Talk:Yahweh/Archive 12

(Scroll to the bottom to observe my requests, and behold the reasoning for this scripture.)

”“Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.“ ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭20‬:‭2‬-‭5‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/lev.20.2-5.NIV

”He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.“ ‭‭2 Kings‬ ‭21‬:‭6‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/2ki.21.6.NIV

”Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and also made idols for worshiping the Baals. He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. He offered sacrifices and burned incense at the high places, on the hilltops and under every spreading tree. Therefore the Lord his God delivered him into the hands of the king of Aram. The Arameans defeated him and took many of his people as prisoners and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hands of the king of Israel, who inflicted heavy casualties on him.“ ‭‭2 Chronicles‬ ‭28‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/2ch.28.1-5.NIV

”They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.“ ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭32‬:‭35‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/jer.32.35.NIV

“Some critics of the Bible point to the story of Abraham, who laid his son Isaac on an altar and prepared to sacrifice him as directed by God (Genesis 22:1-14). However, in this case, God was testing the obedience and faith of Abraham. God stopped him from actually following through and provided a ram as a substitute sacrifice.” “Today, child sacrifice is practiced throughout the world. There has been a resurgence of child sacrifice in Uganda. Witch doctors have been implicated in the mutilation and death of children who were killed in an effort to bring good fortune and wealth to those willing to pay for it. There is also a correlation between child sacrifice and modern-day abortion. Unprecedented numbers of children have been “sacrificed” at the hands of abortionists for the sake of convenience, immorality, or pride. Hundreds of thousands of babies have been killed so that their parents can maintain a certain lifestyle. God hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17), and we can be sure that God will judge this horrendous sin” -GotQuestions, https://www.gotquestions.org/child-sacrifice.html

I implore you with the love of God to read the scriptures once more, if or if it is not true that your collective are only purporting that you have before read them (I say this for your benefit). God Almighty relentlessly opposes all child sacrifice (excluding His very own Son), and it is highly unlikely that the Israelites of that particular time had sacrificed infants to Yahweh, considering that they had received the ordinance otherwise.

What is perhaps the most reliable and significant testimonial to this, is this passage:

”“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.“ ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭43‬-‭48‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/mat.5.43-48.NIV

”For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭23‬ ‭NIV‬‬

The uncertainty in regards to child sacrifice to Yahweh is unnecessary, there was no (at least major, perhaps by some renegades) child sacrifice to Yahweh.

This is an appeal for the reconfiguration of a portion of the article, as I am incapable of editing it myself. RepentandbelieveinJesusChrist11 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"Molek" is usually rendered Moloch in English. And it seen as a divine title of the pagan god Yahweh, instead of an independent deity:

• • "Because the name "Moloch" is almost always accompanied by the definite article in Hebrew, it is possible that it is a title meaning "the king", as it is sometimes translated in the Septuagint.^[1] In the twentieth century, the philosopher Martin Buber proposed that "Moloch" referred to "Melekh Yahweh".^[2] A similar view was later expressed by T. Römer (1999).^[3] Brian Schmidt, however, argues that the mention of Baal in Jeremiah 32:35 suggests that "the ruler" could have instead referred to Baal.^[1]" Dimadick (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotquestions is not WP:RS, it's WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this deserves an explanation: even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, even if Gotquestions got a few things right, it still does not comply with WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Potatín5 I saw that you sitecited Liberty University as a source here. However, I'm not entirely sure it is a reliable source.

I think it's inclusion here goes against Wikipedia:Reliable sources. CycoMa1 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here, I have a slight issue with a certain claim in this article.

It is in regards to the claim about what Yahweh was like in earliest biblical literature.

That claims uses the Song of Deborah, buts here is the issue with that claim. The Wikipedia article on Deborah says this

The Song of Deborah is commonly identified as among the oldest texts of the Bible,[12] but the date of its composition is controversial. Many scholars claim a date as early as the 12th century BCE,[3] while others claim it to be as late as the 3rd century BC. Some hold that the song was written no earlier than the 7th century BC.[13]

Yes I know the source also talks about the Song of the Sea. But even the article on this says this:

The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. A number of scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period.[3] An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device.[4] As such, proposed dates for its composition range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE.[5]

CycoMa1 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that the source also talks about the Blessing of Moses. Which according to that article it was written somewhere between the 11th to 6th century.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand your compunctions here, but the claim in this article is not a synthesis of sources. Rather, it comes directly from the Oxford History of the Biblical World, a pretty solid source. As such, I would support the wording as it currently stands, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am basically saying I feel like the claim goes against WP:VOICE. To me this just seems like an view point by one or a few scholars.

Or there is a possibility that some things in this article are going against WP:DUE.

I don't know there is so many contradictions.CycoMa1 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I have more to say. I am just waiting for other people to reply.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So, my sense is that the dating of the Song of Deborah as the oldest (or at least a very old) part of the bible is the prevailing theory in the academic community. Assuming I am correct about that, then I think our wording is just fine, but I am happy to look at evidence to the contrary! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That the archaisms in the texts may be a stylistic choice (instead of an indication of date) is not surprising. But in the absence of references to external events or geographic locations, I am not certain on what the modern estimations of dates are based on. Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I am just curiouse because "adonoy" is translated as "my lords" and while "lords" is acceptable (as ooposed to "masters") i'm pretty sure the word is singular, meaning the translation should be "my lord" CarryingTheMeme (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Adonai, as the plural form of Adon (lord)? That is the etymology of the name Adonis. Dimadick (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean in the third paragraph? I just noticed it too and thought it was a mistake, so I came to this Talk page to bring it up. But then I looked a little more into it and I think it's just the "royal we". See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Adonai ("Adonai" אֲדוֹנָי literally means "my lords". There's also "Adoni" אֲדוֹנִי which means "my lord", but that's something different. Notice how the "Adonai" has a kamatz ("a" sound) beneath the "n", whereas "Adoni" has a hiriq ("i sound"). According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/אדוני#Hebrew , the two words have different etymologies. "Adonai" is "Adoni-" + the "-i" suffix, whereas "Adoni" is "Adon" + the "-i" suffix.) 2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Normally in Biblical Hebrew the singular possessive suffix is -i and the plural possessive is -ai but certain kinds of words (some names of God, terms for qualities like "youth" or "blindness", etc.) are given an abstract grammatical plural. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The article states;<<A number of scholars have also drawn the conclusion that infant sacrifice, whether to the underworld deity Molech or to Yahweh himself, was a part of Israelite/Judahite religion until the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century BCE.>>. To this I must ask, why? YHWH in the Torah and Tanakh rejects and is angered by child sacrifice whether to Molech or himself multiple times. A few examples being;

”“Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.“ ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭20‬:‭2‬-‭5‬ ‭NIV

”He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.“ ‭‭2 Kings‬ ‭21‬:‭6‬ ‭NIV

So why do certain scholars think otherwise? To me it just seems like baseless speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.165.152 (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a place where we second-guess the whole guild of mainstream Bible scholars, nor are we required to give you adult education. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Yahweh has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is an inaccuracy which points to the topic of palestine and naming the land the israelites inhabited as such. In the time that it is being referenced the name would have been more appropriately the Land of Canaan. So I would like to suggest editing it to that to avoid confusion as well as political debate. The term Palestine did not come about for well over a 1000 years after the time period of which this topic came about. 2604:AF80:1C47:F870:1067:CFA9:8D46:840B (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You are asking whether the name Palestine was existed at that time? It has started with the Roman Empire after the Jewish revolt was crushed.... I thought it's obvious!Meni111 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

you are totally right, but it seems the editors do nothing about it Meni111 (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a detailed Timeline of the name Palestine. The name was used in the Greek language since the 5th century BCE, and is predated by the Egyptian placename "Peleset" (12th century BCE) and the Assyrian placename "Palashtu" (8th century BCE). Palestine and its variations have been used for the last 33 centuries. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sinclairian, apologies. It wasn't clear to me how strong the consensus was. Maybe mention of the dissenting view should be relegated to a footnote, as its current presentation made the issue seem rather more contested to me than it is. Remsense ‥ 论 16:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologize for. I don't necessarily believe we need to relegate the dissent to a footnote per se, the main issue is that while dissent to identifying the coin's figure exists is comparatively sparse, it draws upon information with strong foundations to make its case (vis-a-vis the YHW vs YHD inscription which is still debated) –  I think the way it is presented now does not overplay its scholarly significance. Sinclairian (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The redirect God of the Old Testament has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 12 § God of the Old Testament until a consensus is reached. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The following image was removed

. I sourced it to Cambridge, to Soleb an ancient town in Nubia correct?, in present-day Sudan. It seems that there's just as much "proof" that this refers to Yahweh as the other speculation. Is there something wrong with the source? Andre🚐 20:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary, the article discusses the Yhwꜣ connection at length in the very first section of the article – the conclusion it reaches is "albeit the interesting analogies, the learned discussions, and the broad perspective, the evidence is too scanty to allow any conclusions concerning the exact meaning of the term YHWA/YHA/YH as it appears in Ancient Egyptian records." Therefore, adding the image which comes to such a strong conclusion about it that clearly contradicts the article itself is not acceptable.

Likewise, you keep removing or moving down the coin image, which has been the lead image for this article for more than a decade and is sourced and discussed far more comprehensively than a simple screenshot of a hieroglyphic term that might be connected to the article subject. That's a no-no. Sinclairian (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't the disputed/speculative Yahweh coin just as speculative? I moved the image and replaced it with another, but you reverted, which is fine. It seems that 2 other editors also moved the coin image, the most recent of which wasn't me. The source I added, for the Yhw3 inscription reads, "At the center of any evaluation of early evidence for Yahweh must stand a pair of related texts from New Kingdom Egyptian sites in northern Sudan: one from Soleb, during the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1390–1352); and the second from ‘Amarah West, during the reign of Ramses II (ca. 1279–1213). Both are monumental inscriptions for display on temples, lists of places and peoples that create a map of Egypt’s world. This material is far older than any potential reference to Yahweh, and if the name Yhwʒ does match the deity rendered as Yhwh, even if it did not yet identify a god, it becomes the chronological starting point for all historical evaluation (Figure 1)." Why wouldn't this allow us to have that picture in the article, then? Andre🚐 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Silliest removal of sourced content. Either we include all possible theories or none. If not then we just state the known facts. Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's trivially not the case according to anyone who's ever skimmed site policy: verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion, and we're also meant to responsibly weigh representation according to a neutral point of view. Remsense ‥ 论 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What is not neutral about that? Andre🚐 15:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing in prose about how a theory is discredited and then prominently illustrating the object of that theory in a straightforward manner—even if the caption agrees with the prose—is not neutral, it's incoherent. I speak not of the coin at present. Remsense ‥ 论 15:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't discredit the theory, it simply states there is a dispute over the sufficiency of the evidence and the conclusions; same deal with the coin. I'd say neither should be prominently displayed at the top but both should be included in the body. Andre🚐 15:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

There are already two separate links to G-d in Judaism and God in Christianity. Why does there also need to be a statement about "Judeo-Christian conceptions" of this deity. Clearly there is no such thing if the conceptions are different enough to warrant two distinct articles. This phrase is contentious enough as it is, so don't use it if it's not necessary Haplodiploid75 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this message composed in past tense? Yahweh is still worshiped today. I think it should be changed something along the lines of "Yahweh is a diety, worshiped in Abrahamic religions, coming from the Levantine region." KeymasterOne (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yahweh is not worshipped today. There are no Yahwists who worship a storm god. There are merely religions with derivative symbolism and mythology. The tetragrammaton continues to hold residual significance in Judaism and Christianity, but in its patchy usage in the old testament it is not even rendered into a name, while Christians later rendered it as "Jehovah" – both mere homages to the earlier Yahwist cult. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the change should be made to a different tense (although the sentence in general I don't think reads well for a concept like a deity rather than a historical person). But, Yahweh was still used in many contexts far after 332BC; for example in popular catholic hymns (Yahweh, I know you are near; I will bless Yahweh; Rise, O Yahweh; ect. https://www.archbalt.org/no-yahweh-in-songs-prayers-at-catholic-masses-vatican-rules/) until a papal letter in 2008 ('Letter to the Bishops' Conferences on "The Name of God"') discussing the tetragrammaton. Its a bit hard to reconcile with your assertion and the article which seems to suggest no one referred to Yahweh post-332BC. And it is certainly inaccurate to suggest Christianity only used 'Jehovah'. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There is rare and sporadic usage yes, but it is not used as a liturgical standard in any faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say I also agree with the past tense, as I think it is fair to say the concept has evolved a fair bit in the past three or so millennia. But Iskandar323, I confess you have piqued my curiosity! What do you mean the tetragrammaton is not 'rendered into a name'? Do you mean it doesn't have masoretic vowels attached? Or do you mean the tradition of "Ketiv/Qere"? Inquiring minds want to know! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the terms, but yes, the name of God was only written down as YHWH out of respect, with the pronunciation only preserved in oral tradition, and in time that too was forgotten. The upshot of this is that no one actually knows how to pronounce YHWH, and "Yahweh" is just a guess that has served well enough for academic purposes when discussing the ancient deity. But anyone worshipping Yahweh, per se, knows not the name of their god. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So, forgive my nitpickery--you are largely correct, though the timeline is a bit off. When the Torah was written down, it was entirely vowel-less (aside from matres lectionis). It was not until the 10th century or so that the masoretic vowels were added (and they are still not printed on Torah scrolls). So, sure, while the tetragrammaton does not have vowels (or is voiced with the vowels from adonai), that's simply the original form of the language, and much of ancient pronunciation is similarly on a bit of an unsteady footing. Cheers. 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It was commonly used in English language Catholic hymns (at least in the United States; I am not sure there are any statistical studies done on hymn usage in Catholic mass but 'Yahweh, I know you are near' was particularly common) prior to 2008, which is why sources do exist discussing its discontinuation as a spoken phrase. This is also discussed in the tetragrammaton page. I think an argument could be made for merging the two pages or providing a final paragraph with more context for the link between the two, but I am very open to hearing opposing arguments. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This page is about the god as an archaeological and anthropological curiosity: the other page is about the name/acronym. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the similar article on the anthropological and archaeological curiosity of Yahwism for example includes a section on the transition to modern Judaism. It feels disjointed that the only reference in this article to the modern usage is in the disambiguation. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The name YHWH is used over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, of which numerous instances are phrases akin to “I am YHWH”, “YHWH is His name”, “my god is YHWH”, etc. I fail to see how this could be considered “patchy”, let alone not a name. Likewise, while I understand and agree that much has changed in the interpretation of the deity in the intervening millennia, your assertion that Yahweh is somehow not the god invoked by modern Abrahamic religions is just patently false - I can’t speak for Christianity and Islam as confidently, but I can tell you that all major Jewish liturgies invoke the name YHWH in practically every prayer, and YHWH has always been held as the utmost sacred name of God. This is hardly “residual significance” so much as it is a direct continuation of the ancient practice, albeit with some obvious theological changes and amendments. Sinclairian (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're sort of missing the point, which is that the statement "YHWH = Yahweh" is not strictly known to be true. The "Yahweh" vowelization is an academic reconstruction based on Greek texts, and there is consensus that it is probably correct, but also that it is ultimately unknown. This might appear to be a subtle or rather academic distinction, but it still echoes through scholarship to this day. The 2021 Brill work The “God of Israel” in History and Tradition, for example, expressly introduces the "God of Israel" as "YHWH" (without even mentioning "Yahweh"), and continues to refer to the deity in the un-vowelled format precisely for this reason. By contrast, academic literature about the Canaanite pantheon and the emergence of ancient Israelite religion far more routinely throws around "Yahweh" as the default go-to because the acronym is awkward and could convey a sense of partiality or undue respect. The deity is the same in the sense that modern Abrahamic monotheists believe it the same, and in so much as a deity exists in the first place depending on people's beliefs, but the acronym and the vowelled name have different literary uses and applications – hence the divergent subjects and pages here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This makes as much sense as saying we should separate the entries for Jesus as a deity, from Jesus the actual guy, but keep it named "Jesus".

After all, much has been written about Him, but we don't know that He is actually him, right?

YHWH IS Yahweh.

Yahweh is just how the consonantal name YHWH is rendered in English.

Nor Hebrew or Arabic require vowel letters, this is just a rendering accommodating for Greek's, English's foreign writing systems.

Imagine saying Christopher Columbus is a different person than Cristobal Colon.

It is not the case that there could be another, separate deity named Yahweh - because almost all sources we have referring to Yahweh actually refer to YHWH, originally.

The scant Greek, Latin sources are hardly primary, and are obvious transliterations.

This is not El, the epithet, El the Phoenician, El the Canaanite, this is a very rare deity, with a distinct, longer name, attested only in the area of then Judah & Edom.

Even the academic papers referring "far more" to Yahweh NOT YHWH do it because, "the acronym is awkward and could convey a sense of partiality".

So it's not a deliberate distinction, just a matter of convenience for English speakers, whis is not even kept across the board.

Should we do three entries for Abraham (Christanity), Avraham (Judaism), and Ibrahim (Islam)? because some scholars (Islamic) use one name "far more" and attach certain qualities to the totally different Abraham? 62.113.194.88 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... no! We actually have the article historical Jesus. So that's a thing, different from "the Christ of faith".

Our task is to report mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP for what it is, not to change it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Many books have been written about Jesus the man, not the deity, and we already have articles such as Abraham in Islam, etc., so yes, that's what we do. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This would have made sense if the article had been named "Yahweh in Canaanite religion"

Or "Yahweh in Yahwism", even.

Is it?

If you read the article "Jesus", do you get only an Islamic view of the guy?

Because right now, the article about a deity central to the Abrahamic religions, worshipped by countless monotheists, says that deity "was an ancient Levantine deity". It's plainly lacking.

You cannot show with any certainty that YHWH is the God of Judaism - while Yahweh is a completely distinct god of the Edomites, not even in scholarly research. They're the same.

This distinction really doesn't exist, it's an English rendering of the same word YHWH with vowels.

I suggest either further clarifying by naming this article "Yahweh in Yahwism" or "Canaanite religion",

Or completely changing the wording to reflect the fact, this deity is still relevant/worshipped in an evolved form or manifestation in modern religions (quite mainstream ones, at that). 141.226.93.142 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is why I insisted on a change. Just by reading the first few sentences of the article, one can probably conclude that Yahweh was a God that was worshiped thousands of years ago and is no longer relevant in modern Abrahamic religions, though I know. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe that YHWH is the same God that created the universe and still exists to this present day. I don't believe using the past tense is correct as for a God that is still worshiped. It could be argued that this is an insult to these religions. We also have the fact that across different languages, people have a different name for God. This doesn't mean that it isn't the same God. Even through a Trinitarian perspective, Christians believe that God the Father is the "maker of Heavan and Earth before all ages" according to the Nicene Creed. KeymasterOne (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mooters 1563, you say "Yahweh is the God of Judaism, Christianity." Yahweh had these characteristics (among others):

*He was a god of storms and wars

*He had a wife, named Asherah

*He was the chief god of a pantheon that included several other gods

*He did not create the world from nothing, but made an existing world habitable

*He lived in a palace located directly above Jerusalem

And much more. In short, he wasn't very like the modern gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nor are these three gods very like each other. For this reason he has a separate article that doesn't trace his story beyond the fall of Jerusalem, which is when he started to turn into the god of Judaism.PiCo (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

He also sometimes lived in a tent ... for weekend trips I suppose. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Islam says God's name is Allah, and that Jews and Christians have erred and been misled somewhat, though not critically so, and retain enough of a kernel of some primal faith that they qualify as people of the book. Islam doesn't say anything Yahweh or storm god-related is correct. Some scholarly readings coincidentally (or not) suggest that El, not Yahweh, was the original Israelite god, which is not surprising given El's role as the head of the local pantheon and presumptive arch deity, and as the eponymous god of the Israelite name – Isra-El. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Iskandar -- totally agree with this, but can't resist adding a slight bit of trivia--Hosea 8:6 is traditionally a tricky verse. The way it has come down to us, it looks like an ungrammatical "for from Israel, it was made..." But, as many scholars have pointed out just by breaking up the letters differently (mysrael becomes my sr el) we get, "For who is the bull El? He was made..." Now, that's not a definitive etymology for the name Israel, but it is suggestive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, "Allah" means God. 47.197.246.127 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

True, but God does not always mean [the same] God. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"The name YHWH is used over 6,800 times in the Old Testament ..."

This is extremely useful (and fundamental) information. Why is it not included in the article? For example:

"Yahweh was an ancient Levantine deity, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah whose name appears more than 6,800 times in the Old Testament." 77.44.48.159 (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If you try to force Jews, Christians, and Muslims to worship Iron Age Yahweh, they will tend to get violent. They don't want that old religion back. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

...huh?? Sinclairian (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Meaning: if they try to preach to a mass of Muslims from Pakistan or Afghanistan that they should return to Ancient Polytheism, they (the IP) might get lynched. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yahweh isnt a storm god. Stop spreading misinformation 70.58.179.30 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Any WP:RS to that extent? Written by WP:CHOPSY scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, there's some evidence that he started off with different traits, as a god of volcanoes and metallurgy - so as a Hephaestus or Vulcan if you will - and only took on the storm god traits in flattering later theological depictions - notably in the stories in which he bests Baal, the Canaanite-Phoenician storm god, at his own game with lightning. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, the idea that Israelites were preponderantly monotheists since Abraham or Moses, is just a story, it is not historically true. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not historically untrue either.

We have almost zero evidence from back then.

Of course, you could say there never was a Moses and that's fine, but you can't point with certainty to any historic evidence that "shows" Ancient Israel WASN'T monotheistic.

In that regard, the Bible isn't a primary source (nor does it prove your point had it been), and we have about 0 actual evidence from that time.

As always, some caution is welcome when throwing blank statements. 62.113.194.88 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... no! We actually know for sure that monotheism began to spread during the Babylonian exile, and it wasn't a done deal until the 2nd century BCE.

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

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

So, in the 8th century BCE, monotheism was at an early inchoate stage. David and Solomon were polytheists.

Professors like Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joel S. Baden do not teach the Hebrew Bible as historically accurate. They teach it much like they would teach the tragedy Hamlet by Shakespeare. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not for sure. It's a leading theory, but not 100% confirmed. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You do not make the call. WP:CHOPSY professors make the call. We don't care about your own opinion. See why at WP:NOTFREESPEECH. tgeorgescu (talk)

I don't disagree with the theory, I'm just saying that it's not "for sure". IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless you get that published in a mainstream WP:RS, Wikipedia is not the place for venting such opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A leading theory is not a fact, and you're seriously lacking in your ability to edit here if you cannot separate fact from hypothesis.

Fact: there was a guy named Lincoln.

Hypothesis: he held certain views one can infer from his writings.

Please don't conflate the two.

Also, do not mistake "opinion" with "two competing theories", especially as we have about zero primary evidence to prove that theory to be "the truth".

E.g. when we talk about the "Yahweh Shomron" inscription, we don't know whether this is a manifestation of Yahweh in the city of Shomron, or an actual different god.

When the Bible talks about how everyone worshipped other gods, to Yahweh's dissapointment, this can be either they used to be polytheist much later than the Bible wants us to believe, or it can just mean these people were sinners to the state religion.

This is not a matter of 100% truth, at all, we lack info. 141.226.93.142 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if you think this isn't published either, you're wrong.

The minimalist views sought to refute the old mainstream theory (I'm not even saying I disagree with them).

If you treat the refuting-theories as actual fact, without mentioning the original theories, you're just doing an injustice to the actual truth and the theories.

Case in point: these theories aren't Evolution Theory.

They were never meant to be scientific, were never epistemically proven, and are really good suggestions, but as we have almost 0 primary evidence, are just that. 141.226.93.142 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That's just the development of religion, the same God is still being worshipped. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Already answered above. Ad nauseam requests won't make us change the article. Our task is to report mainstream scholarship, not to undo it. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's answered above. I don't understand why the beliefs about the God changing a lot means that it's not the same God. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was answered. Again, your own opinion does not matter. See why at WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm asking for an answer or which reply answers my question. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want answers, ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Here is only a place meant to discuss improving the article based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is not a place for answering random questions. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking some random question, I'm asking why the beliefs about a God changing means that it's not the same God (or whatever else leads you to think it should say "Yahweh was"). IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your question does not refer to what mainstream scholars think, but to what you think. As such, it is unanswerable. It is none of our business to give you adult education. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, my question refers to what you think. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a full professor, so the article isn't based upon my own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

But you're defending keeping it as "Yahweh was", and I'm asking why exactly you think that.

Do scholars of religion use the past tense when talking about the existence of Yahweh?

IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in charge of the claims published by mainstream scholars. I can read what they claim, but I cannot change what they claim. The claim that Yahweh was a polytheistic god, which is identical to God in name only, is a mainstream scholarly claim, and that's for us the end of the story. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be better to change the article to "Yahweh (Iron Age deity)" or something like that, then. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The word "Yahweh", in scholarly parlance already means an Iron Age deity. When scholars talk about the Judeo-Christian God, they use YHWH, in order to distinguish him from the Iron Age deity. Since Wikipedia follows scholarly customs, we also do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that wikipedia prefers common names over scientific terminology, seeing Wikipedia:Article titles. To most people, "Yahweh" just refers to the Abrahamic God. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope, we have WP:RULES for it, see WP:COMMONNAME. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I linked the same policy you just linked. I'm not sure how it favours your position. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Meaning: independent, reliable, English language sources. Hint: if it is not a mainstream scholarly work, it's quite probably not reliable about Yahweh. The subject Yahweh is owned by historians, not by theologians. So church dogma has no authority upon our article. And I even doubt that Christian churches have any dogmas about the Ancient polytheistic god Yahweh, tgeorgescu (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you talking about churches and theologians? Where did I say anything about that?

IndianEmperor7 (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC" The Maccabees were monotheists? Pretty weird for the Hellenistic era. What primary sources support this view? Dimadick (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Some decades later, scholarship might move towards that. Till then: WP:BALL. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t it be mentioned that Romans, Greeks and Egyptians (in other words more or less the entire Mediterranean) identified Yahwee with the Egyptian god Seth? See article on Alexemnos graffito as an example. It was a widely spread belief that Yahwee was a donkey god. 2A02:1406:2F:3F7D:9D38:2DFB:98B4:6DF1 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Plausible. Is there any particularly reason for Yahweh being identified with the Egyptian storm god? Set was also the god of the deserts.Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Seth was also god of "foreigners", and Judeans were foreigners for Egypt. 𝙲𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚜 𝚁𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚗 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that the theory of the scholar Gérard Nissim Amzallag should be added, according to him, Yahweh is not Zeus/Jupiter, Typhon, Uranus/Caelus or Dionysus/Bacchus, but Hephaestus/Vulcanus. 83.58.144.190 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yahwism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Your rationale for the removal of Lewis 2020 and Cornell 2021 was as follows: This source also does not say that Yahweh and El were the same, the contrary is true: the source states that Yahweh is a split from El. As explained to you in the revert summary, this is not the case for either of them.

Lewis 2020 states: Cross simply probed the identity of the deity who once stood behind the sentence name. El, the creator god best known from Ugarit, was the irresistible choice. Thus, Yahweh was originally “a cultic name for El”…Yahweh would have been substituted for El. This is not saying Yahweh was an “offshoot” of El, but that it was a cultic name for the same deity.

Cornell 2021 states: As the Genesis narratives reveal, the gods of the Fathers were identified with Canaanite El who bore in his character traits that made the identification natural, particularly in light of the fact that the god of the father, of Abraham, Jacob, and the like, may have been Amorite El. Then comes the basic question: Whence Yahweh? Where does this new devel- opment of which Elohist and Priestly writers speak come from? Both these traditions see the revelation of Yahweh to Moses as a new stage but one clearly understood as tied to both the preceding lines described above, that is, a new manifestation of the god worshiped by the Fathers. Again, this states that El and Yahweh, from outset, were identified with one another, and though Yahweh grew into a separate deity, it was not “an offshoot”. Sinclairian (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"Lewis 2020 states: Cross simply probed the identity of the deity who once stood behind the sentence name. El, the creator god best known from Ugarit, was the irresistible choice. Thus, Yahweh was originally “a cultic name for El”…Yahweh would have been substituted for El. This is not saying Yahweh was an “offshoot” of El, but that it was a cultic name for the same deity."

El = High God of the entire Canaanite pantheon, Yahweh = the cultic interpretation by the Israelites, thus an offshot of a previously existing deity.

"Again, this states that El and Yahweh, from outset, were identified with one another"

Yeh, as I said at the very beginning of our discussions - you choose to ignored - Yahweh is the Israelite identification of a previously existing deity. Hence El -> Yahweh. I think the best evidence for Yahweh being a child of El is that noone consider Baal to be the son of Yahweh, while they consider Baal to be the son of El. Multiple sources also clarify on the issue, many on the very same articles you reverted. I spend hours yesterday evening to work myself through them to get the most accurate picture possible on that matter, it is not too much to ask to do the same. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"cultic interpretation by the Israelites" Lets gets some things strait. Was the cult of Yahweh significantly different than the cult of El or other Canaanite cults? What are the earliest attestations of its emergence? When did it die out? Identifications between deities frequently happened, but what set Yahweh apart from other deities of the Levant? Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Just for clarification - because @Sinclairian decides to ignore me once again - the source does not support their claim. The source says: "Jewish Theology came to be wary even of uttering the name of Yahweh, and substituted Adonai, the Lord, in public use of the divine name."

What Sinsclarian tries to push is "During the Second Temple period, openly speaking the name of Yahweh in public became regarded as a religious taboo". Second Temple Judaism is not Jewish theology. Yet, they refuse to abide what the sources say. At this point, I also want to point out that your edits, dear @Sinclarian, cross the boarders to vandalism, especialyl since you refuse to settle on consensus on the talkpage first. If you keep up, administration will take your of you, and with the behavior you show here, such as massive misrepresentations of the sources, it may not look good for you. If there is a miscommunication, go to the talkpage, and talk even though you preferred to remove your own comments when asked for proofs and sources. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I hereby invite other users to formulate their opinion on the recent edits by @Sinclairian. The user already appeared to be disruptive on the El article, stubbornly refusing to accept everything what points out that El and Yahweh are two distinct deities, which is the general consensus for all opinions, except for apologetics in the Judeo-Christian tradition. If I am mistaken by that, please feel free to share a source disproving it, because Sinclairian did not.

Furthermore, the User constantly blames me for not responding on the [], despite having adressed all relevant points, but ignoring the ones which has been adressed already, the user nontheless repeated, maybe to waste time. This also includes an inquiry by @Dimadick.

Furthermore, the User did not shy away from removing sourced content as seen here and here . The User justifies their first revert by referring to religious notion that Ezra made the final version of the Torah, ignoring evidence, also covered by reliable sources, that this is not entirely true, and straighup deleted the source contradicting their assertation. The second one, they reverted witht he justification it would be "fringe", despite all sources I have checked yesterday for hours - because I had to clean up as the sources did not match the article - state the same thing. You can read yourself through Albani, Matthias (2020), Leech 2002, Albertz (1994), etc. The claim that this is "fringe" may root in more personal biases for a certain theological stance.

In my opinion, this is sufficient evidence to assume that the User's main aim, at least in regards to these two articles, is not to built an encyclopedia but to push certain religious narratives. At this point, I would also request the opinion of @Remsense, as you commented upon the User's comment on my talkpage.

Am I too harsh or am I missing something? Because for me, it is a case for the admin board, and the user needs at least some restrictions on at least these articles (and maybe even some more Judeo-Christian articles). I would like to hear the opinions of others. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ezra was not the 3rd century BCE, this date is the baseline for the Hellenistic redaction hypothesis which is supported by the academic consensus.

You have time and time again misrepresented the contents of the sources you remove, as I have at least attempted to address directly above this impromptu ANI request.

I have reminded you multiple times to assume good faith and cease the personal attacks and unfounded accusations of religious bias. You have refused.

I have asked, multiple times, that you attend to the talk page of either article so that we can stop try the tit-for-tat edit warring. You have refused.

I have done everything in my ability to try and settle the matter using the site guidelines, this has clearly failed. Sinclairian (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"I have reminded you multiple times to assume good faith and cease the personal attacks and unfounded accusations of religious bias. You have refused"

I had good faith in the very beginning, but it ceased after you ignored all points adressed. You even asserted factualyl wrong claims during the discussion, such as that the sources say something which they don't. And here, you do it again: "You have time and time again misrepresented the contents of the sources you remove". - Nope, I still explained it in detail, sorry but I cannot break it down further. You mistake "identified with by Israelites with their national deity" with "El and Yahweh are the same thing", either intentionally or not. I cannot say, but this does not change the fact that you ignored all the other points. I also pointed out, taht you either bring reliable sources or the discussion is over. Once again, you insisted on holding some sort of discussion, I clarified I am not interested in, so the discussion was -indeed - over. Surprise, the world does not revolve around you, and persistence does not lead you anywhere. Since you decided not to engage in the discussion on the matter but rather talking about how one could justify the identification of El with Yahweh, we are now a step further, where I accuse you of vandalism. This is the logical next step. And the fact that I clarify this to you, is simple me being nice. It is not necessarily, because it is up to you to follow through the stepts of a talkpage discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

it is up to you to follow through the stepts of a talkpage discussion.

I did. In response, you said you weren’t interested in discussion and continue to edit war. Sinclairian (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"You also fail to address the entire crux of my counterpoint, which is rather convenient. Having a discussion does not violate WP:NOTFORUM. I remind you again, ONUS dictates you are responsible for finding reliable sources to support your assertion of academic consensus – furnish the sources or expect to be reverted."

Oh I see, you truly missed my sources? Welp, I ignroed that because you said your claim was in the article, but the body of the text was already in support of my edits, not yours. You did not brought up a single discussion, so of course I ignored your statement, as it rests on untruths. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"made the final version of the Torah" What does "final" mean here? The Masoretic Text in the early 11th century, or some of the later versions? Dimadick (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

My edit summary said “final redaction”, referring to the canon, not the text itself. Sinclairian (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

“final redaction” Thanks, this clarifies some things. Per the main article on the Torah, most modern sources think that it was compiled in the Achaemenid Empire. The compilation date is estimated between 450 and 350 BCE. Views about the Torah's compilation in the Hellenistic period or under the Hasmonean dynasty are described as minority views. By this estimate, the Torah was already completed and circulated as a text about 290 years before the composition of the Book of Daniel in the 160s BCE. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was saying. Sinclairian (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, it was not so final afterall. What exactly makes you hold on your previous claim when clearly disproven?

Noone denies that Israelites monotheistic movements ahve not existed, but to assert that there was a canonical monotheism among Yahwists, is, under current scholarly circumstances, not supportable. By the way, you are also aware that some Jewish writings, such as the Secret book of John, even have Elohim and Yahweh as competing deities? The idea that there is only one God is pretty late, arguably, the idea that God is not an anthropomorphic deity like most polytheistic gods, is likely to be a result from Islamic Kalam.

Historically speaking, Yahweh is best be understood a tribal good, and most sources also point this out, as I have mentioned multiple times including sources (which you missed to offer). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No one is talking about the timetable for Israelite monotheism. I have no idea what you are talking about. Sinclairian (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeh, I do not know how to break it down to you anymore. As back then on the guy in the Jinn article months ago, I genuinely don't know if you just play dumb to break the discussion, or if you genuinely don't know how to use sources. If you want Yahweh to be El, find a source for that - a reliable non-Christian/non-Jewish source - stating that. Not identifying, not interpreted later, but straightforwardly that they are the same entity (you won't but okay, give it your best shot if you have nothing else to do) but there is mountains of references that Yahweh was at least before later iterations of Israelite beliefs that Yahweh was one of the sons of El along with Baal, etc. so he is definately "a son of El" and this keeps being added. Do with the rest as you please. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"And I have a mountain of reliable non-Christian/non-Jewish references that say they aren’t." <--- this is a quote from the User they just decided to delete midst-discussion.

Then just show it!

"I have a mountain of references that say the origins of Yahweh are everything from completely unknown to a source of heated debate"

This still does not mean

"definitively that he started out as a son of another deity is laughable"

"f you want these sources — you can read the actual article, because they are cited at length."

yeh and always misrepresenting it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Please for the Love of God, learn what a Reliable Source is . Scholars who adovate Christianity are not reliable. Just as in an Islamic context, Muftis and Sheikhs are no relaible source. They have a mission, they are show-masters, their job is to make people by a product (whatever religious sect they get money from), not to do science. They say everything as long as there is a customer for it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Scholars who adovate Christianity are not reliable.

First off, no.

Second, your “reliable source” is a Methodist preacher, published by an LDS-affiliated think tank, who writes parallelomanic pieces about recidivizing New Testament practices to historical Old Testament trends. Am I having a stroke? Sinclairian (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I had mentioned about 5 different sources, if the one I used happens to be somehow LDS affilated, feel free to change that source. Haven't guessed it, but it seems LDS is more in tune with history than many other church organizations. But yes, there should be no church affilation at all involved. Feel free to use one of the other sources. I assume you read them or else, you would have no right to even have a discussion here. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"Scholars who adovate Christianity are not reliable.

First off, no."

SO you confess that you are pushing a Christian point of view? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dimadick they basically confirmed here, that they push a Christian agenda. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel like I have enough erudition to wade into the weeds here, I'd just like to affirm the majority critical scholarly understanding to the best of my knowledge. That is, in the regions associated with ancient Israel and Judah during the early Iron Age, Yahweh was worshipped as a storm god cognate to Baal, and El as the head god of the pantheon. Before most of what we know as the Hebrew Bible was first written down, the two were conflated, and many features such as a relationship with Asherah were further redacted from the texts by later editors. Remsense ‥ 论 16:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The Baal syncretism is also somewhat unclear – not even necessarily because of the events described in the Hebrew Bible with Elijah and whatnot.

Yahweh’s early attestations show him as both a weather deity and a war god – thus while he had obvious parallels to Baal, there were certain aspects that made the case for assuming hypostasis somewhat muddled. Sinclairian (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, "cognate" was a sloppy overstatement on my part. Remsense ‥ 论 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it sloppy, I just wanted to clarify since the conversation at hand is discussing syncretization. Sinclairian (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

To actually piggyback off of this, there are actually a few things that should be clarified.

The exact timeframe where Yahweh absorbed certain aspects of other deities - and therefore which aspects where part of the ‘original’ Yahweh vs the pre- and then proto-monotheistic Yahweh unclear – which is a huge problem the other party in this little disagreement has yet to acknowledge.

As stated, the earliest references to Yahweh frame him as a weather god, associated with clouds, rain, storms, etc. But in these attestations there are yet aspects of him completely distinct from this realm, which is somewhat unlike the Near Eastern deities of the time – he adjudicates disputes, he leads a heavenly army, etc., even his identification with bulls is a hallmark aspect of El, not Baal.

A lot of the time the details are so contradictory that the model of syncretism becomes somewhat hard to maintain. For example, Yahweh slays Leviathan, which is a pretty obvious derivation of Baal slaying Lotan. Yet, Yahweh also smashes Mot, just like Anat. He serves as a judge over humankind’s dealings, like Attar. When he’s angry, he smashes the landscape like Ishtar. And then, you have things which presumably came later but still show a very eclectic pool of sources that make it difficult to tell just how new they were at the time - feminine presence, creating existence, entrusting kingship, etc.

Even the crux of this argument is unclear! The idea that Yahweh was a son of El stems basically from the theory that he was originally described as such in Deut. 33 – but the passage doesn’t describe him as El’s son in the reconstructions, it calls him as the son of Elyon, and there are those who say that Elyon and El are separate despite Elyon’s primary attestations being as an epithet. The same is sometimes argued for Shaddai too! Theres no consensus, which is why the article says there’s no consensus on his origins. There are theories, but no one group has enough of an agreement to trump any other’s! Sinclairian (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do you not just bring fourth reliable sources to proof us otherwise instead of going on an edit war? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

"Yahweh slays Leviathan, which is a pretty obvious derivation of Baal slaying Lotan" I am not that certain about that. It is a variation of the Chaoskampf pattern in comparative mythology, where a god (typically the storm god) has to defeat a sea serpent or dragon, which symbolizes chaos. Variations include Tarḫunz versus Illuyanka in Hittite mythology, Indra versus Vritra in Hinduism, Zeus versus Typhon in Greek mythology, Heracles versus the Lernaean Hydra in Greek mythology, Apollo versus Python in Greek mythology, Thor versus Jörmungandr in Norse mythology, Perun versus Veles in Slavic mythology, Vahagn versus Vishap in Armenian mythology, Dian Cecht versus Meichi in Irish mythology, Susanoo-no-Mikoto versus Yamata no Orochi in Japanese mythology, and Marduk versus Tiamat in Ancient Mesopotamian religion. Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd be careful with that assertion. Chaoskampf patterns emerged in multiple cultures which lacked any interaction with one another – cf. the Indo-Europeans never reached Japan, and yet Japan has a version of it. Linking them all together might give the impression of a chain of transmission, something scholars are only comfortable asserting in the (Proto-)Indo-European realm.

There are a pattern of these in the Levant/wider Middle East as well, Ra and Apophis in Egypt, Baal and Lotan in Ugarit (and probably Phoenicia, but don't take my word for it), Marduk and Tiamat in Mesopotamia, etc; but scholars generally link Yahweh and Leviathan to the Baal theomachy specifically, due to its geographic proximity, the known habit of Israelite syncretism, and the similarities between the names of Lotan and Leviathan. Sinclairian (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there any issue with a&c black publishing?

Because @sinclairian keeps removing the sources by that publishing with the justification that it is fringe, and it is fringe because of the author of the Book. Google search indicates that it is owned by Bloomsberry and nothing which makes the publisher doubtful. I would appreciate input on that matter, cause if it is properly published, a statement cannot be called "fringe" simply due to the affilation of the author (especialyl if they have a degree in that matter). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

2600:6C54:7900:CD3:7853:1EF7:8447:99E4 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope. That's a mishmash. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It is a mishmash. And the truth is, Jehovah Witnesses, the more knowledgable ones, know that it is a mishmash and they've admitted in their own literature that Yahweh is the more accurate pronunciation, but they use Jehovah because it's more familiar, in other words, they have traded truth for popularity. In Citer (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

currently indeterminate

That the Israelite religion is a derivative of the Canaanite religion, that Yahweh was originally considered to be the son of El, and that Yahweh was originally a minor deity in the Canaanite pantheon, which was the origin of the Israelite pantheon, are all historical facts that should be stated in the lead. --Justthefacts (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Proposer: Justthefacts (talk · contribs)
• Proposal Date: 01:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Deadline (Early): 23:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Deadline (Default): 23:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yahweh, as the Bronze Age deity this article is about, is, according to most contemporary academic opinions, not equal to Elohim. Elohim is the High God with Yahweh one of his sons, but became merged later. The idea that Yahweh is an incarnation or appearance of Elohim is religious interpretation, which is fine from a theological viewpoint, but not the most accurate reconstruction from an anthropological perspective. Regarding the idea it is the same as the Abrahamic God is even harder to justify, since there are multiple concepts of God(s) within these religions. Christianity, for example, also has arguably the Platonic Monad, which may or may not be identified with the Biblical (!) Yahweh. At least most Christians use that name, but this still does not make them equal. Even worse is the claim that it is the God in Islam, since Muslims do not even use the term Yahweh, instead the name is Allah (yes it is also the term for The God, but also the proper name) and also do not seem to translate Yahweh as Allah (see: Thomas, Kenneth 2001 p.301-306) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"also has arguably the Platonic Monad" The Monad precedes Plato himself, as it was a key concept in Pythagoreanism. In any case, when did Christians claim that their deity is "the totality of all things"? Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the most clear example would be Master Eckard. However the (Neo-Platonic) Monad does nto equal pantheism either. However, I think there is no current edit-war going on, and my comment was to add context for me removing modern religions from the infobox as it were anachronistic. However, the infobox is removed as a whole anyways, I think my comment here does not matter anymore. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk Page Proposal Settled}} {{Talk Page Proposal outcome}}

{{Infobox deity}} or a variant thereof is common across almost all articles on deities, see, for example, the articles about El, Asherah, Baal, Anu, Ra, Amun, Horus, Osiris, Aten, Cronus, Uranus, Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, Apollo, Jupiter, and so on and so forth, and would be sensible for this article too in order to summarize the most important details about this deity, for the benefit of readers. --Justthefacts (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Proposer: Justthefacts (talk · contribs)
  
• Proposal Date: 08:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Deadline (Early): 23:59, 3 April 2025, (UTC)
• Deadline (Default): 23:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there an article, or should it be included in this article, that explains why Yahweh is pronounced Yahweh according to the rendering we find in the Hebrew Scriptures? Yahweh is the Name of the Most High according to the Bible, but this article makes out like all it is a creation of pagan people's over time, that Yahweh evolved to be what it became as a monotheistic, all powerful mighty one. I'm a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh and I'm appalled with the negative slant towards the one and only Name in which there is salvation. In Citer (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This article is neither about Judaism, nor Christianity. It is an article about Ancient history. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Good evening. I beg to differ. The Name of Yahweh is or rather I should say, should be, central, to those faiths which base their practices on the Bible including Judaism and Chr-stianity. This article is about ancient history, of which the Bible has record of. But there is little to no evidence presented from the Biblical perspective. All we have is interpretations from history. Why is that other articles use the Bible as a valid source for evidence of authenticating history, but this article does not? And if it would not be appropriate for the Name Yahweh to be explained in this article, do you know if there is another article that does so which I have simply missed? In Citer (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The Bible isn't a valid source for evidence of authenticating history. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. If an article does what you say, that article is wrong. There is of course MOS:PLOTSOURCE, such use is allowed.

There is no Biblical perspective upon Yahwism. If the authors of the Bible knew something about polytheistic Yahwism, that got hidden really well. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

its henotheism. not polytheism. 75.202.202.81 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia never assumes that the Bible reports accurate history. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon tgeorgescu. That is the problem. That Wikipedia never assumes that the Bible reports accurate history. Because we have huge gaps in our understanding of the ancient past, and conclusions and interpretations are made about history based on pieces of evidence here and there while disregarding the most important source of truth.

Artefacts are continually proving the Bible to be true, such as the Moabite Stone. May I remind you that the Bible does not pander to any people to make them look better than they are. It reports that the Israelites went in to Assyrian captivity and never returned, and the two southern tribes in to Babylonian captivity, all because they would not hear Yahweh's prophets and refused to keep the Law and sinned.

But you also may have overlooked the question I have: And if it would not be appropriate for the Name Yahweh to be explained in this article, do you know if there is another article that does so which I have simply missed If this Yahweh article is about the history of Yahweh, and absurdly does not want to mention the main source for the Name Yahweh which is the Bible for evidence, then should not there be a separate article at the very least which explains the Name Yahweh, why it is rendered Yahweh according to the Hebrew Scriptures. As a compromise, perhaps this article can be called Yahweh (History), while the article I propose could be called is called Yahweh (Name).

Further to address your point about the Bible not mentioning polytheism regarding Yahweh. Actually, I have seen this pop up several times in the Bible, where Yahweh was seen as a Mighty One that exists among other elohim. Even in the incident of the Golden Calf you'll remember Aaron, though directing worship to Yahweh (he used Yahweh's Name), they were actually worshipping a golden calf. "And he received them from their hands, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf...Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh [and they offered animal sacrifices]". (Exodus 32:4-6)(SSBE)

The Israelites were given to worship a host of other mighty ones among Yahweh, which is why they had so many problems, Yahweh demanding from the First Commandment, that we have no other elohim before Him.

In Citer (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. WP:CITE mainstream academic WP:RS if you want to suggest edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Agree.

@In Citer: We adhere to reliable sources, not religious scriptures, on Wikipedia.

--Justthefacts (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

this is a forum. The entire point of a talk page is to communicate using language. 75.202.202.81 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

And that’s why Wikipedia is unsatisfactory - it’s biased. 82.153.102.77 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it's biased for WP:CHOPSY, same as Britannica and Larousse. It's a feature, not a bug. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay I am suspecting that there might be some WP:CIR going on here.

This is something I have noticed for a few years when it comes to this article. This is more evident by the misunderstanding in what the Equivalents section in the deity info box is for. Just look at the Template:Infobox deity.

With the addition of the genealogy section and those 3 deities in equivalents section adds on to my overall point I am trying to make.CycoMa2 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The footnote for the image used in this article says,

>"It has been described by Stephen Herbert Langdon as "the only known representation" of Yahweh."

Stephen Langdon died in 1937. His claim was true in his lifetime, but in the 1970's we uncovered the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions from the 9th century BCE depicting a bull-headed man and woman with the text, "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah".

The 1931 quotation by Stephen Langdon should be removed, as it is extremely misleading in giving the impression that the coin is the only known representation of Yahweh.

Similarly, the subsection on "Portrayal" says, "Other scholars^[who?] argue that there is no certain evidence of any anthropomorphic representation of Yahweh during the pre-exilic period". The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions are from the 9th century BCE, pre-exilic.

At the least, the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions certainly deserve mention in the subsection on "Portrayal". Vhspd fg (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree you are right. I added "in 1931." Andre🚐 05:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not Pithos A of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions includes a depiction of Yahweh is debated & not fully certain among scholars. The article for Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions directly states that "[t]he central figures have been identified as either representations of Yahweh and Asherah, the Egyptian dwarf-god Bes or Bes-like deities, or even as demonic ritual dancers.^[2]" So, the statement that "there is no certain evidence of any anthropomorphic representation of Yahweh during the pre-exilic period" is correct, in that the Kuntillet Ajrud figure is not fully certain to be Yahweh.

In comparison, the God on the Winged Wheel coin appears to have a greater degree of consensus about it being a depiction of Yahweh. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jamie Eilat: There is no such consensus.

I think that a lot of the issues people present on this article come from confusion over the deity being talked about.

Many Christians and Jews today still call their God “Yahweh”, but this article is about the archaeological evidence for the ancient god.

I think it would be wise to rename the article something like “Yahweh (Ancient Semitic god)”, or “Yahweh in ancient Semitic religion” to prevent this issue.

Alternatively, it would perhaps be wise to delete this article and move its information to “Yahwism”, the article which talks about the reconstruction of Israelite polytheism, most of its information does not require a new page. 20thJune (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: most WP:RS use Yahweh for the polytheistic god, and use YHWH or Adonai or Lord for the God of Judaism and Christianity.

And, frankly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not believe in Yahweh. They believe in the One God posited by Greek philosophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Last comment feels randomly aggressive and unnecessary 20thJune (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2025 (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. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Not reading all that, but that’s cool, or that sucks, you choose 20thJune (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

In other words, there is enmity between the etic understanding of religion and the emic understanding of religion. See emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

There probably is, but Wikipedia is not the place to solve political issues. Preachers are responsible for their claims, not encyclopedias. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

OP's complaint is that Wikipedia does not follow the PAGs of Conservapedia. I.e. that we allow mainstream history and archaeology to give the lie to fundamentalist religion. Meaning they consider the historical method to be sacrilegious and "fringe". tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I don’t feel that is really necessary CycoMa2 (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Not really gonna say much. I am just acting as more as a referee in a wrestling match here. CycoMa2 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way I was unaware that OP was blocked per WP:NOTHERE. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

"Yahweh in ancient Semitic religion" or "Yahweh (polytheistic god)" make sense to me. As someone not overly familiar with the subject matter, my assumption was that the article was about the god in contemporary Judaism or Christianity. A title ought to convey the article's scope; "Yahweh" (as we've seen) leaves room for misunderstandings.

FropFrop (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

See my reply from 16 July. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why that means the article's title ought to not communicate the scope of the article to a general reader. Titles ought to communicate the scope of an article; amending the title would be an easy way of avoiding this seemingly common misunderstanding (if you're a stickler for policy, see WP:QUALIFIER). Many readers are seeing "Yahweh" and are assuming it's referring to the god in contemporary Judaism or Christianity, hence the need for qualification. What's the issue with avoiding that common misunderstanding?

FropFrop (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

But honestly, thats a bit on them, if they read an article about a Bronze Age deity and do not realize this is not theology. Second, theology usualyl speaks about God or HaShem but not Yahweh. Yahweh is more of a popular cultural trope than a theological name. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I was imagining that this mistake happens when searching for an article, not while reading it.

FropFrop (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

So you are concerned people accidentally find out what is historically accurate about Yahweh rather than a US-American Church lecture? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I think articles' titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. I think this should be the case as Wikipedia goal is to be an encyclopedia and unambiguously defining the topical scope of an article helps further this goal. It would help further this goal by reducing the number of people finding articles not relevant to what they had in mind.

Again, if you're a stickler for policy, see WP:PRECISION.

FropFrop (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that a significant number of readers are finding the incorrect page? I've posted the wikinav analysis below and it appears to suggest the reality is the opposite. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wikinav doesn't capture those who search for a different page after realising they're reading the wrong article; I'm not sure what a mistaken reader would instead click on. Regardless, I didn't think that this mistake would be a significant proportion of readers. However, it does seem to occur enough that it has been raised multiple times on this talk page. Adjusting the title of the article wouldn't do any harm and would help avoid this error.

FropFrop (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't account for readers that manually search again via the search browser. However, there is a rather extensive hatnote at the top of the page highlighting a great many of the potential alternatives that misdirected readers might be searching for. It would be speculative to assess without evidence which of these two paths the average reader pursues, but the hatnotes are fairly intuitive and in this case prominent, so they would have to be actively ignoring the intuitive option to pursue a fresh manual search. In terms of the standing title, we prefer natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:NCDAB, so unless there is a strong case pressing us in the other direction, such as the topic not being the primary topic for its title, then there is not a policy reason to change. As you note, it's likely not a significant portion of readers that are misdirected. In terms of the recurring complaints, this is regrettable, but it's also ultimately anecdotal as a sample. This page has 3,000 daily pageviews, and there is only the occasional complaint. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Something further that could considered would be adding an FAQ at the top of the talk page to avoid as many repeated and easily answerable questions on the title as possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"Yahweh" without qualification should probably be a disambiguation page. Many people will be looking for the monotheistic God who is refered to as "Yahweh" in some Bible translations, prayer books, and other sources. Others may expect an article on the Tetragrammaton. That there's been enduring comment here points to the confusion caused by the current title. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect supposition. An analysis of the traffic to the page shows only a minimal amount of outbound traffic to Tetragrammaton and a much larger aggregate to related pages on ancient religion. The most common click through is to the related Yahwism, and the absence of any serious traffic to potential contenders for subject matter confusion indicates most readers have accurately arrived at the precise subject they are looking for by means of appropriate encyclopedic wayfinding. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

""Yahweh" without qualification should probably be a disambiguation page."

No, why would we split Yahweh in Yahweh (historically accurate) and "Yahweh according to US-American Sunday school"? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yahweh was not the God of weather and war. This is false on Judeo Christian bible texts. Yahweh means "I AM".He is not a separate God. He is the same God with different names. For example- Yahweh is the same God as Jehovah Jireh. It means "provider". These are different names to represent his nature or character. He has many names that those who know him use depending on the nature of what part of his character and nature they are referring to. 108.56.166.45 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is, this is an article about the God of Israelite polytheism, not about the God of Moses or the Hebrew Bible. The title of the article does not make that clear. See my thread about renaming the article 20thJune (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

There is an article about God in Judaism and an article about God in Christianity which discuss how God is perceived in that religions. This article is about Yahweh. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

"God in Judaism and an article about God in Christianity" Neither of which are remotely relevant to old Yahweh, or to the traditional religious beliefs of the Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you even mean? Ancient Judaism was monotheistic, polytheism was an addition to it 20thJune (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no monotheism in the Bible on YouTube and There’s no monotheism in the Bible on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Monotheism is a rare to non-existent before the Hellenistic era, and Yahweh was a married god. I don't think we can describe him without his consort Asherah. Dimadick (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Asherah was a later addition to Yahweh. The earliest believers in Yahweh were monotheistic.

Monotheism rarely develops out of a movement. There are a few examples of that, such as Pharaoh Akhenaten, but the monotheism of the Bible, of Muhammad, of some Native American tribes, was revolutionary, breaking away from any prior cultural tradition. 20thJune (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The earliest believers in Yahweh were monotheistic. is ipse dixit. Here at Wikipedia you have to WP:CITE WP:RS. And not WP:FRINGE sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

🤓 20thJune (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Lmao, I knew it. Scratch beneath the surface and this page is run by conspiracy theorists lol 20thJune (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it is a match between emic and etic. Or, to put it otherwise, between the mainstream academic view (mainstream history), on one side, and fundamentalists and conservatives evangelicals, on the other side. Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream history, and we consider the POV of the latter to be awkward. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

No it is not. You know as well as I do that you are the fringe one here 20thJune (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I have reported it to WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I am thoroughly dedicated to rendering mainstream history in Bible articles, regardless of whether it bolsters or contradicts the theological orthodoxy. That's why I lasted so long as an editor in this area. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Not what we’re talking about. You act as if every religion you encounter belongs to you, as if belief is just some relic of the past for you to dissect and claim. Maybe it's time you looked more closely, because you don't fully understand what you're handling 20thJune (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Be wary of WP:NOPA and WP:FORUM. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism belong to mainstream Bible scholars.

But to sum up, it's clear that the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs are not strict Yahwists, as we will come to understand that term. The P and the E sources preserve this insight; and they preserve it in their insistence that the Patriarchs worshiped God as El, but at the time of the Exodus, God revealed himself as Yahweh. There's an interesting passage in the book of Joshua, Joshua 24:14-15. Joshua was the successor to Moses. He presents the Israelites with the following choice: "Now therefore revere the Lord," using the word Yahweh, "revere Yahweh, and serve him with undivided loyalty. Put away the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt"--put away the gods your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt--"and serve Yahweh. / Choose this day which ones you are going to serve, but I in my household will serve Yahweh," serve the Lord. Only later would a Yahweh-only party polemicize against and seek to suppress certain… what came to be seen as undesirable elements of Israelite-Judean religion, and these elements would be labeled Canaanite, as a part of a process of Israelite differentiation. But what appears in the Bible as a battle between Israelites, pure Yahwists, and Canaanites, pure polytheists, is indeed better understood as a civil war between Yahweh-only Israelites, and Israelites who are participating in the cult of their ancestors.

She has a named chair at Y from WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Don’t really care 20thJune (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

But we (the rest) care, because it is the mainstream academic view. Here at Wikipedia the mainstream academic view rulez! If you don't care about that, you are WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You are the fringe. The mainstream academic view is that the earliest worshippers of Yahweh were monotheists 20thJune (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I WP:CITED a Sterling professor. You WP:CITED nothing. Ipse dixit. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You cited Dan McClennan, a crackpot conspiracy theorist lmao

How about William Schmidt’s theory of primitive monotheism? Or Edward Surman’s study on pastoral and nomadic people’s monotheistic tendencies?

Or, if you just want randomers on YouTube, Michael Jones: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pcPkOD3L8l4&pp=ygUzTm8gSmFoZWVoIHdhcyBuZXZlciBhIHN0b3JtIGdvZCBpbnNwaXJpbmcgcGhpbHNvcGd5 20thJune (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@20thJune That is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. What are your sources for it? Newimpartial (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The mainstream academic view is that the earliest worshippers of Yahweh were monotheists—your WP:RS/AC claim is 100 years out of date, speaking of the WP:CHOPSY sort of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I.e. any major US university which isn't evangelical. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Read the sources I already cited lmao 20thJune (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Michael Jones is not a scholar (as in WP:SCHOLARSHIP). He is an apologist. I.e. an expert in lying for Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You really hate Christianity, don’t you?

Anyway, you cited Dan McClennan, also not a scholar and an expert in lying against Jesus.

Curious why you ignored the sources I actually cited. 20thJune (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Schmidt died in 1954. He is long-dead. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Aight? So? Does that mean his findings don’t matter? If so we should delete half of wikipedia 20thJune (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Outdated theories do not get deleted from Wikipedia. But we don't pass them for WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The guy being dead doesn’t mean it’s outdated.

You haven’t even mentioned the other source 20thJune (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

McClellan in the video WP:CITED a lot of papers, and a recent conference at Brown University, “The Meanings and End(s) of Monotheism”. So he is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The papers he cites are all fringe tho, as well as Brown University 20thJune (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Again: you don't use the word "fringe" as we do. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I use it to mean minority views that contradict the majority 20thJune (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia speaks of "majority" and "minority" in the mainstream academia. Billions of Christians are not an academic majority. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Not really bothered, then

If a bunch of nerds say the grass is blue, it doesn’t stop people from knowing that it’s green 20thJune (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It has become increasingly clear that you don't use the word "fringe" as we do. I.e. like experienced Wikipedians do. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You are such a nerd. I.e. Get a job 20thJune (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

So that you can easily peddle WP:FRINGE views at Wikipedia? It does not work that way. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As I’ve already said, you are the fringe one here. Maybe you should get a girlfriend too while you’re at it 20thJune (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"You are such a nerd." Ah yes, immature name-calling and attempts at bullying. Speaking as a former Sunday school student, that is what I typically expect from Christians. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you have to do with this conversation 20thJune (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

You are so proud of being a Christian, but you cannot behave properly among civilized people. Do you think that is good advertising for your own church? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, you’re right. I’m sorry for getting annoyed

Still doesn’t change the fact that the earliest worshippers of Yahweh were monotheists 20thJune (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Nope, in mainstream history that's not a fact, but a fanciful thesis.

In other words, I speak about mainstream history, you speak about theological orthodoxy (pseudohistory). Apples and oranges.

We WP:CITE a consensus of historians and archaeologists, not a consensus of church leaders: nerds WP:OWN mainstream history. Because we're not Conservapedia. At Conservapedia, I would be wrong, and you would be right. But not here. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly (I'm an infrequent editor), but I noticed in the line "Rabbinic sources suggest that, by the Second Temple period, the name of God was officially pronounced only once a year by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement" that "the name of God" is assuming the singular titled "God" of Judaism/Christianity. Since this article is about pre-Judaism polytheistic Yahweh and the line isn't a quote, should "their god" be used instead?Fontevrault (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You've slotted this suggestion / request in somewhere slightly random, but sure. That's done. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And I'm sorry, I thought this was all conversations about the Name subsection. I'll go back to the help pages to get a better grasp of things. Fontevrault (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This is one piece of iconography that may be associated, right? The infobox rather makes rather a lot of this, across the image and two other separate mentions of wheel symbolism, when the key theme of this coin is in fact the big question mark hanging over its identification. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. The association is speculative and unclear. There is also the speculative Egyptian Yhw3 thing which could be depicted. Andre🚐 17:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yahweh is God in Judaism and Christianity. It is not a past ancient deity no longer worshipped. He still is worshipped. The way this article is written is an absurdity. It is like claiming God worshipped in the Second Temple period is a separate deity from God worshipped in modern Judaism and Christianity. Most scholars would refute such a separation.

Yahweh has always been the God of Israel from the beginning of its ethnogenesis, and still is today for Jews and Samaritans, the Israelites' modern descendants (genetically, linguistically, culturally and religiously).

You can't have this article as is and exclude the assertions and claims of the Israelites' own scriptures, which are the earliest we have with regards to the topic and time period (especially books like Exodus, and the 9th to 8th century books of Amos and Hosea which mention an exodus and migrstion from the south into Canaan). ~2025-44140-17 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible is mentioned in the article, but we do not take its truth claims at face value, see emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be almost like a fusion of two separate gripes -- one concerning the separation ancient and modern conceptions of Yahweh, and the essential historicity of the Bible.

I think when people find this article, and they see all the "was" and past tenses, they assume the article's fundamental message is that the Yahweh described in the page isn't the same god as modern Abrahamic religion, and that's a bit of a weird issue. The issue at hand is that while modern Yahweh isn't a different god from ancient Yahweh, it's also not the same god. The apparent difficulty with this sentiment becomes a bit easier when you consider the article's contents: the "core idea" of the deity has changed over time, as has the method of worship, the surrounding mythology (for the most part), the essential characterizations, the conceptions and depictions, etc.

It's a bit hard to put into words. Like, at the very least, we know that the God of the Hebrew Bible and the God of Abrahamic religion aren't wholesale different deities, if for no other reason than the name of the god is obviously the same.

But can you really say that they're the same? ~2026-92225 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Please add your feedback in the move discussion below! Félix An (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone else having this issue? I wonder what is causing it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Works for me. Félix An (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

1) In the lead, the links on "ancient Semitic deity" in the first paragraph and first sentence and "ancient Semitic religion" in the second paragraph and second sentence lead to one article, despite being part of the lead.

2) Under "Name" the links on "YHWH" in the first paragraph and first sentence and "Tetragrammaton" in the second paragraph lead to one article, despite sharing a header.

3) Under "History", then "Late Bronze Age origins (1550–1200 BCE)" the links on "Egyptian" in the fifth paragraph, first sentence and first mentioning and "Egyptian" in the second mentioning lead to one article, despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

4) Under "History", then "Late Bronze Age origins (1550–1200 BCE)" the links on "Shasu" in the fifth paragraph, first sentence and first mentioning and "Shasu" in the second mentioning lead to one article, despite sharing a header, paragraph and sentence.

5) Under "History", then "Late Iron Age (1000–586 BCE)" the links on "Deuteronomy 32:8-9" and "Song of Moses" in the third paragraph lead to one article, despite sharing a header and paragraph.

6) Under "History", "Late Iron Age (1000–586 BCE)", then in the sixth paragraph "prophet" links to an article on "Prophet", while "prophets" in the fifth paragraph and first sentence does not, despite sharing a header.

7) Under "History", "Late Iron Age (1000-586 BCE)", then in the seventh paragraph and first sentence "8th century BCE" links to an article on "8th century BCE", while "10th century BCE" in the second paragraph and third sentence and "9th century BCE" in the fifth paragraph and first sentence do not link to articles on "10th century" and "9th century" respectively, despite sharing a header.

8) Under "Greco-Roman syncretism" the link on "Ouriel" in the first paragraph and third sentence leads to an article on "Uriel".

9) Under "Greco-Roman syncretism" the links on "Bacchus" in the second paragraph and first sentence and "Dionysus" in the second sentence lead to one article, despite sharing a header and paragraph. ~2026-87373-2 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)