Talk:El (deity)

Original Research
The vast majority of this article is unsourced, and appears to be original research. I don't want to just wholesale delete obviously, but isn't original research against Wiki Policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.10.14 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Undoing correction revisions
The goal of the rules on Wikipedia is to have well-written articles, not to make it difficult to write or improve them. And accuracy in an article is more important than technicalities of editing. Direct references to source materials are allowed. The goal is to improve an article if it is clearly in need of it. Knowledge of a topic is not POV, and referring to either references or to direct sources is allowed unless there is some debate as to accuracy. Note the previous addition to this Talk page, the person said the whole article looked at that time like Original Research. It still contains some, and corrections with direct references to Source Material are better than inaccuracies. If an editor feels a change is mistaken or debatable, then maybe adding "Citation needed" would be preferable to simply undoing major corrective work by another editor. Misty MH (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No Original Research is not a technicality of editing, it is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. It keeps editors from injecting their interpretation of Primary Sources. Any non-WP:fringe opinion should be easily sourced to a Reliable Source. Editor2020 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I teach this subject, in a state university. I can't presume to judge the sections connecting El with Greek myth. That's outside my area of expertise. Otherwise, the article is a really admirable summary of contemporary scholarship, as developed in the last twenty years, in standard texts like Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other Deities in Israel, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK, 2002) or any of William G. Dever's books. I will recommend it to my students. It's not "original research" but it sure could use some sources. This was a lot of work to write, and perhaps the principal writer prayed this article would fly as it is, without him or her going through the tedious labor of typing in quotes, page numbers and sources. It certainly shouldn't be deleted, but it does need help. Profhum (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be responding to an old discussion, but any thing you could add to the article would be appreciated. Editor2020, Talk 03:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Alleged list at Ebla
This was added by and never sourced, just changed - as it was today. I spent some time trying to source it, but gave up when I found the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible which says on p. 1254 "Cuneiform texts from Ebla provide clues to its pantheon of ca. 40 principal deities including Kura (principal god of the city), Hadad (storm-god). Pagan (lord of the region), Rashap (god of the underworld), Adamma (underworld goddess and spouse of Rashap), Ishara (principal goddess of the city), Ishtar (goddess of love and war), and Idabal (god associated with the Orontes Valley)." It doesn't say El wasn't mention, but it certainly doesn't suggest El was a major god or at the top of any list. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Poseidon
From the attributes of this deity it can be deducted that 'Poseidon' is identical to: 'Neptune', and also to the Semitic: 'Leviatan', as a being living or staying in the depth of the sea darkness, this may have been one of the reasons for Hebrews withdrawing from sailoring. (Deity would come from the proto-european: 'Dyaus', meaning originally: 'the brightness' ('Diamond= the bright gem'), 'the force', 'the power', that in the end may have transformed into the Greek: 'Theos', the Latin: 'Deus', and cognates: 'Zeus', 'Jupiter = dyaus pitar', and its derivatives; in the real world, 'Zeus' was identical to 'Apollion', that had an original identification as a solar cult; 'Deity' may have no other linked attributes, but 'Divinity', as in the cognate Sanskrit word: 'Deva', would be a word restricted for good doers or beings favourable or friendly to mankind). This is a working sketch, additions and precise references welcome.--Jgrosay (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not here unless you have sources meeting criteria at WP:RS discussing El and mentioning the above, otherwise it's original research. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Jgrosay, you display direct bias in that statement. You would be correct, if however the hebrew bible, the old testament, and various hebrew individuals and location names refer to "God" as "El" or "Elohim". The comparison is not in that they are cognates at all, but in that they were related culturally, or identical culturally. That is a far more relevant comparison than claiming that for example "Perun" is the same deity as "Thor", because that would be purely based on theological opinion, and not on cultural and linguistic reality in the case of "El" and "Yahweh". That being said, it's pointless to try and sweep this up, or attempt to present it in a different light, because that said deity has an origin in culture and history is the only thing that keeps it relevant in terms of an encyclopedia or dictionary. People who are impartial to the religion in question are not concerned with the adherents beliefs and opinions surrounding the culture of it other than the classification of sects and movements, in other words it could be relevant to note that jews or christians may disagree with that analysis or overview. 107.11.136.170 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Concepts of God
The lead stated the following: "Specific deities known as El or Il include the supreme god of the Canaanite religion,[4] the supreme god of the Mesopotamian Semites in the pre-Sargonic period,[5] and the God of the Hebrew Bible."

My issue w/ that phrasing is that according to the Wikipedia article on God (and its sources), there are "many different conceptions of God" not limited to the Hebrew God, but that phrasing implies the opposite.

I have reworded the lead so it reads: "Specific deities known as El or Il include the supreme god of the Canaanite religion,[4] the supreme god of the Mesopotamian Semites in the pre-Sargonic period,[5] and the god of the Hebrew Bible, all referring to different concepts of God.", which is correct. The former phrasing implied that God may only refer to the Hebrew God and not the other Gods which is incorrect. Israell (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * IsraellI gather you haven't read WP:VERIFY or WP:RS yet. We don't use our own articles as sources. It's also not relevant to this article which is talking about specific deities. You'd need sources meeting WP:RS for this - basically multiple academic sources as WP:UNDUE means that you'd have to show that this is a significant view.  Doug Weller  talk 11:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, it's unsourced and apparently your own opinion. Doug Weller  talk 11:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, does the El (deity) article give any source for this: "and the God of the Hebrew Bible."? No. Why is that phrasing more correct than the one I'm suggesting? I have simply reworded the lead so God applies to all three mentioned gods. Israell (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not an opinion. It is a very well-documented fact that there are many concepts of God in different belief systems. Israell (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And this is about "specific deities". You still need sources and those MUST related to the deity named El. That's basic Wikipedia policy. Doug Weller  talk 12:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As for "God of the Hebrew BIble", are you disputing this? It's actually discussed in its own section with some sources. It's a statement of act about 'El' that can be and is sourced to sources discussing El. Doug Weller  talk 13:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Israell - here is the dif of the change you are trying to make. It adds the words, "all referring to different concepts of God." You are making a very strong claim in that sentence; this is not a "simple rewording". The claim is that the three instances of a deity referenced in the sentence, are the same metaphysical entity, "God".   What is your evidence for that claim?  Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not disputing that El is one of the names of the "God of the Hebrew Bible". Jytdog, Doug Weller, are you implying that God can only refer to the Hebrew God? Israell (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question that both Doug and I put to you. You proposed a change and the burden is on you to provide a source for it.  What is the source for  "all referring to different concepts of God."?   That is the only question that is relevant here. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and you don't need to ping me I am watching this page. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh for heaven's sake. I am not implying that at all, I am stating as fact that this article is not about 'god' but about deities known as "El or Il". Doug Weller  talk 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug, maybe what is tripping up Israell is "the God of the Hebrew Bible." - the capital-G hyperlinked "God".  I think this problem goes away if we make that small-g "god". Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have found this article on God, and it mentions the Canaanite deity El: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God. This second article mentions the Mesopotamian concepts of God: http://urantia-book.org/newbook/ub/ppr096_7.html.

As I explained, God does not only refer to the Hebrew God. God is a very broad concept. Any deity that one sees as the "Supreme God" or "Supreme Being" fits that concept. Some Pagans do believe in "the Goddess and the God" — that's God! Sikhs believe in one God (as Sikhism is a monotheistic religion) — that's God! Theistic Buddhists also have a concept of God — that's God! Hindus (of different sects) believe in many Gods and acknowledge Ishwara as the Supreme (Cosmic) Being — that's God! Voodooists believe in a Supreme God — that's God! I had no idea such a simple, sensical change would require so many explanations.

Yes, that's the problem. The lead implies that God can only refer to the Hebrew deity. Making it a small g would at least give it some semblance of unbiasedness. Israell (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, small 'g'. As for your sources, didn't I say read WP:RS. Do you think that a publication by the Unification Church (sometimes known as Moonies) which takes our articles and puts their slant onto them and The Urantia Book should be used in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article. i agree,  on the sources.  urantia, oy.  Isreall you seem well-intentioned but your arguments here - here in Wikipedia -  were invalid and your sources were too.  And please do not edit war in the future. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The current wording is much better. "Concepts" is a problem word here: it implies that gods are things that people come up with by ideation. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, are you still watching this article? Undid revision by 2601:8c:4401:678f:558c:6536:b81:44b7. Consensus was reached for "the god of the Hebrew Bible" (small 'g'). Israell (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Creator
What I read in the text was that he is the creator of the gods and humans, but some sources also say creator of the earth and the universe. Is there a authentic reference for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.80.45 (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sabaean god?
At Talk:Wahab El Yahiz an editor argues that El is a Sabaean god, and Almaqah seems to be saying the same thing. Is this correct? Doug Weller talk 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller; you can read this, it is an English source. Ecoboy90 (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You expect to use a random website as a source? Don't you check your sources? It's bad enough that he's anti-Muslim and believes Allah is a moon god (which I presume you do also given your source), but the guy(whoever he is, he seems to be anonymous) is a nut. He thinks evolution is a hoax, dinosaurs - you get the drift. Absolutely useless as a source. Doug Weller  talk 09:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the writer is Yoel Natan. He seems to already be used in Wikipedia, as a source for the articles on the Expedition of Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri, on Islam by country, on Umm Nidal, on Takbir, on Mangalorean Catholics, and on Navel in popular culture. Dimadick (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No scholarly sources for this claim.
“In some places, especially in Psalm 29, Yahweh is clearly envisioned as a storm god, something not true of Ēl so far as we know (although true of his son, Ba'al Hadad). It is Yahweh who is prophesied to one day battle Leviathan the serpent, and slay the dragon in the sea in Isaiah 27:1. The slaying of the serpent in myth is a deed attributed to both Ba’al Hadad and ‘Anat in the Ugaritic texts, but not to Ēl.”

It claims Yahweh was a storm god in theses psalms. But there is no sources cited about what scholars interpret theses psalms. It only cites the psalms but doesn’t mention scholars interpretation of them. CycoMa (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It was added by, now retired from Wikipedia. He claimed that he was only rendering WP:RS from Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, which are easily searchable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think sources should at least be provided. Otherwise the claim comes off as just personal interpretation. CycoMa (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you locate the references for this? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered - just the other day I was being called a new editor (not by you of course) with little experience.
 * The para doesn't seem to come from a single source. Let's go by phrases:
 * * "In some places, especially in Psalm 29, Yahweh is clearly envisioned as a storm god" - see the bottom of page 80 of Mark Smith's Early History.
 * * "something not true of Ēl so far as we know (although true of his son, Ba'al Hadad)" - for Haddad as storm god, (it's usually spelled with a double d), see this, p.384
 * * and for El as not-storm-god, see Jimmy Jack McBee Roberts, Collected Essays, p.321.
 * * For Yahweh slaying the dragon Leviathan in Isaiah, see Debra Scoggins Ballentine, "Conflict Myth", p.130.
 * * For who slays the serpent in the Ugarit myth, see Mark SMith's Ugaritic Baal Cycle (you'll have to do an internal search).
 * Hope this is helpful. I must say I find the paragraph is very accurate, but also very lacking in sources - like the entire article.Achar Sva (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, WP:CITED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Where does Mannu-ki-ili come from?
I've done some research into the canaanite gods, and while I've found reason to believe that Yahweh was a son of El, but while I've found evidence of the connection between Michael and Mannu-ki-ili, I haven't found any evidence that he was a son of El. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayerb (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nayerb There's at least three references within the Ugarit Texts, outside of the Baal Cycle Tablets. There's also El Tablet #74 Damascus, which excellently presents his name.  And then a few odd mentions just of "Mannu" and "MNN-L" in various 12th and 13th century material. Sadena (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks dude. Nayerb (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The Sons of El
Unless there is an objection, I'm going to overhaul the list of the Sons of El. In addition to increasing the list from 14 to 25, i will be removing the Ugaritic designation and the question marks. These gods appear as Sons of El in multiple pantheons (Canaanite, Ugaritic, and Babylonian), so they are confirmable and not exclusive. My sources are Marvin Pope, James Pritchard, Philo of Byblos, Sanchunations, and Jerome Eubius. Sadena (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Anat

Ashart Ashtar Arsu Athtart Azizos Baal Berith Dagon Eshum Fo Hadad HLL/Hillel/Helel Hey-el-el Kothar Mannu Mot Salem Shahar Shalim Shapash Sidedon Yahweh Yam Yarikh Sadena (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Anat can't be a son of El. She was a goddess, which would make her a daughter of El. 19:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC) IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct, she's the 71st anomaly, or at least so believed. the Babylonian variant has 77 or 88 Sons of El, the Canaanite has almost always 70, and now and then 71, and people think that's because of Anat.  we don't really know if they ever fleshed out all 70.  but then again, they did have a THOUSAND years! Sadena (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Amarna Letters
I checked two texts online of the Amarna Letters and could not find a mention of Raphael in EA333, just "Rabi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:53F0:96A0:8943:296F:E494:232 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert
See               tgeorgescu (talk)  11:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Another revert
Hint: the word El appeared before the Hebrew language appeared. So, the Strong Lexicon is not WP:RS about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong lexicon is RS. 2600:100F:B1B1:D934:0:30:9929:8F01 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The Strong Lexicon is not WP:RS about the etymology of the word El. You can't use SL in order to claim that El originated in Hebrew language. While SL could reasonably be trusted about the Hebrew language, it cannot be trusted for stuff happening before the Hebrew language appeared. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)