Talk:Jahwist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yahwist/Yahvist/Jahwist/Jahvist
In the US, UK and in most English theologic literature one finds the term Yahwist much more commonly than Jahwist. The origin of the term Yahwist/Jahwist derives from the English transliteration of the Hebrew word Yahweh.Yahweh It is again Yahweh which is the preferred spelling in English. J source derives from Jahwist but it was Germans who started the terminology.
I don't know why we have taken the tack of using the less preferred spelling(Jahwist) here on Wikipedia.
Yahwist's Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel, The Theology Today, Apr 1997 by Werner E Lemke[1]
Farming for God: a religion of the soil? - The Paradise of God: Renewing Religion in an Ecological Age. By Norman Wirzba; The Yahwist's Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel. By Theodore Hiebert; The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible. By William P. Brown - Book Review [2]
Online Dictionaries referencing Yahweh and Yahwist
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/yahweh?view=uk http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Yahwist http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jahwist http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0498730.html http://www.bartleby.com/61/22/Y0002200.html
Mansell 19:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- The only problem I see with this is that it is the J source, I have never seen it referred to as the Y source. Though, I also agree, transliterating the yod of the tetragrammation should be done with a Y. I think it comes down to some sense of academic tradition, unfortunately. abexy 18:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Jahwist looks odd in English. Since the few German words beginning with Y tend to be taken from other languages and are ordinarily pronounced the same as J, perhaps they chose J so that students could remember Jawist/Judah. Jim Lacey 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] year?
Anyone have a good idea for when J was written? 900 BCE? 800? Jonathan Tweet 01:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Between approximately 922 (break-up of the united kingdom) and 722 BC (fall of the northern kingdom of Israel). Friedman points out that J (given to word-games) makes multiple use of the root r-h-b - six times in J, never in E - which is the root of Rehoboam, first king of the southern kingdom of Judah. PiCo 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A more accurate date is between 850 and 722. I did the correction just now. See Who Wrote the Bible? pp. 87. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.200.65 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Jahwist source isolated, at wikisource
This has been deleted from wikisource: Former Page and Proposed Deletion Log. Should we delete the remaining link in External links, or find a new source? And if we choose a new source, what's a reputable one? Fufthmin 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- It should be put back as a source text, it's essential to treating the DH (although if there's some other online source that can be used as an external link I'd be happy with that). PiCo 05:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- All of the KJV DH material at wikisource has been deleted on the grounds that it is not source material,and hence violates their inclusion policy. :(
Can somebody point to an online source that lists the verses for each of the sources? 67.136.147.115 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Example under 'Nature of the Yahwist text'
In the third paragraph, third sentence: "For example, concerning the activities in Sodom and the other cities of the plain, J presents God as about to destroy the cities, but gradually being dissuaded by Abraham, until God consents to save it if there are even only as few as 10 worthy individuals within it." The representation that God is dissuaded by Abraham would seem inaccurate if your source is Torah/Pentateuch. The story starts at Genesis 18:23 and Abraham begins by asking if He would destroy the righteous with the wicked alike. Before God responds Abraham asks, if there are 50 righteous would He destroy it and God responds that He would spare it for 50. Then Abraham asks if God would spare it for 45 righteous people and God says He would spare it for 45 (and so forth). There is nothing to indicate that God was originally intending on destroying any righteous with the wicked, thus it should likely not be summarized as a dissuasion. I would also like to suggest that rather than a "human-like" figure, God is presented as a 'personal' figure by the Yahwist author(s) and that this story serves as an excellent example. Source: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen18.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.129.156 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been a month since I posted this commentary on the article and no response has appeared in this discussion or any change in the article. I will give it a little more time and if no response is presented and the article remains unchanged I will add a short commentary within the article below the section in question regarding this inaccurate summary of the exchange between Abraham and God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.129.156 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
My class about to reach this text so checked out Wiki as possible assignment. Rather measured article, all in all. As for "human-like" why not use the familiar term "anthropomorphic," which suggests but does not stipulate? Best, Profhum (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
