This is an archive of past discussions about Genesis creation narrative. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The article accepts and promotes a very old-fashioned version of the Documentary Hypothesis, ignoring other theories: the current thinking would be that the Torah was composed between 450-250 BC in a series of expansions, with the creation narrative dating from the end of that period. Achar Sva (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Expanding the 'Hexameral literature' section
I propose that the following expansion be made to this section which at the moment only has one paragraph, and could do with further primary and secondary sources to give a fuller picture of hexameral literature on the Genesis creation narrative. Bouteneff 2008 has been cited as a reliable source since 2010, and no one has produced scholarly judgments to show that Bouteneff is unreliable, so I think it is unreasonable to say this source is so unreliable that all information from it should be immediately removed. In addition, nothing he is saying is controversial; he is just reporting the views of significant commentators in hexameral literature.
I'm not opposed to adding more sources to this, and I would appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions to improve this proposed expansion. However I do think it's highly unreasonable to simply delete this information, as has occurred twice now, rather than using the 'one source section' maintenance template which exists for precisely this kind of situation.
Theophilus of Antioch
The second-century Patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus, wrote a treatise attempting to convince his pagan acquaintance of the Christian faith by discrediting pagan classical literature and prophecy for its alleged contradictions and immorality, while upholding Scripture as possessing "antiquity", predating pagan philosophy. This treatise is known as the Letter to Autolycus and was cited as an authority by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Methodius and Lactantius.[1]
Theophilus attacks the polytheism and lack of divine providence of pagan myths, especially the account of Hesiod, lauding the Genesis creation account for its teaching of creation ex nihilo. His interpretation of the creation narrative is at times allegorical, for example, "through [plants] the resurrection is signified, for a proof of the future resurrection of all [human beings]". The waters are like the Law and the Prophets; the perfect sun is a type for God while the waxing and waning moon is a type for the human person.[2] Despite his propensity for allegory, Theophilus does not mention Adam-Christ typology which is present in the works of his contemporaries such as Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis, as well as in the New Testament, such that his interpretation resembles the Jewish exegesis of Philo of Alexandria and the midrash on Genesis.[3]
Theophilus establishes an antithesis between pagan myths, which are regarded as deceitful and novel, and trustworthy ancient history as represented by the Genesis creation narrative. From his conviction of the reliability and antiquity of the prophetic writings, he meticulously calculates a chronology: from the Creation to the Flood was 2,242 years, from the Flood to Abraham, 1,036 years, from Isaac to Moses, 660 years and so on until the death of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in AD 180.[4] He then evaluates the historicity of the Old Testament.
This message is not recent in origin, nor are our writings, as some suppose, mythical and false. They are actually more ancient and trustworthy. [... The Greek writers] lived long after [the prophets] and introduced a multitude of gods. For this reason it is plain that all the rest were in error and that only the Christians have held the truth—we who are instructed by the Holy Spirit who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold everything.[5]
Basil's homilies on the six days of creation (Hexaemeron) were appreciated widely; by Ambrose of Milan, Rufinus, Jerome and Socrates of Constantinople. Basil strongly separates the Genesis creation account from scientific accounts of creation, seeing instead a theological aim in Genesis to teach that "the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings, if it is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God".[6] Basil's homilies contain both a literalistic element seen in Theophilus, along with a fondness for practical working-class wisdom, as well as an Origenistic element in the Neoplatonic and allegorical concepts such as the notion of the pre-existence of Creation in the mind of God.[7]
Basil conceives of Creation as existing conceptually in the mind of God before coming into physical existence by his will, comparing God to "the artist [who], even before the combination of the parts, knows the beauty of each and approves them individually, directing his judgment to the final aim", claiming this to be the meaning of Colossians 1:16 ("For by him were all things created").[6] However, Basil criticises the excessive allegorisation of the Marcionites, Manichaeans and Valentinian Gnostics, taking the terms "light", "darkness" and "deep" as literal appellations, and emphasising that evil has no origin of itself, but rather that it is attributable to the voluntary fall of man.[8] He also interprets the days of creation as twenty-four-hour periods.[8] Yet, he regards God's sayings "Let there be..." not as a literal spoken word, but as an allegorical "seed" of theology; "the divine will, joined with the first impulse of intelligence, is the Word of God." Basil, like Origen, says that "Theological teachings are scattered as mystical seeds throughout the historical account"; this explains his cautious embrace of allegory alongside the confession of the historicity of the account. On the allegorical interpretations of the "firmament", he says the following.[9]
And if they tell you that the heavens mean contemplative powers, and the firmament active powers which produce good, we admire the theory as ingenious but we will not concede that it is altogether true. For in that case dew, the frost, cold and heat, which in Daniel are ordered to praise the Creator of all things, will be intelligent and invisible natures. But this is only a figure, accepted as such by enlightened minds [i.e., the authors of Scripture], to complete the glory of the Creator.[10]
Basil regards Creation as primarily doxological in glorifying the Creator, and secondarily as ethically instructive, for example in the perceived virtue of animals such as bees and turtles.[11]
I have heard it said that the sea urchin, a little contemptible creature, often foretells calm and tempest to sailors. [...] No astrologer, no Chaldaean, has ever communicated his secret to the urchin: it is the Lord of the sea and of the winds who has impressed on this little animal a manifest proof of his great wisdom. God has foreseen all, he has neglected nothing. His eye, which never sleeps, watches over all. He is present everywhere and gives to each being the means of preservation. If God has not left the sea urchin outside his providence, is he without care for you?[10]
Basil's series of homilies on the Hexaemeron were unfinished. There are two homilies on the origin of humanity which present themselves as a continuation of Basil's work, although they differ significantly in style, leading some scholars to doubt their authenticity.[12] In these homilies, the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 is interpreted as referring to the Trinity, unlike Theophilus. The term "image" is associated with the rational soul, and "likeness" with the human vocation to become like God. These homilies also regard men and women as equal in that they both possess the image and likeness of God, "Nobody may ignorantly ascribe the name of human only to the man. [...] The natures are alike of equal honor, the virtues are equal, the struggles equal, the judgment alike". The "making" of Adam in Genesis 1:27 is seen as referring to the soul while the "fashioning" in Genesis 2:7 refers to the deliberate and meticulous forming of Adam's body.[13]
This is the sort of thing that should have its own article, with a hyperlink in the see also section.Achar Sva (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
And I find it highly unreasonable that you have such a hidebound determination to add undue teleological content to this article with so little respect for establishing an actual consensus to do so when your additions are challenged, you having preferred to bludgeon the page. Looking over your comments on this page one detects a determined (glaring) creationist subtext. This content is more about Hexameral literature than it is about the Genesis creation narrative, so it has no place here. It might have a place in its own dedicated article. Carlstak (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
This article contains bias towards critical scholarship
Arbitrary header #1
This article fails at WP:NPOV, because it presents contested assertions as facts, namely the conclusions of biblical criticism regarding Genesis. As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally. In addition, many biblical scholars (generally those who are not critical scholars) would reject those statements anyway.
'Then what does it mean to say that “most” scholars hold one view or another? It always depends. If you mean “most scholars total” then you would have to include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. And I frankly don’t know the proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country. That’s why I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about.'
My proposed additions below (in bold), reflect Ehrman's practice. They would not only meet the expectation of WP:NPOV, but they would be informative to readers in demonstrating that the qualified statements originated in critical scholarship, rather than scholarship in general.
Objection courtesy of tgeorgescu: These additions should not be made because the opposing (traditional/conservative/evangelical) views are fringe, that is, they are marginalised in reliable sources (WP:NOTNEUTRAL). WP:GEVAL states that 'Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.'
Response: In Ehrman's blog post, he states,
'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats [sic] of NT writings) or not.'
Thus, it appears that an authority does regard evangelical views as worthy of legitimation through comparison to accepted scholarship. Therefore, my proposed additions would not violate WP:NOTNEUTRAL.
Lead (Line 6)According to most critical scholars, The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology, but adapted them to their unique belief in one God. Critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) view the first major comprehensive draft as having been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source),then later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like Genesis as known today. The two sources are identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is considered a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation:
Composition: Sources (Line 20) Although tradition attributes Genesis to Moses, most critical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods." The creation narrative is analysed as consisting of two separate accounts drawn from different sources. The first account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the Jahwist source (J).
Composition: Structure (Line 27)Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like, although not all scholars share these interpretations. Even the order and method of creation differs. "Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined." These differences motivate critical scholars to conclude that consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. (Note b: Levenson 2004)Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you. The current article does violate WP:NPOV by presenting contested scholarly interpretations as facts. Your proposed edits would better align with NPOV by clarifying that these views are held by "most critical scholars" rather than presenting their conclusions as undisputed facts. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with inline attribution."
WP:DUE is also relevant here. While we shouldn't give undue weight to "minority" views, we also shouldn't present "majority" views as universal facts. Your proposal strikes a better balance. The WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline encourages presenting multiple scholarly viewpoints when they exist as well. ViolanteMD 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm unlikely to respond in any detail today due to some horrible chemotherapy. But, and I don't mean to be rude, both of you are very new editors and I'm not convinced you understand our policy. More tomorrow if I feel well enough. Doug Wellertalk 06:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
It is well to recognize that the dominant viewpoint among scientists is not the only one. There are various minority viewpoints, represented by qualified scientists, but these viewpoints are largely suppressed by majority voices, by active persecution, and by selective reporting in the media.
Poythress, Vern S.. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (p. 21). Crossway. Kindle Edition. ViolanteMD 10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
We aren't going to be using something published by Crossway as a guiding light. This is an encyclopedia, not a campus bible study. jps (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Amen!;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. My proposal does not include any additions of content, so I believe the charge of 'ventilating pseudohistory' is irrelevant. I merely proposed attribution to certain claims which are both controversial and contested in biblical scholarship, and do not represent a consensus of experts, even within critical scholarship (cf. Ehrman). Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm no theologian, but an experienced Wikipedian, and to me the most important point here is that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Biblical criticism, "the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural" is the mainstream academic approach to the Bible. That's the reason I reverted Violoncello's edit here, where they added phrasing like "According to mainstream biblical scholars, the authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc" to the previous "The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc", added "most biblical scholars" to "biblical scholars" and turned the phrasing "The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts" into "Scholars analyse the creation narrative as consisting of two separate accounts". All of these changes tend to create a false balance between mainstream scholars (again, Biblical criticism) and the Documentary hypothesis and similar theories. It unduly legitimizes the documentary hypothesis. Violoncello10104 and ViolanteMD, I'm not saying your use of the word "neutral", as in "As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally", is wrong (and it's very, very common amongst new users). But its implication that Wikipedia should not take sides between non-religious and religious criticism goes completely against Wikipedia's policy Neutral point of view, which may be designated a term of art. I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue." We should actually present the mainstream consensus as undisputed facts. Bishonen|tålk 08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC).
It is called "neutral point of view", but a proper name would be "normative point of view". Like a civics teacher does not teach his/her own opinions, nor a mixed bag of all opinions, but the normative views of the society. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input on this matter. I appreciate the references to various Wikipedia policies, but I believe there's still a crucial point being overlooked.
I'm not advocating for the promotion of pseudohistory or fringe theories. I fully agree that Wikipedia should rely on mainstream academic sources and not be a platform for marginal or discredited ideas.
However, there's a critical distinction we need to make when dealing with religious topics. The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a religious concept or belief is primarily to explain what that belief entails, not to debate its historical accuracy or scientific validity.
When we describe what Christians believe about the Trinity or what Muslims believe about the Night Journey, we're not making historical claims. We're representing the content of a belief system. This is not pseudohistory.
I agree that "What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history." But that's precisely why we need to clearly delineate between theological claims and historical ones. A statement like "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim; it's an accurate representation of a Christian belief.
While I understand the importance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MAINSTREAM, we must apply these carefully in religious contexts. Presenting mainstream academic criticism of religious beliefs as the primary content, rather than the beliefs themselves, could be seen as violating NPOV by unduly favoring one perspective (academic) over another (believer's).
I'm not suggesting we ignore academic or critical perspectives. But they should not overshadow or replace the primary explanation of what the belief actually entails.
Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. It originated in its religious context.
I'm advocating for a nuanced approach that accurately represents religious beliefs as they are understood by adherents, clearly distinguishes between claims of faith and historical/scientific claims and includes relevant academic perspectives and criticisms where appropriate, without letting these dominate the main explanation of the belief.
This approach, I believe, better serves our readers and more accurately fulfills the role of an encyclopedia in explaining religious concepts. I hope this clarifies my position and opens up a constructive dialogue on how we can best handle these sensitive topics. Or you could just call me "too new to know better" again and not address my actual points. ViolanteMD 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. I don't agree that this is likely, and think that most readers consult Wikipedia for mainstream academic consensus on their topics of interest. Wikipedia is built upon mainstream scholarship.I might be biased here because I have a lot of experience with textual history, and early Biblical narratives are super interesting in critical literature studies.As an aside, I do identify as a person of faith, and I never edit in the topic area of my own faith. It's upsetting, unwinnable, and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, whether I like it or not. That's good, in that it makes the project stronger with respect to the terms on which it is constituted. We should all avoid editing in areas where we feel a strong emotional response, or possess experiential knowledge that is not grounded in published sources informed by Western / scientific ways of knowing.Content policies do in fact stipulate that academic and critical perspectives form the bulk of our prose, and overshadow religious teachings. Placing published mainstream scholarship on the same level as religious beliefs is WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV does not mean "median point of view", nor "attributing to named individuals everything disagreed with by anyone". We don't really have special carveouts for religious topics. We still treat them as encyclopaedia topics.I'm sorry if you're feeling stung for being called out for rookie misunderstandings. I hope you stick around and continue learning how our community operates. Blessings, Folly Mox (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
'I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice'
It seems to me that our disagreement lies in whether the non-critical claims in question are uncontested and uncontroversial, and not in whether fringe views should be given validity. If they are not uncontested and uncontroversial, then they ought to be attributed to a school of thought or scholar. In my original post, I gave Ehrman (a leading critical scholar) as an authority to determine this. He states, 'I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John). What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think'. It appears that Ehrman regards matters in which critical and traditional scholars disagree to be controversial, and thus will attribute a view to a school of thought, not presenting it as if it were an uncontested fact. Given this authoritative judgment, we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial.
I also agree with @ViolanteMD's reply to you which has some great arguments, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial—this talk page isn't meant for changing WP:PAGs.
About the Documentary Hypothesis: it is no longer the only game in town, but not because mainstream scholars are now more inclined with biblicist scholars.
Biblicism says that the Bible is historically accurate, despite the actual historical and archaeological record. Therefore, when biblicist scholars write the history of the Bible, they are writing pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your point that the Documentary Hypothesis is "no longer the only game in town." This actually reinforces the argument for a more nuanced presentation. If there are multiple scholarly perspectives within mainstream Biblical criticism, shouldn't we aim to represent that diversity of thought? Maybe we could:
Present the traditional religious understanding of the text held by those who are of the faith
Introduce mainstream critical scholarship, noting that the Documentary Hypothesis was once dominant and that there are now multiple scholarly approaches within Biblical criticism
Briefly outline areas of agreement/disagreement
This approach would adhere to existing policies and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of both the religious significance and the current state of academic discourse around this topic. ViolanteMD 11:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I was not at all proposing a change of policy. I was saying that the current application of the policy is incorrect given what an authority in biblical scholarship says about what is controversial and uncontroversial in his field. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
To your second point, there's a difference between saying:
"The Bible is historically accurate in all details." (a Biblicist claim)
"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." (a statement about religious belief)
"Archaeological and historical evidence supports some Biblical accounts while contradicting others." (a summary of scholarly historical research)
My concern is that by presenting only critical scholarly views without clear attribution, we might inadvertently misrepresent the beliefs held by many religious adherents. I think I've stated this on other pages related to Christianity that we've run into one another on. ViolanteMD 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." —true, but misleading: liberal theology does not claim that the Bible is historically accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
That's why I used the word "many". ViolanteMD 12:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I hope you feel better. ViolanteMD 10:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@ViolanteMD@Violoncello10104 Ok. Two WP:Administrators disagree with you, me and Bishonen, and together we have made over 300,000 edits. A main reason we were elected was that our knowledge of policy and guidelines was good enough that when editors consistently broke them we could block them with confidence. tgeorgescu had over 50,000 edits, many of them in this field. What are the odds that the two of you know more than we do? Doug Wellertalk 10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I respect your position and I'm sure you do know than me. I'm interested in your assessment of my argument. Quoting WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' Please know that I am not quoting that to disrespect you or the others. I have an argument which is logical, in line with the current policies, with support from an expert. This was the basis for making this discussion topic. Violoncello10104 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I got an eerie feeling that ChatGPT wrote your answers. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I get the feeling you don't know very well what a non-native English speaker sounds like. ViolanteMD 10:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see they actually are a native speaker. My bad. I guess ChatGPT is cranking out material with obvious grammatical errors in it like this nowadays. Those pesky generative AI chat bots... ViolanteMD 11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I have never used AI to generate text. I guess you'll just have to trust me on that point. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
You are straying into personal attacks. WP:PA. Please refrain from unconstructive "chatGPT" comments. You've been warned. Just10A (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"I could be mistaken" following a direct personal attack is not a defense. Please just move on. These epic threads do little good. Just10A (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I admit that I have conflated the two Viol-something. But in respect to one of them, it is not WP:PA, since it is highly likely at least one of their replies is AI-generated. I mean: if they did use ChatGPT (or something like that), and I accused them of using ChatGPT, it isn't a personal attack. It's just a fact pertaining to their edits. I cannot be blamed for noticing they did, nor for spilling the beans about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Tests range from 0 to 99% AI. Doug Wellertalk 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The results I got from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written (I did not scan their username as included in the post). I'm not saying this is bulletproof, but it seems to confirm my intuition. I mean: people do not write like that. Especially when they're not writing official reports for the government. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your post, it was most informative. Some people do in fact write like that. I've spent most of my life being told that I "talk funny". Thanks for that! ViolanteMD 08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Why do you have to appeal to being more experienced and not a Wikipedia policy? ViolanteMD 08:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
And the answer is that, despite your protestations, reliable historical research is done by critical scholars only. Other views may by WP:CITED, but only critical scholars speak in the name of the mainstream academia and in the name of mainstream history. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"due to some horrible chemotherapy" Don't take this as an insult Doug, but you are not as energetic as you were in your prime. Do you really want to spend your remaining time and energy in the never-ending dramas of Wikipedia's talk pages? They are probaby not beneficial to your state of mind. Personally, I often find myself contemplating the futility of reaching for a compromise through them. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Your claim is overly restrictive and misrepresents academic diversity. "Critical scholars" aren't the sole arbiters of reliable historical research. Mainstream academia includes various methodologies and perspectives in Biblical studies. This stance contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV policy and could lead to biased articles. A more balanced approach would accurately represent the spectrum of scholarly opinion while maintaining standards for reliable sources. ViolanteMD 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may "often train as historians", but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that not all of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Wikipedia policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. Mojowiha (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
We're all here at this talk page to obey the WP:RULES, not to change them. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Dismissing all NT scholarship as unreliable is an overreach. Many NT scholars employ rigorous historical methods. The existence of some theologically-biased work doesn't invalidate the entire field.
Your argument seems to be an attempt to systematically exclude NT scholarship from Wikipedia under the guise of maintaining academic rigor. This approach would itself introduce significant bias. Wikipedia's goal should be to accurately capture the range of scholarly views, including mainstream historical perspectives and the diversity within NT scholarship. This would align with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies.
Any article discussing religious beliefs must also accurately describe what the believers actually believe. Failure to do so renders the article fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative, and potentially useless. Accurate representation of religious beliefs is crucial. Dismissing it as unimportant undermines the validity of the entire discussion, regardless of one's personal stance on religion. It's not our role to judge these beliefs, but to present them accurately.
Instead of blanket exclusion, we should critically evaluate sources, clearly attribute claims, and provide context for different scholarly approaches and beliefs. This maintains neutrality while acknowledging the field's complexities.
WP:RULES are meant to ensure comprehensive, balanced articles, not to exclude entire academic disciplines or misrepresent belief systems based on personal biases. ViolanteMD 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm not using ChatGPT but I noticed you also accused the other user commenting of the same thing. Interesting take from someone whose main refutations besides one-liners are just kopipe.
Your definition of "critical scholarship" is overly narrow; it's not the only valid approach to Biblical studies. Wikipedia should represent the full spectrum of scholarly approaches, not just those focused on source criticism. This aligns with WP:NPOV and ensures comprehensive coverage of the field. ViolanteMD 10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
If it sounds like the prose of a full professor, writing a paper for the government, who employed several proofreaders, then it is perhaps computer-generated.
Also, some scholars may be WP:CITED, but we don't cite them as they were mainstream historians.
Purely theological exegesis is okay, but it does not count as history.
An obvious point: if they don't abide by the historical method, they are not writing history. They may be writing theology or apologetics, but not history.
If one wants to write history, there are shared rules and shared assumptions for doing so. There is certain stuff which historical research cannot deliver. It cannot say whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus got resurrected, since that is not a matter of historical record.
There can be no evidence that Jesus is God and there can be no evidence that Jesus isn't God. That's not a matter predicated upon objective historical evidence.
In mainstream history, the sentence "Jesus is God" does not have a truth value. It is neither true, nor false.
If one is writing a historical paper, they cannot claim that Jesus is God, nor that Jesus isn't God. That would be utterly puerile.
There are some very important questions, which nevertheless cannot be answered objectively. Pretending otherwise just makes the matter worse. Some stuff is just faith, not history. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I am an MD/PhD with a job in technical writing, but the real answer must be that I'm several teenagers inside of a trench coat using ChatGPT to generate my responses, and not that this article violates WP:NPOV. ViolanteMD 08:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
More to the point: despite its sophisticated prose, your argument is essentially a red herring. Since it does not use WP:PAG-based definitions of the terms, but English language dictionaries definitions.tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
ChatGPT can produce inhumanely slick and professional answers, but it does not mean that ChatGPT understands the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The irony of this post is too much. ViolanteMD 08:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Great, more lack of good faith. You should just drop this, you aren't going to get your way. Doug Wellertalk 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
We should refocus on the content and policies rather than making assumptions about intentions. Our focus should be on the quality and accuracy of contributions and evaluating edits. If there are specific policies you believe I've misinterpreted, I'm open to discussing them. Ideally something beyond just criticizing the way that I write.
Instead of telling me to "drop this," I think I'll reach out for help. In the mean time, I insist that we attribute information to the originating sources in order to make it plain where the information is coming from. ViolanteMD 09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Reach out where exactly? Not to bring in more editors, that's WP:CANVASSINGDoug Wellertalk 09:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Pardon me, I'm just getting back into edit WP so if I miss a step I do hope AGF is still a thing.
What I see is a "definition fight" over the phrase "scholarly consensus". Thankfully, WP doesn't care about the definition of either "scholarly" or "consensus" in regards to WP:RS. So, this whole thread appears, to my old and untested eyes, to be moot. The question is: is any given source reliably delivering the information they are presenting? Is it peer-reviewed? etc. The standing of the source is what matters, not what some may call it.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Padillah (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
@Padillah: The dispute was about WP:LLM. Wikipedia Community does not trust such edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
If you want to present scholarship as "critical scholarship" or "mainstream scholarship," you'll also have to present an overview of the views of non-critical ('traditional', conservative Evangelical) scholarship on these matters. That's possible, akin to the overview at Christ Myth theory, or (preferably) as a separate subsection, which is already there (but not very well written): Genesis creation narrative#Creationism and the genre of the creation narrative. The question is: are those views significant? More precise: are they relevant as scholarly views, or as religious views? As religious views, a short explanation, in a section on religious views, would be: 'Conservative Evangelicals view the creation story as...'.
Without such an addition I also see no point in the attribution, except for the implication that it is 'just an opinion', or as a signal-word akin to "leftish" at India-related pages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
[1] the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
[2] separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ([2a] "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than [2b] Mosaic")
[3] the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
Mesopotamian influence:
[4] borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
[5] the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
Sixth day:
[6] the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
According to Violincello10104, the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. Maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I believe [1] and [2] can be subsumed into one point. Point [6] was never in dispute as this was always attributed to the various scholarly perspectives. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I've gone through the objections, but see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of Bishonen, Doug Weller, and tgeorgescu. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate this very much, as a detailed examination of my original argument is what I was looking for. I feel once we have discussed this there will be no need for the DRN so I will write that I would like to put that on hold at least for the moment. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
And I'm very interested in getting to know more about these 'alternate' (conservative, Evangelical) views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
[1] the existence of two separate creation-narratives
scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different times. The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming [...] The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways.
So, not controversial (unless you reject Bart Ehrman, of course). Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press, gives an apologetic view, but still refers to the documenatary hypothesis, which seems to have been superseeded. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
As explained in its main article, the documentary hypothesis has been partially replaced by a fragmentary hypothesis: "the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases." So instead of four main sources, there may have been numerous texts edited into the Pentateuch. Dimadick (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Preceding Ehrman's quote, this statement from VC from the DNR:
According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree.
Ehrman here does not say "most scholars," but he also doesn't say critical scholars"; he just says "scholars," and seems to be quite outspoken that this is broadly accepted. So, VC's 'Ehrman-criterium' seems to be met here.
The book of Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are known. This includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition says that Moses wrote these five books but the scholarly consensus is that Moses didn’t write any of them.
That is evidence of inconsistency on the part of Ehrman, according to his own principle in the blog post I gave, he ought to have said 'the consensus of critical scholarship' or something like that, as he says 'What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about. I might make a mistake about that on occasion.' Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
[2] separate authorship ([2a] "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than [2b] Mosaic")
Solved:
Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the Genesis to Moses "as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th century.[16][17] Scholars of Biblical criticism conclude that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."[18]
Support this. Great job. Just10A (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not proposing for any additional info to be given, but for attribution of critical scholarship to critical views to be given (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]). I do not know what the source of this quote is, but that is precisely what I am requesting for this article. At the very least, an acknowledgment that scholars 'of biblical criticism' conclude separate authorship. I would actually endorse the insertion of this quotation in the article somehow, and would consider my concerns allayed on that point. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Although this goes beyond my proposal, I think it would be beneficial to include the first sentence about the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The quote is an excellent and brief summary of the authorship question. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
What kind of weighting do you think we should give to the (often contradictory) opinions of religious extremists about this particular mythology? jps (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Is this a serious comment, aiming to improve the page? The sentence is quite clear, isn't it, with regard to weight. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This is serious. Unless there is a coherent argument to the contrary, I think that the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as believers in thing mythology are not relevant to the subject of this article and certainly don't belong in the lede. jps (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Discarding scholars because of their religious views, especially when some of them are respected among critical scholars, is never a good idea. If you label this as 'fundamentalist religious POV pushing,' then what you are doing—discarding scholarship based on religion and your own understanding of the world—can be labeled as communist POV pushing, or perhaps as POV pushing from someone who doesn’t like Christians and Jews. As far as I can see, it’s not the Christians and Jews who have an issue with NPOV here, but the editors who call them extremists. Yes, proper attribution must always be provided, such as according to conservative views and according to more mainstream or critical views. However, I don’t think omitting it would be appropriate or NPOV, as they are still scholars with their own reasoning. I mean, it’s up to the readers to discard their theories as nonsense based on the reasoning of science and other considerations, or they may take away other lessons. We should not be the ones to decide which views to censor based on religion if there is sufficient scholarship about it. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If people argue for demonstrably incorrect things as do those who believe in what they call the literal interpretation of the bible, we are under no obligation to spread their opinions. jps (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Traditional views do not necessarily mean literal interpretation. They have philosophical inquiry at their core, especially if the religion itself is not extremely rigid. In this case, I don’t see how traditional views can act exclusively as a support for literal translation. If it’s not already clear enough in the article, maybe someone can work on that (that literal translations without nuance are highly unlikely). More distinction might be required between literal translations and movements that believe in them, and the traditional views of many other denominations, which I agree often come across as apologetics for the religion itself. That’s why I believe attribution is necessary. Still, I don’t see any reason to remove them if they have enough relevant scholarship. Let the readers decide about critical views and apologetic views. There’s no need to censor 'scholars' of one side. DangalOh (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we should include them if third parties have commented on them. But as singular statements of opinion, they don't belong in Wikipedia. There are certain ideas (e.g. "Moses authored the Pentateuch") which deserve inclusion because there are third-party scholars that comment on such claims. But detailed analyses trying to shoe-horn some orthodox religious interpretation as worthy "on the other hand" points do not deserve inclusion unless others have commented on them. jps (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Unless others might have commented on them might not be very reflective of the point I was making. In any case, even for that, you need to engage constructively, section by section, with the editors involved, and put forward your objections before deciding on some adjustments. Questions like "How fringe is the view? Is it part of the tradition or a single fringe scholar trying to come up with something new?" etc. should be discussed and analyzed there with the editors involved. But if you act in bad faith and behave as though you are here just to discredit something and resort to name-calling like "extremists," then I don’t think many here would be willing to engage with you, and you will be dismissed on the grounds of bigotry, not because your points were or will not be good enough. I don’t know what your points will be but it was not good enough earlier; I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Also, Traditional views may often claim divinity in them, but then we have a section of critical views to debunk or challenge them. And as I said, leave that to the readers; if someone is more inclined toward science, they will lean more toward critical views, in any case. My job is done here. I’ve given my opinion. Now I rest (hopefully not in peace). Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
He is not against Jews and Christians, since nobody would accept that. He is against fundamentalists trying to pass for historians.
You see, theology means knowledge of God, not knowledge of historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
And that’s what I said: fringe claims or sources, such as those trying to prove that the literal meaning of the verses is exactly as written word for word, should be singled out. That is not philosophy. Still, I’m not entirely in favor of completely removing them. I mean, don’t you think the more ridiculous the claim, the easier it is to debunk? On the other hand, you cannot debunk a philosophy, like, for example, the concept of the Trinity and nuances such as the Royal We and singular Elohim which are traditional views held by an extremely large group. These are not fringe claims, nor are they based on literal written meanings, but might be more rooted in belief. They are forms of philosophy that emerged from those scriptures through some form of reasoning. As I said, if someone has a problem with the concept of belief in divinity, they should discuss it in the next section under critical or mainstream analysis using science, logic, facts, reality, or whatever they have in their arsenal. My point is there’s no problem including how Christians and Jews view their scriptures unless it’s extremely ridiculous, like a literal word-for-word interpretation. I would even argue that labeling these people as extremists is not justified unless they are imposing that belief on you forcefully. Everyone deserves to live their life their way peacefully until they disturb others, so it’s better to refrain from labels. Soooo, now I’m going to sleep for real... Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If you can find independent sources who discuss how Christians or Jews view this scripture as it relates to the scripture itself, that's fine. What is not okay is passing off the musings of the faithful that no one has bothered to address in the scholarly literature. jps (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
So... the views of those who continue the Biblical traditions are not relevant, only those of whom questioned these beliefs and rejected them? It means you remove the context and background of critical Bible-studies; that's a pityfull impoverishment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
What basis do you have for thinking that believers in demonstrably incorrect things deserve space in Wikipedia articles? I mean, things like "this story happened as written". jps (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're severely strawmanning the views of religous critical scholars. I think that your classification of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as "religious extremists" and Christianity as "mythology", despite that not being the mainstream terms to describe them, speaks for itself. I think its evident that you're not going to get consensus here. Just10A (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about? How is a literal interpretation of the bible not religious extremism? How is this not mythology? Who in the mainstream disputes either point? jps (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a "literal interpretation" issue. Nowhere in Genesis does it say Moses wrote it. Moses isn't even mentioned in Genesis. . The idea that Moses wrote it comes from tradition and/or extrapolation from statements that he wrote totally different books. Not literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what editors are talking about. You're clearly inserting your own bias into this by using fringe theory, negative connotation terms and then shifting the talk to literal interpretation debates, despite it not even being the issue here. @DangalOh Already outlined it nicely. You're clearly contrary to editor consensus and no one wants to engage with you because of your name-calling tactics. Probably best to move on. Just10A (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
It is a literal interpretation issue. The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. They are being put back into the article for false balance. That's not okay. No reliable sources should be referencing Answers in Genesis for anything but the recognition that they are the butt of jokes on the internet. jps (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Well that's great, but "The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. is WP:OR. We don't go off of what editors think the sources seem like to them. So on top of you being over-ridden by consensus. It's contrary to policy. Just10A (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR is a recommendation for article writing. It is not a charge that we must act the fool on a talkpage when a source is presented as scholarship which is actually just creationist claptrap. jps (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not merely a recommendation. WP:OR is wikipedia policy. The only exception is via an "ignore all rules" scenario, and that is clearly not met here. Particularly since you're contrary to consensus. Just10A (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Lol! WP:OR applies to articlespace only. I have no intention of changing course. Feel free to file a case with a drahmaboard if you think it's a problem. jps (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Correct. You are trying to change article space, based upon OR, are you not? Just10A (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I have made an evaluation of a source. Answers in Genesis is garbage as far as a source for anything goes. They deserve to be excised. Go ahead and complain to the admins that I hurt the feelings of acolytes of that website. I don't care. jps (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Why can't you wait for other editors who might share your position? Instead, you are being rude for no reason and acting like a child when you don’t get what you want. I don’t care about the source or what's taken from it, as long as it’s attributed; that’s fine. It’s not like people have written a golden article on AIG , so why even care? Readers can easily check the details about the organization from which the content is sourced right here on Wikipedia if they don’t already know. Attribution is key. You are asking for complete censorship. After this attitude, you are also throwing tantrums. Because of this behavior, other proper editors who might have shared your stance will run away. You are crossing the line between criticism and pure hatred. I have nothing more to say to you. DangalOh (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Echoing thoughts above. I think this issue is sufficiently resolved. Just10A (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
No. It's not good enough to say, "Readers can check where the information is from". Wikipedia should not link to incorrect information. That's all that Answers in Genesis provides. This is a hill I am willing to die on. Try to take me out if you would like.
There is nothing rude about this. It's just a terrible source and it needs to be removed. I cannot conscience the idea of students coming to this page looking for accurate information and being told, "hey, check out these charlatans". No, that's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.
WP:OR is not banned from talk pages and crying OR does not prevent the editors from recognizing WP:BLUE stuff. We have to call a spade a spade in the talk pages, regardless of whether a full professor already did that for us. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Think you need to re-read my comment at 18:41. Regardless, editors have already patiently explained to you two why your positions are contrary to policy, and you have cited nothing to support your statements. And now, since you guys resorted to name-calling and overall rudeness, people aren’t interested in walking you through it again or engaging with you anymore. You were contrary to consensus, you tried to explained your position, and the consensus was not swayed. Move on. Just10A (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
This article cites Ken Ham? (yes, at the moment) Answers in Genesis? (yes, it does). For shame. Neither is a reliable source for any information, including about themselves, and they have no place in this article. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I transferred the sentence with the Ham citation verbatim from the old 'Framework interpretation' article (due to the merge), where it was added over ten years ago. The sentence in question is describing the views of biblical literalist young-earth creationists. I actually would prefer another source because he is considered fringe even among evangelicals. I also think there could be a better replacement for AiG. I will do some research and find something in the next few days then propose it here.
Note: my position about evangelical scholars in general remains unchanged. Collins is mainstream, Ham is not. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
contrary to policy? Seriously? Collins 2006 was cited 14 times, while Collins 2018 and Friedman got one citation each.
Even if Collins 2006 remains in the article, it is preposterous that he gets the lion's share.
I'm a moderate: I can agree that completely removing Collins 2006 is perhaps too radical, but this article should not become WP:SOAP for Collins 2006. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
My mistake, this is actually a part of the article already hahaha. Since this is already the practice of the article, what is wrong with applying it consistently? In other words, what is your disagreement with my proposed edits to Lines 6, 20 and 27 (not with respect to Mesopotamian influence on this point)? Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
[3] the existence of contradictions between these two narratives
The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary - "often" is imprecise; I'd say "usually," and have added this. I've already added a note there, with the Ehrman-quote, and the line For an apologetic view, see Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press. We could precede that line with something like "Conservative/Evangelical Christians view the two stories as mutually dependend stories which form one narrative." One source (random, Google "evangelicals genesis one narrative"): J. Daryl Charles (ed.)(2013), Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, Hendrickson Publishers, p.2-3, mentions literary versus literal reading, and historical versus literary. I've added this to the Ehrman-Jackson note.
although not all scholars share these interpretations. - imprecise; state "X (kind of) scholars are of the opinion that ... [source]," which could be added to a note. It's not clear now at all which scholars you'r ereferring to, what they object to, and what alternative they propose.
I've made a series of edits; it looks like although not all scholars share these interpretations is the only issue left. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your opinion is on my 'Ehrman-criterium' (especially given my response to you in [1]), but if we accept it, then the second sentence in the lead paragraph 'The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:4, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P)', should be preceded by some statement like, 'According to traditional interpretation, the Pentateuch in its entirety was written by Moses as an inspired and infallible work [e.g. due to Jesus' and Paul's attribution of the Pentateuch to Moses], while critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy), the first account...' This also applies to the first paragraph of Note b. Also cut out the sentence 'drawn from different sources' and move the note to the second sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
That's perfect except for the word 'mainstream'. My argument (and the Ehrman-criterium) necessitate that this word should be replaced by 'critical'. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning the traditional view since composite authorship is an 'uncontroversial and uncontested fact'. This is in reference to WP:GEVAL which has this 'fringe/mainstream' dichotomy that's been extensively debated on this talk page. Unrelated note: you can remove the first appearance of Note b since it now comes twice in one sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
No. You can't ad hoc interpret your 'Ehrman-criterium' to make it fit your preferences. Ehrman, in two differnt writings, clearly states "scholarly concensus" and "scholars," not "critical scholars" or "Biblical criticism," nor "mainstream. I've changed it to plain "scholars," per Ehrman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I have never said that Ehrman possesses supernatural infallibility in his writings. In determining what views 'mainstream scholarship' includes, I consulted the opinion of an expert in the field, who states that he does not discount evangelical scholars and will not attribute a conclusion to 'most scholars' unless evangelicals agree. His practice in other writings is totally irrelevant. I am interested in his opinion on this matter specifically. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, with respect to NPOV I think this article is fine now and I have no further qualms. But my original argument aside, I think 'critical' should be added before 'scholars' for the sake of clarity. Jewish and Christian tradition maintain textual unity, now 'scholars' dispute this. Why? The reason for this is biblical criticism, therefore this should be specified. Violoncello10104 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
'The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like.' This sentence would be denied by any traditional scholar (including any traditional/orthodox Christian or Jew). As per the Ehrman-criterium (really WP:NPOV), it must not be stated in Wikipedia's voice but qualified to critical and/or liberal scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Why would it be denied, according to which source? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I've attributed this piece to it's author, Carr. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: [...] Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
(International Council on Biblical Inerrancy 1978, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Oakland, California. https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.) This statement was signed by a number of prominent evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, and represents traditional Protestant interpretation. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
That's a primary source, and does not directly address Carr's statement, or the perceived differences in narrative structure/content. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
We have also seen that the assertion that the P account lacks anthropomorphisms is mistaken: the first pericope actually depends on an anthropomorphic presentation, where God is a craftsman going through his workweek, taking his rest each evening, and then enjoying his Sabbath. This merges with the anthropomorphic presentation of the second pericope, in which God "forms" the man like a potter and "builds" the woman. Further, we have already seen that, while the first pericope certainly does emphasize God's transcendence, it is far from presenting him as distant or aloof. In fact it invites us to enter into aspects of God's own experience, and to imitate his model. [... p. 231] Where does this leave us? Do these pericopes come from separate sources or not? There is no way to answer this question, since the putative sources no longer exist. But for each feature that is put forward to support the source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow of the narrative. In other words, if someone produced this text by stitching sources together, he left the seams smooth indeed.
(Genesis 1—4: a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary, C. John Collins, 2006, P&R Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, pp. 230-231) Composite authorship is contested and controversial. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I approve of this now since you added 'According to Carr,' however you might like to add this argumentation from Collins in response to Carr to round out the POV of this article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The imprint of Mesopotamia’s mythic thought and literature on Genesis’ Primeval History (Genesis 1–11) is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole. But these factors cannot take away from the place of Mesopotamia’s stories of origins in the Bible’s opening chapters; and the latter, remarkably, do not fully conceal these antecedents. To the contrary, in its layout the biblical text appears frank about the locale of what preceded its eventual epic-making call to Abraham to “go forth” (Gen. 12:1) from his homeland and begin anew in a faraway place.
This is also far beyond "too controversial and contested." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The 'imprint of Mesopotamia's mythic thought and literature on Genesis' is different from 'borrowing of themes'. Notice that Klamm and Winitzer qualify their statement, saying '... is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole.' I believe the current wording of 'borrowing' is too broad and does not give the nuance which Klamm and Winitzer express. Again, I would endorse the addition of the wording of this quote into the article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Violoncello10104: Sarna (1997) says "borrowed some themes"; that's in line with the nuance you're looking for. I've added "some" to the text, and changed the sentence in the lead into
@Dimadick: those two internet-articles are linked in a note, as examples of the conservative/Evangelical view; I wouldn't use them as sources, just as 'illustrations'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The Evidence Unseen absolutely goes into the creation bits of Genesis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
You're right, but is it consequential? The idea is to get an idea of the way of thinking. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
We should not be deciding which sources provide an adequate "idea of the way of thinking". Use a secondary source, not a primary one. jps (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I approve of that edit as it places 'borrowing' within the context of 'influence'. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
[5] the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation
The body of the article says:
establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors. (Leeming 2004, Smith 2001)
Leeming (2004) Oxford University Press; Smith 2001 Oxford university Press.
If, then, the Bible was to offer something meaningful about such topics, Mesopotamia’s version of events would necessarily have to be addressed. The challenge presented by Mesopotamia, therefore, would amount to a delicate balancing act: How was the Bible to incorporate this ancient tradition while at the same time not losing its own claim for a theological revolution?
I also don't see how this could be "too controversial and contested." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I can concede this point if my suggestion in [4] is accepted. The term 'borrowing' in my mind connotes a kind of plagiarism on the part of the biblical authors, whereas what you have quoted speaks of 'imprint'. 'Influence' is another good word, and not even orthodox/fundamentalist scholars would disagree that there was Mesopotamian imprint or influence upon Genesis. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
[6] the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
Ehm... I don't recall where that came from ... The article now says:
n Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural,[98] or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings.[99] A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".[100]
Excluding the account in Genesis 5 from the narrative has enabled the propagation of two urban legends, one that the male and female of chapter 1 are different people from the Adam of chapter 2, and another that Adam had no daughters, or even that he had only two sons.
The first two verses of chapter 5 identify the male and female as Adam. The next two verses present Seth as another son of Adam, and says that Adam had more sons and daughters. The genealogy in the rest of chapter 5 identifies Seth as an ancestor of Noah.
The urban legend that Adam had no daughters encourages a third urban legend, that Cain found his wife in the land of Nod. Genesis only says that he "knew" her there.
Intrafamilial marriage is common in Genesis, and considering that Adam married a woman made from his own rib, their children could certaimly marry one another. Downstrike (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
"their children could certaimly marry one another." I thought incest between siblings is implicit in the narrative about the descendants of Adam and Eve. Most of the adaptations of the Book of Genesis which I have encountered since my childhood made that aspect of the narrative more explicit. The love story between Abraham and his paternal half-sisterSarah is not the only incestuous tale in this particular book. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. Abraham's nephew, Lot, was married to his own niece, and some time after her death his daughters contrived to have children by their father. Abraham's son, Isaac, was married to his first cousin, and Isaac's son, Jacob, was married to two of his first cousins once removed.
For that matter, we must assume that Noah's grandchildren married either their siblings or their cousins.
However, many people who have never read the Genesis accounts assume that there were other people for Cain and for Noah's Family to marry. Indeed, many of them are taught this by teachers and religious leaders, who either don't know any better themselves, or expect that their students will never read Genesis. Sadly, after their students are taught such denigrating urban legends about Genesis, teachers would usually be correct about them never bothering to read it. Downstrike (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
.jpg)