Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 3 February 2011

Bold text

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Witnesses Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Mid-importance). Text and/or other creative content from this version of Yahweh was copied or moved into Documentary hypothesis with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1 (Oct 2001–March 2007) Archive 2 (Feb 2007–Jan 2009) Archive 3 (Dec 2008–Dec 2009) Archive 4 (2010)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Aaronid priesthood?

Is "Aaronid" a real word, or a typo for "Aaronic?" The linked article doesn't use either word, and Google doesn't show a lot of hits for "Aaronid." Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Use Aaronic; I don't see a good source for "Aaronid". Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's used all over the place in Priestly source, change it all in that article too? Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Google books finds 2760 hits . The derivation is straightforward enough, Aaron + id, meaning to do with the children of Aaron (cf Maimonides#Name, Nachmanides#Name etc).

It's slightly more precise than "Aaronic", because it incorporates the idea of descendency.

So there's at least some case for keeping it, unless people feel it is too obscure. Jheald (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Aaronid" is a real word - it's the usual word used in scholarly books about this subject. What's the linked article that you're mentioning? PiCo (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please use descendants of Aaron. Aaronid means little more (it is slightly more compatible with a suggestion the descent may be fictitious) and is evidently not helpful to our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

active voice & years for sources in the lead

This paragraph replaces the old paragraph about Yahweh in the four sources of the Torah. It's superior to what was there because the sentences are structured actively and it provides years for each source.

Modern Biblical scholars, using ], find different treatments of Yahweh in the four distinct, major sources that were redacted into the ].<ref>S. David Sperling, Modern Jewish Interpretation, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) p. 1909</ref> For example, in the Jahwist source (which was written ''c'' 950 BCE<ref>"Yahwist source." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov. 2010 </ref>), Yahweh is anthropomorphic, visits people, and use the name Yahweh prior to Exodus 3.<ref name="Mark Zvi Brettler 2004 pp. 3-7" /> In the ] source (''c'' 850 BCE<ref name ="Harris 4S">], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "Four Principal Sources of the Pentateuch." p. 48.</ref>), Yahweh is typically referred to as ], and he appears more impersonal (for example, speaking through dreams and angels rather than appearing in person).<ref>Mark Zvi Brettler, Introduction to Torah, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) p. 5; Elliott Rabin, Understanding the Hebrew Bible: a reader’s guide (2006), pp. 114-115; Alan W Jenks, Elohist, The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 2, Doubleday (1992), pp. 478-482</ref> In the the ] source (''c'' 650–651 BCE<ref name ="Harris 4S"/>), Yahweh is particularly concerned with whether Judah’s kings were good or bad and with centralized temple worship.<ref>Steven L. McKenzie, Deuteronomistic History, The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 2, Doubleday (1992), p. 162; Mark Zvi Brettler, Introduction to Torah, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) pp. 3-7</ref> The ] (''c'' 550–400<ref name ="Harris 4S"/>) portrays Yahweh as acting through the Aaronid priesthood and temple-based sacrificial system.<ref>Mark Zvi Brettler, Introduction to Torah, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) pp. 3-7</ref>

Someone, probably a defender of a religious POV, keeps reverting it. Leadwind (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, in the Elohist source, the God of Israel is referred to as Elohim, not "Yahweh". Yahweh doesn't even appear in the Elohist source (with some exceptions(?)). The entire point is that Elohim was separate from Yahweh, and this article needs to discuss the original Yahweh before he got conflated with Elohim. Otherwise you are really just duplicating God of Israel. Please stop discussing Elohim and other off topic material in this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

scope duplication

Please either remove the content pertaining to the God of Israel and the Tetragrammaton, or else merge the article into God of Israel and Tetragrammaton, per WP:CFORK. This article cannot discuss YHWH as a name of the God of Israel after the redaction of the Pentateuch, because at that point it is just one name of the God of Israel. The only purpose of this article title I can perceive would be a discussion of the reconstructed deity before the redaction of the Pentateuch. Needless to say, the Pentateuch cannot be cited as a source for that. Only scholarly reconstructions based on the Pentateuch which reconstruct the deity as it was before the redaction need be considered. This means that more than half of this article's content needs to go as off topic or original synthesis.

Please note that you cannot just build a "consensus" to ignore policy and write a second, third or fourth parallel article on the God of Israel. WP:CFORK isn't negotiable and you cannot build ad hoc "consensus" to violate project principles. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep harping on about "God of Israel". The title and scope of the actual article that we have is God in Judaism, and its scope is very much setting out the philosophical views on theology in Judaism as of the 21st century CE, shaped primarily by some twenty centuries of discussion by Rabbinical Judaism, not retelling some Bible tales.

If you're concerned about "God of Israel", there's a simple fix. That redirect should redirect here, because this is the acticle that actually has the content; if you like, with a hatnote here saying "for contemporary theological discussion see God in Judaism". Jheald (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no article God of Israel - it's a redirect to God in Judaism. That article is almost exclusively about the theology of God in modern Judaism (though YHWH gets dragged in, Buddha help me). So there's no overlap with an article that restricts itself to the god Yahweh - who, incidentally, appears quite a lot in the Torah.

I think what dab is getting at is that there are two Yahwehs. One of them is known from archaeology - some seal impressions with his name and a few inscriptions. The other is the literary Yahweh of the bible. The first one is a comparatively objective source of information, although interpretations differ; the second is totally subjective, being the work of a long line 8th century prophets, 7th century reformers, 6th century theologians, 5th century polemicists, and 4th century creative artists (and later). PiCo (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated, the sections that have the problem Dbachmann cites are already tagged. There is no needed to tag the whole article. LittleJerry (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

there is. So far, nobody has been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation what this article is even about. If you have one, let's hear it. If you want to separate God of Israel from God in Judaism, I will support this. In fact, we could simply move this article to God of Israel, and then fix the remaining issues of scope overlap with God in Judaism constructively. Yahweh would then become a disambiguation page pointing to God of Israel (this article), YHWH (Tetragrammaton) and Yahweh (Canaanite deity). I would be happy with such a solution, and I could finally focussing on writing the article about the Canaanite deity without disruption form our religionist pov pushers. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your persistance with this is starting to become almost as tiresome as Seeker. We've had this discussion, and the clear consensus was that discussion of the archaeological Yahweh helps inform discussion of the biblical Yahweh; discussion of the biblical Yahweh helps inform discussion of the archaeological Yahweh; so it makes sense to treat the two at least at summary level in the same article.

You've raised all this before. It's been discussed -- at length. A consensus was clear. Now, move on.

I've now changed the God of Israel redirect to point here; and removed the "duplication" tag -- because the truth is, there is no other article that duplicates this one. Jheald (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, since it has been my complaint that this is in fact the "God of Israel" article, I am fully satisfied if it is now made the "God of Israel" article explicitly also in name. The only thing that is now off topic is the discussion of the early worship of Yahweh, and the name "Yahweh" itself (should be merged into Yahweh (Canaanite deity)), and the use of "Yahweh" in modern Christianity (should be merged into Sacred Name Movement). Apart from that, we finally have an article that actually discusses what it says on the tin.

The new challenge now is, of course, the delineation of this article from God in Judaism. This is possible, but it needs to be performed with care. "God in Judaism" should be about Rabbinical theology, 200 CE to present, while "God of Israel" should be about the national god of the Israelites / Jews in antiquity, 800 BCE to 200 CE. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wohow, with this move you claim that the Bible is (f)actual history and that there was really an ancient tribe named Israel that worshiped one deity YHWH as the Bible describes it. The facts are, however, that there was some tribe called Israel (or something similar), but there is no substantial information about any deity worship whatsoever. This article definitely need a massive rewrite now. "God of Israel" is purely based on Jewish doctrine. "The God of Israel (Hebrew אלהי ישראל) is the national god of the ancient Israelites" is an claim that lacks all historical and archaeological evidence. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

um, what? I claim no such thing. Please do not go out of your way to construct such bizarre allegations. The "ancient Israelites" are simply the population of the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, 960 to 580 BCE. Nobdody makes any claim beyond that. "God of Israel" ( אלהי ישראל) is simply a quote from the text of the Hebrew Bible. It's what this god was called. I am under the impression that there is nothing wrong with articles about deities going by the name under which these deities were actually known? The Quetzalcoatl article is so called because that's what this god was called, not because we claim there were prehistoric plumed serpents in Mesoamerica. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But there was no Israel as the Bible describes it. That is the problem. "God of Israel" is what much later adherents of Judaism have projected back into history. For all we know the population of the area were polytheists up until the 6th century BCE. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The article made much more sense when the archaeological and biblical aspects were both included in the "Yahweh" article. If there are to be two articles is would be better to have this one called "Yahweh (Biblical deity)".ANE.Scholar (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

{{Requested move/dated|Yahweh}}

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

God of Israel → Yahweh — Dbachmann appears to be on a one-man mission to sever discussion of Yahweh as (tentatively) discovered by archaeology from Yahweh as presented in the Bible. This requested move is to undo a rename he has made without discussion, only six weeks after an essentially identical restructuring that he made, again without discussion, gained no support here. His latest action should similarly be undone, and the title of the article returned to Yahweh as it was. --Jheald (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the move has caused in excess of 500 links to now point to a redirect page, rather than here as intended. Jheald (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support "God of Israel" does not equal "Yahweh". Well, indeed an article "God of Israel" is superfluous, since there already is an article about "God in Judaism". And an article titled "God of Israel" would be misnamed if it is supposed to refer to the "God in Judaism" since the actual religion of actual ancient Israelites is definitely not what the Bible conveys. However, I find it acceptable that "Yahweh" should lead to a disambiguation page. And maybe this article should be renamed "Yahweh (Levantine deity)". ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree this should be moved back.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support in general This is the primary sense of Yahweh, and God of Israel suggests the (perfectly plausible but non-consensus) POV that the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Israel were originally separate cults, which would give a much narrower scope to the article. I pre-emptively deny the suggestion that we cannot give vowels to the Tetragrammaton (which is a subarticle, on the Divine Names); some people can't, but Misplaced Pages is not censored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The proposal would seem to conflate and confuse the Tetragrammaton (only one of the many names of God in Judaism) with historical Jewish and Israelite conceptions of God, which is a much broader subject. I would suggest moving this article to something like Historical conceptions of God in Judaism, as both Yahweh and God of Israel are still in use as names for the conception of God in Judaism. The Celestial City (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. The Yahweh article was about the deity (and not just in the narrow biblical/jewish/christian sense), not the name and its spelling or pronunciation or utterance. ≡ CUSH ≡ 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Not really. The scope of this article (at least as it was under the name Yahweh) runs wider than just what is conceived by anything one would want to give the name Judaism to; it also covers earlier belief systems. It's true that there are other names of God in Judaism; but, at least by the time the Bible texts were finalised, these were all seen just as differet names for the same one entity whose standard name was written YHWH. It's a good question to ask whether these different epithets, and the information related about them in the Bible, all described the same single entity in origin; but that is one of the questions that is a fair question for the article to examine, from the standpoint of an article that discusses all evolutions of what was known as YHWH. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support move back. This change of name, while making some small amount of sense, really doesn't seem appropriate in terms of the information contained in the article. Silverseren 19:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support again. It's a no-brainer. Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Last move does not make any sense at all Agathoclea (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Move it back. Links should go to article, not disambiguation page. The creation of "Canaanite diety" and "God of Israel" page was POV and against consensus. Is there a mechanism to ban the offending editor from editing the Yahweh page? ANE.Scholar (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. After all, Israelites were Canaanites and they worshiped the same deities. The distinction is arbitrary and solely based on religious convictions along the lines of the Chosen-people-ideology (which is inherently racist). ≡ CUSH ≡ 06:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Dbachman's edits since the move, which were primarily in regards to changing content to support the move, should probably be reverted as well to coincide with this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support God of Israel does not necessarily equate to YHWH/Yahweh/Yehowah. Some could say that the god of Israel was El, and seperate from YHWH. Then there is the question of the connection between Yahu / Yaw, if any, to YHWH. The scope of this article (under the title "Yahweh" was fairly well defined, separate G-in-J article, and separate from the Tetra article). There are so many asterisks that one would have to put next to "God of Israel" with this articles content that it just be dumb to call it that. Best to return it to Yahweh. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support and revert to a version consistent with this title. Yahweh is a good topic and significantly different in scope to God of Israel. The article topic should not have been unilaterally changed. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert to match move

Could someone please update the lead and any other links which were changed as part of this move? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been done . Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

well, then we are back to {{cleanup-rewrite}}. I do not understand why people simply stall attempts to resolve this without being able to present a coherent explanation of what they think this article is supposed to be about. This article appears to be about the God of Israel in some parts, but then we get a few confused editors who insist it is about "Yahweh", but not about YHWH. It is my conviction at this point that these editors either do not have an idea about the issues involved, or alternatively that they are deliberately sabotaging an encyclopedic discussion of the topic for reasons best known to themselves, likely religious. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to want to forcibly turn "deity assigned to ancient Israel by later Judaism" to "God of Israel". Stop using the Bible as a source for historical information. There is no whatsoever hint derived from archaeology and historical research that people in the ancient southern Levant were ever restricted to one deity or that no-one else ever worshiped Yahweh. And it is just a silly assumption in the first place, as if religious convictions could have ever been limited based on political territorial boundaries. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Please don't restrict Yahweh to the Bible"

Cush put this explanation for a recent revert: "Please don't restrict Yahweh to the Bible." I'd like to ask: Why not? I'm not aware of any evidence that Yahweh was worshiped anywhere but in Israel and Judah, or that the name is found, for certain, in any archaeological site outside those two. (The famous Egyptian quote relates to a place, not a god). I can quote the DDD to that effect. What evidence is there to the contrary?PiCo (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As we have determined many times now, this article does not focus on the name but on the deity. And why would Yah(weh)-worship be restricted to Israel and Judah even in pre-kingdom times? Enki/Ea/Yah(weh) was worshiped throughout the ANE in various contexts and with various characteristics assigned to the deity, but it is still the same deity all over the region. ≡ CUSH ≡ 12:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Leadwind (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a good source saying that Yah ever existed? (As a name of a god I mean). DDD says he didn't. PiCo (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Misplaced Pages Article claims that Yahweh is .... "notably the god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible". Is there actually an extant Hebrew Bible somewhere on the planet earth in which the Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" occurs even one time? If there is such a Hebrew Bible would some editor please add a citation specifying in which specific Hebrew Bible the Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" occurs.

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop it right there, Seeker. We will not get into a discussion over your favorite issue for the 100th time. We've been through this for some years now. Grow up. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted OR cited to primary sources

I deleted the paragraph that was all cited to the Bible. It's not our place as editors to decide how to read primary sources to build a picture of a deity. Please see WP:OR. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Next up, the paragraph about God in the four sources of the Torah needs to be changed, since only one of those sources is really about "Yahweh." The other three sources describe about the God of Israel (lately identified with Yahweh). The paragraph should focus on who "Yahweh" is (the anthropomorphic deity) and mention the other treatments only by way of comparison. Leadwind (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No. This is our article for both "God of Israel" and "Yahweh", as the redirect and the boldface in the first paragraph establish. This is appropriate, because, by repeatedly confirmed consensus, this article is supposed to cover all phases of the history of Yahweh. By the time the Bible texts were finalised, it is very clear that all these epithets were identified as different names for the same one entity whose standard name was written YHWH.

These question of whether these different epithets, and the information related about them in the Bible, all described the same single entity in origin is one that it is appropriate for the article to examine. Religious tradition, upheld by orthodox Judaism to this day, is that they did. If you want to put up material to the contrary, it needs to present the range and balance of what reliable sources have to say on the question. Jheald (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion around here as to what the documentary hypothesis is all about. It's a theory about the origin of the Pentateuch only, not the entire bible - just four books. The bit about the name "Yahweh" applies only to Genesis - after Genesis all four sources call God "Yahweh". It should be deleted.PiCo (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand we ought to have something discussing the relationship between the name Yahweh and the other names used in the Hebrew Bible for the subject of this article. Jheald (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That can be done, probably in a section discussing the history of Yahweh, insofar as it's known. The bibliography section probably already has good resources. But the main point I want to make is that the documentary hypothesis/4 sources don't merit a whole section, just a sentence of so. PiCo (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What the section is a proxy for, I think, is a section for arguments made about the history of Yahweh that have been based on the text alone -- in particular, obviously, arguments about how much syncretism may or may not have got wrapped up in the final understanding of the entity. I also think it's at least useful to flag up the idea that the finalised text of the Hebrew bible may inherit from a range of different texts that may have a variety of perspectives on the entity (including, potentially, it not actually being the same entity at all).

I think there is some value in treating such lines of enquiry, which can be identified as a distinct form of criticism, and which historically did start earlier, and as we do before wading in to the full archaeological comparison. I think it makes the article more digestible, as something we can treat in a separate 'bite'; I also think it may better match our readers' expectations, based on what they think they already know. Jheald (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeker, again

Precisely when was the name "Yahweh"first used in the English Language? Since there is presently a Misplaced Pages Article titled "Yahweh" why doesn't some editor try to explain on the Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh precisely when the English word Yahweh first appeared in the English language. Is is my understanding that the name "Yahweh" never even existed as an English word until the middle of the 19th century, although the German word "Jahveh" existed in Gesenius's German Lexicon in 1815 A.D. Why doesn't some editor go into some precise detail about the German name "Jahveh" which was first created in 1815 A.D. by the Hebrew Scholar Gesenius, and the then follow up with the history of the English word "Yahweh" which was first used in the middle of the 19th century, and has had a long history since then as it is still being used in 2011 A.D. There appears to be absolutely no known history of the German word "Jahveh" before 1815 A.D, and I pesonally know of no documented use of the English name "Yahweh" before approximately 1863 A.D. Does any editor of Misplaced Pages know of any verifiable use of the word English "Yahweh" before 1863 A.D. All Misplaced Pages asks for is verification that the English name "Yahweh" was used anywhere on the planet earth before approximately 1863 A.D. If no verification exists, this article has no right to claim that the English name "Yahweh" ever existed before 1863 A.D. Seeker02421 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your considerations about spelling and usage are irrelevant to this article. Your only aim seems to be to demonstrate that the deity referred to in the Bible is not the deity worshiped today by the abrahamic religions. That is just silly. The identification of a deity does in no way depend on spelling, pronunciation or even using variations of the name as such.

And after 2 years of you constantly re-posting your pointless stuff, I really think it is time for another editing ban. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeker, even though I too disagree with the present scholarly consensus of pronouncing the Tetra as "Yahweh", as has been pointed out many times, this article has nothing really to do with the pronunciation, and even if "Yahweh" is the incorrect pronunciation, that spelling/pronunciation acts as a reference (a conceptual anchor of sorts) to the deity in question here. In a sense, the scholarly reference could have been the rabbinic term "hashshem" and that would have served the same purpose as using "Yahweh" in this article. In short, the actual pronunciation of the Tetra (how this deity's name is pronounced) is beside the point. If you would like to pursue your argument further, it would make more sense to do so from the Tetra article using legitimate sources to back up your claim. Doing it from here is more or less pointless. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi al-Shimoni

I've been working in the background.

I have a question. It seems to me that the same group of Misplaced Pages Editors that want to write an article on this Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh, are the same group of Misplaced Pages Editors that spent a lot of effort recently creating the Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh (Canaanite deity).

Is there any problem with writing your article on Yahweh (Canaanite deity).

OR

Is it possible that all the editors that were involved in creating The Misplaced Pages Article (Canaanite deity) could start a new Misplaced Pages Article specifically for discussing "YAHWEH" as taught in the Roman Catholic Church New Jerusalem Bible.This new Article would of necessity have to welcome Evangelical Christians who honor God by the name Yahweh, but hopefully could exclude Sacred Name Ministries who honor the name "Yahweh"

I am throwing an idea up in the air, and certainly any newly created Misplaced Pages Articles would have to be approved by Misplaced Pages.

FWIW

Seeker02421 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question for all.

How many Misplaced Pages Editors

would like to have a legitimate Misplaced Pages Article in place that would allow discussions on a Christian "YAHWEH" as He is found in the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. I realize that not all Christians approve of the Roman Catholic Church, but right-or-wrong, The Roman Catholic Church has published a widely distributed bible that approves the name "Yahweh".

Whether "Yahweh" is or is not God's correct name, does not appear to be a major question at this time.

Seeker02421 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that you turn up every couple of months an completely mess up an article about a subject that touches a religious issue, especially this Yahweh article? Whom do you seek to impress with your insubstantial rants about the identification of the biblical deity?

And why can't you adhere to the standard pattern of adding a comment to a talk page, and instead always break up the text flow and render it almost illegible?

Your edits about spelling, pronunciation and your assumed incoherency between YHWH and Yahweh have been rolled back every single time. Will you please accept that your edits serve no encyclopedic or educational purpose. Just leave it alone. ≡ CUSH ≡ 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeker, I hadn't seen the "Yahweh (Canaanite deity)" article until just now, just a brief glimpse at it after reading your mention of it. I'll have to look at it more closely before I really could comment on it in any way.

What do you mean by "your article" in your other question?

I'm not sure there is really much of a reason to create a separate article for Roman Catholic Yahweh/Yahowah, as the New Testament does not mention a Yahweh/Yahowah/YHWH by name (neither within Greek sources nor Latin Vulgate), nor is there much focus on Him in the New Testament (unless you take a trinitarian viewpoint and make Jesus equate to god). Catholic/Christian/New-Testament version of god wouldn't have a Wiki page with "Yahweh" within the title, but they could have a "God in Christianity" or a "The Trinity" article. So, no, no RC Yahweh article (and focusing on NJB translation is likely a bit fringe for Wiki). How much of that question of yours was rhetorical? — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi al-Shimoni. You wrote "I'm not sure there is really much of a reason to create a separate article for Roman Catholic Yahweh/Yahowah, as the New Testament does not mention a Yahweh/Yahowah/YHWH by name (neither within Greek sources nor Latin Vulgate), nor is there much focus on Him in the New Testament (unless you take a trinitarian viewpoint and make Jesus equate to god)."

Heck Al, there is no verifiable evidence that the Hebrew name Yahweh exists in any extant Hebrew Bible in the world, yet this Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh still exists, as if the name "Yahweh" is a name that actually existed in the Hebrew Bible. Nobody seems to question that the present editors of the Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh have never posted verifiable evidence that the name "Yahweh" ever existed on the planet earth before the middle 19th century.

What Misplaced Pages moderator is ever going to question why this present article does not present verifiabile evidence that the name "Yahweh" ever existed. No Misplaced Pages moderator that I am aware of ever criticised the obvious lack of verifiable evidence for the existance of the name "Yahweh", before Gesenius created the German spelling "Jahveh" in 1815.A.D. Nobody seems to care that verification of when the name "Yahweh" was first known to have been used on the planet earth, can not be found in this Article.

Actually I wasn't very clear on what I hoped some of the present editors of the Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh might chose to do voluntarilly, to make up for what a-p-p-e-ars to have been their total "hijacking" of a previous "completely legitimate, and well written Misplaced Pages Article titled "Yahweh" and their t-o-t-a-l deletion of each and every word that was written in that article apparently attempting to leave no record in Misplaced Pages that such an article was ever written.

I was hoping that one or more of the Misplaced Pages editors of the present article, that was involved in the total deletion of the previous Legitimate Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh, might have thought it would be the right thing to do to write a new Misplaced Pages Article about "Yahweh", possibly using a slightly different title. That way two well written Misplaced Pages Article would exist side by side for editors with different ideas of what a Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh should cover.

However there may be an easier method to deal with the issue of restoring a previous Misplaced Pages Article that was totally deleted by a group of Misplaced Pages Editors who apparently did not approve of how it been wriiten, and did not wish to take the time to legimately write a new article, which would have been totally approved by Misplaced Pages, and would have covered precisely the information that they are trying to cover on this Present Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh.

Al Shimoni. Do you think that it should have been the duty of Misplaced Pages Moderators to have dealt with the total deletion of a fully written Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh by the current Wikipedi Editors who openly deleted every word that had been skillfully written by previous legitimate aeditors of the present Misplaced Pages Article

While the present editors of this Wikipedeia Article:Yahweh mistakenly believed that they had destroved all evidence of the well written text that previously existed in this present Misplaced Pages Article, which bears precicely the same name it had when it was first created, probably over 5-6 years ago. they are mistaken. Several copies of the previous Article exist, and actually has been slightly edited by new editors who believed that the previous Misplaced Pages Article:Yahweh was worthy of being preserved, and believed that they could improve what had previously been written without totally destroying and starting all over with a new sheet of paper!!!!!

P.S. al-Shimoni. Do you happen to know someone named Doug Belot, who thinks very much like you do.

Seeker02421 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lead section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/MOS:BOLDTITLE#Format_of_the_first_sentence

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede) of a Misplaced Pages article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points— including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth

At http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability the following text will be found::

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

To show that it is not original research, all material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

Seeker02421 (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh disambiguation page

Yahweh (disambiguation) currently has a link to Yahweh (Canaanite deity) but nothing to this article. I don't want to touch it. Up to you lot. PiCo (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. First line of such a dab page should point to the primary article, ie this article, being the article without the word "disambiguation". Jheald (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The pointless disambiguation page was introduced by religionists to create an artificial distinction between biblical Yahweh and Canaanite Yahweh. That's the same as saying that Germans and French each have their own Jesus. Dbachmann and Seeker seek to establish a kind of uniqueness of the biblical deity for the entire ANE context. But of course that's without substance. ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dab is clearly no "religionist" trying to "create and artificial distinction between biblical Yahweh and Canaanite Yahweh". Cush this mentality of yours is exactly why your editing of this and related pages inevitably becomes disruptive. WP:BATTLEGROUND is probably apropos here. You may not agree with Dab but he's clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia per his academic understanding of the subject, which I can tell you from my vantage point is not remotely "religionist". There is, of course, a huge difference between the cult of Yahweh in ancient Canaan, and the evolving deity of Judaism. Yahweh (Canaanite deity), does not, despite your claims, completely separate the two deities. It links them in fact. I'm not sure Dab's way of dealing with the issue was the best, but his conceptualization of the differences between the two (one the focus of an ancient cult and the other an evolving deity of a seperate literate society) seem spot on. I truly believe that it would be better for the Wiki if you stepped back from this and related entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Low-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Mid-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles