Talk:Yahweh#Merger proposal

Is there an article, or should it be included in this article, that explains why Yahweh is pronounced Yahweh according to the rendering we find in the Hebrew Scriptures? Yahweh is the Name of the Most High according to the Bible, but this article makes out like all it is a creation of pagan people's over time, that Yahweh evolved to be what it became as a monotheistic, all powerful mighty one. I'm a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh and I'm appalled with the negative slant towards the one and only Name in which there is salvation. In Citer (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:This article is neither about Judaism, nor Christianity. It is an article about Ancient history. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Good evening. I beg to differ. The Name of Yahweh is or rather I should say, should be, central, to those faiths which base their practices on the Bible including Judaism and Chr-stianity. This article is about ancient history, of which the Bible has record of. But there is little to no evidence presented from the Biblical perspective. All we have is interpretations from history. Why is that other articles use the Bible as a valid source for evidence of authenticating history, but this article does not? And if it would not be appropriate for the Name Yahweh to be explained in this article, do you know if there is another article that does so which I have simply missed? In Citer (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The Bible isn't {{tq|a valid source for evidence of authenticating history}}. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. If an article does what you say, that article is wrong. There is of course MOS:PLOTSOURCE, such use is allowed.

:::There is no {{tq|Biblical perspective}} upon Yahwism. If the authors of the Bible knew something about polytheistic Yahwism, that got hidden really well. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::its henotheism. not polytheism. 75.202.202.81 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{quote|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 [meaning "Jews were monotheists" -- n.n.] 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|Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011}}

:::Wikipedia never assumes that the Bible reports accurate history. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Good afternoon tgeorgescu. That is the problem. {{purple|That Wikipedia never assumes that the Bible reports accurate history.}} Because we have huge gaps in our understanding of the ancient past, and conclusions and interpretations are made about history based on pieces of evidence here and there while disregarding the most important source of truth.

::::Artefacts are continually proving the Bible to be true, such as the Moabite Stone. May I remind you that the Bible does not pander to any people to make them look better than they are. It reports that the Israelites went in to Assyrian captivity and never returned, and the two southern tribes in to Babylonian captivity, all because they would not hear Yahweh's prophets and refused to keep the Law and sinned.

::::But you also may have overlooked the question I have: {{green|And if it would not be appropriate for the Name Yahweh to be explained in this article, do you know if there is another article that does so which I have simply missed}} If this Yahweh article is about the history of Yahweh, and absurdly does not want to mention the main source for the Name Yahweh which is the Bible for evidence, then should not there be a separate article at the very least which explains the Name Yahweh, why it is rendered Yahweh according to the Hebrew Scriptures. As a compromise, perhaps this article can be called Yahweh (History), while the article I propose could be called is called Yahweh (Name).

::::Further to address your point about the Bible not mentioning polytheism regarding Yahweh. Actually, I have seen this pop up several times in the Bible, where Yahweh was seen as a Mighty One that exists among other elohim. Even in the incident of the Golden Calf you'll remember Aaron, though directing worship to Yahweh (he used Yahweh's Name), they were actually worshipping a golden calf. {{green|"And he received them from their hands, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf...Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh [and they offered animal sacrifices]".}} (Exodus 32:4-6)(SSBE)

:::: The Israelites were given to worship a host of other mighty ones among Yahweh, which is why they had so many problems, Yahweh demanding from the First Commandment, that we have no other elohim before Him.

:::: In Citer (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:NOTAFORUM. WP:CITE mainstream academic WP:RS if you want to suggest edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{Reply|tgeorgescu}} Agree.

::::::{{Reply|In Citer}} We adhere to reliable sources, not religious scriptures, on Wikipedia.

::::::--Justthefacts (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::this is a forum. The entire point of a talk page is to communicate using language. 75.202.202.81 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And that’s why Wikipedia is unsatisfactory - it’s biased. 82.153.102.77 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yup, it's biased for WP:CHOPSY, same as Britannica and Larousse. It's a feature, not a bug. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk Page Proposal Settled}}

{{Talk Page Proposal outcome|gray|currently indeterminate}}

{{Infobox deity}} or a variant thereof is common across almost all articles on deities, see, for example, the articles about El, Asherah, Baal, Anu, Ra, Amun, Horus, Osiris, Aten, Cronus, Uranus, Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, Apollo, Jupiter, and so on and so forth, and would be sensible for this article too in order to summarize the most important details about this deity, for the benefit of readers. --Justthefacts (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Proposer: {{User|Justthefacts}}
  
• Proposal Date: 08:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• Deadline (Early): 23:59, 3 April 2025, (UTC)
• Deadline (Default): 23:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

1. {{User|AimanAbir18plus}} 07:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC): This article is about the ancient Levantine deity Yahweh associated with the polytheistic religion of Yahwism. Almost all the similar deities like El, Baal, etc. have infobox. The modern Abrahamic concept is covered in the article of YHWH, God in Judaism, and God in Christianity. 07:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
2. {{User|ThunderBrine}} 03:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC): I support the use of an infobox for Yahweh under the pretense of consistency.

Types of infobox often exist, but that's not itself compelling motivation for including one. If you'll humor me: there is one enormous difference between the subject of this article and that of every coordinate example you've linked. It seems to me that merely the prose of the lead is a better option for communicating key information, as IMO an infobox parameterization doesn't do as good a job. Remsense ‥ 论 10:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:ABRAHAMICPOV and WP:CHRISTIANPOV as well as WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV, this article about this deity should be treated exactly the same as other articles about other deities. --Justthefacts (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging {{Ping|VenusFeuerFalle}}, {{Ping|Tgeorgescu}}, {{Ping|ThunderBrine}}, {{Ping|AimanAbir18plus}}, {{Ping|Dimadick}} to participate in this discussion. --Justthefacts (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't know that Yahweh was being treated differently than the other deities. I don't see why should Yahweh be treated differently. Is it simply because Yahweh's name is still regularly used?

::Yes, El and his son Yahweh had their name taken to represent a current singular deity (who doesn't really have a name original to them), and now they live on through him, in the same way that Ishtar/Inanna lived on through the Ugaritic goddess Ashtart, the Phoenician goddess Astarte, the Greek goddess Aphrodite during the Mycenaean era, and the Roman goddess Venus. And we treat those deities all the same. ThunderBrine (talk; contributions; watchlist; sandbox) 21:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm a bit taken aback, but I admit I see how my comments above can be taken in exactly the opposite way to how I intended them. That's what I get for being coy, mea culpa.

:::To clarify: the fact that Yahweh is fully a West Semitic storm god of one period, who welcomed child sacrifice—and fully the subject of a henotheist cult of another period, who absorbed El, wrestled Leviathan, genocided the Amalekites, and so on—means that it is much more potentially fraught to briefly parameterize key facts about him because those facts evolved so much over time. It is not in the same ZIP code as any apologist impulse to obscure the historical and archaeological record. Remsense ‥ 论 21:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::: I don't see why we can not summarize facts about this deity in an infobox, particularly the associated symbols. Dimadick (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::My main objection to the infobox is that the conceptions of the deity radically changed over the course of just a few centuries – the fundamentals of Yahweh became quite different over a relatively short period of time; and unlike those of, for example, Greek deities, whose changes were often either minute (e.g. Zagreus' parentage changing) or infrequent (e.g. Poseidon's domain being transformed from a supreme god to a sea-and-horse deity only once around the Myceanean period), the eclecticity of the newfound conceptions often either contradict or completely supplant previous characterizations. Sinclairian (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::There isnt alot of evidence showing what people believed outside the Bible. So how can you say the conceptions radically changed? 75.202.202.81 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I also object to the addition of an infobox. The fact that infoboxes exist does not compel editors to use them. This is a stylistic choice within editorial discretion, and has nothing to do with treating the subject of this article differently from similar topics. There are many articles where there has been editorial consensus not to have an infobox. I support the right of the previous editors of this article to have made such a choice, and see no compelling reason to revise that decision. Skyerise (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was invited to discuss: I'm neutral about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Personally, I rarely find info boxes for deities helpful. Often they are rather misleading than helpful. I already had my personal disagreements while working on the articles jinn and ifrit. Gods are not static and treatening them like a person with well-defined characteristics such as "family" and "home-place" does more harm than good in general. Maybe we should treat infoboxes for deities with more caution in general.

::However, as long as we do infoboxes, I tend to agree for an info-box for Yahweh as well, as he is conceptualized in the Canaanite pantheon by mainstream scholarship. For the arguement that the name is still used for the God of Christianity and God of Judaism, these are separate concepts and separate ideas. I want to point out that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). When we have Yahweh as the Canaanite deity later evolving into the Jewish or Christian God, we are talking about Yahweh, the Son of El, not the Jewish deity named Yahweh and titled El. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The general consensus here seems to fall into two camps: (1) {{Infobox deity}} should be implemented in this article, as it is across almost all articles on deities, or (2) The implementation thereof could be complicated, because of the complex religious history of this deity. Therefore, the solution is to implement the template in a manner that accurately reflects the complex religious history of this deity, which has now been done, along with edits to ensure that the lead conforms to the body of the article to reflect recent edits to the body of the article by various editors and to also reflect the latest consensus of scholars regarding this deity. --Justthefacts (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Refrain from putting words in my and other editors' mouths. It's difficult to take your description here as actually engaging with what was said, as opposed to dialing in the spin that would plausibly allow you to make the changes you want unbothered.

:If you would like to avoid faux pas like these going forward, it would be prudent to ask those who have expressed disagreements in preceding discussions first if a proposed edit properly addresses their concerns. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Would you care to actually address your substantive objections to the edits that were in line with the body of the article and the consensus of scholars? --Justthefacts (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You've persistently framed the situation as the "burden to persuade" being on those wanting to omit: this is neither the case generally (we are not required to include infoboxes, and they are not recommended for or against as a default). It's also quite clearly upside-down specific to this situation, per WP:ONUS. I'm not saying you have to claw at a shut door, I just want to make it crystal clear that I'm not engaging in this discussion from a "position of weakness", because I don't have to.

:::Engaging in good faith, I presently remain of the position that your proposed additions aren't better for readers to peruse than the article lead already is, for the reasons I've already stated. If a reader only perused the infobox, their notion of Yahweh would be lopsided, compared to how the infobox is generally used in many articles. To remedy would require nuancing and problematizing the property:value format, possibly until the prose itself is clearly better. Each parameter would require being split at a bare minimum, which gets visually confusing real quick. It's not designed for that. Remsense ‥ 论 23:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You offer no substantive objections grounded in objective facts to the inclusion of the infobox whatsoever. Yours are clearly cases of I don't like it and I just don't like it as well as stonewalling and status quo stonewalling. --Justthefacts (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I explained the concrete distinctions I perceive between this and potentially analogous articles in my first reply, as well as my most recent one, and for sake of clarity I prefer not to endlessly repeat myself. You can disagree with me, but please refrain from stating that I've failed to make an argument at all, or from assuming bad faith. I haven't worked on this article much, why would I bother engaging with this discussion if I didn't have substantial concerns? An argument you don't agree with—or even one you don't fully understand yet—is not stonewalling. If you have questions I can try explaining in further detail, but I don't have much more mental fortitude to engage with this if you can't assume good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 19:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yahweh, as the Bronze Age deity this article is about, is, according to most contemporary academic opinions, not equal to Elohim. Elohim is the High God with Yahweh one of his sons, but became merged later. The idea that Yahweh is an incarnation or appearance of Elohim is religious interpretation, which is fine from a theological viewpoint, but not the most accurate reconstruction from an anthropological perspective. Regarding the idea it is the same as the Abrahamic God is even harder to justify, since there are multiple concepts of God(s) within these religions. Christianity, for example, also has arguably the Platonic Monad, which may or may not be identified with the Biblical (!) Yahweh. At least most Christians use that name, but this still does not make them equal. Even worse is the claim that it is the God in Islam, since Muslims do not even use the term Yahweh, instead the name is Allah (yes it is also the term for The God, but also the proper name) and also do not seem to translate Yahweh as Allah (see: Thomas, Kenneth 2001 p.301-306) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:"also has arguably the Platonic Monad" The Monad precedes Plato himself, as it was a key concept in Pythagoreanism. In any case, when did Christians claim that their deity is "the totality of all things"? Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think the most clear example would be Master Eckard. However the (Neo-Platonic) Monad does nto equal pantheism either. However, I think there is no current edit-war going on, and my comment was to add context for me removing modern religions from the infobox as it were anachronistic. However, the infobox is removed as a whole anyways, I think my comment here does not matter anymore. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

To be honest I don’t like editing these kind of articles.

I don’t wanna accuse anyone of being disruptive and I don’t wanna waste anyone’s time, I am busy with other topics and other stuffs in my life. So let’s not waste anyone’s time.

I thought I made my points clear in edit summaries.

Many of these contradictions are so clear I just don’t understand how anyone doesn’t notice the issues here.

Okay the argument in a previous discussion is that Yahweh was originally a son of El.

But the article says this:

{{text color| green| Although there is no clear consensus regarding the geographical origins of the deity, scholars generally hold that Yahweh was associated with Seir, Edom, Paran, and Teman, and later with Canaan. The worship of the deity reaches back to at least the early Iron Age, and likely to the late Bronze Age, if not somewhat earlier.}}

and

{{text color| green| There is almost no agreement on the deity's origins. Yahweh is not attested other than among the Israelites, and there is no consensus on its etymology, with ehyeh ašer ehyeh ('I Am that I Am'), the explanation presented in Exodus3:14, appearing to be a late theological glossinvented at a time when the original meaning had been forgotten, although some scholars dispute this.}}

So the article makes it very clear that there is no consensus on Yahweh’s origin.

But when I look at previous discussions I keep seeing people spew stuff like this:

{{text color| red| From what I know, this is the academic consensus right now and also supported by the sources I recently read through and commented on in my edit summaries.}}

{{text color| red| Again, per WP:ABRAHAMICPOV and WP:CHRISTIANPOV as well as WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV, this article about this deity should be treated exactly the same as other articles about other deities.}}

{{text color| red| That the Israelite religion is a derivative of the Canaanite religion, that Yahweh was originally considered to be the son of El, and that Yahweh was originally a minor deity in the Canaanite pantheon, which was the origin of the Israelite pantheon, are all historical facts that should be stated in the lead.}}

I am not accusing anyone of anything. But it seems like you all are not reading the sources or you’re not reading the article itself.

Do y’all not understand how it’s a major contradiction to say he was originally a of El then have the article say many times there is no consensus on his origin.

It would be more accurate to say at one moment in history he was a son of El instead of saying he was originally a son of El.

I understand the mindset we are trying to make an article about evolution and origin of the god of the Abrahamic faiths.

But right now this all just comes off as going against WP:NPOV.

I know some people might accuse me of having some kind of biases. I wouldn’t deny that my religious identity during my teenager years had a big impact on me, I wouldn’t deny it’s a big reason I joined this project when I was in high school.

I was originally Catholic, then became agnostic, then Buddhist, and kept on switching. It’s only when I reached my twenties I truly comprehended how much of an impact my contributions had.

So I don’t wanna hear anyone accusing me of being some fundamentalist POV pusher.

I am not gonna get too involved in this discussion because I am busy with other things. I might hop in here and there.CycoMa2 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:In a nutshell.

:No one addressed how there can be no consensus on his origins and then say he was originally a storm god and a son of El.

:It just sounds more likely he became a son of El later on.CycoMa2 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just look at this part alone:

::{{text color| green| The oldest plausible occurrence of Yahweh's name is in the Egyptian demonym tꜣ šꜣsw Yhwꜣ, 'YHWA [in] the Land of the Shasu' (Egyptian: 𓇌𓉔𓍯𓄿 Yhwꜣ) in an inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1390–1352 BCE), the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia.}}

::I don’t wanna accuse anyone of anything. But I seem cherry picking.CycoMa2 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I may or may not reply to.

:I am gonna try my best and assume good faith here. All I ask is that someone explain this contradiction to me, that’s it.

:Because I feel like no addressed my point.CycoMa2 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I saw the change. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:To comment, I would say that your statement that “It would be more accurate to say at one moment in history he was a son of El instead of saying he was originally a son of El” is on the mark. (Smith 2002, for instance, writes about Deuteronomy 32 as “a literary vestige of the initial assimilation of Yahweh, the southern warrior-god, into the larger highland pantheism”.)

:Perhaps some of the phrasing in the body of the article, specifically at the start of §Late Iron Age (1000–586 BCE), could do with some adjustment or adding to, for sake of better clarification. At the very least, I think that sentence could do with some additional citations. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Your proposal sounds good in regards to the phrasing of Start of Late Iron Age (1000-585 BCE).

::Also can I please see the book you are talking about? The 2002 one you are referring to. I would also like to see the page number. CycoMa2 (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://books.google.com/books?id=1yM3AuBh4AsC&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel], pgs 32–33. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::"the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia." This contradicts the main article on the Shasu and their geographic scope. They were pastoral nomads and tent dwellers, who variously worked as brigands and mercenaries. They were apparently active in the Transjordan region since the 16th century BCE, and there are various records of their subsequent presence in the Negev, the hill country of Canaan, the mountainous areas between the Tjaru fortress and Gaza City, the Jezreel Valley, and even the Sinai Peninsula. They disappear after the Late Bronze Age collapse, possibly assimilated by the Sea Peoples. Some archaeologists have argued that "semi-nomadic highlanders" who were previously known as Shasu went on to join a new tribal amalgamation, the Israelites of the 13th century BCE. Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay I am suspecting that there might be some WP:CIR going on here.

This is something I have noticed for a few years when it comes to this article. This is more evident by the misunderstanding in what the Equivalents section in the deity info box is for.

Just look at the Template:Infobox deity.

With the addition of the genealogy section and those 3 deities in equivalents section adds on to my overall point I am trying to make.CycoMa2 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The footnote for the image used in this article says,

>"It has been described by Stephen Herbert Langdon as "the only known representation" of Yahweh."

Stephen Langdon died in 1937. His claim was true in his lifetime, but in the 1970's we uncovered the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions from the 9th century BCE depicting a bull-headed man and woman with the text, "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah".

The 1931 quotation by Stephen Langdon should be removed, as it is extremely misleading in giving the impression that the coin is the only known representation of Yahweh.

Similarly, the subsection on "Portrayal" says, "Other scholars^[who?] argue that there is no certain evidence of any anthropomorphic representation of Yahweh during the pre-exilic period". The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions are from the 9th century BCE, pre-exilic.

At the least, the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions certainly deserve mention in the subsection on "Portrayal". Vhspd fg (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree you are right. I added "in 1931." Andre🚐 05:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Whether or not Pithos A of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions includes a depiction of Yahweh is debated & not fully certain among scholars. The article for Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions directly states that "[t]he central figures have been identified as either representations of Yahweh and Asherah, the Egyptian dwarf-god Bes or Bes-like deities, or even as demonic ritual dancers.{{cite book |title = From Shaʿar Hagolan to Shaaraim: Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel |last = Choi |first = G. |publisher = Israel Exploration Society |year = 2016 |isbn = 978-965-221-111-8 |editor-last = Ganor |editor-first = Saar |chapter = The Samarian Syncretic Yahwism and the Religious Center of Kuntillet ʿAjrud |editor-last2 = Kreimerman |editor-first2 = Igor |editor-last3 = Streit |editor-first3 = Katharina |editor-last4 = Mumcuoglu |editor-first4 = Madeleine |chapter-url = https://www.academia.edu/105620766 |pages=354–363}}" So, the statement that "there is no certain evidence of any anthropomorphic representation of Yahweh during the pre-exilic period" is correct, in that the Kuntillet Ajrud figure is not fully certain to be Yahweh.

:In comparison, the God on the Winged Wheel coin appears to have a greater degree of consensus about it being a depiction of Yahweh. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)