Talk:Yahweh

Contents

1 Agreed: Merge This to Tetragrammaton 2 JW revisions 2.1 destroyed the article 3 Problems of transliterating from another language 4 The King James Version 5 Misc 6 Strange Spirits 7 Linguistic Speculation 8 Jehovah among the Hindu 9 Salibi, The Arabian Volcano God 9.1 Where are the Arabian Volcanos?

Agreed: Merge This to Tetragrammaton

This article is beginning to resemble both The name of God in Judaism and Tetragrammaton very closely, but I'm no biblical expert or even all that interested. Should these three articles be merged into one?

Yes. The articles on Jehovah, Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton and "The name of God in Judaism" are all precisely the same topic. It makes no sense to have separate entries. All of those other topics need a redirect to one page that we choose as a master page, and they can be discussed there. Without bringing together these virtually identical articles, Wikipedia will continue to become more (unnecessarily) disorganzied. RK

They are not "precisely the same topic": Jehovah *is* different than Yahweh, and is different than Tetragrammaton, etc. If there had to be one article (I think there should be, to eliminate so much redundancy), there should be subheadings and explanations for each.

Whoah, you've lost me. When did the four-letter name of God in the Bible suddenly begin referring to two totally different gods?!? "Jehovah" is how 19th century German scholars translated the tetragrammaton into Roman characters; "Yahweh" is how modern-day scholars translated it into Roman characters. Are you saying that there exists a Christian sect that believes there are two different gods, one being Jehovah and the other being Yahweh? If not, then they are the same, and this is true by definition. RK

No, I mean the words Jehovah and Yahweh are different! No sect considers them as two different gods. You just said the difference: different translations. Jehovahs Witnesses believe that the true name of God is Jehovah, not Yahweh.

Remembering that this is not a dictionary that needs every seperate word or synomym to have its own article, it makes sense to merge these articles into one. The other article names should be redirected to the merged article. It is fine to explain in the merged articles the history beyind Jehovah versus Yahweh, but it just seems to me that it is really just one topic.

Oh, I see what you mean. I agree. I was thinking that you were alluding to something else, because gnostics do believe that there are two gods, and this kind of theology is something that pops up time and time again. RK

I, too, agree that this article naturally belongs to Tetragrammaton.--~~

---

My vote goes for moving everything into the Jehova article, simply because if I wanted to read about that particular god that's the first name that would come to mind for me. Yahweh might be the "modern" translation, but I suspect it isn't as widely known or thought of first.

Not to everyone - I learned about Yahweh first. - dreamyshade

I vote for merging. Even if more people have heard of Jehovah than Yahweh, that can easily be fixed with redirects. Any article on 'Yahweh' will mention all there is to know about 'Jehovah', and any article on 'Jehovah' will mention all there is to know about 'Yahweh'. Use by Jews of 'Adonai' and 'haShem' can be mentioned, as examples of how holy they consider the Tetragrammaton to be. I suppose we could even mention 'Elohim'.-- SJK

JW revisions

The last revision was just plain inacurate. "Jehovah" was an incurate tranliteration of YHWH used in the middle-ages. The KJV uses the convention "LORD" in small caps throught. - Asa

It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses are using the page as a recruitment device. That should be left to an external link from the Watchtower Society page--~~

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Yahweh Yah"weh, Yahwe Yah"we, n. Also Jahveh Jah"veh, Jahve Jah"ve, etc.

A modern transliteration of the Hebrew word translated

Jehovah in the Bible; -- used by some critics to

discriminate the tribal god of the ancient Hebrews from the

Christian Jehovah. Yahweh or Yahwe is the spelling now

generally adopted by scholars.

I agree. --~~

The NIV preface states: In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord", for which small letters are used.

Yet another Bible Dictionary I have states regarding "Jehovah": The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it, but substituted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai. Probably it was pronounced Jahveh, or Yahveh. In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by LORD or GOD, printed in small capitals.

destroyed the article

I dont' know enought to revert the article to where it was before theis "administer person removed everything of substance and turned into a onesided article about his/her view of the divine name. The article is now a synopsis of why the name should/should not be used a certain way. Wikipedia has been a place where differing views come together to make great articles, this person is working against that.

Maybe Admin doesn't want Wikipedia to be a recruitment page for the Watchtower/Jehovah's Witnesse, either.--Wighson 02:26, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Problems of transliterating from another language

Any ideas what is most accurate and least misleading? Dlugar

---

My understanding is that "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" are alternate English transliterations of the Hebrew word written with the so-called tetragrammaton, "YHVH" (actually, its equivalent in the Hebrew alphabet), which was the proper name for God among the ancient Hebrews. The existence of multiple transliterations for a single foreign word is not unusual; consider "Peking", "Peiping", "Beijing", which are alternate transliterations of the Chinese word which names the capital of modern China. (Note: These aren't different transliterations; the pronounciation ascribed to the characters denoting the city was officially changed, and the three variations represent the old name, a sort of loca mixture, and the new name, respectively.) The problem in this case is complicated by the fact that the ancient Hebrew alphabet didn't include letters for vowels, and by the time vowel marks were introduced the sacred name was not spoken for religious reasons (the word "Adonai" meaning "Lord" was substituted). Evidently the vowel marks for "Adonai" were used with the tetragrammaton, which led to the transliteration "Jehovah". This obviously was a mistake. The modern transliteration "Yahweh" is generally believed by scholars to reflect the actual pronunciation. - Hank Ramsey

Alternate transliteration is a factor, but the real debate is about how many syllables there should be. The Hebrew letters are YHWH. Those who believe that it was pronounced with two syllables tend to favor "Yahweh", while those who favor three might pick "Yehowah". The vowels in the latter are the way it is often vowel pointed in Hebrew manuscripts. Though it is often claimed that the manuscripts which vowel point it this way to so to remind the reader to substitute "adonai", this is probably just speculation. The counter argument is that numberous proper names in the Bible contain part of the divine name either as a prefix or a suffix and that if we take the vowel pointing from these we arrive at "Yehowah".

Actually, it might be more consistent to use the letters YHVH. There was no vowel pointing at all in the old texts, either.--~~

For vowel points, see Niqqud. --Jerzy (t) 20:33, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

The King James Version

"Yehowah", when transliterated according to the system used in the KJV for other proper names such as Yerusalem (Jerusalem) and Eliyah (Elijah) becomes Jehowah or Jehovah. -- David Chappell

No; the vowels are harder to discover since the word wasn't uttered in normal speech. --~~

---

As I understand it, the KJV used just "LORD", never "Jehovah"; the usage "Jehovah" was introduced by the American Standard Version. -- Simon J Kissane

The KJV uses Jehovah four times as the name of God (at Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4). It also appears as a component of a number of place names (at Gen. 22:14, Exodus. 17:15, and Judges 6:24).

The first (1611) edition of the KJV spelled Jehovah "Iehovah". Similiarly, Jesus was spelled "Iesus". The use of the letter j (a recent addition the English alphabet) was introduced in the 1629 edition, however it represented the y sound. In other words, the reader was expected to say "Yehovah" when he saw "Jehovah". As the English language evolved, the letter j aquired its modern pronounciation. As a result, the English pronunciation of names such as Jesus, Jehovah, and Elijah changed.

Misc

As far as I have been able to determine, "Iehovah" was first used in an English Bible in 1530 by William Tyndale. He used it more than twenty times in his translation. -- David Chappell

---

added a "historically speaking" to the last paragraph so that it sounds like less of a theological assertion. -- clasqm

---

Strange Spirits

I also believe that they should remain seperate because I believe that Yahweh and Jehovah have come to be two different names and with two different meanings completely. For example, 'hovah' in Hebrew means RUIN and MISCHIEF. See: http://eliyah.com/jhovah.htm . I have noted in other encyclopedias that th tetragrammaton and the name Yahweh or Jehovah are in diiferent subject categories. Also, Jehovah sounds an awful lot like the pagan god Jove or Jovis. If anyone is interested... I have a site with MANY LINKS to various sources, groups and individuals that "make mention of" the Name Yahweh and the Name of His Son, YAHshua at: http://www.maxpages.com/yahshua

"Yahshua" also sounds like Devil sneezing. I like "Yahweh" myself, because it sounds like a friendly Amish man surfing (Ja, way!). Amish are Christians, aren't they? I think I'll set up a web site about my theories of surfing Amish and ask people to send me money. Or maybe I'll just post it all on Wikipedia -- lower overhead.--~~

This is just plain wrong. These two names have certainly not come to mean two totally different things. The vast majority of English speaking individuals in the world understand they both are English renditions of the four-letter Biblical name of God. As for your entymology lesson, it is misleading and irrelevant. You can play root-word similarity games all you like, but these two particular names are just different spellings of the same god. It seems to me that your point is from an extreme fundamentalist point of view, and you are advocating one point of view based on your religion, rather than on the academic consensus. RK

You are right. But you are not confronting a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, but a Jehovah's Witness'. JW's must believe exactly as they are taught or they risk extreme embarrassment in front of or total shunning from the only friends they may admit to having those in their local "Kingdom Hall." It seems this page has become a recruitment device for that religion.--~~

Linguistic Speculation

It is not uncommon for two Hebrew roots of completely different meaning to be spelled the same way. DBR means word (davar), plague (dever), and wilderness (midbar - if that isn't from a root DBR, please correct me). And vowels have little to do with which root a word belongs to. The root of "Yahweh" and of "hayah" (was) is HWY; waw often changes to yod in conjugation, and third-radical yod shows up as he or tav depending on the verb form. As to "Jehovah" and "Jove", any resemblance is purely coincidental. -phma

Regarding roots in Hebrew: The same is true of Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic and a number of other languages. Meaning is based upon a consonant root of several characters, generally three. To this root is added vowels, prefixes and suffixies to refine the general meaning into particular words. Any linguists present? I am sure that a linguist can do a much better job of describing this more completely and surely more accurately. OneVoice 16:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In regards to a comment of "Jehovah" being introduced in the American Standard Version, it can be found in a much earlier version of the Bible. It can be found all the way back in to the King James version of the Bible. Just check Psalms 83:18. But it is in the older ones..."Jehovah" has been recently edited out of the the King James version.

No; I've seen facsimiles of the first editions. There was no such use.--Wighson 02:18, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Jehovah among the Hindu

I have never heard of references to "Jehovah" as Agni in trhe Rig Veda. I'd like to see the citations. RabbiBurt---

Wow! That's a good one; did somebody really say there were references to Jehovah in Hindu mythology?!--Wighson 02:18, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Jehovah is merely a mispronunciation of the same name. I reverted and edited the Yahweh entry to reflect that. Nahum 06:21, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding.--Wighson 02:18, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Salibi, The Arabian Volcano God

The following description of one theory, while it may have a place, seems far too long and contentious. If no one objects in the next few days, I propose to prune it down to manageable size, introduce other theories and contextualize them all with a dose of vitamin NPOV.

Please, 'please', PLEASE do so!! All that stuff is very much a minority view. It also presents it as fact, i.e., "Salibi discovered this objective fact," rather than "Salibi investigated this idea and found the following evidence." I propose putting it into the Salibi article with a link noted here, e.g., Kamal Salibi proposed a possible origin for Yahweh as a development from a volcano god in Arabia, or something like that. Or else making a separate page on Salibi's theory of the origin of Yahweh. There's just way too much said here; it's almost half of the article. If you're going to spend that much time in this article discussing one piddling minority view, you should spend at least that much time discussing the majority view. I didn't even see a discussion of whether YHWH was truly used before Moses or if the Bible just interpolated that name into earlier accounts, which is a far more interesting question to me. Jdavidb 03:56, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the whole point of Wikipedia.
It's not a case of, "please do so…", "there's just too much said here; it's almost half the article…", "If you're going to spend that much time…", "you should spend at least…", I didn't even see…".
As a Wikipedian, you have the right – almost the obligation – to contribute to an article with further information. It's easy to defame, denounce, destroy and delete other people's work. Instead of you going into historics [sic] on this talk page, get off your ass and do some constructive research into Yahweh's origin. Something you can be proud of!

In the future it would be more pleasurable to read comments from you such as: "I contributed the major point of view, which, through its accuracy and NPOV is far superior to that written on Salibi's theory", "As so much effort has been put into one piddling minority view, I felt it my duty to put as much effort into writing an informative section on the majority view", "I researched, and wrote, an enlightening article on the origins of the name YHWH, which has always been of interest to me. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it was not eligible for inclusion".
Come on now. Pull your finger out!
Tell 09:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or, since someone asked a question, I could give my opinion about it on the talk page, which is also another point of Wikipedia. That way he could make the change he's planning before I step in and take things in a different direction. There is, after all, a point to the talk pages. Jdavidb 13:45, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"During the 1980s, Kamal Salibi, who later took up the position of Director of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies in Amman, Jordan (Refer link below), revived a number of credible nineteenth century propositions that suggested the Old Testament was in fact set in western Arabia, as opposed to the then accepted location of Palestine. During his investigations, which employ state of the art decoding methods on the original Hebrew consonantal text - as opposed to the usual, less arduous, practice of employing vocalised translations made by Jewish Masoretes as a base -, he not only found that Biblical locations existed in western Arabia, but that they were logically situated with respect to biblical events. This discovery, which explained why nothing convincing had ever been found to link Palestinian locations with biblical records, spurred him on to decode an untold wealth of information relating to the Old Testament. Refer The Bible Came from Arabia (1985), Secrets of the Bible People (1988) and his later work The Historicity of Biblical Israel: Studies in 1 & 2 Samuel (1998).

In Exodus, it states that the Israelites, while under the guidance of Moses, had many gods, many of which they represented by gold and silver idols. It was not until Moses and the Israelites had their encounter with a dynamic, smoke covered and potentially retributional, mountain, that they adopted its local god as their own God, Yahweh. He was too good to be true - a god with a thunderous voice, of trumpets and fiery tantrums that proved him far more powerful than all of their other gods put together. But most importantly, a thunderous cloud covered the mountain - a feature that Moses' god had possessed throughout Exodus.

As Salibi points out in Secrets of the Bible People, it doesn't take much imagination to realise that Yahweh's mountain home was in fact a volcano, summit engulfed in smoke. Later we find Yahweh as a 'devouring fire' on top of the mountain, and some weeks later, after Moses had returned from his second stint on the mountain, he warns his people that whoever touches the mountain it shall stone to death, be it beast or man. Three days later we find the mountain quaking. There were thunder and lightning. The mountain was all in smoke. Yahweh had descended on it in fire, and smoke rose as the smoke of a furnace. A better description of a volcano is hard to imagine.

For the conventional biblical scholar, the major shortcoming of these passages is that Palestine, the conventional setting for all of these events is, and was not, a volcanic area! Salibi, on the other hand, is handed Mount Elohim ['mountain of the gods'; which the bible mentions in relation to Moses, and is located in volcanically active area of Yemen] on a plate, as the home of Yahweh. A river having essentially the name of Sinai still exists in the vicinity, not far from a ridge (possibly biblical Mt. Sinai) where the Israelites watched the 'fireworks'.

When the Israelites headed back into what is now western Arabia, such an omnipotent god - the undisputed creator of the entire world - was too good to leave behind. Moses therefore 'persuaded' him to leave his volcanic home and join them, which he did, deposing the original pantheon of Israelite gods [making them the first monotheists in recorded history] and travelled with them in unheard-of luxury, as described in Exodus 25-31. To this day, Jews, Christians and Muslims still worship Yahweh, even though He has been an invisible God since being divorced from His once mighty volcano.

[Note that Salibi's Arabian theory of biblical historicity, of which the above comprises a minute amount, has not been disputed by scholars of any of the abovementioned religions in any material way whatsoever. The total of their objections, since Salibi first published his findings in 1985, are that: as Salibi's theory departs from the accepted Jewish translations of the original Hebrew - which had been a dead language for a thousand years before their translation - they don't like it! Therefore, it is inconceivable to them that it could have the slightest merit. Equally, it should be realised that Salibi's theory is simply that, and eligible to be disproved at any time. At present though, it is the only theory to unite the bible as written, to its writers, their lives, and their environment.]"

Does anyone else see this as a problem?

Fire Star 15:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes. Perhaps it is better placed in an article devoted to Salibi? Do you know of any scholarly discussion of his writings? What kind of acceptance as possible, plausible, probable has his work achieved? OneVoice 16:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Salibi's "propositions that suggested the Old Testament was in fact set in western Arabia" is credible? What support do we have for this statement...not us saying yeah or nay but rather scholars. I have removed the word credible pending comments from folks on what is available to support or contradict his writings. OneVoice 22:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think God is an Amish surfer dude. See "Strange Spirits" above and you'll be saved from Hell.--Wighson 02:35, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

I've done a bit of reading on the subject (see documentary hypothesis for some good references) and this is the first time I've heard of a theory such as Salibi's. Undoubtedly, the Hejaz (modern NW Arabia on the Red Sea coast) was an important cultural area related to late Bronze/early Iron Canaan, but it was associated with the federation known as Midian according to most Biblical scholars, not Israel. There is some textual evidence that Israel and Midian were allied at an early point.

Actually, that Yahweh worship came from the deserts of western Arabia has much currency among scholars. No volcano's though.--Wighson 02:35, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

I don't mind the theory being presented, but since there is an external link to Salibi's organization I'm wondering if the paragraphs could be more concise. I would also like to soften what I perceive as a somewhat dismissive approach to any potential critics of Salibi's theory, as well as presenting an overview of some other thinking on the matter. Eventually...

Fire Star 03:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that the word ‘credible’, as mentioned above, was not in relation to Salibi’s writings, but to a ‘number of credible nineteenth century propositions’. I admit that, as written, it was misleading, but instead of being deleted it should have been rewritten to indicate that it was Salibi’s opinion that they were credible.
In regard to the comment that Israel was not associated with NW Arabia; Salibi shows in his writings that far from Israel not being associated with north-western Arabia, Old Testament Israel was part of north-western Arabia! Modern-day Israel having no place in the geography of Biblical history at that time.
I believe that the idea of ‘Presenting an overview of some other thinking on the matter’ is a good idea, in fact the more the merrier.
I will endeavour to flush some out for future addition. In the meantime, as long as Salibi’s theory has not been disproved, I believe it should be left where it is, possibly as the first of many theories explaining Yahweh’s origin. When all's said and done, he/she/it must have come from somewhere!
Tell 13:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The section is rather long, contains much that is not specific to the article, might it not be better placed in an article dealing specifically with Salibi's work? OneVoice 19:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Tell,

I'm glad you are here, yours is a nice bit of work, and I didn't want to mess too much with it without some discussion. I like the idea of a separate article on Salibi, as well as on other theorists (Mendenhall and Friedman come to mind) on our present subject. There are many, many credible sources, archaeological, textual, linguistic and cultural, not to mention traditional, that place ancient Israel in modern Israel and Palestine. Indeed, there are many who place the origins of Arabic culture in the early Bronze age Levant as well, not the Hejaz. The most accepted version of the story is that the West Semitic speakers speaking what was later to evolve into Arabic moved into the Hejaz starting aroung 1400 B.C. or so, moving away from the complete collapse of the Hittite empire and its concomitant wars, plagues and famines. As well, the followers of Moses, taking advantage of Egyptian political impotence around the same time (there was even a brief interregnum in the Pharaohs around 1200 B.C.) moved into that power vacuum created by the collapse of Hittite and Egyptian influence. The textual evidence that I am aware of seems to indicate that Moses first moved into the Sinai at Kadesh-barnea, and after 40 years or so gradually began to convert some of the peoples of Trans-Jordan to his new religious federation. A few generations after that, more and more groups in Palestine began to convert, and eventually the majority of "Israel" could be located pretty much in what we today call Israel. Salibi may have a well-researched alternate version, but he is only one theorist stacked against the weight of hundreds, and my questions about claims as to whether his theories definitively "show" this or that, especially since no one else in the field that I am aware of seems to agree with him, were informed by those hypotheses.

Cheers, Fire Star 20:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair call both One Voice and Fire Star. The only reason I thought the article would be better left where it is was that it explains Yahweh's 'birth', and as a birth is ultimately connected more to that which was borne than its biographer, its connection with Salibi seemed somewhat tenuous. If you feel that in this case the biographer is of greater importance than the biographee, then maybe it would sit better in an article dedicated to Salibi's work; though keep a look-out for the fire and brimstone ;-).

Fire Star: You state that 'There are many, many credible sources, archaeological, textual, linguistic and cultural, not to mention traditional, that place Israel in modern Israel and Palestine'. All of these are inherently subjective in nature, and therefore, with regard to Exodus, Yahweh, Moses and the Israelites, are quickly negated by the complete lack of historic volcanic activity in Palestine. This simple fact, when linked with the unmistakable volcanic nature of Exodus, must surely leave no doubt that Exodus and Palestine are geographically divorced.

Your "unmistakeable volcanic nature" of Exodus is disputed. Since in the context the Almighty creator of the universe is speaking and revealing Himself to Israel, it is obvious that miraculous doings are afoot in the story (whether you accept it as historical or not). One doesn't even need to accept the miraculous to see no reason to see the volcanic speculation as "unmistakeable"; one could just as well assume that the lying Israelite priests inserted all the stuff about fire, smoke, and mountains quaking at the same time they inserted the stuff about God talking. You may be left with no doubt that the mountain was volcanic and the OT occurred elsewhere, but that is not accepted by a large number of scholars. It may be objective fact to you, but it is not NPOV.

Also, let me point out that if you think Exodus places the smoking, flaming Mt. Sinai incident in Palestine you have misread it. The episode with God descending on the the mountain in smoke occurred between Egypt and Palestine (hmmm, western Arabia, perhaps?) before the Israelites ever arrived in the promised land. The Bible never depicted this incident as taking place in Palestine, so trying to argue that the entire Old Testament occurred outside of Palestine on the basis of this event doesn't make sense. It is universally agreed that the giving of the Law occurred outside of Palestine, although the location of Mt. Sinai is disputed; read Exodus again and you will see. Jdavidb 04:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To be NPOV, all I can say is "what a load of verbal diarrhoea".

O.K. you've roped me in. Following are a few explanatory notes, please read them in conjunction with your preceding misconceptions:

• It is not "My" unmistakable volcanic nature. Exodus simply reports it as such.
• Of course it is disputed! Your disputation is proof of such.
• If the miraculous doings were 'obvious', the volcanic hypothesis would not exist.
• Your next sentence disputes your previous assertion; leaving me with the conclusion that you would rather believe a Bible riddled with lies than one flowing with geographic logic.
• It is true that a large number of scholars do not believe the mountain was volcanic; as it is that a large number of scholars are afraid their mother will not pick them up after school.
• As the result of extensive research, its publication and scrutiny, Salibi's views are far more NPOV than your current contribution.
• I'm not sure where you picked up the Sinai\Palestine thing. I've stated that Salibi places Mt. Sinai in Yemen!
• Your argument that Mt. Sinai could not be in Palestine, because it was between Egypt and the Promised Land, holds little water. The Promised Land has never been undisputedly located; so who's to say Palestine was not on the way?
• It was not indicated that the Old Testament must have taken place outside of Palestine because of the assumption that Mt. Sinai was volcanic. Its volcanicity is but an interesting Biblical observation that Salibi's theory does not disprove.
• When it comes to Yahweh's followers, nothing is "universally agreed". All the time we have Christians fighting Christians; Moslems fighting Moslems; Christians fighting Moslems, and Jews fighting everyone; the only thing we have in common seems to be disagreement!
• Rereading Exodus would prove little. If Mt. Sinai is in Yemen, we already agree that it's not in Palestine!

Please reread my reply to your comment above
Tell 09:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where are the Arabian Volcanos?

Hmm....there are many events related in Exodus that are explained away has not having happened or being very different from the text...perhaps the same is true of the "volanic activity". It seems that Salibi's thesis requires this volcano. It might to easier to dismiss the volcano, just as others have dismissed the manna or any number of other events. OneVoice 14:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at here. If you mean that you won’t believe the Bible until much of it has been disproved, then stay with twentieth century dogma (nineteenth century being much more unrestricted by organised crime). Salibi’s push is simply to show that the Old Testament is ostensibly a true history of a people.
Tell 07:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As you mention in your preamble to the said article 'Yahweh is first introduced by name to Moses in a theophany on Mount Sinai. Before Moses' time the exact name "Yahweh" is not attested'. This tends to indicate that the Israelites did not take Yahweh to Mount Sinai, yet took him with them on leaving (I would have thought Moses would have been introduced to Yahweh during the burning bush episode; during his pre-exodus, fugitive, period. Without checking, I feel Exodus 20 would be much later than this, probably the voice-of-trumpets and golden-calf extravaganza; although you may wish to correct me on this). If the Israelites adopted their new God in this manner (as per Exodus) it follows that mention of it should be made on his page. It also follows that Mount Sinai was not in Palestine - a thought worth considering - and that my original title 'Yahweh's Likely Ancestry' (revised to 'Yahweh's Possible Origin' by Llywrch), although on the edge of NPOV, was probably more apprpriate. After all; the locals probably had him first, and who's to say he was not the son of another GGod!(sic)

As far as I know, no one contends that Mount Sinai was/is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterrean Sea. I believe that you are correct regarding the first use of the name, it was prior to the return of Moses to Egypt, not during the events at Mount Sinai. (your memory may vary ;) OneVoice 14:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don’t think the Jordan River or the Mediterranean have had a mention until now, but as an aside - and staying with the Salibi theme -, his Arabian theory strongly indicates that the Jordan was in fact an escarpment on the eastern side of the Red Sea, and not a river! The Biblical Mt Sinai therefore being logically placed in Yemen.
Tell 07:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anyway; I've nattered on far too long. The sum of the words in this and your previous response equate to more than the article we're discussing, which One Voice assures us is far too long. I leave the fate of the said article in your capable hands, just try not to stuff it up too much (you write with an English accent, so I have complete faith in you [I think!]). If you move it, try to find a spot it can be easily found by those wanting to learn, yet adequately hidden from narrow-minded fundamentalist wickedpedians :-).
Before I go, just a note on a more personal note. Fire Star, you seem like a fairly knowledgeable and open-minded person and recommend that, as you'd never heard of Salibi, you check out his Arabian theory a bit more. I accidentally came across his writings some years ago, not from the biblical direction but from the etymological direction, which forms the basis of his theory. From that point of view he made perfect sense, and in addition settled my previously uneasy feeling for Old Testament geography into a landscape that fitted like a glove. If you should read any of the three books that I've mentioned, The Bible Came from Arabia (1985) is more in-line with my original etymological interest, and therefore pretty hard going; Secrets of the Bible People (1988) is mainly of Salibi's re-translations and explanations of early Old Testament - including Moses meets Yahweh -, and can be read independently of the above; and The Historicity of Biblical Israel: Studies in 1 & 2 Samuel (1998) is just a damn good read, so full of blood and guts that it makes Rambo pale into insignificance.
Tell 13:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Tell, Well thank you, I will read Salibi further. Most of the writers I am familar with place Moses' theophany in a thunderstorm on Sinai (or Horeb as some books of the Bible call it), but I have heard of the volcanic allusion before, too. Some think the collapse of the Hittites was partly due to the environmental consequences of a massive eruption at Santorini in the Aegean. Off subject, one of my favourite bits in the entire Old Testament is 1 Samuel 8, which should be diverting if you aren't a royalist... Fire Star 15:12, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I’d be interested to hear from you on my talk page some time about what you think of Salibi. Take your time when reading him though (no speed-reading), rearranged mental geography takes a while gell :-)
Tell 07:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

"It has already been pointed out and long since accepted, that the Mitanni state was largely dominated by a thin superstratum of Indo-European aristocracy, with a population of Hurrian and Semitic speaking peoples (see R.T. O'Callaghan, Aram Naharaim (Rome, 1948), pp. 51-74)." -George E. Mendenhall "The Tenth Generation - The Origins of the Biblical Tradition" The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The Mitanni aristocracy could have just as easily been an Anatolian group as an Indo-Aryan. In any event, they were mostly Hurrian and Amorite by weight of numbers. To say they were definitely "Hindu" is not supported.

Fire Star 04:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the linguistic evidence indicates that they were specifically Indo-Aryan. They did worship some gods mentioned in the Veda; however, to call them "Hindus" would be pretty anachronistic. Mustafaa 07:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Btw, there's some editing that doesn't even try to be NPOV going on at this article - be warned... - Mustafaa 07:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, Would you say that the Mitanni aristocracy were possibly proto-Persian or perhaps early enough to be undifferentiated proto-Indo-Persian? I do know that dispossessed Mariannu were used as mercenaries throughout the region in the Late Bronze, and there are many similarities between some later Hindu and earlier Hurrian myths. Fire Star 01:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)