Talk:Ancient Semitic religion

message: I didn't edit it simply because I don't dismiss things just because I think there is a problem. I also am not certain if Ishtar was ever equated with Zarpanit, but I thought Zarpanit was the husband of Marduk and not Ishtar? I could be mistaken. Abdishtar (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ishtar as Marduk's husband? 

message: There appears to be something missing in the phrase "a name of god Judaism and cognate to Islam's Allah."
:Fixed. But next time, fix it yourself. It's a wiki after all. Anyone can edit it (Encyclopædia Dramatica is an exeption). ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 06:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in Second Paragraph? 

message: per :Category:Ancient Semitic religions, should we move this to Ancient Semitic religion, extending the article's scope? dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: How can Asherah be related to `Ashtoreth and Ishtar when one begins with original aleph (glottal stop) and the other begins with original `ayin (a voiced pharyngeal)?? AnonMoos 00:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my fault, I know the diference between aleph and ayn. I did it right, but a lot of people always mix it up and I am not interessted to change it all the time. This is a typical problem of Wikipedia. al-Qamar, 14. March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.60.165.18 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I signed in and changed the nonsense. But I am wondering why you AnonMoos did not change this. --Al-Qamar 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent nonsense (Problem etymology)

message: I removed the following as offtopic (belongs on Canaan):
The Levant region was inhabited by people who themselves referred to the land as 'ca-na-na-um' as early as the mid-third millenium BCEAubet, Maria E., (1987, 910 "The Phoenicians and the West", (Cambridge University Press, New York) p.9.  There are a number of possible etymologies for the word.  
Some suggest the name comes from Hebrew "cana'ani" word meant merchant, for which, as Phoenicians the Canaanites became justly famous. 
The Akkadian word "kinahhu", however, referred to the red-colored wool, dyed from the Murex molluscs of the coast, which was throughout history a key export of the region. When the Greeks later traded with the Canaanites, this meaning of the word seems to have predominated as they called the Canaanites the Phoenikes or "Phoenicians", which may derive from the Greek word "Phoenix" meaning crimson or purple, and again described the cloth for which the Greeks also traded. The Romans transcribed "phoenix" to "poenus", thus calling the descendants of the Canaanite settlers in Carthage "Punic".  
Thus while Phoenician and Canaanite refer to the same culture, archaeologists and historians commonly refer to the Bronze Age, pre-1200 BCE Levantines as Canaanites and their Iron Age descendants, particularly those living on the coast as Phoenicians.  More recently, the term Canaanite has been used for the secondary Iron Age states of the interior, that were not ruled by Aramaean peoples, a separate and closely related ethnic group, a group which included the Philistines and the states of Israel and Judah.Tubb, Jonathan "The Canaanites" (British Museum Press)
--dab (𒁳) 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cut from article

message: This might be understood as implying that all the gods and goddesses on the list were worshipped together at some time or place -- which would seem to be rather unlikely... AnonMoos 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pantheon" section heading

message: To clarify, one should not refer to Ugarit as being in Canaan, as this is technically not so - rather Ras Shamra is located in Northern Syria. --129.67.116.34 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugarit - In Syria, not Canaan 

message: information on wikipedia requires reliable sources, as such this article has been tagged for improvement January 2010.--Ishmaelblues (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: sources

message: All Indo-European religions (including ones still practiced, like Hinduism and Germanic heathenism) descend from Proto-Indo-European religion, infact all other religions descend from a proto-religion, yet Judaism sprouted from nowhere and at the most is only influenced by the Proto-Semitic relgion?! This is complete, bias nonsense. Judaism is descended from the Ancient Semitic religion just as other Canaan religions, the Phoenician religion and Arabian polytheism are. Abraham didn't just pull a religion out of his hat one day, he caused a religion to evolve and form, just as the Buddha did from the Indo-European shramanic traditions. The claim otherwise is complete nonsense, highly suspect and not very encyclopedic. Why should Abrahamic faiths has more validity and protection than, say, Hinduism, on a secular encyclopedia?
It is just another example of one of the cliques that have cropped up on this site which ruin things with their biases, pseudo-science and fanatical theism.
Giving the correct origin for a religion on a secular encyclopedia is not controversial at all. If people find it controversial, they can kindly move to a non-secular wikia. 86.131.245.123 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have very little idea what the point of that tirade was, but the fact remains that the only real feature of early Semitic religions which was adopted into Judaism was the idea of "El" as a high god who presides over some kind of heavenly council or assembly.  Almost everything else was discarded -- and in the Hebrew Bible the forms Elohim and YHWH are used much more frequently than El to refer to the God of Israel.  Therefore Judaism was quite atypical of Canaanite religions or religions of Semitic-speaking peoples, and there's no reason why the article can't reflect this... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I have a point of disagreement with the above - I would posit that there is a definable, "central semitic" tradition, from which Judaism and Islam both descended from. And Christianity, but through a schism with Judaism. "Central semitic" consisting of the northwest semites, and the Arabs, who are the closest relation to the Northwest Semites. The Arabs themselves diverging from the other central semites around 1700 BC. Older, more basal Semitic traditions, from a time when the Ancient Egyptians and East semites and such were united with the Central semites, have a more tangential connection. But since the two main surviving strands of the Semitic traditions are Central Semitic in origin, and what most people are in fact referring to when they speak of "semites", the central semites are the most relevant group to examine. "Central semitic" would include the Babyloninan empire under Hammurabi - many people have noted similarities between the theology and mythology of the Babylonians and the ancient Jews. However Hammurabi was actually an Aramaen, a central semitic people who invaded and took over Mesopotamia from the West sometime around 1700 BC. So much of that lore, is actually central Semitic and origin, and shows a closer relation to Judaen lore than is often realized. I would also posit that this period, form 2000 BC to around 1700 BC in Canaan, must have been a period of great change there, for it to have been the time period both during which central semites migrated south (with the Arabs) and conquered mesopotamia (with Hammurabi). The similarity of the law codes between Hammurabi and that of the Torah is often noted, and attributed to plagiarism - but by this notion, it could just as well be attributed to both Hammurabi and the Judeans sharing a common central semitic root. And both having inherited a legal system through the tradition they inherited. And the Arabs also probably inherited a legal system of their own, which in part forms the basis of Sharia, along with influence from Judaism.2601:140:8900:61D0:B8A1:773D:263C:5567 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I have no real idea what "Semitic religion" is supposed to mean in the particular way in which you use the term, but what I am very aware of is that the ancient Israelites who followed prophetic Judaism basically chose to throw ALL significant theological features inherited from previous religions straight into the rubbish bin, EXCEPT FOR Ilu / "El" as the high god who presides over some kind of divine council or assembly -- and even that sole remaining significant theological influence is pretty vestigial in the Bible, where the words Elohim  and YHWH are much more often used to refer to the God of Israel than "El", and the divine council or assembly is only sporadically mentioned and very vague and ill-defined.  That's why ancient Semitic religion is generally considered an influence on Judaism, not the fundamental basis of Judaism. AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is significant influence from central Semitic paganism in the Bible and Jewish scriptures if you bother to look for it. It is hidden because of the monotheistic conceit under which the work was conceived, but it is obviously present. The entire system of law for instance, should not be presumed to be an entirely original construction that came from nowhere, but a codification of ancient Jewish traditions handed down from the Canaanite religions. In fact we can tell from Islam that central semitic pagans followed many of the same ules and laws as Jews did - for instance, elaborate dietary restrictions (which Islam loosened, I would assume drawing on his interaction with Jews). The word Allah also obviously comes from the "El", in a common central semitic root (the Arabs and the other central semites, diverged around 1700 BC). This is frequently ignored by Christians who see the law in the Torah as abrogated and ignore it in favor of the stories, but the religious legal system in Judaism, as well as its central semitic counterpart Islam, was central to either, and much can be learned by comparing and contrasting the two. It must be pointed out that the bible was essentially in the private hands of the Jerusalem temple cult until probably the Greek conquests in 200 BC, and they were continuously editing it up until that point. So there was a great deal of separation between the Central Semitic religious roots of Judaism, and the 'sealing' of the canon around 200 BC, and a great deal of time in which to "clean" it up and hide bits of that ancient pagan tradition. Much of the difference between Judaism and Christianity is actually due to this - the Christian religion actually draws upon older Jewish traditions from the polytheistic era that with time were polished over within the Jewish tradition itself. Christianity then burst out reinterpreting those old traditions. The entire concept of "Son of Man", for instance - originally the Son of God (El) was YHWH himself. When YHWH was merged with El, the people eventually grew to accept it, but could remember a time when God had a son in their traditions anyway. So this reemerged in Jesus - the concept of God having a son, transposed onto a new form.2601:140:8900:61D0:B8A1:773D:263C:5567 (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedias are no place for an Abrahamic bias 

message: Why isn't this page titled as "Semitic Mythology"?
It's "Greek mythology" but not "Ancient Greek religion". Or "Persian mythology" not "Ancient Persian Religion".
Is the word "religion" is reserved for Semitic people? I would call this racism.--85.104.54.249 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you haven't read WP:COMMONNAME. "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." The name of this article should be the name most used for the subject by sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. We do have an article on Jewish mythology and one on Christian mythology. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (popping in from Egypt) We also have an article on ancient Greek religion, although it's titled religion in ancient Greece. Similarly, we have separate articles on Hinduism and Hindu mythology, on ancient Egyptian religion and Egyptian mythology, and on Chinese folk religion and Chinese mythology. The treatment of "religion" and "mythology" as if they're synonyms really irks me. "Mythology", even in its broadest definition, means the ideology behind a religion. It does not include religious practices, buildings, or organizations. A. Parrot (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. So do we need another article here? Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

text: P.S.  This article is more comparable to Proto-Indo-European religion than to any of the other examples mentioned above, and it seems to me that "Proto-Indo-European religion" could equally be named "Proto-Indo-European mythology" given the content of that article... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (responding to Dougweller and AnonMoos) Religion is the broader category, encompassing mythology and other aspects. The Proto-Indo-European religion article has a section on ritual vocabulary, so although most of the article focuses on mythology, naming it "religion" allows the material about that murky subject to all stay in one place. This article mainly lists deities and says next to nothing about mythology, so I don't see what one could put into a "Semitic mythology" article. I'm sure there's more information out there in the sources, but unless someone adds large amounts of ritual information to PIE religion or large amounts of mythological information to Semitic religion, I don't see a need for a split or a name change in either case. A. Parrot (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semitic Mythology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Semitic religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122033206/http://stenudd.com/myth/enumaelish/enumaelish-4.htm to http://www.stenudd.com/myth/enumaelish/enumaelish-4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312003609/http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/non-christiancomparative/TheReligionofBabyloniaandAssyria/toc.html to http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/relg/non-christiancomparative/TheReligionofBabyloniaandAssyria/toc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified