Talk:Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia


15 people in discussion

Article Images

Template:Pbneutral

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

I have tagged the "Judeo-Christian reinterpretations" section as POV. It seems very thinly referenced, largely based on one source (which I don't think is accurately represented anyway, and which certainly does not support some of the paragraphs to which it is attached). The section appears, for example, to state that creation ex nihilo is a Christian invention, although the article on that subject suggests that it is also a Jewish belief (indeed, this article suggests that 2nd century CE Christians invented ideas that in fact go back as least as far as Philo). Some work is clearly needed here; particularly references to Talmudic interpretations. -- 202.124.72.187 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Don't rely on one wiki article to interpret another - wiki isn't a reliable source.
Did you read May's book in toto? It's a major recent contribution to the understanding of the develoipment of ex nihilo, and you need to read the entire thing. In essence, Mays is arguing that the idea of ex nihilo originated as an attempt with 2nd century Christian theologians to counter certain arguments being put forward by gnostics. Our article isn't taking up May's argument (we don't mention the gnostics). What May is useful for, from our point of view, is that he summarises the common scholarly understanding - you'll find this on page 179 of his book. There's no argument among scholars that the idea of ex nihilo is a Christian invention, later adopted by Jews - it's just that Christian lay-people (and Jewish ones) aren't aware of this.
For example, in the Eerdmans' Dictionary of the Bible you'll find the note that "creation out of nothing was a much later tradition in Scripture" (i.e., later than the Genesis creation narrative), and an invitation to compare Genesis with 2 Maccabees 7:28 and other late passages. Maccabees is a 2nd century BCE work, and is often mentioned as the very earliest sign of ex nihilo, but it isn't clearly so. Not that this matters for our article on Genesis 1-2 - the point here is that this passage in Genesis is not talking about the creation of matter. PiCo (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
May's book is just one POV in a field with many. How many books did you read? Many scholars believe that Philo held to ex nihilo creation, contrary to May's claim and to this article, although this is a debated point (and the article should mention the debate without taking sides). You yourself seem to allow for the possibility that it's a 2nd century BCE Jewish idea, in direct contradiction to what the article currently says, so obviously there's a problem.
The fundamental cause of the problem is relying heavily on just two sources (May and Bouteneff). May, in particular, is explicitly challenging several widely accepted ideas, and we can't just blindly take his POV. Furthermore, this article should not be taking sides on what "this passage in Genesis is talking about," because there simply is no consensus on that. This article should be summarising the various points of view.
I see the POV issues with this article as serious and unresolved, and the tag should stay. -- 202.124.74.146 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Philo did hold to ex nihilo creation - the Greeks invented it, and Philo was trying to show how the Jewish scriptures were compatible with Greek science. Philo had no influence in his own time, but he was taken up by the Christian theologians who were were trying to combat gnostic ideas (because the gnostics had also taken up the Greek idea). So the point of our article is that the opening lines of Genesis 1 were reinterpreted by Christian theologians in the 2nd century CE - it's not about who invented ex nihilo, but how Genesis was reinterpreted. By the way, May's book isn't just one pov, it's the most influential on this subject to have been published in the last decade. PiCo (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Evangelical POV
Published by Baker Publishing Group
Academic publishing programme POV
Published by Continuum International Publishing Group:
  • Worrall, Gerhard May ; translated by A.S. (2004). Creatio ex nihilo : the doctrine of creation out of nothing in early Christian thought. London: T&T Clark, a Continuum imprint. ISBN 9780567083562.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Comment: Based on the above listed references, there is no violation of WP:NPOV. These references are wp:reliable and do not violate wp:weight. Rather than wasting your time disputing these references, 202.124.74.146, use your energy better to find a third POV to add to this section in order to ensure its neutrality. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 02:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just to expand a little a little on what Jasonasosa is saying there: Bouteneff says:"Thes [2nd century CE Christian] writers came to see the importance of declaring that creation was not an emantion from God or a shaping by God of preexisting matter." What he doesn't make explicit in that passage (it's on page 86) is that these ideas - the cosmos as an emanation from God, matter as preexisting God - were the ideas put forwards by the gnostics. This, of course, is the point May is making on page 179 (which is in fact the summation of the entire book): the earliest Christian fathers were up against the gnostics, who had a very well-developed and very seductive explanation of how the universe came into being, one that wasn't compatible at all with Genesis 1.

Begin with Walton in the IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament - he's more reader-friendly than Bouteneff and May. (He's also, incidentally, an Evangelical Christian - not that it matters). The article is called Cosmology, and you need the section Cosmology in the Pentateuch (page 135). He notes that the idea of "'creation out of nothing' entered Jewish thought at a late period as a result of interaction with Greek thought" - as I noted in a prior post, the Greeks were the ones who actually invented "creatio ex nihilo", Philo married it to Jewish scripture, some 200 years later the early Christian fathers developed Philo's arguments in their own battle with the gnostics, and finally it was taken into mainstream Judaism by the Talmudic scholars. Walton's entire entry is well worth reading.

There's also Professor Francis Anderson's piece On Reading Genesis 1-3 in Michael Patrick O'Connor and David Noel Freedman's "Backgrounds for the Bible". Like Boutendorff, May, Walton etc etc, Anderson notes that "the idea of creation out of nothing cannot be documented before the Hellenistic age". He goes on with an interesting analysis of the grammar of the Hebrew that everyone should read. (See page 140-141 of On Reading Genesis 1-3)

There are many more books that could be read - as Anderson says, the literature is substantive. But these are a good introduction.

I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of what this section of our article is about. It's NOT about the origins and history of the ex nihilo idea - there's a separate article on that. What it IS about is the way Genesis 1:1 was reintpreted in the 2nd century CE to support the developing Christian theology of ex nihilo. PiCo (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the POV tag since this issue remains unresolved. You seem to admit that Philo (a Jewish writer) held to ex nihilo, but yet the article says "The next major development occurred in early Christianity, with the formation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo." There's clearly a WP:UNDUE weight being placed here on May's POV, and personal attacks on me are not the way to resolve it. -- 202.124.72.28 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
What Philo developed wasn't a doctrine - he was a philosopher, and his aim was to harmonise Greek philosophy and Jewish revealed religion. Please read the first chapter of May's book, especially the section on Philo - you'll find there a good explanation both of the metaphysical debates and beliefs of Philo's time, and of what Philo mwas doing. But the essential point is that the idea that God created matter, as well as forming it, was not developed as a doctrine until the 2nd century Christian fathers. (By the way, I don't think I've made any personal attacks - where do you see this?) PiCo (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by a "doctrine." Philo did indeed "harmonise Greek philosophy and Jewish revealed religion." In doing so, he provided a quite detailed interpretation of Genesis, which in turn influenced later Christian and Jewish writers. Whether Philo's interpretation was accepted as doctrine by the Jews of his time is irrelevant. And, regarding May, I've read quite extensively in this area, and I'm fully aware that May's opinion is just one of many. That's why I've added the POV tag. Saying "please read May" isn't going to make me magically forget the dozens of other books I've read. -- 202.124.72.65 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you've read extensively in this subject then you'll be aware that May's book is a standard text and that he's merely describing the accepted consensus. Anyway, our article isn't about the history of ex nihilo, it's about Genesis 1-2 and ()in this section) it's reinterpretation in later Christian and Jewish thought. Your understanding of Philo is essentially the same as mine, and now I'm puzzled just what the argument is about. Perhaps you could explain in more detail just what your concern is? PiCo (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's a rather naive statement, surely? May is a respected scholar, but there is no "accepted consensus" in this area. May himself acknowledges the variety of opinions on Philo. My concern is (1) lack of balance in taking only Boutaneff's and May's POV, and presenting their opinions in Wikipedia's voice; and (2) blatant inaccuracy in claiming ex nihilo is a 3rd century Christian idea when it goes back at least to Philo, and probably to earlier Hellenistic Jews. I have reworded the section slightly, but in my view it's still problematic -- it still needs more balance and more sources. -- 202.124.72.84 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not at all sure just what it is you object to in this section, but I do get the impression that yoiu misunderstand its purpose. It's not trying to trace the development of the idea of ex nihilo - that's the job of the article Creation ex nihilo. WEhat it's trying to do it demonstrate how Genesis 1 and 2 were reinterpreted in later centuries. While it's true that Philo probably (but not definitely) argued that Elohim had created matter, he didn't have any influence until the Christian theologians took him up inj the 2nd century and later. They were the ones who made sure that Genesis 1:1 became established as the doctrine that God had created matter out of nothingness. Later still, this was taken up by the rabbis of the Talmud. It's rather hard to get all this across in a single paragraph, and personally I don't think we should try - it's just going to cause readers' eyes to glaze over. (This comes down to what your view is of Wikipedia's purpose. My own is that, although it's based on scholarly sources, it's not aimed at scholars, but at a general readership).
Your comments about "purpose of the article" are no reason to make false statements about when the idea of "ex nihilo' arose, nor to misrepresent the scholarly consensus (there are mixed opinions on whether Philo taught "ex nihilo"), nor to take May's opinion (one of several) as definitive, nor to undo my balancing edits. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The second para of the last section makes no statement at all about when the idea of creation ex nihilo arose; what it says is that it became a Christian doctrine in the 2nd century CE. PiCo (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps that's what you wanted to say, but that's not what the article does say. The article suggests that the idea of "creatio ex nihilo" was formed in early Christianity, when many scholars believe it was formed before then, by Philo. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The phrase it uses is "the formation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo" - not the origins of the idea (which in any case belongs to the Greeks, not Philo), but its adoption into Christianity as doctrine. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
In that case you need rewording for clarity. Perhaps "official doctrine" is what you meant. And yes, "creatio ex nihilo" goes back before Philo. How far, that's the question. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
It didn't become an "official doctrine" until the Church councils put in the creeds. The word May uses is "tenet". I've reworked the para to reflect page 179 of his book more closely. Bear in mind that in that part of the book May is rehearsing the accepted scholarly view, not advancing his own - his own thesis conserns the role of Gnosticism (or rather the opposition to it) in the develoipment of the Christian idea of ex nihilo - he wants to give it much more importance than is usual. PiCo (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
That's a significant improvement. I'm still not entirely happy, though, because I doubt that there's an "accepted scholarly view." I even doubt that May thinks so, given his comment that there are a range of opinions on Philo. -- 202.124.73.196 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think you're overly obsessed with Philo. We're not trying hjere to give a history of the development of the idea of ex nihilo, but rather to point out how the original meanings of Genesis 1-2 have been changed in later Judaism and Christianity. "In the beginning..." is a big one, but there's also smaller things like the meaning of Eden, the question of what the "firmament" was, etc. (The firmament is probably worth mentioning - as soon as the original idea of a solid dome keeping water out had been lost, it became a very mysterious passage).PiCo (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I started with Philo because there was more evidence about when ex nihilo turned up in interpretations of Genesis 1. However, I'm also doubtful about this idea of "original meanings." All we can be certain of is how people at various times interpreted the passage. -- 202.124.73.143 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
What I'm trying to get at in that entire section is to demonstrate that Genesis 1-2 is an ancient text, no matter whether written in the 5th century BCE or the age of Solomon or even by Moses (which it wasn't); what we take for granted today - Adam as the name of the first man (pretty trivial really), the idea of God creating matter out of nothingness, even the shape of the cosmos, are all ideas that have grown on top of the original text over the millennia. People today come to the bible thinking they already know what's inj it, but they don't - it's richer and more rewarding than we can imagine. PiCo (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
What I'm trying to get at is that, given the range of opinions, we can't put any specific "meaning" in Wikipedia's voice; we can really only say how people have interpreted the passage over the centuries. In particular, we have to be very careful about arguing for negatives of the form "the original author did not mean xxxx." -- 202.124.72.177 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
One thing missing in that section is a mention of how modern Creationism has reinterpreted Genesis 1-2. If you'd like to take that aspect up I think you can make a valuable contribution to the article. PiCo (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Those who are removing the POV tag for this section are violating site policy. Furthermore, they ought to know better.

The presence of a tag does not mean the complaining contributor is right. It merely calls attention to the existence of a complaint. Removing it conceals this, which doesn't help it get resolved.

This is not the only dispute which contributors have tried to conceal this way, and it shows bad faith. Stop it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

POV tags are fine when there's an established problem. This issue has been discussed by multiple editors now, and no one but the original ip sees any issue. The tag has been removed by 3 separate and tenured editors now, and it is unfortunate that you (Ed) have stepped in just in time to save the ip from 3rr to add it back again... and without contributing anything to the discussion in the process. There's no problem with leaving it in if there's an established problem, but so far there is not an established problem. Edit warring is not helpful, so we can leave it in for the day and wait, but if a discussion outside the realm of IDHT doesn't start in short order, then it simply doesn't have a place in the article. No one is concealing anything; the discussion is perfectly visible on the talk page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's clear there is indeed a problem. Since my balancing edits were reverted, I'm adding the tag back in. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Somebody, without first discussing it here, reverted my NPOV changes to the intro. Worse, they labelled them as "POV", implying that they were the particular (albeit unsourced) viewpoint of someone, in effect accusing me of an NPOV violation.

I third the notion that your POV edits to the intro, Ed Poor (talk · contribs) are rather poor. Since you bring it up, let's discuss what you are promoting here...
I mean, come on... this first line you promote is just ignorant. A narrative is not a motif. A motif is a theme within the narrative. So whatever you were trying to do there was literary mumbo-jumbo.
  • "tells how God created the cosmos, the planet Earth, and everyone and everything on it.
So redundant when you already have a Creation myth link to go to view all that run-on material.
It is already understood what this is all about without controversially pushing what Modern Western scholars think. Besides, western thinking is already presented by KuglerHartin, 2009 in the last sentence.
  • "is variously attributed to Moses"
Well if you want to include this concept, you ought to at least use a wp:reliable source for this sentence, which by the way, isn't even academically accurate by the use of "variously". Not to mention that it was inserted before the KuglerHartin, 2009,p.14-16 reference, which doesn't even support what you arbitrarily shoved in there.
Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wish that instead of doing this, they had mentioned what POV they felt my edits were advancing. Or, perhaps they would like to do that now. I thought, rather, that my edits were on the contrary removing bias from the article by indicating that there have been (and are) multiple viewpoints on the topic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's okay, we know your edits were upon WP:AGF. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be some WP:OWN here. -- 202.124.72.84 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've been observing this page for some time. There is no WP:OWN here. We collaborate together, even if we do not agree all the time. Don't make allegations unless you have evidence to present. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
We've talked about the "mythology" bit so much on this article that most editors are tired of it. Consensus has always been that "mythology" is an important word to use in the lead, as it sums up the topic briefly, accurately reflects the literature, and the objections to it are counter to WP:RNPOV. If such a change is to be implemented, then at the very least it needs to be discussed again for a new consensus to form.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
You jumped the gun on that one Mann_jess. No one is disputing "mythology" at least in the intro. That edit was referring to a title change at Genesis creation narrative: Difference between revisions. Let's not unnecessarily open up a can of worms if we don't have to. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I thought we were talking about this revert (and this one previous to it). Both of those include removing the word "mythology", and pushing it back/deemphasizing it in the first sentence. Are we talking about just one edit in particular, and not the whole thing?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Those edits are being discussed in this section, but the use of "Creation myth" is not in question. The use of "Mythology" was in question on a title change as indicated by my link above. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, it seems to be in question for Ed. It's not in question for anyone else that I see, perhaps. Consensus hasn't been simply to include "creation myth" generally. Consensus has always been to include it prominently in the first sentence as a primary descriptor. What I'm saying is that, if we move it from that placement (attributing it only to "Western scholars"), it should be discussed first. I have a few other issues with Ed's edit, but that's a really big one for me because it's contrary to consensus which has formed again and again on this page. I hope that helps clarify.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Uhm, if that's true, and quite possibly it could be... that is some fresh insight that I wasn't aware of nor is the moving of "Creation myth" from the first sentence a violation since the intro note reads: "Please do not remove the phrase and link to "creation myth" from the first paragraph" not specifying any detail as to where in the paragraph it should be. Should that have to go to consensus... God help us.  — Jasonasosa 00:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's also worth pointing out that the P/J theory is just that: a theory. Widely accepted by scholars perhaps, but with no independent historical support. IMO, that justifies wording like "is believed to be based on two sources." After all, some future scholar may well argue that, for example, "P" is a combination of two sources. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

agreed.  — Jasonasosa 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
So, if you are agreed, why does the intro say "is based on two sources," as if that's a historical fact? I agree with Ed Poor that the intro needs editing to become NPOV. And not just the intro, so I think the whole article should be tagged for POV issues. -- 202.124.73.87 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Because there's no rival theory. PiCo (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
What's that got to do with it? It may be a theory accepted by many scholars, but it's not in the same factual category as "Julius Caesar conquered Gail." Big Bang is an example of appropriate wording for such a situation: "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe." -- 202.124.73.177 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
You know what "theory" means? — raekyt 12:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I do. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I haven't come across any scholar who doesn't think there are two "sources" in Genesis 1-2. Do you know of any? PiCo (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The documentary hypothesis article lists several alternate theories, and recent scholarship is in fact backing away from the documentary hypothesis. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Those "theories" aren't theories, they're models, and they agree that there are "sources" behind the Pentateuch, and they call them Y (or J) and P - the disagreement is over just what these sources originally were (documents, fragments, expansions, a mixture) and how they were used to create the Torah. But to repeat, there's no disagreement that there are 2 sources behind Genesis 1-2, and that they can be called P and Y. PiCo (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
No they don't agree. The classic 2006 study by Römer, widely reprinted, notes that "a growing number of authors, especially in Europe, have given up the classical Documentary Hypothesis as a relevant model for explaining the composition of the Pentateuch, including the theory of a distinct Yahwistic source or author (J)" even though "recent textbooks or publications for a larger audience still present the Documentary Hypothesis as a firmly established result of source criticism and historical exegesis, and the so-called “J” source, in particular, continues to play a preeminent role in the presentation and discussion of the theory." Perhaps it's time for Wikipedia to catch up with modern scholarship, and toss the out-of-date "J" concept. -- 202.124.73.196 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
"A Farewell to the Yahwist" is certainly an important book, but it doesn't say quite what you seem to think it says. (For other readers: "A Farewell to the Yahwist" is a collection of essays published in 2006 as a result of a conference on this question; the editors of the book were Thomas Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. "The Elusive Yahwist", by Thomas Romer, was one of the papers presented there and published in the book). First, the conference was about the DH - which holds that the Pentateuch was composed by a series of editors joining together, quite mechanically, a set of four complete documents, each treating the same basic story, each with a beginning, middle and end. (I make that comment so that others reading this can follow, in case they don't know the background - I'm sure you already know it and I'm not trying to belittle you). SO when Romer talks about J being one of the most "unstable" of the DH sources, he's using the word "source" in the sense in which it's used by the DH - a document. But Romer would never deny that the Pentateuch is made up of sources in quite another sense, i.e., that it's a composite text, not the work of a single individual. Perhaps the pieces that make up the Pentateuch consist of a basic document which was later expanded (the "supplementary" model), or perhaps they were collections of originally independent writings and traditions that were gradually brought together by authors who filled in the gaps between them (the "fragmentary" model), but neither Romer nor any other scholar today would suggest that the Pentateuch is anything other than the end product of a long process of writing and editing, and that the authors used sources. Van Seters, for example, talks about a source he calls the Yahwist, but his Yahwist is nothing like the Yahwist of the DH (Van Seters has a contribution in "Farewell"). In short, please don't confuse the DH with the idea of sources - the DH had a certain idea of what the sources behind the Pentateuch were like, and that idea has now been questioned and probably overturned for the majority of scholars, but nobody at all suggests that the idea of sources, in a non-DH sense, is not a valid one. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe I was suggesting that the idea of sources is not a valid one. However, the questions over the DH put any dogmatism about "P" and "J" on very shaky ground. -- 202.124.73.143 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think our subsection "sources" is worded in a dogmatic, DH-centric way - I've edited it a bit. PiCo (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding edit:

01:25, 29 August 2012‎ 95.168.159.173 (talk)‎ . . (68,542 bytes) (+2,063)‎ . . (m.e. - more neutral (yes "creation myth" is still in place) w/o pinnpointing pre-interpretations in header (only sources P and E is an outdated concept - but finds its place in main body of article, still))
  • WP:SCOPE says: "The lead, ideally the introductory sentence or at least introductory paragraph, of an article, should make clear what the scope of the article is."
  • WP:LEAD says: 1. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
2. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Comment 1: It is arguable that the P/E concept is outdated, especially since the sources for the subject are modern references from:

  1. Janzen, David (2004). The social meanings of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible: a study of four writings. Walter de Gruyter Publisher. ISBN 978-3-11-018158-6, p. 118
  2. Ska, Jean-Louis (2006). Introduction to reading the Pentateuch. Eisenbrauns, p. 169, 217-218.
  3. Kugler, Robert; Hartin, Patrick (2009). An Introduction to the Bible. Eerdmans, p.14-16

Comment 2: Your removal of such content from the lead is inappropriate, because such topic (even if controversial) must support the WP:BODY as indicated per WP:LEAD.

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 16:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is what happens when you refuse to address POV problems. -- 202.124.73.93 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Maybe I'm dense, but I have no idea what this argument is about. And P/E? Maybe you mean P/J? PiCo (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, even I got the letters cornfused... P and J would be correct. P&E could be the same thing... I was just using the terms he used. Thanks for clearing up the right sources though PiCo.   — Jasonasosa 05:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit, saying "Judiasm and Christianity" seems to be quite a bit better than "Judeo-Christianity". I'm not sure why we would want to keep the latter. I take Theroad's point that the term "Judeo-Christianity" does, indeed, exist, but that doesn't make it the appropriate choice here. Are there any objections to restoring the other version, which seems to be more specific, more standard, and less jargony?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Judeo-Christianity" does not exist. As an adjective, Judeo-Christian is acceptable, but as a noun phrase "Judaism and Christianity" is better. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I had a look at wiki's article (called Judeo-Christian, by the way, not Judeo-Christianity). It says: "Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamism) is a term used in a historical sense to refer to the connections between the precursors of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism in the Second Temple period, especially in the United States." How odd - I never knew that Christianity and Judaism had precursors in the United States. PiCo (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article has been rewritten to exclude Genesis 1:3 from the first day. However, the book by Hamilton, for example, groups it with Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5. Why the change? -- 202.124.73.196 (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Genesis 1:1-3 isn't usually included in the first day because no actual creation takes place in those verses - the literary structure is that there's a sort of prologue describing how things are before God makes his first creative act (creation of light), he goes on to create various things over six days, and then there's a "postlogue" (sorry for the neologism) on Day Seven describing how things are at the end. That's the basic idea of the "framework" structure that most scholars (all perhaps) see underlying Genesis 1. It should be in the source referenced for the subsection - please check for me. As for Hamilton, can you give an exact page reference? PiCo (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think you have a point. I've moved some material around to make clear that the first 3 verses are part of the whole. The idea is, though, that they aren't part of the "first day", because the first day can't begin until Light is created and separated from Dark. This is really just the "framework interpretation", which I believe is the standard understanding of how Genesis n1 is structured. PiCo (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hamilton p 118 and following has verses 3-5 as the "first day." That is, the first day is the day light is created. This is certainly the traditional viewpoint, and I can't find any sources that take a different view. I would have thought it was obvious from the literary structure, anyway: each day begins "let there be" and ends with the numbering of the day. So much so that I'm restoring the numbering to what it was. It seems the change was part of a massive rollback by Editor2020, going back several weeks. One might ask if that rollback was a good idea. -- 202.124.75.153 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
But that's what our article has anyway - "day 1" begins at verse 3 with the creation of light, what comes before that is prologue. If you mean that what comes before verse 3 is included in day 1, Hamilton doesn't say that. PiCo (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'll just clarify that: At the top of page 118 of Hamilton's commentary on Genesis (your link above), Hamilton has a section heading that says: 2: The First Day (1:3-5). In other words, he's saying that the first day begins at verse 3 and continues to verse 5. If you go back slightly, to page 117, he says: ""[T]he position taken here is that v.1 is an opening statement ... Verse 2 then describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv.3ff." Hamilton's understanding, in other words, is that verses 1 and 2 are an introduction and description of the situation immediately before creation, and that day 1 begins at verse 3.PiCo (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying - stupid me. Yes, of course v.3 is included in day 1. PiCo (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Glad we agree. I'm not sure why this was changed. -- 202.124.73.28 (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how I got so confused :) PiCo (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
You probably reacted on gut instinct; IPs can never be right, after all. :) -- 202.124.72.177 (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Especially when the same User's IP changes constantly on at least 10 wiki pages within the same day, or at least spanning over two days... its really suspicious.  — Jasonasosa 06:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's called dynamic IP address allocation (plus the fact that thousands of other people use the same IP address pool). It's not suspicious. Why not get over it, and help build an encyclopedia? -- 202.124.74.222 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why not join the wiki-community and get a Username?   — Jasonasosa 03:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

This addition was recently made to the section Mythology, subsection Mesopotamian influence:

ADDITION Ephraim Avigdor Speiser made the following comparison of the Babylonian and Biblical creation myths,[1] based upon Alexander Heidel.[2]

Enuma Elish Genesis
Divine spirit and cosmic matter are coexistent and coeternal Divine spirit creates cosmic matter and exists independently of it
Primeval chaos; Ti'amat enveloped in darkness The earth a desolate waste, with darkness covering the deep (těhǒm)
Light emanating from the gods Light created
The creation of the firmament The creation of the firmament
The creation of dry land The creation of dry land
The creation of luminaries The creation of luminaries
The creation of man The creation of man
The gods rest and celebrate God rests and sanctifies the seventh day
  1. ^ Speiser 1964, p. 10.
  2. ^ Heidel 1963, p. 128-9.

ENDS

My problem with this is that it dates from 1964 - a long time ago. Things have moved on since then, and I doubt, specifically, that you'd find a lot of support today form the idea that Genesis 1:1 is about God creating matter. Anyway, what does everyone think? (Not your own ideas, please - quote and refer to contemporary scholars). PiCo (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

– As List of creation myths and List of flood myths show, articles about creation and flood myths from all other cultures have titles identifying them as creation and flood myths; only the stories of Genesis are privileged by being called "narratives" to avoid the colloquial connotation of "myth" with "untrue story." This special treatment is POV and violates the principle enjoined by Wikipedia:Article titles of using a title similar to those of similar articles. Cal Engime (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Must we also avoid any appearance of promoting other ideologies? What sort of encyclopedic basis is this? I thought we simply worked from the premise that bringing knowledge and enlightenment to people was our goal. I didn't realize we also needed to avoid looking ideological. Rather than avoidance, isn't an adherence to a neutral tone our goal here? -- Avanu (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what "middle" means here - is it as opposed to "extreme"? StAnselm (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The talk page guidelines at the top of this page say Restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even tendentious, unless consensus has changed or is likely to change. To start a new debate without reference to the previous debates (the consensus of April 2012 to move the page to its current location and the discussion of March 2012 which failed to obtain a consensus to move the page back) is an almost unforgivable oversight. I would suggest a speedy close here. StAnselm (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Five months is enough, and now you've referred to earlier discussions that's dealt with. All creation myth articles should use the word 'myth', and if anyone suggests it, I don't think we should be changing them all to narrative. This is a grown up encyclopedia, we can use grown up words (with appropriate explanations where needed). Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you could help us understand what exactly a "grown up" encyclopedia is, as opposed to one that uses well-researched sources? Since no one is proposing that we declare the Earth to be flat, or that meat can spontaneously become flies, perhaps you can explain this "grown up" perspective that you have been so keen to speak about. -- Avanu (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, of course. This nonsense has to end. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - First the idea that Wikipedia:Article titles requires this title to conform to other creation stories is a 'myth'. And I am using the colloquial meaning there. There is so much room for interpretation there, you could pilot an Antonov An-225 through it. And while you might say it is special treatment to use a more neutral term of 'narrative' instead of the less neutral term 'myth', the logic on that statement eludes any understanding. What you actually seem to be pushing for is a more biased term, that supposedly carries an academic meaning that is somehow more appropriate. Per WP:Article titles, "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms." Like it or not, an English Wikipedia is more likely to use an English-language common name that doesn't identify the Genesis story as a myth, compared with English-language sources about Popol Vuh or Pangu. It gets kind of annoying to see people wanting to change a well-understood item simply because they personally disagree with its veracity. -- Avanu (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • If you want to keep falling back on the statistics of "common usage" as a justification for not using myth in the title, whereas most of the other creation mythologies are titled as myths, then it might be time we take this up a notch and redefine the rules or bring about a wider discussion on these rules for this specific case. This has been a battleground for this article for far to long, and from an outside observer it's pretty clear that there is some bias going on here. #1 most followers in religion is Christianity, then Islam, both basically have the same creation myth, then comes atheists/agnostics, obviously no creation myth there, then Hinduism which doesn't really have a creation myth (cyclical universe), then Chinese creation myth, then Buddhism which again doesn't really have a creation myth (cyclical universe), then we get into the smaller indigenous religions. It's biased to have the largest religion's creation myth not labeled as such, but the next largest religion that has a creation myth be labeled as a myth. It's probably time that this be escalated up to actual policy changes, or a much wider discussion to take place about the appropriateness of this bias. — raekyt 06:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Is the neutrality of the term "myth" really disputed? It's in the first sentence of each article. - Cal Engime (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose for reasons covered in the previous discussions on this topic. FWIW, Google has "Genesis creation narrative" as the more common term (with "Genesis creation story" less common and "Genesis creation myth" even less common). Restricting the search to Google Scholar or Google books also finds that "Genesis creation myth" is the least common term. Indeed, "Narrative" is more appropriate for the Genesis account, as an item of literature. And newsflash: there is nothing specifically "middle," specifically "American," or specifically "Christian" about the Torah. -- 202.124.89.2 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Then demonstrate it as false that the modern evangelical middle American Christianity is the dominate number of believers who take it as literal truth currently in the world. — raekyt 06:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: The only argument that has ever been, or ever will be, put forth for the contrary position is that (some) Christians are offended by the word "myth" when applied to their own, well, myths. That is a disingenuous argument as none of those objecting feel even the slightest qualm in referring to, say, Hindu myths as such. In short, it's simple POV pushing. WP is based on scholarly sources, and we do not shy away from using scholarly terminology, even when, because of their own ignorance, some readers may misunderstand and feel offended by scholarly terms. WP is here to educate, not to mollycoddle hypersensitive infantile ignoramuses. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Incorrect: it was argued above that "Genesis creation myth" was the less common term in scholarly writing. -- 203.171.196.112 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

(ec)*Oppose per previous consensuses and all of the arguments presented there; I'll go through the archives to dredge them up if I have to as I don't want to sink another 30 hours in to this one (like I did the last RfCs on this page). I thought this shit was over. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply