Hebrew Bible, but due to later redaction during Second Temple Judaism, the extant text of the Hebrew Bible needs to be interpreted by reputable academic scholars, not by Wikipedians, otherwise this will just end up as another article about the God of Israel in Judaism. The topic of this article is Iron Age religion (7th century BC and earlier), not post-exilic Judaism. Yes, post-exilic Judaism inherited aspects of this earlier phase, but this is beside the point for a discussion of the Iron Age deity.

If you want to discuss the name of the God of Israel, go to YHWH. If you want to discuss the God of Israel, go to God of Israel. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yahweh-Baal-Hadad

For future reference, to be included in the article as soon as these tedious scope issues have been sorted out. The DDD, a reference of the first order in terms of WP:RS, has the following to say:[7]

"Yahweh is originally a storm god. Since Baal (originally an epitheton of ->Hadad) is of the same type, the relationship between Yahweh and Baal deserves to be analyzed more closely. In the Monarchic Era, Baal (i.e. the Baal Cult) was a serious rival of Yahweh. ... Yahweh's 'Baalistic' traits have a dual origin: some are his of old because he is himself a storm god, whereas others have been appropriated -- or should we say confiscated -- by him. ... Owing to the emphasis on the conflict between Yahweh and Baal, it is insufficiently realized that Yahweh himself, too, is 'a deity who is originally conceived in the categories of the Hadad type.'

I am asking nothing more and nothing less than that this article is to be put on the footing of the discussion of Yahweh as it is presented in prime academic references such as the DDD. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Actually, why not start by gathering some links to good books at the bottom of the article? PiCo (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for cleanup

(Undent - see previous thread) I agree. I just had a quick skim of the article, and it's practically unreadable. Here's the current ToC, with my comments on each section:

1. The Tetragrammaton: Fair enough to have this section, but it could be a little shorter.
2. Etymology: Could combine with the previous section - could also be slightly shorter.
3. In the Hebrew Bible

3.1 In the Torah 3.1.1 Account of the burning bush 3.2 In the Nevi’im (Prophets) 3.2.1 Contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal regarding the name of God 3.2.2 In the Book of Isaiah 3.2.3 In the Book of Jeremiah 3.2.4 In the Book of Zecharia 3.3 In the Kethuvim (writings)

Frankly, and without wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, I have to ask whether this long section has any place in an encyclopedia. It's simply an anthology of various bible passages. That's not encyclopediac. But let me say one more thing: Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, and certainly not an exercise in being right on the Internet: it's a social networking site as well, and I honestly don't want to make anyone unhappy by over-riding their wishes (which is a long-winded way of saying that I know that at least one editor is very attached to this section).
4. The Documentary Hypothesis

4.1 Jahwist 4.2 Elohist view of Yahweh 4.3 Deuteronomist view of Yahweh 4.4 Priestly view

The DH is no longer cutting-edge scholarship, and hasn't been for quite a while - very few people today would agree that these four documents actually exist or that the views ascribed to their "authors" are real. This section is based on outdated scholarship and should be scrapped.
5. Early history of Yahweh-worship

5.1 Development 5.2 Orthodox Yahwism 5.3 Heterodox Yahwism 5.4 Syncretistic Yahwism 5.5 Ancient Israel and Judah

This could be compressed into a much shorter, more readable form.
6 Use of "Yahweh" in contemporary religion: No suggestions for this - I have no problems with it.

So here's my suggestion for a new ToC:

1. Etymology and pronunciation (Would combine the current first two sections and shorten them a little)
2. Theology of Yahweh (A section that doesn't currently exist - but Yahweh is a god, and some discussion of what this god meant in ancient Israel seems appropriate - e.g., he was Creator, he was Jealous, he was the God of the Covenant - etc etc.)
3. History of Yahweh-worship (The current "early history of Yahweh-worship", but shorter and clearer)
4. Use of "Yahweh" in contemporary religion (The present section).

Please take this as a basis for discussion, not as something I'm trying to force on anyone. PiCo (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AFA Prof01 that Yahweh is most notable because of the Bible. In the page on Odysseus, the character’s role in Homer’s works is emphasized and summarized. In the page on Hamlet, the focus is the character’s role in Shakespeare’s play, which is why Hamlet is notable today. The Hamlet article also includes content describing that Hamlet-like legends are widely found, and that a popular theory is that Shakespeare’s source was an earlier (but lost) play. These views are attributed and sourced, appropriately brief and placed lower in the article. Also, what other literary article includes as much support from secondary sources as the material currently presented in the Yahweh article? It would be a big step backward to lose this level of scholarship in favor of a theological discussion of unknown quality.

As in other articles on literary characters, it is appropriate that the prominent role and actions of Yahweh in literary texts are summarized early in the article. The links to the Yahweh page that were recently summarized make a clear case that this is the kind of content Wikipedia editors expect when they link to this page. Current content is brief considering the quantity of the literary sources, and use of the sources to develop the character are in line with the development of Elijah and David, for examples, on their respective pages. The Documentary Hypothesis (DH) meets the criterion of reliably sourced notability and has been influential among biblical scholars. The material on the DH was added after editorial support was expressed on the discussion page (Dec ’09 – Jan ’10). This article could be improved, especially in a more consolidated treatment of extrabiblical information about Yahweh as suggested by AFA Prof01. It does not need a major reorganization.Corinne68 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the article, I have placed several paragraphs of rather minute detail into a comment so that if it doesn't suit the general consensus, it can be easily restored. It seems to be far beyond an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I would expect to see it in an academic theological thesis, perhaps, but not here. It appears to me to be the greatest distraction from the main theme of the article. I've read and reread it several times. Tho I get some quasi-interesting info from some of it, it leaves me "cold" if I'm wanting to learn about Yahweh. I cannot find any other source on Yahweh that includes anything like this. cf. Ency Britannica, Columbia, CCEL, etc. I hope my opinion and action is not offensive to anyone, and if so, I apologize in advance. I also have rearranged some other sections to keep the lead "lean and mean." I've given each of them their own subheadings so the info is not lost--just rearranged. I will appreciate any constructive criticism or opinions (pro or con). Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@QCorinne68: this article is about the Levantine deity, not only the deity as the biblical character. ≡ CUSH ≡ 07:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AFA Prof01, I get you. I think our target audience - the people at whose level we're writing - is the uninformed but interested man in the street. No academic or even undergraduate is going to come to Wikipedia for their information, so let's avoid that level. @QCorinne68: Levantine deity c alled Yahweh? What Levantine deity called Yahweh? He's only found in Israel/Judah, with a few interesting hints, but no more, in Edom and I think one other place. You have other information? PiCo (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, the majority of editors who link here expect this article to include significant discussion of the Biblical Yahweh. The three most notable lenses through which Yahweh is understood are the traditional Judeo/Christian view that focuses on Mosaic authorship of the Torah, source criticism (the documentary hypothesis), and the modern (mostly secular) methods of ANE historians. Please inform us if there are independent ideas or schools of thought which have achieved comparable notability or volumes of verifiable sources. Rather than skew the main Yahweh article toward any one of these, the article should give due weight to each, following the well established pattern of other articles on major literary/biblical characters of having an early section give a straightforward treatment of the literary material and subsequent sections summarize the most notable scholarly viewpoints.

In giving due weight to the traditional views, replacing the literary approach of the current article’s treatment (what the primary sources say about Yahweh) with a “theology” section (the meaning of the primary sources in specific faiths) is a tangled quagmire that introduces too much overlap with existing articles (God in Judaism, God in Abrahamic Religions, etc.) and will be hard to keep to manageable length as there are simply too many theological viewpoints to summarize succinctly without giving short shrift to some. In contrast to the documentary hypothesis, most faith-based theological views make no effort to develop a theology of Yahweh that is different from Elohim or other biblical names of God, so basing a theology section in reliable sources without straying into OR is problematic. The literary approach also can provide a better background for subsequent sections focusing on source criticism and views of ANE historians. If a theology section is introduced, it should come late in the article (like the “Religious perspectives” section in the Jesus article), and it should be as reliably sourced and adhere as carefully to NPOV as the majority of the current article.

Source criticism has moved beyond the documentary hypothesis of the 19th century, but no newer developments have reached the notability of the documentary hypothesis, the documentary hypothesis is the development framework of most later source criticism, and it’s hard to find many scholarly secondary or tertiary sources on the Torah or Bible that don’t refer frequently to the documentary hypothesis. There are still sections on the documentary hypothesis in the Torah and Bible Wikipedia articles, and source criticism is also a common framework built upon by ANE historians. The documentary hypothesis is also probably as close as this article should get to a theological treatment, because the four hypothetical sources are often considered to represent ancient schools of theological thought/influence even if they do not represent actual source documents. The current article text briefly describes the theology of each hypothetical source. One paragraph treatments of the theologies of J, E, P, and D are briefer and less of a quagmire than attempting to organize by Jewish Theology of Yahweh, Catholic Theology of Yahweh, Muslim Theology of Yahweh, etc.

The challenge in representing views of ANE historians is maintaining attribution in the phrasing so as not to give the impression of widespread consensus on assertions about which there is still substantial debate. Miller’s breakdown into Orthodox, Heterodox, and Syncretistic has been praised by other ANE historians (including Dever), and analogous analysis is commonly offered in the scholarly works. This structure also implicity informs the reader of the possible theologies of the commoner during the period of historical development, since the relevant scholarship can be understood as making a case for relative support levels in each group (Orthodox, Heterodox, Syncretistic) at any given time and location.

There is a trade-off between an article that is accessible with sixth grade reading skills and an article which includes a significant portion of the very notable viewpoints and begins to do justice to the volumes of reliable sources. Oversimplification to create a neatly packaged account would not be an encyclopedic approach to a topic with so many divergent notable viewpoints. Being a college professor, I am aware of both a number of undergraduates and faculty that make regular use of Wikipedia articles. Citing Wikipedia is frowned upon, but many do use it as an introduction to a topic and as a source of references that are acceptable to a scholarly audience. Some of my contributions to other Wikipedia articles have even been cited in the scholarly literature, so you won’t convince me that Wikipedia is not used by undergraduates or academics. The article’s flow could be improved, but I think the way forward is by careful edits to improve the flow without a major reorganization which could have the unfortunate result of jettisoning considerable material that is relevant, notable, and well-attributed. Michael Courtney (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you strike and overwrite the lines and links about this god's old aliases? -lysdexia 17:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.182.178 (talk)

Concerning the Tetragrammaton section the word "Tetragrammaton" is never defined within the article and is potentially very confusing for people who have never encountered it before. Ekulio (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Early history of Yahweh-worship

Under "Early history of Yahweh-worship" the first sentence of the "Development" section needs to be rewritten so that it is not stating an opinion as fact. ~~On a side note, after reading this discussion page, I thank the god of Wikipedia that immature people like CUSH can't insert their ignorant religious bias into the actual articles.~~ Malkiyahu (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a Mormon calls me immature. I take that as a compliment.

But besides that, we do not change the sentence. And we won't include the alternative history of Yahweh worship as expressed in LDS ideology/theology. ≡ CUSH ≡ 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You do not change the sentence? I like the sound arguments there (and the plural of royalty).

I would like to make two things clear: (1) The Resident Anthropologist informed me that I broke the rules by "personally attacking" CUSH. I apologize for breaking the rules. (2) I'm not a Mormon. Malkiyahu (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

the section is mis-titled. This isn't "early history of Yahweh-worship", it is "Yahweh worship", the actual topic of this article. Explicit worship of Yahweh ended by the 3rd centry BC at the latest, giving way to Judaism. The entire history of Yahweh's cult spans approximately 900 BC to 300 BC. This article is supposed to discuss the history of the cult of Yahweh over this 600-year period.

The fact that the name "Yahweh" has been revived by some tiny faction of Christianity is irrelevant, this factoid can safely be relegated to Yahweh (Christianity). --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The deity is still worshiped by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and their numerous offshoots. This article is not about the name, but about the deity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc *is* Yahweh-worship. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

About the proposed split.

There is definitely no need for an article "God of Israel". This Yahweh article exists to cover the worship of the deity throughout history, especially also the worship in Israelite times, when there was no monotheism or even henotheism yet. The new article would have to be titled "Gods of Israel" anyways, in order to prevent any article claiming that Israelite religion was somehow identical to later or even modern Judaism. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

what are you talking about? There is definitely no need for an article "God of Israel"? The God of Israel article has been in existence since 2007. [8] Historically, creation of the article imposed itself because the God and Conception of God articles were getting out of hand.

This, on the other hand, is a topic of Ancient Semitic religion. If the title is too ambiguous to let people accept this, well, we will need to split and disambiguate. But stop trying to make this into a clone of the article on Judaism. I am trying to discuss the Iron Age deity Yahweh / Yahu here, and I must ask people trying to make this difficult because they prefer to talk about Judaism to step back. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, "God of Israel" redirects to "God in Judaism". And that's exactly what should be avoided, because real ancient Israel is not biblical ancient Israel. And btw I have no intention whatsoever to turn the Yahweh article into an article about Judaism. Exactly the opposite. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

yes? Your point being? You will note that it has been redirecting there, and not to Yahweh, for three years. If you want to place a move request, do it at Talk:God in Judaism. You will also note how the title is not "God of real ancient Israel", or "God of ancient Israel", but "God of Israel", which is the title of God as worshipped in Judaism. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

the tag for the proposed split is relatively new, isn't it? I'm only saying I see no point in making a split as proposed. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

the tag has become necessary because some people seem to insist on preventing the article from discussing its actual topic. I will prefer a disambiguated title over a broken article.

we seem to agree that this is supposed to be the article about the pre-exilic deity Yahweh worshipped in ancient Levant. The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible date to about the 8th century BC and are direct sources for the cult of this deity. Only, they were redacted in later Judaism. But by the testimony of the Hebrew Bible itself, the cult of Yahweh was limited to a small faction, while the majority worshipped "the Baals". Of course the Hebrew Bible is written from the point of view of the Yahwist faction, which presents the history of its success in terms of "we told you so".

what this article needs to establish is the actual cult of Yahweh in the Levant, and Yahweh's relation and possible identity with Hadad-Baal.

--dab (𒁳) 11:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits and commentary on the discussion page have cast a lopsided disagreement on scope as a quality issue. This is inaccurate. A unilateral decision to make this page about the literary backstory ignores 1) editorial consensus that has repeatedly emerged over the last couple of years, 2) expectations of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who link to this page, and 3) the large number of primary and especially secondary sources treating the subject. The current edits, while adding one source that meets Wikipedia standards for reliability, removed a lot of well supported content. Relevant to WP:NPOV, the resulting page elevates a minor point of view and ignores major, previously documented, points of view, again without editorial consensus.

At least six other editors on this discussion page have posted agreement that the article should be structured from the more notable to the less notable, and that this includes a prominent treatment of the character Yahweh in the biblical texts, with less notable points of view treated later in the article, and a fuller treatment of the translation of the Tetragrammaton on that respective page. The following quotes are a reminder of the support for retaining this structure:

Yahweh is the general scholarly term for the deity described as YHWH in the Hebrew bible. That's what this article is about. Leave the vowel-pointing of YHWH to the other article (Tetragrammaton) PiCo (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this article should also describe the pre-Herbrew Yahweh, as well as the characteristics of Yahweh as he appears in the J source of the Torah. Leadwind (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

keep the article as it is, with what is definitely said in the scriptures before scholarly views on the underlying religion-historical background. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

[I] did previously argue for the other way round (see comparison with King Arthur above), but I've come round to the view that the development pretty much in the order we have it at the moment does I think work, and so I think is something worth keeping with. Jheald (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Yahweh is a biblical term, the extrabiblical text should be almost marginal, rather than so prominent in the article. It actually is a distraction when reading the article. … It would seem far better to move the nonbiblical legends and opinions to their own section … While some of these theories may be interesting, at best they are worthy of their own section regarding speculations from other sources. … in scanning several other encyclopediae articles, the major focus is on reporting and sorting out what can be gleaned from the Bible itself. Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AFA Prof01 that Yahweh is most notable because of the Bible. … As in other articles on literary characters (Hamlet was discussed earlier in this post), it is appropriate that the prominent role and actions of Yahweh in literary texts are summarized early in the article. The links to the Yahweh page that were recently summarized make a clear case that this is the kind of content Wikipedia editors expect when they link to this page. …Corinne68 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article must be balanced according to the notability of the viewpoints without giving undue weight to either traditional religious or contemporary historical perspectives … This article should give a balanced treatment of notable viewpoints, take care not to state “facts” without giving sources of the viewpoint (“according to . . .” and similar language), and keep the traditional perspectives on equal footing with modern historical theories.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We can make some important inferences regarding the encyclopedia's expectations of this article from the other articles that link here. A quick counting of the first 100 articles from the main article space that link here, excluding simple redirects, shows the following: Bible articles:53, Judaism articles:5, Christianity articles:4, Other religion articles:17, General Theology/Religious Studies articles:8, Psychology articles:1, Mythology articles:1, Philosophy articles:2, Other History articles:2, Other Literature articles:2, Other: 5. Pre-Biblical Bronze Age Semitic Religion articles:0. In fairness, about 8 of the “Other Religion” and “General Theology/Religious Studies” articles have significant content related to pre-Biblical Semitic Religion. However, this analysis makes it clear that there is a considerable encyclopedic expectation in articles that link to “Yahweh” that the main emphasis of this article is discussion of Yahweh as a Biblical figure. Michael Courtney (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus supporting the change of the lede from well-supported material to uncited statements that leave out previously documented and notable points of view. The entry for Yahweh in most print encyclopedias focuses on the biblical development of the character with very minor (if any) discussion of the “backstory.” It has been made clear on this discussion page that this is what other editors of Wikipedia expect as well when they link to this page. Corinne68 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

While the source introduced by dab meets the Wiki criterion for inclusion in the appropriate section of the page, the accompanying edits made the scope of the page too narrow and not adherent to WP:NPOV, Wiki policy on removing reliable sources, editorial consensus or expectations of editors linking to this page.Corinne68 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice article edit. ≡ CUSH ≡ 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was a sloppy edit, in my judgement. Here are the major errors:

(And I've taken the liberty of inserting my comments on your comments...Isn't this fun? PiCo (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

1. "Hebrew deity" As the article states, Yahweh is not just a "Hebrew deity" but was common to West Semitic.

Yehweh was common to West Semitic? West Semitic is a language family, and so far as I know the god Yahweh is conspicuously absent from all West Semitic languages other than Hebrew. Can you give us a source for your statement?
- Jewish Encyclopedia: Names of God: YHWH: "A Canaanite, and, again, a Babylonian, origin have been proposed, but upon grounds which are still uncertain." 75.15.199.227 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  - That website's over a century old - very out of date.PiCo (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

2. "often transliterated as Yahweh" The transliteration is "YHWH". A translation is "Yahweh". There is a difference between a "transliteration" and a "translation". If you don't know the difference I suggest you should not edit this article.

Yahweh is neither a translation (nobody knows what it means, so there's no translation) nor a transliteration (there are no vowel points in the Henbrew, so nothing to transliterate).

3. "Yahweh is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible." Some make that claim, not all. Stating it as fact is POV pushing.

That claim is the usual understanding.
- The usual "misunderstanding". 75.15.199.227 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

4. "The Bible describes Yahweh" Again, POV pushing, only a few English translations of the Bible use the term "Yahweh", most do not.

But the Hebrew bible, which is THE bible, describes YHWH.
- It is important to be careful with the words here. The Masoretic Text includes the Tetragrammaton. But this article is in English, and most current English translations of the Bible translate the Tetragrammaton into "LORD". From the Jewish Encyclopedia: Names of God: YHWH: "the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah,"" "Modern" here is 1906. Most English translations of the Bible today use "LORD". Only a few use the form "Yahweh". 75.15.199.227 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  - - This isn't an article about bible translations. PiCo (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

75.14.217.55 (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

When I come to an article on Yahweh, I expect to read about the god in the Old Testament/ Tanakh. Can we get over the peculiar fixation with the spelling/pronounciation/textual representations/scriptural occurances/other weird, uninteresting things about Yahweh? -Civilizededucation^talk 14:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we obtain concensus here?

Can we possibly reach any consensus on just what the first few sentences of this article should say, without directing any editor to go to either YHWH or Tetragrammaton to get help?.

Seeker02421 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

look, I would just like to write an article about an Ancient Semitic deity in peace, without being sidetracked by people who want to discuss the God of Israel.

Can everyone wanting to discuss the God of Israel please go away and edit the article aptly named "God of Israel? Plus, everyone who wants to discuss the name of the God of Israel, please go to Names of God in Judaism and YHWH, the actual name as attested in the Hebrew Bible. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann. Have you considered starting your own article, and possibly giving it the title: "Ancient Semitic Dieties".

That way you and other like-minded editors could specify the specific dieties you wish to discuss and those of us who want to discuss "the God of Israel", relative to the very-recent-controversy concerning the very-recently-proposed pronunciation, "Yahweh" could continue this article which actually is titled :"Yahweh", and which has been trying to discuss the God of Israel since it was first created, many years ago.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

look, I propose we split the article. One about the God of Israel and one about the ancient deity. Oh wait, there already is a God of Israel article. We don't need to split it, it already is split. Hence the disambiguation hatnote.

Seriously, I don't see your problem. If you just want to discuss the pronunciation of the name, you are very welcome to edit this article, which needs a "name" section doing exactly that. But as you yourself admit belong to "those of us who want to discuss "the God of Israel" I must really wonder what you are even doing on this talkpage.

Has it occurred to you that there already is a main article about the Ancient Semitic religions, and more specifically about Canaanite gods? I really don't see how you can argue that Melqart or Dagon or Asherah or Elyon should get their own article, but not poor Yahweh, simply because he happened to grow up to become monotheistic God about, like, five hundred years later.

Probably not, because clearly you aren't even interested in the article topic. I would love to build "concensus", as you call it, but it appears that this is going to be difficult, because you do not appear to have any kind of case to make. Please explain what it is you want to discuss, and people can either point you to the existing article on the topic, or propose a title where you can create an article about it, provided it is in any way an encyclopedic topic. Since you just seem to want to dicuss the Tetragrammaton and its possible pronunciations, it is beyond me why you don't simply go and pester people at Talk:Tetragrammaton. --dab (𒁳) 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab, you wacky troublemaker, you! Getting your secular scholarship all up in people's grills. You're right that Yahweh was a Semitic deity before he was the One True God, but honestly the term "Yahweh" mostly gets used as a Biblical term for God. This page should straddle both meanings. It's like, why is there both a Jesus page and a Historical Jesus page? No one needs a "Historical Napoleon" page. But there are enough believers out there that there's just no way that WP can treat Yahweh as just one more Canaanite deity. Leadwind (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Seeker take his thoughts to Tetragrammaton? User AnonMoos haunts that particular grove, a magician of great power who may sometimes help the seeker after truth, but may also rend him limb from bleeding limb if he's having a bad day. If our Seeker approaches this dread magus with humility and a clear heart, then he may have his wishes granted. Maybe. But frankly, although I value Seeker's contribution, not to mention his enthusiasm, I don't think we need to know quite so much as the vowel-points of God's name as he would like to tell us.PiCo (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, thank you for the "praise report", PiCo. One thing that Wikipedia demands is verification. I think that most persons posting on the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh are aware that a reputable source [i.e. the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905] states that "Yahweh" IS "the proper name of the God of Israel. Doesn't that information belong in a Wikipedia article with the name QUOTE/UNQUOTE "Yahweh"?

Of course it is possible that there is solid evidence somewhere that "Yahweh" WAS the name of some Canaanite deity, many thousands of years ago. If that is so, will some editor please post the information that verifies that "Yahweh" WAS the name of some Canaanite diety that existed thousands of years ago.

HOWEVER IT STILL REMAINS A FACT, THAT REPUTABLE 1905 EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO EXIST IN THE BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS LEXICON OF 1905 THAT "YAHWEH" IS THE PROPER NAME OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL!

"DOESN'T THAT VERIFIABLE INFORMATION BELONG IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE WITH THE RATHER SIMPLE NAME: QUOTE/UNQUOTE "YAHWEH"?

FWIW

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

what is your point, Seeker02421? Nobody is even disputing this. Yahweh is the reconstructed name of the God of Israel, or at least one of his names, which fell out of use around 300 BC. Read all about it at YHWH. Now, unless you have any sort of point to make, please stop confused non sequiturs to this talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 21:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Seeker is talking about this, the first line in the article: "Yahweh (Northwest Semitic Yahweh, also Yahu) is the name of a god in ancient Semitic religion..." A god in ancient Semitic religion? So far as I know Seeker is right, Yahweh was a god of the Israelites and Judahites, and maybe the Edomites, but nobody else. Certainly not a Canaanite god. PiCo (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

can we please agree to base this on the DDD, which is the best readily available source on the topic? I am perfectly willing to be led by whatever we find in scholarly literature. As soon as we have "concensus" that this article discusses an Iron Age deity, we can begin to focus on content. Sadly, so far we aren't even done with the preliminaries, because some people still try to make this a cfork of God of Israel

I do not understand your point, PiCo, if we agree that Yahweh as an Iron Age deity worshipped in Israel, Judah and Edom, how are you going to argue that he was not a Canaanite god? Last time I checked, Israel, Judah and Edom were Semitic kingdoms of Iron Age Canaan.

As everybody is well aware, Yahweh, later known as YHWH, Adonai, HaShem, etc. became a very different kind of God after about 450 BC. I simply want to make sure that this article focusses on the historical Iron Age religion before 600 BC, not on early Judaism of after 450 BC, just to avoid WP:CFORK. It's really as simple as that, I don't even have any kind of opinion on article content just as long as we are sure to keep the article on topic.

whatever the complex historical difficulties involved in discussing this, this article is most certainly not an article about the Sacred Name Movement following Clarence Orvil Dodd who decided he wanted to revive the spelling "Yahweh" a mere 2,300 years after the pronunciation had been discontinued, the same way the Battle of Hastings article doesn't focus on the topic of Battle of Hastings reenactment. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann. You wrote:

"Can we please agree to base this on the DDD, which is the best readily available source on the topic? I am perfectly willing to be led by whatever we find in scholarly literature. As soon as we have "concensus" that this article discusses an Iron Age deity, we can begin to focus on content."

Dbachmann, what you just wrote sounds reasonable to me. If you would just post in the Main Article:Yahweh, WITH CITATIONS taken from reputable scholarly literature, that use reputable dates, this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh would immediately become a much better Article.

Of course as everybody who posts here understands, Wikipedia demands verifiability.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me too. I was just pointing out that the primary understanding of "Yahweh" is as the national god of Israel and Judah, rather than as a general West Semitic deity. And he definitely wasn't Canaanite - he came from outside the Canaanite pantheon, for sure. (The distinction is between Canaan as a geographic term, in which case Yahweh was Canaanite, and Canaan as a cultural term, in which case he was not. For our purposes I think we need to take the cultural term). PiCo (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course we want verifiability, that was never even under dispute. Pico, what you need to understand is that Yahweh became the "national God of Israel and Juda" in the late 7th century BC. He was one god, with one vocal faction of priests, during the 8th century. The oldest books of the Bible are the 8th century BC prophetic books which advocate Yahweh as national god, and which explicitly complain about the fact that the majority of Israelites did not in fact worship Yahweh.

Yahweh can hardly be described as the "national god" of a nation that in its majority worships "the Baals", even if there is a minority faction that is of the opinion that he should be the national god. If you apply "NPOV" to Elijah et al., you will admit that these books give the account of a people practicing standard Canaanite polytheism, within which the priesthood of one deity got the idea to impose their favorite cult on everyone else. As history turned out, this faction was politically successful by the late 7th century, and of course by its account their view that Yahweh should have been the national god all along became the standard view. This doesn't change the historical fact that this was a process of the 7th century BC.

I would be interested in references establishing that Yahweh "came from outside the Canaanite pantheon for sure". I will be very happy to discuss this question, as it is perfectly on topic in this article. But I daresay I have serious doubts that this is the case. As I noted in the section right preceding this one, and on which you commented favourably, I point out that Yahweh in his original form as a strom god is basically equivalent to Hadad, also described as "Yahweh-Baal-Hadad" in religious studies. Whether the name Yahweh came from outside the Canaanite sphere would be a matter for discussion, but I don't see on what grounds this should be considered probable. Yahweh was just one name of a Canaanite storm god, which happened to get in competition with Hadad-Baal, another instance of the Canaanite storm god, by the 8th century BC. But feel free to cite references proving me wrong on this.

If we can agree that this article needs to discuss the history of Yahweh during the 10th to 7th centuries BCE, based on scholarly sources such as the DDD, we can finally shut down this "consensus" thread and proceed to writing the actual article. My main complaint with the article as it stands is that it takes Yahweh as a synonym of the "God of Israel" under any name, i.e. describing the Elohist account of Elohim as the "Elohist view of Yahweh". This is an anachronism. The Elohist view of Yahweh can only be based on Elohist references to YHWH, if any. This is a highly difficult question, and claims of an "Elohist view of Yahweh" need to be immediately based on scholarly literature. It appears that in his early history, Yahweh absorbed or "cannibalized" other Canaanite gods, whose names live on as Names of God in Judaism, including El, the Elohim, Elyon, Tsedeq and others (the idea is that the more gods you cannibalize, the closer you get to being monotheistic God), but not Baal, who was set up as the ultimate nemesis and therefore wasn't eligible for absorption. The Elohist account of Elohim needs to be considered as foreign to the cult of Yahweh before this amalgamation took place. There is much room for opinions as to the date of that amalgamation. The standard DH assumes it took place as early as the 8th century, but biblical minimalism thinks it took place only in the late 6th or early 5th. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to take the running on this. Personally I'd cut all the stuff about Elohist etc views of Yahweh - I think it's pretty much outdated these days. Rely on the DDD, on Day and Smith, and maybe some other contemporary scholars. PiCo (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann, You said to PiCo:

Of course we want verifiability, that was never even under dispute. Pico, what you need to understand is that Yahweh became the "national God of Israel and Juda" in the late 7th century BC. He was one god, with one vocal faction of priests, during the 8th century. The oldest books of the Bible are the 8th century BC prophetic books which advocate Yahweh as national god, and which explicitly complain about the fact that the majority of Israelites did not in fact worship Yahweh.

Dbachmann. Could you verify at this particular time that what you told PiCo, (ie. that Yahweh became the "national God of Israel and Judah in the late 7th century B.C.) can be verified by Wikipedia policy.

I am posting Exodus 6:2-3 as found in the New Jerusalem Bible, a modern Bible translation, that first translates YHWH as “Yahweh” in Genesis 2:4

Exodus 6:2 in the NJB says:

2. God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am Yahweh”.

3. To Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I appeared as El Shaddai, but I did not make my name known to them.

That’s very interesting, because if God never told Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that His name was “Yahweh”, than any information posted on Wikipedia that states that Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob knew God by the name “Yahweh” MUST OF NECESSITY BE ERRONEOUS!

Seeker02421 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeker, the subject is not what Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew or did not know, but the history of Yahweh as known from archaeology and from the critical study of texts such as the bible. PiCo (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A Joke Article: Multiple Wikipolicy Violations; Logical, Factual Problems, the List Goes On and On.

Ah, this is all very cute. Turn the major wiki-link of the name of God into some silly article about fringe theories that you lot try to insinuate are commonly held academic understandings. You say "well, this is the name of the deity..." No, no, no. Its a phonetic pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the name of the God of the Hebrew Bible, whom you are trying to argue is a false god. To apply the name of that God to a pantheon which stands in stark opposition to every single principle promoted by worship of that God, at any point in history. Tell me, are you from 4chan? Flying spaghetti monster group? Howard Stern Fan Network? Seems very classic of their doing.

The article links mainly to, and is based on, what the other users call the "DDD" or Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible; essentially a collection of theories extrapolated from Bible scriptures, and having absolutely no archaeological evidence. Its funny, 20 years ago, these people didn't believe any of the characters in the Bible existed: now they existed, they just didn't worship the same Yahweh as the Jews did, despite the fact that the 'academic' concept of Yahweh only comes from the Bible, meaning they are the same God. Nice tail chase there.

The article takes liberties that the DDD does not. At no time does the DDD state it as fact that Yahweh was a "storm god", but uses words like "likely" or "possible" or "it can be assumed". The writers of this article have taken it upon themselves to decide what is theorem. If the citation does not claim that its views are factual, how ridiculous that the encyclopedia referencing the citation would treat its views as 'true'.

Much like the DDD itself, the article references practically nothing but Bible scriptures. There are over 100 Bible scriptures listed in the references. (I would suggest that this volume indicates an attempt to make it seem as if the article is thoroughly sourced). You can't just say "Yahweh was a storm god - see Psalms 29", that would be preposterous. The article is so convinced that its word is fact, it totally ignores the need to provide solid evidence - or any evidence at all. Even if it were fact, I would prefer references to solid evidence, rather than being told what is fact. "Well, this is what the experts, the only 4 people in the world who have commented on the subject say". Perhaps Marylin Manson's views on the evolution of Aardvark's scent glands should be included as theorem in the evolution article: he is the only known and "easily accessible" commentator on the subject.

By the way, that "easily accessible" comment is a joke. That's no reason to base an article on one source, and its certainly no concern of the editors here. Over half the sourced books on the reference list don't even have ISBNs. How are we supposed to verify them?

I'll try to repair some damage to the article, but hopefully a moderator can get in here and clean this up. Maybe transform the article into what its meant to be. You can't just make something's main article a haven for 10 year old fringe theories. I might just get a few of my friends, hijack the Great Pyramids article, and make people know that it was "built by alien technology". For crying out loud... --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On Multiple Article Problems: Tags

Article gives undue emphasis to one theory, which might be considered fringe, diverges greatly from what would be expected from a main article by this name. Many articles on personal names, which include the name 'Yahweh', link directly here when discussing the name. They do not link to YHWH or Tetragrammaton. Since Yahweh is the common academic spelling, it is most often used on Wikipedia. This means that any traffic looking for the meaning of the name "Yahweh" or looking up information on the God commonly known as Yahweh is sent here; to a collection of theological theories (interpretation purely from theological texts is theology; whether you have a religious interest or not). I might also note that this a popular fringe theological theory of preachers and other religious groups.

This article claims to not depict the God of Israel within modern Jewish understanding. However, the entire article is focuses solely on Jewish manuscripts, not on ancient Hebrew or other Semitic archaeological data. It claims to have supporting archaeological data in a few sentences, but no such data is ever directly referred to or referenced. Its a coatrack attack on Judaism and Abrahamic faiths, positioned strategically to intercept the most viewers possible (hijacking the Yahweh article). It also uses authoritative language to try and force points home "Scientists know as fact, while religiously motivated theologians disagree" the article hints in the header.

The article assumes that any theoretical pseudo-scientific theory is fact because "its science". A childish view of how the scientific community works. There is no "fact" in the scientific community, only theorem. This theory is not theorem simply because a handful of unknown so-called scientists and "historians" have presented it.

This should be enough to explain the tags. Argue away. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the point of difficulty here was substantially introduced by the edits of Dbachmann on 10 December, who moved the scholarly speculation on the historical development of Yahweh worship from the end of the article to the top, against the previously extensively discussed consensus.

Per NPOV, it is important to include such scholarly views here. Discussion along these lines of the development of historical Yahwism has been ongoing since the Religionsgeschichte school of the 19th Century, and received considerable impetus with the discoveries at Ugarit, and subsequent archaeological discoveries in Israel.

But it is correct, I think, that people coming to this article should first be presented with the Biblical presentation of Yahweh (which as a poster here a couple of months ago pointed out is the overwhelming context in which this article is linked to from other articles); and then literary discussion of the development of that account; before historical and archaeological speculation about the underlying development of Yahwism.

I am therefore reverting the article to this edit [9] of 10 December 2010, which represents a form in which the article was long stable; and which in my view would be a better starting point for present further development. Jheald (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article was making better progress in its previous form. The claim that Yahweh = Baal-Hadad is one of my original complaints with the article. Undoing my attempts at NPoV to avoid peer-review is exactly the opposite of what I had in mind. Putting forward theological studies does not help, either. Perhaps no neutral scientific ground exists as regards this topic, but I'd rather at least try for that than having to choose between theology and extremist fringe theories. In the very least, the word usage in their pseudo-scientific section should at least include language that does not assume it is fact. None of the problems I cited are addressed by this edit, aside from the one about linking. Most notably, what exactly enables these random, conflicting, anachronistic theories to be considered "fact"? Just the need for a scientific answer of origin, and the lack of one? What ever happened to "the origin is disputed", "under debate", "unknown" when you're just guessing? The theory itself is crackpot fringe and theological. I've made plenty of argument for that, please address it.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I'll look the article over more. I enjoy the neutral tone of the academic sections better; sounds a lot less sure of itself. However, the header is quite bias still. Needs to be fixed. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So Mark Smith, John Day and Patrick Miller and "fringe" historians to you? LittleJerry (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these men. Mark Smith, it appears, has made this theory his life. At a glance of his history, he seems to be more of a theologian than a scientist of religious study. Regardless of what they are like personally, even the most brilliant men have been known to put forth fringe ideas. See article: Isaac Newton's Occult Studies and related theories. I would say Einstein's interpretation of the sun, as a literally cause of the 'flow of time', is a quite silly, human, and very perspective-centric view. Speaking of which: if you don't think intelligent men are prone to very stupid notions, you have - perhaps - never studied quantum mechanics.

The notoriety of those in support of an idea has no bearing on whether or not the idea is reasonable. It is quite clear from examination that the theory leans almost entirely on analysis of Bible texts; except completely ignoring what those texts actually say, and then slapping some notions about Canaanite gods into the mix. It does not stand up to deductive reasoning: it goes from point A to point G, with nothing in-between. One of the most inconclusive and far-fetched theories I have ever had the displeasure of researching; and that's saying something. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all they don't just use Biblical texts, they also use text from surrounding cultures as well as religious artifacts left behind from that period. It is apparent that you haven't read the article or the sources it cites. It is also ludicrous that you know little of Mark Smith and yet because has a theory it is somehow his life. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks is "not familiar with Mark Smith, John Day and Patrick Miller"! That sort of stops the conversation. I see he's also found the fatal flaws in Einstein and in quantum mechanics. Quite an all-round genius. PiCo (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm changing the tag to a cleanup. IM's objections make no sense especially since the article and the sources do talk about archaeology. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the templates I added were removed. What templates are you changing? The archaeological data is used indirectly, LittleJerry. You know this - if you read the book at all, that is. Its "let's see what part of this Canaanite tablet we can apply to the Bible", not "Oh, here's an ancient tablet about Yahweh."

On not knowing of the authors: Obviously I don't travel in the same circles as the two of you. I have no interest in cult deprogramming, militant atheism, and I do not spend my time searching for anything to weaken the case of theism. I've read very little Richard Dawkins. I apologize for not knowing your favorite author: But that was a nice appeal to authority; you must scare the religion right out of little children. By "made it his life" I meant his only point of public notoriety; looks like an accomplished author and Biblical archaeologist and detractor of the Bible. That's just the impression I got at a glance. Also, how would not knowing about a Bible scholar make me any less authoritative in the field of quantum mechanics?

I regret to inform you, gentlemen, that your days of occupying this article are at an end. You may keep your little theory down at the bottom of the page, as long as it moderated by neutral wording. I'm fine with that. It will not return to that deluded state where PiCo is making half baked anachronistic theories about Jeroboam writing the Bible in the header. If you stay within the guidelines of this discussion, and Wikipedia, we should have no problems. Don't bother further pandering to the crowd you presume is watching this conversation. Nobody cares but us and a few others. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. First off you have no proof that their ideas are "fringe", all your arguments amount to is "I don’t like their research, so they must be quack." I’m sorry they don’t accept that Israelite religion popped out of a vacuum but their theories are widely accepted in scholarship. They are respected in their field because of their theories not in spite of them. You should be sorry you haven’t heard of "my favorite author", it like someone interested in historical Jesus studies and not knowing about people like John Dominic Crossan or E. P Sanders. It’s obvious you are merely using this article as a crusade against "militant atheists". LittleJerry (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with militant atheism. If you weren't inclined to hijack it, I wouldn't be inclined to attempt to reverse your hijack. Widely accepted scholarship by whom? The archaeological community seems quite divided on the issue, which even the most biased edits to this article have shown; although it accused opponents of the theory, saying they were "influenced by religious superstitious beliefs". I have an interest as a Wikipedia reader and editor; one need not be devoted to the topic for that. I am no expert on the Holocaust or Racism, but when I see biased edits on those pages, I try my best to fix them. What's more, the ability to reason and put forth arguments is more important than an in-depth biographical knowledge of the authors who write about a subject. And for as much as you two seem to find my opinions trite, you don't seem inclined to challenge or comment on them; other than making lightly veiled attacks on my character. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Split to make this thread more manageable

IronMaidenRocks, you may want to change your attitude here. Your suggestion, if we subtract all the taunting, seems to be that this article should be moved, because many links point here that actually intend the YHWH. This is a valid suggestion. It would mean that Yahweh would become a disambiguation page, and this article would reside at Yahweh (Canaanite deity) or similar. --dab (𒁳) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The other users don't appear to wish to discuss moderately. I'm not trying to insult them, but I'm letting them know I will not be pushed around by rhetorical trickery, like the appeal to authority that they made. I would have remained at a kinder tone if they had not set up that little sting operation. The move should present all scholarly opinion, such as made by the Encyclopedia of Religion, as well as other archaeologists and historians. The DDD book should not be randomly chosen as the only acceptable opinion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Notation: I don't necessarily support a move. If you really wish to have an article simply discussing the Canaanite deity theory, see my opinion above. In the future, I'd prefer you not guess my opinion and then make major changes to articles, like a move. That was not something I would have personally suggested. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to discuss with someone who thinks that certain scholary opinions are comparible to theories that the aliens build the Pyramids. As i said above ANE scholars study both the Biblical texts and religious texts of the Canaanites as well as and artifactual evidence from archaeological excavations in Syria/Palestine, etc. Making a snarky comment doesn't mean you invalidated their research. It is also interesting that you say scholars are divided when before you called the Canaanite deity a fringe theory. There certainly are divides of certain issues like whether Yahweh merged with El later or if they were always the same god, or if Yahweh only worship was early or late. But theories of Israelite religion having roots in Canaanite are not fringe. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks isn't about to let facts get in his way :) PiCo (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Show me some direct archaeological evidence and we'll talk. Your claim that I'm just making 'snarky' comments is a vast underestimation of my arguments. Are you expecting me to provide sources saying the theory is wrong? I think that's the onus of the theory's presenters. A critic of a theory is perfectly justified in making logical/philosophical commentary. Also, note that I didn't compare this to the Great Pyramid Aliens thing, but that would still be justified. I compared the article's takeover by proponents of the Canaanite deity theory to a hypothetical takeover of the Great pyramids article. More of a jab at the editors than the theory :)

In regards to the divided state of archaeologists regarding these theories: I made a direct reference to The Encyclopedia of Religion, by Juliana.. Something. Go look up their opinion on the subject, notably their reply to comparisons of Yahweh to the El Pantheon based on archaeological data found at Ugarit. I'm sure there are many others; read the latest issue of the National Geographic magazine, for instance. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Which Encyclopedia of Religion would that be? - there are several books with that title. And I'd steer clear of the Nat Geo as a scholarly source if I were you. PiCo (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Its written by Lindsay Jones, ISBN: 0028657330. Who is Nat Geo, and why would you assume I'm referencing him? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

They talk about the archaeology in the books. If you think there should be more discussion of archaeology and extra-Bibical texts in the article than thats prefectly legitimate. LittleJerry (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the book talks about archaeology, that I do not dispute. However, it never gives direct proof of any of its statements. The theory, in itself, was formed and is explained in much the same way as those theories which specifically describe the evolution of behavior. That is: formed by reasoning and deduction, among other philosophical means. That said, yes, more archaeological data would be welcome, if possible. So far as I know, there is very little, if any, archaeological data regarding first temple era the worship of Yahweh. Of course, the archaeological scene has changed a lot within Israel in the last few years, and this may have changed. If you know of any ancient artifacts that directly describe worship of Yahweh, can you please link them to me? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article itself gives some examples. I'm signing off for now. Maybe someone with knowledge of the scholarly literature can sort this out. From what I've read from experts, the Canaanite origin theory is fairly prominent among scholars in this field. LittleJerry (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

IronMaiden: Ok, I found this Encyclopedia of Religion. It's a 15-volume set, edited, not written, by Lindsay Jones. "[F]irst published in 1987, [it] sought 'to introduce educated, nonspecialist readers to important ideas, practices, and persons in the religious experience of humankind from the Paleolithic past to our day'." In other words, it's a generalist work aimed at the broad public. Wirthout having read it (only the blurb on Amazon), it looks reputable enough, but certainly won't reflect current scholarship. You can use it, but it has to be checked against more scholarly works. "Nat Geo" is short for National Geographic, which you mentioned above - you seriously didn't know what I meant?

On current scholarship: our article, and many of the editors here, do mention current scholarly works - Day, Smith, and Miller, for instance. The consensus amoung scholars today - and it is a consensus - is that the Israelites were originally Canaanites, plus a mix of local herders and traders, who settled the hills c.1200-1000 BC. (The hills were previously just about empty - it went from 25 villages at the beginning of that period to 400 at the end). As Canaanites, they worshiped Canaanite gods - Baal, Asherah, El, etc. Yahweh, however, was NOT a Canaanite god - his name is nowhere to be found in Canaanite texts. He's first mentioned in some seals from around 1000 BCE. Gradually he replaced the Canaanite gods, but this wasn't completed until the post-Exilic period, c.500 BCE. You ask whether there's archaeological evidence of this, and the answer is yes, there is. PiCo (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The DDD book says they were "probably not Canaanites, but Kenites". Ah, I've never heard some abbreviate "National Geographic" before, and I wouldn't have guessed you were challenging the authenticity of a generally unbiased magazine that usually deals in the topic. This month they had an article on King David, and while they focus mostly on opinions of detractors and centrists regarding this topic, there are also some scientists quoted who are more inclined to shy away from these assumptive theories. You really have to excuse me if I don't take your statements at face value: 5 years ago, I was challenging theories that the entire Bible was invented as propaganda in the 2nd century BC. Now, some of you are saying that most of the early biblical record is accurate, it just didn't happen the way the Bible depicts. Without direct proof, this seems like just another harebrained theory that will be overturned in a few years.

Current scholarship, PiCo? If the source doesn't conflict with new evidence, then it is current understanding. Many scientific theories are 50, 80, 120 years old and are 'current'. 23 years really isn't that big of a leap, especially considering that it has been getting updates, and comments on the archaeological finds most relevant to the topic at hand. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The DDD doesn't say that "they" (the Israelites?) were "probably not Canaanites, but Kenites", it says that the worship of Yahweh was introduced to Israel by the Kenites. This is an old theory called the Kenite Hypothesis, and it still has a lot of followers - in fact it's probably the majority theory. I'm not sure where yoi can go to read about it - just try googling for it.

The National Geographic is not, repeat not, a scholarly source for this subject. That particular article is quite good, but it's not a scholarly article - scholarly articles are ones that are published in "trade journals" (such as the Review of Biblical Literature) and are peer-reviewed by other scholars beforehand. But by all means read that article, it is quite good.

Scholarship changes its views quite often, as new evidence becomes available and new arguments come to the fore. The encyclopedia you mentioned above is fine, but it's a bit nold now, and we need, if possible, to have the latest. There are many later books in our bibliography. Please read the DDD article carefully - it's standard book on the subject, and the authors try to be scrupulously impartial. But I stress, be careful in your reading - for example, that thing about you say about the DD saying that "they" (who?) were "probably not Canaanites, but Kenites" - you seem to have completely misunderstood what it's saying. PiCo (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out that there are alternative opinions to what is featured in the DDD book. Also, I'm quite sure I read that sentence in the DDD book; its available at Google Books, I believe. In any case, the "Nat Geo" article clearly shows that there are alternate opinions; why do you personally need scientific papers to prove that there are alternate opinions? That's a good place to start. Also, like I said, age has nothing to do with it. If you make a new theory, it doesn't invalidate an older theory simply because it is older.

If you made a theory about compartmentalization of decay in trees, and being that the old theory is from the 1970's, why would your new theory invalidate the old one? Just because your theory draws from a few bits of new data? But, instead, the way things work within scientific method: Your theory becomes the most up to date within its understanding, while the old theory is still the most up to date within its understanding. Until the old CODIT theory is totally contradicted by current evidence, and no updates or counter-points are made for that opinion, it is still the theorem for that branch of thinking.

That said, you have no way of knowing that the information found inside The Encyclopedia of Religion is outdated. You said you haven't read it. "It's a bit (n)old now" is no excuse; scientific theory and thought does not 'age': it gets discredited or it is still a legitimate theory. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You want pages 912-13 of the DDD. PiCo (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I've seen the data on Yahu of Shoushu before, but not the Edomite (?) text. Ah, yes, the book does posit that the Israelites were definitely Canaanites: my mistake. This is stated as a matter of fact in the book, but I'm doing additional research. Considering the lack of data regarding both societies, seems like the link between Canaanites and Israelites would have to be drawn from linguistic and cultural data. Please forgive my lack of familiarity with the theories of Near-Eastern Studies. In any case, we should evaluate whether this conversation will contribute anything to the article, or if we are continuing it for its own sake. I would like to see more theories and ideas on the origin, and would also like to see more conclusive arguments made for the DDD book and other sourced texts. For example, statements like "this Canaanite text relates the tales of Ben-Hadad, and was related to Yahweh because...", instead of simply stating "Yahweh was a storm god." --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)