Talk:Yahweh

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

I 100% agree with this. This article has major issues overall. Wikipedia is not a website where you do original research but print what research is out there. I think the architecture of this article should be completely revamped to show how there is no academic consensus. The first sentence completely fails at this, making a stark conclusion:

"Yahweh[b] was an ancient Semitic deity in the southeastern ancient Levant that became the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel-Samaria and Judah." DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2026 (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

Yahweh is a canaanite deity. Jews are canaanites. ~2026-29498-13 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2026 (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

Looking at the talk history, @JoBoGamer originally closed it as a move to disambiguation, then vacated their own close on a challenge by Randy Kryn. That's fine, but I wonder if there was something in the discussion that should prompt a further discussion or some further explanation. I think it was a close call either way. Usually a narrow close call, while defaulting to "not moved," could set up a further conversation. Andre🚐 22:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize that JoBoGamer vacated his own close. I'm confused. If he vacated it, does this mean that...someone else could close it? Why does it remain closed? Larry Sanger (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

A third choice was missing, making the page a redirect to Tetragrammaton, which I would support. The present wording of the disamb page reads as if this page is the page for the name of God when many or most readers would probably be seeking Tetragammaton. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Vacated and re-closed. No, it's closed now but maybe we could workshop a new idea. Andre🚐 00:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Masoretic text continued to be used throughout late antiquity and the Middle Ages by Jews; and that text makes heavy use of Yahweh. In the Septuagint, κύριος was used to translate Yahweh. κύριος continued to be used as the translated name; but occasionally, Greek speakers would transliterate the Hebrew into Ιαουε (e.g., Clement of Alexandria). The utterly obvious and uncontroversial fact is that Yahweh continued to be worshiped in multiple traditions for the next 2000 years. Again, this is not a controversial claim, but the article might cause some to think that the worship of Yahweh ended in the first century B.C.

Thus the question in the title of this section: Why does the history of "Yahweh" stop just before the rise of Christianity? If it is a complete article about Yahweh, it must include details about later (historical and contemporary) worship of Yahweh.

If there is no objection, I will ask some experts to weigh in, and I might write some myself. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, you're assuming that the God of Judaism is the Holy Trinity. That's a controversial assumption. You're assuming that the incorporeal, Platonic God=Spirit, who cannot be seen by mortals, is the God of the Old Testament, who has a body, and got seen by many characters of the Bible. Ancient Jews had an obligation to look at the face of God three times per year. That's from the Bible.

• the mouse is a subject (grammar);
• the mouse eats cheese;
• therefore a subject (grammar) eats cheese. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

"The Masoretic text continued to be used throughout late antiquity" Sanger, the Masoretic Text was compiled and edited at some point between the 7th and the 10th century, and its oldest surviving version dates to the first decade of the 11th century. The Masoretes were largely working and distributing their work within the early caliphates. Their version of the Biblical text may be younger than the Carolingian Empire. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

What if we move Yahweh to Yahweh (Iron Age deity), and this article to a redirect to Tetragrammaton with a disambig hatnote. Andre🚐 02:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

porfavor alguien podria decir porque hay un libro gnostico, si hablamos del yahweh de la edad de hierro, creo que deberian quitar el libro secreto de juan. ~2026-38490-78 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As the topic says, Yahweh is widely believed to be the father of Jesus. Pretty much everyone who will go to heaven acknowledges this. Why do we choose not to cover any of the hundreds of thousand reliable sources that say Jesus is the son of Yahweh? Friend of Intellectual Diversity (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Yahweh is widely believed to be the father of Jesus" Says who? The New Testament disagrees. The Genealogy of Jesus clearly mentions that Jesus' father is Joseph, not a lusty god who wants to impregnate mortal women. Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Feels like you didn't read the bible, or you know, the secondary sources. Joseph had his own kids, not Jesus. Darkwave Duck (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I read the Bible. The Genealogy of Jesus does not mention any gods, including Yahweh. His descent from Joseph is the hole point. And the Brothers of Jesus are never defined as his half-brothers. They are presumed to be sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The silly idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary has no textual support in the Gospels.Dimadick (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Goal posts shifting. Nobody here said perpetual. The Bible makes it clear Joseph isn't the father.

Luke 1:34 'Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”'

Matt 1:20+ "...the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus..."

Matt 1:25 "He (Joseph) had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus."

Mary was already pregnant with Jesus when she met Joseph. You did say you read the book right? CrisisDino (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply