Talk:Canaanite religion/Archive 1

Phoenix vs. Pheonix
I didn't change the spelling of Pheonix to Phoenix because I wasn't sure it was the same word. Anyone know? Thanks! - Richfife 02:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is Phoenix, One thing, can users who edit the page significantly please post the reasons why here. John D. Croft 06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

--

Not an Etymology, rather a fundamentalist point of view
The statement inserted recently "The first and most obvious is that the area was populated by the descendants of Canaan. Canaan, along with Misraim, Phut, and Cush, was the son of Ham. This pattern of naming a location after the first settler after Noah's flood is found in Egypt, actually called Misr, after Misraim, Hadramaut in Yemen, after Hadoram, and many others."

This is not an etymology for the origins of the word Canaan. To say "most obvious" is a POV error, not allowed in Wikipedia. John D. Croft 02:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Merge rejection
I have deleted the merge between Canaanite and Ancient Semitic Religions because effectively they are different subjects. Whilst Ancient Semitic Religions is a general subject there are significant differences between the various areas which requires separate articles. We don't merge Mesopotamian or Babylonian religion under the topic of Ancient Semites. This view also is an ancient Ethnocentric view that underemphasises other cultural groups like the Hurrians and Sumerians which had a huge impact on Canaanite religious understandings. John D. Croft 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the merger was purely pragmatic. If you want to expand this into a full article, too large to figure as a section in Ancient Semitic religion, it should of course be separate. It's still a sub-article of that on the larger topic. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What else is needed
PiCo 10:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Canaanite mythology: redirects to this page, but the article certainly needs a section on myth.
 * Etymology and history: needs far less etymology (this is not the article for discussing the origins of the name Canaan]]; there needs to be a discussion of the development of Canaanite religion over time, from the early stage reflected in the Ugarit texts to the Iron Age stage when it broke up into numerous kingdom-centred cults each with a separate national god (Chemosh, Yahweh, etc).
 * Similarites to/differeneces from Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite and Greek religion (and Jewish if you want, but Jewish religion in the Iron Age was still part of general Canaanite religion (Yahweh as high god/royal god, plus worship of subsidiary gods, goddesses, etc) and to talk of "similarities" is rather misleading).
 * Bibliography: Where are the major works on Canaanite religion? There are plenty!
 * I thought they were all written on papyrus which decomposed over the millenia, so there's almost nothing left of any of them now.HS7 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * what about the rituals and practices? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a small section on the modern rebuilding of this religion, since the main article for that is being deleted, but then I thought maybe I should have asked here first. I'm doing that now. Is it OK with you? I couldn't think of any reason why just a few lines on that wouldn't belong here. Also would it be possible to add a link to their site somewhere(http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/), since that's relevent too, and provides a lot of information about the original religion.HS7 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Phoenician religion, Canaanite religion, and the 'pantheon'
I deleted the sentence about the pantheon, because the Phoenicians didn't have a pantheon or Elohim so far as I know.

Which led me to realise that there is a major problem here. The article assumes that the 'Canaanite religion' and the 'Phoencian religion' are the same thing. I don't think that can be taken for granted. Maria Eugenia Aubet writes "With respect to the ancient Canaanite religion, the Phoenician religion of the Iron Age presupposes an ideological break..." please read [] for the full context. Glenn Markoe on the other hand doesn't mention Canaanite religion, hardly touches the 2nd millennium BCE, but does also discuss Punic religion. I'm not sure how we should handle these issues/questions, but handle them I think we should. I'm not convinced that Phoenician religion should be a redirect. Maybe it should be the other way around?--Doug Weller (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the Phoenician and later the Punic religions would have been slight variations on the overall Canaanite religion, if there was any difference at all, probably emerging from them gradually and retaining many similarities. Of course I may be totally wrong here, but have yet to see any proof contrary to this. Also I'm quite sure the Phoenicians were one group of the Canaanites, all of which are covered by this page, which therefore is an article on Canaanite religion, rather than just Phoenician. Maybe if you have enough information on Phoenician beliefs which differs from the information here you could create your own article on it.HS7 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your source for any of the above? And what is the 'overall Canaanite religion', given the large changes that took place at the beginning of the first millennium BCE?--Doug Weller (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have a specific source that I can direct you to right now, mostly it's just an assumpiton based on my understanding of the topic from all of my combined research. I know, that's not good enough here, but i just don't think it's too good an idea to jump in without looking at the other side first. I also may have said things a bit differently than I should have. I had been hoping to get back here and change that before you noticed, but it seems I missed that chance. I've been thinking about this and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not entirely sure what it is that you're trying to say. is it that you think their religious beliefs changed so much around that time that there should be two articles on it, because that's what it seems like to me now when I reread it. the way I see it is that even if there was such a change it seems unlikely that over a short period they would suddenly go from one religion to another, totally different, and that instead there would have been changes within the religion whilst other parts of it remained the same or similar. If this is what you are saying, I definitely think you should just go and add information about it to the article, the history section really needs to be totally rewritten, but I'm not sure what you mean about changing the redirects of the article. I think what I'll do is I'll read back through your sources again to see if they have any evidence that shows I am wrong, and then maybe look around the internet myself and see what I can find. Or you could just ignore me and get on with rewriting the article.HS7 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If they didn't have a pantheon, who are the people in their myths? Or is it just the later Phoenicians that didn't have the pantheon, because I'm not so familiar with their mythology.HS7 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A pantheon is a system of gods. They had local pantheons, not an all-embracing one. These were once thought to be a family triad but now are seen to be a dual system of a supreme male and female god. By the way, you shouldn't make changes per se, you should strike out what you no longer wish to say and then (in a separate post) say what you now want to say.


 * Take a look at the article. It says at the moment "Thus while Phoenician and Canaanite refer to the same culture, archaeologists and historians commonly refer to the Bronze Age, pre-1200 BCE Levantines as Canaanites and their Iron Age descendants, particularly those living on the coast as Phoenicians. More recently, the term Canaanite has been used for the secondary Iron Age states of the interior, that were not ruled by Aramaean peoples, a separate and closely related ethnic group, a group which included the Philistines and the states of Israel and Judah [2]."


 * Glenn Markoe doesn't make the time differentiation the article does, and I'm not sure how you differentiate between the religion of the Canaanites in the interior and the Phoenicians (except of course when Judaism develops). I do think we need to show which gods were attested in which millennium. The list at the moment is pretty bad (not from an academic source I'd wager), where are Amen, Bes, Bastet, Osiris, Isis and Horus for instance?  I'll try to work something up out of Markoe.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They seemingly started with a single pantheon, but that then broke apart into the local worship of between one and three gods in each area. Focussing on a small number of gods out of the entire bunch was very common back then, and might well have also happened in the earlier Canaanite pantheon as well. Rather annoyingly my book on the history of the region has disappeared, so I'll have to find it before I can check any details. The whole article needs to be reorganised, and maybe completely rewritten. It's not all that great at the moment. Aren't those all Egyptian gods though? Although, they may well have borrowed them. Maybe if you're going to add them to the list you might want to mention that somewhere? it might be possible to add the region and time that each god was worshipped to that list, but it might look a bit crowded then. Maybe writing a few lines on each god, in seperate sections, might work better?HS7 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How to improve this page?
Hey. This page is really messy, with incredibly lengthy and often unclear sections, particularly to the non-expert reader. It could also do with a few pictures. I made many of these changes, but they were reverted. So, how are we going to clean up this article? (Midnightblueowl (talk)#)
 * I would suggest using the following design guide, which is used in the pages of most religions, such as Christianity and Shinto etc.

Beliefs : Practises : History : Sources : (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Deities
 * Afterlife
 * Cosmology
 * Mythology
 * Worship
 * Priesthood
 * Festivals
 * Human sacrifice
 * Origins
 * Clashes with early Judaism
 * Decline
 * Revival > by which I mean Neopaganism
 * Literary
 * Archaeological

Why was revival removed?
In the history section the brief paragraph describing the recent attempt to revive the ancient Canaanite religion was deleted. Was there a reason? Perhaps its not "significant", but it is a revival of a sort. Piercetp (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cosmology needs work
El is never referred to as "Most high" in any of the Ugaritic texts. That ephitet is only ever give to Baal later on when Baal becomes the number one god. Albright's theories on various ephitets of Yahweh and their relation to El, I don't think are as well accepted as they used to be since I have certainly heard many different ideas in various books written after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.76.77 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed
I have removed from the lead the claim that Canaanite religion 'has been considered a form of paganism'. Paganism generally refers to non-Christian, or non-Abrahamic, religions; calling a pre-Abrahamic religion 'pagan' is therefore anachronistic to the point of incoherence. Terraxos (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Paganism" seems to be commonly used these days, at least in much of the USA, to refer to polytheism. Canaanite religion is clearly certainly polytheistic. Ellenois (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Child sacrifice
This is recent, as is this  although it isn't free to read (it does mention child sacrifice according to Google Scholar). --Doug Weller (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually hadn't read every page on that other site. However, I'm not sure I see why a few pages there suggesting the possiblilty of things that differ from the commonly accepted facts means the majority of the site, which seems rather more sensible, can't be used as a source. The page I linked to provided the arguments of both sides set out clearly without making any similarly unsubstantiated claims as those you found elsewhere on the site. But since this isn't my encyclopedia, and I am quite new to this, I will accept that you know what you are doing and had good reason to do it.HS7 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having read through some more of that site, I have discovered that it really isn't a reliable source, with some parts of it being rather inaccurate. So just ignore what I said above.HS7 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting the relevant bits of the article you linked to:
 * Several kinds of human sacrifice are mentioned in the Bible. First, it categorically denounces infant sacrifice to the god Molek in Leviticus 20:2–5 and elsewhere. Second, the Bible accuses some people of offering human sacrifices to Baal, as in Jeremiah 19:5. Third, a few biblical passages imply that sacrifice of the first-born male child was offered to Yahweh, the biblical god. Most explicit are Exodus 22:28–29 and Ezekiel 20:25–26. The former demands infant sacrifice to Yahweh, and the latter declares that Yahweh commanded the sacrifice to punish Israelites for their sins.
 * These biblical passages are difficult to evaluate. As was seen in Section V, Molek was a god of the dead who presided over the mute nonexistence of the underworld, but there is no clear evidence that he received human sacrifices. A god named Baal-Hammon was part of the ritual sacrifices in the western Mediterranean, but the Canaanite Baal does not seem to have received regular child sacrifices, and the biblical testimony that Yahweh once received these offerings is bewildering. To date, there remains no archaeological evidence to corroborate any of the biblical passages, though many biblical scholars are convinced that the evidence from the western Mediterranean confirms biblical testimony (Heider 1985; J. Day 1989).
 * The bit in the article about how there is no god called Moloch seems incorrect, though. The author seems quite certain of the fact that this refers to Molek: (although the info in that article also seems to ignore the underworld-god qualities
 * As an underworld god, Resheph is associated with the dead, but other gods of the dead are known, particularly Malik (or Molek) and Raphiu. Scholars frequently claim that the biblical god has nothing to do with the dead, but that is not quite accurate. Biblical Yahweh has appropriated the attributes of a god of the dead in several texts. Yahweh performs the role of Resheph when he sends a slave-god to strike the Assyrian army with plague in 2 Kings 19 (cf. 2 Samuel 24 and Habakkuk 3), and the god who appears in a whirlwind to Job has surrounded himself not with Baal’s storm attributes, but with the desiccating winds of the hot desert, a motif more typical of an underworld god (M. S. Smith 2004, p. 99).
 * boombaard (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Molech, Moloch and human sacrifice
Although there are already two sections on this theme (6 Child sacrifice and 8 Child sacrifice was real!), I have decided to start this new section, because I believe it is necessary to come out of the dispute, either modifying the text of the relative section of the article (4 Human sacrifice), or at least appending warnings to it

The fundamental (and obvious) consideration is that, at sub-section 3.2 Pantheon we find listed Molech, "putative god of fire". Now, if we look at the relative Wiki article, we will find that Wikipedia treats Molech simply as another form of the main variant form of the name Moloch.

So, it is necessary to remove, or at least to signal this evident discrepancy between section of this article (4 Human sacrifice) and the main article on Moloch/Molech.

Unless somebody comes up with a definitive (and  convincing  ...) solution within the next 24 hours, I will append to the section of the article (4 Human sacrifice) the following warnings: Miguel de Servet (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Miguel de Servet (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As anticipated, the two above warnings have been appended to the section 4 Human sacrifice of the main article

Don't take this the wrong way, but the bible could be wrong about them worshipping moloch and committing human sacrifice, as there is no evidence for it. However, there is evidence from greek sources, but they also said that the pyramids were built by slaves and that all the younger women of babylon were sent to do temple prostitution, so if you use greek sources, they have to be supplemented by facts. I am currently in college for anthropology/archaeology of the ancient near east and will look this up, but so far (And I've read alot) I haven't come acrossed even a name similar to moloch, let alone canaanite human sacrifice. Abdishtar (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Moloch listed as a Canaanite deity?
There is zero evidence of a Canaanite deity named "Moloch" (or Molech). This is only mentioned in the Bible and the writings of the enemies of Canaanite polytheism. It does not appear in the writings or inscriptions of the Canaanites themselves. I do not object to a discussion in the body of the article about this putative Moloch, but i do in the list of deities. Ellenois (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with a note that it is alleged but not attested. It should be here as a lot of people think Moloch was a Canaanite deity, but it does need a health warning, which I've given it. If you want to reword what I've done, feel free, but please leave it here (it would probably be replaced anyway if removed) Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moloch doesn't show up in *any* Canaanite deity lists. It's only a "Canaanite god" because it's in the Torah and the later Bible, hardly a dispassionate source of information about religious rivals. It's pure propaganda, meant to show that "those guys" do bad awful things, and "we" are better. I'd really like to see this article stop giving credence to a source that is so subjective and unreliable, ignoring all information from the culture itself and verifiable through archaeology. Ellenois (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making this article about the Canaanite Religion through the lense of the Bible, it would be best that we use verified material about the Canaanite religion. That's why Moloch is being removed. Abdishtar (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC) It looks like below this post, its already being done. So I'll leave it be for the supporters of Molech being a canaanite deity to verify their sources. Abdishtar (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Child sacrifice was real!
Quoting some references sources here

“Child-sacrifice was a prominent feature of the worship of the Phenician Malik-Baal-Kronos,” says the Funk and Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia.

De 18:9-10 shows a specific details of how many were killed, "fire".

Added to their other degrading practices was that of child sacrifice. According to Merrill F. Unger: “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination.” (Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 279) Halley’s Bible Handbook (1964, p. 161)

How the deity whom they sacrificed to, Molech, Child Sacrifice to Molech. God’s law to Israel prescribed the death penalty for anyone, even an alien resident, who would give his offspring to Molech. Levitcus 20:2-5 would a law like exist it there was no chance of the canaanites praticating. Nonetheless, apostate Israelites, both in the kingdom of Judah and in the ten-tribe kingdom, passed their offspring through the fire. 2 Kings 17:17, 18; Ezekiel 23:4, 36-39, Jeremiah 7:31.

The Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, notes that at Megiddo, archaeologists found the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth, goddess-wife of Baal. He writes: “Just a few steps from this temple was a cemetery, where many jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in this temple. . . Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children.” “Another horrible practice was [what] they called ‘foundation sacrifices.’ When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed, and its body built into the wall.”

The most notorious characteristic of Carthaginian religion was child sacrifice. Diodorus Siculus reports that in 310 B.C.E., during an attack on the city, the Carthaginians sacrificed over 200 children of noble birth to appease Baal-Hammon. The Encyclopedia of Religion states: “Offering up an innocent child as a vicarious victim was a supreme act of propitiation, probably intended to guarantee the welfare of family and community alike.”

In 1921, archaeologists discovered what came to be called the Tophet, after the Biblical expression used at 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 7:31. Digs revealed multiple levels of urns containing the charred remains of animals (used as substitute sacrifices) and young children, buried under stelae with votive inscriptions. It is estimated that the Tophet contains the remains of over 20,000 children who were sacrificed during just one 200-year period. Some revisionists today claim that the Tophet was simply the funeral site of children who were stillborn or died too young to be interred in the necropolis. However, as notes Lancel, quoted earlier, “the reality of Carthaginian human sacrifice cannot be categorically denied.”

Children from noble families were offered up in fire to such gods as Tanit and Baal-Hammon. In Carthage young victims were burned in sacrifice to a bronze statue of Kronos. Diodorus Siculus, a historian of the first century B.C.E., says that the child’s relatives were not allowed to cry. Perhaps it was believed that tears of anguish would diminish the value of the sacrifice.

For a time a similar ritual was practiced near Jerusalem in ancient Topheth. Worshipers there would dance and strike tambourines to drown out the child’s cries as it was thrown into the furnace-belly of Molech.—Jeremiah 7:31.

Adrammelech, A god worshiped by the Sepharvites, one of the subjugated peoples the king of Assyria brought into the territory of Samaria after his taking the Israelites of the ten-tribe kingdom into exile. It was to Adrammelech and Anammelech that the Sepharvites sacrificed their sons in the fire.—2Ki 17:22-24, 31, 33. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it was documented in the Bible and other sources. You might want to put this in the article. Of course there are other sources which refute these claims as well and they can also be included. Piercetp (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Child sacrifices were real. But there is a misundersmding of what MLKh (Molek, Moloch) really represents.  It is not a God, but a type of sacrifice involving burning "first fruits" amd comes from the Hebrew-Canaanite word for King (or God - eg Baal Melech - the God of Tyre).  It was not only believed that the killing of children was demanded by God (i.e. the stories of Abraham and the sacrifice of Japhenah), but to these people it was believed that the child would "sit at the right hand of (their) God!"  The offering of your eldest (or only) begotten son or daughter was considered an act of great merit.  It ties into later Christian belief of sacrificing the Son of God for our sins. John D. Croft (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The biblical references here should be included, as well as the rabbinical commentary from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch#Jewish_rabbinic_commentary --as far as the conjecture about Abram/Yitzhak, it's very insightful but not necessarily scholarly. The Xtian belief has no direct chronological relation but is also interesting. I'm performing a grammar edit. I really recommend you all clean up this section. Chaim1221 (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We should only include what recent archeological sources say about this, unless we want, and I'm not convinced that we do, a section on the view of Canaanite religion expressed in the Bible and rabbinical commentary. The problem with this is that there is every reason to expect it to be inaccurate, so it is interesting in a historical sense but doesn't help us understand Canaanite religion, only what others thought about it at the time. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)hemp clarify the purpose of this page too. What do you think? John D. Croft (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, this would be good I think, if we had a separate page on "Canaanite religion from Biblical and rabbinical sources". It would

Yahweh isn't a canaanite deity
Yahweh isn't a Canaanite deity, it is the hebrew equivelent of Yaw, which was just under Yahweh, so I just moved the section on yahweh over to Yaw. It was referenced so I didn't want to delete it. Though Yaw is who is mentioned in the text they reference for yahweh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdishtar (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited this page before, and Yahweh is back up as a Canaanite god, this time, with a noncanaanite goddess as his wife. Asherah isn't canaanite, nor is Yahweh, both are hebrew. Athirat is the canaanite etymological equivelent of Asherah. Abdishtar (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ugaritic text KTU 1.1 IV 14 doesn't once mention Yahweh, nor does it mention Asherah. Etymologically, there is a link between Athirat and Asherah, but Asherah is still nonethless hebrew. The Bible has Asherah as a canaanite deity, the canaanites don't. I've read the text myself, in Ugaritic, and there's a preview here: English Translation: http://books.google.com/books?id=QwsVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA18&dq=Athiratu&hl=en&ei=fNuXTL7uI8K78gak7dSWDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Athiratu&f=false Abdishtar (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Some ancient inscriptions appear to refer to Asherah as the consort of Yahweh, including the early eighth century site of Kuntillet Ajrud, and a late monarchic inscription from the Shephelah of Judah (source: Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. 2001. The Bible unearthed: archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts. New York: Free Press, pg. 242). Also the text you cite is not KTU 1.1 IV 14. Here is an English translation of that passage (source: http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm):


 * "There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:


 * sm . bny . yw . ilt


 * “The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”


 * This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El."


 * Also Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in the Dead Sea Scrolls identifies Yahweh as one of the sons of El (source: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=445). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.140.81 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Next to where Yahweh was returned, there is a mention of Yam/Yaw. The yaw is that yw. Yes there is a linguistic relation between the two, but what I'm trying to say here is that they're not seperate canaanite deities, yhwh is the hebrew of the ugaritic yw. If you count hebrew as canaanite, then fine, but then why not fuse the section of yaw with yahweh? Why keep them seperate? Il is sometimes anglicised as Ilu and sometimes as El, depending on what translation. The same goes for Yaw/Yahweh. Abdishtar (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the reason they're translated as El or Yahweh, is for the same reason that Het-hert and Haru are translated from egyptian texts to Hathor and Horus, becuase people are more familiar with the anglicised greek translations of the names. Abdishtar (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And I forgot to say, the sources listing Yahweh as a Canaanite deity have two problems. One is that it lists Kuntillet Arjud as canaanite, its hebrew: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/wl/digsites/SLevant/KuntilletAjrud2006/ And relies on The Bible Unearthed, written by Israel Finkelstein, which focuses on the Bible and not the Canaanite religion.Leaving the section with Yaw instead of Yahweh, is to remove Bible-centric bias from the article. Abdishtar (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To not delete it, I fused the Yahweh (yhwh) translation of yw (yaw) with Yaw/Yam Nahar. They don't appear as two distinct deities in the canaanite pantheons, they appear as cognates between the canaanite and hebrew pantheons. See: Asherah: goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament By Tilde Binger Page 35 http://books.google.com/books?id=-xF8jqHEp_oC&pg=PA35&dq=yahweh+and+yaw&hl=en&ei=0NVjTf7WJ8GugQfr6YT7AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=yahweh%20and%20yaw&f=false Abdishtar (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not up to us to decide if something that is clearly a reliable source by our standards is right. Plenty of reliable sources refer to Yahweh and Asherah as Canaanite deities. If some sources say they weren't, we can include that pov. Finkelstein is fine, but there are plenty of other sources. We can't use our own interpretations in articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation, nor is it a POV issue. I agree that Finkelstein is fine. However, Finkelstein uses the spelling of the names Yahweh and Asherah in a way that is familiar-more to the audiences reading his books, that is, the anglicized forms of the hebrew names. The Hebrew names Yahweh and Asherah are cognates of Yaw and Athirat, that's not my interpretation, that's scholars-practice. Kind of like how you might see Osiris in a translation of an Egyptian text, because english speakers are familiar with that name, and not the name Wesir. Abdishtar (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Baal not a god
Section Pantheon: "Baal" just means lord. When "Baalit" is a feminine counterpart of Baal, that must mean lady, so Baalit is not a specific goddess. Dagon cannot be a father to just "Baal" but there must be a specific god. Yahweh/Yah must be a brother to a specific god, not just to a "Baal". Which "Baal"? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it's not a god but an epithet/common noun. It refers in theology to the head of the pantheon, and as you say "lord". When saying Baal, in Ugarit Hadad is who is being referred to. So we should just replace baal with Hadad. Thanks for pointing this out. Abdishtar (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yahweh was also refered to as Ba'al. John D. Croft (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestine is not a country
Palestine is only a region, not a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.78.43 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User Lanalynn's edits on 13 May 2012 "ways they worshiped"
This user who no longer has a user page added quotes from an old source including "To worship their gods, Canaanites did the following - "Base sex worship was prevalent, and religious prostitution even commanded; human sacrifice was common; and it was a frequent practice--in an effort to placate their gods--to kill young children and bury them in the foundations of a house or public building at the time of construction." Howard E. Vos, "An Introduction To Bible Archaeology" Revised ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953) pp. 17-19.[15]"

seems a very old source and not reliable. See page history for other edits to "pantheon". I am going to remove all of Lanalynn's edits on 13 May unless I get a message within 24 hours not to do so.Or if somebody else wants to remove them I think that would be a good idea. Smeat75 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it. It would need much better evidence than that and would certainly need to be expressed in a more NPOV way within a full context. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The offending passage there again, I am removing it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell me more about Yahweh being a Canaanite god?
Ok. I see that Yahweh must be from some pantheon. Probably this pantheon. But are there any Canaanite texts mentioning Yahweh? And I mean Yahweh as in YHWH and not Yw (which is Yam, and Yahweh is not the vegetable Yam). -Capernaum1995 (I need my username changed btw!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capernaum1995 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Deities section needs a huge over-haul. (Merging recommended)
I noticed the there were two lists. One for the deities of Canaanite(Levantine), and deities listed under called "The Levant" which lists a few other deities, but also list a couple of deities from the previous list. I think it would be best to avoid confusion to merge deities are that genuinely canaanite, but I'm not sure what to say for a couple of them that just listed as West-Semitic if that is to signify to they don't have any real point of origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.51.217 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yahweh in the Canaan Pantheon
Yahwey is a storm god and leader of Ba'als armies in Heaven. That is what the description should say, and all it should say. That it "may exist as an ending of some Amorite male names" is a fact for the main page Yahwey, "though the only Canaanite mention of Yahweh, found on the Mesha Stele, refers to the" also has no bearing on the description, both seem to be apologetic diversions. ALL OTHER DESCRIPTION FOLLOW A FORMULAE of "X, the God of Y." They each have their own histories and tiny details, that don't belong here.GESICC (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)GESICC

The following is reprinted.

Yahwey again :~|
You reverted a description on Yahweh in the Canaanite religion section to one that is poorly worded, and non-sequitur to the other entries. Without so much as a discussion. It needs a better entry than the one you reverted it to... What are your problems with the one I put in there? GESICC (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You removed sourced material about the name "Yahweh", claiming it wasn't germane, but it was germane. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read it? In what possible way is a reference to Yahweh being an Amorite name relevant to the entry?  Look at the other entries, X god of Y.  Yahweh is the God of Amorite names?  No others have reference to there being on steeles either.  Those're pretty much a definition of "not germane."  If you're not going to fix it, don't ruin it. GESICC (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom and Doug Weller have not made their point, and seem to be engaging in religiously biased vandalism. GESICC (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't Cross call El the head of the pantheon?
Or am I misreading this? And the entry for Yahweh should reflect what our article on Yahweh says, surely? I see the accusations of vandalism continue, hardly a good idea. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:GESICC, please provide the quote from your source that supports Yahweh being a part of the Canaanite pantheon, rather than a successor. And please stop accusing the other side of a content dispute of "vandalism". This is long disputed and other sources don't seem to support Yahweh actually being in the Caaanite pantheon. Rather, Yahweh seems to have been an import from the southern deserts who took on aspects of the Canaanite gods such as El. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If the vandalism continues, I'm reporting it.


 * To point: An Amorite surname has nothing to do with the pantheon, it is non-sequitur, and vandalism.


 * As far as the actual entry, I'm not married to it. Like the Marduk Mythology, Yahwey wins a battle with the Sea and as a result the other gods make him supreme.  As far as your counter arguments, other sources wouldn't like their all-mighty god, to be a stolen from another pantheon, and I sympathize, but I think it is safe to discount biased opposition... just post something about the god Yahweh that describes his role in the Canaan pantheon, I'll go with it.  However, IT WILL align with the other descriptions of the other gods and not demean the entry.  Here, I'll start, "Yahweh, the god of X." Though you seem to want to make it more than it is, all I am after is an entry consistent with the others.


 * If you don't like the book because it is contested, use another, Harvard Press is better than most others, everyone agrees, I'm sure. GESICC (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * GESICC, please don't report a content dispute as vandalism or you may yourself be sanctioned for disruption. You need to persuade not threaten. Please stop asserting your position and start demonstrating it - please give brief quotes and references to support the position that Yahweh was previously a Canaanite god and that he became supreme by winning a battle against the sea. If the sources provide mixed evidence/views, we should reflect that and not try to decide which is correct. I have no stake in the outcome, beyond wishing to see a long-standing dispute resolved and our articles improved. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While Israelites clearly took the attributes of earlier Canaanite gods for Yahweh, what needs determining is whether Yahweh was a god in the Canaanite religion independent of or preceding the later Israelite supreme/one god - there is some evidence that a god of the name Yw/Yahweh may have been known in Ugaritic, e.g. the below quote, but more is needed to show that Yahweh became the chief god in the Caaanite religion vs in the Israelite religion:
 * "There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:
 * sm . bny . yw . ilt
 * “The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”
 * This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El."
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  22:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the cited book. http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF%20Books/Working%20PDF/Cross%20Canaanite%20Myth%20and%20Hebrew%20Epic.pdf  it's by Harvard University Press, Here is a quote, "In early Israel the language of the storm theophany was taken over and applied to Yahweh in his role of divine warrior,

marching from the south, as well as in the theophany at Sinai." Evidently Yahweh was a battle God who commanded thunder and lightning, as well. Let's see about defeating the sea:  Page 162-3, "The Divine Warrior (Yahweh) goes forth to battle against chaos... Nature writhes and languishes when the warrior manifests his wrath. The warrior-god returns to take up kingship among the gods, and is enthroned on his mountain." There's your quote, of hundreds, citation of quality, etc.. What more could you ask for?GESICC (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed Yahweh and enlarged the section on El, which needs sources - there's one in the main article but I'd like more there. And again, seriously, this needs to be covered at Yahweh before we add it here, I think WP:Summary still applies here. Doug Weller  talk 14:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What part of my request to edit Yahweh first is a problem? This discussion really belongs there. As for your continual accusations of sock puppetry you need to stop or make them formal. And your suggestion I'm trying to rescue someone's God from "wiki" is hysterical. Doug Weller  talk 06:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Doug, 1. How about any paraphrased description from: |This or here |here? There are plenty of ways to say Yahweh God of X, from those two sections, pre-approved. 2. Good, it was indeed a joke. Cordially. GESICC (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC) "What part of my request to edit Yahweh first is a problem?" Sorry, I mis-read the question. Answer, I don't see anything wrong with that page ([Yahweh]), plenty of detail - but this this one should have a conforming bullet. GESICC (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * on an iPad in a car so short reply. I prefer the tentative statement in the lead of Yahweh, slightly contradicted by the 2nd section. I guess it's inevitable that our articles are written piecemeal and that people too often find one source and don't look for others as good but offering different views, or check related articles to try and make sure they don't contradict each other. When I get to my PC I'll show you how to link to article sections in a better way as boh urls just took me to the article. Doug Weller  talk 09:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to Cross' book. On p.75, Cross says "The only real solution ... is to recognize in Yahweh an 'El figure." Earlier in that chapter, he describes how YHWH derives from the verb "To be". Initially, ywh/ywwh was part of a descriptor for El, e.g. "He who", and not a name. This means that Yahweh was not a separate god who then became identified with El or who supplanted El, but rather an alternative name for El in what Cross calls the Yahwistic cult. The chapter GESICC quoted from compares Yahweh to Ba'al, as both in their respective mythologies defeated the sea (in Ba'al's case, the sea was personified as the god Yamm). However, that chapter does not mean that Yahweh was a god in Caaanite mythology who became supreme by defeating the sea - the chapter talks about Biblical/Israelite sources celebrating Yahweh using the sea to defeat the Egyptians, i.e. the Exodus story. I do not believe that Cross can be used to support the presence of Yahweh as a separate god in the Canaanite pantheon; rather, Cross supports Yahweh being an alternative name for El in the Israelite religion, derived from the Canaanite religion, who also took on the aspects of other Canaanite gods. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's more or less what I could tell of what I could see of Cross on the net. The way to link, at least temporarily, to a section is Yahweh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yahweh (again)
This has been discussed before and the outcome was that Yahweh wasn't added. I can find neither the claim that Yahweh was a Canaanite god nor that he was general of the armies in page 3 of the cited book. Doug Weller  talk 14:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not finding it. The 'Asherah' bit is correct. Doug Weller  talk 12:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I should note that we've had this discussion before, see the section above. Same argument, even some of the same edit summaries., what say you? Doug Weller  talk 15:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like page numbers and quotes from Smith's books that directly support Yahweh as a separate god in the Canaanite religion, rather than as a Hebrew version of El. Maybe the best option is to have a direct discussion of this issue in the page rather than just on the talk page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't access the relevant pages of either of those books. Can someone tell us what they say? (or do I have to visit a library?)PiCo (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Shasu were Semitic-speaking cattle nomads in the Levant from the late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. In a 15th-century BCE list of enemies inscribed on column bases at the temple of Soleb built by Amenhotep III, six groups of Shasu are noted; the Shasu of S'rr, the Shasu of Rbn, the Shasu of Sm't, the Shasu of Wrbr, the Shasu of Yhw, and the Shasu of Pysps. Some scholars link the Israelites and the worship of a deity named Yahweh with the Shasu.

Per Yahweh as a localized El/Baal,In her book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, Margaret Barker notes that El (the supreme god of the Canaanite religion) as Elyon is featured in the Hebrew Bible. She writes, "Yahweh was one of the sons of El Elyon; and Jesus was also in the Gospels described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High." Per Robert M. Price:"It is obvious from even a surface reading of the Old Testament that Israelites worshipped a pantheon of divinities even under the roof of Solomon’s temple: Yahweh, Asherah, Zedek, Shalman, Shahar, Nehushtan, etc. The Deuteronomic and Priestly redactors would have us think that the people who worshipped other gods than Yahweh were syncretists, picking the forbidden fruits of Canaanite pantheons; but modern research has shown that these redactors were only reshaping the past in accord with their own theological preferences: in their view Israel and Judah should always have been monotheistic, so in retrospect, they are believed to have known that standard, albeit constantly falling away from it. Likewise, our picture of Judaism in New Testament times has until very recently been under the control of Rabbinical apologetics. It was in the interest of the Jewish faction prevailing after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to appeal, as a credential, to an imaginary past in which their own ideological for(e)bears constituted the mainstream, the basic stock, of a unified Judaism."

74.138.106.1 (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC) & 00:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Tropper, J. (2001). Der Gottesname Yahwa. Vetus Testamentum, 51(1), 81-106.
 * Tropper, J. (2001). Der Gottesname Yahwa. Vetus Testamentum, 51(1), 81-106.
 * Tropper, J. (2001). Der Gottesname Yahwa. Vetus Testamentum, 51(1), 81-106.
 * Tropper, J. (2001). Der Gottesname Yahwa. Vetus Testamentum, 51(1), 81-106.

Evans, Annette H. M. "Monotheism and Yahweh", The Development of Jewish Ideas of Angels: Egyptian and Hellenistic Connections, ca. 600 BCE to ca. 200 BCE. PhD diss., Stellenbosch University, 2007. p. 291. @ http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/1398

"According to the Ugaritic texts the function of Creator of the world and the King of the gods originally belonged specifically to El. Handy (1994:176,177) describes the four hierarchical levels in Syro-Palestinian mythology. The first level consists of the deity El (or his equivalents) and Asherah. The second level consists of the active deities or patron gods, for example Baal, and the third, the artisan gods, for example Kothar-wa-Khasis. The lowest level consists of the messenger-gods, who have no independent volition, which Handy equates with the “angels” of the Bible. Smith (2001a:49) points out that in Israel by the 8th century the first and second tiers described by Handy (cf. n. 24) had already collapsed due to the equating of El with Yahweh, who originally belonged to the second tier, as evidenced in Psalm 82. The Yahweh cult was carried into Canaan (Syro-Phoenicia) by the last wave of immigration of Israelites, and Israelite immigration took place over centuries (Kraus 1989:82-85). Van der Toorn (1999:914) notes that although Yahweh was worshipped among the Israelites before 1000 BCE, he did not become the national god until the beginning of the monarchic era, as evidenced in the profusion of theophoric personal names at that time.Eissfeldt (1956:33) observes that El apparently did not have any significance for the Patriarchs until after their entry into Canaan - the Patriarchs’ experiences of El, or the various hypostases of the one El, are actually all attached to the soil of Canaan (Syro-Phoenicia). The El cult was conceived of as an older form of belief in the true God, and it was through assimilation that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was identified in his essence with Yahweh. Eissfeldt (1956:26) states that El was never conceived of as a rival of Yahweh, as Baal was. He perceives in Psalm 82, as also at Deut 32:8,9 that there was a time when El/Elyon was an authority acknowledged by and accordingly superior to, Yahweh, and that El’s authority meant an enhancement rather than a restriction of the authority of Yahweh. This would explain why there are no traces of polemics against El in the Hebrew Bible. However, by the beginning of the iron age (1250 BCE, Keel and Uehlinger 1998:410), El’s role had become largely nominal, and had been taken over by Baal.Mark Smith (2002a:18, 202) notes that the data in attested sources of Israelite history indicate a pluralism of religious practice in ancient Israel, which sometimes led to conflict about the nature of correct Yahwistic practice. He states that it “is precisely this conflict that produced the differentiation of Israelite religion from its Canaanite heritage during the second half of the monarchy”. Van der Toorn (1999:919) also notes that the practical monolatry of Yahweh should not be taken for a strict monotheism. The religious situation in early Israel was not merely one of polytheism, but also of poly-Yahwism, and according to Van der Toorn the Deuteronomic emphasis on the unity of Yahweh must be understood against this background. Keel and Uehlinger state (1998:280) that there is no doubt that both Israel and Judah took for granted that other deities besides Yahweh existed - “there were other daemons, hybrid creatures, powers and forces in addition to Yahweh”. They conclude that these powers and authorities were subordinate to Yahweh, mediating the protection and blessing of Yahweh. Van der Toorn (1999:917) points out that along with the name, Yahweh inherited various traits of El. For instance, according to Sass and Uehlinger (1993:278) “it is simply unthinkable that the state religion of Northern Israel, i.e. “official” Yahwism, should not have been affected by the prevalence of solar symbolism in Northern Israel during the eighth century BCE”."

74.138.106.1 (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eissfeldt, O 1956. El and Yahweh. JSS 1. 25-37.
 * Handy, L K 1994. Among the Host of Heaven. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
 * Keel, O and Uehlinger, C 1998. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Trans. T H Trapp 1998. Fortress Press: Minneapolis.
 * Kraus, H J 1989. Psalms. Trans. H C Oswald. Minneapolis/Augsberg: Fortress.
 * Sass, B and Uehlinger, C (eds.) 1993. Studies in the Iconography of NW Semitic Inscribed Seals. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht: Göttingen.
 * Smith, M S 2001a. Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson.
 * Smith, M S 2002a. The Early History of God. San Francisco: Harper.
 * Van der Toorn, K, Becking, B, van der Horst, P W 1999. Dictionary of Deities and Demons. Leiden/Koln: Brill.
 * Van der Toorn, K 1999. Yahweh, in Van der Toorn et al 1999, 910-919.

Differences from the Bible
A section on differences from the Bible is probably needed in this article. I suggest the following list from Bruce Lerro's book "Power in Eden: the emergence of Gender Hierarchies in the Ancient World" would be a good place to start.


 * Canaanites
 * Israelites


 * Polytheistic
 * Monotheistic


 * Pre-Axial Tradition
 * Post Axial Tradition*


 * Pre-exilic and remained in Judea after Babylonian invasion.
 * Post-exilic and returned from Babylonia after Persians allowed them to return.


 * Agricultural in culture.
 * Urban in culture


 * Peasantry based.
 * Merchant middle class based


 * Subsistence economy based.
 * Commercial economy based.


 * Largely barter economy
 * Monetarised economy


 * Tributary in nature of polity.
 * Taxation the nature of polity.


 * Nature is an interplay of forces.
 * No interplay of divine forces.


 * Gods may battle each other or join forces. Goddesses subordinate to Gods
 * No more divine battles. Both Gods and Goddesses vanish, their functions subsumed.


 * Sexuality is a part of the Divine Order. Sex makes people more like divinities
 * Sexuality is apart from the Divine Order. No sexuality to divine experience. Sexuality is part of human order.


 * Space and time integrate the sexual and the sacred.
 * Space and time separate the the sexual and the sacred


 * Gods are gendered & sexual.
 * God is not phallic, not imagined below the waist


 * Fusion of the divine with Humanity.........
 * Separation of the divine from Humanity


 * Nature is self determining
 * Human interaction determines natural conditions


 * Humans determine what Gods do through manipulating and appeasing them......
 * Humans determine God's actions through ethical or unethical actions


 * Focus on deities fluctuates depending on crisis.......
 * Focus on deity is a perpetual demand


 * Fertility rituals needed*. Ritual can facilitate the the union of natural forces to create fertility.
 * Fertility rituals are faithless Fertility lies in God's power over rain. Nature is already fertile. Land can be polluted by defying God's commands.


 * Deities provide humanity with culture. Stories about Gods and Goddesses exemplify relations between humans.
 * Humans develop their own culture. Stories about men and women teach lessons.


 * Soul most important. Imagination, intuition, dreams. emotions, fantasies, impulses. the sensual.
 * Spirit most important. Abstract reasoning, analysis, self reflection, consciousness and conscience, sensual denial


 * Sacred presences immanent. Contact through spells. Organic, symmetrical. Interdependent,
 * Sacred presence transcendent* Contact through faith and prayer. Contractual, asymmetrical, Independent


 * Respect: elder brother younger sister metaphor
 * Worship: father metaphor*


 * Cosmos is improvised
 * Cosmos is planned with a purpose


 * Animals included as part divine*.
 * Animals excluded from being part of the divine. Humans higher than animals.


 * Afterlife shadowy & limited.
 * Afterlife paradaisal for all.


 * External laws, obedience to the Gods.
 * Internal dictates, conscience, Morality.


 * Unity of king with priests.
 * Separation of rulers and priests.

- Regards John D. Croft 08:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC) && convert to collapse list - 74.138.106.1 (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Traditional ritual based
 * Scripturally textually based

Some of these are vaguely accurate according to available evidence, but most are gross simplifications with little to no evidence to support them. Many are clearly incorrect. Some of these comparisons are interesting topics that could be discussed in the light of multiple reliable sources, but most currently are not, and this crude list of generalizations should not be included in the article. Any of these comparisons that are ever included should be carefully sourced and explained in detail.


 * I say go for it, definitely. This article bends too much the other way for my tastes. I wouldn't agree with all the above statements, though, so I'd watch exactly what you put down.---G.T.N. (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the second-last and fourth-last. Jewish afterlife is very shadowy, unknowable. The cult of Jesus introduced the Paradise myth. The second-last is definitely wrong. Hebrew culture was as much a theocracy as any other.

217.20.20.85 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

- 74.138.106.1 (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

ERA history and discussion
I had recently changed the date style to BCE/CE after a recent back and forth based on my reading of MOS:ERA, MOS:DATERET, and the article history. It appears there might still be some disagreement, which is not helped by the fact that the article existed for a substantial time with both formats. Here is what I found in the page history (noting either changes, or edits that introduced a different style):
 * 10 June 2007 - First major contribution that also introduced any date style, in this case BCE/CE
 * 29 October 2007 - Unexplained change to BC
 * 30 October 2007 - BCE style restored
 * 29 April 2008 - New sentence added with BC/AD style
 * 3 May 2008 - Lede rewritten to explicitly use BCE style, previous recent BC/AD changed to match pre-existing BCE/CE style
 * 15 October 2008 - Image added with caption that used BC style (article text remains BCE/CE)
 * 16 October 2008 - Revert of several edits, including addition of figure and caption
 * 30 October 2008 - Image re-added still with BC style caption
 * 25 December 2008 - Unexplained change to BC/AD format
 * 25 December 2008 - Changed back to BCE/CE
 * 8 May 2009 - One instance of BCE changed to BC
 * 8 May 2009 - Reverted back to BCE
 * 14 May 2009 - Same anonymous user prior week changes BCE to BC
 * 14 May 2009 - Reverted back to BCE
 * 21 July 2010 - Changed to BC/AD style
 * 21 July 2010 - Reverted back to BCE/CE
 * 31 March 2011 - Changed to BC/AD (all but one BCE and link to Common Era in lede)
 * 3 August 2011 - Lone BCE changed to BC
 * 3 August 2011 - Last change reverted, article text still in mixed state from March 2011 edit
 * 14 October 2016 - "Common Era" in lede changed to "Anno Domini"
 * 14 October 2016 - Reverted back to "Common Era", MOS:ERA mentioned in edit summary
 * 11 April 2017 - Date in "Literary sources" subsection added with CE style (now we have both AD and CE styles, excluding link in lede)
 * 19 March 2020 - Lone BCE changed to BC
 * 20 March 2020 - Last change reverted, article text still in mixed state
 * 5 July 2020 - Lone BCE changed to BC
 * 5 July 2020 - Last change reverted, article text still in mixed state
 * 7 July 2020 - Lone BCE and CE changed to BC and AD
 * 7 July 2020 - My edits to change style back to BCE/CE per MOS:DATERET, although I did miss a couple "AD"s
 * 7 July 2020 - Revert back to BC/AD
 * 7 July 2020 - Another editor (not me) re-reverted to BCE/CE
 * 7 July 2020 - My edits to get the change the last ADs to CEs - style is now consistent in article

Okay - sorry for the long list. I think I got all relevant changes. To sum up - it started in one style (BCE/CE) in 2007, got into a slightly mixed state due to the image caption in October 2008, became a mixed state in the text in March 2011, where it was until July 2020. There were back and forths throughout with some occasional new additions that increased the inconsistency. Per MOS:DATERET, IMO it should be BCE/CE. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)