Talk:Yahweh/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Article Move

POV tag inserted until naming dispute is resolved. Schwarzschild Point • 20:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended discussion leading up to the proposal below

To be sure, it is the POV problem of one editor with long standing consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Unless if you scroll up a bit and see all the other nudniks like me. What a consensus! Schwarzschild Point • 20:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I have removed the POV tag, as it is being used as a tool specifically to push a POV. Oh, the irony. Scr★pIronIV 20:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Against the express advice of the tag, you did. Put it back! Read the posts above, just this March other people were having the same argument, and see if you see a "consensus." Schwarzschild Point • 20:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC) See my reply above about lame argument. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (ec) I am aware that there is a certain POV that you wish to insert into the article. Failure to accede to your desires does not make the article biased. Please let that sink in. Scr★pIronIV 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah, put the tag back. Of course I want the article to stop using the wrong name, but just because I want something you don't doesn't mean it's NPOV, just like you think your position is neutral and I don't. The tag belongs. I wouldn't remove it if you had placed it and it will encourage people who see it the way I do to come to the talk page rather than simply changing the page. Isn't that what you want? What you wanted me to do? Or would you rather not have any discussion at all? Schwarzschild Point • 20:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC) What, specifically, would you choose to change that you believe is biased enough to place a tag over the entire article? Thus far, there has been some disagreement over the inclusion of single word, and the capitalization of another. How does this make the entire article a violation of WP:NPOV? Scr★pIronIV 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Well, besides the many complaints above put forward by different editors, the title is biased and the content assumes all practicing Jews, Christians and Muslims are liars. If I thought I could do it unmolested I'd institute a point of view fork. As it is the title is non-neutral and needs to be changed.Schwarzschild Point • 00:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC) No one is molesting you. We are disagreeing with you and you tried to get me sanctioned at ANI and failed, although you didn't drop the stick and still called my 3RR warning vandalism despite being told it was correct. But more importantly, exactly how does the content assume all practising Jews, Christians and Muslims are liars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Sign your comments, Doug, and look up "unmolested." You'll find my intended meaning under definition 1. In the meantime try and avoid harrassing me further, I know you have it in you.Schwarzschild Point • 12:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC) ================================================================================> The title is Yahweh; no more nor less, and deals with the deity of that name. I am not certain how that can be considered biased. Could you provide a little more clarity as to what is wrong, without referring to others' comments? I want to know what YOU wish this article to say, that it does not say. Scr★pIronIV 13:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC) The deity of that name is God. The teachings of all Abrahamic religions, scholarly works for thousands of years, refer to him by that name. A few articles are written in the last hundred and suddenly he's "el" (a term that simply meant "deity" by the time the Torah was written) without a single mention of dissent. What I want is for the few relevent facts in this article to be removed to God in Abrahamic religions or God in Judaism and the article changed to a redirect to God in Abrahamic religions. However; I won't do that. Wikipedia is a repository of sourced information, not truth. Sources exist for both sides, though one is omited here. In order to be inclusive and accurate as possible Yahweh should redirect to God in Abrahamic religions because even if this made-up proto-religion were real it would still qualify. The article should be renamed, maybe the way Tgeorgescu suggested above; and we should start a POV fork including sources and content from detractors from these theories... or just include them with the text. Schwarzschild Point • 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Just so I understand correctly, you are saying that the only name of this particular god is God, and that is what you want the information contained in this article to reflect? Scr★pIronIV 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Maybe I didn't explain. Yahweh is the Hebrew word that the Bible translates as "LORD". It should make more sense in that context. Schwarzschild Point • 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC) So, your contention is that Yahweh is not a name for the god described here, but merely a title for the god named God? Scr★pIronIV 14:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Eh, close enough. Click this link. The second paragraph should be particularly helpful. Schwarzschild Point • 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC) We should redirect it there, now that I think about it. Schwarzschild Point • 15:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) And what is the Hebrew name for the god named God? Scr★pIronIV 15:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Yahweh is the Hebrew name for the one we call "God". It's all on the Tetragrammaton page if you need to read it. Schwarzschild Point • 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Yahweh" is not, nor has it ever been, God's actual name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) If you want a practical example, open a KJV Bible to the Old Testament, when you see LORD in all caps the word is "יהוה", phonetically "Yahweh" when you see the word "God" or "god" the word is "אֱלֹהִים" phonetically "Elohim" and is capitalized based on context. "Lord" is Adonai and means ruler. Schwarzschild Point • 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Adonai" is read out loud in place of "Yahweh", due to the mistaken belief that "Yahweh" is the actual name of God. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC) If that's true you'd better go work on this page: I am Yahweh your God. Schwarzschild Point • 16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Jewish prayers say "Adonai" where "Yahweh" appears, for the reason I stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Sans the "mistaken," The God of the Torrah is "Yahweh" most practicing Jews use a euphemism to avoid taking his name in vain. See Tetragrammaton. Schwarzschild Point • 16:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Yes, because they traditionally consider it to be God's name. It isn't. It was God describing Himself - "I am that I am", and so on. No earthly being knows God's real name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC) So, the name "Yahweh" has been historically used as a "name" for God, because we don't know his actual name? And it is a well sourced name in use for the deity described? I'm still not seeing the "bias" that is being discussed here, by naming an article with the name that is used to describe what - apparently - has no other name known by man. Please point out the bias that is meant to be addressed by the inclusion of the POV tag. Scr★pIronIV 16:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see, though I respect your opinion, Baseball Bugs, I disagree with it. Exodus 3:15 "God also said to Moses, 'Say this to the people of Israel, "The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations'. But I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not have a theological discussion. I said it earlier, I think: "Wikipedia is a repository of sourced information, not truth." Sources say Yahweh is considered the name of God, the content on Wikipedia should reflect that. Schwarzschild Point • 16:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I respect you more and more ScrapIronIV as you take the time to hear me out, but be careful not to take us in a circle here. I mentioned above the problems I had with the neutrality of this article. We've moved on to talking about ways to fix it without putting the tag back up. If you want we should put it up though I certainly can. Schwarzschild Point • 16:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I think you misunderstand my point. You claimed a bias, and I am trying to get you to tell me specifically what you think is biased here. You have stated that it is incorrectly named, and I am trying to figure out exactly what you want it to be renamed to be. This is not about the tag, this is about the content which you believe deserves a tag. Please tell me, and the other editors here, precisely what needs to be changed. this is so that we can discuss the specific issues that you want to have addressed. So far, I have not seen you discuss any concrete issue about the actual content of the page - just the name of it. I believe we have determined that "Yahweh" is an appropriate name, as it is a name which is consistently used for this God. Scr★pIronIV 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC) To quote myself directly: "In order to be inclusive and accurate as possible Yahweh should redirect to God in Abrahamic religions because even if this made-up proto-religion were real it would still qualify. The article should be renamed, maybe the way Tgeorgescu suggested above; and we should start a POV fork including sources and content from detractors from these theories... or just include them with the text. Schwarzschild Point • 14:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)" Yahweh is consistantly used to refer to the Tetragrammaton. The only reason it wasn't used for the article name I suspect is due to the reverence shown for the name by practicing Jews. Above Tgeorgescu suggested we use Yahweh (ancient god). Though I'd prefer Yahweh (secular) I doubt that it would be accepted. Schwarzschild Point • 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Such a major change to a long-standing and well-sourced article would, as you have been told by others, amount to its deletion. It would certainly require more than just you and I agreeing to it. Perhaps you should nominate it for deletion, with a recommendation to merge its content into the page you suggest. That really seems like the only real way to get what you desire to have done. Scr★pIronIV 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I don't think that would go over well. The roundabout process would probably make it so no one considers it. Maybe we change this section title to "Article Move", post our favorite choices for a new name, and step off for a week. If we don't have any big detractors after that then what we do have is a concensus. Schwarzschild Point • 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Yahweh (secular) is my Move suggestion as it differentiates the article from YHWH and eleminates the need for a POV fork that Yahweh (ancient god) would present. This page would redirect to Tetragrammaton, the article about the Hebrew word "Yahweh" Schwarzschild Point • 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Except there is nothing secular about the god Yahweh: it was a historical phenomenon and historians describe it to the extent they can reconstruct it. History is certainly secular scholarship (makes no supernatural claims), but the god described by historians isn't secular. I mean the god Chemosh is described at Chemosh, not at Chemosh (secular). Your proposal has a POV of fundamentalist denialism of ancient gods. That Yahweh was an ancient god among many other gods is a well-established objective fact and no amount of denial will make Wikipedia ignore this. This is simply how things were in Antiquity and Wikipedia learned this from reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Changing the name of the article to Yahweh (secular) makes sense for someone pushing a fundamentalist POV. Yet Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of fundamentalist sensibilities. That's not how WP:NPOV works, it does not mean giving equal weight to academic scholarship and fundamentalist theology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) *Delete it's offensive for my religion – MyGodIsBetterThanYours, 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC) ... is a classic bad argument for deleting articles. It has been recently removed at [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC) General thoughts: While Yahweh is one of the names by which the Abrahamic deity is now known, it was at certain points of history considered distinct by enough people to require separate treatment. The Bible affirms that there were Hebrews who treated their deity as one among many (even if condemning them for doing so -- which wouldn't be likely to mentioned if it just didn't happen), and some portions can really only be understood from the perspective that neighboring tribes held similar views of Yahweh (because we know they worshiped El/ohim but not Yahweh). The Biblical descriptions that accompany each name are likewise distinct: Yahweh is Biblically described as anthropomorphic and wild, Elohim as transcendent and calm. At any rate, the term "God" originally applied to Odin, many Indian Christians borrow the term Ishvara, many Chinese Christians use the terms Shangdi, and some African Christians use the name Nzambi -- should we redirect Shiva, Odin, Jade Emperor/Okhwangsangje, and Nyame to the article God in Abrahamic religions as well? Should we just redirect Jesus there, if we're going to be so sectarian and imprecise? Or perhaps those of us who believe Yahweh, Elohim, and many of those other names all refer to the One Creator God of Abraham, Moses, and David could assume that God attempted to accommodate limited human capability to understand the Divine by having different tribes combine their originally distinct understandings of Him. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC) There's no reason to pretend I am arguing out of fundimentalism. Yahweh refers to the Tetragrammaton. If you don't believe this then you should look into removing that information from that page, it is stated directly in the article text. This page should redirect there. What we need to do now is find a name for this article.Schwarzschild Point • 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC) That is a specious argument. The idea of God is far too complex to put in such binary terms. References to Yahweh are found in multiple places here precisely because of that complexity. Whatever your perspective, or goal, in attempting to get this article POV forked or moved (or whatever you are trying to do) it is clearly not reaching a point of consensus. I made a suggestion, and you dismissed it out of hand because you didn't think it would go over well. This strategy isn't going over well either. The change you are suggesting is too big to do an end-around Wikipedia's processes; use one, or not - but this is going nowhere without it. Scr★pIronIV 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Tetragrammaton is a decidedly Hellenistic syncretization of Yahweh, Elohim, and Logos -- hence the Greek. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC) The name "Tetragrammaton" is, the subject is not. Schwarzschild Point • 18:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Sorry, didn't read that well. Your religious views aren't what we're looking for. If you read the article you'll find that Tetragrammaton predated any interaction of Hebrew and Greek. Schwarzschild Point • 19:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Until we have empirical knowledge of the subject, the distinction is moot. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia is a repository of sourced information, not "empirical knowledge". The sourced information in the article on Tetragrammaton can't be ignored in favor of the sourced information inside this article. Why even try to do that? Do you like one better than the other? So we should rename it, right? Or what do you think? How do we make the information agree. Schwarzschild Point • 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC) All that is known of the subject is names and words: and those names and words have important distinctions from the ones you wish to merge this article with. All that can be verified about Yahweh is that He was regarded as a distinct deity for a period before the Hebrews merged Him merged with Elohim, Elyon, and Shaddai (all known to be regarded as distinct gods by the Canaanites) and into the Tetragrammaton by Hellenistic Jews. What the theological significance of this is is up to the reader, but we will not hide this historical information to accommodate those who are incapable of reconciling this with monotheism (be it through perennialism, Prisca theologia, or whatever means). The name Yahweh does indeed predate interaction between the Greeks and Hebrews, but the concept of the name Yahweh as the Tetragrammaton is Hellenistic. Otherwise, the article would be titled "Ha-Shem." Your accusations about "my" religious views are laughable. If you are going to reply to attempts to respond on as close to common ground as I can find with you (since consensus and policy clearly doesn't matter to you), then I'll stick to policy: academic sources describe Yahweh as a distinct deity, and consensus is to follow suit for the article. Either present heavy-duty academic sources indicating (without interpretation or elaboration) that this is fundamentally incorrect or quit wasting everyone's time. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC) The more I look at the questions, contributions, and obvious pre-account knowledge of the ins-and-outs of wikipedia processes, the less I am willing to take this request - or even these questions - seriously. I am going to drop out of discussion, and just keep an eye on the page to ensure nothing untoward occurs to it. Scr★pIronIV 20:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC) A good call. Doug Weller (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Doug Weller, every time you follow me to a page you make it that much more likely that my next ANI compaint against you succeeds. I've warned you about harrasing me, It's disapointing that you do not learn. Never mind, that one's a mensch. Schwarzschild Point • 19:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC) ScrapIronIV I had respect for you, less now, of course. If you've been through my contributions like you say you should see that I only made this account since my new phone IP was within a banned range. I've been an IP editor for some time. Schwarzschild Point • 13:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Somehow, I find that thought redeeming. There are those whose work I respect, and I do covet their approval. Yours? meh Scr★pIronIV 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) ScrapIronIV, a mark of a good person is treating those that disagree with you with respect. I thought I saw that in you, then you resorted to mud slinging to try and win people to your side. Now I can only wait for you to make good on your promise to "drop out of discussion." I can't see your presence helping either side. Schwarzschild Point • 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Respect is earned, not given indiscriminately. Point out where I was slinging mud, or even that I have a "side" here. As for discussion, keep pinging me, and I will continue to respond - with less and less patience for such pinnipedian behavior. I don't claim to be a "good person" at all; I merely try to be competent. You should try it sometime. Scr★pIronIV 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Oy, If I was not competent you wouldn't whine about my "obvious pre-account knowledge," would you now? Schwarzschild Point • 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Knowledge is not wisdom, nor does it equate to the competent use of said information. One can have plenty of knowledge, and not have a clue how to use it. WP:CIR is a good essay to read. Scr★pIronIV 18:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC) WP:CIV Got one for you too, User:ScrapIronIV. Schwarzschild Point • 19:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Just show me where I was uncivil, and I will concede the point. You accused me of mud slinging, and of being biased; yet you show no diffs to support your cause. Go ahead, keep pinging me; I know you can't stop - you need the last word. Ping me again, and my next comment goes to AN/I Scr★pIronIV 19:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I gather that Schwarzschild Point is offended that the article defines Yahweh as the "national god" of Israel/Judah - but that's the definition given in our source, Miller. It was actually quite difficult finding a definition of the word/name - the only other useful one I found was Freedman, who calls Yahweh the "god of Moses," which is no doubt true but not very useful - he was the god of quite a few other people besides Moses. Anyway, perhaps, it wold help if Schwarzschild Point could search for an alternative definition for us to consider. PiCo (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Ian.thomson, if you don't like me suggesting that your position is religiously motivated maybe don't suggest mine is? It's true I would have religious compuctions against calling God "a national God" and would prefer to have him defined as the "God worshiped by Isreal". However my reasoning for wanting the page to redirect to the Tetragrammaton like YHWH does is backed up by sources and wikipolicy. the term "Tetragrammaton" may be greek but the use of tetragrammaton predates it's current naming and the article is not about the process of tetragrammaton but about Yahweh. As of now Wikipedia has for some reason redirected the anglicized spelling of YHWH to Tetragrammaton and assigned the phonetic spelling of Yahweh to a completely different page. Schwarzschild Point • 13:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC) My position was in line with site policies and guidelines. Yours isn't, by your own admission. I attempted to address reasons for not redirecting this page on religious grounds for your sake. If you are not even capable of dialogue on that level, perhaps you should read WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. I apologize for mistaking you for a someone hoping to improve the encyclopedia with a reasonable and open mind, and will resume treating you as a fanatic accordingly: Present sources for your proposed changes or quit wasting bandwidth. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Come on Ian, Read my last sentence. Why does YHWH redirect and not Yahweh? I'm sure you know that there are no vowels in Hebrew. Those are different spellings of the same word. Schwarzschild Point • 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) One article deals with the national deity of Israel, the other the name which absorbed additional qualities and significance. Should we redirect Odin to God? Notice that this article ends just a few centuries before the Babylonian captivity, while the only material in Tetragrammaton that predates the Babylonian captivity is the (rather contextually out of place) Mesha Stele. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) If that's true we should make a differentiation in the title. I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the word "YHWH", The first writen mention of the word and the four letters referred to in (from Greek τετραγράμματον; meaning "(consisting) of four letters"), redirects to that page. No mention of "Yahweh" exists before "YHWH" or "יהוה" because that is it's spelling. They are the same. It's like having "Jesus" and "Iesus" redirect to different articles and saying "One redirects to the God and one to the historical figure." If you want to do that you have to make an article that reads "Iesous(secular)" and "Iesous(religous)" or a simmilar naming convention. Otherwise it lacks consistency. Schwarzschild Point • 18:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Actually, we do have separate articles for Jesus and Christ, and there's less historical distance between the ideas "Jesus as teacher" and "Jesus as deity" (with ranges between "simultaneous" to "up to a century," secular academia inclining toward "within a decade of death"). Meanwhile, the idea of "Yahweh as one god among many" (this article) and "the Tetragrammaton as a name for the transcendent Deity" has a few centuries between them. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Believe it or not, I knew that. You notice how "Jesus" and "Iesus" direct to the same page? Whereas "Yahweh" has a page here and "YHWH" goes to an article with a broader scope. Despite each pair being derived from the same respective word.Schwarzschild Point • 18:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Your distinction was between deity and historical figure, however. That's an argument for YHWH redirecting to this article, not for merging Yahweh and Tetragrammaton. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your imput. Since YHWH is the Tetragrammaton (Literally, it's the four that tetra refers to and the letters that grammaton refers to), and Yahweh is the phonetization of YHWH, derived from the same. It's a stronger argument for renaming this page Yahweh(iron age) and redirecting this Yahweh to Tetragrammaton. Schwarzschild Point • 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC) The name Yahweh has multiple meanings. "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." Henry Louis Mencken, quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Not according to the sources: Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica). Part One: Orthography and Phonetics. Rome : Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblio, 1996. ISBN 978-8876535956. Quote from Section 16(f)(1)" "The Qre is יְהֹוָה the Lord, whilst the Ktiv is probably(1) יַהְוֶה (according to ancient witnesses)." "Note 1: In our translations, we have used Yahweh, a form widely accepted by scholars, instead of the traditional Jehovah" Schwarzschild Point • 20:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I don't deny that that source say that, but your stance is denialism of ancient history. This whole article contains sources about the ancient god Yahweh, patently at a stage wherein he wasn't yet God. This is a non-negotiable fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Hello, Tgeorgescu, You must be newer here than I. This is Wikipedia, where your "Facts" don't matter. Wikipedia is a repository of sourced information, not truth. WP:NOTTRUTH Schwarzschild Point • 22:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC) The stance that the god Yahweh wasn't God is verified by plenty of reliable sources cited in the article you discuss. Different deities need different articles. Please read WP:DEADHORSE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC) The word itself is the same word. I've actually given you a source that states it. Schwarzschild Point • 22:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC) True, but inessential, since that source is not germane to the subject of this article. Also read WP:LISTEN: you have no consensus and there isn't any chance for you getting a consensus to rename this article to what you please. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I fully intend on correcting this article name. Even if I have to do it per WP:IAR. If you took the time to consider my point you'd admit that two different forms of the same word should not redirect to different pages. It would be like アニメ redirecting to Japanese cartoons before WWII and Anime redirecting somewhere else. Schwarzschild Point • 12:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) IAR doesn't work when you're in a dispute like this, you'd just get reverted. I think part of the problem here is that YHWH and Yahweh simply aren't used interchangeably, whatever their derivation. This article is not about YHWH, it's about the development of belief in a god named Yahweh up until the time of absolute monotheism. Doug Weller (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) How is YHWH Pronounced? According to the source I listed they are used interchangebly and in all my experience with Hebrew and hermeneutics this site is the only time I've seen them passed off as different.Schwarzschild Point • 15:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) That's not the issue. How are they used in reliable sources? Now Google Books may give you a different result, but[2] has on its front page a number of books which are relevant to the content of this article, eg[3], while YHWH[4] presents fewer books with a very different content. Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) YHWH is for sure the (Latin alphabet transliteration of the) name of the god of the ancient Israelites and Judahites; Yahweh is the same name with the (most probable according to modern scholars) vowels added. As Doug Weller says, and I think others have said it too, this is beside the point, because Wikipedia has decided to have one article on philology (the word (YHWH) and another on the history and attributes of the god (this one). Given that both are already quite long (YHWH especially), a merger seems out of the question. PiCo (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC) (BTW, I think our OP is concerned, at base, that describing Yahweh as the national god of Israel would limit his identification as the God of all. I can understand the emotion behind that, but the Torah does, in fact, identify Yahweh as the god of Israel alone - "Hear O Israel, Yahweh is our god...", not Yahweh is everyone's god.)PiCo (talk) My entire point PiCo if we are making to different articles we should label them. Since they are used interchangebly. One is a phonetic speling the other a transliterated spelling both the same word. If we want different articles with different content we should label them that way. Schwarzschild Point • 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The definition is in the first sentence of each lead, as is usual for all articles. For the article on YHWH, "The tetragrammaton ... is the Hebrew theonym יהוה, commonly transliterated into Latin letters as YHWH"; for this article, "Yahweh ... was the national god of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah."PiCo (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC) That is simply not true. Please, I have stated this earlier. They are literally the same word. Schwarzschild Point • 21:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose to close this discussion

Since there seems to be a clear consensus that all contributors above apart from @Schwarzschild Point: appear to be content for the naming to go on as it is, I propose we now close this discussion with no move. It's gone on long enough now, and taken enough of people's time. Jheald (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Close, no move. Jheald (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, move is needed. Schwarzschild Point • 08:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Close, no move Doug Weller (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Close, no move Scr★pIron^IV 13:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Close, no move Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Close, no move Both Yahweh and Tetragrammaton (redirect target for YHWH) have appropriate disambiguation hatnotes. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Close, no move and WP:SNOW close if reopened. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, why? There is no good reason not to do this other than preservation of status quo. The article title is horribly inaccurate. Schwarzschild Point • 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Close, no move - the reasons have been exhaustively covered in discussion.PiCo (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

REQUEST: Could somebody make this thread collapsible? It takes up so much space!PiCo (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've been uninvolved enough to collapse it, without closing the discussion just yet. Done. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Aniconism and the YHW drachm

There's no doubt that Iron Age Judahite religion was aniconic (no depictions of the god Yahweh). This is unusual in the Ancient Near East, but not unparalleled - in the first version of the Assyrian empire the god Asshur was not depicted. Rather than an idol, Yahweh had a winged throne supported by cherubim (not pretty little baby angels biut fierce lion-creatures with eagle-wings). He sat on the outstretched wings of the cherubim and rested his feet on the ark of the covenant, but was invisible. Perhaps this derived from his origins as a battle-god who accompanied Israel into war in the form of the ark. The YHW-drachm is (a) very late (dates from the Persian period); and (b) disputed (might say YHD, not YHW). But it's interesting, and illustrates aniconism in a sort of reverse way - its very rarity shows how strange it is. Maybe a separate para needs to discuss this. PiCo (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Present

The expression, meaning, not actually finally-concluded (especially in written form) as being referred to Yahveh, Yah Veh or YHVH is most presently of meaning, now.

Clearly all knowledge of besaid is relating from the torah, bible, septuagint as in scriptual form , and from earlier artifacts where it is widely unconcluded whether or whether not the lettering and phrasing is referring to besaid.

With such (factually and only by clear referrence with a just measure) in regard the factuality is: Yahveh is of present meaning. - self explaining the devastation of depictions and strange abreviations according to the content of the torah, wich is the sole and main (paleo hebrew original text / greek septuagint / modern hebrew torah / christian bible)and only correct document to referr and state from, being the very leading source of knowledge despite the oral and some artifactual and all evidentual expressions and impressions.

correct stated: Also, present meaning in any case comes as more sure factuality then historic views. where the present meaning is lead from historic views and is most currently of prescence and action. Seperation of historians view has to be done and referred to as such clearly, especially in this holy manner majorly recieved from holy scripture.(strict factual) Again, wich all knowledge is recieved from the torah (and its lead to textuality and scriptuality) and as such has to be guarded and in accord with all additional content of such, from the torah equally.

correct as such (wording and spelling in brackets not included) following:

Yahweh (/ˈjɑːhweɪ/, or often /ˈjɑːweɪ/ in English; Hebrew: יהוה) is a meaning for the one god of israel and the jewish people, all creation and all existance. In the wake of time became to be known to israel, sowith the jewish people and further to humanity. In its form of writting presently and prior withnessed withunder thru the hebrew and christian bible, and other ancient documents such as the septuagint and earlier inscriptions of historic findings revealed troughout time till present.

	+	
	+	
	+	

In the view of historians:

	+	
	+	

_

For immediate validity.

present.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Info as is (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 September 2015‎ (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes Torah isn't a reliable source. All original research based upon Torah is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Besides, there are other articles such as God, God in Abrahamic religions, God in Judaism, God in Christianity which are more germane for the meaning "Yahweh=Creator of the world". This is an article about the ancient god, since it is a notable research topic and has to be expressed somewhere inside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored to the satisfaction of religious fundamentalists, so this article won't get removed from Wikipedia simply because you do not like historical scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Besides it is not required that historical articles be vetted by your pet theologians, nor that they should have lengthy theological disclaimers that they fail to represent what you consider theological orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ivory pomegranate

I suggest adding a mention of the Ivory pomegranate which though controversial is probably authentic and very important (even if uncertain) artifact to Yahweh Sadya goan (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The general opinion seems to be that it's probably a forgery, but even if genuine, why should it be mentioned in this article?PiCo (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"The general opinion" is not a very objective statement the article clearly says it is not simple and it may be real. The reason for mentioning it is simple this may be the oldest use of Yahweh. Therefor I suggest adding something like

"Thou controversial the ivory pomegranate may indicate worship as early as 13th century BC"

or

"Yahweh may have be worshiped alongside El all along as indicated by the Ivory pomegranate although it is still controversial"

we are trying to be objective here we don't have to convince anybody that Yahweh is fake, we can only be as objective as possible objective doesn't mean truth. This article is supposed to be scholarly, historical not anti religious propaganda. I think this article should be written in a way that will allow believers to believe that the bible can be true. After all, we may never be able to prove if the bible is real or not all the scholarly stuff is lucky guesses at best archaeology is art. belief is real lets try to leave it to the believers decision . This article doesn't have to kill religion let's try to let it live. OK so we can write historically the bible isn't probable but why bash it who cares let them believe if they want to. This is why I really think this article should be rewritten or added a section or be both sided in a way that would imply that the bible might be real.Sadya goan (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Not exactly archeology, but you get the idea. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying, you are saying "It could be you am right but that isn't the accepted scholarship". And I understand I am not fighting that I am saying more that if there is room for authenticity it should be granted.Sadya goan (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SOAP Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for evangelizing, nor is it a soapbox for atheism. We stick with the consensus of mainstream academic scholarship, no more, no less. If the academic consensus is that the ivory pomegranate is fake, we do not mention it as archaeological evidence for Yahweh worship. We are not here to promote fringe views. Maybe at Citizendium you could have more success than here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the Jerusalem temple was always meant to be the central or even sole temple of Yahweh

Um this doesn't sound right what about Samson ?? I recall hearing that before the first temple one was allowed to make a sacrifice anywhere?? Sadya goan (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the "always" is meant to apply to the period after the Temple was built.PiCo (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

EXACTLY!! which is why the paragraph doesn't make sense. " but this was not the case:[34] the earliest known Israelite place of worship is a 12th-century ..." 12th-century BC is BEFORE the first temple Sadya goan (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article Shiloh (biblical city) sheds some light on this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific Sadya goan (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Being a published "Christian theologian" does not certify (nor can it) that one does not have an unbiased view of the subject at hand. Provably, many "theologians" (as though that term certifies that one knows what one is talking about), when addressing the Tenach (Old Testament, Prophets and the Writings), and I might add the "Renewed Covenant" (New Testament) do so without any requisite in-depth knowledge concerning the Hebrew language, culture and customs and the Worship mandated by Yaweh! Firstly, one must have an intense desire and love for truth and the pursuit thereof. Most people do not, including so-called "theologians"! Therefore, since most anyone may publish an article on Wikipedia, the apparent intentional disinformation/misinformation which can often be found here adds nothing to the pursuit of, and/or the furtherance of truth. Wikipedia is not the place to find the enlightenment of God's Word and what it can do for you. So, if you are relying on anything found on Wikipedia to assist you in acquiring "unadulterated truth" whatever it is that you are researching, it had better be taken in view of what you already know to be, unquestionably, true! Obfuscation of any fact, but especially Truth, is extremely easy to do on a forum such as this. That is why Obfuscation of facts is one of the greatest wrongs that can be committed! Truth does not begin on Wikipedia... nor will it ever begin here! Daniel Baggett (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a name for "search for truth", it calls it "academic scholarship". We do not render here our own whims, but the viewpoints of reputable scholars according to the weight they have in mainstream research. So, we do not pander to piety or "true theology" (which is in the eye of the beholder), but render hardcore Bible scholarship done by full professors at prestigious universities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

point of view/tone/neutrality

Hi, I've commented on this article a few times in the past, but I think it still has issues so I wanted to drop by and leave my opinion.

I think the major problem with the article is that it reads like a thesis. It's well-supported, it's clear that it's about a specific topic (the Iron Age god, not the Jewish God), there are appropriate redirects, etc. which is a major improvement over some versions in the past. (I would prefer "(Iron Age god)" or something in the title, but that's up for debate.) However, everything is kind of stated as fact, instead of stated as "such and such researcher has found that because of x, y, and z points of evidence, it appears that this is the case" which I think would be a better tone. For news events, it makes sense to outright say "this happened." When you're talking about ancient history and gods, I think the tone needs to be a bit different. Your work is well-cited, but it doesn't read like an encyclopedia at all.

For example, I think the tone of this sentence is OK:

"Recent scholarship suggests the Israelite community arose peacefully and internally in the highlands of Palestine[19]—in the words of archaeologist William Dever, "most of those who came to call themselves Israelites … were or had been indigenous Canaanites"[20][Notes 1]—and that Israelite religion accordingly emerged gradually from a Canaanite milieu.[21]"

On the contrary, I take issue with the tone of this sentence:

"After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal."

Good luck with future edits!  :) I hope that we can draw more people to this page, because I really think it would benefit from additional editors and opinions. Right now, I think the bulk of the editing is done by one person or a few people which in general will hinder the quality of any article, regardless of topic/controversy.

-KaJunl (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to correct myself, it appears that there are more people editing than there used to be. This is good and I hope more people continue to join the discussion/editing process. -KaJunl (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The tone of this article gives off the impression that much of this article's content is established fact drawn from the archaeological and historical record. In reality, virtually every point in this article regarding the origins of Judaism and how YHWH became the national god of Israel and Judah is the subject of ongoing research and is much debated. A lot of the stuff about the development of YHWH from the Canaanite milieu is the opinion of some individual researchers making educated guesses from very, very fragmentary info. That should be made clear. Niremetal (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There is bickering over details. However, the basic outline of A History of God (namely that God was once a god who got promoted and made career) still holds for most scholars, fringe excepted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The emic story is that Abraham had a fully developed concept of God, he taught it to Hebrews and they practiced it more or less faithfully. From an etic standpoint, the emic story is hogwash. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back to this article again. I still have some issues with it that I've commented on in the past. To save myself from being repetitive or biased, I'm hoping to get others' feedback, and I just learned about this request for feedback thing and I thought I'd try it out. Can someone provide input about whether the overall tone and intent of this article is appropriate, in a big picture way? -KaJunl (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Too much of "states", "thinks" and "considers" make a bad prose. These should be restricted to stuff that is not endorsed by majority opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Scholars do not know as much as they would like, but it is not the case that they don't know anything. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A bot deleted my request for comment tag because I didn't put it in the right place. I am going to start a new section here for discussion and try reinstate the tag. -KaJunl (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar/style (& more) notes

I'm going to refrain from making edits to this directly for now since obviously I have some content concerns that the primary authors don't agree with, but I do think I can make some improvements to the article just in terms of grammar/style/clarity, so I'll put them below. -KaJunl (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence of the lead uses "is" while the opening sentence of the first section after the lead uses "was" for more or less the same sentence. Can we evaluate whether tense is used consistently/in the best way? -KaJunl (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional possible grammar issue right before reference 12 in the 1st paragraph. I think that should be a period not a comma. Also in the last sentence of that paragraph I'd say "his name" instead of "the name" for clarity mainly because the sentence starts with "he" and I think it sounds better that way. -KaJunl (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"There is considerable support—though not universal—for the view that the Egyptian inscriptions do refer to Yahweh.[15]" - What are "the" Egyptian inscriptions? Are you referring to the inscription from the time of Amenhotep III mentioned in the prior paragraph? In that paragraph, it is a single inscription, and now it is plural. I would also consider using "that" instead of "the" to be clear you're talking about the same thing, or add some more detail.

"The question that arises is how he made his way to the north." - I don't like this sentence. I think it could be much clearer. Do you mean how the worship of Yahweh moved from just being in Egypt to being prevalent in regions farther north than Egypt? Also should north be capitalized here (not sure)? I also don't think it should be "the" question. Mentioning the "question" actually doesn't seem necessary/appropriate. Maybe something more akin to "There is less consensus about..." something.

"A widely accepted hypothesis is that traders brought Yahweh to Israel along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan (this is called the Kenite hypothesis, after one of the groups involved).[17]" - I would change this to "The widely accepted Kenite hypothesis..." I don't like the parentheses part which seems like unnecessary information/could be more concise.

"The strength of the Kenite hypothesis is the way it ties together various points of data, such as the absence of Yahweh from Canaan, his links with Edom and Midian in the biblical stories, and the Kenite or Midianite ties of Moses; but while it is highly plausible that the Kenites, Midianites and others may have introduced Israel to Yahweh, according to Van der Toorn it is unlikely that they did so outside the borders of Israel or under the aegis of Moses, as the Exodus story has it.[18]" This sounds a lot more like a thesis/academic paper than an encyclopedia. I would actually go into more detail here and more sentences, but keep the sentences simpler and remember that your audience does not know everything you know. You bring up a lot of terminology/ideas here that haven't been stated elsewhere in the article and thus seem unclear, at least in an encyclopedia article, in my opinion.

• absence of Yahweh from Canaan

Not clear what this means. Does it mean there is no historical record of anyone worshiping him in Canaan? Does it mean that there is a definitive historical record of Yahweh not being worshiped in Canaan? Does it mean that in the Jewish bible no one in Canaan was mentioning him? Does it mean that in the bible people were calling out to YHWH but he wasn't answering? Does it mean that there is a non-bible historical record of people trying tow orship him in Canaan and him not responding? Etc. Just trying to show how this can be confusing/unclear.

• his links with Edom and Midian in the biblical stories

This is better. But it would still be better if you explained what it meant/ how the Kenite hypothesis explains this, in my opinion, if you're going to bring it up. (I understand that some of this is just me being uneducated on the subject, but I do think it's important that an encyclopedia generally be accessible/understandable).

• and the Kenite or Midianite ties of Moses

Not clear at all to me what this has to do with a hypothesis that says traders brought Yahweh north.

After analyzing this sentence for several minutes, I now think what we're saying is that Kenites and Midianites are the traders. That makes some more sense but wasn't totally obvious/could be clearer.

• You can add a comma after Van der Toorn I think but not sure
• it is unlikely that they did so outside the borders of Israel or under the aegis of Moses, as the Exodus story has it.

Why is it unlikely/why was the other part plausible. Not saying I don't believe you, just saying I don't think this sentence adds a ton to the article without more context/explanation.

Hope you don't mind all the comments, possibly more to come. -KaJunl (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Iron Age I section:

A lot of this seems like unnecessary information that hinders the clarity of the article. The whole first paragraph doesn't really seem necessary. I think this section could benefit from a sort of "topic sentence" or thesis that tells me what the paragraph is going to be about, because right now it's difficult to follow. In this section I get the history of how Israel came to be, a bunch of stuff about El and some other gods, and finally, in the middle/end of a paragraph, Yahweh suddenly appears. My interpretation after rereading this a few times is that the idea is this: Earlier, we just of Yahweh from some Egyptian inscriptions, and there are some theories about how he became popular/known farther north involving traders. But in this paragraph, we're going to get in to the first references to him in Israel. So first we get some history about the beginnings of Israel being on the historical record. Then we hear about the earlier gods in Israel, such as El. Then we hear about a group of gods that existed, and how there were different tiers, and how how Yahweh fit into that. I think this could be greatly simplified/clarified. Do I really need to hear about the history of Israel coming onto the historical record? What's the main idea here, can we start with that? The main idea to me seems like, in the Iron Age, Yahweh became known in Israel, but at the time, he wasn't the only god of Israel and he wasn't the most dominant/powerful one. Can we start with that idea right at the top? And then the secondary idea to include in the supporting paragraph would be about El and the tiers of different gods and the progression of Yahweh going from unknown/less important to be coming one of the generic names for "god." Then go into his description (warrior, etc.) in an additional paragraph, in my opinion. Long story short, I think getting rid of some wordiness/extra information could make your point clearer. -KaJunl (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

We're allowed to abstract sources. We're not allowed to perform original synthesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article is already short, by shortening it big time it won't become clearer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair point regarding original synthesis. I don't think that prevents you from organizing the section better though or stripping out the unnecessary parts. I'm not arguing to make the article shorter (in fact, I'm arguing to make the previous section longer at some points), but I don't think "the article is too short" is a valid argument for keeping in unnecessary information that doesn't make the article clear. For example, to me, this seems to add absolutely nothing: "Baal's sphere was the thunderstorm with its life-giving rains, so that he was also a fertility god, although not quite the fertility god.[28]" In addition to stripping out sentences, I think you can shorten others, while avoiding any original synthesis/combining sentences together. My point is mainly that I think you need to include the sentences that have to do with the article, strip out the ones that don't, and put it in a more logical order. Right now it just sounds like we're quoting stuff that is sometimes irrelevant and unclear. -KaJunl (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Iron Age II section, first thoughts:

• Thus Chemosh was the god of the Moabites,

Personal preference, but I'd get rid of the word "thus"

• (no "God of Judah" is mentioned anywhere in the Bible).

Is this necessary? Not sure what it adds/what it has to do with anything.

• In each kingdom the king was also the head of the national religion and God's viceroy on Earth,[35] reflected each year in Jerusalem when the king presided over a ceremony at which Yahweh was enthroned in the Temple.[36]

Would change to: "In each of these nation states, the king served as the head of the national religion and as God's viceroy on Earth. This was reflected each year in Jerusalem when the king would preside over a ceremony in which Yahweh was enthroned in the Temple."

Reasons: I think it's clearer if you stick with "nation states" based on the previous sentence. I don't like the "also" because I think "also to what?" I'm not sure why, but 2 sentences here is easier for me to read and seems clearer.

• The centre of Yahweh's worship lay

Would change to "The centre of Yahweh's worship in Israel lay." Maybe this is obvious but for me it is clarifying.

• but they became linked to events in the national mythos of Israel:

This doesn't fully connect everything. The earlier part of the sentence says the events predated Yahweh (probably) but the second part has a "but" and doesn't fully contradict that, as it is written. Can we clarify that the national mythos are inherently linked to Yahweh? Rather than just saying that the events are linked to the national mythos, we're trying to say that the events are linked to Yahweh, and I don't think this sentence fully says that right now.

OK, got to the next sentence and you kind of do that, but I'd prefer if it was part of the previous setnence.

• "His worship presumably involved sacrifice.."

Maybe new paragraph? The first part was very based on the festivals, where as this is broader.

• "The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the Jerusalem temple was always meant to be the central or even sole temple of Yahweh, but this was not the case:[34] "

Would delete this and simply state the next part. Just say where the earliest evidence of worship is, if you have evidence of that. Maybe have a follow-up sentence saying that this contradicts the Hebrew bible. But this is the first mention of the Hebrew bible in the article and seems kind of out of place/unnecessary and comes across more like you are making an argument than stating encyclopedic fact. This is what I mean in general when I have issues with the tone. It's an encyclopedia - don't make an argument, just state what's known and generally accepted and back it up with sources. Of everything I've said so far, this is probably the most questionable since I know it gets involved with my content disagreements, so ignore if you want.

• "Yahweh-worship was famously aniconic, meaning that the god was not depicted by a statue or other image. This is not to say that he was not represented in some symbolic form, and early Israelite worship probably focused on standing stones, but according to the Biblical texts the temple in Jerusalem featured Yahweh's throne in the form of two cherubim, their inner wings forming the seat and a box (the Ark of the Covenant) as a footstool, while the throne itself was empty.[45] "

Would change to: "Yahweh-worship was famously aniconic, meaning that the god was not depicted by a statue or other image. According to Biblical texts, the temple in Jerusalem featured Yahweh's throne in the form two cherubim, their inner wings forming the seat and a box (the Ark of the Covenant) as a footstool, while the throne itself was empty. It is, however, likely that early Israelite worship focused on standing stones, and Yahweh may have been represented in some symbolic form earlier on." Or something. I don't like the "this is not to say" part, stylistically. I just feel like we're adding minutiae that make the main point of the sentences harder to find. I also think my way flows better into the following sentences. Right now, the paragraph seems to go back and forth and back and forth instead of 2 separate clear ideas separately: 1) famous for being aniconic, 2) but that may not be true and here's evidence against it.

Obviously this is all personal opinion and I'm being nitpicky, but I think some of my comments could make it better. -KaJunl (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

KaJunl, thanks for taking a close and intelligent interest in the article. Unfortunately I find it hard to follow when you raise so many points. Could you perhaps list them in bullet form and/or break them down by groups? PiCo (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I mostly went top to bottom of the article one sentence at a time, if that helps. Some of it is thoughts about things being unclear without a concrete suggestion of how to improve, which is more difficult to shorten. In a lot of it, I put the sentence from the article in a bullet, and my opinion about that sentence indented below. If I have some time later in the week I may try to make a more condensed/easier to read list but it may be a little while. In the meantime, it's all sequential with the article and shouldn't be too bad if you go through the article side by side with it. Sorry about that, all the best. -KaJunl (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is the focus of this article appropriate?

Is the focus/topic of this article appropriate, and if so, is the style/tone appropriate and unbiased? See section below. -KaJunl (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have some disagreements about the way this article is written but I may be biased so wanted to get others' opinions.

For one thing, there are a number of external articles that link to this where the external article is clearly referring to the Jewish god, which this article is not really about. I recently deleted a few of these external links to save from confusion, but I think it speaks to the potential issues with this article.

There are a few people who drive the edits/maintenance of this page, and I don't know if their viewpoints are unbiased. The article is about an Iron Age god named Yahweh, and very little emphasis is put on the connection to the Judeo-Christian god of the same name. Much of it is also written as if it is fact or majority viewpoint, when I think some ideas here may be a bit fringe/minority viewpoint. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories)

I somewhat question whether Yahweh the Iron Age god is even notable enough for its own page, or for a page of this length, as opposed to a subarticle somewhere else. (maybe as part of this article, or as part of an Iron Age religion article or something).

My concern is that readers of Wikipedia may be drawn to believe that in common use, Yahweh refers to this Iron Age god, when I don't really think that's the case. I think most people referring to Yahweh are referring to YHWH/the Jewish god.

The article is generally well-sourced and I think there is legitimate evidence that the modern Jewish god in the Bible may be related to this god/that may be related to how he got that name, and it's likely that portions of this article could be prominent in an article focused on the Jewish god and his history. But an article here solely about the Iron Age god doesn't completely seem appropriate to me, when this is the name of the god in several prominent, modern religions, and when googling/researching "Yahweh" anywhere else is probably more likely to bring up the Jewish god than the Iron Age god.

Other points: this is a "high importance" article in the Judaism project, when the article as written has very little to do with Judaism. It's also marked as "high importance" in other categories, and I think the "high importance" is a reference to the importance of the Jewish god, not to this god.

Thanks for your input! -KaJunl (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Judaism wasn't born full-fledged, as Athena from the head of Zeus. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Yahweh is scholarly parlance so the word is employed it is most common name from reliable sources. Jews in general abhor writing or pronouncing Yahweh, Christians generally don't call their God that way and Muslims call him Allah. So its scholarly-historical meaning is most fitting the way it is used here. The OP thinks that the majority view means fundamentalist rhetoric, but he is badly mistaken: the majority view is in this case the view of Bible scholars who live by publish or perish and teach at reputable universities. See WP:ABIAS for details. So this RFC is malformed as the attempt that it is to WP:CENSOR the history of Judaism in general and of this god in particular. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input. Just to be clear I'm not attempting to censor anything, and I do believe that the article brings up legitimate points that may warrant inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere (possibly here); I just don't fully agree with the way the article is presented. If I wanted to censor, surely I would edit the article myself, which I'm purposely avoiding in favor of getting feedback from others. Part of me does wonder if, because this page is so heavily maintained by a few people (you included), that the majority viewpoint may not always be included because editors are either too lazy to rewrite the whole article, under the assumption that their edits will quickly be reverted by you or others, etc. But really, no hard feelings, if the consensus really is that this makes sense, I'll try to live with it (though may still bring up my opinion from time to time :)). I just really feel like this could benefit from some outside views. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter. -KaJunl (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly relevant: The Christian New Jerusalem Bible does refer to god as Yahweh. Though I'll accept that that's far from all bibles and that the majority of the time in Christianity god is referred to mainly as Lord/God/etc. -KaJunl (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think part of my problem stems from, if this is going to be considered an article related to history of Judaism/Jewish history/similar projects, I think there needs to be more mainstream context about how this relates to Judaism. I'd be fine with a large portion of the article being about the Iron Age god, but the absence of material about the god in the Jewish/Christian bible seems to make this irrelevant to Judaism to me. And I'm talking purely in a historical, not religious context - reading this with no background knowledge, I would know just about nothing about the fact that this has anything to do with the Christian god/Muslim "Allah", etc. I feel like it either should not be considered part of those Judaism projects, or it should be rewritten. I'm doubtful that people rating this as high importance to those topics were thinking of the topic in this way. -KaJunl (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I put a see also to A History of God. Hope this helps. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Just a quick note, I saw you moved the template to this section, but the instructions for RFC said to add it to the top of the talk page, and I think that's why my last RFC was deleted by a bot (because I didn't have it at the top). I asked at the help desk and they specifically told me to add it to the top of the talk page. I'm going to move it, but if you're positive that I misunderstand the instructions, feel free to move it back. -KaJunl (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This template should immediately precede the signed (or just dated) text of the request. Do not begin the request with a wikilink; this may cause formatting errors.

@KaJunl: Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No other RfC from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy has been put at the very top of the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. Seems appropriate to put here then. I'm gonna recheck the instructions on the RfC page and maybe see if we can get those instructions more clarified for people in the future. -KaJunl (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm an idiot, it says "top of the new talk page section." Think I just got confused by the response from the help desk page, but I think that was just my poor reading comprehension also. Oops! -KaJunl (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• What is being asked here? Clearly none of the current text should be removed. A new section could be added that deals with how the word "Yahweh" came to be accepted as a certain form for the Christian god -- for example in contrast to "Jehovah". Adding a new section that explains how this particular word became popular enough to be included in certain translations of the Bible would be fine and certainly we don't need an RfC for someone to work on that. jps (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that this RfC seems to me to be malformed. Honestly, given the sheer overwhelming amount of material about damn near anything related to the Bible, including the names it gives God, I have to believe that the subject is notable, and that there is probably sufficient material for a separate article, particularly considering that some religious groups have stated clearly that they consider one or more names the one(s) God really wants. Having said that, I think the best way to proceed would be to either define the question a bit more clearly, and/or maybe consult the best recent Bible reference books and/or religion reference books and see what they discuss in which article. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The lede needs to do more to preface the topic. Coming to this article as an outsider, the notion of a 'national deity' was confusing. BabyJonas (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not an improvement

Isambard Kingdom (no Brunel?), I really don't see why you keep reverting this edit of mine. Ok, so it's a mass- edit covering multiple points. I'll go through them one by one: • Yawheh as a pagan deity (hat-note). Yahweh was the God of the Old Testament, therefore by definition not a pagan deity. He was also the national god of Israel and Judah, according to what the article says a little further down.

• "In the oldest written lore" - you want to have this instead of "in the oldest Bible texts", but what written lore outside the Bible does he appear in? (Answer: none).

•You want to have "The origins of his worship are mysterious", instead of the simpler "His origins are mysterious"; ok, granted, "origins of his worship" is the wording in the source, but I think what the source actually means is his actual origins, not just how he came to be worshipped. Simpler is always better so long as it preserves the meaning of the source.

Anyway, I submit this for your consideration. PiCo (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

PiCo, first, I didn't know that was you. You seemed not to be logged in. I also thank you for these detailed explanations, which are appreciated. I was reacting, most, to the your wanting to substitute "Bible texts" for "written lore". I was under the impression that there is some surrounding written record concerning Yahweh, possibly from neighboring civilizations, that inform this point. I accept what you say. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

All good. Yes, YHWH is mentioned in some non-Biblical texts, possibly in those Egyptian inscriptions and certainly in the Meshe stele, but those don't tell much about him. It's in the Bible that he appears as a warrior-god, storm god, leader of his people.PiCo (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of Dever

I've got Dever's book in front of me. He doesn't suggest the "cult" as he calls it originated in the southern Transjordan, he says that that is where some biblical texts place it. And at least that page shouldn't be used in relationship to Amenhotep as he doesn't mention Amenhotep! Similar problems with Anderson, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Repeated reversions

@PiCo:, you've reverted numerous others' edits more than once with the edit summary "older version was better." I think you need to explain that thinking more thoroughly here and gain consensus. You don't WP:OWN this article. Toddst1 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot answer for him, but I trust his judgment and agree with him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The version I reverted to was stable for perhaps 2 years. Very recently there has been a wholesale re-writing which has degraded the quality. For example, the article now begins "YHWH, often rendered as Yahweh..." This is incorrect on two counts. The article is about Yahweh (a god), not YHWH (the written form of the name of that god in the Hebrew bible). We already have a separate article on YHWH, it's mentioned in the hatnote; this article isn't about the name YHWH, it's about the god Yahweh. Nor is YHWH aften rendered as Yahweh - it's never, never, rendered at all. This is a basic fact about Judaism. The errors go on and on. So, I'd like to see these changes to the established and stable version of the article defended.PiCo (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And, yet, the edits of ‎Gonzales John continue. PiCo's points seem worthy of discussion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I restored the higher-quality details of the old version per PiCo (talk). And, for my defense, it is not I but a random IP user who inserted "Yahweh is the name of God in Judaism" in the lead in the first place. And Isambard Kingdom (talk), I'm sure that many of my edits are nowhere near disruptive. Gonzales John (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Frankly the result of Gonzales John's edits is a seriously worse article than the original.PiCo (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead image.

I think we seriously need an image with higher resolution than the one on the lead now.Gonzales John (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Gonzales John's new lead image is a mistake, and gives a misleading expectation to the reader as to what the article is going to be about. Overwhelmingly, this article is about how YHWH was perceived in the Iron Age, not in subsequent periods. An image of an Iron Age artefact is therefore appropriate, not an image from the 18th century. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that too, but I couldn't find any Yahweh artefactacts other than the coin, and, according to the image's description page, the deity depicted on the coin may not even be Yahweh.I suppose now, however, that the coin is still the best image to use for the lead.Gonzales John (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Because Yahwism was aniconic, there are no images of Yahweh. The coin may or may not show Yahweh, but it's relevant because its very rarity illustrates the aniconism. PiCo (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent removal of content

This article seems to have an extremely troubled history, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see why the "rise of monotheism" section needed to be cut down to a third of its size, or why the etymology stuff needed to be scrubbed from the article entirely. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

How Yahweh became God deserves a deeper description, but if there are other articles on the subject, I understand it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There isn't really any one article that talks about it in depth, though. Information on this seems to be just kind of split between Yahweh#Yahweh and the rise of monotheism, Origins of Judaism#Monarchy (centralized religion), and History of ancient Israel and Judah#Iron Age Yahwism, and none of those sections are more detailed or prominent than the others (well, this one was, until it was condensed a year ago and then again just now). Maybe PiCo has something in mind for the removed material (which seems to be essentially his in the first place), but for now I'm going to try to restore some of it. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored the part about the proposed hwy etymology, the longer "rise of monotheism" section, and the lede's mention of the transition to monotheism. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for coming late to this, since my name is mentioned, but I didn't realise this discussion was going on.

There are 2 articles that cover very similar material, this one and YHWH. Once, years ago, they covered exactly the same material, (i.e. they were a fork), and so it was decided that YHWH would focus on the name and Yahweh on the ancient history of the god. So YHWH talks about the meanings of Hebrew trilateral roots and this one the two scholarly opinions on how the name might have originated.

I'll look again at the deleted material and see if it belongs here or in YHWH. But I very rarely edit YHWH, since my interest is more in the history of religion.

I deleted the "rise of monotheism" section because it seems out of place - the article is about a period in history when Yahweh was part of a polytheistic pantheon. The right place would be Second Temple Judaism, which is when monotheism arose. That's just thinking of the articles on Judaism as a historical sequence - this one is the first, describing Bronze/Iron Age Yahwism, then Second Temple Judaism, then I guess Rabbinic Judaism, when the religion changed again.

Anyway, that's my explanation of what I've done and how I'm thinking, but of course I'll accept the view of the community.PiCo (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I think most people who read the article are just going to be curious about Yahweh -- they won't be reading it side-by-side with the Tetragrammaton article or as part of a series with Second Temple Judaism, they're just going to expect a complete package along the lines of Isis or Moloch.

I definitely agree that this article is about the period in history when Yahweh was part of a polytheistic pantheon, but the end of that period is of particular importance, and at the moment I think detailed information on that transition would be more at home here than in any of the other articles linked in this discussion. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Leader of the Canaanite pantheon?

Canaanite religion now says "Yahweh God rewarded with leadership of the pantheon for defeating the sea" and doesn't suggest that El was, oddly citing Frank Moore Cross for saying Yahweh was the leader although here Cross says it was El. Evidently I and User:Isambard Kingdom have been vandalising the article, at least the talk page says so and the most recent edit summary there I assume refers to us. If anyone here wants to look at the entries for Yahweh and El that would be useful, especially as clearly the entry there for Yahweh should reflect this article. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Here on the Yahweh article, Smith's book is cited as saying that Yahweh was a southern desert storm god who joined the Canaanite pantheon then replaced El as the supreme god. Over at Talk:Ancient Canaanite religion#Doesn't Cross call El the head of the pantheon?, we've been discussing whether Yahweh was part of the Canaanite pantheon. I found that Cross' book says Yahweh originated as an epithet for El from the verb "to be" e.g "He who", not as a name for a separate god. Both routes to Yahweh see him supplant or become El as first the supreme and then the only god in the Israelite religion, but they are not consistent. Does anyone have access to the pages in Smith cited in this article for Yahweh being a separate god that was imported into the Canaanite pantheon? We need to confirm that interpretation and, if confirmed, we should report both versions. Fences&Windows 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a few other good sources would be useful also. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a review of a recent book by Thomas Römer, The Invention of God: [5]. It supports the "out of the southern desert angle". Fences&Windows 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This new book by Richard Smoley, "How God Became God: What Scholars Are Really Saying About God and the Bible", repeats Cross' argument about the origin of Yahweh as an epithet for El (pages 61-63). Fences&Windows 20:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It would also be useful to have some sources that are focussing directly on the Canaanites, not the Bible. eg Canaanites by Jonathan N. Tubb[6]. I'd also argue that Israelite identification of their god Yahweh with El (and evidently with Baal when he became leader of the pantheon) doesn't actually make Yahweh a member of the Canaanite pantheon. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the last point. Fences&Windows 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Over at History of ancient Israel and Judah#Iron Age Yahwism it says "Yahweh, the national god of both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated in Edom and Midian in southern Canaan and may have been brought to Israel by the Kenites and Midianites at an early stage.". We should incorporate that here too. Fences&Windows 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In the article Qos (deity), the Edomite god Qos/Quas is suggested to be identified with Yahweh. The argument is not totally conclusive, but supports Yahwism arising in the southern desert (Negev/Sinai/north Arabian peninsula) Edomite/Midianite/Kenite tribes and then moving north. See the references therein and Kelley, Justin. “Toward a new synthesis of the god of Edom and Yaheweh”. Antiguo Oriente: Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente 7 (2009). http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar/repositorio/revistas/toward-new-synthesis-god-edom.pdf. Quas is mentioned once in this article as the god of Edom but that could be expanded. Fences&Windows 09:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

References

This Yahweh and the Present-day Yahweh

Should we consider the Edomite Yahweh and the present-day Yahweh the same, especially since lore about the polytheistic ancient Yahweh (Exodus, etc.) is understood by followers to about the monotheistic present-day Yahweh they worship. If we consider them the same deity then "His origins are mysterious" is non-neutral.Gonzales John (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this article is Yahweh in Bronze/Iron Age Israel and Judah. That Yahweh isn't the same as the modern God of Israel, because gods change and evolve over time, especially over a period as long as three thousand years.

If by "Edomite" Yahweh you mean the name mentioned in the ancient Egyptian inscriptions, the answer is that nobody has any idea what that god was like - all it amounts to is the phrase "Shasu of YHW", with YHW apparently a place-name, not the name of a god.

Modern Jews do regard the scriptural YHWH to be their God, the God who brought them out of Egypt and continues to hold them before all mankind as his own people, but the scope of our article is YHWH as he was conceived in the two Iron Age kingdoms for the space of about 500 years between 1000-500 BCE. Even in that space of time the way he was conceived changed, from a warrior god with his shrine at Shiloh leading Israel against her enemies to a god who adopted the King of Jerusalem as his son. At that earliest stage the Exodus story wasn't important in Judah - there's no trace of it in the earliest southern prophets, only in the northern ones - and it was only after the Exile that the Exodus story became central to Jews. In other words, YHWH has been constantly changing, and the YHWH we're talking about in this article had little in common with the YHWH of a thousand years later.PiCo (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

PiCo (talk), okay, I guess I'm satisfied now.Gonzales John (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If the scope of the article is YHWH as he was conceived in the two Iron Age kingdoms, shouldn't the title reflect that? "Yahweh in the Iron Age of the Levant" or something? The various concepts of YHWH are far more than just Iron Age beliefs; and an article titled Yahweh, should also cover ancient and modern Judaism, Christianity and even Rastafarianism. Philip72 (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Yahweh is an ancient god, our article is about that ancient god, and neither Jews nor Christians nor Muslims usually call their God Yahweh. See WP:COMMONNAME. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The scope of a potential reader of this page may not be the scope of the author. Unless there is a clear sepearate page to present information on the current day Yahweh, how will a reader who has no contextual knowledge be able to differentiate between the two? Auhsojpay (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As to Tgeorgescu claims on how Yahweh is not a present God, I beg to differ. Christianity bases the deitism of Jesus on Yahweh, being the only begotten son of Yahweh. The culture and context of early age Christianity, up until Jerusalem was torn down, was mostly Jewish. The meaning of Yeshua which is the Hebrew translation for the Greek "Jesus" is in fact "Yahweh is Salvation". Auhsojpay (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied below. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

awareness to factuality

The expression, not name but actual meaning, since not actually finally-concluded (especially in written form) as being referred to Yahveh, Yah Veh or YHVH is most presently of meaning now.

Clearly all knowledge of besaid is relating from the torah, bible, septuagint as in scriptual form , and from earlier artifacts where it is widely unconcluded whether or whether not the lettering and phrasing is referring to besaid.

With such (factually and only by clear referrence with a just measure) in regard the factuality is: Yahveh is of present meaning. - self explaining the devastation of depictions and strange abreviations according to the content of the torah, which is the sole and main (paleo hebrew original text / greek septuagint / modern hebrew torah / christian bible)and only correct document to refer and state from, being the very leading source of knowledge despite the oral and some artifactual and all evidentual expressions and impressions.

correct stated: Also, present meaning in any case comes as more sure factuality then historic views. where the present meaning is lead from historic views and is most currently of prescence and action. Seperation of historians view has to be done and referred to as such clearly, especially in this holy manner majorly recieved from holy scripture.(strict factual) Again, wich all knowledge is recieved from the torah (and its lead to textuality and scriptuality) and as such has to be guarded and in accord with all additional content of such, from the torah equally.

correct as such (wording and spelling in brackets not included) following:

Yahweh (/ˈjɑːhweɪ/, or often /ˈjɑːweɪ/ in English; Hebrew: יהוה‎‎) is a meaning for the one god of israel and the jewish people, all creation and all existance. In the wake of time became to be known to israel, sowith the jewish people and further to humanity. In its form of writting presently and prior withnessed withunder thru the hebrew and christian bible, and other ancient documents such as the septuagint and earlier inscriptions of historic findings revealed troughout time till present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info as is (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Either you cannot properly write English or it is a word salad. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Further balance of view points

To whom this may be of relevance to:

Firstly I would like to admit that I am new to editing and discussing on this platform, and would appreciate the reader's understanding henceforth, if I have made any naive mistakes. There have been various interesting view points I have encountered on this page so far that have been at the very least informative. I have observed that a balance and accuracy of view points is of great importance to the authors of this page. May I suggest that the Jewish and Christian beliefs of Yahweh be at least presented on this page? I suggest this because: 1) Many consider the Torah or Old Testament reliable sources of information, and would thus appreciate the addition of the origins of Yahweh from this point of view. 2) Those searching on "Yahweh" may not only be those interested in knowing the view points of historians who have questioned and examined the theories behind how the "god" came to be the national god. They may be those who simply desire to know what part Yahweh plays in Judaism and Christianity. 3) "Yahweh" cannot be simply looked upon as a historical god that can be compared to Moloch, the reason being that Yahweh is of great significance in the biblical texts, which would be of great significance to the existing religions in the present. Unlike Egyptian or Norse gods, "Yahweh" should be viewed as a very current cultural influence in the sense that "Yahweh" is heavily involved in Jewish and Christian worship.

In conclusion, I propose adding a section presenting Yahweh in the context of the current beliefs Jewish and Christians have. Auhsojpay (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Samaria and Judah. For the Jewish conception of God, see God in Judaism. For other uses, see Yahweh (disambiguation). See also: Tetragrammaton.

Sounds familiar, I guess. This has been discussed to death, see the archives of this talk page for details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the end of the "transition to monotheism" section should also point the reader at God in Judaism or something? The article does come to a somewhat abrupt end there. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The god discussed in this article is the ancestor (intellectually speaking) of the modern God of Judaism, but the two aren't identical. The modern God doesn't demand animal sacrifice and has no temple or High Priest and doesn't offer his protection to a specific nation-state (or at least I don't think HaShem is supposed to protect Israel and no other nation); the Yahweh of this article lived in a heavenly temple located directly above the Temple in Jerusalem, which was at the centre of the world, which is also unlike the modern God of Israe; and most importantly, the ancient Yahweh recognised the existence of other gods, but the modern God is the One True God of all the world. I think most if not all of these points are covered in the article. But it's interesting to study how God changes over the centuries. PiCo (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@PiCo: Sorry to respond with such a huge delay. I am 100% in agreement with you on the scope of the article, but imagine someone with a similar interest trying to study these changes over the centuries by reading Wikipedia. They start here, reach the end of the narrative, and then...? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

And then they click the link to the next article in the series, which is Second Temple Judaism. I had a go at writing that but sort of lost interest (it's a lot of work and a lot of time). If you'd like to take over, you're welcome. After that one comes {Rabbinic Judaism]] I guess, and I haven't looked further. There are also a couple of articles on Judaism and its history. All in all far too many articles - they multiply like religiously-minded rabbits.PiCo (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yahweh added to Ancient Canaanite religion & change in this article

See my comment at Talk:Ancient Canaanite religion#Yahweh. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Entire article is built on a strawman and opinion, and should be deleted with a redirect. Let me explain.

There is no where that Yahweh is used as "national god" by "iron age" kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Besides the history, scope, and time period being disputed by many, "Yahweh" is an entirely made up modern name. It was no where used by people back then, who did not pronounce the name of God, and it is nowhere found written down or in scripture used by them, which only contains YHWH.

There are at least half a dozen different modern guesses of the name, including Yahweh, Yahwah, Yahawah, Yahovah, Yaheveh, Yehaweh, Yehowah, Yehowih, Yehwih, Yahuweh, Yahueh, Yahuah, Jahveh, Iabe, Iahueh, Iehouah, and Jehovah, all of which add vowels and change the meaning and/or pronunciation of the name.

None of what I just wrote is in dispute. There is no "Yahweh" of the old testament known to definitely be such. The whole article is a strawman and should be deleted, and replaced with a stub to links to YHWH and Jewish and Christian conceptions of God (and/or like references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A247:DE00:41D7:CFE0:D9CC:9129 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is this justification for a POV tag? Also, are you Gonzales John? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The cited sources are not sufficient to convince you that what we call "Yahweh" was an iron-age, national-god? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't about what editors personally think they should render, they are about what scholars/scientists have written. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is offensive to religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittgenstein123 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Lacks Etymology of this Spelling; Suggestion

I came to this article to find out who introduced the spelling, "Yahweh", to English, and when. Clearly, at the time when Judea, Samaria, and Galilee still existed, Jews did not commonly use the Latin alphabet, and definitely did not use it to spell God's name since, when and where it occurred in the Septuagint, it was inserted into the Koine Greek text as the Hebrew יהוה. Therefore, they did not use the spelling, "Yahweh", and it originated later, and elsewhere.

Such details about the spelling, "Jehovah", are available in that article, but are missing for "Yahweh" in this article. Downstrike (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"Yahweh" is a scholarly reconstruction of what that name might have been. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but which scholar was first to do so, when (s)he did so, when and how a consensus of scholars was reached, and when this spelling came into common use, would all be part of an informative article. Downstrike (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Your question belongs to the article YHWH rather than this one.PiCo (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Authority of sources

This article repeatedly lists extraordinarily objectionable statements by tinpot scholars as objective fact while providing no context for the extreme variance in views on this subject and completely avoiding the only actual subject material for these views (The Holy Bible); What authority does some individual scholar saying something have when a hundred thousand voices are arrayed saying something separate, and why are their views not listed? This is entirely preposterous pseudo-science which at all points attempts to undermine the plain reading of scripture, with the end that man be in authority and not God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This article describes the views held by the majority of mainstream scholars, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. If you find the consensus of mainstream scholarship objectionable, then that is your opinion, which has no place here. As for your claim that this article is written with the intention to deliberately undermine divine authority, I assure you, this article has no such political or theological agenda. It is not written to prove anything; it is merely a summary of what mainstream scholars have believed for a long time. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have your assuarance do I? That is entirely naive; how exactly do you suppose that this is the majority view of "mainstream scholars" and how do you define "mainstream" anyway, what subjective standard do you apply? The entire modern concept that you can go to some university for 3 or 5 years, nod your head when told, write what's expected and then come out slap a letter next to your name and now your views are unchallengeable by those without letters next to their names is irrational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 04:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like our basic policies than you will not be happy here. You might prefer Conservapedia which is Creationist if those are your views. But our articles must be based on what we consider reliable sources and for articles like these basically mainstream academic ones.Your voices are irrelevant here and your views on education are simply wrong. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

True, Wikipedia is not meant to be edited by people who do not have a deep respect for science/scholarship. See WP:ABIAS. If one does not respect academic learning, what is the point of editing an encyclopedia? Because that's what we do here: we (mostly) summarize academic learning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should also respect the religious belifes of others. This article is atheist bias, false, and complete and utter blasphemy for Jews, Christians, and even Muslims to and extent. Revise it and make it less bias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittgenstein123 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Your accuse of atheism is a straw man. Just be careful, your have been trolling and your reply above may be seen as trolling. I have some advice that will hopefully make your editing easier: our task is to render the mainstream academic views, not to change them. We render the arguments that mainstream academics find persuasive, not the arguments we personally find persuasive. Further, we acknowledge majority views as majority views and minority views as minority views (speaking of mainstream academics). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is blasphemy against God himself! Revise this article now! You're just an atheist who wants to destroy religion!(talk) 18:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Such argument works in Pakistan or similar countries. Western theologians understood for centuries that shouting "blasphemy" does not do away with scholarship. The only answer to scholarship is more scholarship, for Wikipedia there is no way to get rid of scholarship. And making peace with the idea that scientia non est ancilla theologiae (science is not the servant of theology). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia did not sell it soul to God or Devil, but it sold its very soul to science and scholarship. That might explain why true believers feel offended by Wikipedia articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A fundamentalist wrote "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." If the Inquisition were still active, you would see burnings of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

With all the frankly unbelievable tales in the Bible, the rather poor writing style and lack of substance of several of its books, and its internal contradictions, I doubt Bible scholars have much to do with seeding unbelief. Just reading the book collection works by itself. I credit the availability of translations. Dimadick (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree with you on the statement regarding "the rather poor writing style and lack of substance"; most of the Bible is very well written and holds great literary value in my opinion. In regards to the "frankly unbelievable tales," I will merely comment that, just because a story cannot have actually happened historically does not mean it cannot be symbolic or allegorical. In any case, I see no point in the two of you continuing to post comments rebuking the remarks above since the angry fundamentalists have clearly stopped complaining for now. The way I see it, continuing to post remarks will only aggravate them further. This is supposed to be a talk page for improvements to the article, not a discussion forum. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Did Elijah or Hosea really invent monotheism?

I think this is quite a strong claim for wikipedia to be making, but as it stands this is what the article appears to be doing:

"The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah in the 9th century BCE, but more likely with the prophet Hosea in the 8th; even then it remained the concern of a small party before gaining ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period"

Woscafrench (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If it is the majority view of mainstream Bible scholars, then it is good enough for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this has been established as the mainstream view of anyone. To be precise this is a historical question, not a theological question. As there doesn't appear to be any historical evidence to back this claim up, I may remove this at a later date. Please see WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Woscafrench (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not think the statement is at all extraordinary and I have seen numerous similar statements in other sources. Saying that the earliest possible date for the origin of monotheism is around the time of Elijah and Hosea is fairly typical of what I have seen. Note that the statement does not say that Elijah "invented monotheism." Instead it says that monotheism may have possibly originated with them. The statement already has a citation to support it, so as far as I am concerned, it is perfectly fine right now the way it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

About the mainstream academic view: what is taught as fact at WP:CHOPSY, it is a fact for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The article unambiguously states that monotheism the worship of Yahweh alone did not exist before Elijah. I am not aware of there existing any evidence for that conclusion. If you have some evidence, be my guest and put it in. But without evidence I don't see how that statement can remain in the article. Woscafrench (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that monotheism did not exist prior to Elijah is commonly accepted in mainstream scholarship. The only part of the statement that is at all dubious is the possibility that monotheism might have existed as early as the time of Elijah, since true monotheism is conventionally thought to originate with Second Isaiah during the Postexilic period. As I understand it, Elijah and the other early Old Testament prophets are conventionally understood as henotheists or monolatrists. Even then, this possibility of monotheism existing at such an early date is not exactly what I would call outlandish and I would consider such an early date as entirely plausible. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

So you agree that this claim is neither confirmed nor denied by historical evidence? (just to jog your memory - this is what historical evidence looks like). I think that is a fact that is worth including in an encyclopedia article. Woscafrench (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. So there won't be any weighing of evidence on this page or if it would ever be, nobody will listen to it and has no bearing on the matter. We simply let the established scholars weigh what they consider evidence and here we simply report what they wrote in WP:SOURCES. Woscafrench has received several warnings about sticking to this policy, so further dissent with our policies will fall under WP:IDHT and a topic ban would be appropriate. For Wikipedia editors the only kind of "evidence" that matters is what reputable scholars/scientists have written in WP:SOURCES. We are not concerned with second guessing them. If Woscafrench would be a Bible scholar, he would surely know what they mean by evidence for their claims. If he isn't one, he is not qualified to judge their evidence. See WP:NOT#OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Woscafrench says "The article unambiguously states that monotheism did not exist before Elijah." The article does not say this, nor does does the source it uses. What they both say is this: "The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah..." The idea that Israel should worship Yahweh alone is not monotheism.PiCo (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is correct, I've fixed my earlier statement. Woscafrench (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

We are not a research institute, we are an encyclopedia based upon WP:SOURCES. We simply render what scholars/scientists have written, according to WP:UNDUE. We are not called to pass our own scholarly judgment upon empirical evidence. Which is the part of these sentences that you have problems understanding it? See also [7]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand you to a degree. I understand that people can't just write whatever they want, they have to be able to demonstrate that they can back it up, and yes for the most part that means delegating to people more knowledgeable. And if the Wikipedia bureaucracy means that my quibble with this article goes unaddressed, so be it, I can live with that. But you're still wrong. You need to be able to accept being wrong with more dignity, it would make you a happier person. The sentence that I'm complaining about comes very abruptly in the article, with no explanation whatsoever. An explanation would make it readable, if nothing else. You keep saying that it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not since mainstream academics think it, and that's all that counts. But I don't think there is a human being alive who is qualified to make statements about what happened 3000 years ago without evidence. I'm not even sure you are qualified to say what mainstream academics think. Woscafrench (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I am able to read their books/articles myself, I'm not blind, nor an idiot. You may want to read this (it's on YouTube, also). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems worth pointing out that if you find there to be something wrong with the way the sentence is written, you are free to be WP:BOLD and rewrite it. It needs to remain well-sourced and encyclopedic, etc., etc., but if you think it's abrupt and unexplained, then smooth it out or give it more explanation. I, for one, don't think that the sentence in question reads the way you describe it, but it's totally fair for your mileage to vary. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so if you see a concrete way to improve things that fits the MOS, then please go ahead and start editing and the rest of us can join you in a collaborative effort from there. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The gist of his argument is that the mainstream academic view is wrong, because, in his opinion, there is no evidence for claiming that the worship of Yahweh alone began at the time of Elijah (as dated by mainstream Bible scholars). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But he seemed to have moved on to a more modest claim: "The sentence that I'm complaining about comes very abruptly in the article, with no explanation whatsoever. An explanation would make it readable, if nothing else." If he has a way to fix what he perceives as the abruptness and unexplainedness of that sentence, then he should feel free to try doing that, provided that it does not violate other MOS guidelines. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The statement is not abrupt at all, in my own opinion. In any case, I have revised some parts of that section to try to tell the narrative in a more chronological order. I have also added note of the fact that the early cult of Yahweh is generally seen as having been monolatrist rather than truly monotheistic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to point out that User:Woscafrench has completely misread the statement in question. The statement does not say anything at all about monotheism; instead it is talking about "the worship of Yahweh alone," which is not the same thing as monotheism at all. The statement is clearly referring to monolatry. My recent edits, mentioned above, have made this factor more evident. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No idea if what you've done will satisfy User:Woscafrench, but they look good (and probably helpful) to me. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea either to be honest, I've lost track of this article. I can't remember how that sentence came to seem so abrupt. I guess I suddenly noticed that the sentence was saying something quite strong about the religious beliefs of 3-4 billion people in the world today. And it appeared to just be someone's pompous opinion. Katolophyromai - the existence of the Samaritans proves your post-exilic theory wrong btw. Woscafrench (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, the theory regarding the postexilic origins of Jewish monotheism is not mine; it is what I have read in multiple sources. Second of all, the existence of the Samaritans does not prove it wrong in any way. It merely demonstrates that the Samaritans also eventually became monotheistic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia isn't a debate forum, so we're not debating evidence in order to establish who's right. If the above were an open debate, you could have won it, but we're not debating for the sake of debating. We're only debating what mainstream scholars have written in WP:SOURCES. If you're seeking what scholars have written about their evidence, see e.g. [8]. About dating historical documents, see what Bart Ehrman wrote on his blog:

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

My impression is that you're conflating Sunday school arguments with hard-core historical scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit harsh and unfair. There are hermeneutical presuppositions at stake in these debates which Biblical scholars disagree on and which lead to different conclusions. Bart Ehrmann's approach has presuppositions of its own (the quote you've given suggests certain presuppositions with regard to whether or not true prophecy is possible) which other Biblical scholars would dispute. But I agree that Wikipedia is not a forum for hashing these arguments out. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

About the inequality of presuppositions: [9]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Whoa there! I didn't judge anyone's presuppositions and didn't claim they were either equal or unequal. All I'm saying is that there are presuppositions involved, on all sides, and these things (as well as the conclusions that they lead to) are both disputable and actually disputed by scholars in the field. I am not taking any position on whose side is better or stronger or more right because Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. Let's assume good faith: there are scholars who would back up a lot of what User:Woscafrench is driving at. The fact that some (or even many) scholars disagree with him doesn't make his position ridiculous or untenable, and so far he hasn't been editing the article in a way that violates Wikipedia policy, so . . . be nice. Cheers! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Graeco-Roman syncretic folk religion

By way of background, both Latin and Greek are phonetic languages - with no spelling rules. I suggest the reason Yahweh is used besides Greek and Roman deities is simple - Jove, when pronounced in Greek or Latin is Yoweh: J being a modern letter, v often being near to the double u sound; w and the e is pronounced. https://www.howtopronounce.com/latin/jove/ I am not sure what to do with the info, but it seems germane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GESICC (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You have an interesting theory, but it fails for several reasons:

1. The classical Latin pronunciation of the name IOVE is "Yo-weh," not "Yah-weh." In any case, we do not know how the tetragrammaton was actually pronounced in antiquity, which makes Yahweh itself merely a supposition.
2. The Greek Magical Papyri, which are specifically referenced here, are written in Greek, not Latin, and the Greek name for Jove was Zeus.
3. In nearly all the places where the names Iao, Iabe, and other apparent Greek transliterations of the tetragrammaton appear, they are surrounded by other clues which make it clear that Yahweh is the one being referred to. For instance, the names Sabaoth, Adonai, and Eloa, all of which are epithets used to refer to the god of the Jews, frequently occur side-by-side, along with the names of the Jewish angels and also legendary Jewish culture heroes such as Moses and Abraham. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert Gnuse missing footnote

Currently the article has a missing footnote(57), to Gnuse. Can we fix this? There are two Gnuse references, could it be one of those two?70.57.89.148 (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. PiCo (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)