Talk:Book of Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bible (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"In fact"[edit]

I'm a bit concerned over the phrase "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past." It comes across as "end of story" with no room for debate. "Tradition" credits Moses as the author because it's believed to be true. In light of this, unless there's substantial evidence to the contrary, there really shouldn't be any "but...in fact..." As it is a contrary (and valid) belief, its assertion that the books are anonymously written should indeed be included, but not in a manner that invalidates another set of firmly held beliefs. Just my two cents. user:Kisaoda 12:07, 29 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.73.4 (talk)

Agreed seems to read like an Atheistic viewpoint. No comment on the fact that Christ referenced Genesis etc as the works of Moses? Assuming Genesis were a more recent product than if it were the product of Moses then how exactly would the history myth have assumed such significance in a mere few centuries? Seems to be a rehash of Troy -the experts agree it's a myth, there is no city ... Actually that's probably unfair - a lot of experts still adhere to the "traditional" view and argue that's the most rational given all the internal and external evidence. 114.35.25.165 (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "...the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past." It's a fact that the books are anonymous - they don't name their author. It's also a fact that they look back on Moses from some point in the future of the events described - they keep saying things like "In that day..." and they make mistakes about history (like talking about Philistines at a time when there were none). Please read the sources given in the article.PiCo (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the section on "origins" is completely inadequate as it is and needs to be greatly expanded. There is abundant evidence showing that many of the stories in Genesis derive from much older Sumerian legends composed within the polytheistic belief system of 3rd Millennium BCE Southern Mesopotamia, not least the flood story and a number of aspects of the story of Adam & Eve and the garden of Eden. Although this is referred to rather vaguely when it is stated that the author(s) drew on "Greek and Mesopotamian sources", a lot of readers will want to see a lot more information here, given that the Book of Genesis is the starting point most people in the western world have for these legends. Perhaps the paucity of the article is not surprising if the first two comments above in any way mirror the attitudes of the authors! I find it pretty disturbing to see people seriously suggesting that the fact that a set of beliefs are "firmly held" (by a religious group..) is reason to state them as fact in a Wikipedia entry. Of course the article should read "like an atheistic viewpoint" - it certainly shouldn't represent any theistic viewpoint! Spiridens (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Only the first 11 chapters of Genesis (out of a total 50 chapters) use Mesopotamian myths. Nor do they directly use Sumerian versions of those myths - they use Babylonian editions from the 1st millennium. Anyone wanting a little more info on this can see the article Genesis creation narrative, which covers chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. There's no article on Genesis 1-11 as a whole, but if there were it would be called Primeval history of something like that.PiCo (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Could the article cite the Genesis creation narrative in the text (in the section on Origins), as well as in "see also"? I think that would make it easier to find for people coming to this article wanting to know about the creation narrative. I take the point about the Sumerian myths only being used indirectly through later Babylonian versions, but those myths are still very likely Sumerian in origin.Spiridens (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
WRONG! NPOV is non negotiable. The wikipedia you want is one that insults readers' intelligence by telling them what POV is "correct" and who is incorrect, by telling them what to think - instead of laying out the facts impartially, telling ALL the main sides to the story, and letting them think for themselves. Those authoritarian days of lecturing kindergartners belong to a past century. Web 2.0 is here. People are going to stand up and be counted. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I assume that was aimed at the second comment above rather than mine, but just to be clear, I largely agree, and of course when saying that the article should read "like an atheistic viewpoint" I was being quite literal, i.e. a viewpoint without a theistic or any other perspective/bias.Spiridens (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to edit the section on origins I suggest you read the sources currently used and then see if you can find further ones. Look for recent works - since about 2000.This is because scholarly consensus and even theories change fast - the idea of Persian imperial prescription or whatever it's called has been pretty heavily criticised since it came out and I'm not sure what the position is right now. But it does seem, to me, on my own reading, that most scholars would see Genesis as a product of the 5th century BC and aimed at an audience from that time.PiCo (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

CFORK merge candidate[edit]

FYI, there is an article, which appears to be a CFORK of this one, at Noach (parsha) which is being considered for deletion. I don't know if there is any content in that article which is worthy of being merged with this one, but if there is, please migrate it over. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 05:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Death sandwich[edit]

Just found this article. " researchers at Keele University in the U.K. and Amridge University in the U.S. have reportedly discovered an ancient literary trick in the Judeo-Christian Bible’s famous foundational book. That trick, known as inclusio or “bracketing,” involves placing similar material at the beginning and end of something; in Genesis’ cases, the writers appear to have enclosed a midsection thematically dominated by “death” with intro and outro passages devoted to “life.”" Which has a link to a Science Daily article[1] which is where the phrase 'death sandwich' comes from. It's all about a rhetorical structure. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Genesis 1 never once uses the word "life." If we take derivatives of that word ("living" and so on), the case becomes stronger, but not much: no derivatives in the first 19 verses, after which we hear of the creation of "living" creatures - though oddly enough the humans aren't said to be "living." And of course, all this "living" is quite quickly followed by the first murder. At the other end of the book, Genesis 50 is concerned exclusively with the deaths of Jacob and Joseph. PiCo (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with grammar of this sentence[edit]

There's a problem with the grammar of this sentence: "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see it as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC."

The problem is that the sentence says "it" in the last section ("scholars increasingly see it..."), which is singular, but the subject is "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy," which is plural. They don't agree in number, but they need to.

I suggested a solution by inserting a reference to the fact that the five books are collectively called the Torah, which is a singular noun. That's one way of solving it. Another would be to turn "it" into "them". I don't much much care which of these is used (or some other solution), but the problem is real enough (minor, but real). PiCo (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I see your point. Mine was equally minor which was that there is no definition of Torah that equates to "the material attributed to Moses" since at least the very end of Deuteronomy cannot (everyone agrees) have been written by him because it relates his death, yet all definitions of Torah include that, admittedly, very small portion of Deuteronomy, hence on a strict interpretation using the collective term Torah does not in this situation exactly work. How about "(many/most) modern scholars see them as...". Clearly there are entirely respectable people (Ken Kitchen for one) who would doubt that they were all products of those centuries and of course there is some difference of opinion about parts but using "them" with some qualification fixes that and I would be fine with it. Francis Davey (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy with "them". PiCo (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

New external link[edit]

Illustrated Summary and Analysis of Genesis This link was just added to the article. Can anyone verify who is associated with the website? It looks Jewish, but gives no identifying information on who produced the analysis it contains, or what (if any) organization is behind it or supports it (if any). If some identifying info cannot be found, I intend to remove it shortly as simply the equivalent of a blog. Evensteven (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)