Talk:Yahwism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This page is a somewhat interesting compendium of lore, but it really is not directly about "Yahwism". AnonMoos 03:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to give it a facelift for a while now, but haven't had the time to sit down and do it. None of this is really relevant to either Documentary Hypothesis Yahwism or modern Yahwism. --Steve Caruso 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-monotheism

It goes beyond "henotheism", since YHWH was worshipped alongside other Gods -- exactly as the Bible said that Solomon did, etc. etc. AnonMoos 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Forms of henotheism in ancient Mesopotamia included henotheistic councils where there were groups of gods worshiped alongside eachother. However, I do like how the current article renders the concept and would only recommend "alongside or in conjunction with." :-) --Steve Caruso 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yahwism, Jahwist, and others

I suggest that we merge a lot of these articles together, or at least better cross-reference and disambiguate them.

• Yahwism - This article here Yahwist religions and traditions and has spawned Category:Yahwism.
• Jahwist - This article discusses the J source of the Torah, and I feel should be kept seperate, but better disambiguated.
• Yahwistic - Sorta about Yahwism, mostly about Theophoric Names. However, the Theophoric Names article needs some -serious- revision to also take into account other non-Hebrew theophoric names from other cultures and religions (and be cleaned up according to the Manual of Style).
• Jehovist - About modern Jehovism which is arguably just a "alternately pronounced" form of modern Yahwism.

And I'm sure there are others out there. --Steve Caruso 18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with article

I would appreciate sources for the claims made in this article. Which proponents of the documentary hypothesis used the word Yahwism, and where? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I believe that most of this article is simply false:

• Yahwism is the specific use of the Tetragrammaton (ancient Hebrew יהוה) as a name of God.

[edit] Not true. Jews use the tetragrammaton all the time and do not identify themselves as Yahwists. Moreover, I have read many well-regarded books on Jews (and ancient Israel) and don't recall any of them refering to Jews or the Children of Israel as Yahwists. Please provide a verifiable source. If you cannot, I will delete the paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This was taken directly from the original article before this was revised. Look at any online dictionary, such as Freedictionary.com, Miriam Webster, Dictionary.com, such books as Yahwism After the Exile (Albertz R, Becking B. 2002), various articles on BAR, etc. etc. etc.. The Jewish religion is, by definition, Yahwist. --Steve Caruso 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

first, the article must comply with our NOR rule. If you have citations to support these claims, please put them in. Second, the article must comply with our NPOV rule. At best you can say, the Jewish religion is Yahwist according to x's definition. Wikipedia is not about "the truth." it is not for Wikipedia to say what the Jewish religion is or is not. Wikipedia can provide different views of the Jewish religion. Some people identify the Jewish religion as Yahwist. Some people define Yahwism as (...). We should tell readers whose views these are, and not claim that they are held by everyone. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• According to the Documentary Hypothesis, "Yahwism" refers to the religion of the group behind the J source of the Torah.

I do not recall any of the major contributors to the documentary hypothesis - Wellhausen, Gunkel, Kaufmann - as saying this. I have never read any Bible scholar claim that the J text expressed a particular "religion" distinct from that of the authors of the E, P and D texts. Please provide a verifiable source. Otherwise, I will delete the paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the defining characteristics of the J source was it's use of YHWH as the name of God and a focus on Judah and it's politics and religious experiences. Read up on Jahwist#Nature of the Jahwist text. --Steve Caruso 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-sequitor. There is a proposed source that uses YHWH as the name for God. Yes. But this does not mean that there is such a thing called "Yahwism." The Koran calles God Allah. This does not mean that followers of the Koran practice Allahism. Wellhausen and Kaufmann do not to my knowledge talk about Yahwism. They do talk about the J text - which is not the same thing. Gunkel talks about the religion of the Yahwists (meaning not those people who worship YHWH but those people who compiled the J text), but i do not think he calls it Yahwism. The documentary hypothesis in no way requires the claim that there was a religion called "Yahwism." Some scholars may make this claim, and may have reasons for making this claim. I am only asking that these scholars be named and the reasons provided - the article should NOT present these claims as if they are universal truths. That violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• More broadly, "Yahwism" may also refer to a religion based on the worship of the deity known as Yahweh.1 Religions that are considered Yahwist may include Samaritanism, Judaism, and some argue Christianity and Islam.

"May" is a weasel word and on this basis alone the whole pargraph should be deleted. Yahwism either does or does not refer to these religions. These religions either are or are not considered Yahwist. Moreover, I challenge the accurcay of the claim. Yahwism does not refer to any religion that worships God. Judaism is not refered to as a Yahwist religion. Am I wrong? Provide verifiable sources. Or else, I will delete this paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, see my first comment. Judaism is specifically a Yahwist religion. What is this? Scrutinize-all-things-Yahwist-week? :-) --Steve Caruso 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are evading my point that "may" is a weasel word, you have not replied to my comment. Moreover, to be clear, it is YOU who claim that Judaism is a Yahwist religion. I have no doubt that others claim this as well. But people claiming it does not make it true. No matter. Wikipedia is not about "truth." We must provide different points of view, and make it clear that they are views. This article presents only one view, and does so in a way that suggests it is the only view, universally held and incontrovertable. This violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The article violates NOR and NPOV. You have not responded adequately to any of my comments. I suspect you do not understand our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this article is that it doesn't have anything to say. PiCo 11:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern Yahwist Church

There exists a Yahwist church still today. I know, for I was raised in it. Perhaps a disambiguation page would be nice, or some mention here?Docgravel 04:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The worst Wikipedia article I know

This is a really, really low quality article. The first section ("Documentary Hypothesis" is a disgrace. It starts with confusing two utterly distinct notions, 1) the Jahwist idea which is part of the widely known Documentery Hypothesis about the authorship of texts of the biblical canon (Jewish Bible / Old Testament), and 2) the religion of Yahwism, which has been characterized by biblical scholars as a henotheistic precursor of monotheistic Judaism. Now instead of at least informing us about Yahwism in the centuries before the Babylonian Exile, the author goes on to tell us about a completely irrelevant and non-notable modern Christian sect ("Messianic Judaism" is a branch of Christianity) that calls itself "Yahwism". I doubt that this sect has a place in Wikipedia at all, but if it has, this article certainly isn't the right place.

Wellhausen's Jahwist has no place (other than a link) in an article about Yahwism. The subject is dealt with elsewhere in Wikipedia articles of good quality.

The subject of theophoric names derived from "Yahweh" has no place (etc.) here either. It has its own Wikipedia article as well.

If this article is to stay, it should deal with the Yahweh-centered beliefs in, say, the 10th - 6th centuries BCE in Canaan. Despite the fantasies of some modern religious sects, very little is known about the Yahweh cults of this period.

GdB 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Samaritans

@יבריב: can you elaborate on this paragraph? The characterization of Samaritanism seems downright contradictory, and the development of Samaritan monotheism is left very unclear. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Also it's unsourced. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the author of the article was a sock of an indeffed user. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the page back to a disambiguation page. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: It is hard to tell exactly how much of this article is original without a line-by-line comparison, but it seems that almost all of the cited content in this article is directly copied from the article Yahweh, making this a redundant fork of that article. If there is any useful, original, cited content here, it could easily be merged into the main article. See Talk:Yahweh#Yahwism. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: That's fine. I see now there was a discussion that led up to the revert on Talk:Yahweh, but since it doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere on this page, or in your edit summary, it just looked like an undiscussed blank-and-redirect with an explanation that didn't quite make sense. – Joe (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yahwism is monotheistic

I am not sure if the article should say "Yahwism allowed". Obviously the interpretation from the Hebrew Bible on what Yahwism was/supposed to be is going to differ. The Yahwism presented in the Old Testament obviously did not "allow" the worship polytheism, syncretism or monolatrism. One could argue that the Hebrew Bible reflects a particular version of Yahwism. Nonetheless, the article should be amended to better accommodate different viewpoints on what Yahwism was. The article needs to describe the syncretistic nature of Yahwism more readily- how a religion became intermingled with the Baalism, Chemoshism and the worship of other deitites in the surrounding culture. I do not know if the article should say Yahwism is syncretistic, but rather describe the purely monotheistic idealized form versus the usually praticed syncretic form. Additionally, the nature of what is considered a "god" (Heb: elohim) may have differed slightly. Thus, Yahweh is the actual deity-God, but other spiritual beings (like angels, cherubim, etc) were considered "divine" (not in the sense of being worshipped or on the same level as Yahweh, but rather higher supernatural beings). I think the Monolatry article does a good job of incorporating the multiple viewpoints on the nature of Yahwism. Superdadsuper (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Finally, a smart person! In the Hebrew Bible, it is explicitly says not to worship anything besides God. So this entire thing about Yahwism being polytheism just isn't correct!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome_346 (talk • contribs)

Before either of you accuses me of atheism or sticking to "secular" (by which they mean a dogwhistle of "atheist") sources, everything I'm about to say can be found in the works of Michael S. Heiser.

The problem is that the Hebrew Bible was written rather late in terms of the Israelite religion, and there's multiple layers that show reconciliation.

The archaeological evidence we have to go on suggests that the Israelites believed that other beings existed and as lowercase g "gods" (not as mere demons). If this was not the case, the prophets would not need to exhort the people to stop worshiping these gods. Psalms 81:1-8 still retains this cosmology where Elohim rules over the lesser gods. Habakkuk 3:5 mentions the deities Resheph and Deber as working for Elohim. The difference was that the Israelites rebelled against these lesser gods to retain their national identity during the captivity, with some of them their old national god Yahweh as the body of Elohim (meaning the Trinity actually predates Christianity). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

From idolatry to the Trinity in a few Wikipedia talk sentences. I think we've come full circle... warshy ^(¥¥) 22:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Efraim Stern: "Pagan Yahwism".(2001), and more.

1-I think the book of Efraim Stern should be mentioned in the page. It complits the Archeological Aspect for the other works.

2-I also think the works of Morton Smith should be added.

1. -As a student i find a notable lack, that is, Yahwism in the Hellenistic Period. It's highly important, also for the background of Galille and Jesus, but many other aspects as well that i cannot enter (i'm doing my thesis on that topic) . Any information or link will be usefull.

84.111.208.168 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Kaufmann

About Yehezkel Kaufmann: old books/studies (pre-1963), also even if we wholly admit that Israel's monotheism was not a gradual development from paganism but entirely new, this still begs the question if Jewish worship was always monotheistic (no, it wasn't, that has been debunked long ago).

"BBC Two - Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God Have a Wife?". BBC. 21 December 2011. Retrieved 4 July 2012. Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it [the sentence "Jews were monotheists" - n.n.] is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true. de:Herbert Niehr speaking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Kaufmann's views has been sustained more recently by Brad E. Kelle and Jeffrey H. Tigay amongst others. I am not saying original Judaism but it is anything but universally agreed whether it was r wasn't. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote above. The view that Jews were always monotheists is a debunked myth. You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Besides, none of what you have edited is verifiable in WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The view that Jews were always Monotheists is still held by many professional historians as I demonstrated. The lack of consensus on his issie justifies my edits since they describe how this a disputed issue. You lack consensus to justify your stating as a fact that it's a myth that Jews were always Montheists. What I wrote is verifiable. The perspectives described in this article are hotly contested. made this clear to strengthen NPOV.

In response to what you wrote to justify the reversal: It doesn't fail WP:RS,. I provided reliable historical sources, not a BBC documentary that speculated whether Jesus had a wife (a fringe belief). Again, the views expressed in this article, which I qualified as debatable, are rather disputed, which is why the article itself already appeared to contain contradictions regarding when true Monotheism started exactly. Please explain what is wrong with Tigay or Kelle? 83.128.99.144 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The documentary wasn't about Jesus's wife, it was about Yahweh's wife. Big difference. Just WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES and it will be fine. Now it is not even wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That some Jews at the time ascribed a consort to Yahweh is not disputed. The question is who the innovators were. I will add sources to improve the edit as requested. I wish for the article to reflect the variaty of historical views on this issue. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Our first and foremost duty is to render WP:RS/AC. Everything else comes later. In the same BBC series spoke Baruch Halpern, who said that Judaism appeared through a radical refusal of tradition. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Very well. My new edits adds references to the specific pages (with footnotes providing additional reliable sources) of official books by E. Kelle and H. Tigay. If you wish to add to this further, I welcome this. I hope this sufficiently satisfies both NPOV and WP:RS/AC. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that many scholars no longer adhere to this perspective means there is no consensus. Claiming there is one, when there isn't, seems rather partisan. See Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible by A. Yee who arrives at the exact opposite conclusions of those described in this article, based on the same sources. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Baruch Halpern supports the views adhered to in this article, doesn't change the fact that many historians argue otherwise. Therefore there is no consensus. Politics have nothing to do with that. Sergius125 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

that doesn’t change statements of academic consensus. Who are these people your citing? Tgeorgescu already pointed out one is quite old. What are their credentials, when did they publish, are they apologists? I think it’s unlikely that any actual scholars are still claiming Jews were always monotheists, which is frankly sort of a ridiculous, fundamentalist idea. Provide quotes from Kelle and Tigray here on the talk page.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It does change academic consensus. E. Kelle describes in detail that such a consensus collapsed with Kaufman, while Kaufmann is old, E. Kelle is not. He published his book in 2005 as my source showed. That makes him more recent than certain other sources in the article. H. Tigay was from 1986.

I will provide theor credentials quoting wikipedia itself:

Jeffrey Howard Tigay (born December 25, 1941) is a modern biblical scholar who is best known for the study of Deuteronomy and in his contributions to the Deuteronomy volume of the JPS Torah Commentary (1996).[1]

Educated at Columbia University and gaining his B.A. in 1963, he continued toward rabbinic ordination at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (M.H.L., 1966). He earned his Ph.D. in Comparative Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies from Yale University.

Jacob Milgrom spent most of his career at the University of California, Berkeley, where he headed the Department of Near Eastern Studies. He was known for his research on Biblical purity laws and on the book of Leviticus.

These are scholars. Not apologists. Their works are recent. They don't adhere to this consensus (which doesn't exist). The perspective that Monotheism developped during Babylonian exile is disputed by many professional scholars. They in fact do propagate the perspective that Jews were always montheists. This is not unlikely but a fact. You may find it a ridiculous fundamentalist idea, but many reliable scholars do think this. I provided sources showing this. Therefore there is no academic consensus. There is nothing wrong with the edits, which are backed up by reliable sources. Removing it because it contradicts your view is wrong. Sergius125 (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You have provided no text saying they say what you say they do (“quotes”). With the page number and full reference, ideally with a web link for easy verification.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I also notice your final scholar is deceased.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a course about the Hebrew Bible at edx.org from Bar Ilan University (a conservative Israeli university). They stated that Kaufmann is important for understanding the discussion about Judaism, but they also told that his position is rather extreme. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the scholars I cited are deceased, yes. That does not make them invalid sources. The page numbers were provided in the sources I added to the articles. I will provide specific links to online publications wherever I can.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=zhtvJDLa9GUC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=Hosea+monotheism&source=bl&ots=EKOG-2b7-x&sig=ACfU3U2ntrtTcoKmGhkkDgaN30_FgaDDsA&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim7_qIy6LtAhVD66QKHZsTDe8Q6AEwAXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=Hosea%20monotheism&f=false

https://www.academia.edu/35336123/Yehezkel_Kaufmann_and_Recent_Scholarship_Toward_a_Richer_Discourse_of_Monotheism_1

I do find it problematic that I keep adding sources (who aren't apologists), yet it seems like they are dismissed out of hand while Ermenrich admitted he didn't have the time to read them. It also seems like you're influenced by preconceived conclusions. To be clear, I am not saying that Jews were always monotheists, far from it. But when true monotheism first started exactly, it is a highly debated topic with various dates and definitions being thrown around. I merely want the article to neutrally reflect this with as many sources as possible. Sergius125 (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Kaufmann is regarded as extreme by many, yet supported by others. As E. Kelle and Sommer describe in detail. He is not a literalist however but a skeptic who challenges the biblical account from the opposite angle. There are other perspectives that can be placed in between Kaufmann and that described as fact in this article. Such as the one regarding Assyrian imperialism. That strict monotheism only developped during exile or even the seventh centry B.C. is wildly disputed. The eighth century is supported by recent scholars. Others hold Kaufmann's perspective but slightly modified perspective. Sergius125 (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sergius, you need to establish better what it is you’re trying to change rather than changing the whole article around a few sentences you keep adding at the end. Let others review your sources and establish wp:consensus before editing after being reverted.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Also: please provide quotations of what it is you’re citing the sources for for those of us who are currently without a computer and have to rely on our phones. What exactly do Kelle and Tigray say? If they are just giving a summary of research history, as I suspect, then they don’t support your position .—Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't change the whole article. Some sentences were altered since they describes a specific sholarly perspective as fact when this contradicted other parts of this article, other articles on wikipedia and many professional scholars. The parts I added briefly add differing perspectives compared to the one which dominates most of this article. The key issue is that it is highly disputed whether full monotheism developped during Babylonian exile or at an earlier date (there being many speculative ones).

I have tried to establish consensus and to satisfy your requests for page numbers and links to the specific articles. It isn't possibly to copy and paste from googlebooks articles though. You are free to read them when you hace access to a computer. What you suspect is incorrect. They largely support Kaufmann's thesis and describe how certain recent discoveries strengthened key parts of it. E. Kelle specifically deals with the small number of references to other gods compared to Yahweh amongst new archeological findings. While not blindly endorsing Kaufmann he treats it as equal if not superior to the one described here. H. Tigay is even less equivocal. But to provide quotes of entire books and all their footnotes here seems ridiculous They are recognised scholars, I provided clear references, and it seems the only reason these edits are being disputed is because of personal disagreement with the views described, not the actual content itself.

I don't see the exact problem with my edits. They resolve contradictions within the article and with other articles, strengthen neutrality, provide additional sources and give a more comprehensive view of different histotical perspectives and debates regarding when full monotheism started. Sergius125 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If I’m wrong why don’t you post the quotations showing that and stop engaging in posting a wp:wall of text. It’s not that big a hurdle if you are in fact representing the sources correctly. Don’t just tell us in your own words what you think is a correct reading of those scholars , show us explicitly that you are. Because otherwise, the suspicion is you have some reason you want the Pentateuch and Jewish monotheism to be older than most scholars say it is, something not helped by your choice of an early Christian saints name as your user name.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The text from Summer you linked to continually refers to Kaufmann being different from "most" or "many" scholars and being "distinctive" [see pages 215-218] and goes on to say In his dating of the origin of monotheism, Kaufmann's opposition to a shallow if common form of historicism leads him to a reaction that is no less shallow (p. 218). In other words, he's wrong.

In the summary at the end, he says In significant ways, Kaufmann’s approach is more accurate in its rela-tionship to the evidence (including artifactual evidence unknown in Kauf-mann’s own day) than that of the majority of biblical scholars (from whom Keel, Albertz, Schenker, Tigay, and Miller also diverge). This is a statement that the majority believe one thing, which is what we reflect in this article. Just adding exceptions does not change how Wikipedia will present things, even though the article itself supports a different position than the academic consensus.

This does not support your addition. I can't see the google doc you opened for the first one. As I say, post quotes.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Archaeological Evidence My name is simply the Latin version of my actual name. I picked it as my online name as a child before I even knew it had belonged to Catholic saints. Casting suspicions on my person is unnecessary and not relevant to the subject matter at hand. I don't desire it to have been older. If I were promoting biblical literalism I wouldn't have included 2 sources which describe monotheism as starting in the eighth century. I will provide 2 quotes from Benjamin Sommer pages 150-151:

"What of thearchaeological evidence? Surprisingly,it is more mixed than the biblical evidence. Two types of archaeological data suggest that polytheism was extremely rare in preexilic Israel, though not unheard of, whereas a third type may suggest that Israelites worshipped a variety of deities – especially goddesses."

"The weight of epigraphic data from the ninth through the sixth centuries bce testifies in behalf of the “Yhwh only” stream of Israelite religion, particularly but not only in the south. From the Mesha stele to the finds from Arad, Lachish, and Ramat Rachel, for example, Yhwh is the only named deity in Israelite inscriptions, and Yhwh’s nameis mentioned over 30 times."

I will look for the most exact quotes from the other texts as well. Again, I acknowledge that there is a spectrum of opinions on this issue. I don't think most historians believe in original montheism, but many would place it before Babylonian exile, as the opening of this article shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergius125 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to your second post, I didn't deny that Kaufmann's revisionism is strongly challenged, nor did I say all scholars I cited supported him. Many believe that monotheism developped during the ninth, eighth or seventh centuries B.C> My edits didn't argue Kaufmann were correct. It describes him as having started a broader revisionist trend that places full monotheism somewhere before Babylonian exile. Sergius125 (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, I didn't deny that the view expressed further below in this article is the most dominant. There simply isn't a strong enough consensus, which is why the introduction reads:

"The exact transition between what is now considered monolatristic Yahwism and monotheistic Judaism is somewhat unclear, however it is evident that the event began with radical religious amendments such as the testaments of Elijah and the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah and had been fulfilled by the end of the Babylonian captivity, where the recognition of Yahweh as the sole god of the universe had finally secured a majority of the Jewish people."

This again, contradicts the later parts of the article. My edits merely improved consistency and described the persoective of scholarly views on this issue. I will provide quotes from the other scholars as soon as possible. Sergius125 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

E. Kelle page 151:

"Overall then the sum of the evidence may be construed to suggest that there was not a prominent, even nonsexual, Baal Cult in eighth-cntury Israel. Even the data that seems to suggest most directly the existence of Baal worship is limited in attestation and often connected with the domestic/private sphere."

Sergius125 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

None of that overcomes the statement of academic consensus in the articles you are citing. As I’ve said before, read wp:RS/AC. If you want to include something as a minority viewpoint, it must be clearly marked as such, not used as an excuse to add lots of qualifying statements to the article. We aren’t interested in wp:TRUTH here, only academic consensus.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me which statements of academic consensus you're referring to? Specifically consensus regarding full monotheism starting during the Babylonian exile and not during the eighth century. My interest is also academic consensus, in this case the lack thereof. Sergius125 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

See the quotes provided from Summer.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

1. He speak of the view that Monotheism developed later than when Kaufmann believes it happened as common, not a consensus, 2. The view that it developed later doesn't mean it only happened during Babylonian exile. This article itself references Albert who dated Monotheism to around the time of Hosea, but then references one historian (who erote decades earlier) to argue that most historians view Hosea and the like as monolatrists and not monotheists. That monotheism is a later development is the majority view, that this happened during Babylonian exile is a much more specific view contradicted by the lead of this very article. Again this article contradicts itself on this issue. I would love to see proof that the consensus specifically dates monotheism to Babyblonian exile (that BBC documentary dated it to a later period). Sergius125 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

He says “majority of scholars” on the last page. That statement satisfies AC.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide the quote that says this specifically regarding Monotheism developing only during the Babylonian exile and not at some previous point? 83.128.99.144 (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Summer gives two positions for when monotheism developed: In this Kaufmann differs from those who date monotheism to the exile or post-exilic period (for example, those who regard Deutero-Isaiah as the first monotheist). But Kaufmann differs no less from scholars who locate the emergence of monotheism in a Jerusalemite intellectual elite of the eighth century. These scholars regard monotheism as a response to the rise of Assyrian imperialism and its claim that Ashur was the mightiest force in the universe. But he also specifically says that Keel, Albertz, Schenker, Tigay, and Miller as well as Kaufmann "diverge" from the the majority of biblical scholars. As these are the scholars you've been trying to add, it means that they hold a minority view in the field and must be marked as such.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem marking those authors as representing a minority view. My main contention was that dating the start of Monotheism specifically to the Babylonian exile is not supported by academic consensus considering that many scholars place the start in the eighth or ninth century B.C. If you have a specific quote that states that this view also diverges from the majority of scholars than I hope you could provide it. You still haven't provided a specific quote regarding Babylonian exile. I could attempt another edit that clearly marks Kaufmann's view as a minority prspective. Sergius125 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's better, although I'm sure Kelle et al. can't actually be said to agree with Kaufmann, who dates monotheism to "Moses" according to Summers. Summer also states that other scholars are unaware of Kaufmann. I have no problem stating that some scholars date monotheism earlier than the exile, but I given that most scholars don't think Moses existed Kaufmann's view must be so minority, and is so old, that I'm not sure about your framing. I don't think we should include Kaufmann but should leave the position that monotheism may have started in the 8th or 9th centuries. Kaufmann didn't found any "revisionist" school that's noticeable as far as I can see. Tgeorgescu, Achar Sva, what do you think?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You could be right. Kaufmann's "school" is mainly the resurrection of the notion of an original monotheism based on biblical skepticism and the notion that polytheism was not actually widespread in the centuries preceeding the exile. That is where it ends pretty much. This still seems to be a minority thing, but dating full monotheism to before the exile, so to Amos, or Hosea instead of deuteroisaiah seems to be rather common and can't be dismissed as a mere minority viewpoint. My main issue was in fact that the introduction describes the exact start of monotheism as ambigious, now the rest of the text seems conistent with that. I am fine with further improvements as long as this consistency remains. As for myself, dating the start of full monotheism to Babylonian exile just seems like pure speculation. I see no clear evidence to assume that Hosea was monolatrist instead of monotheist. It seems honestly rather vague, but having re-read Amos for the sake of this analysis, I had no reaon to doubt Albright in assuming he was a full montheist, but that is just a personal aside. I at least hope it is clear now that I had no interest in defending any form of biblical literalism. Sergius125 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sergius125, when you reply to someone in a thread, please indent your reply - it makes the conversation easier to follow. Achar Sva (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I take it that Sergius is the same person as the IP 83.128.99.144 who posted at the head of this thread, is that correct? I ask because I don't want to ascribe views to Sergius if he's not 83.128.99.144.

I gather that the matter at issue is whether the view that ancient Israel was monotheistic from its inception (let's say the Late Bronze Age for argument's sake) is currently widely held in academic circles, or whether there's a consensus/near consensus that it was originally polytheistic and that monotheism evolved slowly from this original position. Correct? If so, the question can be settled by finding a modern (last 20 years, say) source saying so.

This brings up the matter of the ages of sources: scholarship is constantly changing, and we need to keep up to date. Not least, there was a major revolution in scholarly thinking in the last quarter of the 20th century: before the 1970s, everyone agreed that the documentary hypothesis had settled the question of how the Torah was composed, and everyone agreed that Abraham, Moses et. al. were real historical individuals, or at least based on such individuals. Nowadays those positions would be fringe.

To sum up: Kaufmann is too old to be used as a source; look at books written in the last 20 years, 25 at a pinch; try to find a source stating explicitly what the consensus is (might be found in the form "most scholars agree" or something like that); when citing the source, give author, title, and page number.Achar Sva (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(Here's the first page of results I got on a search of origin+monotheism+israel - all these would meet the criteria for recent(ish) reliable source.Achar Sva (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to get back into the swing of things. I was replying to Ermenrich. Yes, that was my IP adress, I created an account on the English wiki based on my old Dutch one.

You are somewhat right at identifying the first issue but it is even more complicated because certain scholars don't believe in original monotheism nor a widespread polytheism but just a more constant monolatrism. More importantly is the question of when Yahwism would have become full monotheism. I agree that Kaufmann is too old, he simply started a certain school which opposed the documentary hypothesis. Certain of have claims have been vindicated by recent discoveries. The main issue is that more reccent scholarship often places the start of full monotheism to before the exile. Problem is that there currently seems to be no real consensus, just differing speculative views struggling for dominance. Sergius125 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So it seems all editors are agreed that Kaufmann is not to be used as a reliable source, on account of the age of his scholarship. So the issue is then whether there is or is not a general consensus around the emergence of monotheism in ancient Israel. As this discussion is already very long, and as the Kaufmann question seems not to be contentious, I'll open a new thread below on the consensus (or lack of) surrounding the emergence of monotheism in ancient Israel. Se below. Achar Sva (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the qualification that kaufmann is a relevant starting point for a new school og thought that challenged the consensus that had dominated before him and he is still a reference point for a lot of modern scholars. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction in the text

This part:

"The exact transition between what is now considered monolatristic Yahwism and monotheistic Judaism is somewhat unclear, however it is evident that the event began with radical religious amendments such as the testaments of Elijah and the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah and had been fulfilled by the end of the Babylonian captivity, where the recognition of Yahweh as the sole god of the universe had finally secured a majority of the Jewish people."

Seems to conflict with:

The worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah in the 9th century BCE, and at the latest with Hosea in the 8th; even then it remained the concern of a small party before gaining ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period.[9] The early supporters of this faction are widely regarded as being monolatrists rather than true monotheists,[17] as instead of believing that Yahweh was the only god in existence, they instead believed that he was the only god the people of Israel should worship,[18] a noticeable departure from the traditional beliefs of the Israelites, nonetheless. It was during the national crisis of the exile that the followers of Yahweh went a step further and finally outright denied that the other deities aside from Yahweh even existed, thus marking the transition from monolatrism to true monotheism, and from Yahwism to Judaism.[19]

The edits smooth of this disrepancy, in as much as they provide sources shwing the spectrum of opinions regarding the exact start of strict monotheism. Describing its origins as disputed in one part but as unquestionably during the Babylonin exile would seem contradictory. Hopefully the edits, additional sources and information help provide a more balanced, consistent and scholarly article. Sergius125 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It says that the seeds of monotheism were planted earlier, but that they came to fruition during the Exile. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet the first part says that it is unclear when they came to fruition exactly. That it is not agreed upon when exactly monolatristic Judaism embraced monotheism. That contradicts the second part which states as a fact that this happened during Babylonian exile. Many historians do view Hosea as one of the first advocates of full momnotheism, though they often disagree with Kaufmann's perspective and agree to monotheism was a development. Just one they date 2 centuriess earlier. Sergius125 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Spectrum of dates

When it xomes to the starting point of full Monotheism, I have noted 4 perspectives:

On one extreme there is Kaufmann and his supporters: E. Kelle, H. Tigay, Sommer, Milgrom.

Those with a slightly mofied perspective: Albright and Albertz.

The eighth century view: Levin and Keel.

And the eighth century one perfectly described in this article.

A fifth perhaps centers on Jeremiah and King Josiah. Sergius125 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone got a source?

This is the second sentence of the first para of the lead, and is unsourced - anyone got a source?

• "Yahweh was one of the many gods and goddesses of the pantheon of gods of the Land of Canaan, the southern portion of which would later come to be called the Land of Israel. Yahwism thus evolved from Canaanite polytheism, which in turn makes Yahwism the monolatristic primitive predecessor stage of Judaism in Judaism‘s evolution into a monotheistic religion."

(Monolastric? Is that a word?) Achar Sva (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is an official term. It means you only worship one god even while not denying the existence of other gods. But its exact relation to Judaism, whether Judaism ever was monolatristic and when and how it may have become fully monotheist are more disputed. I agree that a lot of statements in this article aren't adequately sourced. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources for the modern scholarly consensus on monotheism and Yahwism

As I noted in a thread above, we need a new thread on this question of Yahwism and the emergence of monotheism. To put that another way, what can we say about the state of current scholarship on the nature of Yahwism vis-a-vis polytheism, monolatry, and monotheism? I'd like to start the ball rolling by drawing your attention to Robert Karl Gnuse's No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel: published in 1997, it's a little old (23 years can be a long time), but should form a good starting point. His chapter 2, titled Recent Scholarship on the Development of Monotheism, is a survey of leading scholars up to that point (begins on page 62). He says that "newer models" (newer in the 1990s) describe Israelite monotheism as a process of "gradual emergence" (pages 62-63). After surveying earlier scholarship, he says that "more recently" (closer to the 1990s) "scholars appear to affirm the idea" that monotheism emerged in the Exile after a long period of evolution (page 69). In other words, he says that in the late 1990s there was a growing agreement that (a) Israelite monotheism evolved out of previous non-monotheism, and (b) this point reached its conclusion in the Exile.
More recent is this 2007 paper Aniconism in the Old Testament by Nathan MacDonald; he mentions a post-1980s "substantial shifting" in the scholarly consensus regarding the origins of Israelite monotheism - essentially repeating Gnuse, but note that he's talking about a consensus. "The Deuteronomistic version of Yahwism, with its strict monotheistic faith ... is now generally viewed as a late development..." (page 20). That's a clear statement of the general position as of the first decade of the 21st century.
Finally, David Penchansky cautions against sweeping statements of the "Israelites were X" variety - real live Israelites were many things. The Introduction to his "Twilight of the Gods" of 2005 is worth using in our article for that perspective. In the same vein is Herbert Neihr's "Israelite Religion and Canaanite Religion", in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel edited by Judah Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton - this is from 2010, so the most recent of the volumes I've touched on. Niehr says there's no common consensus on how monotheism developed in Judah, but that full monotheism arrived not in the Exile but during the Persian period and later. (Page 31). But that, I think, takes us beyond Yahwism and into the evolution of monotheism, which is a different subject with its own article. Achar Sva (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your post perfectly underlines the problem with a consensus on this issue. While there does appear to be a growing consensus on a gradually emerging monotheism, that this reached its final stage during the exile was recently questioned by Albright, Albertz, Keel and levine amongst others. While some scholars do assert there is a consensus, this is unfortunately like the notion of an orthodox scholarly view regarding the Spanish Civil War even though anout half of the historians on the subject are actually so called revisionists. One side claims to be the consensus/orthodox views, the other side contests this claim along with the historical views that are propagated. Your last source is perfect in that it places the development of Monotheism to the Persian period. Maybe this source should be added with a reference to that historical perspective, since we added another one. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think you’ve understood the post. William F. Albright has been dead for years and so he can’t be used as a challenge—it’s specifically his version of things that’s been rejected in recent years. Achar Sva appears to show a clear consensus against what you want to add to the article: there’s some disagreement about when monotheism emerged, but not to the extent that we can speak of “no consensus”. It appears to have been late based on the sources above. We don't get to choose when wp:RS/AC applies or not. The only criteria is how recent and whether we have evidence of the consensus having been challenged by recent scholarship--something which is also best sourced to a statement of academic consensus.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't just cite Albright though. I referenced other authors who wrote during the last 15 years. The lack of consensus regarding Babylonian exile is extensive as the fact that certain sources now claim the consensus dates the start ofMonotheism to the persian period shows. Kaufmann's followers have remained a minority indeed, those who date the start of Monotheism to the eighth century B.C. have not. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:INDENT your posts. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. No one disputes that different dates are given. There are late dates and there are some early dates. That doesn't change the fact that these are the consensus positions. You may not understand what consensus means in Wikipedia-speak. Scholarly consensus here means that scholars agree that this or the following positions are possible. It does not mean absolute agreement. We can speak about a consensus here because certain positions (monotheism developed gradually) is mainstream, whereas the position of Kaufmann or Albright is no longer held by mainstream scholars. You can't cite Kaufmann and Albright together with other more recent figures to make a point when these other figures do not agree with Kaufmann or Albright--and often say so explicitly. It's unclear to me what exactly you are trying to accomplish.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to Ermerich, so which consensus? The eight century B.C. one? The Babylonian exile one, or the Persian period one? Yes, monotheism developed gradually is the consensus, that it reached its final stage during the exile is not. The introduction of this article outright says that. I cited kaufmann and Albright as a minority school that goes against the consensus. The position that full Monotheism started in response to Assyrian imperialism is not a fringe one at all. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, please indent your posts, and also please log in to edit. Kaufmann and Albright are not a minority school, they are pieces of the history of scholarship at this point. No one is saying that the Assyrian theory is fringe. Consensus does not need to be on a single time to be a consensus. As I said, you don't appear to understand what we mean by consensus here. The fact that there is some disagreement on the date does not change the fact that there is a scholarly consensus about a development of monotheism with several proposed dates (with the late date appearing to be the majority opinion). If the article is unclear about this, we can change it, but not in such a way that it obfuscates the general scholarly consensus on the matter. If MacDonald says there's a consensus, we have to follow him unless we find a more recent source saying that this is no longer consensus or that a new consensus has emerged.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know yet how to indent my posts. I cannot log in currently. It seems like we agree on everything though. I agree that Kaufmann and Albright are largely history. They are merely still a referencing point on a few issues. I didn't deny that there was a consensus that monitheism emerged gradually. My edits were largely about when and how. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see wp:INDENT about how to indent. Basically you use the colon key (:).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's pause for some housekeeping. Sergius125, have you lost access to your account entirely, or can you get it back? If you can't get it back, you'll need to seek help from an administrator rather than create a new account, as using multiple accounts is accounted a major sin in Wikipedialand. Also, it would be a big help if you could link to specific books when you need to, the way I did above. You do this by using square brackets [], and between them you put first the url of the google book page for that book (e.g. https://books.google.com/books/about/Collected_Stories.html?id=GuMx_CW9oOMC for the collected stories of Peter Carey), then a space, then whatever text you want to use as the link (e.g. Peter Carey). Using that example, my result would be Peter Carey. (Important: if your url shows a country code, meaning two letters after the .com, remove it, as it will identify what country you're from.) Please note in your post what page you want us to look at. Achar Sva (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it back. I didn't create a different account. I have linked to specific books multiple times if you look back in the chat. The current edits seems like an improvement. The only thing that still sounds POV is the suggestion that the Babylonian exile date is a generally agreed upon fact while it is one of multiple suggestions, with others being the Persian period as well as the seventh century B.C. Sergius125 (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, I'm happy you got your account back. I guess when you say that the current edits seem like an improvement you're talking about this: "Yahwism was the religion of the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel (Samaria),[1] where Yahweh was the main god throughout most of the monarchic period.[3]" What I was trying to do there was define the subject ("Yahwism was..."). Since this section is headed History, I'll next try to find sources that discuss the origins of Yahwism - that will complete a first paragraph for the section. Another paragraph (or perhaps a new section) can discuss how Yahwism was the precursor to Judaism, and the differences between them - off-hand, I'd say that Yahwism was not monotheistic, and was tied to the Judean kingship (the king was the earthly viceroy of the god). But I haven't looked into that yet and so can't forecast anything.

Incidentally, regarding sourcing, did you see how I did that in this sentence? There are two sources, Miller and Pallaka. Each is placed at the end of the piece of information they support, and each follows, as closely as possible, the wording of the original. I also had to add one book to the bibliography - Miller was already there, but Pallaka was not. You get the idea - every idea/fact must be sourced, and the book involved has to be in the bibliography. Achar Sva (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

United Monarchy

@Karma1998: To establish the existence of the United Monarchy, archaeologists would have to answer to http://www.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm . And such answer can only be a smoking gun. AFAIK, no such smoking gun has been found. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The existence of the United Monarchy is supported by the majority of mainstream archaeologists, who adhere to Amihai Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology. Recent archeological discoveries by Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel at Jerusalem and Khirbet Qeiyafa also support Mazar's position. Even the Israeli Antiquities Authorities has clearly stated that "it can no longer be assumed that urbanisation began in Judeah only from the 8th century BCE" -Karma1998 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I will grant you there is a majority of scholars who support the United Monarchy if you grant my point that such United Monarchy has very little in common with the Davidic-Solomonic Empire described in the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What I am not saying:

1. David did not exist.
2. David wasn't a king.
3. The United Monarchy did not exist.

What I am saying:

1. king could mean everything from village head to mighty emperor.
2. David and Solomon did not have an empire/mini-empire.
3. There is no evidence that David and Solomon ruled over a state from Jerusalem to Shephelah.

So, what I am basically saying is: there is no evidence for the existence of such state, I do not even claim that David and Solomon did not have a state (since maybe that was a city-state or whatever). tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are you debating the historicity of the United Monarchy here? It seems off-topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: This is mainly over the information in the last sentence of the lead section, I believe. Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bigoted trolling

Stating that Baruch Halpern, Richard Elliott Friedman, and Shaye J. D. Cohen write Nazi Hitlerist theories is bigoted trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Torah section raised at the no original research noticeboard

Sorry, but this looks very much like original research and I've raised it at WP:NORN. 18:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Minority of Israelites monotheistic

Hey I discussed this [| here].

In this article it says this. There is a broad consensus among modern scholars that the religion of the Israelites prior to the Babylonian exile was basically polytheistic, involving a plethora of gods and goddesses.

I’m not arguing against the consensus but it’s misleading to say monotheism didn’t exist in the region back then and there a good amount of reliable sources that say monotheism existed in the region before the exile.CycoMa (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that that's so in view of what our source says, but you're welcome to give us your alternative sources.Achar Sva (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: in that discussion I used a source from Princeton. So it's probably reliable.CycoMa (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is covered in the article Yahweh. Maybe the two articles should be merged. Achar Sva (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: you know that might be a great idea. I’m gonna add a merge tag to the top.CycoMa (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Plus I think merging Yahweh and Yahwism is a good idea because as someone who writes articles on deities there really isn’t much you can say about the god Yahweh himself. Like there is nothing about myths involving him. His characteristics. Or anything like that.CycoMa (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, you'll need to open a thread on both article talk pages headed "merger proposal, Yahweh/Yahwism" (or similar), with the discussion itself taking place on only one of those. You then need to open the main discussion, outlining the reasons for the proposal. There should be instructions around somewhere. Achar Sva (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure enough, instructions here. The destination page would presumably be the Yahweh article, so the discussion should take place there. Achar Sva (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

@YoungKingCole: The section cites for reference No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel by Robert Gnuse. It, in other words, cites Gnuse's view. The section does not cite the Bible or any biblical text. If something in the Bible discounts the statement - it does not matter, because the source is not the Bible. The source is Gnuse 1997. Gnuse 1997 is a scholary work. The Bible is religious literature. Former trumps latter. Zhomron (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Zhomron: It is not represented as a scholarly opinion, it is represented as a fact. The quotation asserts that David was naked, which is false. It does not assert what it should, namely, that scholars such as Gnuse assert that David was naked. The quote needs to be modified to reflect that it is the opinion of a scholar, not the uncontroversial truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungKingCole (talk • contribs)

How do you know that it is false? Does the Bible even claim that it is false? Or it is simply silent thereupon? Anyway, the Bible is not a reliable source, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.

Anyway, even taking the biblical text at face value, there is still a hint that David was acting improperly, by exposing parts of his body (e.g. arms), which was not allowed next to the Ark. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

His arms? I still have a couple of books claiming that he was exposing his genitals. Dimadick (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What in God's name are we even talking about anymore Zhomron (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Arms is just a guess, the text is not specific, but there is a underlying suggestion of impropriety. All men approaching the Ark (no women allowed), were supposed to be fully dressed, from top to toe. Otherwise lightning was supposed to strike them dead. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)