Talk:Yahweh

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Contradictions and issues when it comes to origins

[edit]

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: 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

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:

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.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Just look at this part alone:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I saw the change. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

@CycoMa2: @Dimadick: @Jamie Eilat: Restarting this discussion since it seems you three are the only one who've pointed it out, and it's been months without any changes. If the article contains contradictions and perhaps some light SYNTH, should it not be changed?

I also found that the first citation of Fleming in the article is somewhat inaccurate, as the article in its current form states Although there is no clear consensus regarding the geographical origins of the deity, when the cited page doesn't talk about geography and actually states the absolute origin is not agreed upon.

The article infobox also states Yahweh had a station in Canaanite religion whereas the article itself doesn't even suggest there is a known instance of Yahweh being worshipped within the purview of Canaanite religion (vs. Israelite religion) 142.54.76.154 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... assuming we could accurately distinguish between Canaanite religion and incipient Israelite religion. That's why scholars no longer discuss Israelite ethnicity but speak of Yahwists vs. non-Yahwists. And even among Yahwists there were different religious sects. E.g. polytheistic Yahwists vs. Yahweh-only party. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even to that end: has Yahweh ever been attested in a non-Yahwist/non-Israelite context?
To clarify, I don't mean whether or not Yahweh has ever been mentioned by a people other than the Israelites, the Mesha Stele is famously known for this fact; what I mean is that to my knowledge, Yahweh isn't mentioned at all in surviving hymns, cosmologies, legends, or even names that were not already of a Yahwistic character. If, as far as we know at this very moment, that Yahweh seems to only show up when there are Israelites about, what evidence is there that he had significance to the religion of Canaanites? (that is, non-Israelites/non-Yahwists/what have you)
We know that the Israelites/Yahwists/etc. put Yahweh alongside gods we might call "Canaanite" (Asherah, Baal, El, etc.) but the same doesn't appear to be true on the reverse side - Yahweh isn't mentioned at all in surviving "Canaanite" material (which, again, I understand is not only relatively rare but also, as you already pointed out, somewhat nebulously defined). If we can't accurately distinguish the two, why/how are we asserting that it's specifically one or the other in the infobox? 142.54.76.154 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you define Canaanite as non-Yahwistic, that's tautologically true. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP has a valid point though. There is syncretic stuff e.g. Yahweh-Asherah, Anat-Yaho, which the monotheistic-apologist biblical content makes reference to as a polytheistic/monolatristic situation in multiple time periods where the people worshipped Yahweh alongside other or traditional deities (which it doesn't like of course) but do we have evidence of a non-syncretic Canaanite Yahu? Or do any RS talk about Yahweh outside of a syncretic or monolatristic/henotheistic context? The article should perhaps be more equivocal or explain that most of this is theoretical and reconstructed and that evidence is limited. It already kinda does. but maybe the IP has a concrete suggestion in this vein. Andre🚐 17:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only one editor, and this site is collaborative, but as a base, I'd put out there that, personally, I think a good portion of the infobox has to be removed -- based on the comments above from May, it seems like the additions were supplied more by individual users' reconstructions than anything scholarly. The wording of certain phrases also seem to have been altered (see above my green-text comment about Fleming 2020 being used to describe 'geographical' origins) to fit this narrative as well, even in spite of the multitude of sources that are used elsewhere on the page to affirm that Yahweh's origins are still widely disagreed upon (disjointed authors claiming that a singular passage from a 6th century BCE source evinces a particular reading of the text is evidence of a belief that was held more than 600 years before and after its writing do not outweigh the majority of other opinions) 142.54.76.154 (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP, the discussion at User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#Yahweh again may be of interest to you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. I've no interest in engaging the debate of modern vs. ancient conceptions of Yahweh, nor trying to anachronistically apply modern theological apologetics to the page as a whole. My point is that the assumptions presented in the infobox are not found in the sources used on the pages, and are in fact contradicted by said sources at length. That is the limit of the recensionism I'm willing to take at the current moment. 142.54.76.154 (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like progress on this topic has stalled completely as editors have moved on to the discussions below. Thus far, all this section has amounted to is a set of users beginning to make arguments, and then never following them up. What consensus has been reached here? 142.54.76.154 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing. Hello? ~2025-32570-34 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello??? ~2025-34501-85 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you said this isn't the newest thread on the page anymore so maybe start a new one Andre🚐 21:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit redundant to make a whole new topic for this -- this is the very first one on the talk page at the moment, would that not be enough to suffice? ~2025-36139-14 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "the only known representation of Yahweh"

[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree you are right. I added "in 1931." Andre🚐 05:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.[1]" 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)[reply]
@Jamie Eilat: There is no such consensus.

References

  1. ^ Choi, G. (2016). "The Samarian Syncretic Yahwism and the Religious Center of Kuntillet ʿAjrud". In Ganor, Saar; Kreimerman, Igor; Streit, Katharina; Mumcuoglu, Madeleine (eds.). From Shaʿar Hagolan to Shaaraim: Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel. Israel Exploration Society. pp. 354–363. ISBN 978-965-221-111-8.

Yahweh's name meaning.

[edit]

Yahweh was not the God of weather and war. This is false on Judeo Christian bible texts. Yahweh means "I AM".He is not a separate God. He is the same God with different names. For example- Yahweh is the same God as Jehovah Jireh. It means "provider". These are different names to represent his nature or character. He has many names that those who know him use depending on the nature of what part of his character and nature they are referring to. 108.56.166.45 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this is an article about the God of Israelite polytheism, not about the God of Moses or the Hebrew Bible. The title of the article does not make that clear. See my thread about renaming the article 20thJune (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about God in Judaism and an article about God in Christianity which discuss how God is perceived in that religions. This article is about Yahweh. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"God in Judaism and an article about God in Christianity" Neither of which are remotely relevant to old Yahweh, or to the traditional religious beliefs of the Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you even mean? Ancient Judaism was monotheistic, polytheism was an addition to it 20thJune (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no monotheism in the Bible on YouTube and There’s no monotheism in the Bible on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Monotheism is a rare to non-existent before the Hellenistic era, and Yahweh was a married god. I don't think we can describe him without his consort Asherah. Dimadick (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asherah was a later addition to Yahweh. The earliest believers in Yahweh were monotheistic.
Monotheism rarely develops out of a movement. There are a few examples of that, such as Pharaoh Akhenaten, but the monotheism of the Bible, of Muhammad, of some Native American tribes, was revolutionary, breaking away from any prior cultural tradition. 20thJune (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest believers in Yahweh were monotheistic. is ipse dixit. Here at Wikipedia you have to WP:CITE WP:RS. And not WP:FRINGE sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🤓 20thJune (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, I knew it. Scratch beneath the surface and this page is run by conspiracy theorists lol 20thJune (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is a match between emic and etic. Or, to put it otherwise, between the mainstream academic view (mainstream history), on one side, and fundamentalists and conservatives evangelicals, on the other side. Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream history, and we consider the POV of the latter to be awkward. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. You know as well as I do that you are the fringe one here 20thJune (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported it to WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly dedicated to rendering mainstream history in Bible articles, regardless of whether it bolsters or contradicts the theological orthodoxy. That's why I lasted so long as an editor in this area. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not what we’re talking about. You act as if every religion you encounter belongs to you, as if belief is just some relic of the past for you to dissect and claim. Maybe it's time you looked more closely, because you don't fully understand what you're handling 20thJune (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be wary of WP:NOPA and WP:FORUM. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Judaism belong to mainstream Bible scholars.

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.

— Christine Hayes, [1]

She has a named chair at Y from WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t really care 20thJune (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But we (the rest) care, because it is the mainstream academic view. Here at Wikipedia the mainstream academic view rulez! If you don't care about that, you are WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the fringe. The mainstream academic view is that the earliest worshippers of Yahweh were monotheists 20thJune (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I WP:CITED a Sterling professor. You WP:CITED nothing. Ipse dixit. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cited Dan McClennan, a crackpot conspiracy theorist lmao
How about William Schmidt’s theory of primitive monotheism? Or Edward Surman’s study on pastoral and nomadic people’s monotheistic tendencies?
Or, if you just want randomers on YouTube, Michael Jones: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pcPkOD3L8l4&pp=ygUzTm8gSmFoZWVoIHdhcyBuZXZlciBhIHN0b3JtIGdvZCBpbnNwaXJpbmcgcGhpbHNvcGd5 20thJune (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@20thJune That is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. What are your sources for it? Newimpartial (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream academic view is that the earliest worshippers of Yahweh were monotheists—your WP:RS/AC claim is 100 years out of date, speaking of the WP:CHOPSY sort of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I.e. any major US university which isn't evangelical. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources I already cited lmao 20thJune (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jones is not a scholar (as in WP:SCHOLARSHIP). He is an apologist. I.e. an expert in lying for Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You really hate Christianity, don’t you?
Anyway, you cited Dan McClennan, also not a scholar and an expert in lying against Jesus.
Curious why you ignored the sources I actually cited. 20thJune (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt died in 1954. He is long-dead. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aight? So? Does that mean his findings don’t matter? If so we should delete half of wikipedia 20thJune (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated theories do not get deleted from Wikipedia. But we don't pass them for WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guy being dead doesn’t mean it’s outdated.
You haven’t even mentioned the other source 20thJune (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
McClellan in the video WP:CITED a lot of papers, and a recent conference at Brown University, “The Meanings and End(s) of Monotheism”. So he is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The papers he cites are all fringe tho, as well as Brown University 20thJune (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: you don't use the word "fringe" as we do. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use it to mean minority views that contradict the majority 20thJune (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia speaks of "majority" and "minority" in the mainstream academia. Billions of Christians are not an academic majority. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really bothered, then
If a bunch of nerds say the grass is blue, it doesn’t stop people from knowing that it’s green 20thJune (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has become increasingly clear that you don't use the word "fringe" as we do. I.e. like experienced Wikipedians do. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a nerd. I.e. Get a job 20thJune (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that you can easily peddle WP:FRINGE views at Wikipedia? It does not work that way. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I’ve already said, you are the fringe one here. Maybe you should get a girlfriend too while you’re at it 20thJune (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You are such a nerd." Ah yes, immature name-calling and attempts at bullying. Speaking as a former Sunday school student, that is what I typically expect from Christians. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you have to do with this conversation 20thJune (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are so proud of being a Christian, but you cannot behave properly among civilized people. Do you think that is good advertising for your own church? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yeah, you’re right. I’m sorry for getting annoyed
Still doesn’t change the fact that the earliest worshippers of Yahweh were monotheists 20thJune (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, in mainstream history that's not a fact, but a fanciful thesis.
In other words, I speak about mainstream history, you speak about theological orthodoxy (pseudohistory). Apples and oranges.
We WP:CITE a consensus of historians and archaeologists, not a consensus of church leaders: nerds WP:OWN mainstream history. Because we're not Conservapedia. At Conservapedia, I would be wrong, and you would be right. But not here. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly (I'm an infrequent editor), but I noticed in the line "Rabbinic sources suggest that, by the Second Temple period, the name of God was officially pronounced only once a year by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement" that "the name of God" is assuming the singular titled "God" of Judaism/Christianity. Since this article is about pre-Judaism polytheistic Yahweh and the line isn't a quote, should "their god" be used instead?Fontevrault (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've slotted this suggestion / request in somewhere slightly random, but sure. That's done. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And I'm sorry, I thought this was all conversations about the Name subsection. I'll go back to the help pages to get a better grasp of things. Fontevrault (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Theses

[edit]

About WP:9T:

But I suspect there is a deeper reason as to why they provide no alternative vision. On one hand, they want to attack my views on historical grounds. But on the other hand, their own view – that Jesus actually was God in the flesh – is not based on historical evidence but on religious beliefs and theological assumptions. It cannot be established by historical methods of inquiry. And so they have resorted to something other than proposing a historical reconstruction.

— Bart Ehrman

Similarly, theologians can tell you what is theologically wrong with the polytheistic god Yahweh, but they don't have a theory based upon actual archaeological findings. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article?

[edit]

I think that a lot of the issues people present on this article come from confusion over the deity being talked about.

Many Christians and Jews today still call their God “Yahweh”, but this article is about the archaeological evidence for the ancient god.

I think it would be wise to rename the article something like “Yahweh (Ancient Semitic god)”, or “Yahweh in ancient Semitic religion” to prevent this issue.

Alternatively, it would perhaps be wise to delete this article and move its information to “Yahwism”, the article which talks about the reconstruction of Israelite polytheism, most of its information does not require a new page. 20thJune (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME: most WP:RS use Yahweh for the polytheistic god, and use YHWH or Adonai or Lord for the God of Judaism and Christianity.
And, frankly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not believe in Yahweh. They believe in the One God posited by Greek philosophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment feels randomly aggressive and unnecessary 20thJune (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reading all that, but that’s cool, or that sucks, you choose 20thJune (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there is enmity between the etic understanding of religion and the emic understanding of religion. See emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is, but Wikipedia is not the place to solve political issues. Preachers are responsible for their claims, not encyclopedias. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP's complaint is that Wikipedia does not follow the PAGs of Conservapedia. I.e. that we allow mainstream history and archaeology to give the lie to fundamentalist religion. Meaning they consider the historical method to be sacrilegious and "fringe". tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu I don’t feel that is really necessary CycoMa2 (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Not really gonna say much. I am just acting as more as a referee in a wrestling match here. CycoMa2 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]
By the way I was unaware that OP was blocked per WP:NOTHERE. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Yahweh in ancient Semitic religion" or "Yahweh (polytheistic god)" make sense to me. As someone not overly familiar with the subject matter, my assumption was that the article was about the god in contemporary Judaism or Christianity. A title ought to convey the article's scope; "Yahweh" (as we've seen) leaves room for misunderstandings.
FropFrop (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply from 16 July. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that means the article's title ought to not communicate the scope of the article to a general reader. Titles ought to communicate the scope of an article; amending the title would be an easy way of avoiding this seemingly common misunderstanding (if you're a stickler for policy, see WP:QUALIFIER). Many readers are seeing "Yahweh" and are assuming it's referring to the god in contemporary Judaism or Christianity, hence the need for qualification. What's the issue with avoiding that common misunderstanding?
FropFrop (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But honestly, thats a bit on them, if they read an article about a Bronze Age deity and do not realize this is not theology. Second, theology usualyl speaks about God or HaShem but not Yahweh. Yahweh is more of a popular cultural trope than a theological name. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was imagining that this mistake happens when searching for an article, not while reading it.
FropFrop (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are concerned people accidentally find out what is historically accurate about Yahweh rather than a US-American Church lecture? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think articles' titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. I think this should be the case as Wikipedia goal is to be an encyclopedia and unambiguously defining the topical scope of an article helps further this goal. It would help further this goal by reducing the number of people finding articles not relevant to what they had in mind.
Again, if you're a stickler for policy, see WP:PRECISION.
FropFrop (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence that a significant number of readers are finding the incorrect page? I've posted the wikinav analysis below and it appears to suggest the reality is the opposite. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but wikinav doesn't capture those who search for a different page after realising they're reading the wrong article; I'm not sure what a mistaken reader would instead click on. Regardless, I didn't think that this mistake would be a significant proportion of readers. However, it does seem to occur enough that it has been raised multiple times on this talk page. Adjusting the title of the article wouldn't do any harm and would help avoid this error.
FropFrop (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't account for readers that manually search again via the search browser. However, there is a rather extensive hatnote at the top of the page highlighting a great many of the potential alternatives that misdirected readers might be searching for. It would be speculative to assess without evidence which of these two paths the average reader pursues, but the hatnotes are fairly intuitive and in this case prominent, so they would have to be actively ignoring the intuitive option to pursue a fresh manual search. In terms of the standing title, we prefer natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:NCDAB, so unless there is a strong case pressing us in the other direction, such as the topic not being the primary topic for its title, then there is not a policy reason to change. As you note, it's likely not a significant portion of readers that are misdirected. In terms of the recurring complaints, this is regrettable, but it's also ultimately anecdotal as a sample. This page has 3,000 daily pageviews, and there is only the occasional complaint. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something further that could considered would be adding an FAQ at the top of the talk page to avoid as many repeated and easily answerable questions on the title as possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Yahweh" without qualification should probably be a disambiguation page. Many people will be looking for the monotheistic God who is refered to as "Yahweh" in some Bible translations, prayer books, and other sources. Others may expect an article on the Tetragrammaton. That there's been enduring comment here points to the confusion caused by the current title. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect supposition. An analysis of the traffic to the page shows only a minimal amount of outbound traffic to Tetragrammaton and a much larger aggregate to related pages on ancient religion. The most common click through is to the related Yahwism, and the absence of any serious traffic to potential contenders for subject matter confusion indicates most readers have accurately arrived at the precise subject they are looking for by means of appropriate encyclopedic wayfinding. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
""Yahweh" without qualification should probably be a disambiguation page."
No, why would we split Yahweh in Yahweh (historically accurate) and "Yahweh according to US-American Sunday school"? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]