Jump to content

Talk:Yahweh: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Reverting edit(s) by GNC of YhWh (talk) to rev. 1227962344 by Lowercase sigmabot III: Non-constructive edit (UV 0.1.5)
→‎Regarding "was an ancient Levantine diety": the idea that Israelites were preponderantly monotheists since Abraham or Moses...
(29 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 28: Line 28:
:You mean in the third paragraph? I just noticed it too and thought it was a mistake, so I came to this Talk page to bring it up. But then I looked a little more into it and I think it's just the "royal we". See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Adonai ("Adonai" אֲדוֹנָי literally means "my lords". There's also "Adoni" אֲדוֹנִי which means "my lord", but that's something different. Notice how the "Adonai" has a [[kamatz]] ("a" sound) beneath the "n", whereas "Adoni" has a [[hiriq]] ("i sound"). According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/אדוני#Hebrew , the two words have different etymologies. "Adonai" is "Adoni-" + the "-i" suffix, whereas "Adoni" is "Adon" + the "-i" suffix.) [[Special:Contributions/2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1|2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1]] ([[User talk:2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1|talk]]) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:You mean in the third paragraph? I just noticed it too and thought it was a mistake, so I came to this Talk page to bring it up. But then I looked a little more into it and I think it's just the "royal we". See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Adonai ("Adonai" אֲדוֹנָי literally means "my lords". There's also "Adoni" אֲדוֹנִי which means "my lord", but that's something different. Notice how the "Adonai" has a [[kamatz]] ("a" sound) beneath the "n", whereas "Adoni" has a [[hiriq]] ("i sound"). According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/אדוני#Hebrew , the two words have different etymologies. "Adonai" is "Adoni-" + the "-i" suffix, whereas "Adoni" is "Adon" + the "-i" suffix.) [[Special:Contributions/2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1|2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1]] ([[User talk:2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1|talk]]) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} Normally in Biblical Hebrew the singular possessive suffix is -i and the plural possessive is -ai but certain kinds of words (some names of God, terms for qualities like "youth" or "blindness", etc.) are given an abstract grammatical plural. [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]] ([[User talk:GordonGlottal|talk]]) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} Normally in Biblical Hebrew the singular possessive suffix is -i and the plural possessive is -ai but certain kinds of words (some names of God, terms for qualities like "youth" or "blindness", etc.) are given an abstract grammatical plural. [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]] ([[User talk:GordonGlottal|talk]]) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

== Liberty University ==

Hey @Potatín5 I saw that you sitecited [[Liberty University]] as a source here. However, I'm not entirely sure it is a reliable source.

I think it's inclusion here goes against [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. [[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

== Issue with earliest biblical literature ==

Here, I have a slight issue with a certain claim in this article.

It is in regards to the claim about what Yahweh was like in earliest biblical literature.

That claims uses the [[Song of Deborah]], buts here is the issue with that claim. The Wikipedia article on Deborah says this

{{Font color|Green|text=The Song of Deborah is commonly identified as among the oldest texts of the Bible,[12] but the date of its composition is controversial. Many scholars claim a date as early as the 12th century BCE,[3] while others claim it to be as late as the 3rd century BC. Some hold that the song was written no earlier than the 7th century BC.[13]}}


Yes I know the source also talks about the [[Song of the Sea]]. But even the article on this says this:

{{Font color|Green|text=The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. A number of scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period.[3] An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device.[4] As such, proposed dates for its composition range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE.[5]}}

[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 06:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that the source also talks about the [[Blessing of Moses]].
Which according to that article it was written somewhere between the 11th to 6th century.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

:I understand your compunctions here, but the claim in this article is not a synthesis of sources. Rather, it comes directly from the Oxford History of the Biblical World, a pretty solid source. As such, I would support the wording as it currently stands, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 18:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

::I am basically saying I feel like the claim goes against [[WP:VOICE]]. To me this just seems like an view point by one or a few scholars.

::Or there is a possibility that some things in this article are going against [[WP:DUE]].

::I don't know there is so many contradictions.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

:: Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 21:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I have more to say. I am just waiting for other people to reply.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 21:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

:So, my sense is that the dating of the Song of Deborah as the oldest (or at least a very old) part of the bible is the prevailing theory in the academic community. Assuming I am correct about that, then I think our wording is just fine, but I am happy to look at evidence to the contrary! Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 22:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:That the archaisms in the texts may be a stylistic choice (instead of an indication of date) is not surprising. But in the absence of references to external events or geographic locations, I am not certain on what the modern estimations of dates are based on. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 07:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


== Child sacrifice to YHWH or Molech by Isreal? ==
== Child sacrifice to YHWH or Molech by Isreal? ==
Line 82: Line 41:


:This is not a place where we second-guess the whole guild of mainstream Bible scholars, nor are we required to give you adult education. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:This is not a place where we second-guess the whole guild of mainstream Bible scholars, nor are we required to give you adult education. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

== Regarding "was an ancient Levantine diety" ==

Why is this message composed in past tense? Yahweh is still worshiped today. I think it should be changed something along the lines of "Yahweh is a diety, worshiped in [[Abrahamic religions]], coming from the [[Levantine]] region." [[User:KeymasterOne|KeymasterOne]] ([[User talk:KeymasterOne|talk]]) 16:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:Yahweh is not worshipped today. There are no Yahwists who worship a storm god. There are merely religions with derivative symbolism and mythology. The [[tetragrammaton]] continues to hold residual significance in Judaism and Christianity, but in its patchy usage in the old testament it is not even rendered into a name, while Christians later rendered it as "Jehovah" – both mere homages to the earlier Yahwist cult. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 00:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I agree that the change should be made to a different tense (although the sentence in general I don't think reads well for a concept like a deity rather than a historical person). But, Yahweh was still used in many contexts far after 332BC; for example in popular catholic hymns (Yahweh, I know you are near; I will bless Yahweh; Rise, O Yahweh; ect. https://www.archbalt.org/no-yahweh-in-songs-prayers-at-catholic-masses-vatican-rules/) until a papal letter in 2008 ('Letter to the Bishops' Conferences on "The Name of God"') discussing the tetragrammaton. Its a bit hard to reconcile with your assertion and the article which seems to suggest no one referred to Yahweh post-332BC. And it is certainly inaccurate to suggest Christianity only used 'Jehovah'. [[Special:Contributions/128.249.96.51|128.249.96.51]] ([[User talk:128.249.96.51|talk]]) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:::There is rare and sporadic usage yes, but it is not used as a liturgical standard in any faith. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Just stopping by to say I also agree with the past tense, as I think it is fair to say the concept has evolved a fair bit in the past three or so millennia. But Iskandar323, I confess you have piqued my curiosity! What do you mean the tetragrammaton is not 'rendered into a name'? Do you mean it doesn't have masoretic vowels attached? Or do you mean the tradition of [[Qere and Ketiv|"Ketiv/Qere"]]? Inquiring minds want to know! Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't familiar with the terms, but yes, the name of God was only written down as YHWH out of respect, with the pronunciation only preserved in oral tradition, and in time that too was forgotten.[https://textandcanon.org/how-was-the-pronunciation-of-gods-name-lost-part-2/] The upshot of this is that no one actually knows how to pronounce YHWH, and "Yahweh" is just a guess that has served well enough for academic purposes when discussing the ancient deity. But anyone worshipping Yahweh, per se, knows not the name of their god. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::So, forgive my nitpickery--you are largely correct, though the timeline is a bit off. When the Torah was written down, it was entirely vowel-less (aside from [[Mater lectionis|matres lectionis]]). It was not until the 10th century or so that the masoretic vowels were added (and they are still not printed on Torah scrolls). So, sure, while the tetragrammaton does not have vowels (or is voiced with the vowels from [[adonai]]), that's simply the original form of the language, and much of ancient pronunciation is similarly on a bit of an unsteady footing. Cheers. 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::It was commonly used in English language Catholic hymns (at least in the United States; I am not sure there are any statistical studies done on hymn usage in Catholic mass but 'Yahweh, I know you are near' was particularly common) prior to 2008, which is why sources do exist discussing its discontinuation as a spoken phrase. This is also discussed in the tetragrammaton page. I think an argument could be made for merging the two pages or providing a final paragraph with more context for the link between the two, but I am very open to hearing opposing arguments. [[Special:Contributions/128.249.96.51|128.249.96.51]] ([[User talk:128.249.96.51|talk]]) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::This page is about the god as an archaeological and anthropological curiosity: the other page is about the name/acronym. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sure, but the similar article on the anthropological and archaeological curiosity of Yahwism for example includes a section on the transition to modern Judaism. It feels disjointed that the only reference in this article to the modern usage is in the disambiguation. [[Special:Contributions/128.249.96.51|128.249.96.51]] ([[User talk:128.249.96.51|talk]]) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::The name YHWH is used over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, of which numerous instances are phrases akin to “I am YHWH”, “YHWH is His name”, “my god is YHWH”, etc. I fail to see how this could be considered “patchy”, let alone not a name. Likewise, while I understand and agree that much has changed in the interpretation of the deity in the intervening millennia, your assertion that Yahweh is somehow ''not'' the god invoked by modern Abrahamic religions is just patently false - I can’t speak for Christianity and Islam as confidently, but I can tell you that all major Jewish liturgies invoke the name YHWH in practically every prayer, and YHWH has always been held as the utmost sacred name of God. This is hardly “residual significance” so much as it is a direct continuation of the ancient practice, albeit with some obvious theological changes and amendments. [[User:Sinclairian|Sinclairian]] ([[User talk:Sinclairian|talk]]) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:::You're sort of missing the point, which is that the statement "YHWH = Yahweh" is not strictly known to be true. The "Yahweh" vowelization is an academic reconstruction based on Greek texts, and there is consensus that it is probably correct, but also that it is ultimately unknown. This might appear to be a subtle or rather academic distinction, but it still echoes through scholarship to this day. The 2021 Brill work ''[https://books.google.al/books?id=drMlEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false The “God of Israel” in History and Tradition]'', for example, expressly introduces the "God of Israel" as "YHWH" (without even mentioning "Yahweh"), and continues to refer to the deity in the un-vowelled format precisely for this reason. By contrast, academic literature about the Canaanite pantheon and the emergence of ancient Israelite religion far more routinely throws around "Yahweh" as the default go-to because the acronym is awkward and could convey a sense of partiality or undue respect. The deity is the same in the sense that modern Abrahamic monotheists believe it the same, and in so much as a deity exists in the first place depending on people's beliefs, but the acronym and the vowelled name have different literary uses and applications – hence the divergent subjects and pages here. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::This is why I insisted on a change. Just by reading the first few sentences of the article, one can probably conclude that Yahweh was a God that was worshiped thousands of years ago and is no longer relevant in modern Abrahamic religions, though I know. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe that YHWH is the same God that created the universe and still exists to this present day. I don't believe using the past tense is correct as for a God that is still worshiped. It could be argued that this is an insult to these religions. We also have the fact that across different languages, people have a different name for God. This doesn't mean that it isn't the same God. Even through a Trinitarian perspective, Christians believe that God the Father is the "maker of Heavan and Earth before all ages" according to the Nicene Creed. [[User:KeymasterOne|KeymasterOne]] ([[User talk:KeymasterOne|talk]]) 06:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{talk quote|@[[User:Mooters 1563|Mooters 1563]], you say "Yahweh is the God of Judaism, Christianity." Yahweh had these characteristics (among others):{{pb}}*He was a god of storms and wars{{pb}}*He had a wife, named [[Asherah]]{{pb}}*He was the chief god of a pantheon that included several other gods{{pb}}*He did not create the world from nothing, but made an existing world habitable{{pb}}*He lived in a palace located directly above Jerusalem{{pb}}And much more. In short, he wasn't very like the modern gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nor are these three gods very like each other. For this reason he has a separate article that doesn't trace his story beyond the fall of Jerusalem, which is when he started to turn into the god of Judaism.[[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]]) 10:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)}}
::::Quoted by [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::He also [https://books.google.al/books?id=drMlEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false sometimes lived in a tent] ... for weekend trips I suppose. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Technically speaking, Islam says God's name is Allah, and that Jews and Christians have erred and been misled somewhat, though not critically so, and retain enough of a kernel of some primal faith that they qualify as people of the book. Islam doesn't say anything Yahweh or storm god-related is correct. Some scholarly readings coincidentally (or not) suggest that El, not Yahweh, was the original Israelite god, which is not surprising given El's role as the head of the local pantheon and presumptive arch deity, and as the eponymous god of the Israelite name – Isra-El. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Iskandar -- totally agree with this, but can't resist adding a slight bit of trivia--Hosea 8:6 is traditionally a tricky verse. The way it has come down to us, it looks like an ungrammatical "for from Israel, it was made..." But, as many scholars have pointed out just by breaking up the letters differently (mysrael becomes my sr el) we get, "For who is the bull El? He was made..." Now, that's not a definitive etymology for the name Israel, but it is suggestive. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yahweh isnt a storm god. Stop spreading misinformation [[Special:Contributions/70.58.179.30|70.58.179.30]] ([[User talk:70.58.179.30|talk]]) 01:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Any [[WP:RS]] to that extent? Written by [[WP:CHOPSY]] scholars. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::::In fairness, there's some evidence that he started off with different traits, as a god of volcanoes and metallurgy - so as a Hephaestus or Vulcan if you will - and only took on the storm god traits in flattering later theological depictions - notably in the stories in which he bests Baal, the Canaanite-Phoenician storm god, at his own game with lightning. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yup, the idea that Israelites were preponderantly monotheists since Abraham or Moses, is just a story, it is not historically true. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024 ==

{{Edit semi-protected|Yahweh|answered=yes}}
There is an inaccuracy which points to the topic of palestine and naming the land the israelites inhabited as such. In the time that it is being referenced the name would have been more appropriately the Land of Canaan. So I would like to suggest editing it to that to avoid confusion as well as political debate. The term Palestine did not come about for well over a 1000 years after the time period of which this topic came about. [[Special:Contributions/2604:AF80:1C47:F870:1067:CFA9:8D46:840B|2604:AF80:1C47:F870:1067:CFA9:8D46:840B]] ([[User talk:2604:AF80:1C47:F870:1067:CFA9:8D46:840B|talk]]) 04:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:59, 10 July 2024

Can't edit but have a question regarding translation

Yeah I am just curiouse because "adonoy" is translated as "my lords" and while "lords" is acceptable (as ooposed to "masters") i'm pretty sure the word is singular, meaning the translation should be "my lord" CarryingTheMeme (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be Adonai, as the plural form of Adon (lord)? That is the etymology of the name Adonis. Dimadick (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in the third paragraph? I just noticed it too and thought it was a mistake, so I came to this Talk page to bring it up. But then I looked a little more into it and I think it's just the "royal we". See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Adonai ("Adonai" אֲדוֹנָי literally means "my lords". There's also "Adoni" אֲדוֹנִי which means "my lord", but that's something different. Notice how the "Adonai" has a kamatz ("a" sound) beneath the "n", whereas "Adoni" has a hiriq ("i sound"). According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/אדוני#Hebrew , the two words have different etymologies. "Adonai" is "Adoni-" + the "-i" suffix, whereas "Adoni" is "Adon" + the "-i" suffix.) 2601:49:8400:26B:5C37:1DD:4D2F:4D1 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Normally in Biblical Hebrew the singular possessive suffix is -i and the plural possessive is -ai but certain kinds of words (some names of God, terms for qualities like "youth" or "blindness", etc.) are given an abstract grammatical plural. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child sacrifice to YHWH or Molech by Isreal?

The article states;<<A number of scholars have also drawn the conclusion that infant sacrifice, whether to the underworld deity Molech or to Yahweh himself, was a part of Israelite/Judahite religion until the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century BCE.>>. To this I must ask, why? YHWH in the Torah and Tanakh rejects and is angered by child sacrifice whether to Molech or himself multiple times. A few examples being;

”“Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molek and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek.“ ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭20‬:‭2‬-‭5‬ ‭NIV

”He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.“ ‭‭2 Kings‬ ‭21‬:‭6‬ ‭NIV

So why do certain scholars think otherwise? To me it just seems like baseless speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.165.152 (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place where we second-guess the whole guild of mainstream Bible scholars, nor are we required to give you adult education. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "was an ancient Levantine diety"

Why is this message composed in past tense? Yahweh is still worshiped today. I think it should be changed something along the lines of "Yahweh is a diety, worshiped in Abrahamic religions, coming from the Levantine region." KeymasterOne (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh is not worshipped today. There are no Yahwists who worship a storm god. There are merely religions with derivative symbolism and mythology. The tetragrammaton continues to hold residual significance in Judaism and Christianity, but in its patchy usage in the old testament it is not even rendered into a name, while Christians later rendered it as "Jehovah" – both mere homages to the earlier Yahwist cult. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that the change should be made to a different tense (although the sentence in general I don't think reads well for a concept like a deity rather than a historical person). But, Yahweh was still used in many contexts far after 332BC; for example in popular catholic hymns (Yahweh, I know you are near; I will bless Yahweh; Rise, O Yahweh; ect. https://www.archbalt.org/no-yahweh-in-songs-prayers-at-catholic-masses-vatican-rules/) until a papal letter in 2008 ('Letter to the Bishops' Conferences on "The Name of God"') discussing the tetragrammaton. Its a bit hard to reconcile with your assertion and the article which seems to suggest no one referred to Yahweh post-332BC. And it is certainly inaccurate to suggest Christianity only used 'Jehovah'. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is rare and sporadic usage yes, but it is not used as a liturgical standard in any faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stopping by to say I also agree with the past tense, as I think it is fair to say the concept has evolved a fair bit in the past three or so millennia. But Iskandar323, I confess you have piqued my curiosity! What do you mean the tetragrammaton is not 'rendered into a name'? Do you mean it doesn't have masoretic vowels attached? Or do you mean the tradition of "Ketiv/Qere"? Inquiring minds want to know! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't familiar with the terms, but yes, the name of God was only written down as YHWH out of respect, with the pronunciation only preserved in oral tradition, and in time that too was forgotten.[1] The upshot of this is that no one actually knows how to pronounce YHWH, and "Yahweh" is just a guess that has served well enough for academic purposes when discussing the ancient deity. But anyone worshipping Yahweh, per se, knows not the name of their god. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, forgive my nitpickery--you are largely correct, though the timeline is a bit off. When the Torah was written down, it was entirely vowel-less (aside from matres lectionis). It was not until the 10th century or so that the masoretic vowels were added (and they are still not printed on Torah scrolls). So, sure, while the tetragrammaton does not have vowels (or is voiced with the vowels from adonai), that's simply the original form of the language, and much of ancient pronunciation is similarly on a bit of an unsteady footing. Cheers. 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was commonly used in English language Catholic hymns (at least in the United States; I am not sure there are any statistical studies done on hymn usage in Catholic mass but 'Yahweh, I know you are near' was particularly common) prior to 2008, which is why sources do exist discussing its discontinuation as a spoken phrase. This is also discussed in the tetragrammaton page. I think an argument could be made for merging the two pages or providing a final paragraph with more context for the link between the two, but I am very open to hearing opposing arguments. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about the god as an archaeological and anthropological curiosity: the other page is about the name/acronym. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the similar article on the anthropological and archaeological curiosity of Yahwism for example includes a section on the transition to modern Judaism. It feels disjointed that the only reference in this article to the modern usage is in the disambiguation. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name YHWH is used over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, of which numerous instances are phrases akin to “I am YHWH”, “YHWH is His name”, “my god is YHWH”, etc. I fail to see how this could be considered “patchy”, let alone not a name. Likewise, while I understand and agree that much has changed in the interpretation of the deity in the intervening millennia, your assertion that Yahweh is somehow not the god invoked by modern Abrahamic religions is just patently false - I can’t speak for Christianity and Islam as confidently, but I can tell you that all major Jewish liturgies invoke the name YHWH in practically every prayer, and YHWH has always been held as the utmost sacred name of God. This is hardly “residual significance” so much as it is a direct continuation of the ancient practice, albeit with some obvious theological changes and amendments. Sinclairian (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're sort of missing the point, which is that the statement "YHWH = Yahweh" is not strictly known to be true. The "Yahweh" vowelization is an academic reconstruction based on Greek texts, and there is consensus that it is probably correct, but also that it is ultimately unknown. This might appear to be a subtle or rather academic distinction, but it still echoes through scholarship to this day. The 2021 Brill work The “God of Israel” in History and Tradition, for example, expressly introduces the "God of Israel" as "YHWH" (without even mentioning "Yahweh"), and continues to refer to the deity in the un-vowelled format precisely for this reason. By contrast, academic literature about the Canaanite pantheon and the emergence of ancient Israelite religion far more routinely throws around "Yahweh" as the default go-to because the acronym is awkward and could convey a sense of partiality or undue respect. The deity is the same in the sense that modern Abrahamic monotheists believe it the same, and in so much as a deity exists in the first place depending on people's beliefs, but the acronym and the vowelled name have different literary uses and applications – hence the divergent subjects and pages here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I insisted on a change. Just by reading the first few sentences of the article, one can probably conclude that Yahweh was a God that was worshiped thousands of years ago and is no longer relevant in modern Abrahamic religions, though I know. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe that YHWH is the same God that created the universe and still exists to this present day. I don't believe using the past tense is correct as for a God that is still worshiped. It could be argued that this is an insult to these religions. We also have the fact that across different languages, people have a different name for God. This doesn't mean that it isn't the same God. Even through a Trinitarian perspective, Christians believe that God the Father is the "maker of Heavan and Earth before all ages" according to the Nicene Creed. KeymasterOne (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mooters 1563, you say "Yahweh is the God of Judaism, Christianity." Yahweh had these characteristics (among others):

*He was a god of storms and wars

*He had a wife, named Asherah

*He was the chief god of a pantheon that included several other gods

*He did not create the world from nothing, but made an existing world habitable

*He lived in a palace located directly above Jerusalem

And much more. In short, he wasn't very like the modern gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nor are these three gods very like each other. For this reason he has a separate article that doesn't trace his story beyond the fall of Jerusalem, which is when he started to turn into the god of Judaism.PiCo (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also sometimes lived in a tent ... for weekend trips I suppose. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, Islam says God's name is Allah, and that Jews and Christians have erred and been misled somewhat, though not critically so, and retain enough of a kernel of some primal faith that they qualify as people of the book. Islam doesn't say anything Yahweh or storm god-related is correct. Some scholarly readings coincidentally (or not) suggest that El, not Yahweh, was the original Israelite god, which is not surprising given El's role as the head of the local pantheon and presumptive arch deity, and as the eponymous god of the Israelite name – Isra-El. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar -- totally agree with this, but can't resist adding a slight bit of trivia--Hosea 8:6 is traditionally a tricky verse. The way it has come down to us, it looks like an ungrammatical "for from Israel, it was made..." But, as many scholars have pointed out just by breaking up the letters differently (mysrael becomes my sr el) we get, "For who is the bull El? He was made..." Now, that's not a definitive etymology for the name Israel, but it is suggestive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yahweh isnt a storm god. Stop spreading misinformation 70.58.179.30 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any WP:RS to that extent? Written by WP:CHOPSY scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, there's some evidence that he started off with different traits, as a god of volcanoes and metallurgy - so as a Hephaestus or Vulcan if you will - and only took on the storm god traits in flattering later theological depictions - notably in the stories in which he bests Baal, the Canaanite-Phoenician storm god, at his own game with lightning. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the idea that Israelites were preponderantly monotheists since Abraham or Moses, is just a story, it is not historically true. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

There is an inaccuracy which points to the topic of palestine and naming the land the israelites inhabited as such. In the time that it is being referenced the name would have been more appropriately the Land of Canaan. So I would like to suggest editing it to that to avoid confusion as well as political debate. The term Palestine did not come about for well over a 1000 years after the time period of which this topic came about. 2604:AF80:1C47:F870:1067:CFA9:8D46:840B (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]