Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Creationism navbox?

I don't get it. This article mentions evolution and/or the modern political controversy in a total of one sentence, along with a whole load of other things only peripherally related to modern creationism. The article title and 99.9% of the content imply it is about the text of Genesis. And yet a template devoted to the modern political controversy, with a collection of links to barely related articles, hangs over it all. If I could be forgiven a comparison: the title "Hindu creation myth" currently, unfortunately, redirects to "Hindu views on evolution". But let's say we had an article of that title. Or, better yet for our comparison, we had an article of the title "Vedic creation myth" (or, "Vedic creation narrative"). Let's say said article devoted its entire text to a discussion of the text of the Vedas from a textual, literary, historical and mythological point of view. This article makes no reference anywhere to modern day political controversies between Vedic literalists and biologists. In fact there is no reference to biology anywhere in the article.

Do we put the same "creationism" navigation box in the intro to our article on the Vedic creation narrative?

182.249.240.17 (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Two creation myths in Genesis, not one

I tried to fix this article to reflect the modern scholarly consensus that Genesis1:1 to 2:4 is one narrative taken from the P source and it is followed by a second, separate story from the J source. The P narrative is comparable to Enuma Elish and the second to the Epic of Gilgamesh. I was almost immediately reverted by another user who seems to be a conservative Christian who despite this clearly knows even less than I do about the Bible. Why on earth should we be wording this article according to the desires of conservative Christian Wikipedians (moderated slightly by the whims of atheist Wikipedians) rather than the consensus of modern scholarship!? 182.249.241.1 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My primary source is this lecture. Now, granted, the source is Yale University, a bastion of rank, atheistic liberalism, but... 182.249.241.1 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you making disruptive comments just for the sake of it? There has never in 2000 years yet been any "consensus" and that is only one that not all scholars have ever accept by a long shot. Why pretend now there is "consensus" when clearly there never has been? We are talking about hypothetical, reconstructed "source documents" that have never once been unearthed nor found to actually exist anywhere and never will be because their supposed contents are only divined and argued about by proponents of that hypothesis from their armchairs. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There's modern, secular scholarship and there's religious doctrine. Everyone except very conservative Christians and Jews accept that Genesis 1 contains a different, separate creation account from Genesis 2. You are arguing to make this article reflect a certain theological viewpoint rather than what is taken as a FACT in virtually all scholarly literature on the subject. This stance is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. If you want to edit an online encyclopedia that rejects secular scholarship (rank, atheistic liberalism) go edit Conservapedia. 182.249.241.7 (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you are trying to give some kind of magical precedence to your hypothesis when it has never been proven and has never been accepted by all scholars. You are attempting to exclude all scholars and viewpoints and diverse intrepretations that don't conform to your DH school of thought, using openly inflammatory and bigoted language. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"MY HYPOTHESIS"!? It's a widely accepted theory taught in every Hebrew Bible course in every major university in the western world! What on earth are you talking about!? 182.249.241.29 (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it is totally reconstructed, unproven, hypothetical and debated, they cannot locate these imaginary "source texts" for obvious reasons, the theory has plenty of critics and certainly no monopoly on the vast range of interpretations of this part of the Bible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"They" being every scholar on earth who isn't a fundamentalist? Anyway, I'm not here to argue source theory with you. I'm trying to point out in the article that there are two separate creation myths in Genesis. 182.249.241.13 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You might not want to be taking the side of intolerance toward dissent from your POV, have another read of WP:NPOV Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are promoting a specific theological view of the book in question that is not supported by scholarship, and you are reading malicious agenda into my comments. Maybe you should read WP:AGF again. I have presented a reputable, scholarly source written by a recognized expert and published by a major university, and this source says "There are two separate creation myths in Genesis, with a number of contradictions between them. That is it. End of story." You have 48 hours to find a comparably reliable source that argues against this view. If you can do this I will alter my proposal to say "most scholars say X, but others such a Scholar Y disagree". Either way, though, the article as it stands is unacceptable. 182.249.241.42 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As the editor who initially reverted you, I would like to respectfully point out that, your assumptions notwithstanding, there was nothing in my action or edit summary that was in the slightest way religiously motivated. What I saw was an IP editor make a fairly substantial edit to the lead paragraph of a highly sensitive article. Although I strongly disapprove of Til's rhetoric, he does make a point that the two sources are part of a hypothesis, and at that, one which "has been increasingly challenged". Two "parts", two "myths", two "narratives", two "stories" might all work, but more important is the process by which we edit. I was simply following the WP:BRD model. Please refrain from jumping to conclusions about my knowledge of the Bible. Ἀλήθεια 11:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP is definitely correct, there are two narratives, not one, all you have to do is read it to see that. To reject the basis of biblical scholarship for hundreds of years is not something a neutral source of information such as an encyclopedia should do.Smeat75 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I apologize for my assumptions. I've had some bad experiences editing articles in this area in the past. Your Greek username remindedme of those people with the userboxes that say "This user knows more about the Bible than you", and your recentedithistory didn't help, but I can see how I kind of jumped the gun, and I agree with BRD, which is why I came here rather than re-reverting. Let's bury the hatchet on that, since this page is meant to be about article content anyway.

As to the substance, it seems to me that source criticism is a "major, controlling" hypothesis (Prof. Hayes' wording, again). But like I already told TE, this is not so much about source theory itself, which Hayes herself seems to have somewhat conflicting views of. The problem here is whether Genesis contains "a creation myth, in two parts" or "two creation myths". This is related to source theory, but it seems to be one of the strongest and most broadly accepted aspects of the theory. Hayes, for instance, is ambivalent about source criticism in general, and explicitly rejects its more extreme forms, but she states the two-creation-myths-in-Genesis point as a matter of fact (it's in lecture 3, at 12:44~12:52 -- Now, if we turn to the creation story -- the first of the two creation stories that are in the Bible, 'cause in fact there are two creation stories with quite a few contradictions between them -- that's her emphasis).

I'm concerned here that this article's first few lines read like a polemic against this scholarly point of view: "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth (not "creation myths") of both Judaism and Christianity. It is made up of two parts (but is not made up of two separate myths)". This is part of why I didn't support the recent RM: I share HiLo's concerns about systemic bias, but I'm frankly more worried that using the technical term "creation myth" to describe the combined narrative in Genesis (which this article currently does) is problematic, when specialists don't speak of the "Genesis creation myth" but of the "Genesis creation myths". (I also don't like the tendency of some atheists to poke the bear by using "myth" to describe things like the crucifixion of Jesus. They are correct acvording to the technical sense of the word "myth", but they use it in the derogatory sense of "widely-held but false belief". Regardless of what one thinks abput Jesus of Nazareth, he certainly existed and he certainly was crucified. The last RM looked a little like that, anyway, although I'm not passing judgement on any individual participants.)

182.249.241.24 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's where your logic is flawed. You may claim that the text is comprised of two myths. This is a theory that has its adherents and its detractors. But what you are arguing is different. You are arguing that the text is the creation myths of both Judaism and Christianity. This is clearly not the case. The reason the term myth is used here is that it is a foundational explanatory story used by a group or groups. Those group or groups view it as a single story, and it is therefore a single myth, even if it is based on a multiplicity of myths in the past. Particularly since there is no extant copy of these theorized myths.

Aside from that, I do not think there is any actual evidence that the character of Jesus existed historically. Nor is there any evidence supporting his existence. Whereas I do think that the text of Genesis 1-2 is a coherent text that has come down to us exactly as it was written. There is ample evidence that this is case, from chiastic structures running through the text to conceptual parallels between the two accounts. Biblical scholarship is not a science, IP. It's conjecture. And a greater number of people in universities accepting a conjecture does not determine the truth of a proposition. Nor does it determine what constitutes a reliable source. I can point you to numerous books supporting what I've written here. Many of them are written in Hebrew, so they probably won't help you. But everyone knows there's a systemic bias in western Universities against the Bible being anything other than fairytales. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is an equally stinging bias against treating the Quran, Book of Mormon, Popol Vuh, and Bhagavad Gita as anything other than fairytales as well. But in fact every one of these accounts is due exactly equal credence from a factual-presumptive viewpoint. But from literary and logical viewpoints it is fair to treat apparent cobblings-together as apparent cobblings-together. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lisa: I don't think it's remotely accurate to claim that biblical scholarship is nothing but conjecture. It follows the same structure as the academic discipline of history, differing only in that it puts more emphasis on the meaning of the text and the intent of the authors. It is, in short, an attempt to approach the subject with as close to scientific rigor as is possible, and to say that it is merely conjecture is dismissive. Besides which, the IP is correct in that the modern consensus is clear. One may dismiss it as a hypothesis, but that ignores the fact that it's acceptance is on par with other hypotheses, such as 'the events in The Exodus never took place in a literal way.' MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

....or the hypothesis that they did so. I note that Lisa mistakes this for a proposed conflation between Jewish and Christian myths? It would be more like a conflation between Sumerian and Babylonian myths, with some Egyptian thrown in for good measure. 22:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

MjolnirPants says "the IP is correct in that the modern consensus is clear." The IP is also correct when s/he says Regardless of what one thinks abput Jesus of Nazareth, he certainly existed and he certainly was crucified. The IP is just correct, period, in this discussion, WP does not dismiss scholarship as "people in universities accepting a conjecture."Smeat75 (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Smeat75: I wouldn't say that Jesus certainly existed, but I (and the majority of scholars, AFAIK) feel that it's far more likely that he did. Without contemporary attestation however, you can never eliminate all reasonable doubt. Aside from that, yes. The IP editor is in the right overall, IMHO. I would point out however that there does exist a discussion, and this bears mentioning. The two-source hypothesis is the one from which this article should be written (as it is the academic consensus), but the single-source hypothesis is hardly a straight up fringe theory. It exists within the mainstream, as well. It doesn't bear the weight, but it certainly deserves mention. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@DeistCosmos: No. The hypotheses that those events actually happened as depicted is not accepted anywhere in mainstream history, or biblical scholarship. Only fringe (in this case referring to biblical literalists) critics assert that the Exodus actually happened, AFAIK. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion veered a bit off-topic, and I'm partly responsible.

Own irrelevant views on off-topic discussions

Wikipedia doesn't treat archaeological evidence with the absolute importance that some people might expect. There is no archaeological evidence for either Jesus or Moses, but there is also no archaeological evidence for just about everyone and everything else. History is about probability judgements. The assertion made by professional historians (like Bart Ehrman) and amateur hobbyists (like me) that Jesus "certainly" existed in other words means something between "there's a 99% chance" to "there's a 99.99% chance". I only brought up the historicity of Jesus as an example of radical atheists using the word "myth" inaccurately to explain why I don't especially advocate moving this page (as opposed to moving other articles to, say, Hindu creation narrative). Moses and the Exodus are more complicated, and while it's outside my area of interest my impression is that the jury is still out. Hayes (can you tell I like her? :) ) gives evidence for both sides and points out that there's a 0% chance of the events having happened exactly as depicted, she also points out that it seems unlikely that, for instance, later Israelites would invent a national origin story in which their ancestors were slaves led to freedom by a man with a foreign name.

@182.249.240.32: I have responded to the above collapse on your talk page. If you're unsure how to get to it, find one of your edits in the edit history for a link (it took me a while to figure out how to find my talk page when I wasn't logged in). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Lisa: How about rewriting the opening paragraph and moving the word "Judaism and Christianity" from the first sentence? It's not, strictly speaking, accurate to describe the creation narrative contained in Genesis is the "explanatory story used by" Jews and Christians, since the vast majority of Christians (Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, various Orthodox denominations...) are members of groups whose official stance is that the Genesis stories are not to be interpreted literally, and even biblical literalists usually read a whole lot of stuff (the devil, etc.) into Genesis that isn't, strictly speaking, there.
182.249.240.32 (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even those groups would acknowledge that the Genesis stories are the foundational narratives of their religion. You're the one who keeps bringing in literalism. It's beyond argument that the Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity. It's bizarre that you'd argue with such an obvious proposition. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not exactly clear what you're arguing. The definition you are citing for myth is one adhered to by specialists, but specialists don't actually speak of "the Genesis creation myth". Specialists consider there to be two creation myths in Genesis. As for "all Christians and all Jews" considering the Genesis narrative as a foundational myth of their religions: virtually no Christian takes the Genesis narrative(s) as "the" creation narrative on its face. They all read other characters (Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Satan...), concepts (the Trinity), ideologies (Original Sin), etc. into the story when they are not, strictly speaking, there in the text. 182.249.240.21 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

To butt in, without targeting any single person, I'd like to say that I don't see you two disagreeing on a specific point. IP, you seem to be claiming that most religious people do not view the creation story in this article literally, and you would be correct. Lisa, you seem to be claiming that these stories are of immense importance to Judaism and Christianity, and you are also correct. I don't think any change such as the one suggested above (removing the mention of Judaism and Christianity from the lead) would be an improvement. Instead, I would advise both of you to consider the precise wording of the lead sentence. It says "The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity." This is markedly different from claiming that it is the "explanatory story used by" Jews and Christians. it is also markedly different from categorizing it as a minor myth in the Judeo-Christian cosmology. I understand your concerns, IP and Lisa, but it seems they are quite well addressed in the article as it stands. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

lead, description of creation of man/woman

the lead currently points out that the 2nd narrative has man created first, and woman created from man. this is strange, as the description of the first narrative is silent on the issue. both are well-discussed in the body. so either 1) we should remove reference to creation of man/woman from the description of the 2nd narrative, or 2) we should add it to the description of the 1st. I made an edit and did 2), adding "God creates man and woman together, in a single act. ". My edit was reverted by MjolnirPants with edit note: "grammar is poor and it doesn't really contribute to the article". Please address the objection that led me to add this. We can deal with the grammar objection (!) later. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Let me start by saying that I'm sorry if my edit summary came across as being rude. I was just trying to be concise, and a second reading here showed me that perhaps I didn't need to be quite so concise.

In the interest of compromise, I have made an edit to the page that includes mention of this in a less stark manner. However, if there are no objections, I would prefer to take the first option you mentioned above, as I don't believe this needs to be discussed in the lead. In fact, I don't think any summary of the two narratives is really necessary there at all, and the lead should simply mention that there are two narratives and let the body explain the contents and differences. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for talking, and for making a good compromise attempt. it doesn't accomplish the parallelism with the level of detail that is in the description of the 2nd narrative, so is not optimal. but i found the highlighting of the detail in the lead jarring so would be very fine with deleting it all (option 1). since you seem to like that, i will go ahead and make that edit, and we'll see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that edit and am happy with it. Since two of us seem content with this edit, it stands to reason -given the history of this article- that a riotous debate will now ensue over it. ;-D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as you suspected ... I reverted to the earlier version because you deleted sourced material and gave no source for the new material. PiCo (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

sources are not needed in the lead if they are sourced in the body. i introduced nothing new. thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The new material isn't sourced in the body - in fact it contradicts what's in the body. You need sources, because if you don't use them you'll make mistakes, which is what's happened here. The text you want to use is this: The second narrative begins "in the day the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4–24 God, referred to by the personal name "Yahweh", shapes the first man from dust, places him in the Garden of Eden, and breathes his own breath into the man who thus becomes נֶפֶש nephesh, a living being. This contains less information than the existing version, and introduces some errors, notably the idea that there are two narratives - there's only one, made up from two sources, as the last para of the lead makes clear. It's also incorrect to say that Genesis 2 begins with the earth already created - it doesn't, since the word we translate as "created" (Hebrew bara) doesn't actually mean that, it means "prepared for use" (see Walton for example.) Please, use sources, and don't remove sourced material. PiCo (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The source for the contents of the work can certainly be the work itself. Your accusations of OR are a bit further from WP:AGF than perhaps they should be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of bad faith - that wasn't my meaning at all. What I'm "accusing" you of, if that's the word, is: (a) deleting sourced material; and (b) replacing it with unsourced material that has less information and contains an error. Davidson and Turner, the sources used in the existing second paragraph, are established scholars - why do you want to remove their material? Do you think that paragraph is inadequate, distorted, incorrect? You haven't explained. Then the error: you want to begin with a line about "the second narrative..." There is no second narrative - see the last line of the third paragraph, sourced from Robert Alter: there's only one narrative, made up from two sources. Two sources, not two narratives. The difference isn't trivial. The two sources are the Priestly and Yahwist sources, but those aren't narratives. PiCo (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What I'm "accusing" you of,...

Jytdog made the edits you are referring to, not I.

Davidson and Turner, the sources used in the existing second paragraph, are established scholars - why do you want to remove their material? Do you think that paragraph is inadequate, distorted, incorrect? You haven't explained.

Actually, I have. In this section, I expressed quite clearly that I felt the lead was overly detailed (for more detail, please read WP:LEAD). Jytdog agreed and deleted the material based on that, with consideration of the fact that the material appears elsewhere in the article. Please make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the issue before continuing to involve yourself in it, as your edit summary of "unexplained deletion of referenced material..." is demonstrably false. The summary of the very edit you contested leads back to this talk page and the explanations you claim are lacking.

There is no second narrative - see the last line of the third paragraph, sourced from Robert Alter: there's only one narrative, made up from two sources.

With regards to this issue, I must assume you are not claiming a single source for Genesis, and instead are arguing our use of the word on semantic grounds. For clarity, understand that -for all intents and purposes and as far as I can speak for another editor- Jytdog and I have been using the word 'narrative' as interchangeable with the words 'source', 'part' or 'section'. Arguing semantics is fine for the article (I agree that the two parts should be referred to as parts or sources), but is hardly indicative of OR.

I hope this helps to clear things up. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, you've removed a great deal of information from the second paragraph, information that summarises the second chapter of Genesis. You've kept the bit about the creation of man, but removed the information about the creation of animals and of woman. That's important stuff, and it needs to be kept. As for the narrative vs. source debate, the word narrative and the word source have precise meanings in bilbical scholarship, and are not interchangeable. This again illustrates why sources (I mean academic ones) are vital when we write articles - otherwise we end up doing what you've done here, writing things you think you know but which are in fact OR. PiCo (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot be bothered to read my responses, do not expect me to continue to attempt to justify myself to you. Go back and read what I wrote: I have responded to each and every point you have brought up already. Repeating yourself does not make for a rational argument. I think it would do you some good to read Achieving consensus and Assume Good Faith because your discourse here does not reflect those standards. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this discussion is obviously going nowhere, the next step is informal mediation. I suggest you pick an admin you trust, or else we can ask for a volunteer. PiCo (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

since PiCo is unhappy with creating parallelism in the lead between the first part and the second part - an appropriate thing to do when working with the Hebrew Bible :) - by deleting content from the 2nd part, I have tried to create balance by adding content to the first part - now we have the creation of humanity in both descriptions. What I added is copy/pasted from the body and sourced. We want to try to work toward consensus here - Pico is this OK with you? MjolnirPants can you live with this? thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the second para as you now have it, except I think there's one element missing - God's first creative act is the Garden itself. This is pretty important from a theological point of view (or was back in the 5th century BC when this was written), in that the "garden" was an indispensable part of the architecture of the Temple - the Temple was a microcosm of the cosmos (as visualised at the time), and the Garden represented the heavenly equivalent of the earthly domain of man. I don't want to go into all that, not in the lead and not elsewhere, but it's still important. Can you look at the source and see if it's included there?

Why I put so much stress on sources: if we don't tie every sentence to an academic source that can't be argued with, we open the article to rampant ad-hoc editing by anyone on the basis of what they think they know, but in fact don't. One example is God creating Eve from Adam's rib: the Hebrew doesn't actually say "rib", it uses another word that's much more ambiguous. That's just one example.

On the first para, I don't know why you're so preoccupied with the creation of man. Chapter 1 isn't ab out how God created man, it's about how God created a perfect world ("very good") and placed man in it as his regent - to paraphrase the psalm, "thou madest him a little lower than the angels", and placed him foremost in creation. In other words, Genesis 1 is about theology, not biology. Read Walton, you'll find him illuminating. PiCo (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

do you have any actual questions for me about what i see as problematic and what i am trying to accomplish? if so, please ask, and i will be happy to answer.Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the intro would be stronger if it avoided later interpretations, especially relatively vapid ones like "suggesting a comparison with a king, who has only to speak for things to happen" and "in keeping with the common ancient concept that things did not really exist until they had been named." While I realize both are sourced, there are hundreds of works on this subject, and some surely take the opposite position, e.g. the legend of King Canute and the waves presents a vivid contrast with the power of mortal kings. And, of course, after "let there be light," God sees the light and says it is good before naming it. More importantly, none of these later viewpoints are central enough to the subject to be in the lede. I think it would be better for the intro to stick to what the Biblical text says, mention that it has been subject to diverse interpretations over the centuries and leave discussion of specific interpretations to the body of the article, where many sources can be brought without Wikipedia editors picking the one correct view.--agr (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

i agree with minimalizing the lead, which is what I tried to do in this dif. pico had a different perspective. i would be fine with getting rid of the detail you mention as well, arnold.Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I too, want to see a minimal lead. After all, the lead is just an introduction to the subject, per WP:LEAD. Interpretation and details rightly belong in the body. The way it looks now is better, but could still use some work, as suggested by Arnold. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: @ArnoldReinhold: @PiCo: I have gone ahead and shortened the lead up, taking out the interpretation and re-writing the description of the second part to better reflect the sequence portrayed in Genesis. Let me know what you think. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a great change! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is a lot better, but I still have a problem with "It is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis" That sentence covers up a lot of issues. It should be made clear that this is an interpretation of the text, both as to the division into two parts and the notion that it ends after chapter 2. The later has to do with how scholars define the term "creation myth" rather than any intrinsic break in the text. Even the reference to chapters suggests that they are part of the original text. I would prefer something like "Scholars generally divide the description of the creation of the world into two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two [[Chapters and verses of the Bible|chapters] ] of the Book of Genesis."--agr (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad you find it to be an improvement! I don't understand where you are coming from, however, in two ways. First, "breaks in the text" have existed at least since around the turn of the millenia (i.e. year 0). Second, the entire article is the scholarly view; it is overkill to refer over and over to "scholars say X". Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The reference to chapters is made using the modern chapter divisions, which are the only divisions the vast majority of readers will be familiar with. To define it further using the link you provided would only serve to muddy the issue. Also, to expound further upon what Jytdog has said, attributing claims to 'scholars' or specific scholars when there is a consensus on the veracity of that claim only serves to create an implied division between these scholars and some other group. Such phrasing would be more appropriate to an article on common misconceptions about the subject, where there would be an implied or explicit division between trained, professional scholars and amateur scholars. In this article, that's not appropriate because amateur scholars who dissented would simply be in the minority, and thus not a part of the consensus that informs the claim.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of amateur vs professional. These are sacred texts to three religions, and we have writings about this text over some two thousand years that do not make this division. The way the lede reads now is like saying "Hamlet is divided into five acts." It implies something explicitly acknowledged in the original. That is not the case. If we only want to present the view of modern scholarship, we should make that clear. We currently reference "biblical scholars" in the fourth paragraph, why not set that context earlier, in the second? --agr (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was an issue of amateur vs professional scholars, but an issue of presenting the appearance of a division where there is none. That being said, I don't feel very strongly about the issue. If you see it differently from me, then I'd accept it's just a matter of opinion and go either way. I do feel that the wikilink should be left out, however. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yahweh, YHWH, YHVH, Yehowah

@Jytdog:The name of the god of Israel in the Masoretic text is יהוה, yod he waw he, YHWH. The vowels are indicated in the Masoretic text is Yehowah but scholars have asserted they are only the vowels of Adonai. The two sets of vowels are not identical, as evidenced even in the English transliterations, and Yehowah is supported by its use in theophoric names, Yehoshua, Yehoshafat, Yehohanan, Yehozadoq, Yehonathan, et cetera. The pronunciation Yahweh is widely acknowledged by scholars as a guess, and is an agreed upon pronunciation when speaking the name YHWH in academic settings, rather than Jehovah. Yahweh is a particularly unlikely pronunciation because it in itself violates the rules of Hebrew grammar outlined in the Tiberian vocalization and explained in Aaron ben Moses ben Asher's authoritative text on the Tiberian writing system, Diqduqei Ha-Te'amim. 'Yahweh' is not Hebrew. The root word is 'howa' meaning to exist, the vowels a-way can't be derived from it. Other theophoric names, Eliyahu, Yeshayahu, Hezqiyahu, Yerimeyahu, et cetera indicate Yahuweh, or Yahuwah, which could theoretically be compatible with the semitic root 'howa'. Not only is Yahweh not a real Hebrew word, it is not semitic. Northwest semitic languages have a distinct vowel pattern. Some things just don't sound authentically Arabic or Hebrew. Like if you wanted to invent the name meaning 'YHWH is compassionate' Yeho-hesed or Hesed-yahu as a proper name, it would need to be changed to Yehohasad or Hasadyahu because that is just how Hebrew works. Yahweh does not sound like TIberian Hebrew, it sounds like 'either my way, or Yahweh', its linguistically retarded. Rendering the name as YHWH eliminates the entire issue of the mysterious vowels by taking them out all together. When you visit the Shrine of the Book or the Israel Museum, explanatory placards don't read 'Yahweh' but 'YHWH'. The only appropriate scholarly use is when someone must pronounce the name, when giving a lecture or something. Use asinine Hebrew in the article if you want, but it looks unscholarly and stupid.--Newmancbn (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

While what you write above is interesting, it is of no value in Wikipedia. You could be a monkey or Moshe Greenberg for all anybody here knows - or cares. Discussion of content on WP is driven by what reliable sources tell us are mainstream views, and what are... not-so-mainstream. Please provide reliable sources that clearly show that "yahweh" is not the mainsteam rendering of "YHWH".Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a plethora of examples to cite from scholarly sources discussing this very topic, and I will show them to you tomorrow, but right now I have other things to do.--Newmancbn (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Newmancbn: I'm sure you know by now, but you need to make your case at Talk:Israelites#RFC: :Should "God" and "Yahweh" be replaced by "YHWH"?.  —SMALLJIM  11:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The tetragrammaton is immaterial to this discussion. Please visit Yahweh and note the extensive sourcing of that article, which not only denies your assertions, but evinces an unambiguous rationale for the use of 'Yahweh' in this article. For your argument here to have merit, you will need to not only provide sufficient sources to show that there is equal scholarly support for a refusal to use the transliteration 'Yahweh', but that this transliteration is not in common usage. That last part is evidently, almost axiomatically untrue. Your own argument requires you to prove an (obviously untrue) negative, which is impossible. I fail to understand why you made it in the first place, without thinking it through this far. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

edit warring over description of "Elohim" in lead

There's recently been edit warring over how to describe "Elohim" in the lead. The grammar of this term is not discussed in the body of the article. If anybody cares about that issue, please first discuss here whether a discussion of the Hebrew term "Elohim" belongs in the body of this article at all. If editors working here agree, we can add discussion to the body of the article, and then can arrive at a summarizing statement for the lead. In my view, none of that belongs in this article at all, and we should make the simplest statement possible in the lead. That is what the pre-editwarring lead was like. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Monogamy in Genesis

The riotous debate is coming, I have no doubt. This section sets aside a place for it. While I'm doing that, I will explain my views. I do not have an issue with Jytdog's deletion of the material, nor do I have an issue with the inclusion of the material as I rephrased it. The following points bear noting:

• Monogamy is not a major, or even a minor theme in Genesis. There is no overt mention of it to my recollection, and I recently finished re-reading it in it's entirety.
• Polygamy is similarly not a theme in Genesis, and arguments which rest upon the assumption that it is are inherently bad, and not worth including in this article.
• Kissling is not a renowned biblical scholar, and his views do not hold any undue importance.
• Kissling's views are as valid as any others, and as long as they are clearly labelled as his views and not given undue weight, they deserve our consideration for inclusion.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

let me say thanks for making that clarifying edit. that sentence and its source had been bothering me and i have been meaning to go check the source to see what is being referred to. i suspected it was something like what you clarified it to, and would have ended up deleting it. My bone with that sentence is not its theological view in whatever direction it was, it was that any theological "reflections" on what a given passage in Genesis means doesn't belong in this article. we could probably double the size of the entire encylopedia with the oceans of ink that have been spilled over the past, say, 2500 years, over what any passage in this text "means." It is an article scope question. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Always go with reliable sources, not personal feeling. Monogamy is indeed a theme of one strand of the biblical literature, and is certainly intended by this passage. Or so at least or sources tell us. Kissling's views are not personal (he's not making a personal argument), and the point is notable. And Genesis is entirely theological - unless you're a fundamentalist Christian who thinks its history and God really did begin with Adam and Eve in a real garden. Once upon a time that's exactly what this article was, a fundamentalist theme park, but it's been rewritten to reflect the theology of the original authors, not of the modern day. That's what Kissling's there for.PiCo (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

KIssling is not writing necessarily an historian. from his preface: "Genesis is read in this commentary as part of the canon of Holy Scripture." (he also later says he reads it historically, sensitively, and poetically). Turning to this in the part we citing him on marriage, this argument from absence {wife not wives) is extremely weak, and the argument pinned to the double hypothesis (a) canon was formed at a certain time; and b) during that time, monogamy/polygamy were hotly debated) is also weak. If this content is to stay, it needs other sources to back it up - especially those two arguments that he makes. Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Kissling is a biblical scholar,and you're not. Your argument is no more than "I don't like what he says," but that's not very strong. PiCo (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(Incidentally, Kissling's date for canonisation of Genesis of right in the generally accepted range, 500-300 BCE).PiCo (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please strike your comment "and you are not". We comment on content, not contributors, and you have no idea what I am or am not (and it doesn't matter). Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're not a biblical scholar :). The point I'm making is that we have a RS for this comment; it can't be dropped without adequate reason. If you have doubts,you need to find another RS with a different interpretation. You can do that by looking through commentaries )look up this verse and see how it's interpreted).

As for the debate over marriage in Jerusalem c.400 BCE, when this was probably written, Kissling is well withing standard understanding. This is that the exiles returned from Babylon, in several waves, with very strict ideas about how "Israel" was to be interpreted. They battled with the Judahites who'd stayed behind and, eventually successfully, enforced their own ideas of a "pure" Yahweh-worshiping community that excluded all others - therefore no outside marriages. They were not very nice people, rather like the Branch Davidian. PiCo (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

comment on content, not contributor. your speculation about what i do and what i know is irrelevant. it is hard enough to discuss topics like this without offtopic discussion entering into it. so strike it. i mean it. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant because of Wiki policy on reliable sourcing - when a statement comes from a reliable source (Kissling) you can't delete it simply because you don't like it.PiCo (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC

right so at this point I can only say that you do not understand WP's WP:TPG, which is going to make this harder than it has to be. Just know that I will ignore and not respond to off-topic remarks going forward. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):dealing with substance:

• there are a range of theories about when and why J was created, from ca 1000 BCE to ca 400 BCE.
• with regard to hypotheses about particular issues in any period of ancient isreal, these are often the summary of multiple hypotheses; a) one starts with an assumption about when a given text was written; b) one looks at other events happening around that time and makes guesses about the kinds of conflicts that could have been happening at that time; c) one looks at the content of the text and guesses what kind of conflict could have been going on that could have led to the text being created (in conjunction with assumptions about what tendencies the assumed source of the text had (2 more hypotheses there); and of course, each of a), b), and c) are each looped through and through. This is how biblical history is done. There are some rough consensuses but there is lots of room for play.
• for our article to pick the summary of one such set of speculations from one author, about what was going on in Isreal at the time this text was written or edited to its current form, is to me not valid, especially without some secondary source that describes what the range of consensus is.
• more importantly, as I said the first time, we should not be making theological statements here. To say "Marriage is monogamous" as the current content states, is bizarre - this is stated in Wikipedia's voice and i don't know what it even means - is WP making pronouncements against polygamy now? (that is a rhetorical question) This should at least be edited to say something like "The Jahwist is claiming that ..." or even better "Kissling understands that the Jawhist is claiming that..."
• And if we are making some claim about underlying social conditions or mores or better, the Jawhist's POV on social issues, why is this article not full of such claims? Why is there not commentary on what the Jawhist or P thought about humanity and the environment, about imperialism, about the proper relationships between men and women? There are endless opportunities to "go there" - why are we doing so on just these verses? That is a real question - please answer. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@PiCo: Everything Kissling wrote is interpretation. He interprets Genesis to have a theme which is pro-monogamy and anti-polygamy. There is absolutely nothing overtly or explicitly pro-monogamous or anti-polygamous in Genesis. This is not a debatable claim, but an easily verifiable fact. That makes your argument nonsensical. As I already explained, I'm fine with including interpretation, considering that interpretation of the writings which comprise the modern bible are of major importance to western civilization. However, WP:MOS is quite clear on how such interpretations should be handled, and that is most certainly not by stating them as facts. Also, I think a scholar with a bit more notability than Kissling might be more appropriate, should we decide to include such commentary.

Finally, Jytdog's profession or qualifications as an expert in this subject are absolutely not acceptable subjects for discussion here. If you insist upon following that line of argument, I will back Jytdog in whatever administrative action he choose to take for this violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. Monogamy is considered the rule in Genesis, and all violations of this are treated negatively. Kissling is a professor who specializes in this area, and you cannot dismiss his claims are purely his own interpretation. It is not a verifiable fact that there is nothing pro-monogamous or anti-polygamous in Genesis.--TMD (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of marriage in the hebrew bible. the point is whether this passages is speaking to marriage, and you have not brought a source to say that it is. there is nothing intrinsic in the passage that says so. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 

First off, I'm not disputing that monogamy is considered the norm in most (not all) biblical texts, including Genesis. I'm disputing that it's a topic which gets much coverage. Absent any condemnation of polygamy in the referenced passages, your claims fall flat.

You keep making positive claims about Genesis, but you haven't cited a single passage as evidence for it. Kissling himself offers no citations or evidence for his interpretation, which may be par for the course for a preacher, but is hardly in keeping with scholarly standards. So whatever you think of the truth of this matter, you haven't met WP's requirements for including any mention of it, and Kissling hasn't met his field's standards for considering his comments an expert opinion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Change "myth" to "belief"

This is the 80th rehash of the same proposal with no consensus achievable. Closing per WP:SNOW, WP:SENSE and notes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Obviously, the atheist hardline has been taken while approaching this topic. I would respectfully suggest that the phrase "creation myth" be replaced with the phrase "creation belief." This will allow the atheist element to continue to discount the beliefs of creationism, while being less offensive to those whose beliefs are important to them. "Myth" is just too much of a confrontational "in your face" stab at those that believe creationism is real.Devildog72 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Or you could try what myth actually means instead of making baseless accusations. Within academia, "myth" merely refers to sacred stories, without any judgement as to in what ways they are true or false, only noting that the stories are told. George Every wrote that the existence of "myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone", including "probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants" (see Christian mythology). C.S. Lewis wrote "the story of Christ is simply a true myth." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian is absolutely correct. The word 'Myth' does not mean that something is untrue by definition. Remember, one of the pillars of WP is that it is written from a neutral point of view, and this means it should never create a false balance. Finally, using language such as "the atheist hardline" does your case no good, as it immediately sets you against a subset of Wikipedians, many of whom are quite passionate about maintaining the integrity of articles such as this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Devildog72 is correct in asserting that the use of the word "myth" fails to present a balanced analysis of the topic. Just as MjolnirPants is correct in recognizing that "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." However, when considering this issue we should recognize that belief in a Creator is not a minority view. In fact, the Wikipedia article on atheism cites many studies that consistently show a majority of populations surveyed, including scientists and highly credentialed scholars, as having pro-theistic beliefs. A more balanced approach would recognize that there are parts of the creation narratives from various cultural and religious traditions that may or may not be myth (modern meaning = false). It is not balanced to generalize all parts of all creation narratives as myth. Some communities of scholarship believe evolutionary science is a clear argument against both creation narratives and any role of a deity/Creator. Other communities of scholarship recognize origins of the universe through the work of a deity/Creator, whether or not they recognize evolutionary biology as part of that process. :Ian's argument about the somewhat historic meaning of "myth" by academia, is not a strong enough argument for the term. Word meanings change over time as languages evolve and the contemporary meaning for "myth" has degenerated to mean "falsehood". Is there another word or words that can be used to reflect the multifaceted nature of the various creation narratives without biasing toward either a pro-theistic or anti-theistic view of universal origins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgoodell2 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

with respect, you are missing the point. from the standpoint of history of religion - the standpoint in which this article is written - belief is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is not a single person left on earth who believes the myth, or billions of people believe it. Its a story about how the world was created - a myth. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

belief in a Creator is not a minority view

No, but believe in this creation narrative is. In fact, belief in this particular creator is, as well. It may be the largest minority, but so long as less than half the world is Christian or Jewish, it's still a minority. Not that it matters, anyways. WP does not exist to present a majority view. It exists to present verifiable, neutral information. Failing to refer to a myth as a myth because it might offend one group -no matter how large- would fail to be verifiable, neutral and informative. Finally, your argument ignores the meaning of the word myth. You are must assume that it indicates falsehood for your argument to even make sense, and it does not. A myth may be true, whether you are aware of this or not. You might try using WP if you wish to contribute to it, by reading up on Myth and checking out some of its sources.

Some communities of scholarship believe evolutionary science is a clear argument against both creation narratives and any role of a deity/Creator.

They are not relevant to this discussion. This is not about evolution. Both of you fail to understand that this argument has been made literally dozens of times before, and it never succeeds. It has become trivial to demonstrate that this narrative presents a myth, due to the heavy sourcing of this article as a result of this continuing debate. On the other hand, those who take your position have been entirely unable to produce reliable sourcing for calling it anything else, despite years of effort. I know what I'm talking about, because I've come from your side of the issue to this (the correct) side. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In short: theism =/= Young Earth Creationism. Theistic evolution is actually pretty common outside of the US, and among the educated.

Also, no sources have been presented to indicate that the term had developed an anti-theistic meaning within academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Uhm no. ...but I would support changing that to "story" instead of myth, with a piped link to that page. Sensitivity to that wording isn't necessarily something that can't be done and done correctly. I doubt this will get much support...but hey, it makes sense, still works and isn't offensive to the "believer" who doesn't see it as "myth". Is this a possibility?--Mark Miller (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a creation myth. In Tree of Souls:The Mythology of Judaism" by Howard Schwartz, winner of several Jewish Book Awards sponsored by the Jewish Book Council, Schwartz says Genesis contains the most famous of all Jewish Creation mythsp.76. In The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament By Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, Michael A. Grisanti, I find "Genesis 1-2 as myth. In light of the above points of similarity (and others), critical or nonevangelical scholars almost exclusively categorize these chapters as myth.27 Although it is difficult to define “myth,”25 the basic understanding is that a myth involves “an ancient, premodern, prcscicntific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?”29 In many instances by “myth” these scholars mean something fictional or non-historical. However, some scholars arc careful to distinguish myth from free-ranging fantasy and contend that myth can conjure up or point to history.30 To the question, “Is Genesis 1 a Creation Myth?” Mark Smith answers “yes and no."31 In light of the context of Genesis 1 (both biblical and ANII), Smith concludes that Genesis 1 is certainly mythic. However, its placement at the beginning of Genesis and certain phrases in the chapter suggest that it is linked to historical time. Smith grants that the answer to the question depends on how a person defines “myth.”

Evangelicals also wrestle with this question, and several agree that the first section of Genesis (chaps. 1—11) belongs to the genre of myth rather than history.32 Unlike the nonevangelical scholars who reject the idea of divine revelation and inspiration, evangelical proponents of the myth view' believe that careful attention to the ANE context of chaps. 1-2 occasions their interpretation. Also, they do not discount that these chapters present “facts” (c.g., God is one and not many, human beings are made in Gods image, etc.). They arc concerned about the form in which Genesis presents these facts.33 In various ways they seek to answer the question, Did the creation of Adam literally take place the way it is narrated, or is the creation of Adam shaped to teach us things about the nature of humanity?34 Walton suggests that in the ancient world, mythology was like science in the modern world—it represented their explanation of how the world came into being and how it worked. So mythology served as a window to culture, that is, as a reflection of the worldview and values of the culture that forged it." See the footnotes also. It's easy to find more. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue with changing "myth" to "story" in favour of sensitivity is that it gives undue validation to this creation myth over numerous other creation myths. If we were to change this one, we would, in the interest of neutrality, have to change every other creation myth article to be similar, or risk appearing biased toward this one and its adherents. Rwenonah (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Valid point, but in the interest of POV maybe they should be changed? I'm personally fine with myth, but in the interests of neutrality, I can see how myth can be perceived in a more biased tone than story. Zarcusian (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Summary of the problem with this proposal (IMHO): It seems to me that as things stand, it's trivial to show that the subject of this article fits each of the defining characteristics of a myth and that other proposed terms are too vague. If we are to change it, someone would need to show that:

1. It doesn't actually fit one or more of those characteristics, contrary to what has already been determined;
2. It does fit all the defining characteristics of whatever other term is proposed, and;
3. The other term is the most precise term possible, given the evidence.

I think that until someone can address all three of those points in a clear manner, this discussion should be closed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Which definition of "myth" are you referring to?--agr (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Any use of myth in this article refers to the academic definition, i.e. "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". Rwenonah (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And how does the reader know this neutral academic definition is the intended meaning, as opposed to the everyday pejorative usage: "a commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs)

By clicking on the 7th and 8th words in the article, which are wikilinked to Creation myth. BTW, just because you are more personally familiar with a particular definition of a word it is not necessarily the "everyday" usage. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Our guidelines say "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." (WP:LABEL) A link to another article hardly suffices to establish a scholarly context, and the article in question creation myth does not include the definition Rwenonah gives.--agr (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the first paragraph of that article does an exemplary job of defining the term's meaning. Per WP:LINK, Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. We do not get frequent requests to change the phrasing of Native American or Taoist creation myths; why should we make a special case for Genesis? VQuakr (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion really needs to stop. I mean seriously, does anyone but me know how to check the archives on a talk page? This has been debated many times before, and the result is always the same. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the fact it keeps being brought up up again and again, by different people, could suggest there is a perceived NPOV problem? --agr (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

sure it has. Christian apologists find this offensive and try to push their POV into WP. It is clear as day. Other scholarly treatments of this don't have to put up with that shit. We do; it is the nature of WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the fact that it keeps getting shot down again and again, by different people, could suggest that there's not? It should have, I've said it several times.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that anyone who proposes rewording the title to avoid the ambiguous word "myth", in accord with our MOS guidelines, is immediately attacked as a "Christian apologist" suggests there very much is a problem worth discussing.--agr (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

MjolnirPants is right. This discussion has been repeatedly gone over in the past, with the same result. Only a fringe minority refuses to admit that Genesis fits the scholarly definition of myth, a version of which is the first sentence on the creation myth article. Secondly, by changing this article to say "belief", we would blatantly be exhibiting systemic bias toward the dozens of similar articles that would not be changed, and are, of course, of equal validity to this one. Or does the editor arguing for belief not believe them to be of equal validity?Rwenonah (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@ArnoldReinhold:, this thread opened with someone using the phrase "atheist hardline". It was three days later that the phrase "christian apologist" appeared. That's hardly "immediately". In addition, the argument itself is -by definition- an argument from Christian Apologetics, because it argues against a perceived attack on Christian beliefs. You claim that those who object are attacked, but the verifiable truth is that it is those who object who are doing the attacking, and those who support the use of the word who are defending neutrality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to excise the word "myth" from this article

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Note that none of those attempts succeeded, as evidenced by the use of the word in the article today.

It is a fact that the world was not created in the manner described in this work. It is the scholarly consensus that the world was not created in the manner described in this work. The majority of English speakers believe that the world was not created in the manner described in this work. There is no justifiable reason, given WP's policies and nature, to avoid using a word that implies falsehood, even if that were the case (which it is not).

Wikipedia exists to INFORM, not to AVOID GIVING OFFENSE. If a young child comes here believing that the account of creation in this work is true, and is disabused of that notion by the use of the word 'myth', then Wikipedia has done its job. If an adult comes here, and refuses to read further into the article because of the word 'myth', then Wikipedia has not failed to do its job, but rather that adult has failed to use good judgement. It is WP's job to inform those who use it. It is not WP's job to reinforce false beliefs, nor to subtly undermine them by wrapping contradictory facts in palatable language. WP exists to state the facts* (*by which I mean verifiable claims from reliable sources), and leaves the rest of the education process to the user. Unless someone has an objection that hasn't been brought up in those links above, I'm going to ask an admin to close this discussion, because there's no point in continuing it. Not only has it been established CONCLUSIVELY that the word 'myth' is the best word, but that arguments over whether to use it are inappropriate here. Just see the comment at the top of the main page, which reads:

<!-- Please do not remove the phrase and link to "creation myth" from the first paragraph without discussing your proposal on the talk page first. There has been a consensus since November 2011 to include it in the lead. You can read the archived talk discussion at: Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative/Archive_14#RfC:_Genesis_creation_narrative:_link_to_creation_myth.2C_yes_or_no.3F -->

The fact that such a comment has survived for three years should indicate the fact that attempts to change it are doomed to failure. It's not because there's a conspiracy, or a systemic desire to suppress the 'truth' of this work, nor an 'atheistic agenda' at work here. It's because the pro-'myth' side consists of atheists and Christians alike. It's because the pro-'myth' side has mountains of evidence to back up its case. It's because the anti-'myth' side is arguing for a fringe theory (whatever your objection, the result of your proposals would be to lend credence to a fringe theory). It's because the pro-'myth' side wins converts from the opposition, while the anti-'myth' side does not. It's because, to put it simply, the pro-'myth' side is right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Legendary response. Now can we finally move this article to Genesis creation myth and be done with this? Ben (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC).

Thank you, MjolnirPants, for conclusively refuting the oft made claim that "myth" is being used in this article in its scholarly, value-neutral sense. As you make abundantly clearly, the vehement insistence on the "myth" as the only acceptable word comes from a desire to tag the story in Genesis as false from the get go. (As if modern science needed that talisman.) That is exactly what WP:LABEL cautions against. No one, child or adult, is going to see the word "myth" in this Wikipedia article and think "golly, I had no idea Genesis might not be the literal history of the universe." But sensible readers will be put on guard to expect a sloppy, un-scholarly article pushing a point of view, and that, in the end, might just be truth in advertising.--agr (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A quarter of Americans don't know that the earth orbits the sun. Half don't get evolution. A third of the EU doesn't get heliocentrism or evolution either. Half of China doesn't get continental drift, and a third doesn't get evolution. More than half the world (including two thirds of Japan, which otherwise does the best on this sort of thing) thinks lasers are based on sound instead of light. In general, people are fucking stupid, and need to be told what a myth is just as much as they need to be told what a laser is, and what orbits what, and so on. I must use "fucking" to emphasize the sheer distance from forgivable stupidity that everyone is entitled to on occasion. People's fucking stupidity is no basis for the WP:OR claim that myth doesn't mean what academic sources says it means. People's fucking stupidity are why we do not allow original research of any kind, but instead use academic sources that may use terms in way that conflict with people's fucking stupidity. If it gets a single person to quit being fucking stupid, that justifies making fucking stupid people turn away. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Myth is being used in its scholarly sense, as the article makes more than clear. For one thing, a simple click on the creation myth link brings up the neutral definition of myth immediately, per the vast preponderance of reliable secondary sources. If we used any other term, we would be going against this majority of sources in order to avoid "offending" a certain group. In doing so, we would be pushing a blatantly pro-Abrahamic point of view. No one argues over the use of myth in Hopi, Chukchi or Shinto creation myth articles, simply because these religions do not have a large group of Wikipedians fighting to excise anything they feel is "unfair" to their favourite religion from the site. By using belief here, but leaving those articles untouched, we would be pandering to a specific religion, violating NPOV and putting our systemic bias in full display. Rwenonah (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This whole argument over how the word is being used is so far beyond ridiculous that I don't believe for one second that both sides are sincere in their claims. Context establishes what meaning is intended when a word has more than one meaning. This is a scholarly subject, therefore, the word is used in the scholarly sense. There's no wiggle room in that. There's no interpretation, or subjectivity in that. @ArnoldReinhold: your claim that it's used in any other sense is about as reasonable as arguing that a physicist talking about the mass of a particle is referring to the particle's church service attendance. 'Ridiculous' doesn't even begin to cover it, and I cannot believe that you actually think that's a valid argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to make any changes as proposed that I can see...but really...is it necessary to make claims of bad faith? You seriously believe I am not being sincere? Context does establish what meaning is intended and I actually can support a range of titles here....but if we are stating outright that myth is the proper term and sensitivity is not an issue..then we should now begin a more request back to Genesis creation myth. I agree with Doug Weller as well in the fact that this is a historic context, not a religious one (what I got out of the reply...could be wrong).--Mark Miller (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1. What I said was not a claim of bad faith. What I said is that there is no way to convince me that the specific claim presented (that the word is actually being used in the pejorative sense in this article) is believed by anyone involved in this discussion. Just as a lawyer who believes his client to be guilty can lie to the jury about his beliefs in good faith, I believe that argument was made in good faith, but with the knowledge that it was unsound. Adversarial discussions are quite the norm here, after all.
2. I wasn't referring to you, unless you are a sockpuppet of ArnoldReinhold, which I don't think you are. Hence me pinging him in my response. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've compiled a list of objections to the use of the word 'myth' and refutations here. I would suggest anyone new read that before chiming in. Feel free to add to it as needed. Maybe we can post it up top on this page to try and head off future arguments over this issue. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please consider making a F.A.Q. section, as is done here. It does help reduce repetitive arguments by pointing relevant questioners to a particular F.A.Q. entry. Good job - thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Also consider that, regardless of past arguments, if one is renewed or the entire debate brought back up, consensus will determine inclusion or exclusion. You can post all the past arguments you want...but right now the question I am posing is whether there is enough consensus to actually begin a move discussion to replace the wording of Narrative as that replaced myth originally in the title didn't it?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: That's a great example. I will get on that after the holiday. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the FAQ: There already is one. I'm adding it back to the top of this page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Your list of objections to the word myth ignores the most important one, Wikipedia's Manual of Style WP:LABEL specifically cautions about its use, and requires that its scholarly meaning be established. If all that meant was linking to another article, the guideline would have said so. You may not care if readers mistakenly understand myth in the pejorative sense, as you make clear, but Wikipedia very much does care as reflected by our guideline. NPOV is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and editors are expected to take it seriously. Nor is it all that hard to establish the scholarly context for myth. A straight forward statement that myth is being used in its scholarly, non judgmental meaning is all that is necessary. But such a statement is not in this article nor is it in the creation myth article. No, we are not required to define every word, only a few words are called out in our guidelines, but myth is one of them. The Book of Genesis is a literary work and should be treated like any other literary work, not made into a science vs religion battle ground. This misdirected zeal for the word myth only diminishes Wikipedia's credibility, it does not help the cause of science.--agr (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@ArnoldReinhold: You are arguing that the definition of the term include mention of what it does not mean, which is ridiculous in the extreme. Should the definition of 'rabbit' include a list of every non-rabbit animal known to science? Should the definition of 'liver' include an exhaustive list of organs which are not a liver? No, nor should the definition of an academic term explicitly state what it does not mean. If it's not in the definition, it doesn't mean it. That's not only an accepted practice, it's common sense. The term is quite well defined by Creation myth, and your combative arguments will never change that. As if that weren't enough, your claim that the linked article does not do so is blatantly wrong. The second sentence in that article states: While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, cultures regard their creation myths as true to varying degrees.

In addition, there's a wikipedia policy that no-one arguing for the exclusion of the term seems to even be aware of: WP:RNPOV, which states;

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.

(emphesis added) Do you see that? WP policy explicitly states that academic terms should not be avoided because people might not know that it has a formal definition.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

By putting such a statement in the article or treating Genesis as a literary work, we would be discriminating against hundreds of other creation myths which are treated as what they are. Genesis is just as much of a creation myth as the Japanese creation myth or Chinese creation myth. Rwenonah (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Might I propose as a reasoned compromise simply qualifying use of the word as such, vis, "the Genesis creation narrative is a story which scholars identify as the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity," or some such. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Paul F. Lurquin School of Molecular Biosciences Washington State University; Linda Stone Department of Anthropology Washington State University (2007). Evolution and Religious Creation Myths : How Scientists Respond. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-971796-5. -- Moxy (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

this is not a science issue. this article is in the field of the history of religions. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Will reply again with a source over my personal opnion .. Christopher Hugh Partridge (2005). Introduction to World Religions. Fortress Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-8006-3714-9. -- Moxy (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy: this isn't about whether or not this myth is true, but whether we should use the word 'myth'. It's already been pointed out that the 'official' WP stance on the subject of this myth's truth is that it is not true, as that is the scholarly and scientific consensus. Evidence of it's falsehood doesn't really help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your talking about. As per the books we should not dumb down the wording because of what people believe. We need to simply present the information as its presented in the world. Not our problem peoples beliefs dont line-up with scholarly publications...we are not here to make people feel better about what they believe....we are only here to regurgitate what out there. The fact your talking about true vs not true is the whole problem here.....not our position to determine what is fact...all we can do is regurgitate what is out there. Its called a myth for a reason....we should not hide this fact from our readers or to make believers feel better by changing a word. Just the fact pls.....-- Moxy (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy:and @MjolnirPants: You are not actually arguing against each other. You are, in fact, agreeing. You just arn't paying enough attention to what each other is saying to notice. Moxy, MjolnirPants says in his first words "this isn't about whether or not this myth is true". It looks like he understands what the argument is. Let's just agree to agree and let it go. Padillah (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• ADVISEMENT This discussion is going no-where. There is no consensus for a change, and nothing but arguing is going on. One week from today, I'm going to close this discussion unless someone manages to come up with a damn good reason why I shouldn't. I'm posting this just so no-one can say I arbitrarily closed this while discussion was ongoing. See WP:SNOW, according to which I don't necessarily even need to wait a week. But since that is a 'good practice' essay and not a policy, I figured it's best to give everyone a chance to say their piece before then. Also note that I plan on closing any future attempts to remove the word as soon as I notice them, per WP:SNOW and the previous discussions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the word myth not be use, only that "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader." the second sentence in WPRNPOV. Were this done with due care, I believe these endless conflicts would be less frequent. But since this thread is about changing myth to belief, and I am in agreement that doing so is not required, I have no objection to closing the discussion.--agr (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The specific meaning of jargon is determined by context. That means that -barring any explicit declaration of such- it would be impossible to use the word in any sense but the scholarly sense in this article. So your concern would only have merit were the word a wikilink to fiction or the article were written with a dismissive and critical voice, neither of which is the case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: As long as I'm here I figured I'd say, inasmuch as this is not a proposal but a discussion it doesn't require being closed. Simply drop it and allow others to do the same. It's not necessary to defend your point of view from people that are agreeing with you. Padillah (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Padillah: an open discussion is just that: Open. The fact of the matter is that, just like the previous 79 attempts, this attempt is not going to get anywhere, nor are any of the inevitable next 79 attempts. Leaving it open just invites people to worry about participating in this discussion, rather than working to improve the page. There's just no benefit to leaving the discussion open. In fact, it should have been closed much sooner, but I wanted to make sure there was time for everyone to get what the consensus really is, and to make it clear I'm not trying to own the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And my point is that, since it's a discussion it doesn't qualify as "open". Nor do any of us have the authority to "close" it. That simply isn't how Talk pages work in WP. As a contributor to the consensus in 2011 I sympathize with wanting to end the incessant requests for this, but as a WP contributor I know I can't. All I can do is Watchlist the page and give attention when it happens again.

As for avoiding this discussion @ArnoldReinhold:, there's no such thing. This is a thorn in the side of almost any Christian that comes across this page and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Inasmuch as we refuse to call see "the truth of God in all things" we will have requests like this crop up. That's why there are sites like orthodoxwiki.org and others, so they can make claims that are not allowed on here. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And my point is that, since it's a discussion it doesn't qualify as "open".

I have no idea what that means. All discussions on WP that aren't closed are open to anyone to participate in.

Nor do any of us have the authority to "close" it. That simply isn't how Talk pages work in WP.

Yes, actually it is. From the link:

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.

Emphasis added.

Also check out WP:SNOW, which runs down how to deal with this exact sort of situation. Basically, it says to shut it down and to hell with the usual procedures. Anyone here has the authority to close this discussion right now based on WP:SNOW, WP:SENSE and the guidelines at the top of the request for closure page.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

of course, folks could just stop responding.... Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What are the odds of that? Hell, I'm the one harping on about closing it, and I can't stop responding. I guarantee you that anyone who's really bothered by the use of the word will be in the same boat. Besides, the discussion seems to have shifted to whether the discussion should be closed (whoa... Meta...) and it'd be pretty rude of me to not participate in that, given that I announced my intention to close it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

no one here has the power to "close" this. best is just to not feed the trolls, shun, etc etc. let it die. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Check my response to Padillah above: Everyone has the authority to close a discussion when there's as clear a consensus as there is here. If you think another week is too much, we can close it now, though. It's been sidetracked, anyways. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

i've never seen anyone close an open discussion like this on an article talk page, so have no idea what will happen. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a second to the motion to close immediately, and as it's supported by my good sense (over the objections of my desire to argue on the internet), consider it done. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

EC: This should have been inside the tags.

MjonirPants, the same notice board that you cited also has the following on it:

Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear...

There are two points I take from that page. The first is "Formal closure", no one is looking for a formal closure process. This can be "closed" by simply letting it go and moving on.

The second is "where consensus remains unclear...". That does not apply in this case. The person that suggested the change has not posted to this talk page beyond his initial request on the 20th and the only other suggestion that comes close to agreeing was made over a week ago. Past that it's been a series of people vehemently agreeing with each other.

I was only trying to make note that there's no need for a formal closure of this discussion. Just accept that we will have it again in the future and walk away clean. You don't need outside imposition for this, it's dead. Padillah (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the fairest and most honorable result would be to consult the unbiased scholarship of theologians of other faith traditions-- what terminology is used by theologians who happen to be Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, and so on. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The obvious mistake in the above is the assumption that the book of Genesis is widely discussed by non-Abrahamic theologians. It isn't discussed much if at all, because, honestly, it's kind of irrelevant to their thinking. The most reasonable way to my eyes to resolve this would be to consult the extant reference works relating to this topic and see what terms they use. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about it not being widely discussed Even more troubling is those that do talk about myths and religion dont agree either on the right way to even tlak. -- Robert Alan Segal (1999). Theorizing about Myth. Univ of Massachusetts Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 1-55849-191-0. -- Moxy (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Smiley emoticons doh.gif MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest looking to our articles on other major religious works as models, e.g. Bhagavad Gita or Quran.--agr (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That might work, if those articles were about creation myths. They're not. The simple fact is, this article's subject is a creation myth. Referring to it as anything else is pandering to Christianity/Judaims/Islam and blatantly discriminating against other religions' creation myths which are referred to as, well, what they are, with no issues. Rwenonah (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead and Davies

I am suspicious that this sentence in the lead is not supported fully by its source:

A common hypothesis among modern scholars is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today.[2]

[2] is Davies. The section on the page cited says:

1. In reviewing these recent developments it should be noted that by different routes quite a lot of scholars are coming to support more or less the same alternative to the older source-critical view. The developments outlined in the last four sections are increasingly merging into what is in effect the same understanding of the origin of the Pentateuch. This holds that:

1. The first major comprehensive Pentateuchal narrative was composed either late in pre-exilic times or in the Babylonian exile (7th or 6th cent. BCE), rather than in the early monarchy. Some prefer to speak of a late Yahwist' (Schmid, Van Seters), some of a Deuteronomistic narrative (Johnstone, Blum), but they are largely talking about the same thing and using the same arguments.

2. The Priestly Work never existed as a separate source, but involved the insertion into the older narrative of the specifically Priestly narratives and laws, so as to produce a work very like our present Pentateuch.

• Why should "quite a lot of scholars are coming to support" become "A common hypothesis among modern scholars"? The article assertion is much stronger than the reference. The word "modern" looks like a weasel assertion of truth. Interestingly, the reference is saying that these ideas are actually old ideas.

The reference goes on to say "The supporters of the new views are not having things all their own way." So there are detractors.

• It seems to me the article text shows a certainty which does not exist in the cited work and distorts its meaning. The assertions are repeated in the article body with the same citation. Myrvin (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"modern" is just meant to distinguish from pre-modern. In biblical studies the "modern" era probably started in the mid-19th century. I think the paraphrase (which is what we do here) is reasonable. The content doesn't say that this is the only hypothesis for sure. It is not clear to me what part of the content you are objecting to. Are you objecting to the claim that the Documentary hypothesis itself is commonly held, or to the specific dating of the sources? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I am objecting to the article's certainty that is not supported by the cited text. "A common hypothesis" should be something like "One of the hypotheses". There ought then to be others as well. General readers will not know about your distinction between modern and pre-modern. There are no doubt references that do say this hypothesis is commonly held, but the cited text doesn't say that. Myrvin (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

hm. It is not "my" distinction, it is the distinction made commonly in the field. So it sounds like you are objecting to the claim of the centrality of documentary hypothesis in mainstream biblical scholarship. There are plenty of sources for this, that make even stronger statements about that. I'll find some and add them -some are in this article and some are in the article on the documentary hypothesis itself. You are welcome to add them too. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that 'modern' is used here properly and does not need further clarification or ref. I address other concerns below. ProfGray (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the article stated outright that it was the most common hypothesis, then it might be in contradiction with the source. However, the article states that it a common hypothesis, which is in agreement with the source. Davies says "...quite a lot of scholars [hold to this hypothesis]" which doesn't at all conflict with it being "...a common hypothesis". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For the purpose of this article, the sentence you mention is unnecessarily problematic because it starts with a hypothesis about an initial stage of the Pentateuchal narrative overall. I agree that there are those who disagree about a late Yahwist narrative of the Pentateuch. More importantly, do we need the article's opening to refer to this (posited) stage of the Pentateuch? (Yes, it's a big deal for the Pentateuch article!) Instead, wouldn't it be sufficient to say something like: Most scholars agree that Genesis 1 and 2 comes primarily from two distinct literary sources. One source is termed the Yahwist, which has been argued to date back to either the early monarchic period or closer to the 6th century exile, and the other source is known as the Priestly, which played a role in finishing the Hebrew Bible and hence put its version as the opening to the entire corpus. As written, the opening launches into a debate, without really explaining it, so that the novice reader is not getting a modulated intro to the scholarship. IMO. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

that is a great point profgrey. it looks like that paragraph of the lead was dropped in directly, and contains content not in the body of the article. that is not what the WP:LEAD is meant to be like or do. needs revision to reflect the body and to remove content not found in the body. i agree with your proposal as a good way to go. i don't have time to do that now but will do it this weekend if somebody else doesn't get to it first. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. It should remove my fears too. We shall need an RS that actually says "most scholars agree". Myrvin (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. For an RS, any solid academic textbook should suffice, e.g., Coogan (Oxford OUP) is quite clear about this (J & P) in ch.4, though he does mention the competing hypotheses about the dating of J. To get into the specifics of dating J, or nuances within the source analysis of the creation narratives, it'd be good to find review articles. ProfGray (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the content about dating is off topic; we don't need to go there. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, I came here specifically to find out just how old this story is. While I now understand the answer is not so straightforward, I would appreciate a little information on this up front. It can be fleshed out in the body of the article as much as necessary, but I think -something- up front is important. Thank you 101.161.156.2 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in, 101'. There should be some answers in Documentary hypothesis for your immediate needs. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Creationism infobox

I think the creationism infobox is a bad fit for this article. This article is not about creationism -- literalist, progressive or what have you -- but about the text qua text. The various creationisms are positions about how to understand this narrative text, whereas the article, as its name implies, is about the narrative as such. The body of the article consists principally of a description of the narrative together with a discussion of its sources and structure, with interpretations forming only an ancillary set of sub-topics. Since the article is principally about the biblical narrative as such and barely touches on creationism, I think the creationism infobox should be removed and replaced with {{Bible-related}} or perhaps {{Books of the Bible}}. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's not good. Someone should create a box for Genesis, as I'm sure there's enough pages just for that. Otherwize those boxes you mentioned would work. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Christian creationist movement is very strongly rooted in this text, taken literally. The "creationism" infobox isn't just about the creationism movement... it's about creationism in general, which is tied very closely to this topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Page is about an ancient text, not modern religious or political movements. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see including the creationism infobox, but think that it should not be the first and only infobox there. It'd probably be best to start it off with the Bible-related or Books of the Bible infobox, and move the creationism infobox to the "Later Judeo-Christian interpretations" section (since that's what creationism is: later interpretation). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

agree 100% with the comment above - Page is about an ancient text, not modern religious or political movements. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The page is about an ancient text, yes - but an ancient text that is still treated as the blueprint of creation by tens of millions of people. The movement/ideology of creationism and the text are very closely linked, and the navbox represents that. Rwenonah (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

i wouldn't be opposed to the infobox being at the bottom instead of on the side - is there an alternative version (many have that) Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I'm surprised I'm seeing so much disagreement. As a creation myth that is absolutely central to Abrahamic creationism, it makes perfect sense to me that we'd feature the creationism template... but if there seems to be consensus to move it lower, I guess that would be ok too. Which one are we suggesting go at the top?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Creationism doesn't have a monopoly on the text, though. Having the infobox in the lead suggests that Genesis belongs to creationists. The creationist movement is one interpretation among many, and so it is undue weight to have the creationism box at the beginning. That's why it should be in the "Later interpretations" section while one of the Bible infoboxes is next to the intro. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yea, my opinion is shifting a little. Let's go with that suggestion. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

so nice to edit with sane people, every now and then! :) Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there room on the bandwagon for me? Because I'm completely on-board with moving the box to the 'later interpretation' section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I see a consensus to move the creationism infobox down to the "later interpretations" section and replace it with another Bible-related infobox, for which purpose I've selected {{Bible-related}}.

I make this change with some misgivings, because on looking more closely at the "later interpretations" section, it strikes me that it doesn't really have anything to do with creationism, and doesn't even use the word. The only occurrences of the word "creationism" in the article are in the infobox itself. Unless someone would like to write a short section on creationism as it pertains to the creation narrative, I don't think the infobox belongs in the article because the subject is not mentioned in the article. For my part, I'm not persuaded such a section is warranted: it appears to me that while the Genesis creation narrative is important to the subject of creationism, the subject of creationism is not crucial to an article on the Genesis creation narrative qua narrative. The subject is amply covered in other articles. Perhaps a see-also link would suffice?

I also think the "genre" section would be better placed after the "structure" section: the question of genre, of what kind of text the creation narrative is, is a central one and should be featured more prominently, and forms the third part fo a natural triad with the topics of sources and structure. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Followup: I see there are some mentions of creation science in the "genre" section -- does this topic belong more properly under "later interpretations"? -- Rrburke (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about the importance of the Genre section, however I think we should move it to just above the Later Interpretation section, as it reads as a good set up for more modern thoughts about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The article does and should include (earlier and later) interpretations of the narrative(s). Creationism is such an interpretation, so it belongs in the article. It is odd that the article itself does not mention "creationism" -- only the info box -- so the solution should be to discuss creationism within the body of the article, presumably under (medieval or) modern interpretations. ProfGray (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article could benefit from a full section (if short) on creationism and the narrative's role in it. That being said, I'm not sure how this relates to my comments about moving the genre section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean as a sub-topic of "later interpretations", or a section all on its own? I'd be concerned that the section would balloon and begin to dominate the article. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I dislike having multiple infoboxes in one article, as it gets rather ugly and messy. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

well...this is a text that is pretty deep in the roots of western civilization. it is kind of unsurprising that it would have multiple infoboxes..... Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. It's not ideal to have multiple infoboxes, but this is an article that wouldn't be quite right without them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rrburke: The more I think about it, the more I feel it could go either way. I worry about the potential for unchecked expansion if it's its own section, but I also worry about it being minimized if it's a subsection. The issue -as I see it- is that it's a contentious topic, sure to rile up the more hotheaded wikipedians on either side. Honestly, the presence of a Creationism article overrides any complaints about the subject being minimized in this article to my way of thinking, and to the MOS as far as I know, but we all know there are those who will attack the MOS because this issue is important to them, or who will insist that this is an exception to the usual rules. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said; such a section is probably bound to be a drama magnet. There seems to be a decent amount of goodwill here, though: surely editors could agree on the content of a short section, should one be deemed necessary, with a description of the main currents of creationism as they relate to the creation narrative. Too optimistic?

But I don't understand how the number of infoboxes should somehow reflect a topic's importance to western civilization. That baffles me. Moreover, the article did just fine with just a single infobox before -- it just happened to be the wrong one. Why is a second one crucial now? -- Rrburke (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

following the metaphor, being deep at the root of things, means it is reasonable that several distinct trunks (infoxes) grow out of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. It's more an issue of fundamentalism than importance, in that the subject of this article is a fundamental part of a number of subjects; biblical studies, modern creationism, mythology, etc, etc...

surely editors could agree on the content of a short section, should one be deemed necessary, with a description of the main currents of creationism as they relate to the creation narrative. Too optimistic? It's certainly optimistic, but I hope not too optimistic. I say we go for it. If I get the chance I'll write a paragraph of primer on creationism and put it up later today. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a creationism subsection under the Later Interpretation section, but I don't think it flows very well. The infobox clearly links to the whole section, while the information on creationism is contained primarily to two subsections (out of four). It seems to me like the section could use a re-write, with creationism being given a more prominent mention earlier in the section. I was thinking to re-write it so that there is an introduction to modern thoughts followed by 2-3 shorter subsections. I don't mean to cut any of it out, just re-arrange it and re-word it to flow better. Thoughts? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

i think what you did was great, and the best we can do, really. in my view this section should hew as closely as possible to the lead of Creationism per WP:SUMMARY and we should be careful to not let changes creep in here that are not made first to the body of the Creationism article and are of enough importance to cause changes to the WP:LEAD of that article, which summarizes it. if we are not careful this section will grow into something different from and possibly contradicting that article; we need to meta-edit. Thanks for being bold and doing this! Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I copied the text almost verbatim (I added a sentence stating that the Genesis account was the version of creationism most common in western culture and I removed some bolding on the first word and a link back to this article) from Creationism. What I was suggesting above would be to start the section with a sentence or two about how modern interpretations differ from past ones, then show the text from the 'creationism' subsection as part of that intro, then show the 'shape of the cosmos' and 'creation: wisdom, word etc...' sections, then take some of the info from the overview subsection and make an 'other' subsection out of it. Also, we should really change the title of the 'creation: wisdom, word etc...' section, because it sounds like a sermon or a rant. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree. This article is about scholarship's understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis, and creationism is not part of scholarship. Any believers in creationism who read the article will, one hopes, go away with an enhanced understanding of the subject, but if they want to find out about creationism's ideas on cosmology they should go to Creationist cosmology.PiCo (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a biased non-neutral point of view. Are the 'scholars' you mention opposed to creationism? We need balance, and creationism has its own 'scholars' whose view should be documented in this article also. Preceding stated without supporting any infobox changes or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

discussion of creationism is not about "balance" but as discussed above, is a contemporary interpretation of the creation myth and although it is pseudoscience, it is noteworthy enough to discuss, with appropriate framing per WP:PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog is quite right, creationism does not have scholars, it's not a scholarly position. On the other hand, the paragraph being discussed has no connection with the article - as -- Rrburke (OP on this thread) says, "this article is not about creationism -- literalist, progressive or what have you -- but about the text qua text." The wording of the paragraph makes no link to the text. The wording of the paragraph immediately following, does. What's more, it's not just creationism that misreads Genesis 1-2, it's all modern Christian sects (all Jewish ones, too) - as that section makes clear, the Genesis narrative provides no basis for creation ex nihilo, no basis for a first man called Adam, no basis for Original sin, and a host of other central theological formulations. The section as I wrote it sets all that out, and the addition of a new section on creationism will just act as a nut-magnet (you can go way back in the history and see what it looked like about 2010).PiCo (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC).PiCo (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@PiCo: I don't disagree with anything you said. Even about having a section on creationism being a nut-magnet. However, my concern is two-fold:

1. First is that creationism is a notable topic. Indeed, it's notable enough to mention it in any subject touching on it, such as this article or the evolution article.
2. Second is that, while this narrative does not inevitably give rise to creationism, it is cited by creationists as their foundational document, and that their world view is drawn directly from this.

With all that being said, I believe that the link between Genesis and creationism is enough to warrant a paragraph about the latter in the article about the former. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

biblegateway.com

Is there a reason why we have external links in prose text to biblegateway.com? is there a reason we are promoting this site over directing our readers to our pages on the topics or use it as a source? Makes one question the credibility of the articles content if your not familiar with the website...also looks like Wikipedia has some sort of affiliation with this one website since it does not comply with WP:ELPOINTS. -- Moxy (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This might be a more appropriate discussion for Template talk:Bibleref2. The template was created by User:Afaprof01, and is mostly maintained by him and User:SlothMcCarty (among others). Elpoints does say that normally external links do not go in the body, and notes that exceptions are rare, but it does allow for them. Our articles on Islam often include links to verses in the Quran (see Muhammad#Names_and_appellations_in_the_Quran), and it wouldn't be a bad idea for similar works such as the Pali Canon or Vedas.

My only real problem with linking Biblegateway is that they advertise and have a store (admittedly not-for-profit) and have a slight protestant slant (albeit a mostly non-denominational "learn and discover by yourself" one that I can back). Other than that, it's probably one of the better sources. If there was a site that had the same content but was religiously neutral (I'd recommend the Internet Sacred Text Archive if it were nearly as easy to navigate and had even half the translations Biblegateway has), I'd just look at altering what URL the template redirects to.

In an ideal world, there'd be a Wikimedia-owned WikiScripture site with a functionality like Biblegateway, but (unlike WikiSource) limited to religious scriptures (and works of comparable cultural value, such as the Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung), extremely notable commentaries and dictionaries (e.g. Strong's) parallel relevant verses, links to related works (e.g. Tanakh references and quotes in the New Testament and Quran, New Testament references in Gnostic works), as many translations as we can legally get our hands on, and a template where you just plug in the scripture, book, chapter, and verse. Don't know if there's time or interest for that. That sort of stuff is why WikiSource sucks in comparison to Biblegateway. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I just find it odd we are not linking our own articles instead of some website. An if we are going to have these odd links in content text why would we not link official versions like here or any other official version that has no ads or you dont have to register for to see info. Very odd to have a template for spamming a site within text like this. Has this ever come up before? I cant believe I am the first to notice this oddity. -- Moxy (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, biblegateway offers several versions, not just king james. That said, in prose links really bug me, especially given the concerns about ads. If we could provide this content somehow on-wiki (what about Wikisource?), I'd be for that. I'll be bold and remove the links, but feel free to revert me if that isn't the direction you think is best.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A Wikimedia owned project would be ideal, but Wikisource sucks when it comes to switching translations, selecting particular chapters and verses, or cross referencing with dictionaries, commentaries, and other scriptures. To get something with the functionality of Biblegateway, we'd have to start a new project. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't decide what's best. I tried moving the biblegateway links to a ref group, but that seemed sloppy and unnecessary, so I tried removing them altogether. Given Ian's concerns, I'm not sure it's practical to include them without an external link. Any other thoughts or preferences? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Though Biblegateway does offer fine resources for Bible scholars that Wikisource's KJV and ASV Bibles do not, concerns over their advertising and merchandising may make it preferable to link to Wikisource whenever possible. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Monotheism (again)

I see that this issue has been discussed: , though I also see that the discussion has sometimes digressed from the specifics of the Genesis narrative. I wonder whether or not the statements given in the article are too stringent with respect to monotheism. While I can't read ancient Hebrew, my reading in English of the Bible leads me to think that there are interpretations of the creation narrative that are possibly (though not definitively) polytheistic. God seems kind of ambiguous in Genesis. He talks to what seems to be other deities or other parts of himself (or something), for example. I feel that the present article seems to stridently damp down alternative interpretations which might be reasonable if we accept that the Genesis narrative had extremely ancient origins and influences from other cultures. I'm no expert on this, but I wonder if some accommodation should be made in the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

But, if editors are worn out on this issue, I understand. My interest in this and related articles is newly found. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I know, scholars are in general agreement that Elohim and Jehovah were initially different dieties, though I don't really see how more focus on that would improve the article. I'm not opposed to the idea, mind. I just don't see the benefit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, stridently asserts that this is a monotheistic story. My sense is that such assertions are not especially neutral. At the same time, I know that citations would be needed to accommodate a more nuanced interpretation. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the composition of the narrative took place over quite a bit of time. The final editing and writing, as well as the majority of the editing and writing were decidedly monotheistic, to the point of decrying polytheism (despite leaving traces of it in the text). From where I sit, that's an unambiguously monotheistic story. To suggest that it's not monotheistic is like suggesting that the United States as a nation condones slavery and wars of conquest.

I understand your concerns (there is history and implications there which are fascinating, and which more people should know), but I just don't see how one can neutrally assert that this narrative isn't stridently monotheistic. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but this subject is not like suggesting that the United States condones slavery and wars of conquest. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that it is, in the following senses:

1. Both claims were true at one point. (The US conquered the majority of the lower 48, taking it by force from the natives, and used to permit and regulate slavery within its borders. Meanwhile the origin of the Genesis narrative lay in polytheistic Canaanite religion.)
2. Neither claim is true now. (The US no longer recognizes the legitimacy of Manifest Destiny nor the right of arms as a valid argument for the annexation of land, nor does it permit slavery in any sense. Meanwhile, the Genesis narrative espouses monotheism.)
3. There are elements of the former condition persisting in the subject still. (Racism in America and overseas military bases such as Rammstein AFB or Butler MB. The varying names for god in the Genesis narrative, and the contradictions between the two accounts.)
4. Both subjects are stridently opposed to their former position on the matter. (The US considers slave owning to be a crime against humanity, and wars of conquest to be both that and a war crime. The Genesis narrative slams polytheism in a number of places.)

It's not the identical situation, but it is an apt analogy, which was my point in using it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So ought we not explain the hypocrisy inherent in the account? Pandeist (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me start by stating that I'm an atheist. I have no particular stake in promoting any sense of validity to this narrative. That being said; no, I don't believe it's hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when one criticizes others for behavior one engages in. This narrative, while certainly critical of polytheism, does not presume polytheism. It took what was (to the authors) the known account of creation, and re-interpreted it in light of monotheism. That's not hypocrisy, it's shoddy scholarship, and a ridiculous excuse for science. But then, that's pretty much what we expect of a bronze age society.

Getting back to your original comment, regarding the following passage: I feel that the present article seems to stridently damp down alternative interpretations which might be reasonable if we accept that the Genesis narrative had extremely ancient origins and influences from other culture I can only say that this article is not, itself, a scholarly work. It is intended to provide an overview of the subject, not to be an exhaustive source of knowledge on the subject. WP articles, even the most in-depth ones, are an introduction to their subject, from which a researcher can find and follow more exhaustive sources. As things stand, it's really not that important to the average person looking to understand the GCR that it had its roots in polytheism, especially when one considers that such information is available elsewhere on WP. Anyone doing research at a level in which this would be important would certainly be reading more than one article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion is a bit forum-y. Does anybody have proposals for content changes (with sources) for us to consider? Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping for discussion of specific parts of the Genesis text (like the parts that are supposedly monotheistic and not), together with citable references. What I got was unexpected and off-track. Yes. And I'm done with this discussion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You asked about adding information to the article. I explained why I don't think that's a good idea. You debated my reasons, I defended them. In what possible way can that be considered off-track (or 'forum-y')? This entire time, the subject has been the article, and more specifically, whether or not to add to it. That's exactly what this talk page is for. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What other article is such content found in? And why not simply show all the cards in the main event? Pandeist (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you IK. I have assumed for ages that are vestiges of the acknowledgement of multiple gods in the OT. Eg. this book is about The Origins of Biblical Monotheism - see pages 143 & 156. Myrvin (talk)

Yahweh, Elohim, Monotheism, Canaanite religion, Monolatrism, Henotheism, El (deity) and others. Also Myrvin, while I disagreed with the assertion that the discussion has gotten off-topic, it is a valid warning. What we believe and think about the subject is immaterial here, this is a place for discussing the article.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. IK is saying that the article should be enhanced to include mention of these vestiges of polytheism in Genesis. And I agree. Myrvin (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And we should. For instance, there's this book published by the Catholic University of America Press. Doug Weller (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, this book says, "the Israelite accounts are monotheistic, with only rare hints of an earlier polytheism (cf. Gen 1:26; 3:22; 6:1-4; 11:1-9)". There are sources for material for a paragraph or two at least. Myrvin (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a subsection called something like "Possible polytheism in Genesis". Maybe in the "Later interpretations" section Myrvin (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding an entire section is going way to far. It will unbalance the article by putting more emphasis on the polytheistic origins than is appropriate for an article on the actual contents of the work. Besides, there's already a section dedicated to the subject at Book of Genesis § Origins. If you want to add to that section of that article, I'm wildly in support of it. However, this article is about the narrative, which is the ends result of centuries of writing by several authors. It's not about the inspiration they drew from, or the theological abstractions they used in the writing.

If a lot more information about the evolution of the narrative over time were available, I could get behind that. But as far as I know, there's not a lot known about early iterations of the narrative. It's not like we have a dozen versions from a period of several hundred years showing how the Canaanite creation myth evolved into the Hebrew creation myth. I could be wrong, and if I am, I'll change my stance. But absent enough information to create a fully fleshed out section, all we could possible do is make the article worse (and far more contentious than it already is). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Needs a more neutral tone

The section "Mesopotamian influence" has the sentences "Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths." and "The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2." There should be a more neutral way of wording the two sentences. I tried to do so, such as adding "probably" between "is" and "imbued" in the former, but that was rejected. I also added "Experts consider" before the beginning of the former, and replacing "is" with "to be". But that was also rejected. So, how can these two be reworded in a more disinterested way?68.100.116.118 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sentences seem pretty neutral to me--if they are indeed well verified. Are they? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You may check the sources if you like. But there may be a more neutral way, such as "Genesis 1–11 as a whole seems to be imbued with Mesopotamian myths, and scholars have evidence supporting this view." or any similar way, which tells quite the same thing in a more disinterested manner.68.100.116.118 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Don't strike out my comments again. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

On wikipedia, "neutral" means "reflecting the reliable sources with respect to their weight." The current wording seems entirely neutral to me. What about it isn't neutral?   — Jess· Δ♥ 10:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding words such as "seems" and "appears to" strongly implies that the opposite is true in a context such as this. For instance, when discussing a co-worker with whom you rarely interact, it's understood that saying "He/she seems nice," means that you think they are nice, but aren't sure. However, when discussing one's best friend, saying "he/she seems nice," is a very clear implication that they're not actually very nice at all. An article such as this one has more of a 'best-friend' relationship to its subject. This article is presumed by the reader to be familiar enough with the subject to speak decisively on it. So the inclusion of qualifiers such as these would not serve to add greater precision to the text, but to add implications which aren't supported by the sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. You have no understanding of us, believing only mainstream experts as faultless, we are not the same. In this case, we may close this discussion since the article is already "neutral".68.100.116.118 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement above certainly indicates bias here in the closer. Wikipedia should not be favouring one kind of source over another. For a controversial topic like this we can find sources that present different points of view, and they make statements that ignore other points of view. However that does not make them suitable for use as they are. Instead a balanced presentation must be made that uses a range of sources with the main points of view covered. We should not modify the statement derived from the reference to say something it does not, but instead we need other references that say something incompatible and state who says what in the presentation of different opinions. There should not be a bias to "secular experts". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(striking some of my statement because what I was commenting on was removed by Jytdog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC))

Hey! why reopen? Haven't I the right to close a discussion I started when I think it will get nowhere?68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not all about what you want. If you are done with the discussion, go do something else. Others may or may not want to continue. Nobody owns anything here. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection has been requested for this page

A request for permanent semi-protection for this page has been made. This is just a notice so that anyone watching this page can find the request and comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dating the Genesis creation narrative

The article uses the older Documentary hypothesis for its dating of Genesis. Since the 70s there's been something of a revolution - without discarding the Yahwist/Priestly sources, most scholars now date Genesis to the Persian period, and Genesis 1-11 even later (the Table of Nations, Genesis 10, is a picture of the Middle East in the early 3rd century). PiCo (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I assume you have soureces. Can this be *added*, or does it require modification of the existing text? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just adding a reference as you posted: Peter Enns saying (a) DocHyp no longer dominant in scholarship, and (b) the majority of scholars believe the Torah was given its final (current) shape in the post-exilic period. (Enns is an evangelical, by the way). I think the article needs to be modified.PiCo (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And the New Oxford Annotated Bible of 2007, a bit more nuanced, saying that the Pentateuch may have had roots in early Israel, it was probably reworked in the post-exilic period into its present form. I think that's more useful than Enns. PiCo (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And Joseph Blenkinsopp (A Jesuit) pointing out that Genesis 1-11 was a late addition to the Pentateuch.

Okay. Can the evolution of this interpretation of the G creation myth be described in the article, within reason? Or is that overkill? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Anything can be described, the problem is getting balance and nuance. Certainly the existence of sources isn't denied, there's just been a re-evaluation of how and when they were used to create the Pentateuch. Of that i'm quite certain. I'm fairly certain that there's wide agreement that Genesis 1-11 is a later addition to the Pentateuch that was brought together in the post-exilic period. I'm not at all certain what date is being put to it - the Babylonian influence on Genesis 1-2 is still accepted so far as I know, but there also seems to be other influences, even Greek. PiCo (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's see your edits to the article. Looking forward, and thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

One narrative or two?

The article text currently refers to a (single) creation narrative in two parts, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-24. I would suggest that the article should state that there are two (distinct) narratives, not one. Comments, please? BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This needs to be better explained. There is a nice commentary on this in this month's Biblical Archeology Review, by Shawna Dolansky, The Multiple Truths of Myths. I also support moving this article to Genesis Creation Myths. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move January 2016

See Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 23

Protest

I was offended when I saw creationism referred to as a myth on this page. When I tried to edit it, I was further dismayed by a note telling me not to remove this expression. By the same token, we are not allowed to refer to evolution as a myth on its Wikipedia page. This is a violation of my beliefs and the believes of many others. You may believe it is a myth but I absolutely don't, and I completely disapprove of evolution while you don't. Let's try and respect each other's beliefs instead of insulting them by referring to them as myths. Whatever happened to free speech? Jeikobu (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see FAQ at the top of this page.--McSly (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeikobu, the term myth is actually used by scholars who are believing Jews or Christians in theology books, etc. Do read the faq. You'll need to click on 'show' several times, but it does say "The term creation myth is used for reasons related to scholarship and research, not out of a desire to offend the feelings or beliefs of Wikipedia's readers. While some readers, especially those not familiar with the scholarly terminology referenced when using the term creation myth, might take offense at seeing this subject called a creation myth, Wikipedia should not be rewritten just so that certain readers will be more comfortable. The goal in writing the article is to be as neutral and dispassionate in describing this subject, but, as with any contentious topic, it is sometimes not possible to accommodate everyone's feelings while writing a neutral, accurate, verifiable, and sourced-based reference work.

Further information: WP:RNPOV". No sources meeting our criteria call evolution a myth, and in the sense we use myth it would be completely in appropriate. We don't use it to mean 'lie' or 'fairy tale'. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, one does not "believe in evolution", one either accepts evidence or one does not. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

    My request is that the main purpose of the Genesis information shows how a people made from the desire to live and love account for the failings of the Evolutionary belief through the design and creation. The creation of organic feeding life where organics could not be, only minerals (yes and chemicals) which are not alive. 

Genesis information shows how a people made from the desire to live and love account for the failings of the Evolutionary belief through the design and creation. The creation of organic feeding life where organics had not been created, only minerals (yes and chemicals) which are not alive. The creation gives us a solution where life does not need to create itself. We have been trying to create life for a hundred years and yet cannot make even a living cell. yet we have flown around in spacecraft after only a few years, but which of those do we see happening on it's own. We now spend more to make this belief true, and more on promoting it than ever, and yet the Genesis account still stands. I am impressed.

Douglas Huebner BEET Dahuebner77 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Declined This is not a well-written request, and from what I can discern from it, it has no place on this page (or indeed, on any other). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the article about?

I just noticed a rather weird feature of this article - its precise subject is unclear. That is to say, this article seems to be about two things - the specific textual narrative of creation in Genesis, and the Judeo-Christian creation myth in a broader sense, which is separate in some degree from the specific Genesis text, (note Judeo-Christian creation myth and Christian creation myth redirect here). An analogous situation would be Japanese creation myth and Kojiki; the textual version of a myth and the myth itself. Obviously the two are largely the same, but I think it's important the article be clear about which it is - indeed, in my opinion, there may be a need for two separate articles. Has this been discussed before? Is there a consensus? Rwenonah (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been discussed. And argued about, and edit warred about and finally settled down. And repeated at least three times since I started watching the page, and dozens of times before that. Oh god, please, PLEASE let's not start again..... The current scope of the article is about the creation mythology (there seems to be more than one myth at play in the earliest versions) contained within the Book of Genesis. Because of the intense scrutiny this particular subject has been, owing to the dominance of Christianity in the Western world, the division between this subject and the text itself is not always clear. Thus, this article is about the myths, but also discusses the texts. Also, it's called the narrative because of Christianity's special place as well. While this is undoubtedly a creation myth, the terms "creation story" and "creation narrative" are actually far more widely used in the scholarly literature, owing to issues of cultural sensitivity. So I hope that I've fully answered your question because I really don't want to go through this again. (No offense intended, it was an honest question that deserved an answer. My hyperbole here is mostly humorous.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

So (to be clear) the article is about both the myth generally and texts specifically? With neither being the primary focus? Rwenonah (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I would say the article is about the myth generally, but is comprehensive enough that it must contain information on the text to be coherent. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Rwenonah (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Rwenonah, MjolnirPants: There are two creation myths in Genesis, not one!. The text as such is often being adressed as Hexaemeron (alleging to the 6 days of the creation process) in the scientific literature. That said, the use of narrative seems to be appropriate for the current version. I would asssume some of the effort being wasted on the move attempst here would have been better on a separate article on the text (and its historical criticism) as such. Polentarion Talk 20:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, there are 3 creation myths: There's the chapter 1 myth, the chapter 2 myth, and the modern interpretive myth: the belief among less-liberal Christians that there is only one myth which is a synthesis of the two original ones (note that this is OR, though I'm convinced scholars would fundamentally agree with it, given what I know). Also, note that it's scholarly literature, as there's little science (if much methodology) about the study of ancient texts and mythology. But I agree that there should be forked articles on the text itself and the content, and so, apparently does the rest of Wikipedia. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a moratorium on discussion of "move requests". Not sure if someone's going to hat this or what. I do think that two articles (one on the myth, one or more on specific narratives of it) could be a viable long-term solution to the constant you-know-whats, but it seems that what this article is primarily about and how that should impact the title is something of an open question. Rwenonah (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There very well may be. It wouldn't be the first such moratorium, either. Either way, I'm not seeing anything productive coming out of this discussion, even if it is a bit fun. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Point is, some pov forks are better than one honey pot, so if Rwenonah starts writing a draft on Hexaemeron (take the German interwiki as a start), I would support that. There is not "one myth", never ever, as this is one of the most intensivly read, interpreted and depicted texts in the world literature. I use "science" as synonyme to Wissenschaft, and insofar theology is science ;). Polentarion Talk 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this page (or the other I linked to) qualifies as a honey pot. Nor do I think theology has anything to do with science (there is nothing either empirical nor methodological about theology). Nor have I (or Rwenonah) suggested that there actually was only one myth, I've simply pointed out the obvious fact that many people believe there is only one myth, and said that I believe that this qualifies as a third myth, since it is distinct from either of the other two. Also, we already have an article on the Hexameron. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, google didn't tell me ;) I reduced some of the interwikis, as Hexameron in deWP doesnt fit. Theology is not longer queen of Science, but of cause its a) scholarly and b) both methodological and empiric and c) modern science is very much based on it. Take the Merton Thesis or Max Weber for the scholarly background. Polentarion Talk 23:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you know what empirical means? Do you know what methodological means? The first means "dealing with experiential evidence", and the second means not only taking a systemic approach to a subject, but subjecting your approach itself to systemic questioning and analysis. Theology is absolutely neither of those things, no matter what you may think about it. Theology is reflective, philosophical and sometimes logical. It is never empirical and is only ever methodological in a loose, not-too-literal sense, which would be better described as systemic (even then, only some of the time; there's plenty of room for intuition and emotion in theology). Nor is modern science in any way "very much based on" theology. That claim is, frankly, ridiculous. The two things used to be highly conflated (a thousand years ago), but that in no way makes the one out to be based upon the other. These ideas are so wrong (and so old) that it's difficult to determine where to begin addressing them. Why don't you try to find a single example of a theological theory which has been confirmed by experiment? Just one. Why don't you also try to find an example of scientific dogma, where scientists are explicitly discouraged from questioning a specific hypothesis by a scientific body? Again, just one. When you've given up trying to find those unicorns, then read the rest of what I've posted here, where I'll try to explain. Or, assuming you are as intelligent as I believe you to be, you can acknowledge that they don't exist and continue reading.

Now, I'm pretty sure I know where your confusion comes from. The "queen of sciences" remark hearkens back to the middle ages, where it was the penultimate subject of universities, and religious texts and ideas were used to underpin the teaching of other subjects (reading, writing, mathematics, etc.). But that use of the word "science", as all other uses of the word to describe theology is absolutely not a precise usage. Rather, it is in earlier uses used to mean "body of knowledge", referring to the collection of writings from earlier theologians; in more modern times it is invariably a euphemism with the same meaning: a body of knowledge. You made this explicit with your reference to Wissenschaft, and your insistence that you use "science" as synonymous with that term. But there is a world of difference. While all science is a wissenschaft, not all wissenschaft is a science. The very word means "knowledge works" or "knowledge craft". In current usage, the best translation of the English "science" into German would be "naturwissenschaft", which means "natural knowledge works". While it is accurate to refer to theology as a wissenschaft, and common for non-scientists to translate "science" into German as "wissenschaft", doing so leads to a problem which you illustrated with your link to the Merton thesis and your mention of Max Weber.

The thing you seem to be failing to grasp is that both the works of Max Weber and the Merton thesis occur within the realms of psychology and sociology, not theology. It doesn't matter that they are of huge interest to theologians. For example, the effects of space travel on human beings is of huge interest to rocket engineers, but it's absolutely a medical subject. It is not what we believe about the divine that drives us to do science (and even if it was, that would not make theology a science), but rather how we react to what we believe about the divine. That distinction is subtle, but important. It is the same distinction between the the actions of a religiously motivated terrorist or serial killer, and the beliefs of the same. When we systematically study serial killers and terrorists (aside from finding that they're not nearly as religious as we initially assumed), we do not discuss the finer points of their theologies, but rather only discuss those parts of their theologies which lead them to take actions. In short, it does not matter whether God or the devil is omnipotent in the theology of a serial killer, nor whether either is loving or hateful, or imbued within us, separated from us, or embodied by certain people and not others. What matters is only that God or the devil told this person to kill.

So yeah, theology is a scholarly discipline. It's a body of knowledge. Sometimes, it's even systematic. But it takes much more than an occasionally systematic body of knowledge to make a science. Due to the nature of mathematics, it's present in every single science, from psychology to sociology to physics. But there's no mathematics in theology. In fact, there's nothing falsifiable about theology. Any statement made by a theologian which can be falsified is, by its very nature, a naturalistic statement. It is a statement not about the divine (the very definition of theology), but about the world (the very definition of natural). In short, it would not be a theological statement.

One of the unofficial, yet incredibly important principles of Wikipedia is that competence is required. Your statement demonstrates a lack of competence in terms of understanding the natures of science, evidence and methodology. This can be a huge hindrance to you when it comes to choosing reliable sources. I strongly urge you to spend a great deal more time researching any assertion you intend to make on Wikipedia. When doing that research, it is important that you do so critically. Here are two links which can help with that: Purdue Owl Writing Lab - Using Research and Evidence and George Mason University - Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources. Below, I'll provide some good places to start researching the dichotomy of theology and science. In each case, I tried to provide links where you can either read the work for free or directly purchase it.

• The Faith of a Heretic by Walter Kaufmann
• Language, Truth and Logic by Alfred Ayer
• Principles of the Philosophy of the Future by Ludwig Feuerbach
• The Work of Lord Bolingbroke: With a Life, Prepared Expressly for this Edition... ...Volume 3 by Henry St. John Bolingbroke
• The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Way to long for this disk page. But thnx for the effort. I just assume that the narrow anglo use of science is wrong and Wissenschaft is much much more suitable. I dealt with various issues that are multifaceted, Janus-like, both in science and humanities, where you cannot give one to one faculty responibility for. That applies as well to space travel and of cause as well to theology or the Merton thesis. As for reading, I recommand William E. Connolly's Why I Am Not a Secularist, and for the fun of it, Jonathan M. Marks Why I Am Not a Scientist. Best regards. Polentarion Talk 18:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The scope of the article is one of the issues that has come up in the multiple move debates: what is the article about now, and what should it be about. My argument has always been that - rightly or wrongly - the article is focused on the narrative more than on the myth. Note that (perhaps surprisingly) we don't have separate articles on Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. (Though we do have one on Bereshit (parsha).) StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But the article is definitely about both. We can parse which one it currently focuses on more, but as it stands the title (or for that matter the perpetually proposed myth title, were it in place instead) does not fully describe the article's content. Thus the possibility that two articles (or three) is superior to the current one in terms of descriptiveness and accuracy. Rwenonah (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And there's something attractive about cutting the Gordian Knot by having articles on BOTH Genesis creation narrative AND Genesis creation myth - but it would be hard to get around WP:POVFORK. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Genesis creation myth could be downsized to "christian creation how the american sceptic sees it". As saidm there is no one and only myth, its a multitude. The difference between a POVFORk and a nice and suitable diffentiated view is just quality and sourcing. And probaly a draft announced here. Polentarion Talk 23:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just Americans? Trust me, the Ethiopian religion also teaches this. Why not an article on "Christian creation the way the Ethiopian church sees it"??? Then also make one for the way the Georgian, Armenian, Greek and Russian Orthodox congregations see it, etc.. We usually hear militant atheist sources who don't seem to know much about how the other half of the globe thinks, pushing the falsehood, that belief in canonical Genesis is restricted to a few American holdouts. Well the view of these militant atheist sources is not the least bit neutral, but seeks to convey this very falsehood with a hostile view to actively diminishing the adherents of all of these Christian groups in every country around the world. 71.246.148.52 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Til :). Actually I agree with you here. PiCo (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I reported the block evasion, but I also essentially agree with this view. I wouldn't call them "militant atheists", though. I would just call them "idiots". I have friends who describe themselves as militant atheists, but none of them think there are no Christian fundamentalists outside of the United States (most of these friends of mine have never even visited the United States). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to get poor Til blocked again, I was just amused at the way he keeps popping up. As I said, I actually agree with him here.PiCo (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes - but I think also there is a qualitative difference, not a POV-based one, between theoretical myth and narrative articles. POVforks involve the same subject being discussed from 2 different POVs. The myths and narrative here are logically separate topics, to some degree, that shouldn't necessarily be in the same article and could support their own articles with relative ease. Rwenonah (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. WP is always about forking in case of conflict, as we do not have a central board of publishers, see Nathanial Tkacz: Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness. I made a list to work on, I still am of opinion that something like "Judeo-Christian creation myth" is not based on evidence - there is no common denominatort here. But we can start with the proposal. Polentarion Talk 00:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"the textual version of a myth and the myth itself. Obviously the two are largely the same..." The two are entirely the same. The Genesis myth never existed as anything but a written text, there was never a previous oral version.PiCo (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, many scholars would disagree - e.g. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Very few scholars would disagree. It's pretty much accepted that there's no oral tradition behind chapters 1-11 of Genesis. PiCo (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll just go into a bit of detail on the lack of oral traditions behind Genesis 1-11, because it's interesting. This section of Genesis has a clear five-part structure, mirroring the Torah's five books (and incidentally implying that it's later than the bulk of the Pentateuch). The five parts are made up of three narrative sections alternating with two genealogy sections, corresponding to the Pentateuch's three narrative books and two law books. It (I mean Genesis 1-11, the Primeval History) can be dated to post-330 BC, as it mentions Persia, implying a post-Persian date, and Japhet, the Greek Iapetos, implying a Hellenistic setting. The names in the Table of Nations, incidentally, match up to the political geography of the Near east in the early 2nd century, again implying a Hellenistic setting. Anyway, the point is that the History can be dated as a primarily Hellenistic work (not the rest of Genesis - that's earlier). Then within Genesis 1 we see a very artificial, controlled structure (unlike Genesis 2, which has a simple linear structure). There's the 7 days structre, which shows a preoccupation with calendars (another sign of a Hellenistic date, by the way - Hellenistic Jews were very concerned about calendars), and also the elaborate word-counts which also emphasise the number 7 - I think I our article mentions this. And of course, all the sources used by the author were written ones. If you'd like to read more on this I suggest Alter and Barton, they're very good. PiCo (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You really think Genesis 1 is Hellenistic? That must be a minority view. I would have thought the majority view is that it's from the Priestly source, which WP tells me spans "a broad time period of 571–486 BCE." StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd actually go further than StAnselm here to point out that it's also a mainstream view that P contains at least some pre-exilic material, and reached its final form during that period. A post-Alexandrian date for the first of the two Genesis creation stories is almost certainly a fringe view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I should also point out that the dating of P later than J, E and D (dating it to the Babylonian exile or later) is sometimes attributed to the antisemitic and anti-clerical (anti-Catholic) bias of nineteenth-century German Lutheran scholars. Therefore we should be skeptical of attempts to date parts of P even later. PiCo's dates would make Genesis 1 one of the latest parts of the Hebrew Bible, as even Daniel, the latest book, can be pretty firmly placed around the time of the Maccabean Revolt (though the Greek version contains some material that appears to be much older). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, the documentary hypothesis isn't very widely held these days. The more usual way to look at it is that the Pentateuch is made up of a base-layer that was worked over by various editor/authors with a similar agenda that we call Priestly - the underlying layer is usually called non-Priestly (non-P). Certainly Genesis 1-11 is widely seen as one of the last parts of the bible to have been written - nobody mentioned in it is ever mentioned in any other book, which strongly suggests that other authors (of the psalms, for example) were simply unaware of it. The mention of Japhet strongly implies a Hellenistic date for at least the story of the Curse of Ham (Japhet is the Greek Iapetos - the letter J is a "dummy" for I, and pronounced "Ee"). It's been argued that the list of names in Genesis 10 records the politics of the early 2nd century BC (slightly earlier than Daniel), but this is a minority view. Certainly once more, people kept on adding to it and fiddling with it - the internal chronology seems to point to 164 BC as the "end of time", so it must have been added about then. But in general, most scholars would put the modern version of Genesis, the one we have, minus perhaps the chronology and a few things like the Curse of Canaan, in the 5th or 4th century, using earlier material that in some cases goes back to the monarchic period.

Wellhausen was accused of an anti-semitic agenda, I don't know know how justly or unjustly. I think he was more anti-Catholic - P for him equated to the Catholic Church's clerical monoply of access to God.PiCo (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Somehow I think I have been misreading your comments, and I suspect StAnselm has as well. I read "Genesis 1-11" as "Genesis 1:1-11" (i.e., roughly the first third of the Priestly creation myth contained in Gen 1:1~2:3), and StAnselm's reference to the Priestly source implies he had the same understanding. Assming now that you mean chapters 1 to 11: that is an outlandish claim that would require a tremendous amount of evidence -- can you cite sources? To give just one example, the idea that Jews in thr Hellenistic period could have composed the text out of whole cloth makes explanation of 6:1-4 extremely difficult -- how do your sources explain this problem? Most sources I have consulted (undergraduate textbooks, the Jewish Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, introductory lecture series like Christine Hayes's well-regarded one on YouTube) treat the documentary hypothesis as foundational and (essentially) unassailable. Wellhausen's precise formulation is no longer accepted, and some modern scholars' pedantic applocation of the hypothesis to this or that individual word in the text, as well as any application of the four-source theory to the historical narrative following Deuteronomy, are not widely recognized, but I have never heard of "the documentary hypothesis isn't very widely held these days" before. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I was focusing on Genesis 1 with the comments about the 7-day structure in mind. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's the first eleven chapters. They're called the Primeval History, and there have been some commentaries written on just this section of Genesis. It's pretty universaly recognised that they form a separate composition. The usual explanation of the composition history of Genesis is that the oldest parts are the Abraham Isaac and Jacob cycles, dating from the immediate post-exilic period in written form but based on older oral stories. The Joseph story was composed somewhat later to form a bridge to the Exodus story, when the first complete version of the Torah was written - that would have been fairly soon after the return, as Genesis is definitely a Persian creation. The Yahwist stories of Genesis 1-11 may have been present in some form at that time. Later again the Priestly edit was made, and still later the chronology was added (or revised - there seems to be an older chronology underneath the present one). The documentary hypothesis doesn't have many supporters these days, although people keep confusing the actual hypothesis - four separate books combined by editors at various points - with the idea of sources, when in fact the DH is a theory about how sources were combined, not about their existence. If you're genuinely interested I can suggest some books. PiCo (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Both myth and narrative are strongly based on "narration", will say oral tradition. See the humanities ;) Polentarion Talk 00:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I still think the word "myth" is inappropriate to describe the "single" story in Genesis, because it contains two creation myths. "Narrative" is used to describe the combination of the two myths as described in the written Genesis narrative. This view, of course, assumes that there were two other earlier documents which we call P and J (I don't want to hear about how no written scrolls of an independent J, E, P or D have ever been found again -- we have no surviving written attestation of any of the Hebrew Bible until upwards of four centuries after the Babylonian exile). The existence of earlier documents means there could easily have been earlier still oral accounts. We just don't know. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hijiri88, you are elaborating on the genesis of the text. I assume that the usage of the creation narratives ever since has been responsible for much more "myths" ever since. Thats two aspects. Polentarion Talk 01:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Related topics

Remark

The list can be edited till a consensus is achieved. PLease provide comments in the discussion section.

• Enlarged Context
  • Book of Genesis
  • Creation
• Current version and redirects
  • Genesis creation narrative The current version.
  • Genesis creation narratives Redirect, possible alternative
  • Judeo-Christian creation myth a sort of smear, could use an explanation in the article. `
• Specific Context
• Hexameron The six days, refering to the text as such, rather short currently
• Specific textual narrative of creation in Genesis A first suggestion here
• Origin of the Genesis creation narrative Could refer to the points about oral or written background and the historical criticism of the original
• Genesis creation in culture and history could refer to the role it played ever since
• Theological concepts involved
  • Creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).
  • Creatio continua as ongoing divine creation and e.g. driving the current standpoint of the Rat of the EKD what and how to teach creation and evolution in public and religious schools classes in Germany.

Discussion

• "Judeo-Christian creation myth" is nonsense. "Hebrew creation myth" would make more sense. If there is a creation myth that could be called "Christian" it is the Genesis-based myth that exists within modern Christian popular culture (with an apple instead of a nameless fruit, Satan in the guise of snake rather than just a snake, etc.); "Jewish creation myth" would be almost as anachronistic as "Christian creation myth"; "Judeo-Christian creation myth" combines the problems of both. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that I am aware that the identification of the serpent in the garden with a demonic satan existed in Second Temple Judaism and was not a Christian innovation. I meant that, regardless of its origin, it ispartof Christian popular culture and is contrasted with the story as recorded in Genesis. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. I just used the proposals of User:Rwenonah in the first section above. Goal is to have improvements of the proposals. Just edit the list if you have better terms. Polentarion Talk 01:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think of that. I think that if "Judeo-Christian creation myth" merits noting on Wikipedia (as the modern collective historicized interpretations of Christians and to a much lesser extent Jews), the subject is so broad, and so far removed from the topic of this article that it is off-topic to discuss it on this talk page, so I would say just strike it from the list (what I have just done). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this is the article for Judeo-Christian creation myth, which redirects here; thus my concern about how the article incorporates so many disparate subjects it's unclear exactly which of them it is about or which ought to be the predominant subject. I would agree that this article is not about the modern creation myth as widely understood today (or not primarily, anyway) ... but that, in turn, brings up other issues of to what degree the narrative and myth should be treated as synonymous. Rwenonah (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

THe problem is more about the lengthy infight of some wikifants, which lead to the creation of that unlucky POV redirect. I reinserted the redirect with a remark. Polentarion Talk 02:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh Redirects from possible search terms should exist, even if those search terms do not accurately describe the contents of this article. Whether a separate article on Judeo-Christian creation myth should be created is really a discussion for the WikiProjects, not yet more baggage for this page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Mu. Hmm. Interesting. Its a smear term however, starting from Nietsches Antichrist till the OXFAM Gender Training Manual . Lets keep it then. Polentarion Talk 10:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC) I have inegrated some further proposals based on the ongoing discussion.

What's a smear? "Creation myth" isn't unless you are saying that Christian and Jewish theologians use it to smear their own religions. And please sign your posts above, I'm not sure who wrote what. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, you haven't followed. a) E.g. Nietzsche started to use Judeochristian as a smear, and the use of JC creation myth is similar, as sourced. b) The list above is to be edited by all to gain a common view. Polentarion Talk 17:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I still don't follow the logic that because Nietzche used it that makes it a smear. I'm guessing you aren't an American, as Judeo-Christian as a description has a different history in the US. This explains its use in the US: . But it's irrelevant. It isn't a category, it's a redirect. Why should we discuss it in the article? Doug Weller talk 18:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Goodness. If its a valid redirect, its to be covered in the article. if not, lets delete it. Please read the discussion and the links you copy and past before you come up here. Your link refers to Arthur A. Cohen’s essay “The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition” - and that summarizes my concerns very well. Btw, I am very well aware of the term and its background, as the pietist forefathers of the american tradition come e.g. from the swabian communities my grandfather played the organ in. The German term for the traditional congregations in question is e.g. de:Gemeinschaftsbewegung or de:Christlicher Zionismus. Polentarion Talk 21:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You really think I don't read stuff first? Wow. Anyway, no point in discussing deleting a redirect here as we can't delete it via discussion here. Read the deletion policy. Doug Weller talk 04:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"If it's a valid redirect, it's to be covered in the article". No - not at all. StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doug, a) Yes, you make the impression. b) the section here is to discuss the thematic field first, find a consensus und then take action. @ StAnselm: Compare WP:R#DELETE and WP:R#PLA, a major point is to make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. I don't see that being dealt with appropriately. Polentarion Talk 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't think this article covers "Judeo-Christian Tradition" adequately? I don't see why it should - it's about one particular trope in the shared scripture of the two. PiCo (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think any halfway intelligent person who is redirected to this article by going to "Judeo-Christian creation myth" will see that they are in the right place after reading the very first sentence here: "The Genesis creation narrative forms the basic creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity." (italics are mine) First Light (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't followed what we're talking about. This sub-thread starts with someone saying that "Judeo-Christian creation myth" is nonsense because the modern Christian interpretation of Genesis 1-2 has introduced elements and understandings not found or intended in the original. True, but I hope the section "Later interpretations" covers that. Perhaps "Later Interpretations" could be replaced with a section on just the Christian re-interpretation? But of course, Judaism has also re-interpreted the original - for example, like Christians, modern Jews think that Genesis 1 is about God creating everything from nothing, which doesn't seem to have been the original meaning, and they don't think of the world that God creates as being a flat earth with a lid to keep the waters out. So maybe two subsections? PiCo (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Some further subsections would help. Let us link as well to Judeo-Christian, it's a wiki, and show that the term has some issues. It is not a synonym to "both Jewish and Christian, separate and unequal". @ PiCo: I would be careful with creatio ex nihilo as being the sole modern concept of creation, nor the only one relevant for members of both faiths. Polentarion Talk 10:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I should have made clear that I was replying to Polentarion's claim that "Judeo-Christian creation myth" should not be a redirect to this article. Just that. First Light (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have seen the light ;) Polentarion Talk 10:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not just create a new article containing this information about re-interpretations and resolve the whole title dispute and the (my?) confusion about the article's precise subject as well? Rwenonah (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted a lot of source tags identifying GCN as a myth

I did this because there seemed to be no need for so many - surely one is enough. The one I've kept is from Leeming&Leeming's Dictionary of Creation Myths, which seems like a reliable source. The actual wording in L&L says "Genesis contains the creation myth that forms the basis of the Judeo-Christian tradition." PiCo (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Great. The very first sentence of the article is based on that, but juxtaposes narrative and myth, which is not the same. Polentarion Talk 10:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The subsection is based on reliable scholarly sources - it's not the claim of any Wiki editor. If you want to dispute it, find other sources.PiCo (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It juxtaposes sources as well, but I prefer to go on - ex nihilo as a sole explanation is more important. Polentarion Talk 07:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ex nihilo

I doubt the current claim that ex nihilo is the one and only mainstream and not being challenged since the third century. IN so far I ask as well to revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_narrative&type=revision&diff=737934184&oldid=7379338o provide an improved version. Thnx Polentarion Talk 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

recent revert. TomS asked to discuss it here. Feel free to do so. Pico recently made a statement at creationism in the line of 'anyone before Darwin was a creationist', as there was TINA. That made raise some doubts about his competence in matters theological. a) a belief in creation is not being a creationist (like wise being a biologist does not mean you are an adherent of biologism). b) creationism is a rather modern movement and c) creatio ex nihilo is far from being the sole Christian or monotheistic cosmogology since the 3rd century and d) of cause one could and did doubt a divine creation before. Polentarion Talk 15:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where there is any source provided for "His 1523 homilies about genesis rejected the merely deistic concept of a creatio ex nihilo of a Deus otiosus." I am unsure if deism was a well-formed (or at all formed) notion in his time for him to even reject; this seems to be ahistorical OR. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem to change that sentence. Both ex nihilo and Deus otiosus are much elder than the term deism, but - with regard to an act of creation - embrace a comparable concept and Luther is quite outspoken against it. Leibniz much later came up with god as the "low quality watchmaker" btw. Luther seems not to have a problem with that. The current version and claim about ex nihilo being the sole and only concept needs to be changed anyway. WP:BOLD refers to a "discussion" - just deleting content without a suitable explanation is not meant by that. As said, I ask to reestablish the section about creatio continua. Polentarion Talk 19:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a specific bible narrative, the creation narrative (or story) in Genesis. It's not about the theology of creation, except in so far as it needs to discuss the theology of the passage. Personally I wouldn't have anything about modern theology, but other editors some years ago felt there was a need to explain that contemporary creationism is a misunderstanding of the biblical text (which indeed it is). If you want to write about post-biblical understandings of creation, the proper articles are History of Creationism and Creationism. 22:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Any interpretation of the creation narrative is post biblical and it is always about theology, current or past. You state things about ex nihilo, e.g. third century and reverted others. I assume you try to construct a single biblical interpretation for all faiths and all confessions - which is a completely futile attempt. It seems to be based on your personal interpretation of the theology of creation and has no scholarly base. The different interpretations of the narrative beyond ex nihilo belong to the narrative. Given that background, I ask you to self revert your changes. Polentarion Talk 06:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the text. It deals primarily with the meaning of the narrative at the time it was written - about 500-400 BC. The authors wrote what they regarded as the best account available of how the worl came into being - as an act of God, over 6 literal days. I can find you many RS to back that up, and I doubt you can find any that say otherwise. The biblical authors were, in that sense, Creationists. They did not, however, believe, nor did they say, that God created matter itself - in their view he simply worked with what was already there, which was water, the origin of all matter. Luther and his ideas about God's creation came so much later as to have no real contact with that world - and that's what our article is about, the long-vanished world of an ANE text. PiCo (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I honestly do not believe it was written around 400 BC as you so emphatically assert. I honestly do believe it was written around 1600 BC as my religious organization teaches. You have absolutely nothing to back up your assertion of 400 BC, no smoking gun, just the usual "accept this particular tenuous hypothesis as fact, or be censured, silenced, and ostracized from scholarship via minimalist peer pressure." I'm sorry, but I see you as the main obstacle to giving everyone a fair representation here. 172.56.22.199 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The date is not the subject that Polentarion is addressing - please don't sidetrack the discussion. But just for the record, the idea is not that Genesis was written at that time, but that it was completed then. The usual explanation is that there were several stages, beginning in the Monarchy, continuing through the Exile, and ending up in the Persian period with a text pretty much like what we have today. You can check this in the sources given in the article.PiCo (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP is partially right. The article is about an important narrative. The section in question, Creation_and_creationism, tries to insinuate, that a third century AD Christian interpretation is the ruling one ever since. That is far from dealing primarily with the meaning of the narrative at the time it was written. Compare e.g. Kalevala - the article is about a 19th century reconstructed myth, but much more detailed about its multifaceted relevance in the comparable short history ever since. The topic here deserves a similar approach. You seem to be driven by the US-specific impact of creationism. As a German, I do not have to care much about that.

Luther's interpretation is of importance for nowadays Christian non-creatonists interpretations. Take the EKD statement as an example, which is Christian, distances itself both from creationism and ID and referrs to Luther and Calvin with regard to creatio continua.

Overall, there is no indication why the article should or oven could refer to "the interpretation on the time it was written". That is a construct. There never was a single interpretation. "Modern Theology" starting from the 17. century has been aware that there have been different sources in different centuries. Not only Ratzinger in the 1960ies assumed that the biblical authors and editors were quite aware of that. As said, I ask you to revert yourself and give the topic the space it deserves. This should not be another chapter of the US controversy about creationism. Polentarion Talk 14:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Creation ex nihilo is the idea that God created matter itself - that nothing existed before God began creating. Luther shared that idea. So did all Christians between the 2nd century and the present day. Our article is simply pointing out that this is not the author of Genesis meant. PiCo (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"So did all Christians between the 2nd century and the present day." Sorry, but you base that quote on rather selective reading. Take Luther's quotation, that you attempt to delete and ignore. The claim given is based on Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern historical criticism, his ex nihilo expresses the dependence on God. And the current article section fails to explain the very point you make here. Polentarion Talk 06:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the section in the article, and read the sources on which it's based. The article is about the theology of the Genesis creation narrative, not about the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher.PiCo (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Done both, and Schleiermacher's historical criticism and his approach to creation is something you refer to without being aware of it ;) It reminds me of Keynes: "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct theologian" ;) Polentarion Talk 10:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that the ideas in that section are mine. They're not, and I didn't write the section - in fact I argued against its inclusion. But since it's there, the ideas it expresses are those of biblical scholars.PiCo (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So then it includes a rather selective choice and imho basic misinterpretation of biblical scholars (which include theologians btw). I tried to provide a more accurate view, you restored to Status quo. In so far I ask you again to revert your changes. Polentarion Talk 11:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The material you want restored is a misunderstanding of what ex nihilo means. It means that God created the Universe out of nothing - that he created matter. Luther only questioned whether he did this once or continuously. The Genesis 1 picture is quite different - when God begins creating, the waters of tehom already exist, covering an earth which also already exists. God creates neither of these. You see the difference? PiCo (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding from both sides here. I fully agree that the narrative we treat here includes some aspects of elder, babylonian cosmology. But it provides a different view as well compared to that - it introduces monotheisim. The gospel of John - the start with the logos - is much more "ex nihilo" than the creation narrative(s) in Genesis. Luther seems to have been quite aware of that already. Calling Luthers approach on creatio continua a minor difference, is a rather generic perspective. Major wars, some of them 30 years long, have been started about much smaller details. Polentarion Talk 15:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: BC -> BCE

Since this article concerns a myth that is essentially Jewish (albeit inspired by other sources), and only subsequently adopted by Christians, I propose that BCE be used in place of BC. This would correct some rather jarring text like: "7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source)". Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and continue existing years-long consensus for BC/AD. Wikipedia is not censored in consideration of religious sensibilities, the most infamous example of which would be our open display of images of Muhammad despite strong objections and offense from Muslims across the world. Offensiveness is inherently subjective and arbitrary anyhow; a Christian could theoretically be offended by Wikipedia's use of the terms Thur­sday for the fourth day of the week or Mars for the fourth planet from the Sun due to their pagan-derived names, and in fact Christian Quakers have already provided secular alternatives to the pagan weekdays in the same way BCE/CE were provided as alternatives to BC/AD from within a religious group due to religious objections. BCE/CE are obviously more notable than First Day, Second Day or Third Day are in referring to weekdays, but the point remains that we shouldn't allow religious sensibilities or objections dictate our use of one era or the other. Christianity doesn't "own" BC/AD and Judaism doesn't "own" BCE/CE. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as well. Wikipedia is the last place I can find the BC/AD convention used in any sort of academic context. If memory serves, even Yale is using the BCE/CE convention. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What nonsense. CE has only caught on in America - and only partially there. BC remains completely normal in other forms of English. This is partly a WP:ENGVAR issue, and MOS:COMMONALITY applies. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Prove it. Bet you can't. Before you go around declaring "nonsense," I strongly suggest you do some research to make sure it is nonsense. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the BBC allows writers to use either BC/AD or BCE/CE depending on the circumstances . So, not really an "American" thing per se. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As the article says (and note how it has to explain BCE/CE), The Guardian, flagship of UK liberalism, mandates BC/AD, as does the British Museum, The Times etc. I've never actually heard CE used on the BBC, whose historical output I'm a heavy consumer of. Certainly when dealing with material related to non-Christian religions CE may be preferred - note that Mpant's 2nd link only applied to religious education, and I'm not sure if the changes proposed were ever implemented. To claim that "Wikipedia is the last place I can find the BC/AD convention used in any sort of academic context." certainly is nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What world do you live in where The Guardian, the Times and the BBC are academic institutions? They're media outlets for crying out loud. Knock off the attitude. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, wait, are you so sure that the British Museum "mandates" the BC/AD convention? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And what about articles that are mostly about Jewish culture? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I often use CE for topics with a non-Christian cultural background (Chinese, Islamic, Jewish, Indian etc), but BC otherwise, for example on the Ancient Near East. I think this one is rather borderline Jewish and Christian, so I haven't !voted on the issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support It's a question of WP:NPOV, not censorship. No content is being removed from the article.--agr (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This official 2005 proposal, classed under the NPOV subheading specifically argued that BCE/CE represented a neutral point of view while BC/AD did not, and that proposal failed. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is often misunderstood. Wikipedia definies it as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." BC/AD and BCE/CE are both widely used by reliable sources, at about equal proportions (BC/AD is more popular in general use, BCE/CE in academia). So allowing them both at Wikipedia is in the true spirit of NPOV. Being truly "religiously neutral" with the calendar is impossible, as using the Gregorian calendar itself as the standard is a Western bias. BCE/CE and BC/AD refer to the same thing, one just removes the inherent religious reference despite not changing the epoch that bases itself on an inherently religious event. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"BC/AD is more popular in general use, BCE/CE in AMERICAN academia", you mean - see above. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, hence my proposal. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It may remove the explicit religious language, but it still refers to the count to and from that inherently religious event, and IMO unnecessarily obfuscates the calendar era's nature and origin. True religiious neutrality would be to use Holocene calendar or some such alternative that doesn't date from the birth of Christ. But as is, using BC/AD is no more or less religiously biased than using the Gregorian calendar itself. I digress, I don't expect to win the argument here, but I don't believe you'd win the entire encyclopedia's agreement to ditch BC/AD as MjolnirPants has suggested, especially since Jimmy Wales seems to dislike BCE/CE himself. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That a proposal to switch to BCE/CE for all articles except those with a clear Christian view point failed to gain consensus 12 years ago does not mean there are no PoV concerns with BC/AD use in specific articles. The vote at the time: 89-for, 103-against, tells us that many editors saw it as an issue way back then and there certainly was no consensus against using BCE/CE either. The question was left to be considered on case by case basis. As for other calendar questions, I would note that the article does not use the common names for the days of the week and saying "dry land was created on Tuesday," would sound jarring to most people. That the common era starts on a year once thought to be the birth of Jesus is a far more tenuous religious connection than appending "Year of Our Lord" to dates, and changing to a different calendar epoch would render our article unintelligible to most readers.--agr (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support, same reasons as above.PiCo (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Academic usage is becoming more and more common because BCE is a neutral term. Encyclopedia Britannica also uses BCE in their article on the book of Genesis - while that doesn't mean that we also have to do that, it is yet one more indication that neutral academic sources have already made that transition. First Light (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment given the (so far) snowball support here, at an article where this is likely to be contentious, If the unanimity continues, it might be appropriate to get a community discussion going as to whether we should update MOS:ERA to favor the BCE/CE format. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless the definition of unanimity has been changed, I don't think it can continue since we don't have it. And if this current RfC discussion at Talk:1 is any indication (the end result of the 2005 proposal by the late User:Slrubenstein seems to reflect similarly), the community is generally either ambivalent about whether to use AD vs. CE, or divides almost equally for both camps. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• There is already one oppose, so its not really a snowball, and I will add an oppose as our target audience is not academics, but people with a high school level of education, for whom BCE may be confusing. A foot note or link on the first use could explain that BC is the same as BCE. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A foot note or link on the first use could explain that BC is the same as BCE. Would you support if we did that? Changed to BCE and added a footnote? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, so on the basis of your reasoning, would you support not using BCE/CE in any article? Because (if as you suggest) high-schoolers wouldn't understand it in any article? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It is generally the case that BC is the more understood than BCE, but I won't make a blanket case for all articles here. However, I can be definite in saying that Muslim or Nepali calendar dates should have the Western calendar dates included. In some other contexts I prefer Ma or Ga, but you could claim that this is too obscure for the average reader too, and just say "xxxx years ago". NPOV for BCE/BC, is not so relevant as BC is very similar to BCE for those that know what it stands for. Using CE or AD is much more a POV statement either way, and neither is neutral if spelled out. CE is much more obscure for our readers, and it is good that we hardly have to say AD or CE, as most years will be understood without the postfix. My other comment is that if "BCE" is used, it should be linked or footnoted in such a way that people can tell that it means BC. Also BC could be linked in a way so that it links to a disclaimer that says that use of BC or BCE is not an endorsement of belief in Christ. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. So, I want to understand, you would Support or Not Oppose if there is a footnote, then. Right? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So I am opposing, but if the change is made I would like to see the link/footnote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom and because encyclopedias are scholarly, so we should use scholarly usage. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Aren't we not supposed to switch between the two dating systems without a really really good reason? I haven't seen an article actually make the switch, so I don't know what qualifies as a really good reason, (hence not providing a vote) but on instinct, this doesn't seem like enough.Farsight001 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this... MOS:ERA is a bit frustrating because the current wording, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content", doesn't offer any help about what could be constituted as good reasons. I don't believe the argument "this article is about Judaism so use BCE" or "this article is about Christianity so use BC" really holds water, because (1) how can you quantitatively identify whether an article is more "Jewish" or "Christian" in the first place? This article is a perfect example, as it is a subject relevant to both religions. There are tons of subjects like that. And (2) we don't similarly use other calendar eras based on the article's "religious affiliation", like Anno Mundi in Jewish articles, or Anno Hijra in Islamic articles, so why do it for BCE vs. BC? The current wording of MOS:ERA just invites pointless discussions like this based only on user opinions of the validity of one era vs. the other, its alleged familiarity and/or relevance to the reading audience, or whether the article we're talking about is more linked to non-Christian religions or not. It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm considering opening an RfC at the MOS/DAN talkpage to possibly get this changed or clarified, else this will keep happening without us having any real compass on what constitutes a valid argument to change from one era to the other. The only valid criteria for changing eras that I can come up with is that the majority of article sources use one instead of the other. That still invites a potential problem: editors preferring BCE may intentionally hunt for sources that use BCE just to argue for its implementation, and vice versa. We need to strongly consider implementing a system that incorporates both Common Era and Anno Domini equally by way of a template, or specifically assigning BC/AD to certain topic categories, and BCE/CE to others. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Two things: First, referring to something as snowballing is not the same thing as citing WP:SNOW. For those who've disagreed with me, you should look up the idiomatic use of the term "snowballing", which generally means "getting bigger as it proceeds." I know this is a quibble, but two people have taken it upon themselves to chide me for what amounts to their own mistakes. Apologies if I seem to be chiding back, I'm simply trying to clarify.

The second thing is that, honestly, the arguments I'm reading from the oppose side, specifically those from Crumpled Fire are reinforcing my view that we should change these dates, and seek a community consensus to deprecate use of the BC/AD format. This is due to the same reason that the BCE/CE format is used in academia: It is more neutral. Sure, it may have roots in a religious belief, but it has moved past them to become a secular (not to be confused with anti-religious) convention. It is akin to Halloween: a religious festival that has become a thoroughly secular one. Christians, Jews and Muslims (not all of them, of course, but many) regularly celebrate Halloween in its secular incarnation without concern for the fact that it originated as a pagan festival. Similarly, pagans, Jews, Muslims (and Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists and Atheists) can all use the BCE/CE convention without worrying that it has Christian roots.

The last thing I want to say is that I think Crumpled Fire has a good idea above when they say We need to strongly consider implementing a system that incorporates both Common Era and Anno Domini equally by way of a template. I have created a template before, and I can do so, again. I'm not sure exactly how this would work off the top of my head, but I'm sure we could come up with something, as a community. My initial idea is for a template that can be used instead of the text "BC"/"BCE"/"AD"/"CE" which, by default displays the BCE/CE text, contains a tool tip explaining how this refers to the same dates as the BC/AD convention, and (if possible, I'm not sure it is, though I'm certainly willing to try) allows the user to click to change all instances on that page to the BC/AD text. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Quick note, if the Lua code wiki uses allows access to cookies (I'm not a Lua expert), we could possibly design the template such that clicking on it will change every instance of that template's use to the preferred format, across all of en.wp. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

BC/AD is standard, so I ask to keep it. And Halloween started as a true judeochristian holiday - since it starts on all saints eve. Take sabbat starting on friday eve or christmas/new year as well. The neopagan bullshit is 19th century, Frazer and so on. Polentarion Talk 18:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time I've seen you say something that is so far removed from reality that I'm not sure how to address it. You are wrong. Please do some research before offering your views as facts. Oh, I'm referring to everything you said, not just your claim about Halloween having purely judeochristian origins. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Right. Polentarion, please keep comments relevant to this article and this proposal. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. As said, I ask to keep BC/AD. Halloween started in Rome, in May and celtic origin is a 19th century construct and as remote as for a Queimada. Polentarion Talk 21:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I never chided you for the "snowball" use, I do agree that the discussion was snowballing in favor of BCE/CE. What I specifically referred to was the term "unanimity", which has a common definition of "everyone is in agreement". It seemed to me that the use of that term was a dismissal of the existing comments that were not in unanimous agreement. I apologize for any misunderstanding or if I did not express myself clearly enough there.

It's interesting to me that you've chosen Halloween as an example, since I would personally see that particular example as being an argument for BC/AD, not BCE/CE. Yes, Jews/Muslims/etc. all celebrate Halloween in its "secular incarnation", but the important point is that the word Halloween remains. No one has changed it to "Common Fall Holiday" or something like that to accommodate non-Christians. Yet, that's what "Common Era" is to Anno Domini. There are plenty of other examples as well; "goodbye" means "God be with ye", yet many atheists including myself, continue to use it in its "secular incarnation" without feeling the need to call it "Common Departing Phrase". Same with Hindu-Arabic numerals, we could call them "common numerals" to make it neutral but we don't. This whole argument boils down to semantics and how words originate and evolve. And the most interesting part to me is that while terms like "Halloween" and "goodbye" are used secularly in their full unaltered form, Before Christ and Anno Domini are always reduced to an acronym form—BC and AD—which is much less explicit in its connotations to any reader. Many have told me they like to think of BC as "Before Count" and AD as "After Demarcation" or something to that effect, not to mention the very common "After Death" misconception. BC/AD are much more practical, they sound different from each other, look different, and are hard for anyone to confuse with each other. AD is Latin, but so are many common phrases in modern English like "bona fide" or "et cetera". Ultimately none of this is really relevant on this talk page, and it looks like BCE/CE will win out here, but if another Wikipedia BCE/CE proposal is made I will certainly bring these arguments to the table at that time. I'm glad we agree on the idea for some sort of template system, perhaps that is something that can be fleshed out in any future official proposals put forth to the community. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Halloween is an interesting example here yes, scnr above. It is a Christian remnant, the lost souls are the one in purgatory, a concept lost ever since and being deemed "celtic pagan" long afterwards. BCE/CE is just a political correct neophyte, like seasonal greetings and Kwanzaa. Happy festivus ;) Polentarion Talk 22:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crumpled Fire:Ignore the comment above this one, it has no basis in reality, and nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

I never chided you for the "snowball" use... What I specifically referred to was the term "unanimity"... I never used that word. I could only imagine you making reference to it in the context of WP:SNOW, as that is the only logical link between "snowballing" and "unanimity". If it was unanimous, it wouldn't be able to snowball, as it would have just had total support from the get-go.

but the important point is that the word Halloween remains. No, it isn't. What you're doing here is making a false analogy argument: Just being able to point out a fault in the elements of my analogy doesn't change my analogy. If you want analogies that don't use Christian words, look up a secular Western wedding ceremony, look at how many secular businesses are closed on Sundays, or look at the various secular 'church' groups popping up, or (better yet) look at a Universal Unitarian church service, which uses Christian conventions, but caters to Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Sikhs, etc, etc. There are more, many more examples of secular things with religious origins. Their origins do not make them religious or irreligious, their usage does. BCE/CE is used in a secular sense, hence it is a secular term.

terms like "Halloween" and "goodbye" are used secularly in their full unaltered form Ummm.... No, they aren't. Not even close. You yourself just described the expanded version of "goodbye", and we all know that "Halloween" is a contraction of "All Hallows Eve". Notably, neither "halloween" nor "goodbye" make direct reference to religion.

BC/AD are much more practical Most of academia (and this thread) disagree.

Many have told me they like to think of BC as "Before Count" and AD as "After Demarcation" It can't be that many, because those meanings are not well documented. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I was referring to when you'd said "If the unanimity continues", seen in this diff.

In regard to the analogy examples, my point was that the words "Halloween" and "goodbye" evolved toward those more abbreviated forms naturally and without any intervention, they weren't jettisoned and replaced with a completely separate generic term. AD is more comparable to "Halloween" and "goodbye" than CE is; it evolved in a similarly natural way: the full form was "Anno Domini nostri Iesu Christi", which then shortened to "Anno Domini", then ultimately to "AD", whose full meaning remains uncertain or misunderstood to many in the general population and whose use is generalized. AD is in effect just as secularized as "Halloween" or "goodbye", seeing that it is widely used in many secular contexts and by secular organizations and people. Of course, CE is used secularly as well, but mainly in academia and often when there are political or religious biases involved. CE is also used in a "religious" sense, seeing as it was initiated by religious Jews to whom a direct reference to "the year of Our Lord" was blasphemous, and it is most often used in contexts involving non-Christian religions. For example, Wikipedia mostly uses BCE for articles relating to Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, but BC for secular topics on ancient historical societies like Ancient Rome, History of China, History of Japan, and Ancient Egypt. Ultimately, CE & AD both refer to the same era of the same Christian origin—only the semantics differ—and both are widely used by reliable sources, so we as an encyclopedia shouldn't say that CE is objectively better to implement than AD so long as both conventions are in common use. It's no different than WP:ENGVAR except that people tend to take religion a lot more personally than whether color should have a U or realise should have a z. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to when you'd said "If the unanimity continues", seen in this diff. Holy crap, I completely forgot I used the word there. My apologies, I had specifically changed that comment after previewing it to replace the word "unanimous" and I apparently missed that I've used it in a different tense a sentence later. Suffice it to say, it is not what I meant. My mistake, entirely.

As to the rest of your comment, I'm sorry, but you're just not convincing. At the end of the day, the vast majority of people consider BCE/CE to be a secular (and thus, neutral) term, and consider BC/AD to be a Christian (and thus, non-neutral) term. That's the crux of the issue. Yes, you do have some points, but none of them really change what I just said. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Good read- "Why Christians Should Adopt the BCE/CE Dating System". Bibleinterp.com. .. have spent far too much time on Wikipedia changing BCs and ADs back to BCEs and CEs.--Moxy (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Anno Domini#CE and BCE says: "The "Common/Current Era" ("CE") terminology is often preferred by those who desire a term that does not explicitly make religious references.[45][46] For example, Cunningham and Starr (1998) write that "B.C.E./C.E. …do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B.C./A.D."[47]" Keahapana (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Sensitivity to the Jews isn't a good enough reason, since by their reckoning we are in 5776. For Muslims, the year is 1437. So the dates used are according to the Christian calendar, and as such, there is no good reason to change the designation. HokieRNB 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So the fact that this article is about a Jewish myth isn't good enough for you? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

8 support (including the nomination), 4 oppose. Can we close this now and make the change? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support closing and making the change. (Sorry, I couldn't resist doing it this way...) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Now, perhaps, we can move on to other things. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)