Talk:Yam (god)

message: I added extensive references and conformed the text of the article to them.  Added explanation to adapt to consensus and clarify quotations. --Castanea dentata 21:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section

message: The equation of Yam with Satan and the devil in the Garden of Eden is a personal POV and is not supported by research or references.  I am therefore deleting it.John D. Croft (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed for deletion

message: :Interesting question.  Consistency in the names of the gods in English seems to be one of the things that is just now developing.  I think that as more interest in Ugarit grows that consistency will increase.  I found one site you can look at that is moderatelty accurate, it says at the bottom of the page:  
::Yawi is attested as a personal name in some older Canaanite cities east of Ugarit. Additionally, there is a reference in the Myths from Ugarit to Yah/ Yaw/ Yawu being the original name of Yam the Ocean who, among other things, represents uncontrollable destructive winter storms, especially on the sea. The reference is a singular one at Ugarit, but later Phoenician sources refer to a god named Iahu, Iaio, Ieuo (in Philo of Byblos' "Phoenician History"), also mentioned in some other writings. 
:I think this article I Googled up is alright (although somewhat misleading).  That Yaw is the original name of the god is correct.  It might be more accurate to say that it is his proper name, but Yamm is a nickname.  Yamm is an ordinary word meaning, as you say, "sea."  They are almost the same in pronunciation, so you can see why poetry might use the ordinary word instead of the cultic name.
:Hadad has a similar problem.  He is most always called Baal, which is why you have the "Baal Cycle."  However, his proper sacred name is Hadad.  He is called Baal because ordinary people weren't supposed to say his cultic name.  But Baal is an ordinary word for "lord", and other gods, household idols, and people are also called "Baal".  Wikipedians saw this as a problem:  On the one hand, almost all the literature calls him Baal, so shouldn't the article be titled Baal?  On the other hand, other things are called Baal, so shouldn't he be called by his proper name Hadad to reduce confusion?  At present, there are two articles dealing roughly with the same topic, Baal and Hadad.
:The other gods from Ras Shamra (Ugarit) also are called by different names, depending on the author.  Some use the Ugaritic spellings, but since many authors are in Biblical studies, they use the Biblical spellings, which really date to the early Middle Ages/late Classical period.  On one hand, this makes sense, since many people are familiar with the Biblical spellings, but very few have even heard of Ugarit.  On the other hand, to be consistent, should we perhaps research the Ugaritic spellings and use them, at some point?
:--Castanea dentata 17:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need Elamite as well, which is non-semitic and non-indo-european. And a few others. I really wouldn't advocate learning all the languages of the myths, learning German is much more useful - a large portion of the research is written in German (owing to it having been done by Germans and Austrians). --Victim of signature fascism 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier replies to the above question

message: Sorry, i'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but I'm feeling suspicious of the accuracy of this article.  In the part where it talks about YHWH, God of Israel and connections to the Canaanite god Yaw, it has some especially dubious etymologies of the names Ya‘el and Yabin, associating them with YHWH based on the Ya- prefix.  However, Yabin is transparently a form of the verb BYN 'understand', with _ya-_ a verbal (third-person masculine) prefix.  Similarly, Ya‘el has nothing to do with YHWH or El, but instead of the word for _ibex_.  It's spelled with a ‘ayin in the middle, not an alef as would be expected for a name referencing the god El.
January 26, 2006 / 5:00pm EST
:I couldn't find Ya'el and Yabin in there now.  Maybe someone caught them from your good note here and took them out.  If so, good work!  Castanea dentata 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Root etymology of Yahweh

message: I was wondering, do anyone here know the best books to buy to get a general overview of Yaw/Yam scholarship and studies, especially the Baal Cycle, and as well as of the current discussions on the topic. Those here who edit this article seem pretty knowledgeable in the field, and I'd like to atleast get an overview of the general consensus, especially when it comes to the Yaw's relation with the other gods in the Ugaritic and/or Canaanite pantheon, as well with other different gods of the various Semitic mythologies. I'm particularly interested when it comes to him possibly largely influencing the modern concept of Satan(of which the poetic parts of the Book of Job, as well as Psalms, seem to demonstrate), as it would seem make sense to me if he was a byproduct of a mythological blending of sorts. It would be nice if there is any which contains info that show how various deities and spirits are connected to other Semitic cognates and counterparts, and if it contains any archaeology(as I'm going to study anthropology, I consider at least some archaeology a must). I'm particulary interested when it comes to deities such as Yaw relation to othe gods, such as El, Hadad, Asherah and Mot, as well as any info regarding his various dragonic servant(or more epithets, such as Nahar, Rahab, or Tannin). And preferably not any of those heartattack-providing 100$ tomes, if it can be avoided. I've looked around for a number of books, but I'm not sure what the best ones to get are. I realize that this may be asking to much, but as I'd really like to know more about it, I would appreciate any help. Thanks in advance.  Satanael 22:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books on Yaw

message: Someone shifted back to Yam with no prior discussion. Perhaps he could enlighten us and the person who formerly advocated the priority of Yaw over Yam, and vice-versa? Unsigned, but by an anonymous user with the IP address 201.8.7.17.
:The shift back to Yam (didn't know it had been Yam originally) was done because Yam is the standard name for the god in academic publications while Yaw is a hapax legomenon in one verse in the Baal epic on a damaged column. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yam

message: According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary the cuneiform sign formerly translated Ya is now usually translated as Ni and is not a divine name.  Yaw in the Ugarit texts is, as Kuratowski says, a highly disputed reading.  "Yhw in the land of the Shasu" (a place-name in southern Transjordan) in New Kingdom Egyptian inscriptions seems to be the only generally accepted pre-Israelite reference to Yahweh- in this case among the Shasu tribes who likely made up a large component of Israelite ancestry anyway.
As has been said, most websites making the Yahweh-Yaw connection seem to be of a strong neopagan persuasion.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they do seem to have a certain fascination with connecting Yahweh to any other deity in the region they can come up with.--Rob117 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section, that you have tagged as lacking "factual accuracy" seems to be written in plain English, without "collateral" meanings, presenting information from a variety of sources and well sourced (as a research either on comparative mythology, of linguistics, or in any other field should be). The data you present in first paragraph can be introduced in the section, and sourced, but it is not enough to accuse lack of factual accuracy to the whole section. I am reverting the tag. --88.214.142.193 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Abijah/Abijam is not the only time we see a Theophoric name where sometimes what God's name is used is change.  The fact is it is the enemy of Yam, Baal who has similar traits to Yah, both ruling from Zephon for examples.  And a verse in Hosea clearly says Baal had been used as a name for Yah.  So the vilification of Baal in the Hebrew Bible is more about how to worship then who to worship.  Yam is arguably linked to Satan in The Bible, in Isaiah 27, and Psalm 89.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yah at Ebla is not secure either. 

message: This article should not use the term "THE LORD" as a translation for the Caananite 'god' Ba'al, as it may falsely lead someone to believe that the 'god' being refered to here is the Biblical God of Israel (YHWH). -- EmperorBMA|話す 03:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "THE LORD" 

message: Please explain how the deleted section was POV pushing. According to NPOV policy and reliable sources, I attempted to introduce cited information back into the article. I substantiated and qualified some of the claims, and removed a number of the claims supported by non-reliable sources. Half of the paragraphs involved have to do with general history and research, not the Yam/YHWH hypothesis. I think there is a lot of good information in this section that needs to be included. If I missed something, I think we can work on this section to make it usable, not delete it wholeheartedly. Compare this diff to see that I removed a bit of information from the previous version, and worked to improve the section, instead of just deleting it. I still believe its workable, so I am asking for specific, tangible concerns that need to be addressed.--Andrew c 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you similarly fill the article on say Krishna with a lengthy discussion on the New Testament and possible connections between "Christ" and "Krishna"? Perhaps there is a place for the material in an article on fringe comparative religion schools of thought although even there it should be neutral and not make nonsense statements using tentative decipherment of Ebla texts and dodgy readings of damaged text and dubious etymologies Kuratowski's Ghost 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand undue weight completely, however (i'm not trying to be rude) but have you read the deleted material? It states the first historical mention of the deity's name. There is a quote that doesn't push the theory, but makes a comparison about name use outside of Israel. Then there is a paragraph about a scholar who compares Yah to Ea (not Yahweh). And much more relevent historical information. Maybe we can cut out the parts that talk about the Masoretic manuscripts and Septuagint? I see no reason why everything needs to be deleted. I ask again, can we not work on this?--Andrew c 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please talk things out before reverting? I am not trying to put unsourced minority claims into the article. But I feel you are deleting sourced, verifiable information that is HELPFUL to this article. Compare the 3 different edits I made. I have been cutting down the information in the previous versions that seems objectable or unsourced. Please work with me to make this article better. The version you keep reverting to is sloppy because it included the archaic code for references that aren't even used anymore. Look at the diff. Reverting like this doesn't help and isn't in the spirit of community cooperation.--Andrew c 01:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the edits are introducing inaccurate and unreliable information. The reading Yaw in the Baal Epic is conjectural - the text is damaged. Even if correct, "Yaw" has nothing to do with any Biblical name for God. Hebrew name for God has consonents Y-h-w-h, the known pronunciations of shortened forms being Yahu, Yah, Y'ho and Yo, there is no "Yaw" and moreover the shortened forms are late. Current translations of Ebla texts do not have a Ya or Yaw. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I believe I cut just about everything that a) wasn't souced and b) dealt with these topics that were only sourced by fringe, new-age websites. The remaining content had little to do with these theories you are attacking, and were cited. Please review the content, change what isn't accurate and discuss other further improvements. Like I said, your reverts are sloppy, and you seem to show no interest at all in keeping content that passes WP:V and WP:CITE. I honestly believe there is salvagable content there. I don't care about the hypothetical Yam/YHWH connection, and I am not trying to push a minority POV. --Andrew c 17:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing? 

message: I really feel uncomfortable with the current article that lists "Yaw" and "Ya'a" as alternate names for Yam. I cannot find any instance of them in Ugaritic texts, As far as I know these are speculative readings of damaged texts?? Kuratowski's Ghost 11:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been found there in the past.  Friedrich Delitzsch was the first to find Ya'a, others have since found Yaw.  So as to cross reference individual searches on these older names they are included in the article.  Perhaps a statement that some dispute their occurrence at all might be satisfactory.  Regards John D. Croft 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yaw and Ya'a?

message: What does this mean? 68.124.136.101 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's the first sentence in the section "Speculation over connections between Yam and YHWH". what is the author talking about? 68.124.136.101 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that tablets are damaged and the text cannot be clearly read and what it says is largely conjecture which is why it is typically not included in translations of the Baal Epic.  Kuratowski's Ghost 03:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an explanation of KTU at the KTU disambiguation page. - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that the inability to read a damaged text ever stopped a scholar from reading it. PiCo (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Damaged text in KTU 1.2 iv" 

message: I have added connections with Hurrian and Hittie mythology, as a connection between Baal, Teshub and Tarhunt (as Storm Gods) is clearly apparent, as in the connection between Illuyanka (Illu = God, anka = Serpent) and Leviathan.  Through this there is a connection with Tiamat and Abzu, and their battles with Enlil and Marduk (who was sometimes called Bel).
The connection with Christian traditions (which seems to identify the Messiah with Baal, a dubious connection in my estimation), and with Norse and Hindu traditions is extremely tenuous and needs citation.  John D. Croft (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have sourced those very far fetched "similarities". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities with other traditions

message: All right, it has become obvious that Kuratowski is just trying to cloud the possibility of etymological ties, and is also removing the neutrality from the information in this section. His argumentation is inconsistent. 
No.1: he retains the information stating that the original pronunciation of "YW" is unknown, but removes the information stating that the original pronunciation of "YHWH" is likewise unknown. This is not balanced, and is thus not neutral and thus against Wikipedia standards. You will either address the pronunciation of both, or the pronunciation of neither. Period. As long as you keep retaining the info that the true pronunciation of "YW" is unknown, which it is, then I will keep reinserting the equally valid info that the true pronunciation of "yhwh" is likewise unknown. 
No.2: Even though it is established that the pronunciation is unknown, he continues to use Smith's pronunciation to set up a strawman against his "mater lectionis" argument, which is completely irrelevant, because if the original pronunciation is unknown, which it is, then the spelling does not matter. You can't argue spelling against pronuncation when the pronunciation is unknown, that is comparing "apples to oranges" and is a logical fallacy. Either compare spelling to spelling and/or vocalization to vocalization, but using vocalization vs spelling, especially when one of those is unavailable, is an invalid premise from which to argue. 
No.3: Claiming that the first "heh" in yhwh is part of the root(as per Douglas Stuart), is a red herring, because the true origins of "yhwh" are unknown, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Pronunciation as well as http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/YHWH.html paragraph 6. The logic in Kura's argument here is like arguing that my cousin & I do not have the same grandfather just because we don't have the same father. Now this is not to say that yw & yhwh are for certain "cousins", but it IS to say that the reasoning by Kura on this point is flawed and is no argument against the possibility of etymological ties, and that the citation of Stuart does not rule out a possibility of a relationship between yw/yaw/ya'a and yhwh/yah.
Also, the "root" in discussion by Stuart(p.401) only works from the theoretical premise that yhwh is derived from hwh, which not only has criticism, but as a theory, is just as valid or invalid as Smith's theory on yw/yaw. This is why I keep reiterating that Kuratoski is not being neutral. He has asserted as fact something which is a theory(Stuart & hwh), all the while removing information concerning another equally valid/invalid theory(Smith & yaw). Just as it is not an established fact that yw=yaw or that yaw=yahweh, it is likewise also NOT an established fact that yhwh=yah+hwh. 
Both of these theories have recieved criticism, yet in Kura's edit, only criticism of Smith's theory is mentioned. Both of the words in question have a true vocalization that is unknown, and origins that are equally unknown, yet Kura only mentions that yw's vocalization is unknown, while removing the same fact about yhwh. He has a clear bias against the theory of Smith, and that's fine, Kura has the right to his/her opinion, but that bias has no place on Wikipedia articles, which are supposed to be neutral and present all available information from an unbiased perspective. I will continue to restore the neutrality of this section for as long as takes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.166.214 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Kuratowski's edit continues to show bias instead of neutrality, and uses flawed logic

message: *1. The entire article is very light on references/citations - the first one comes more than halfway through, and the remaining seven are all concentrated in a single paragraph. 
*2. The section "Epic of Baal"logically comes first (after the lead): tell your readers who/what Yam is before dealing with speculations/interpretations.
*3. I'm missing some explanation of where our knowledge of Yam, Baal and the rest come from - a brief overview of the sources (Ugaritic tablets?) would be useful - it would also be an opportunity to explain what the cryptic references to KTU 1.2 iv etc. mean.
*4. At least some of the statements in the article seem questionable to the point of eccentricity - notably the equation of Yam with the Messiah.
PiCo (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. The last bit of the comparisons are confusing, and should be elaborated. TheMadChild (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Below are a number of notes that have no inline citations in the article, originally in the old Note template style. I have cleaned up the citation style and removed them. If an editor of the article knows where any should go, just move it to the appropriate place, the Reflist template will then display them in the Notes section.
The Septuagint, written in Greek, does not contain the Tetragrammaton. Since the original Hebrew texts from which it was translated have long since disappeared, it is not known in which passages YHWH may have been written.
- Johannes C. De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, (Peeters Publishers, 2001).
- Gerald A. Larue, Old Testament Life and Literature (1968).  (Accessed 2005.12.4)
- Mike Magee, "The Truth about the Jewish Scriptures I". (Accessed 2005.12.26)
- Michael S. Heiser, Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God. (Accessed 2005.12.4)
- Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. (Accessed 2005.12.4)
- "Sons of El" is from the Qumran text, LXX has "angels of God".
- Joel Kalvesmaki, The Septuagint Online, (October 15, 2005). (Accessed 2006.2.15)
- Bryan T. Huie, The Heavenly Divine Council, (September 28, 2002).  (Accessed 2005.12.4)
- Richard Freund, interviewed by Gary Hochman and Matthew Collins, NOVA.  "Ancient Refuge in the Holy Land". (Accessed 2005.12.26)
- Alan Fuller, "Re: A question about the introducing beasts", Fri, 25 October 2002 16:02:20 -0000 (Accessed 2005.12.26), and Jean Philippe Fontanille, Menorah Coin Project "H426", (bottom of page). (Accessed 2005.12.26)
-- Enki H. (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes without inline citations 

message: I have seen no evidence of Yam ever coming back to life or anything like that. Source it, or remove it. I've always seen Yam just being killed. 68.51.151.159 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yam comes BACK?

message: I believe it is Mark Smith who shows that Yahweh too was referred to as Ba'al early on in the scriptures.  So when we see Ba'al we need to be careful, exactly whom is being referred to. John D. Croft (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahweh referred to as Ba'al

message: Here is an example of garbled writing.  "Of all the gods, despite being the champion of El, Yam holds special hostility against Baal Hadad, son of Dagon."  It is impossible to sort out the who is the "champion of El."  Is it Yam?  Is it Ba'al Hadad?  Generally, somebody needs to go back through and make sure the clauses make sense together.  This is an example, but generally the writing is not clear.  One has to know what the author is sayng, before one can figure out what the writer is saying.Hypercallipygian (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled 

message: Seems that somewhere along the lines, someone confused Yam (the man-like deity) for his servant Lotan (the serpent-like deity). Much of this article is actually discussing Lotan/Lowtan and its equivalents (Lewiatan, Jörmungandr, Tiamat, Vritra, et al.), not Yam. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in the article