Talk:Genesis creation narrative

The words bara and create

I corrected (Hebrew) bara to (English) create, to agree with page 183 of Walton, the citation's reference text. The article here misunderstood the statement "First, it takes only God as its subject" to refer to the Hebrew word bara, when it actually refers to the English word create.

This is borne out by a simple Concordance search for instances of bara, by which we find out that bara IS in fact used in reference to humans and not only to "God" (elohim) or YHWH. EXAMPLES: Joshua 17:15, 18; 1 Samuel 2:29; Ezekiel 21:19; and Ezekiel 23:47.

The word bara (Strong's number H1254), by the way, can mean "to cut out" or "to cut down", either in the sense of making something or of cutting something down.

Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Misty, but you're mistaken. Joshua 17:15 says this:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אִם-עַם-רַב אַתָּה עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה, וּבֵרֵאתָ לְךָ שָׁם, בְּאֶרֶץ הַפְּרִזִּי וְהָרְפָאִים: כִּי-אָץ לְךָ, הַר-אֶפְרָיִם.

That's the verb B-R-' in the piel form. You can't infer from a piel form of a verb to the qal form. So it's an invalid example. I Samuel 2:29 says this:

לָמָּה תִבְעֲטוּ, בְּזִבְחִי וּבְמִנְחָתִי, אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי, מָעוֹן; וַתְּכַבֵּד אֶת-בָּנֶיךָ, מִמֶּנִּי, לְהַבְרִיאֲכֶם מֵרֵאשִׁית כָּל-מִנְחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְעַמִּי.

The root is in hif'il form, and is a verbed form of the adjective bari'/mari', which means fat/healthy. Also irrelevant to the verb bara'. Ezekiel 21:19 says this:

וְאַתָּה בֶן-אָדָם--הִנָּבֵא, וְהַךְ כַּף אֶל-כָּף; וְתִכָּפֵל חֶרֶב שְׁלִישִׁתָה, חֶרֶב חֲלָלִים--הִיא חֶרֶב חָלָל הַגָּדוֹל, הַחֹדֶרֶת לָהֶם.

There doesn't seem to be anything that looks like the root in question. And Ezekiel 23:47 says this:

וְרָגְמוּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶבֶן קָהָל, וּבָרֵא אוֹתְהֶן בְּחַרְבוֹתָם; בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם יַהֲרֹגוּ, וּבָתֵּיהֶן בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרֹפוּ.

That's another case of pi'el, just like in Joshua. Not a single one of the examples you gave is relevant to the verb livro'. So I'm reverting your good faith edit. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, research, and comments.

You are correct that bara has several forms. On the other hand, the article did not state this. It simply said that bara is used only in reference to God/elohim/YHWH, which is not the case; it may only be true of certain forms of the word. (Sorry if the rest seems long.) So in THAT regard, my change was not in error – my interpretation of the author may have been in error (more below) – and was simply a shortening of the passage to keep it from being verbose or over-detailed. If you wish to add a section on the different types of bara, I wouldn't mind. (Others might.) But to state that bara – in all its forms (which the article seemed to imply) – is used only in reference to God is an overstatement, and misleading; and the article should not say this. Most readers are not going to be aware of the various forms. Instead, the article must be changed to reflect the relevant facts. While my interpretation of the citation may have been incorrect (more below), I changed the article to be simply but technically correct by simply removing the claim that bara was used in the Bible in reference to God only. (It is possible that certain forms are used only in reference to elohim or YHWH, but I didn't check that, as it wasn't why I changed the article. More about this later.) A link I gave in Talk above under "Concordance search..." mentions several forms for bara, listing them under the ROOT form. That can be found here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1254&t=KJV (the same link as above). While I suggest not bogging down the article with unnecessary details, it must be made accurate related to this important word, which it again is not. If you paste in more Hebrew here in Talk, perhaps paste in its transliteration, so that all can see what it says (using English lettering)? Thanks! See my next entries below.

By re-skimming the citation again and again, and rereading portions already mentioned above, I admit that I may have been mistaken as to what "it" refers to when it says "First, it takes only God as its subject". It's not totally clear (stupid pronouns!), but I can see either interpretation. (However, see my post just above this.) The author didn't seem to want to discuss all the forms for comparison. (I only mostly-skimmed Page 183.) The author states that "The verb occurs about fifty times" (about 50). I checked. Here's what I found: The Hebrew word "bara" "translation count" in the KJV is 54x (times). In the KJV/AV, the BlueLetterBible link says it is translated as: "create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1, done 1, make fat 1" = 54 times (54x). (And the Hebrew word "bara" "translation count" in the KJV, according to the link, is 54x in 46 vss.) I also did my own manual count for some forms of the word "create" in the Old Testament/Tanakh (did I get them all?), and found "create", in various forms, occurs in the KJV as: created 33x, createth 1x, create 8x, creator 3x, creating 0x, creates 0x = 45x (45 times). Neither of these counts exactly matches the number the author said. So I am not certain, by the phrase "about fifty times", of what the author meant. Now I am more likely to think that "it" and the author's count are both in reference to bara! The 5 passages I listed above that are NOT used in reference to "God"/elohim/YHWH, if subtracted from the count of 54, would make the bara count = 49, instead of the mentioned 54 just above. Both of these numbers are reasonably close to the author's "about 50 times" statement. I am wondering WHY the author didn't mention other forms – I've heard others say that bara is used only in reference to "God"! – but am thinking that maybe he looked up the word "create" (in various forms) in an English–Greek concordance instead of looking up bara in a Greek–English concordance. And if he looked up the Hebrew/Aramaic work, then I don't know WHY he didn't have an EXACT number. Very strange. Btw, at the link, it mentions various forms for bara in the section called "Outline of Biblical Usage". Continues.

Regardless of my probable mistake in interpreting the author's intent (I used Strikeout formatting above to indicate this), the article cannot keep saying that bara is used only in reference to "God", as that would be misleading. Probably another citation is needed for the clarification. Just referring to the BlueLetterBible link could be challenged as Original Research (OR). And that would leave us back at it being misleading. :-D See next, and above.

So-o, Dear Lisa, What would you like to do? I'll probably be too busy for the next week or two (or month) to do much or anything regarding this. And I don't have access to many sources for this sort of thing (other than via the Internet). Cheers! :-) Misty MH (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Misty MH, we have to respect our sources when we write articles. If the source says something, we can't decide, on the basis of our own research, that he's wrong. We can question a source on the basis of reliability - but Walton is a highly respected professor of biblical studies. We can question the source on the basis that later research has led to different conclusions - but I think all the books used here are quite recent, and Walton certainly is. We can qurestion it on the basis that it represents only one point of view in a range of views - but you'll have to do the research. (And research means looking up further reliable sources, not interpreting things for yourself). Lisa's explanation of Hebrew verb-types shows why we do this: most of us, me included, simply don't have that soret of knowledge. We need the experts. (Of course I should add that it's very possible our wiki-editor has misinterpreted his source - we always need to check for that).PiCo (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the "Structure and summary" section, the "Genesis 1" closely follows the source given, however in "Genesis 2" it's written very differently. Instead of using "God", it uses "Yahweh", which is not found in the source. On a side note, the sub-headings should say Chapter 1 (& 2). The article has "Genesis" "Genesis" "Genesis" way too much in the headings. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Hebrew word YHWH (which is what the Hebrew bible has) has no meaning at all, but is simply God's name. The usual English translation "The Lord" is based on a tradition which tries to follow modern (2nd Temple and later) usage, which in speech replaces YHWH with the word "Adonai", meaning Lord - but note that this is not a translation of the original YHWH. PiCo (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what needs to be determined is which passages are from the Jahwist (YHWH) source and which are from the Priestly/Elohist source. Once that is determined, then proper commentary will reference YHWH where appropriate to that source.  — Jasonasosa 08:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Doing a quick look, the answer to your question is here at Genesis creation narrative#General notes (now Genesis creation narrative#Composition). Genesis 1 was written from a Priestly (Elohim) source and Genesis 2 was written from the Jahwist (YHWH) source. Thus, that section uses YHWH (pro. "Yahweh") to refer to God. So... it is what it is.  — Jasonasosa 09:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

New page layout

The reason why User:Musdan77 had a good question about YHWH in the preceding section, under Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Inconsistency is because this article is all over the place and is not easy to read. There is way too much repetitive content and it is not clear what is going on. I guess... I will have to don on my wp:bold hat. :/   — Jasonasosa 09:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope things are a little more clearer now. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

After a quick glance, it looks quite a bit better to me. Thanks, Jason --Musdan77 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I spent time trying to clear up things. Your question is actually better explained under Genesis creation narrative#Source criticism because it goes into greater detail about the different sources. I know it is a little confusing at first, but the more you study the better you get a hang of it I guess.  — Jasonasosa 04:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed material on the documentary hypothesis, as this is no longer a widely held theory - check in the various books in the bibliography. PiCo (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The references I provided were from the bibliography section, User:PiCo:

((sfn|Wylen|2005|p=108, 109))

((sfn|Davies|2001|p=37))

These are modern day references 2001, 2005.

User:PiCo, I'm going to have to undo your omitting content. Unless you can provide a reference that supports your statement among secular scholars: "this is no longer a widely held theory"... then I will agree to remove the documentary hypothesis from this article. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, read Documentary hypothesis#After Wellhausen:

"The documentary hypothesis still has many supporters, especially in the United States, where William H. Propp has completed a two-volume translation and commentary on Exodus for the Anchor Bible Series from within a DH framework,"(ref>William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, volume 2, New York: Doubleday, 1999 ISBN 0-385-14804-6, and Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, volume 2A, New York: Doubleday, 2006 ISBN 0-385-24693-5.</ref)

So the way I see it... there is no "danger" User:PiCo. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason for crossing out my above statements is because it wasn't worth debating... The only thing I will say about Wellhausen's DH is that it is the foundation for many modern source theories. Anyway, I reverted back to User:PiCo's omitted material on Wellhausen. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 15:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reinterpretations?

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

Don't rely on one wiki article to interpret another - wiki isn't a reliable source.

Did you read May's book in toto? It's a major recent contribution to the understanding of the develoipment of ex nihilo, and you need to read the entire thing. In essence, Mays is arguing that the idea of ex nihilo originated as an attempt with 2nd century Christian theologians to counter certain arguments being put forward by gnostics. Our article isn't taking up May's argument (we don't mention the gnostics). What May is useful for, from our point of view, is that he summarises the common scholarly understanding - you'll find this on page 179 of his book. There's no argument among scholars that the idea of ex nihilo is a Christian invention, later adopted by Jews - it's just that Christian lay-people (and Jewish ones) aren't aware of this.

For example, in the Eerdmans' Dictionary of the Bible you'll find the note that "creation out of nothing was a much later tradition in Scripture" (i.e., later than the Genesis creation narrative), and an invitation to compare Genesis with 2 Maccabees 7:28 and other late passages. Maccabees is a 2nd century BCE work, and is often mentioned as the very earliest sign of ex nihilo, but it isn't clearly so. Not that this matters for our article on Genesis 1-2 - the point here is that this passage in Genesis is not talking about the creation of matter. PiCo (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

May's book is just one POV in a field with many. How many books did you read? Many scholars believe that Philo held to ex nihilo creation, contrary to May's claim and to this article, although this is a debated point (and the article should mention the debate without taking sides). You yourself seem to allow for the possibility that it's a 2nd century BCE Jewish idea, in direct contradiction to what the article currently says, so obviously there's a problem.

The fundamental cause of the problem is relying heavily on just two sources (May and Bouteneff). May, in particular, is explicitly challenging several widely accepted ideas, and we can't just blindly take his POV. Furthermore, this article should not be taking sides on what "this passage in Genesis is talking about," because there simply is no consensus on that. This article should be summarising the various points of view.

I see the POV issues with this article as serious and unresolved, and the tag should stay. -- 202.124.74.146 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Philo did hold to ex nihilo creation - the Greeks invented it, and Philo was trying to show how the Jewish scriptures were compatible with Greek science. Philo had no influence in his own time, but he was taken up by the Christian theologians who were were trying to combat gnostic ideas (because the gnostics had also taken up the Greek idea). So the point of our article is that the opening lines of Genesis 1 were reinterpreted by Christian theologians in the 2nd century CE - it's not about who invented ex nihilo, but how Genesis was reinterpreted. By the way, May's book isn't just one pov, it's the most influential on this subject to have been published in the last decade. PiCo (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Evangelical POV

Published by Baker Publishing Group

• Bouteneff, Peter C. (2008). Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narrative. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0-8010-3233-2. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Academic publishing programme POV

Published by Continuum International Publishing Group:

• Worrall, Gerhard May ; translated by A.S. (2004). Creatio ex nihilo : the doctrine of creation out of nothing in early Christian thought. London: T&T Clark, a Continuum imprint. ISBN 9780567083562.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Comment: Based on the above listed references, there is no violation of WP:NPOV. These references are wp:reliable and do not violate wp:weight. Rather than wasting your time disputing these references, 202.124.74.146, use your energy better to find a third POV to add to this section in order to ensure its neutrality. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 02:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I've restored the POV tag since this issue remains unresolved. You seem to admit that Philo (a Jewish writer) held to ex nihilo, but yet the article says "The next major development occurred in early Christianity, with the formation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo." There's clearly a WP:UNDUE weight being placed here on May's POV, and personal attacks on me are not the way to resolve it. -- 202.124.72.28 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What Philo developed wasn't a doctrine - he was a philosopher, and his aim was to harmonise Greek philosophy and Jewish revealed religion. Please read the first chapter of May's book, especially the section on Philo - you'll find there a good explanation both of the metaphysical debates and beliefs of Philo's time, and of what Philo mwas doing. But the essential point is that the idea that God created matter, as well as forming it, was not developed as a doctrine until the 2nd century Christian fathers. (By the way, I don't think I've made any personal attacks - where do you see this?) PiCo (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by a "doctrine." Philo did indeed "harmonise Greek philosophy and Jewish revealed religion." In doing so, he provided a quite detailed interpretation of Genesis, which in turn influenced later Christian and Jewish writers. Whether Philo's interpretation was accepted as doctrine by the Jews of his time is irrelevant. And, regarding May, I've read quite extensively in this area, and I'm fully aware that May's opinion is just one of many. That's why I've added the POV tag. Saying "please read May" isn't going to make me magically forget the dozens of other books I've read. -- 202.124.72.65 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you've read extensively in this subject then you'll be aware that May's book is a standard text and that he's merely describing the accepted consensus. Anyway, our article isn't about the history of ex nihilo, it's about Genesis 1-2 and ()in this section) it's reinterpretation in later Christian and Jewish thought. Your understanding of Philo is essentially the same as mine, and now I'm puzzled just what the argument is about. Perhaps you could explain in more detail just what your concern is? PiCo (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather naive statement, surely? May is a respected scholar, but there is no "accepted consensus" in this area. May himself acknowledges the variety of opinions on Philo. My concern is (1) lack of balance in taking only Boutaneff's and May's POV, and presenting their opinions in Wikipedia's voice; and (2) blatant inaccuracy in claiming ex nihilo is a 3rd century Christian idea when it goes back at least to Philo, and probably to earlier Hellenistic Jews. I have reworded the section slightly, but in my view it's still problematic -- it still needs more balance and more sources. -- 202.124.72.84 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure just what it is you object to in this section, but I do get the impression that yoiu misunderstand its purpose. It's not trying to trace the development of the idea of ex nihilo - that's the job of the article Creation ex nihilo. WEhat it's trying to do it demonstrate how Genesis 1 and 2 were reinterpreted in later centuries. While it's true that Philo probably (but not definitely) argued that Elohim had created matter, he didn't have any influence until the Christian theologians took him up inj the 2nd century and later. They were the ones who made sure that Genesis 1:1 became established as the doctrine that God had created matter out of nothingness. Later still, this was taken up by the rabbis of the Talmud. It's rather hard to get all this across in a single paragraph, and personally I don't think we should try - it's just going to cause readers' eyes to glaze over. (This comes down to what your view is of Wikipedia's purpose. My own is that, although it's based on scholarly sources, it's not aimed at scholars, but at a general readership).

Your comments about "purpose of the article" are no reason to make false statements about when the idea of "ex nihilo' arose, nor to misrepresent the scholarly consensus (there are mixed opinions on whether Philo taught "ex nihilo"), nor to take May's opinion (one of several) as definitive, nor to undo my balancing edits. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The second para of the last section makes no statement at all about when the idea of creation ex nihilo arose; what it says is that it became a Christian doctrine in the 2nd century CE. PiCo (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what you wanted to say, but that's not what the article does say. The article suggests that the idea of "creatio ex nihilo" was formed in early Christianity, when many scholars believe it was formed before then, by Philo. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase it uses is "the formation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo" - not the origins of the idea (which in any case belongs to the Greeks, not Philo), but its adoption into Christianity as doctrine. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case you need rewording for clarity. Perhaps "official doctrine" is what you meant. And yes, "creatio ex nihilo" goes back before Philo. How far, that's the question. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

One thing missing in that section is a mention of how modern Creationism has reinterpreted Genesis 1-2. If you'd like to take that aspect up I think you can make a valuable contribution to the article. PiCo (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It's clear there is indeed a problem. Since my balancing edits were reverted, I'm adding the tag back in. -- 202.124.74.247 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute concerning intro

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

I third the notion that your POV edits to the intro, Ed Poor (talk · contribs) are rather poor. Since you bring it up, let's discuss what you are promoting here...

• "The Genesis creation narrative, a central motif in Judeo-Christianity"

I mean, come on... this first line you promote is just ignorant. A narrative is not a motif. A motif is a theme within the narrative. So whatever you were trying to do there was literary mumbo-jumbo.

• "tells how God created the cosmos, the planet Earth, and everyone and everything on it.

So redundant when you already have a Creation myth link to go to view all that run-on material.

• "Modern Western scholars classify it as a "creation myth".

It is already understood what this is all about without controversially pushing what Modern Western scholars think. Besides, western thinking is already presented by KuglerHartin, 2009 in the last sentence.

• "is variously attributed to Moses"

Well if you want to include this concept, you ought to at least use a wp:reliable source for this sentence, which by the way, isn't even academically accurate by the use of "variously". Not to mention that it was inserted before the KuglerHartin, 2009,p.14-16 reference, which doesn't even support what you arbitrarily shoved in there.

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

It's okay, we know your edits were upon WP:AGF. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some WP:OWN here. -- 202.124.72.84 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been observing this page for some time. There is no WP:OWN here. We collaborate together, even if we do not agree all the time. Don't make allegations unless you have evidence to present. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We've talked about the "mythology" bit so much on this article that most editors are tired of it. Consensus has always been that "mythology" is an important word to use in the lead, as it sums up the topic briefly, accurately reflects the literature, and the objections to it are counter to WP:RNPOV. If such a change is to be implemented, then at the very least it needs to be discussed again for a new consensus to form.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You jumped the gun on that one Mann_jess. No one is disputing "mythology" at least in the intro. That edit was referring to a title change at Genesis creation narrative: Difference between revisions. Let's not unnecessarily open up a can of worms if we don't have to. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about this revert (and this one previous to it). Both of those include removing the word "mythology", and pushing it back/deemphasizing it in the first sentence. Are we talking about just one edit in particular, and not the whole thing?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Those edits are being discussed in this section, but the use of "Creation myth" is not in question. The use of "Mythology" was in question on a title change as indicated by my link above. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 00:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be in question for Ed. It's not in question for anyone else that I see, perhaps. Consensus hasn't been simply to include "creation myth" generally. Consensus has always been to include it prominently in the first sentence as a primary descriptor. What I'm saying is that, if we move it from that placement (attributing it only to "Western scholars"), it should be discussed first. I have a few other issues with Ed's edit, but that's a really big one for me because it's contrary to consensus which has formed again and again on this page. I hope that helps clarify.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, if that's true, and quite possibly it could be... that is some fresh insight that I wasn't aware of nor is the moving of "Creation myth" from the first sentence a violation since the intro note reads: "Please do not remove the phrase and link to "creation myth" from the first paragraph" not specifying any detail as to where in the paragraph it should be. Should that have to go to consensus... God help us.  — Jasonasosa 00:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

agreed.  — Jasonasosa 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if you are agreed, why does the intro say "is based on two sources," as if that's a historical fact? I agree with Ed Poor that the intro needs editing to become NPOV. And not just the intro, so I think the whole article should be tagged for POV issues. -- 202.124.73.87 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no rival theory. PiCo (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with it? It may be a theory accepted by many scholars, but it's not in the same factual category as "Julius Caesar conquered Gail." Big Bang is an example of appropriate wording for such a situation: "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe." -- 202.124.73.177 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You know what "theory" means? — raekyt 12:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't come across any scholar who doesn't think there are two "sources" in Genesis 1-2. Do you know of any? PiCo (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The documentary hypothesis article lists several alternate theories, and recent scholarship is in fact backing away from the documentary hypothesis. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding edit:

01:25, 29 August 2012‎ 95.168.159.173 (talk)‎ . . (68,542 bytes) (+2,063)‎ . . (m.e. - more neutral (yes "creation myth" is still in place) w/o pinnpointing pre-interpretations in header (only sources P and E is an outdated concept - but finds its place in main body of article, still))

• WP:SCOPE says: "The lead, ideally the introductory sentence or at least introductory paragraph, of an article, should make clear what the scope of the article is."

• WP:LEAD says: 1. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

2. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

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

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

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

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

This is what happens when you refuse to address POV problems. -- 202.124.73.93 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Judeo-Christianity

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

"Judeo-Christianity" does not exist. As an adjective, Judeo-Christian is acceptable, but as a noun phrase "Judaism and Christianity" is better. -- 202.124.75.9 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)