Talk:Yahweh/Archive 11

Lede image
By way of background, Shrike asked for a citation for the lede image. I provided a citation and amended the caption per that source. The source says quite a lot about the coin, and obviously we don't want a complete description in the caption. Possibly we should add something about it to the body of the article, but let's park that for the time being. We had previously described what Yahweh is sitting on as a "sun throne". Per Stavrakopoulou, the coin combines the imagery of Yahweh's winged and wheeled throne (per Ezekiel 1) with the royal winged sun disk emblem of Judah. So it does have both throne and solar imagery, but I think "sun throne" is synthesis. As far as I know, Yahweh is never said to be enthroned on the sun.

Achar Sva subsequently edited to "seated on a throne", which I've amended to "enthroned" for concision. They also removed the source I'd added. That may have been an editing error, but in case not, I don't see a problem including both citations here. Readers who don't have access to one may have access to the other. While I don't think the claim is controversial, it may be surprising to some readers, so I don't see that two citations could be said to be over-citing.

If Shrike, Achar Sva or anyone else is particularly keen to highlight the solar/throne imagery, I would have no objection to adding a second sentence: "The winged wheel combines imagery of Yahweh's winged chariot throne with the royal winged sun disk of Judah" or similar, but it would make the caption rather long. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Havelock Jones, I changed the source from Stavrakopoulou to someone else simply because Stavrakopoulou's book isn't available to me - I have no objection to it as such. I'm happy with it as you have it. Achar Sva (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yahweh "[is] the central deity of several modern Abrahamic religions"?
Zhomron wants to add this clause to the first line of the article so it would read: "Yahweh was the national god of Ancient Israel,[1] and the central deity of several modern Abrahamic religions." He has three sources for this, but I can't find the information in any of them: Of course, I might have missed something, especially in the Betz piece, so Zhomron is welcome to quote the exact passages that say Yahweh is a god in modern religions.Achar Sva (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Van Der Toorn's DDD, pp.362-363. This is about Yahweh in the Iron Age, not a word about modern religions.
 * Betz's contribution on monotheism in the Eerdams Dictionary of the Bible, pp.916-917. Unfortunately google books has removed this from my current preview, but it was available earlier and I saw nothing about this subject.
 * Gruber's article on Israel in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible, pp.76-96. It shouldn't take 20 pages to support a single statement that Yahweh is the god worshipped in modern Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Anyway, nothing in all those pages saying that Yahweh is a modern-day god.


 * See:
 * Van Der Toorn's DDD: [My sincere apologies! I copied the sources from another article to save time on rewriting the templates and neglected to actually change the page numbers!!]
 * "With the rise of monotheism this epithet of the god of Israel as a mode of address became more and more a name in itself. In Judaism (presumably from the third century BCE onwards) it replaced the holy name Yahweh." (p. 531)
 * "Yahweh is the name of the official god of Israel, both in the northern kingdom and in Judah. Since the Achaemenid period, religious scruples led to the custom of not pronouncing the name of Yahweh; in the liturgy as well as in everyday life..." (p. 910)
 * Betz:
 * "...the end of the Babylonian Exile, Israelite monotheism took on a more forceful form of expression. Yahweh is proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos... foreign deities do not exist; there is only one true God; Yahweh... The NT presupposes the monotheistic convictions expressed in the OT and early Judaism... Since God is one, there must be only one God of both Jews and Gentiles" (p. 917)
 * Cambridge Companion to the Bible:
 * "The... ancient Israelite religion, or, rather, the construct(s) of the beliefs and practices of adherents of the worship of one God commonly called Yahweh... is regarded as merging into “Judaism” in the sixth or fifth century BCE." (pp. 76-90)
 * (see also:) "Similarly, most of the Hebrew Bible constitutes a myth of common descent, outlining the shared political history of a group of people who identified themselves as descendants of a single ancient family, whose story forms the basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." (p. 222)


 * If none of these are to your liking, I can provide additional supplementary references of Philo's Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Pieters' The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms; Moor's The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism; and the EAB compendium Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era; which can replace the references above in the article. Zhomron (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The same God is/isn't Allah dilemma, which cannot be endorsed in the voice of Wikipedia. See Talk:God/Archive 25. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This isn't some sort of WP: ruling, it's just you alone speaking for the site policy. As the linked discussion you provided says, we use reliable sources. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say the same thing, there is nothing stopping us from placing it in an article and using the variety of sources which support the same conclusion to back it up. The primary sources say they are the same. The subsequent secondary sources say they are the same. And thousands of years later, scholars which study these things say they are the same. Attribute the sources, make the claim. Zhomron (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure: I have nothing against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Zhomron, none of those say that Yahweh is the central deity of any modern religion. Yes, the modern Jewish, Christian and Muslim monotheistic gods are descended from the monotheistic Yahweh of the Second Temple period, but saying that I'm descended from my grandfather doesn't mean that I actually am my grandfather. Or to put that another way, Yahweh Adonai, Jesus and Allah share the attribute of bing monotheistic deities, but they aren't identical. Achar Sva (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * For the past several days I have been trying to find any reliable source whatsoever which claims that Yahweh is not the current god of Jews, or of Abrahamic religions. I have not found a single one. I instead have found an increasing numbers of scholarly pieces which assert Yahweh is continuous throughout ancient religion to today. If you would, please provide me with your sources which claim Yahweh is no longer the god of Judaism and/or Abrahamic religions altogether, so that I can better understand it. Zhomron (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way, you need to find a source that says he is the god of modern Abrahamic religions. Achar Sva (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did. SEVEN of them, which I gave you above. Yahweh was the god of ancient Israelite religion. Ancient Israelite religion is now Judaism. Same god. Christianity came out of it. Same god. Islam came from both. Same. God. You don’t have a single source actually saying Yahweh is different from the current Abrahamic god, do you? This is all just your interpretation by applying outside logic against what the sources actually say. Isn’t it? Zhomron (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that "Ancient Israelite religion is now Judaism" is like saying an eohippus is a horse. Gods change over time, and with about 2,500 years between Iron Age Israel and us there's been a lot of change. The Yahweh of the Iron Age was a storm and battle god who became a state god and eventually a covenant god, he demanded live sacrifice (very possibly including child sacrifice), he had a wife, he was the head of a pantheon of gods, he didn't claim to have created the world from nothing, and he didn't claim to be the only god. None of that is true of, for example, of Jesus, the god of Christianity, or for that matter of Judaism or of Islam. Gods are human inventions, and constantly changing. Achar Sva (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * IMHO, we clearly shouldn't express any view on whether one diety is identical with another another diety, but we should edit the lede to avoid suggesting that Yahweh ceased to be worshipped after the Iron Age. Also "Ancient Israel" is unhelpfully ambiguous.  I would suggest something like replacing the first sentence with: "Yahweh was the national god of Iron Age Israel.  He continued to be worshipped during the Exile, and is identified by many contemporary Jews (and others) with God." Havelock Jones (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't make definitions to suit ourselves, they need to be sourced. "Yahweh was the national god of Ancient Israel" is sourced from page 110 of James Maxwell's Miller's History of Ancient Israel, "But it was Yahweh, of course, who would emerge as the national god of Israel and Judah..." Miller does leave out the adjective "ancient", so I'd be happy with dropping the word.Achar Sva (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments with four tildes. I'm not sure whether you disagree with my proposal or you just want me to add citations.  It's worth noting that Miller isn't defining Yahweh as the national god of Israel and Judah: he's just saying that he was.  That's uncontroversial, as we explain in the article, but Yahweh was later (and perhaps also earlier) worshipped in other roles, as we also explain.  We need the lede to scope the article accurately. If we can agree a sensible form of words, I don't think we'll have any difficulty providing citations, which are already in the body text.Havelock Jones (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I forgot to sign. I'm suggesting that the definition has to be sourced. Achar Sva (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Zhomron, I don't think your recent edit was in the spirit of WP:BRD. This conversation hasn't reached consensus.  While I agree with you that the lede should be changed, I can't agree with the actual change you've made, and from what I can see, neither does anyone else in this conversation.  Based on the extracts quoted above, none of the sources appear to say that Yahweh is God.  In the spirit of being constructive, you may wish to note that Francesca Stavrakopoulou in her 2021 book God: An Anatomy refers to "Yahweh - the diety of Jerusalem, now better known as God" (page 27).  Can you please either revert your edit pending a consensus being reached or amend to something which reflects the views expressed here, e.g. tgeorgescu's point as to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Havelock Jones (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I also don't like the insertion of the word "resembles". I don't have Smith 2001 here, but Smith 2002 describes Yahweh as "originally a warrior-god from Sinai/Paran/Edom/Teiman" (page 32).  Also Hackett 2001 (whom we cite in the body of the article) has "We see Yahweh described as a storm-god, an aspect of the deity well known in the ancient Near East, especially where the deity is depicted as a warrior." Havelock Jones (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We should keep in mind MOS:FIRST which says: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialized term, provide the context as early as possible."
 * We need to explain what "Yahweh" means so that a reader with who has not seen the word before can understand what this article is about. Many (though not all) readers will have opened a Bible at some point, but in the vast majority of English translations the word "Yahweh" does not appear.  To say "Yahweh was the national god of Ancient Israel" does not sufficiently define the subject.  Yahweh was the national god of Ancient Israel, but he wasn't only that, and the source cited doesn't suggest he was.  I wonder if perhaps it would be simplest to say, "Yahweh was the god of Israel," which is true in both a technical and non-technical sense. Havelock Jones (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He wasn't? What else was he? Achar Sva (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * YHWH predates Ancient Israel, the Judeans took him on as their national God but that does not mean that was the role he held in other societies which predated them and worshipped YHWH, like the Shasu and Midianites.2601:140:8900:61D0:B8A1:773D:263C:5567 (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"... and the fact that ʾel zū yahwī ṣabaʾôt is nowhere attested either inside or outside the Bible.[22]"
Not attested? It is everywhere! "Jahve sebaot" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.207.16 (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll have to take that up with our source, John Day. Achar Sva (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why have we, as a species, gotten to a point where we have somehow unlearned the ability to read? Zhomron (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This entire page is inappropriate for the main article on the G-d of Israel
What if the page Allah was entirely about speculative theories linking Allah to pre-Islamic lunar deities? This is so wrong. The page should be renamed to something other than the Shem HaMeforash, the ineffable name of Hashem. Similar to the page Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia.

The page Y-hwism already exists and contains almost the same content, in addition to being wildly offensive the page is also redundant and should be merged with Y-hwism. Like Y-h-w-h, the pages Y-hweh and Jeh-vah and other pronunciations of the Shem HaMeforash should link to the page God in Judaism or to the tetragrammaton. Shandor Newman (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:CRYBLASPHEMY, WP:NOTTHEOCRACY. Frankly, Allah as a lunar deity is pseudohistory (since Islam has clearly begun as a sect of Christianity). Yahweh as a god of polytheism is mainstream Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not my point, if the page Allah was about the connections between Allah and Hubal or Anat or other pre-Islamic Arabian deities that are attested to in scholarship it would be as equally offensive to Muslims as this page is to Jews. Shandor Newman (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:DUCK. We don't hide under the carpet a research topic from mainstream history just because you cry blasphemy. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to bother discussing with a vandal. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You did not answer my question so I moved the page, I'm not a vandal. Writing WP:DUCK with no other text it's not an answer. You should not hide any research it's just not appropriate to be the flagship page for the name of the G-d of Israel. A page with almost identical content already exists, Y-hwism and this research can be merged there. The issue is relevancy and which information should be at the forefront of a subject. Hashem is the G-d of 14 million Jews and I'm sorry but this is just not appropriate. If Jews were extinct then our traditions would not be relevant, but this page is about the G-d and traditions of a living people. Do you think it's appropriate for the page Jesus to be mostly about theories connecting Jesus to Tammuz? What if the page Allah was about connections between Allah and pre-Islamic Arabian deities like Hubal and Anat? Would you think that was appropriate, you never answered my question. Shandor Newman (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Do you think it's appropriate for the page Jesus Christ to be mostly about theories connecting Jesus to Tammuz? What if the page Allah was about connections between Allah and pre-Islamic Arabian deities like Hubal and Anat?" Personally, I think that would be an improvement. It would explain where these mythological figures derive from. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does Depictions of Mohammed qualify? In any case, feel free to edit other pages to match this one. Note that you are wandering into WP:Bludgeon territory. It might be time to retire gracefully. Doug Weller  talk 09:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Y-h-w-h is literally the name of our G-d. This is not an article about a contentious issue between Jews and gentiles like Depictions of Mohammed is for Muslims. Shandor Newman (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Try to do that with any other page that's not Jewish and see if you succeed. The real issue is that this is a Jewish topic. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/wikipedias-jewish-problem-pervasive-systemic-antisemitism/ Shandor Newman (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's even more egregious that this research is so schlocky, like postulating Allah is a lunar deity. Unlike Jesus and the gods of other nations that came from mythology or from us, the G-d of Israel appears to have come from nothing. A singular creator who is formless and causes both good and evil and demands justice, who has a system of laws governed by complex kabbalistic physics and whose name, which this article is about, means the Et-rnal, has no parallel in the ancient world. That's not the point however, the relevancy of this research is not greater then the significance of the Shem HaMeforash to Jewish tradition. Shandor Newman (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Being offensive to Jews (or to anyone else for that matter) is not an argument that carries weight (WP:OM). You need to base any arguments you have on WP policy. There’s God in Judaism so there’s no point in replicating that here. We have Jesus, which indeed covers historicity, and Jesus in Christianity and Allah, which does indeed cover pre-Islamic usage, and God in Islam. The first of those pairs covers all aspects under which the religious-perspective article sits. Where you might have a point is that this article only covers the historical perspective. I think it might lack a section explaining that Yahweh is also used as the modern name for God in Judaism, linking to that article. But that doesn’t mean that the current historical perspective should be removed or reduced. DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at the article Y-hwism the information on that page is almost identical to this one. Why should there be two pages covering the same information? Also the pages Allah and Jesus are not about their hypothesized pagan origins they only barely reference them, those pages are about Islamic and Christian traditions. in the case of Jesus the closest thing is one paragraph about him being a myth which links to a larger article. The page Y-h-w-h is about a speculative theory. Shandor Newman (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Being offensive to Jews" I think that is irrelevant at best. If Jews are offended by their own pagan origins, that does not mean we have to bury our heads in the sand and present fairy tales instead. Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is no one responding to any of my questions? You are straw manning my argument. It's fine if things are offensive to Jews it's not fine that the actual title page of our G-d has nothing to do with Jews or our traditions and is about speculative theories that our G-d is a myth. The Allah page isn't about how Allah is a myth, the Jesus page isn't about how Jesus is a myth. Why is it only this page? When there is already a page about this topic called Y-hwism that has the same information this one does. Why is that page duplicated in the article on our G-d? Shandor Newman (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Allah is the Christian God, according to certain Christian "heresies" and rebranded for Arabs. Jesus isn't mythical (meaning the historical Jesus, who was a man of flesh and blood and really existed), but the Christ of faith is to a large extent mythical. If you haven't found this information at Wikipedia is because you did not search good enough. And 99% of my edits about Jewish subjects are about people who are dead for at least 500 years. I don't edit in Palestinians vs. Jews. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You still are dodging my question, I do not have an issue with this information being available on wikipedia. I understand there are pages on Jesus being a myth and Islam being related to Christianity and Arabian paganism. Just like this content should be on the page Y-hwism. The issue is the main page for Allah or Jesus or Vishnu is not about those gods being mythical. They are about Islamic and Christian and Hindu traditions. The actual page for Y-h-w-h the G-d of Israel is not about Jewish traditions. It is a treatise on how Hashem is a myth. Why is it only for this page and not the others? Shandor Newman (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * please sign your posts. At the top of the article it says "This article is about the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah. For the modern Jewish conception of Yahweh, see God in Judaism". This article is about an ancient deity that predates the development of the Israelites. "God in Judaism" begins with "God in Judaism is the eternal Supreme Being who created and preserves all things." On the other hand, Jesus starts with "Jesus[e] (c.4 BC – AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,[f] was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader." Allah begins with "Allah (/ˈæl.lə, ˈɑːl.lə, əˈl.lɑː/;[1][2] Arabic: الله, romanized: Allāh, IPA: [ʔaɫ.ɫaːh] (listen)) is the common Arabic word for God. In the English language, the word generally refers to God in Islam." You seem to be confused about the purpose of this article. Doug Weller  talk 15:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, Y-h-w-h who we call Hashem outside of offering prayers, is the G-d of 14 million Jews not an Iron age deity. We are not an extinct people. If you want to have an article about what scholars theorize Judaism was in the First Temple Era, it should be in an article like Y-hwism which is almost a duplicate of this one, not the main page for our G-d. The page for Y-h-w-h should be like the page for Allah and G-d in Judaism should be like the page for God in Islam. The title page for the Jewish G-d should not be used as a treatise on how Hashem is a myth. This content should be merged with the page Y-hwism. Shandor Newman (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the title page for your god. God isn't the title page for any particular god, even though Christians use it as the name for their god. This is a secular encyclopedia. Doug Weller  talk 15:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jews don't worship 'God', which is a being who only does good, and is usually contrasted with a malevolent being like the devil who does evil which is why Jews have often been accused of devil worship and witchcraft. Hashem creates good and evil and HaSatan is the archangel. Jews have a national G-d. See the beginning of G-d in Judaism: "Traditionally, Judaism holds that Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the national god of the Israelites, delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, and gave them the Law of Moses at Mount Sinai as described in the Torah." I don't understand your statement, in what way is Y-h-w-h not the title page of the G-d of the Jews? Shandor Newman (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Jews worship God, did I? Doug Weller  talk 17:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then what are you saying? I don't understand in what way is 'Y-h-w-h' not the title page of the G-d of the Jews, the way Allah is for Muslims? Shandor Newman (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you actually read the articles you mention? The article about the Islamic god is not Allah but God in Islam. Allah is more like this article. “God in (a religion” is the title for a number of articles, there’s no difference between the way we treat the Jewish god and those. Doug Weller  talk 19:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean I'm talking about the page Allah, in what way is 'Y-h-w-h' or 'Y-hweh' not the title page for our G-d the way the page Allah is for Muslims? Shandor Newman (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? It doesn’t sound like you are looking at the same page. The page for the Islamic god Allah is God in Islam. Doug Weller  talk 19:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, there are the pages G-d in Judaism and God in Islam right, and there are the pages Y-hweh and Allah right? Just like Allah is the title page for the God of the Muslims, how is Y-hweh not the title page for the G-d of the Jews? That is the name of our G-d. Shandor Newman (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is useless. Doug Weller  talk 20:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you understand my question? This is the title page for Y-h-w-h the G-d of the Jews just like Allah is the title page for the God of the Muslims. Shandor Newman (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not an article about rpthe god of Islam, it’s about a word used for various deities. You are not going to convince anyone with these arguments. Doug Weller  talk 21:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, there was a smart Alec who accused me of antisemitism because I have denied the historical existence of Noah. Those who make such baseless claims should get a life: that's not what antisemitism means, it means exclusion and oppression, it does not mean disbelieving Ancient myths. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to see where a Jew accused you of antisemitism because you denied the existence of Noah, if you can't then let's assume you lied. Shandor Newman (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Book of Noah. But the same applies to Talk:Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That might have something to do with you writing about Jews and the New World Order on your talk page. Shandor Newman (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s enough. You’ve got no right to ask that nor should you be using the talk page to harass someone. Doug Weller  talk 20:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is sufficiently large that it should not be merged into Yahwism. It is fitting for Yahweh to have a separate article from Yahwism, just as God in Judaism has a separate article from Judaism. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Y-hwism is a tiny article that has two sections and four paragraphs I'm pretty sure you can easy merge them. Shandor Newman (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By that logic, it should be merged here! —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there are two issues conflated here: what deity is this article about, and what deity should be the primary topic of the page titled "Yahweh"?

This article is about the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This deity is separate from the Jewish concept of God/G-d/Y-hweh, as well as from the Christian concept of God/Yahweh/Jehovah.

The second question, then, is what is the primary topic of "Yahweh"?
 * 1) The national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah
 * 2) God in Judaism
 * 3) God in Christianity
 * 4) None of the above, so this title should be a disambiguation page among the three (after moving the content currently here to Yahweh (iron age Israel), Yahweh (early Israelite god), or the like)

Looking at the talk page archive, it looks like moves have been floated before, but there's never been consensus on a move. (Hint: it would be a Very Bad Idea to try a bold move given that there has been discussion in the past and no consensus.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Heyo, a Jew here! The page title is not offensive in the slightest. This is an encyclopedia, not a midrash. We do not cater to particular religious sensitivities, and you, likewise, do not speak for all of us. Zhomron (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Shalom aleichem the issue is that the title of the page Y-h-w-h is the Shem Hameforash and there is no other page for Hashem. The title page of Hashem should not be about a speculative theory, it should be about Jewish traditions the way Allah is about Islamic traditions. A page with the same content already exists named Y-hwism. This should link to the tetragrammaton or to Hashem which should be expanded. This content should be merged with Y-hwism. Shandor Newman (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If, as you state, "there is no other page for Hashem", then what needs done with the content of Hashem? It sounds like there's a bigger issue to deal with at that page first. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right but I don't have the time to write that page. The issue is if you google 'the G-d of the Jews' Y-h-w-h comes up and this page. This is not the G-d of the Jews. I think this page should be merged with Y-hwism if have no more objections. Shandor Newman (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a Google issue and not our problem. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don’t have WP:CONSENUS, you can’t do it. And Google isn’t a good reason in any case. Doug Weller  talk 21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Google is just an example, this is literally the name of our G-d like Allah or Shiva that's why it comes up. Do you understand that this is the G-d of the Jews? It's the title page for our G-d. Shandor Newman (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The page Allah is mostly about God in Islam and it mirrors the tetragrammaton page where this should be redirected to. Its the title page for the God of Islam ″Allah (/ˈæl.lə, ˈɑːl.lə, əˈl.lɑː/;[1][2] Arabic: الله, romanized: Allāh, IPA: [ʔaɫ.ɫaːh] (audio speaker iconlisten)) is the common Arabic word for God. In the English language, the word generally refers to God in Islam″ Shandor Newman (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked the same question over five times and each time he pretends like he doesn't understand what I'm saying and now he stopped answering. I think it's apparent he is not an unbiased editor, at the front of his talk page he has a statement about how Jews wage holy wars based on their Torah (I don't even know what that means Israel was founded by secular Jews) it pretty obvious why he doesn't want the article changed since he enjoys mocking Jewish traditions, and he knows this is the title page of the Jewish G-d, and is a WP:POV editor pushing an agenda. If no one has any objections that they can clearly state I'm merging this page with Y-hwism.

Yahweh is just a scholarly reconstruction. You should contemplate the possibility that the Real Name of God has been lost. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the correct pronunciation it would be more scholarly to write Y-h-w-h and halachically authentic. Shandor Newman (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHEOCRACY: Wikipedia is not subjected to Halakha. But you worry a lot about a wrong pronunciation. If it is wrong, it is not the name of your God. As simply as that.
 * And even Yahweh does not settle it: is it Iahve or Iahuei? tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I said authentic meaning its the way Jews write it, since its a Jewish name, like when Allah Hu Akbar is incorrectly written Allah Akbar by westerners, and it's more scholarly, if you go to a museum the placard will say YHWH or Y-h-w-h. That argument doesn't make sense if I say the name of your country incorrectly then I can misrepresent your country because I'm not talking about it? WHAT? Shandor Newman (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Allah Hu Akbar is actually incorrect - the -u sound at the end of the name Allah is a case marker, not a separate word. Achar Sva (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, call it Romania or Rumania, it is still the same country. You have been making a point about the Genuine Name of God&trade;, which no longer holds if the name isn't genuine. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about using the real name of Hashem for sorcery or kabbalistic purposes, I'm talking about misrepresenting Jews and our traditions. Shandor Newman (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is very much biased for real scholarship. So, whatever mainstream Bible scholars do, you don't get to call it misrepresenting Jews&mdash;your own judgment is not binding for Wikipedia.
 * Stating that Baruch Halpern, Richard Elliott Friedman, Israel Finkelstein, William G. Dever and Shaye J. D. Cohen are misrepresenting Jews is extremely far-fetched and unconvincing to hard-core Wikipedians.
 * In case I'm not clear: they (the scholars) define the term Yahweh, i.e. neither me nor you are entitled to define it for Wikipedia.
 * Stating that these scholars enjoy mocking Jewish traditions is beyond the pale. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You refused to answer my only question and then shut down the discussion
Is that how wikipedia deals with descent, it silences critics? You are straw manning my argument, I said several times this research is fine I have no issue with what Israel Finkelstein or Shaye Cohen say about Y-h-w-h I have an issue with their views being on the front of the title page for the Jewish G-d. Their views belong on wikipedia on their own page, they don't belong representing who Hashem is while eclipsing Jewish tradition. They belong on Y-hwism which is a page made specifically for their views that begins with Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel. Which is where I am going to move this article if no one has a clear objection, or can answer my only question why should this content represent the Jewish G-d over actual Jewish traditions, instead of it being on its own page that was already created for it? Shandor Newman (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Dare to move it, you will then get indeffed ASAP. You were told by many that you have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits, this did not change and it is very unlikely to change in the future. So, asking again and again is WP:BLUDGEON. Be warned! Enough tendentious editing! Enough trolling! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is subject to pp-move-indef, so you lack any right/authority to move the article. Persisting in your mistake will be then unforgivable.
 * At this moment, only admins are allowed to move the article, and even they will perform the move only if there is a clear-cut consensus for the move.
 * This boils down: you seek to perform edits without having consensus to do so, and you seek to subvert an administrative decision which is in effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Great job you have again failed to answer my question. How much ink has been spilled without anyone answering my question? Shandor Newman (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely clear what your question is. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should this content about mythic origins of Hashem be the leading article for Y-h-w-h the G-d of the Jews instead of an article about Jewish traditions with this content being in Y-hwism along with the other mythic origins theories of Hashem? Why do we have two mythic origin articles on Hashem one of them being Y-h-w-h the actual title page for the G-d of the Jews. Shandor Newman (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The question becomes, what are people searching for if they put the search term "Yahweh" into Wikipedia? (Not what Google search dumps them here, but for use of the search term on Wikipedia.) Jewish taboo is probably going to taint those statistics, simply because many Jews would be reluctant to type that six-letter sequence into the search bar. I would be open to setting up a tracking redirect (similar things were done with Trump) to see how often people do redirect from this page to the page on the Jewish deity.
 * As for why this content is here and not in Yahwism, it's because they're two separate topics. It would be the same as conflating Hashem with Judaism and putting all material about Hashem into the Judaism article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hrm. A tracking redirect may not be warranted. This page outdraws God in Judaism about 3 to 1 in pageviews over the last year, and Hashem about 12 to 1. It's also about 10 to 1 in pageviews over Yahwism. Clearly, any merge with Yahwism would come to this title, not away from it, and that data makes a strong case that the Iron Age deity is the primary topic for the article title Yahweh. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In what ways do you feel this article and Y-hwism are significantly different? They both appear to be about scholarly reconstructions of Israelite cultic practices in the iron age. However the Jewish G-d is completely absent from the page bearing his name.
 * Do you think most of the people who come to the page are looking for information on theorized cultic practices or for information on Judaism and the G-d of the Jews? A topic so obscure must not be searched for very often, compared to the Jewish G-d. Shandor Newman (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this page (talk page) is meant to be for discussions of the article page (not the article topic). I suggest you frame your input as concrete suggestions for changes. Achar Sva (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be honest. Up until two hours ago, I agreed with you: my gut said that the primary topic for Yahweh would be the Abrahamic god of that name. (Whether to go from the Jewish or Christian perspective is another issue.) However, the page views changed my mind. The data says that people who come to this page are not looking for the God of Judaism; if they were, there would be more page hits on God in Judaism than there are, since that page is prominently linked from here. —C.Fred (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I said earlier (many many posts ago) that the one point he might have is that there should be a section linking this page to the later use of the name for the God of Judaism and explaining the linkage. It would follow on naturally from (or be part of) the section headed “Yahweh and the rise of monotheism”. DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:DeCausa. That makes sense. And although I don't like using article talk pages to discuss editors, I'm going to reply to User:Shandor Newman's attack on be above where he seems to be calling me an anti-Semite and complains I didn't reply. I didn't reply because I'd gone to bed. I am not pretending anything in my replies. I clearly do not have on my talk page "a statement about how Jews wage holy wars based on their Torah". I have lyrics from a folksong by John McCutcheon on my user page from his song Not in my name which is about using religion as an excuse for war and ignoring God's message about loving your enemies. And I block anti-Semites with enthusiasm. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Shandor Newman took me to WP:ANI after an "interesting" discussion on my talk page. The ANI discussion lasted minutes and ended up with him being indefinitely blocked for trolling.  Doug Weller  talk 17:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022
Change "Yahweh was the national God of ancient Israel and Judah" to "Yahweh is the God of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity and was worshipped in ancient Israel and Judah"...Or something like that...the article gives the impression that Yahweh is not a part of modern religious practices 2.203.114.106 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article makes sufficiently clear the distinction between this god and the God of Judaism and Christianity. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

“His origins”
I think this is a very strange revert and form of words. The “concept of” or “belief in” or “worship of” Yahweh may reach to the Iron Age but saying, in Wikipedia’s voice, that his origins reach to the Iron Age, as though Yahweh were an actual entity or being that really did originate then sounds really odd, but more than that actually fails WP:NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is Patrick Miller's "The Religion of Ancient Israel", page 1: "The origins of the worship of Yahweh are shrouded in mystery..." So you're right, "worship of" would be closer to the wording used, but I can't see that the rest of your comment reflects a real concern: gods are mental (or possibly social) constructs, and mental (or social) constructs have origins - Yahweh, in short, once did not exist, and then he did. Still, if you want to change it, I won't object. Achar Sva (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just think the wording is currently awkward. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem of trying to define origin of this "social construct" is that the name predates the languages it is rendered in. I am specifically referring to the rendering of "Yhw" found in both the Proto-Canaanite and Ugaritic languages.  As you trace the name backwards through time you "run out of road" (reach the beginnings of the languages) before a source can be found.  This is made even worse given the possibility presented by the existence of the names "Yah" and "Yah-ll" (meaning Yah-god) written in the Amorite language, pointing to a possible older 3rd millennium BC origin attested to by a single fragment, if Yah-ll refers to Yhw, which can not be determined as no context for the mention exists.  I blame the Shasu for not keeping a written history. Sadena (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yahweh is never mentioned in a single Amorite text. The Amorite prefix yahwi- has nothing to do with Yahweh, and the suggestion that does or might has been disproved by scholars over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, for more than 200 years. Use Google. Zhomron (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"This name is not attested other than among the Israelites"
Um, yes it is. The Egyptian "yhwꜣw" and the Proto-Canaanite "Yhw" are both attested by others besides the Israelites, predating the Paleo-Hebrew by several centuries. Unless I'm missing something here, this statement is false. Sadena (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus that yhw3w actually refers to Yahweh and "Proto-Canaanite YHW"... is not a thing. "Proto-Canaanite" isn't even a language, its just the word used to describe Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions found in the wider Levant, and the lemma "YHW" is not found in the finds anywhere. The name YHWH shows up at the earliest on the Gezer calendar in the 10th century BCE and the latest on the Mesha Stele in the 9th century BCE. Zhomron (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For Yhw rendered in Proto-Canaanite I refer you to El Tablets presented in "Ancient Near-Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament" by James Pritchard. I only have the physical book to cite, is there some way to upload page images to this talk page?  I'm not very Wikipedia-Savvy.  The book in question does have a digital version I think. Sadena (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the correct citation for a stone tablet is, but one of the renderings of Yhw is from "The Treaty Between Ktk and Arpad." I don't know if it's still there but it was part of a collection of steles held by the Museum of Damascus and was originally "found" in the 1930's, allegedly originating from a dig in Sujin near Aleppo, Syria. Sadena (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadena. You're obviously well versed in ancient languages, but the thing about Wikipedia is that it's a popular encyclopedia, not an academic journal. This means that our sources are secondary sources - books by scholars, sometimes journal articles. Never, however, primary sources. Achar Sva (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is a "source book", such as a compilation of translated texts, considered an acceptable source? The reference material I have isn't written by the scholar (James Pritchard of Princeton University), rather it is edited by him.  For example, could the contents of the Rosetta Stone be cited as evidence of the life of Ptolemy? Sadena (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if you read WP:PRIMARY it will be clearer for you. It may sometimes be possible to say “the Rosetta stone says X” if it is a very straightforward statement not used to back up an interpretation. Any interpretative reliance on the Rosetta Stone has to be cited to a secondary source which complies with WP:RS and is used in a way which complies with WP:DUE. But broadly, we avoid primary sources - we just reflect what secondary sources say because original research, as we call it is strictly forbidden. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Temples
In the section Temples it says "The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the Jerusalem temple was always meant to be the central or even sole temple of Yahweh, but this was not the case." I think the first part of the sentence should be revised to something along the lines of "Today, many believe that the Jerusalem Temple..." The Hebrew Bible in fact does not give the impression that Jerusalem was always made to be the central place of worship: 1. The Five Books of Moses does not mention Jerusalem while taking about the Temple. 2. The Bible afterwards goes into details about the different places of worship including Shilo, Gilgal... 3. Even after the Temple was built, it's written multiple times in the Book of Kings that the Jews are still sacrificing on the bamot (plural of "bamah". Literally "high place". Meaning, the ancient Judeans would still sacrifice to their God on alters outside of Jerusalem). Rewbrick (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Centralizing the cult in Jerusalem only is a commonplace of Bible scholarship. WP:OR does not trump WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Name/etymology: consistency between this article and Tetragrammaton
Posing a similar question to what I raised on the Tetragrammaton article talk page.

While on different topics, they are clearly related topics, which I would think have shared etymology in theory, although viewpoints on which etymology story is true could vary.

The Tetragrammaton article says "The name "YHWH" is probably derived from the Hebrew triconsonantal root היה."

Meanwhile, the Yahweh article (this article) says "This name is not attested other than among the Israelites and seems not to have any plausible etymology.[17] Ehye ašer ehye ("I Am that I Am"), the explanation presented in Exodus 3:14,[18] appears to be a late theological gloss invented at a time when the original meaning had been forgotten."

Has anyone looked into the sources of both, or does anyone here have deep knowledge on both theories? Even if there are contradictory viewpoints out there, should the articles both make mention of both e.g. the possibility that the relation to "to be" is an after-the-fact "gloss" invented? Given what is on the Yahweh page, I was iffy about the word "probably" in Tetragrammaton article.

Curious on your thoughts.

For disclosure, I am a believer in the Abrahamic God and generally believe in the biblical "to be" meaning for the name, but trying to read up on religious history on Wikipedia in an unbiased way.

-KaJunl (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @KaJunl: 'Probably' is probably not the correct wording for that section in the tetragrammaton article. As the lead of the article more accurately states: "there is no consensus about the structure and etymology of the name". The link with the exodus quote is, frankly speaking, implausible. If it were an allusion to Ehyeh asher Ehyeh ("I am who I am") then the obvious contraction would be Ehyeh ("I am"), not Yahyeh ("He/it is"). And of course, Yahweh is not, in any case, the same word as Yahyeh, and the root הוה is likewise not the same as היה. In Semitic language, the w/y long vowels, which act as consonants in these 'triconsonantal roots', are not so readily interchangeable. Changing the middle consonant changes the entire meaning. The Tetragrammaton article is also rather thrifty on the alternatives hypotheses, including those clearly presented in the sources it cites. See this source, which notes that an equally plausible root is the unadulterated root הוה, meaning "to fall" or "to blow", names that allude to a god of wind and storm - an association that, incidentally, you will find cropping up over and over again in the bible. I fear etymology and succinct theology are probably not the best of friends here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "names that allude to a god of wind and storm" Yahweh as a weather god can be attributed to his identification with Hadad, particularly in their victory over Lotan/Leviathan. I am not certain about his wind god status, though I have read sources connecting Yahweh to aspects of the creator god Enlil. Enlil was depicted as benevolent and just, which are not terms typically associated with Yahweh. Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is obviously a whole other interesting sets of links to metallurgy, and also fire - hence the appearances of burning bushes, pillars of fire, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @user:Iskandar323. That is helpful.

I would propose removing the "probably" from the other article, at a minimum... I'll propose it on that talk page too. I am not sure I am knowledgeable enough on the topic to want to make revisions myself. Also, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to include alternate possible original meanings such as wind, blow, storm etc. on the other page- I just feel like at least the article sections about language/etymology should have come consistency between them. -KaJunl (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @KaJunl: I should have mentioned that I've found a rather good source that goes over all of the various etymological theories one by one with a robust, but succinct level of detail overall, as well as what seems to be an evenhanded approach. It is the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica by George Foot Moore, who was both historian of religion and Presbyterian minister. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry Iskandar323 but the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is not a good source, because it's far too old. Scholarship progresses, and ideas change, and for that reason the 1911 EB isn't what we would accept aqs a reliable source. I suggest you look at the books in this article's bibliography. Achar Sva (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Achar Sva: Ideas CAN change and scholarship CAN progress. That doesn't mean it has. Etymological discussions are rarely the swiftest and this particular EB entry comes from an eminent source. I was principally providing this source for KaJunl's reference, but since you've brought it up, is there anything in particular that appears outdated to you? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

United Monarchy
If the United Monarchy means a loose confederation of tribes, very few scholars deny its existence. If it means a big empire, very few scholars affirm its existence. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I mean, but the thing is when people mention "the United monarchy," they're usually thinking of Solomon's Kingdom as described in the Bible. It's rather clear that the Israelites were established in the region c. 1000 BCE, but there was likely no such unified Israelite Kingdom. So to me, this article is incorporating faith into attestable evidence, and that's why I changed it. GOLDIEM J (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article has two very serious problems.

(1) It completely slights the religious point of view that holds that "Yahweh" is not an historical development but rather the personal name of God revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. This may be a minority POV nowadays, but it is still widely held by many people and deserves respectful presentation.

(2) As written, it is not about Yahweh, but about Yahwism, i.e. the worship of Yahweh as reconstructed by modern secular scholars who discount the Biblical account. There is a "Yahwism" article where most of this material belongs.

The opening paragraph should run something like this: "Yahweh is the consensus among Biblical scholars on the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the personal name of the God of Israel revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai, according to the Biblical story.  It is neither spoken nor written by most observant Jews.  Traditional Jews and Christians regard Yahweh as identical to the God they worship, though most seldom use the name.  On the other hand, many modern scholars believe that Yahweh originally was the name of one of a pantheon of Middle Eastern gods who was adopted by the Israelites as a national god and only later came to be regarded as the one true God." RogerBurk (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RogerBurk, on your first point, wiki-articles on topics like this are academic in focus, and so we present academic viewpoints. On your second point I'm rather in agreement and have previously suggested that the two articles be merged, but the consensus was to keep the two separate, so we have to live with that. As for you suggestion on how the opening para should run (with info on the pronunciation of the Name), there's already an article for that, Achar Sva (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if we deleted tetragrammaton. It is a rather pointless discussion of theonyms across several different primary texts, and I fail to see why we need detailed accounts of spelling variations. Dimadick (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Me too, but I doubt it will ever happen. Achar Sva (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a B-grade academically styled article (and prominent theological studies subject) without clear problems; I think there are slightly greater priorities for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that Wikipedia only should only present academic viewpoints? I searched and was unable to find such a prescription. ￼ RogerBurk (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the logical end point when a subject is well covered by peer-reviewed scholarship by subject-matter experts, because it is the most demonstrably reliable material. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @RogerBurk obviously that isn't the case as many subjects aren't covered by academia. But policy and guidelines make it clear that we prefer academic sources in subjects best covered by them. Doug Weller  talk 14:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In other articles we quote notable theologians who do not wear the hat of a historian. But not in this article, since the scope of the article in an Ancient polytheistic god, not the monotheistic God people are used to from their Sunday school. Since most present-day churches have no confession of faith regarding this Ancient polytheistic god, we do not WP:CITE churches for their views upon such god. Even when liberal theologians preach something about mainstream Bible scholarship, that generally isn't a theological dogma of their own church. Of course, their church does not object, but the conclusions of historical research are not set in stone as official dogma. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is precisely whether Yahweh is an "ancient polytheistic god" or the personal name of the one true God. That's a POV difference.  Someone from a conservative Christian or Jewish background would be baffled and repelled by this article.  I don't think an "academic point of view" that is limited to secular academics is appropriate for such a reader.  ~ RogerBurk (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is heavily based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It isn't Commoners's POV Encyclopedia and certainly does not cater to fundamentalist believers. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Conversely, someone from a conservative Christian or Jewish background would be baffled and repelled by being told they worship an iron age god from a polytheistic religion. Hence the split on topic lines between the two concepts. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, otherwise we reach the undesirable situation that a good chunk of Bible scholarship gets exiled outside of Wikipedia, since it would have no proper place inside it because of the prejudices of true believers. I mean, within reasonable parameters, we do not needlessly offend religions, but religions have no business here offending WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This being a mainstream encyclopedia, scholarship trumps religious prejudice. We do not pander to piety. If Wikipedia would have to choose between the clergy and the mainstream scholars of religion, most definitely it would choose for the mainstream scholars. Do Britannica and Larousse choose otherwise? No, so don't ask Wikipedia to choose otherwise. We're not making a total mockery or religions, but all editors are expected to show respect towards scholarship, even when they have views that differ from it. WP:CRYBLASPHEMY does not win Wikipedic debates. We don't erase mainstream Bible scholarship from Wikipedia just because it offends the fundamentalist Jews and the fundamentalist Christians. The POV that Yahweh is an "ancient polytheistic god" is a major scholarly view, so it has to represented somewhere at Wikipedia. The place for it is this article. Fundamentalists cannot cower Jimmy Wales into submission. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a project which very much prefers real scholarship to religious dogmas. Love it or hate it, that's what Wikipedia is and we will keep it so. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that God in Judaism and God in Christianity are their own pages for a reason, just as God in Islam is distinct from the Allah page. For better or worse, that is the current setup for religions, and it establishes a clear split between academic discussions of deities and religious perceptions of them. Only a community-wide review would alter this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this not the correct approach, and it could arguably be deemed POVFORKing, but it is for now a consistent application across Wikipedia. I imagine that the way in which the material ended up this point was by voluminous religious scholarship basically numerically overwhelming any other form of scholarship and drowning out secular academic views. Without a topic split, it would have been hard to establish any boundaries for this imbalance given the nature of the prevailing guidelines on due weight, and hence the POVFORK division. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "the fundamentalist Jews and the fundamentalist Christians." There is not much difference between these versions of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They both have irrational beliefs, based on superstition. We should not quote them, and we should not cater to them. Dimadick (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yahweh is the God of Judaism
I have been informed by C.Fred that belief in Yahweh in Judaism today is not relevant to this article. Can someone justify this?Woscafrench (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, Yahweh is a polytheistic god which slowly evolved into the monotheistic God. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is that not in the article? Judaism is an academically significant religion. Woscafrench (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this is an article about the original, polytheistic god. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which has academic significance in modern Judaism.Woscafrench (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion, but we had this discussion before. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * C.Fred - how strong is your opinion? God in Judaism links unambiguously to this article when referring to the name of the Jewish God. Woscafrench (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The God in Judaism article is not in good shape at all, so if this is a subject that interests you, that page would definitely benefit from some love. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be a good article to improve, although I'm not Jewish so I might not be the right person. Woscafrench (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * True, Yahweh is the God of Judaism, however, Iron Age Yahweh and the modern Jewish God represent different things. For instance, as said above, in the Bronze/Iron Age Yahweh was imagined as supreme among many, but among many nonetheless - in modern Judaism he is the only one. Plenty more exist, to the point that there are so many differences that God in Judaism had to become its own page. Zhomron (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says something to the effect “modern Judaism is not academically significant in the context of studying the Israelite cult of Yahweh?” Otherwise I would suggest you are conducting original research. The god in Judaism page links to this page as being the god in question - why is this not then explained here? Woscafrench (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The transition of Yahweh the iron age god to the monotheistic concept of God in Judaism is covered, albeit lightly, in this section of the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of confusion in the discussion here; I think if we can clear it up a little it would help us get on the same page, even if there isn't full factual agreement.
 * There is a clear distinction drawn by the fields of anthropology, ancient near east studies, and religious studies between the deity itself (Yahweh) and the cult/worship of that deity (Yahwism). The importance of this distinction is considerable.
 * "Yahweh" (YHWH) is the proper name of a particular deity venerated by ancient Israelites, and this proper name for the deity has remained the same to the present day, where the god described in Jewish bibles and prayer books is still written (though never pronounces) as "YHWH". Jews trace a direct line, rich with tradition, of this deity being the same and unchanged since ancient times. Indeed, for observant Jews today, belief that their god is Yahweh who is the same Yahweh worshipped by their forefathers constitutes a fundamental article of faith, one emphasized constantly in the practice and liturgy of all observant Jews even in our time.
 * "Yahwism" by contrast, refers to the totality of the cultic or ritual practices performed for that deity. This cult of Yahweh in antiquity is indeed drastically different from the worship or venerance of the god Yahweh today, and it would therefore be entirely reasonable to state that the ancient cult of Yahweh, or Yahwism, bears little resemblance or affinity with the current practice of Judaism - so much so that, from particular perspectives, they may comprise unique religious entities. However, this would be notable on an article about Yahwism and the 'cult of Yahweh'. None of this is relevant to the personal identity and name of the deity as understood by his worshippers. Yahweh is, inarguable, the god of the Jews today, and their tradition can be traced back - though with many philosophical accommodations - directly to the same deity discussed here. Accordingly, the statement that "Yahweh in Judaism today is not relevant to this article" would strike practicing Jews - as well as academics in anthropology, ancient history, and religious studies - as profoundly misguided.
 * There is much discussion regarding the philosophical religious viewpoint/worldview underpinning the nature of Yahweh. These are undoubtedly important discussions, and certainly relevant as a matter of studying religious philosophy. There is a danger, however, in using such factors as a decisive factor in assigning encyclopedic categories, as it assumes that the way such deities were understood, venerated, and worshipped by those in the past must have included some consideration of these philosophical factors. For example, it's natural to question whether the worshippers of Yahweh at any particular time believed that he was (a) a local deity among many, (b) the main deity among many independent subordinate deities, or (c) a universal deity before whom there are no other independent powers at all. Such presuppositions seem so fundamental to many of us that we cannot comprehend of previous individuals worshipping a deity without having a clear position on these fundamental questions. However, anthropologist and historians of religion have long understood that this assumption is incorrect and misguided as to the way that individual minds worked in antiquity. The notion that any individual worshipper of Yahweh, or even a substantial proportion of the population of Yahweh worshippers, held clear ideas regarding the nature of their God, or felt the need to have some opinion about Yahweh's cosmological place/nature, is a mistaken retrojection of our own assumptions onto individuals and societies of the past. In fact, the idea of requiring some philosophical basis or other logical precondition to believing in and worshipping a deity was utterly foreign to (at least) the vast majority of Iron Age worshippers, including Yahwists. This wasn't a clear cosmology which later changed - it was rather the absence of any clear cosmological position, which people in early antiquity never thought of as a necessary component of their religious landscape. In other words, the fact that, for example, a deity was once thought of as a "local" deity, not denying the existence of other deities, does not represent a reflection of a conscious, developed cosmological world-view held by those worshippers. Similarly, the subsequent cosmological enlargement of Yahweh's nature was not as much a "departure" from some previously held cosmological model, as it was the new development of a cosmological model. For the purposes of this article, my point is to emphasize the fact that philosophical considerations themselves, while certainly critical to many of us in this age as preconditions to any belief, were not nearly so widely understood or even cared about by the vast majority of those who actually worshipped the deity in antiquity. In trying to present a balanced encyclopaedic picture, however, it would be far better to provide the historical context of how this deity was understood by those who revered him. Forcing the frame through which we describe deities of antiquity into a philosophical framework that divides movements or deities by their cosmological differences may be scholastically beneficial and certainly deserves note, but as a matter of encyclopaedic clarity, I respectfully submit that it is a mistake to impose such a standard and limitation.
 * There is much discussion involving the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. This is a false dichotomy imposed by our contemporary worldview and experiences. In antiquity, and especially in Levantine religions, one of the most common models was neither monotheistic nor polytheistic, but 'henotheistic', i.e. the reverence of one primary god while accepting (or at least not explicitly denying) the existence or possible existence of other deities. The 'primary God' held by a people was not a cosmological position or a statement of objective superiority - much more often it was nationalistic and/or geographic - e.g. particular cities, regions, or people were understood to be associated with a particular deity, who would therefore, by virtue of the god or goddess's geographical / relational connection to the place or people, then be the primary God served at that place or by those peoples.
 * (The closest contemporary analogy I can think of is someone moving to a new city and becoming a fan of the local sports team...no one thinks that he is loyal to the team because he objectively determined they were the best; he is loyal because that's the town's home team. He may later say his team is the best and that they "will go all the way" and all other teams are terrible - and he may argue these points vociferously, as sports fans are wont to do - but surely no reasonable person would think that the fan's passionate belief in his team's superiority is the result of careful consideration and determination that this team was qualitatively supreme. Accordingly, categorizing his support of his team by our understandings of what must be logically necessary to hold such a position may be scientifically correct through some particular lens of inquiry, but from an encyclopedic/explanatory perspective this would obviously be incorrect). Nafb852 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your learned comments, but I think there lies little actionable therein.
 * As an aside, I know two people born and raised in Overijssel, neither of them supports the local soccer team, but one supports Ajax and the other Feyenoord, both these teams are from other provinces. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What User:tgeorgescu says is one view of scholarship, but he has mistaken the fact that it is only one view. At the very least, the article needs to distinguish different meanings of the term. Lightest (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, academic consensus (WP:RS/AC) or scholarly majority view gets the lion's share, then we render significant scholarly minorities (if any). Tiny scholarly minorities and WP:FRINGE views don't get rendered in mainstream articles, see WP:ONEWAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does the image of the clay fragment of Yahweh and his Asherah differ from source to source?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Ajrud.jpg This is the one currently used in the article

But if you google "Yahweh Asherah inscription" you come across multiple images where, well, a "rod" of some sort is shown between the legs of the Asherah. Why does this differ from different sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iarmethodil (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Because some "genius" has photoshopped the image, adding a penis. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu LOL no, you can literally see it on the sherd. This artifact's identification has been disputed since its discovery. Scholars who want to claim it's Yahweh and Asherah (male/female) have published drawings where only one figure has a penis, but, as I said, you can literally see it in photographs. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to change name of the article
YHWH would be more accurate and neutral name Multiverse Union (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Multiverse Union: That's a different page, see: Tetragrammaton. Did you actually search for YHWH? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 i typed YHWH on my search engine if that what you meant Multiverse Union (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I meant on Wikipedia, but if you search on google, it also seems to suggest Tetragrammaton over Yahweh. Is it different for you? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022
Under the section titled, "Yahweh and the rise of monotheism," the first sentence includes a grammatical error. Change "Gods" to "gods." King Cowy V (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 01:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Needs Improvement
Hi guys, I think this article is not clear at all & somehow confusing. If it's around a "polytheistic deity", so why you don't simply mention this in the subject, so as it read: "Yahweh (Polytheistic deity hypothesis)"? For example, Psalms are full of references to Yahweh as the supreme God for all nations not only Israel; same in the book of Jacob and the book of Isaiah (See for example Jaki Stanely's books on the matter).

Second, the article suggests unsupported claims like "earliest Biblical literature" (to refer to the Book of Judges). This is hardly an acceptable claim. Indeed, some scholars suggested that the Bible contains elements from the pre-exilic era, yet others just refer to the whole biblical literature as post-exilic composition.

Third, if this scholar or that cast an opinion, are we holding it as the undisputed truth? I really can't understand how this sentence: "Yahweh has characteristics of a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths" is not mere speculation and personal opinion. Also, the reference doesn't provide further info about the matter.

Fourth, if we take a look at Encyclopedia Britanica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh, the situation there is much better. Just for aspiration. 185.12.222.54 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also this claim "emergence of nation-states in the Southern Levant"... Nation State is a modern concept that cannot be traced prior to the 18th century. This article is really so problematic and sadly unprofessional. 185.12.222.54 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Brittanica articles can have just one pov, can’t check their sources, at least one article accepted a fringe idea by a prolific puppet master. Not a good model. Doug Weller  talk 18:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, the article is written entirely from a scholarly-critical POV and excludes all others. Many of the claims in it are widely disputed, especially in religious communities. ~ RogerBurk (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would that matter? Wikipedia articles need to be based on Reliable sources, and religious communities do not produce reliable works. Dimadick (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to say religious communities do not produce reliable works. There are many scholarly works with a religious POV.  There is no blanket condemnation of religious sources for religious topics in Wikipedia:Reliable source. RogerBurk (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"Yahweh was the national God of ancient Israel and Judah"
And since when was Yahweh suddenly NOT the God of Israel? Yahweh is still the name of the God of Judaism and Christianity, certainly there are varying opinions between these sects on using the sacred name, but Yahweh is still worshipped. I find this to be a bit misleading. Even when Judaism began to take on it's form, the tetragrammaton was still used to refer to the name of God. Many Christians still use this name, whether it be in the form Jehovah or Yahweh. And while Jews certainly choose not to use it, there's no evidence that they stopped worshipping Yahweh just because they began to refer to him by names such as Adonai, HaShem, etc. The masoretic text still has the tetragram. 2601:5CE:4002:55F0:0:0:0:74F5 (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Cool, ancient Israel and Judah don't exist anymore. They... were ancient. So, saying "Yahweh is the national god of ancient Israel and Judah" makes any sense? Zhomron (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to be pedantic, the name of the God of Israel is never spoken, and since it is only written as YHWH, its pronunciation has been forgotten. "Yahweh" is an invented word that is just a guess at an actual pronunciation - used here in a formal academic setting to describe the development of the Yahwist cult. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point. Yahweh is not just the god of ancient Israel, He is also identical with the God of modern Jews and Christians, at least from the POV of those of traditional faith. ~ RogerBurk (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * God in Christianity has its own article and God in Judaism has one as well. The beliefs of modern people have no relevance to Iron Age pagan deities. Dimadick (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be interesting to set out the ways in which the Yahweh of Iron Age Israel/Judah is not the YHWH of modern Judaism or the God of Christianity. For starters, he had a wife (Asherah), he was the head of a pantheon of gods, he was only one of many other national gods, and he demanded blood sacrifices; none of these are true of the YHWH of Judaism. Nor was he a trinity, nor did he create the world from nothing, nor did he have written texts (unless you count the earlier prophets and the early psalms). About the only continuity between that god and the modern Jewish god is the name, and Christianity has lost even this. Achar Sva (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's of course irrelevant to the religion though. No Biblical text even intimates that its God has a wife. The YHWH that had a wife is not the YHWH of the Old Testament. That's also an interesting avenue to pursue 174.95.18.180 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Old Testament is not a very good guide to the religion of Iron Age Israel. Here's an interesting book on current scholarly thinking. Achar Sva (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Achar Sva: Even the book you cite acknowledges that there was at least a minority of 'literati' who believed in YHWH as portrayed in the Old Testament, so the most we can say is that during de Iron Age there were probably different conceptions of YHWH depending on which ancient Israelite group we are talking about. Potatín5 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Potatín5, in the 2nd century BC all Jews and Samaritans believed in YHWH, not just the literate ones. What the book says is that their lives were not governed by torah observance. This is surprising, but the archaeology supports it. But read the book, don't listen to me. Achar Sva (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So how is this even relevant to Christians and Jews? If iron age dudes, whose beliefs conflict with the Bible, held to a view of God where he has a wife, and the Bible repudiates this view, how is this at all in conflict or even interesting to Jews or Christians? 174.95.18.180 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The talk page is meant for material relevant to the article, not to Christians and Jews. In this case the relevance is for those editors who are saying that the ancient Israelite god called Yahweh is the god of modern Judaism and Christianity - he's not. Achar Sva (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Achar Sva has posted a problematic wikitable. Speaking as a modern Christian, allow me to rebut several false conclusions therein.
 * Christians acknowledge God's personal name as Yahweh (the Tetragrammaton) and most, such as Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, avoid vocalizing it liturgically.
 * Existence of other gods? It's a thorny question: Christians believe that pagan worship exists, pagan idols do have a certain power over men, but that God is the "Great King over all the gods". Moses showed Pharaoh in Egypt just what kind of "gods" they worshipped there.
 * God is unique to Christians. Why does his status as Holy Trinity change his uniqueness?
 * "God is worshipped via live animal sacrifice" - that's terribly specific. Christians still offer sacrifice to God.
 * Worship is regulated by divine texts - again, terribly specific. Catholic, EO, OO liturgical worship is highly regulated. Don't generalize here.
 * Elizium23 (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very interesting and important to me, as a Wikipedia editor and reader, to know all the different modern scholarly theories, from reliable academic sources, about how ancient religion may have developed. And Wikipedia is one of the only places in the world where I know I can learn all that. warshy (¥¥) 16:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Iron Age Israel' is also possibly a misnomer, since Yahweh may originally have been worshipped in Edom or by the Midians. There are many theories. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * People, by Judaism, mean a religion deriving from Biblical teachings and related to that. A religion that is not derived from Biblical teachings, opposes them, and is unrelated to what would become the unifying element of the Jewish nation is not Judaism, properly speaking. It's some polytheistic, Canaanite religion of interest to niche scholars. 174.95.18.180 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to read more. Achar Sva (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That book was published just three days ago and hasn't been appraised (as to whether it's good scholarship) in an academic journal yet . Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That book has had an extremely good reception among scholars, and it's published in the The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library series, but others say much the same - for example, this. Achar Sva (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From the reviews I have read and the little that I can see at Amazon, it seems to me that this book agrees with anon and not with Achar Sva. (That's assuming I understand the debate.) The author defines Judaism thus: "For the purposes of this book, 'Judaism' will serve as the technical term for what I have described here: the Jewish way of life characterized by conformity to the rules and regulations of the Torah." Of course there is an arbitrariness about working definitions and another source of equal value might well use a different definition. The thesis of the book is that Judaism as a mass practice was a very late development, during the Hellenistic period, despite the likelihood that the Torah itself was earlier. Zerotalk 09:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2022
Section to Change: Yahweh was originally described as one of the sons of El in Deuteronomy 32:8–9, but this was removed by a later emendation to the text.[38]

Change To: According to one theory, Yahweh was originally described as one of the sons of El in Deuteronomy 32:8–9, but this was removed by a later emendation to the text.[38]

Evidence for change: As far as I can tell, there are no actual records of this textual amendment (no extant versions that contain it). It is theoretical, and should not be stated as a fact. See the following stack exchange, search for 4th reference to Bull El. (https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7862/what-is-the-original-text-of-deuteronomy-328-9) Also check original source (Anderson 2015, p. 77) to confirm that the work cited does not cite an extant textual version (I couldn't do this because Google Books didn't allow me to view that page). Jbardsle (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually I think I might have been wrong about this, but don't know how to remove the edit request. The sentence in question may not be referring to the "Bull El" reference at all. Still, rechecking Anderson to see if this is really undisputed would be a good thing. Jbardsle (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. Colonestarrice (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023
God needs to be capitalized. There is only One and its a formal name also In Gods name. Thanks Crystal. 199.231.118.232 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: MOS:GOD  General Ization Talk  23:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is only One" No there is not. The Israelites were polytheists. Dimadick (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023
The name Yahweh literally means "he who exists" TheDonquavious (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sun worship
I was trying to add more links from this to other articles (it was poorly wikified), when I noticed that the article mentions condemnation of sun worship in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE. Whose cult was this? I don't see any solar deities mentioned in the article, and I don't recall any particular solar deity associated with the Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * One might assume some likely candidates for such ire would be Ra or Shapash. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"an ancient Levantine deity worshipped first in Edom"
The definition of Yahweh given in the first line of the article says he was "an ancient Levantine deity worshipped first in Edom". The source is page 17 of Mark Smith's contribution to an edited volume of 2017 (I like that it's recent), but unfortunately that page doesn't say what is claimed. The sentence needs to be re-written. Achar Sva (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The correct page is 42 (the meaning of life?) - I've amended that now. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Are you thinking of this passage?: "...the current scholarly consensus [...] holds that this deity was a divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman." That's a bit wider than Edom. It's also useful that it (a) identifies a consensus, and (b) identifies him as originally a warrior. You might like to revise the introductory sentence to take this into account. Achar Sva (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the one, though it's not obvious to me that it is wider than Edom. Seir was in Edom, Teman was in Edom, and the Desert of Paran is an ill-defined biblical term that no one has really been able to place geographically, so that's a rather moot point. It's possible in the Sinai desert, as in Judges 5, but again, that's not a supposition that's particularly supported. Otherwise, I suppose the 'divine warrior' part could be added to the opening summary. It is typical for deities to have their function outlined. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing: you have " an ancient Levantine deity that emerged..." Shouldn't it be "who emerged?" Achar Sva (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of an either/or situation. 'Deity' can be personalized or impersonalized. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323: And what about Midian? Potatín5 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems less attested, and in the references that do exist, the relationship seems unclear. The Edomite connection is seemingly repeated much more redundantly in scripture and also supported by archaeology. The Midian connection is more speculative. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But many scholars would include Midian among the sourthen regions where YHWH first emerged, so at least some reference to that region should be included. Potatín5 (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, why not. No real issues with mentioning it (albeit more tentatively). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Early Iron Age bull figurine from Bull Site at Dhahrat et-Tawileh (modern West Bank, ancient Ephraim), representing El, Baal or Yahweh[32][33]
El or Maleachi, is not a god or goddes, they dont have son and kid also they dont do marriage.

as the picture in wikipedia, yhwh is not a bull or baal or moloch. he doesnt created or have a child, he only have a prophet. please seek on genesis. also quran

please dont compare in adonai, elohim and yhwh with baal and moloch. it is such full disgrace and neglecting 10 commandment

Best regard's QuaMbear (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:CRYBLASPHEMY. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point. The root problem is that this article is really about "Religion in Iron Age Israel" (as reconstructed by modern secular scholars), and that should be its title.  "Yahweh" is a lot of things, most prominently an important theological concept for Jews, and also for Christians.  An article title "Yahweh" should certainly discuss the term's theological meaning. RogerBurk (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SCOPE is This article is about the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
 * Otherwise, all our ancient or medieval history articles are as reconstructed by modern secular scholars, why should be this article singled out?
 * Anyway, the ancient polytheistic god Yahweh has to have a place within Wikipedia. And true believers are seeking to deny it such a place. The Wikipedia Community will never make peace with such true believers, since obviously, the ancient polytheistic god Yahweh passes WP:N. So, it is a match (i.e. dispute) between true believers and WP:PAGs. The true believers are seeking to bully the god Yahweh out of Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia Community simply won't allow that. The true believers think that real, objective archaeological discoveries, such as that bronze bull, are blasphemy against their own religion. To any well-educated person appreciating WP:SCHOLARSHIP, their opinion seems exceedingly preposterous. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The bronze bull thing is interesting - it might explain why there is such a specific Golden Calf narrative in exodus: it wouldn't be the first time a theological narrative was positioned to dislodge a pre-existing worship practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be an article on Yahweh. The problem I have is that the article as currently written violates WP:NPOV. Whether or not Yahweh was a storm-god or that Israel used to be polytheistic is an extremely contentious claim. There are plenty of scholars who disagree with this reconstruction, sticking with the more traditional view that Abraham at least was monotheistic. That is the reason to treat this article differently than you might other reconstructions that have less contention.
 * There is precedent for how to deal with this sort of thing. Look, for example, at the various articles on the books of the Bible. On issues that are contentious among scholars, you will see multiple POVs given. For example, Book of Genesis mentions the traditional view that Moses wrote the book, only then going on to assert that the majority of modern scholars date it later. It follows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, attributing the POV in the text, rather than just asserting things. It continues to do this with when it describes its composition. It doesn't say, for example, "The five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came from four sources." It specifically points this out as the POV that is most common in the 20th century among scholars.
 * It is my impression that the "true believers" (who often are just as much a part of the Wikipedia community as anyone else) do not tend to object to those articles. They still contain information that they may not believe is correct. Fixing up this article to be more NPOV would likely help.
 * Though, honestly, I also think having Yahweh link to the disambiguation page and rename this article to show its scope in its title might also help. I suspect that most people who stumble on this page are actually looking for an article on the tetragrammaton or the modern Abrahamic concept of God. Article names on Wikipedia are supposed to reflect what the reader would most likely be looking for. This sort of thing is also mentioned in WP:NPOV when it discusses titles.
 * — trlkly 23:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree although I'm not sure what the exact answer is. We have this article and we have Yahwism, God in Judaism, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton etc. It may well all hang together theoretically/academically but it's a mess for the general encyclopedia reader. DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Scholarship from the Ivy League and similar universities posits that Abraham was completely unhistorical, or, if he ever existed, he is irretrievably lost to history. There's not a shred of evidence that Judaism existed in the time of David and Solomon, let alone Moses or Abraham. That gullible people think so does not make it a fact any more than flat Earth is a fact because millions of uneducated people still believe it. In the supposed time of Abraham (whose mileage varies with a thousand years only counting major archaeologists who believed he existed) there was no such thing as Hebrew language. I can grant you that inchoate Hebrew language existed in the 11th century BCE, but no more than that. Nothing like Classical Biblical Hebrew existed back then.
 * There are too many disciplines involved for the denial to be credible: archaeology, source criticism, linguistics, and so on. I don't say that we know all there is to know about the composition of the Bible, but mainstream Bible scholars are zooming on something.
 * While the consensus that the Pentateuch was based upon four big documents is crumbling, it isn't going in the direction gullible people would desire, but in an even more "radical" direction. The main merit of the Documentary Hypothesis was that it could provide an orderly account of the composition of the Bible&mdash;now even that can no longer be taken for granted.
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know of any serious body of scholarship that disagrees with the pagan and polytheistic origins of the worship of Yahweh. I looked up the bull thing after reading this, and it turns out that bulls were not just tangentially but strongly associated with worship of Yahweh, and this is a matter of not insignificant scholarly attention. It is known. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "strongly associated with worship of Yahweh" By its own or through identification of Yahweh with El? El's symbol was the bull, and his depictions in Ugarit feature him as a horned god, or at least with horns on his headdress. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have an excellent idea here. There definitely should be an article on Yahweh, which should identify what it unarguably is:  the consensus scholarly reconstruction of the name of the God of the Jews as recorded in the Bible.  Then there should be links to articles on what the name refers to:  to God Himself, according to those who for religious reasons give special weight to the Biblical account, and to a reconstructed storm god of ancient Palestine according to those who do not.  Neither account should be excluded or slighted by Wikipedia. RogerBurk (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "strongly associated with worship of Yahweh" By its own or through identification of Yahweh with El? El's symbol was the bull, and his depictions in Ugarit feature him as a horned god, or at least with horns on his headdress. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have an excellent idea here. There definitely should be an article on Yahweh, which should identify what it unarguably is:  the consensus scholarly reconstruction of the name of the God of the Jews as recorded in the Bible.  Then there should be links to articles on what the name refers to:  to God Himself, according to those who for religious reasons give special weight to the Biblical account, and to a reconstructed storm god of ancient Palestine according to those who do not.  Neither account should be excluded or slighted by Wikipedia. RogerBurk (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable source
As told at WP:RSN, journals underwriting biblical inerrancy are not WP:RS for historical facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * At what point does the source have anything to do with biblical inerrancy? Michael Heiser is a credible scholar. Divus303 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)




 * We all know that biblical inerrantists play fast and loose with historical facts which give the lie to biblical literalism.


 * Same as they are WP:FRINGE in geology and biology, biblical literalists are WP:FRINGE in history. I mean: in so far it has to do with the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your citation has credit but you yourself are quite frankly pushing an emotional argument. The source in question, which itself is published by a qualified and credible scholar, has no relation to biblical inerrancy or literalism for that matter. The rest of what you say is just an outpour of your personal opinion. Divus303 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is a broadly accepted content guideline, not my personal opinion.
 * His CV does not look impressive for WP:NACADEMIC.
 * He was popular with evangelicals over the internet, but until 2019 he was an academic underdog at non-mainstream universities, and when he became full professor, it was at a non-mainstream divinity school.
 * His article was published at the in-house online journal of Liberty University, which, as others have previously argued, is a university in name only.
 * So, was he a credible scholar? For evangelicals only. Was his article reliably published (i.e. in a respectable scholarly journal)? I guess it wasn't.
 * Even admitting that his POV is not outright WP:FRINGE, citing a minor scholar published in a minor theology journal is completely WP:UNDUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A Caution
Shouldn't the reader be warned that the name "Yahweh" is regarded as sacred by many Jews, and is neither spoken nor written by them? RogerBurk (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It's true, but it's off-topic (it does not regard the polytheistic god Yahweh). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "the name "Yahweh" is regarded as sacred by many Jews" So what? Since when do we cater articles to religious beliefs? Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My idea here is to help the reader to avoid giving unintentional offense. RogerBurk (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between "Iron I" and "Iron II"
Besides the obviously poor grasp of English that the author who created the two subsections Iron I and Iron II, I cannot find any other articles that make such a distinction between these two periods. In fact, only one source is given for these. It seems prudent to avoid arbitrary distinctions and primary sources.

ExtraEggWithNoodles (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Splitting up the iron age is a bit of a fetish of local archaeology, but I agree that it has little specific relevance here, and better to simply mention the dates of the event or observation in question than state "Iron II..." Iskandar323 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"famously uniconic"
"famously" is objective claim 176.41.48.172 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you maybe mean "subjective"? Cmpashayan (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed Marica96 (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023
It states in the article that the Israelites were in Palestine. This is a historically false and is an underlying political statement that is factually incorrect. It SHOULD read and link to “Canaan and modern day Israel”. Don’t put up false information. This is misleading and is marginalizing the indigenous ties between the descendants of the children or Israel and the descendants of Judeans who are now known as the Jewish people to the land they come from which is the modern state of Israel. At no point was the land void of Jewish inhabitants even after the Romans changed the name of the land to Palestina as a reference to the Phillistines. Check your sources. 67.150.87.135 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ "Palestine" is common scholarly jargon, see WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Enki
As mentioned on that page cited to Bottero, isn't Yahweh partly synthetic of West Semitic/Eblaite Ea with Cannanitic/Ugaritic El? Andre🚐 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Bottéro is a 70 year old source - it’s no longer reliable per WP standards. Not to mention a connection between Enki and any western Semitic deities hasn’t been seriously considered or examined since the 1960’s. Emolu (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Andre🚐 19:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

anti semitic and Christophobic ahistorical nonsense. 208.118.203.148 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * How so? The current article says Yahweh was basically El. I always had read it was not simply El but El/Enlil + Ea/Enki Andre🚐 00:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal of the text I inserted, but I think the article at present is heavily dependent on the "El" hypothesis of Yahweh. Maybe that is the dominant hypothesis, but given it's all ancient speculation anyway, why no weight for any modern competing theories? I get that Amzallag thing might have been a stretch - that's fine, I won't put that back in - but I think we need more content on the evolution of the theoretical landscape for the identity of the predecessor of Yahweh. It always seemed to me that the Ea/Enki or Kenite hypothesis etc., were intriguing, obviously as a lay person. I accept if those are outdated, but the article can say that. Andre🚐 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Andrevan: My issue is that Amzallag does not seem to support the view that Ea/Enki was the origin of the name Yahweh. At least according to this summary of his views on the Kenite Hypothesis. He rather seems to think that 'Yahweh' was derived from a root that means “to blow”. This is in fact a very different theory to that of Bottéro. Potatín5 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fair. You are correct. They are not the same, I'm conflating them. As I said, my original edit should not stand; if you agree with my underlying point that we're glossing over Kenite, or the alternate, Ea/Enki theory (which in my mind are related, but I think that's my mistake) we should add a sentence or 2 at most about it. Andre🚐 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content by sockpuppet Shetarlo Jan 2024
I'm not involved here and I don't disagree with these edits per se. I'm only leaving this here for editors working on this page because sourced content was removed by a blocked user, thus making their contributions and intent debatable. I don't want to digress more but I feel the need to mention their track record of abusing multiple accounts goes back to 2016 (Dec 2023 SPI report). I just happened to pass by this and dig up all this. So here's the said content.

Diffs of content removed:


 * 18:51, 5 January 2024‎:
 * 18:55, 5 January 2024‎:

Cheers. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024
"center" spelled incorrectly in first line under Worship section Electricblanketrevolution (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is spelled correctly. While 'center' is the American spelling, 'centre' is used in British English. Tollens (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources for editors:
Innovative argument from the author of SBL Press’ textbook on ancient Israel:

https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/article/view/8776/8449

Lots of European scholarship:

The Origins of Yahwism, edited by Jürgen van Oorschot and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 484. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter 2600:100C:B037:E65A:20B7:29D5:1ADF:FD60 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Needs an etymology section
I feel like there used to be one maybe? The etymology of Yahweh is an interesting topic and merits several introductory paragraphs. IncandescentBliss (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See Yahweh which links to Tetragrammaton. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

OT attestation of syncretic practices
I feel like it should be noted in the article, that the syncretic practices described (worship of Yahweh polytheistically; sacrifices outside of Temple) are attested in the Old Testament. They are described as a departure from the original doctrine, something that was existent and even widespread at times in the land but considered blasphemous by the "righteous" priests/leaders.

I understand why non-Christian sources could be skeptical about this if these texts were written post-Josiah's reformation. But in light of the lack of substantial evidence for a Canaanite origin of the deity (i.e. a direct contradiction of the biblical claim), it seems worth mentioning the version of events attested by the OT authors. Thanuhrei (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Bible is not a history book, and certainly not mainstream history. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. And probably Yahweh was imported by Shasu pastoralists. Yahweh was a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman". Copy/paste from Yahweh.
 * And even if we assume we don't know where the Israelites got their god Yahweh from, they certainly did not get him from Abraham or Moses.
 * The academic consensus is that Yahweh was originally a Pagan god, Pagan meaning polytheistic. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for the consensus shown in the article to be changed, and I'm not asking Wikipedia to view the Bible as infallible. Please don't take me that way.
 * But, as a book that probably dates in part to as far back as Josiah's reign (see "Dating the Bible etc.), it seems that the Torah would at least be a source to consider when interpreting archaeology from near that time.
 * I'm proposing, at most, a sentence or two clarifying that the pagan practices described are attested in the Jewish tradition.
 * Thanuhrei (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking on the authority of the Bible as the Judaeo-Christian holy book, I'm asking on the authority of sections of the Old Testament, which date in whole or in part to the Kingdom period, a time in recent cultural memory of these practices existing. Thanuhrei (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2024 (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 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."
 * "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


 * "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."

- Christie Hayes, Open Yale Courses


 * Niehr speaks about the truth of the sentence "Ancient Jews were monotheists".
 * And, again, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE: only modern Bible scholars may interpret the Bible for us. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)