Talk:Hadad

Spelling
The name is spelled in Hebrew with an H and in Arabic with a pharyngealized H or khet in modern Hebrew, wich one is the correct one?

The reading with H as in "hayat" or even Khet of the modern Hebrew is completely wrong. Please read it with a "Ayn". Refer to the name of the actual Baghdad =Beit 'Adad"= The examples are innumerable in Lebanon and Syria and even in Palestine. In Arabic 'Adad has derivatives like adeed, uddah, ateed, etc, which concur to the meaning of war strength. Noureddine (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The spelling Vs. pronunciation
The name could not spelled with a Ha. It must be a Ayn. The reference to hadad is not correct because it refers to Iron. The god Adad is prior to the iron age by a thoushand years. The name is Adad not even Addad. Noureddine (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arabic name should be changed to هداد or هدد. This is how it is written in reliable Arabic sources. The other transcription is incorrect. 213.178.224.163 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respects I make a strong reference to the city of Baghdad. The name of this city is an abreviation of Beit Adad. The sumerian tablets show the guttural A followed by double D: ADD. The letter H in the ancient Mesopotramia has another configuration that could write: HDD instead of ADD, which did not happen. Another example is about the French Archaeologists who discovered Ur, Uruk and Mari did not think of any possible variations to the names such as the actual Iraq or Uraq instead of Uruk. Please read my contribution regarding the name AZIZ.

Noureddine (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hadad or Haddad ?
I find it a bit confusing that both spellings are used without an explanation. Fwend (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Fwend: The problem here is that we are using the English language, reputable for its incapacity of readng Semitic, therefore, giving interpretations. The difference is between the guttural Ayn, which is a variation of Ghayn, and the Palatal Ha, which do not exist in English. This is not even Ha as in "happy" but a consonant that is very well distinguished in Semitic. The term Adeed in Arabic means "strong" and "well standing" and sometimes "numerous" as it suggests a derivative from the God Adad the mighty. Al Uddah is the war gear. But to answer your question, the term is not emphasized with double consonant. It is Adad with Ayn. Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Rain is seed?
I've heard that the Caananites thought that as rain fertilized plants, it was the spilt seed of Hadad/Ba'al when he had sex. Is their any source for this myth? The Dark Peria (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Where'd you read it? No Canaanite literature survives. --Wetman (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ba'lu
Ba'lu redirects here, though the term does not appear in the article. Accordingly, I'm redirecting it to Pu-Ba'lu. Anyone knows why it was redirected here, can change it to a dab. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Equations
I removed an equation with Thor which is obviously absurd; Teshub, Zeus and Jupiter were identified with Adad, but what about Indra and Set? It seems like someone just wanted a complete set of equations across the pantheons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:810a:b40:110c:b9b3:53fe:8ee1:d0ce (talk • contribs) 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, not quite—Seth is the genuine article. For example, the Egyptians described the Storm-God of Aleppo as Seth of Aleppo. Indra is trickier, but not as far out as it might appear, because there was an Indo-Aryan presence in Mitanni and Indra is mentioned in Mitannian contexts. However, Indra was not specifically identified with Hadad, as far as I know (despite the functional resemblance). Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Adad
Yup. See Talk:Adad. — Llywelyn II   00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Separating Hadad, Adad/Ishkur and Baal
The merge from 2015 was an incredibly bad idea, considering that the article now barely discusses Mesopotamia, and lumps together multiple gods who just so happen to have cognate names - functionally Ishkur (attested in Early Dynastic period already, so equally old as Hadad in Ebla)/Adad (western import merged with Ishkur in the Sargonic period according to Daniel Schwemer) in Karkar or Zabban and Hadad/Addu in Aleppo, let alone Baal in Ugarit (explicitly regarded as distinct from the weather god of Aleppo by the inhabitants of Ugarit themselves, and with "Hadad" as epithet, not primary name) were as distinct from each other as Tyr was from Zeus. If anything further division was needed, into an Adad/Ishkur article focused on Mesopotamia (with the attestations from Susa and the rest of the "Elamite lowlands" included), a "Storm god of Aleppo"/Hadad/Addu one (as on German wikipedia) focused on Syrian hinterland and cities like Ebla and Mari (ex. the extent of the tradition which regarded the weather god as a son of Dagan) and a "Baal of Ugarit" one focused on Ugaritic texts alone, to keep separate from the general article on the title "Baal." The accuracy of many statements leaves much to be desired too - Gubarra is not a name of Shala but of Amurru's wife Ashratum, Shala is not Shalash (and it was the latter who was Dagan's wife), Sin and Ningal are not attested at all as parents of Ishkur (did someone confuse him with Numushda...?)... Also, love that Teshub, whose name was quite literally written with the same logogram as Ishkur, is not in the infobox, but Thor is. After all, medieval Scandinavians are known for partaking in theological disputes in the Ancient Near East and their gods - for appearing in Mesopotamian god lists, totally unlike the Hurrians.

The most detailed monograph on the weather gods of Ancient Near East, D. Schwemer's ''[https://www.academia.edu/16999070 Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen]'', is open access, so I will probably get around to fixing this article relatively soon since it's not like credible modern publications are hard to come by, but it simply cannot exist in this form, separation is necessary in my opinion.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Coming back after around half a year to point out further problems:
 * 1. uncritical reliance on Green's monograph, which is filled with factual and methodological mistakes, see a review by Lluis Feliu here for some examples. In one case Green presumes consensus on a unique much discussed text didn't shift since... 1944 (let's not even get into more recent consensus changes, like the differentation between Shalash and Shala); in general, in multiple cases oldest scholarly publications are the only ones cited. He also seems to have a rather tenuous grasp of the Ebla material (as pointed out by Feliu, he's not even aware it is the oldest known corpus to mention Hadad...), which not only hardly counts as a recent discoverey, but also as demonstrated by authors involved in the excavations and publications of the texts from this site over the course of past five decades is rather significant for establishing the early history of weather gods in what's now Syria and Iraq. Green's monograph is obviously the more accessible option to English speakers compared to Schwemer's Wettergottgestalten, but as it stands I do not think it should be used when there are more rigorous publications dealing with the same topics.
 * 2. "Baal" is a generic title and it cannot be presumed that every deity referred to as a "Baal" in the Bible is specifically a weather god, let alone the weather god relevant to an article which, at the core, is supposed to be about the closely related deities with cult centers in Aleppo (Hadad/Eblaite "Hadda"; note German wiki covers the material related to the weather god of Aleppo entirely separately, which seems like the right move to me) and Karkar (Ishkur/Adad). There definitely should be a paragraph on the replacement of primary name of the weather god in Ugarit, and elsewhere on the coast (but possibly not inland, cf. how the matter is approached wrt to Emar by different authors), but I see no point in discussing every biblical passage which mentions a Baal, let alone changing the wording so that the article deceptively presents this as an attestation of Hadad when the name isn't even present in the passage. Why even have a Baal article if that's how we're going to treat it? Granted, argument can be made that this article is already a wastebasket of hardly related materials given the merge. Two gods with different cult centers, position in the pantheon and genealogies are basically treated as one, might as well throw in more. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)