Talk:God in Judaism

Henotheism

Modern Judaism is not Henotheistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.75.218 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But this article is not titled "God in modern Judaism". Cush (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for this article

I created this article using text extracted from Jewish principles of faith. Thus, in its current incarnation, it is a content fork of that article. However, the intent is that this separate article allows for a fuller exposition of the topic "God in Judaism" or "Judaic conceptions of God" without dominating the rest of the Jewish principles of faith article.

Moreover, this title fits in the series God in Abrahamic religions, God in Christianity, God in Islam, God in Buddhism and God in Hinduism. It should also be referenced by the Conceptions of God article.

--Richard 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit and Canaanite historical origins?

Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See: the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Forms vs. Emanations

Maybe someone can clarify better in the article.

There is:

"The concept of a Singular God taking multiple forms (as in the doctrine of Trinity) are equally heretical in Judaism."

And directly previous to that:

"Ein Sof, which is the aspect of God that lies beyond the emanations (sefirot)."

Not to mention in Tzadik there is "Therefore one can not ask a question about an intermediary since this is the essence of God Himself, as He has clothed Himself in a human body"

While in Judaism's view of Jesus there is "In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical"

So we have

• God / Trinity & Ein Sof / Sefirot
• God clothed in Jesus & God clothed in Rebbe

Then someone like me asks, why is one heretical and the other not when both do the same thing? -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That idea of "Tzadik" is absolutely 100% heretical. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the sephirot are concerned, they are creations, and not actual "facets" or "attributes" of God. Calling them attributes is verbal shorthand, is all. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know they are created portals as such, but through them God manifests in ten ways. For Christians, God manifests in three ways. So...? I don't see anything in Tzadik that says it is heretical, do you know of a source saying it is? I think if you are going to use Trinity as an example it needs to be crystal clear as to how it is different since I see similar stuff in Judaism. Otherwise just don't compare it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Omnibenevolence

I am confused. In what sources is God referred to as omnibenevolent? Omnipotent, omniscient, sure. But omnibenevolent? I am not convinced that that's part of God in Judaism at all, now or in the past. I'm putting up a citation needed tag there. --Grenadier (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Omnibenevolence I would simply use the primary source to debunk it. The deity of the Tanakh is very obviously not a benevolent one. CUSH 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Praise the L-RD. Give thanks to the L-RD, for he is good; his love endures forever.", as was written in psalm 106. Please, Cush, stop putting your own atheistic views forward. Clearly your idea of good is different; there is no need to assume that just because you think something is so, everybody agrees. This is wikipedia, which uses sources. I am sorry if this sounds disrespectful, but it is clear that in the Tanakh, G-d is portrayed as good. 94.15.157.86 (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an atheist but I agree with Cush and Grenadier, that God is not omnibenevolent in Judaism. Omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous, and a whole lot more, yes, that's true. He is very benevolent at times. For example, God prepares a table before me in the presence my enemies and even though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil for He is with me. Also what IP user said, specifically, that He is good and His love endures forever. 'Omnibenevolent' is simplistic though and seems kind of... idk? Vapid? I'll check the current status of the article to see if that word is still present.--FeralOink (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to darken your day, יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע; אֲנִי יְהוָה, עֹשֶׂה כָל-אֵלֶּה "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil (ra'); I am YHWH, that does all these things". Yeshayahu 45, 7. The word used here רָע (ra') is the word used in 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', the god of Israel is clearly not omnibenevolent in the Tanakh, neither is he omniscient for that matter. The Tanakh states YHWH can manipulate the natural world in any way (so long as it is not impossible like making square circles or triangular squares) but it never states the god of Israel knows the future. Hebrew prophecies declare what YHWH will cause to happen in the future, but no where in the Tanakh does it say the god of Israel knows everything that is going to happen. To the contrary, it contains many passages that state YHWH investigated the world and learned what was happening through observation, see the tower of babel and the destruction of sedom and ammora for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you the same Lucas Newman that was banned for his deviating interpretations? Debresser (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

He also misspelled Sodom and Gomorrah. ("ammora" is a super odd misspelling.) FWIW, Debresser, you aren't the only one who noticed about the deviations. He has been blocked for awhile now.--FeralOink (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

YHWH and the cited quotes

The quotes in the box all say 'YHWH', whereas the actual sources say 'Lord'. This makes the article look bad. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If this hasn't been changed, I will do so now. I entirely agree with you on this matter, Dougweller --FeralOink (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Lede Error

In the articles lede is the following statement:

The name most often used in the Hebrew Bible for God is Elohim, from the generic Northwest Semitic term for "god", El.

The problems I see with this are:
• Elohim is a title, not a name.
• YHWH is used apx 6823 times, while Elohim and Elohay combined total to around 2300 times.

This lede statment should be adjusted, as well as cited. I would do it, but at the moment I do not have a reference to cite (someone here has to have at least a concordance on hand which lists word counts, yes?). I do have an article somewhere on hand, right now, from a DSS scholar, but I know this particular article to not have been published (neither in journal or other hard media). — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Second point is well taken, I'll scrape that line. But Elohim is a name of God, and that is explicit in Jewish literature. Which does not mean it isn't also a title, in the sense that God can be called the "Elohim of Israel" e.g. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That was done in this edit. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

God of Israel

I am not so happy with this new section, which was added today by Dbachmann. Do we need this section at all? Debresser (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is completely unsourced, and blatantly contradicts a number of traditional sources. Articles like this should be NPOV, not academic POV. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this when I restored it. If this is the academic pov, then it certainly should be in the article in some form to make the article NPOV, unless you are saying, which I doubt, that the academic pov isn't significant. So what am I missing here that suggests that this should be deleted? If it is the academic pov it can obviously be sourced, and I didn't read anything in the edit that can't be sourced so far as I am aware. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's academic POV, it shouldn't be hard to provide reliable sources, instead of just referring to the bible. And since nobody has really determined what ancient Israelites actually believed in (all we know is that the Bible conveys a rather distorted picture of circumstances in the ANE) it is encyclopedically dishonest to take the Bible as a reliable source. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the way to handle a dispute about an edit. I don't understand the effort which seems aimed at keeping out anything about "in antiquity corresponding to the name of Yahweh, an earlier Canaanite deity) and Elohim." from the article, even to the extent of removing [[Template:see|{{see|Yahweh (Canaanite deity)}}]].Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Come again? ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "The God of Israel (Hebrew אלהי ישראל) is the national god of the ancient Israelites, in the monotheism of Rabbinical Judaism identified with God, the creator of the world" is just wrong on many levels. Before making such a statement in an encyclopedia the actual history of actual ancient Israelites must be securely established. Right now, Israelites are just another Canaanite tribe, not a nation. There is also no indication of monotheism, so a "national god" is pretty hard to argue for. And what Rabbinical Judaism identifies is not really relevant to the statement except the rabbis bring forward some archaeological and historical evidence for their claims.

The rest of the section was just as bad. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry, this is nonsense. Just your saying so doesn't make it true on any level. We happen to have an article about the history of ancient Israel and Judah, it is called ancient Israel and Judah. You should read it. You could also read the national god article, and look at the plentiful references that this is indeed a term habitually applied to the God of Israel. You do not even seem to have read the passage, as it is careful to explicitly talk about the monotheism of Rabbinical Judaism (after 200 CE), not any monotheism of ancient Israel or Judah. Your confused statement that There is also no indication of monotheism, so a "national god" is pretty hard to argue for is the pinnacle of gibberish, as "national god" and "monotheistic God" are pretty much antonyms. Sorry, I do not expect that all Wikipedia editors have a university degree in the fields they edit, but it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation at such an abysmal level. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"National god" indicates the worship of a single god to the exclusion of others in a form of state religion. What else could it mean? But there is no clear indication for a political entity named Israel prior to the 9th century BCE and no indication that any later entity named Israel had any uniform religion with a focus on the deity described in the Bible. Please stop projecting Judaism into the past just because Judaism does so. The bible is no more reliable as a source for history as the imbecile writings of Smith or Hubbard. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

To be more to the point. I think this is all original research. In addition, I think it is all wrong. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

um, what? Are you saying the fact that the God of the Old Testament is somehow not referred to as "God of Israel" ("God of Abraham", "God of Jacob", etc.), or that this is somehow not relevant to the "God in Judaism" topic? Sorry, this doesn't seem to make sense. Please explain what you mean. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the whole section you added is original research and incorrect. In addition, parts of it do not belong in this article. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Underlying Dbachmann's actions here is a dispute about where the redirect God of Israel should point to.

In my view, the logical place for God of Israel to point to is Yahweh, because that is the article that presents in detail that God of the Bible, and also what scholars have theorised about possible the historical background.

In my view that is therefore clearly the place that God of Israel should point to, with a hatnote on that article to come here for present-day theological views in Judaism.

For some reason Dab won't have that, and insists on making God of Israel redirect here, despite the fact that this article is a well-organised presentation of a completely different topic. This is why he insists on wanting to add new material here, to try to change the focus of this article, to make that redirect stick.

In my view Dab is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. This article's established focus on contemporary theology is a good one, and matches the expectations of articles that link here. The article Yahweh's treatment of the biblical material makes good sense as part of the focus of that article.

So let's just keep with the straightforward obvious solution, and have God of Israel redirect to Yahweh. Jheald (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

well, as I have already gone to great lengths to explain, calling an article about the God of the Old Testament / the God of Israel "Yahweh" is idiosyncratic.

You can continue to ignore the issue and keep the Yahweh page in a state of stalemate. In its present form it is nothing but an embarassment to the project. Or you can try and be constructive and seek WP:CONSENSUS.

If we can agree that the page now at Yahweh should be about the God of the Old Testament (which is far from obvious from its title), then we can move it to God of Israel or God of the Old Testament, problem solved.

If, for some reason, you insist on keeping it at your preferred idiosyncratic title "Yahweh", there can be no progress in this. I see two possibilities for the "Yahweh" page, split or rename. Either is fine with me. But please just avoid spilling this idiotic waste of time to other talkpages. --dab (𒁳) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah? Well two, widely supported Move Request discussions at Talk:Yahweh, mopping up the damage after you have twice try to force your own way, have shown that consensus does not agree with you.

Use the talk page. Discuss. Establish consensus. When what you are doing has already been rejected twice, don't just hammer on trying to edit it through regardless. You of all people ought to know better than this. Jheald (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

what damage? the article has been broken for ages. I am trying to fix it. The first step is tagging it for cleanup. You are shooting the messenger. If you didn't interfere for no good reason, this would have been fixed up weeks ago. Perhaps if you have no sufficient understanding of the topic, you should just consider letting people do the job? Seriously, I know that "anyone can edit" here, but this doesn't mean you are invited to actively prevent people from writing encyclopedic articles. I have no idea what you think you are doing here. Perhaps you are defending your religious beliefs, perhaps you just don't know better, I wouldn't presume to guess. WP:DUCK says it doesn't matter. --dab (𒁳) 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The first step is in gaining consensus and buy-in as to what the article's focus should be. There is clear consensus on that, as two RM discussions, both prompted by - and both rejecting - your actions have confirmed.

To re-iterate what I have written at Talk:Yahweh: there is clear consensus that that article should present both the God of the Bible, who the Bible calls YHWH, the modern conventional scholarly rendering of which is Yahweh, and also what scholars have theorised about the possible historical background. That's a focus that is intellectually coherent, is what the articles that link there expect, and is what consensus - as twice explicitly tested - supports. It's an entirely workable scope. It's one the article actually doesn't do a bad job of presenting. Yes, IMO the material on how God is presented in the Bible could be substantially improved; material on what literary analysis has suggested about that presentation should be restored; and there are at least a couple of different lines being presented in the historical section. So there is work to be done. If you ceased repeatedly trying to destabilise the article's scope, we might even be able to make some progress with it.

Now, given that we have an article with that scope, that does aim to cover as one of its major themes the presentation of Yahweh/God/Adonai in the Bible -- i.e. exactly the material that would fall under God of Israel -- then it makes sense that that is where the redirect should point to. Jheald (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing this all related to the now named "From an Iron Age local god to monotheism". Is this section going nowhere? In Talk:Yahweh this article is mentioned as the supposed NPOV article, while making the aforementioned one terribly written and biased, and now this user has come and rewrote everthing in Talk:Yahweh right here. This article is about judaism, and should have a Jewish POV, or atleast a NPOV. Is it not going to be fixed? I see talks about consensus but nothing actually changed Snfdfk (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

God in Rabbinic Thought and God in the Bible

Judaism has changed throughout the centuries, not in its most fundamental perception of God, no, but the religion has seen the tremendous influence of Maimonides and other later sages, as well as the development of the Talmud and similar writings. The theology of Judaism has evolved; the same is true of every religion. How has this reality affected the perception of God in traditional Jewish thinking, and have there ever been disparities between this thinking and the biblical presentation of God?

Can we address this (strictly speaking, from a Jewish perspective)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nature of God

Like much of the article, this entire section is unsourced, and thus of little value.

I am particularly interested in the evolution of the idea of God as incorporeal. Admittedly, this is a much bigger subject than can be adequately presented in an encyclopedia article; nevertheless, at least some source should be given if any statements are made about the nature of God in Judaism. (I take it the notion goes back at least to prophets like Isaiah.)Vikslen (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't go back to Isaiah, it goes back to Moses. Deut. 4:15 "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves--for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire--" i.e. God is formless. MosheEmes (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"God is non-physical, non-corporeal, and eternal." What is the difference between non-physical and non-corporeal? Is there one? MosheEmes (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Usually "corporeal" and "physical" mean the same. Perhaps the intention is that "non-corporeal" means He has no body, and "non-physical" means that He is not even from the physical world, which says more than saying he has no body. If that is indeed the intention, the order should probably be changed to "non-corporeal, non-physical", to go min hakal el hakaved. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"God and Satan"

The usage and primary topic of God and Satan is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

G-d in Modern Judaism.

As part of a university project, my classmates and I are adding our research findings to several Wikipedia pages related to Judaism. For my part , I will be adding some information and distinctions to this article relating to ideas about G-d within modern Jewish Thought. This is my first experience with editing Wikipedia, but since I will be transferring research from our assignment to Wikipedia, I don't expect to run into too many problems. I'm glad to be helping Wikipedia! MANedvin (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! I hope you took the trouble to acquaint yourself, at least basically, with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Debresser (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, I believe that these MANedvin's edits helped to improve this article in significant ways, following Wikipedia guidelines. If you would like to improve these changes, please be collaborative and edit them appropriately rather than removing them altogether or engaging in edit warring. I've made some changes that I think improve the style, and I hope that you will make other changes and resist the urge to instead undo these edits. Thank you. ModernJewishThought (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look. With the best intentions, as always. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what? We should really talk these edits over before you make them. I see serious problems with these edit, as I mentioned in my revert.

These are not some minor edits. You are talking about adding almost 10,000 characters. A good rule of thumb on Wikipedia, and in real life, is that before making major changes, you should talk it over. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to talk it over. Your comment there that "These edits are unacceptable, as they involve many unsourced statement, bad editing technically, and distort the article" obviously needs explanation. The changes seem very well sourced; any technical concerns can also be fixed pretty easily, if you would indicate what your concerns are; and you need to explain what you mean by "distort the article." Please note that the original article mostly refers to medieval sources (some of them not well sourced) and so is somewhat distorted in its own right; adding 10,000 characters, focused on a range of other sorts of contemporary voices, seems helpful here given that the article header clarifies that the article is "about contemporary theological discussion." There's surely more to add to help to further balance out the article, but then please add that. Thanks. ModernJewishThought (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The main points I noticed, that were reason for me to revert:

1. Addition of the word traditional, and as contrast the sentence "Divergent philosophy within modern Jewish thought has led to increasingly diverse opinions regarding the nature of God's nature and connection to human beings and the universe." without any source.
2. I am generally weary of undue weight regarding all kinds of new opinions, in view of the long history of Judaism.
3. There was no need to change the structure from "Monotheism" and Properties" to "Properties > Monotheism". I think that Monotheism is important enough to be a separate section. Nor am I convinced that Monotheism is a property.
4. The general statement that there is no consensus among academics about the origins of monotheism is interesting, but is restricted to academic understanding only, which is not the only way to view the question of the origins of monotheism. Although I do agree that having such a subsection is a good idea, but we already had one.
5. I think that the Properties attributed section had unnecessary detail. These details were also vague, IMHO.
6. The statement "According to some branches of Judaism, people's actions do not have the ability to affect God positively or negatively.", in which you added the words "some branches", gives no indication which branches, and what do other branches hold. I suppose you mean Abraham Joshua Heschel as the exception. I think the words "some branches" do not fairly represent the situation, and the word "traditionally" should be used, because is a non-traditional, minority opinion.
7. All the new sections were formatted impossibly. Please avoid whitelines.
8. The subsection about Abraham Joshua Heschel is much too detailed. Per WP:UNDUE (linked above) it should be shortened to its first two sentences only, IMHO.
9. I understand that the sentence "Conceptions of God in modern Jewish thought vary widely among thinkers and are often very distinct from traditional ideas." is only an introduction, but it should still be sourced in itself, or removed.
10. Similar to what I said above regarding Abraham Joshua Heschel, the subsections about Cohen and Levinas, Buber, Kaplan etc. should be shortened to their first sentences only. I do think these are good contributions, but should be put in proper perspective, as in the length allotted to their discussion.
11. For that same reason, I'd prefer not to make a separate subsection for each of them, rather different paragraphs in the same section. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these seem like fine edits to make (rather than a reason to revert). I'm okay with most of your suggested edits, and I look forward to returning to this version and working with you in improving it along the lines of what you suggest. But please strive to follow the WP:RNPOV guidelines and add other material to provide balance rather than seeking to delete too many properly-sourced perspectives. Thanks. ModernJewishThought (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for listing all of these points. I've made changes that take all of these concerns into account, and appreciate your willingness to collaborate here. ModernJewishThought (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am happy we agreed on these points, or at least that you were willing to compromise. I have made a few more edits to your latest edits, especially regarding the division into sections and subsections. Please let me know what you think of them. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edits look great to me. Thanks for your willingness to collaborate and improve the article. I've made just a few additional minor edits. ModernJewishThought (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight?

From the "name" section: "According to Guillaume Postel (16th century), Michelangelo Lanci [it] (19th century), and Mark Sameth (21st century), the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, are a cryptogram, which the priests of ancient Israel would have read in reverse as huhi, “heshe,” signifying a dual-gendered deity.[4][5][6][7]" Does this idea have a substantial degree of acceptance in scholarly circles? If not, we might consider deleting it. Achar Sva (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva, I do not believe this idea has a substantial degree of acceptance in scholarly works, nor in lay contexts. If other editors wish to discuss, please add your thoughts on the matter. If not, I concur that we delete that passage, especially with the overcites. I will have a look at those source citations now.--FeralOink (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)